Subject: Summing up the drug debate
From: "Tom Klem"
Date: 12/24/2003 5:08 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: x7oGb.39006$BQ5.34210@fed1read03

161-1??

Wow.

You just have to ask the question then, why are all of them in favor of drug
testing? And better yet, why is the USCF not?

Tom Klem

Because the Parrs of the world have quite simply won- they've made the debate
in the USA Drug testing vs. No Drug Testing instead of the way everyone
sensible looks at it, IOC or No IOC. Everyone knows that the benefits are real,
except Parr claims they aren't. People believe him, mostly because of the deep
mistrust for FIDE in this country.

John Fernandez

"John Fernandez" wrote in message
...
Subject: Summing up the drug debate
From: "Tom Klem"
Date: 12/24/2003 5:08 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: x7oGb.39006$BQ5.34210@fed1read03

161-1??

Wow.

You just have to ask the question then, why are all of them in favor of
drug
testing? And better yet, why is the USCF not?

Tom Klem

Because the Parrs of the world have quite simply won- they've made the
debate
in the USA Drug testing vs. No Drug Testing instead of the way everyone
sensible looks at it, IOC or No IOC. Everyone knows that the benefits are
real,
except Parr claims they aren't. People believe him, mostly because of the
deep
mistrust for FIDE in this country.

John Fernandez

In your view, what are the benefits of drug testing?

Tom Klem

161-1??

Wow.

You just have to ask the question then, why are all of them in favor of drug
testing? And better yet, why is the USCF not?

Tom Klem

Because the Parrs of the world have quite simply won- they've made the debate
in the USA Drug testing vs. No Drug Testing instead of the way everyone
sensible looks at it, IOC or No IOC. Everyone knows that the benefits are
real,
except Parr claims they aren't. People believe him, mostly because of the
deep
mistrust for FIDE in this country.

The "benefits" are tied to drug testing, so it IS a referendum on that.

SHOW ME IN THE MINUTES!

By Larry Parr

Honest John Fernandez is back.

I challenge him to show any votes in the minutes that went against the
United States by 161-1 or 160-2.

Right now!

Yes, folks, not only did Honest John invent a section of the drug code
that did not exist (there is no reference to any Section D throughout the
entire code, which I WILL get posted in its entirety) he is now referencing
major votes that do not appear in any FIDE minutes I have read. I challenge
him to quote the precise lines of any such proceedings.

Honest John has yet to deny that our "team" failed to produce so much
as a single piece of paper against drug testing in two years. He cannot deny
the clear injunction in the drug code calling for testing "ANY competitor" in
"ANY FIDE Competition."

He earlier lied that no national federations would be required to
undertake testing, but we now learn in Article 3.4 that NCFs "shall be
responsible" to send the results of such testing to FIDE.

NOTE: the code does not say they are "requested" to send such results;
they are "responsible" for sending personal medical records to Casto "Totie"
Abundo and the lads at the Medical Commission.

Honest John's latest defense is to argue: okay, the drug code calls
on the surface for universal random testing, but the phrase "any FIDE
Competition" really refers only to tournaments in Section D. I challenge the
kid to show any such qualification within the code.

IN ANY EVENT, THE DEBATE WILL BE OVER SOON, WHEN I GET SOMEONE TO WEB THE
ENTIRE CODE. Everyone here will be able to see that Honest John has lied to
you that the code contains any such restrictions to one class of tournaments.
Such language is NOT in the code. ANYWHERE.

In another posting, Honest John says that I am winning the debate
because there is a lot of suspicion of FIDE. Yet he himself says the suspicion
is warranted. He will write anything. One minute he decries suspicion of FIDE;
another minute, when his dialectical needs are different, he says that such
suspicion is warranted.

Honest John has lost this debate not only because people are suspicious of
FIDE but because a lot of readers here remember when he talked about testing
occurring only in a single world title tournament -- and these readers have
watched him backtrack for nearly two years. He has now reached the point that
he defends universal random testing because he claims the world receives a
pittance of $2.2 million because players get drug tested.

On the other hand, Honest John cannot tell us how much of even this
pittance was available before there was such drug testing! He claims there was
none.

The bottom line is that for a very small sum of money the kid wants a
permanent medical bureaucracy to have the power to destroy the careers of chess
men who are his betters in every way imaginable.

In your view, what are the benefits of drug testing?

Tom Klem

None.

However, drug testing is a requirement of the IOC. For me, IOC involvement has
the following benefits:

- IOC recognition of FIDE and NOC recognition of at least 95 different National
Chess Federations
- Financial Support by some of those NOCs to National Chess Federations, at
minimum $2.2 Million annually, and at least $13.3 Million over the past 4
years.
- Chess being a medal sport at multiple Continental Level Competitions - the
highest step in the IOC before the Summer/Winter games.

the negatives?

- Drug testing

Of course, the real drug testing climate at the moment is quite positive - many
countries get financial support WITHOUT any drug testing, and drug testing is
basically limited, for the international arena, to the Olympiad and World
Championship. The other countries with national laws on the subject HAVE to
drug test- not because of FIDE, but because their national legislative bodies
require it. (Drug testing is viewed as a supreme responsibility in sport in
much of Europe, as opposed to here where it's considered a nuisance.)

John Fernandez

The "benefits" are tied to drug testing, so it IS a referendum on that.

In a sense, but the USCF doesn't get them. That explains our policies a bit
better.

John Fernandez

Subject: Summing up the drug debate
From: (Parrthenon)
Date: 12/25/2003 11:57 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

SHOW ME IN THE MINUTES!

By Larry Parr

Honest John Fernandez is back.

I challenge him to show any votes in the minutes that went against
the
United States by 161-1 or 160-2.

Right now!

Perhaps Eade or Kelleher could give me the exact number?

John Fernandez

The "benefits" are tied to drug testing, so it IS a referendum on that.

In a sense, but the USCF doesn't get them. That explains our policies a bit
better.

That you are willing to capitulate on the issue of personal freedom for
"olympic" money? As if the money somehow would make it more just? Drug
testing or not, I'd be more worried about anyone who would change their
position on it because of financial concerns. Either you believe chessplayers
should be tested or they shouldn't.

So what happens to your utopia if the top five players in the world refuse drug
testing and hold their own championship, that the public recognizes as the
"true" one?

"Those who would sacrifice freedom in exchange for security deserve neither."

In your view, what are the benefits of drug testing?

Tom Klem

None.

However, drug testing is a requirement of the IOC. For me, IOC involvement
has
the following benefits:

- IOC recognition of FIDE and NOC recognition of at least 95 different
National
Chess Federations
- Financial Support by some of those NOCs to National Chess Federations, at
minimum $2.2 Million annually, and at least $13.3 Million over the past 4
years.
- Chess being a medal sport at multiple Continental Level Competitions - the
highest step in the IOC before the Summer/Winter games.

the negatives?

- Drug testing

Of course, the real drug testing climate at the moment is quite positive -
many
countries get financial support WITHOUT any drug testing, and drug testing is
basically limited, for the international arena, to the Olympiad and World
Championship. The other countries with national laws on the subject HAVE to
drug test- not because of FIDE, but because their national legislative bodies
require it. (Drug testing is viewed as a supreme responsibility in sport in
much of Europe, as opposed to here where it's considered a nuisance.)

So you're against drug testing in principle, but willing to set aside those
principles so that we can keep FIDE or the IOC or whatever alphabet-soup people
happy.

Now what happens if the player the public believes the strongest doesn't
participate because of this issue, and the FIDE world champion is not
respected? A match would have to occur.

CAUGHT IN ANOTHER LIE?

By Larry Parr

Perhaps Eade or Kelleher could give me the exact number? --
John Fernandez

Lovin' it! Just lovin' it.

John Fernandez began the debate on drug testing by telling all of us
that drug testing would be only in a single world title tournament. It began
in a kids' event in Buenos Aires, months before FIDE even adopted its first set
of official regulations.

Jim Eade and Honest John then argued that there was -- now get this
one! -- an English as a Second Language problem in FIDE. A continental
championship had been reclassified to become a world championship. Hence the
drug testing of kids.

That kind of thing.

There were other shining moments we remember such as when Honest John
told us the Winter Olympics had changed its charter to permit games not played
on snow or ice -- so we had better get behind drug testing and reap the
enormous benefit of appearing in the Olympic Games.

Never mind that such benefits would not have occurred. Never mind
BECAUSE Honest John was lying. The charter of the Winter Olympic was NOT
altered to permit the inclusion of chess and bridge. Honest John wrote such a
lie because it served his debating needs of the moment. That's all.

Honest John then said Section D events, which are not mentioned in the
FIDE drug code, would be the only ones tested by FIDE. Never mind that GM
Seirawan counted several dozen such tournaments (gone were the days of Honest
John lying about only a world title tournament getting tested) and that I found
over 100 -- never mind BECAUSE the drug code itself makes no mention of any
qualification to the bald statement that FIDE may test "ANY competitor" in "ANY
FIDE Competition."

Moreover, Article 3.4 provides for testing "in all other events," for which
national federations "shall be responsible" for sending medical records to
Casto "Totie" Abundo and his Medical Commission. Notice the natinal
federations are "responsible" (not "requested") for sending personal medical
records to the lads at FIDE.

I am hoping to get the entire drug code webbed this weekend so that
everyone on this forum will be able to see for themselves that Honest John
Fernandez lied when speaking of any qualifications within the drug code of
events that may be tested.

THE LATEST CLAIM: In a detailed statement to Tom Klem, Honest John
claimed there was an official vote against the U.S. position, either 160-2 or
161-1.

I challenged him to QUOTE THE MINUTES. I know of no such votes.

If Honest John cannot produce the minutes, we have another example of
his honesty in action.

In any event, minutes or no minutes, our FIDE "team" did not produce a
single piece of paper against drug testing in the two-year period it had a
mandate "to actively campaign" against drug testing "at any chess tournament or
match." Our "team" went to Greece in the sure knowledge it had sabotaged a job
given it by the USCF Delegates.

Please notice that what Honest John presented to Tom Klem as sure
knowledge has now become a request that he can find out the precise facts from
Jim Eade or Bill Kelleher.

That's our Honest John.