Larry Parr wrote:

John Fernandez will not discuss the provisions in the "FIDE Anti-Doping
Regulations," which may be found in Annex 46a of the FIDE Congress papers.

Because FIDE signed on to the WADA code, exactly. It was one of the first
signatories, actually.

"The Medical Commission's working party has prepared a draft version of
new FIDE Anti-Doping Regulations, compliant with World Anti-Doping Code.

Right, it's the WADA code exactly, just changing the language of certain parts
to make it clear it's FIDE, but the code itself is pure WADA code. No changes
to the code are allowed.

Dr. Bellin says FIDE has its own regulations. She concluded: "The
Medical Committee's working party was commended on its effort in producing
the
new FIDE Anti-Doping Rules."

The new FIDE Anti-Doping Rules IS the WADA Anti-Doping code, nearly verbatim.
(At least, it better be. I haven't seen it.)

My point was accurate. The kid claims $2.2 million flows into chess
because there is drug testing -- or he did.

No, I said that in some countries, anti-doping controls are a pre-requisite to
being funded.

There are OTHER reasons the money is being given.

The kid is now shifting ground
significantly. How much of this pittance actually requires drug testing?

$1.4 of the $2.2 goes to countries which have ever had anti-doping. $800K of it
goes to countries which have never had a drug test.

How much of the money now coming from NOCs was flowing before FIDE
adopted drug testing?

Just Spain's 325,000 Euros.

The distinction between the African or SEA games and the Winter and Summer
Olympics is that between the economies of Zimbabwe and Germany. There simply
is no comparison.

I like the AAA Baseball vs. Major League Baseball analogy. There IS a huge
difference, I agree. But if you can't be in the Majors, AAA is the next best
place, no?

The IOC has rejected chess as a sport in the Olympics

In the 2008 Beijing Games, yes. It has not said "Chess will never be in the
Summer or Winter Olympics".

and our own USOC
(which has never been overridden in the history of Olympic politics) will not
even recognize chess as a sport

Our own USOC doesn't recognize Golf as a sport either. USOC's rules only allow
it to recognize Summer and Winter Olympic sports. That's the most stringent
rules of any NOC (although some have rules as stringent as USOC's).

let alone one worthy of inclusion in the
Olympic Games.

USOC makes no such determinations.

Astonishing really. The kid once again snips all mention of the FIDE
drug regulations. He would have done well for himself in the former Soviet
Union. Very well indeed.

You're arguing that the politicos want money. I'm agreeing with you!! There's
no money in drug testing, but there sure as hell is money in being NOC funded.

Article 6 of the FIDE regulations provides for multi-year and lifetime
bans for anyone who refuses to be drug tested.

Good snipping on your part. You're using the 3rd offense punishments.

You can't help smiling. Honest John snips a precise record of what our
FIDE "team" did NOT DO in a period of two years when tasked by the Delegates
"to actively campaign" against drug testing "at any chess tournament or
match."

You mean they're supposed to campaign against drug testing at the Marshall
Chess Club? Well, they didn't do THAT. But they did it within FIDE meetings.

In any case, even granting the kid's absurd excuses, the "team"
evidently undermined the policy it was supposed to implement.

It did?

Before it was implemented the regulations sucked a lot.

Now they suck less.

That's improvement.

John Fernandez

Larry Parr wrote:

The kid told all of you that FIDE could only test in a handful of
tournaments under Section "D." Yasser Seirawan noted that this claim was
manifestly false-- that there are many dozens of such events under Section
"D."

No- blatant lie. I pointed out that Section D only, and Yasser agreed, and
mentioned that there were still a lot of world-level events there. You're the
one who goes "BUT IT SAYS ANY!! THEREFORE IT MEANS KINDERGARTEN TOURNAMENTS!!"

John Fernandez

Larry Parr wrote:

IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE.

It can happen here, if the USOC recognizes us.

John Fernandez

Larry Parr wrote:

FIDE's new drug regulations call for testing "any competitor"

Sure, any competitor could be tested. Not EVERY.

in "any
FIDE Competition"

FIDE Competitions are Section D events

and for testing "all other events" by national
federations which

"All events which are not Section D". Not "every other event".

And here I thought you were good with words, Larry.

John Fernandez

That doesn't make me pro drug testing.

Cool; I'm actually pro-drug testing for anyone who operates heavy equipment and
could pose a threat to public safety. I just don't think anyone should ever
have to pee in a cup to play a childs game.

"BUT IT SAYS ANY!! THEREFORE IT MEANS KINDERGARTEN TOURNAMENTS!!"

Actually I'm in favor of drug testing for chess moms; Some of them are wacked
out. Actually my experience with chess dads has been weirder recently.

Leave the Kids Alone! Parents to The Cups!

"chesstours" wrote in message
...

Mr. Parr has advised that his computer is down and asked Chesstours to
forward
his latest posting. We are glad to oblige and hope that he will be up and
running again as soon as possible.

How did he get it to you?

StanB

LONG GOOD-BYE, LONG LIE

By Larry Parr

Jim Eade said good-bye for the 987th and one-half time, the longest
good-bye on record. He always has more important things to do, yet he always
graces us with his presence.

Moreover, I do not accuse him of lying when saying that he has more
important things to go. I have always stipulated that Mr. Eade is, as he
claims, a man of ways and means.

Elsewhere, Phil Innes opines that Mr. Eade does not lie. I would
amend that to does not lie very much. One lie he has told repeatedly is that
this writer and GM Evans have predicted universal testing was just around the
corner. Untrue. Indeed, Mr. Eade inverts truth.

For the record, neither Larry Evans nor this writer have ever written
that universal drug testing was right around the corner. For the 6,897th time,
I repeat that such testing, though clearly provided for in FIDE's regulations,
will only happen when the balance of forces changes in the chess world.

FIDE is too weak to enforce the writ that it claims in its own regs. The
Turks told them no at Istanbul, and grandmaster Morozevich told them to get
lost. And they did.

For now.

In another posting in answer to John Fernandez, I will walk everyone
through the actual text of the regs once again. They clearly provide for
universal testing but luckily cannot magically provide FIDE with the power to
implement such testing.

The argument of a Jim Eade amounts to stop worrying, think happy, talk
happy, it-can't-happen-here, and sheeesh. You are paranoid if you read the
actual regulations.

AN INTERESTING DISTINCTION

By Larry Parr

In what follows, Honest John Fernandez claims that FIDE doesn't do
drug testing.

Whaaat!

What about the testing of children in Buenos Aires at a FIDE event?
What about testing in Swisses and in the Olympiad?

Here is Honest John's interesting distinction: FIDE did not physically
carry out the testing; it merely stands behind and requires the testing,
threatening to destroy the career of any player who will not submit to
degrading invasions of privacy in the name of a totally irrational exercise.
For, of course, as everyone knows, there is no drug problem in chess.

Now, then, here once again, is Article 3.1 of the FIDE drug code:
"FIDE is entitled to carry out doping control on ANY competitor in ANY FIDE
Competition." As for "all other events," they are covered in Article 3.4,
which obligates national chess federations to be "responsible" for reporting
results to FIDE, which would then begin to compile medical records on those
playing in unspecified "all other events."

That's what Honest John supports.
He said he opposes drug testing but supports involvement with the IOC. But the
two go together, like a horse and carriage.

Notice the phrase that FIDE "is entitled to carry out doping control."

Honest John's defense is that FIDE has prevailed on others thus far to
do the dirty work. Still, the point behind the clear language in the
regulation is that FIDE intends to carry out such testing itself because that
it where the MOOLAH is. That is where the kickbacks and bribes have their
nexus with testing.

Our kid's only answer is not to worry, talk happy, think happy, it
can't happen here and sheeeesh.

HONEST JOHN AND DR. PRESS

By Larry Parr

A year and a half ago, John Fernandez was attacking what this writer
was saying about FIDE's drug code and its intentions. He says he opposed Dr.
Stephen Press because what he wrote BACK THEN is NOW against FIDE's
regulations.

Honest John's ability to oppose an individual at an earlier time for
what would take place later is astounding. In any case, the kid lies even on
the question about Dr. Press' advocacy violating the current WADA code. The
good doctor called for destroying careers. So does WADA.

Another wonderfully interesting little lie is that Honest John said that
nowadays one would have to admit that I made these points, but that I am behind
the times. The new code is ... well ... but that's just it. The kid won't
address the new code, which is why I will try to have it scanned and placed
online here thanks to someone who offered to do it if I fix it to him,

The kid has adopted a number of defensive positions:

1. He won't discuss FIDE's code because it is WADA's code;

2. The WADA code is FIDE's code, but that does not mean FIDE has a code to
discuss;

3. The code that FIDE does not have has nonetheless been improved from an
earlier version.

In another response to Honest John, I shall once again walk the reader
through the articles of the new drug code, and we will see for ourselves
whether he is lying or telling the truth when he avers that the code does not
call for universal, random testing.