HONEST JOHN MULTIPLIES YEARS AGAIN

By Larry Parr

In an answer to Tom Klem, John Fernandez is back to inflating his
claimed figure for how much money enters chess because players must take random
drug tests.

Honest John claims a pittance of $2.2 million enters chess worldwide
because players have to sacrifice their privacy through drug testing or have
their careers destroyed. He knows that such a number is virtually nothing for
the entire world, and he further knows (though he wishes you did not) that most
of this money goes to a half dozen or so federations.

Honest John is also aware that most of you now understand that his
figure of $2.2 million for the entire world cannot be verified. He cannot tell
you how much of this amount existed BEFORE there was drug testing and would
continue to exist once drug testing ended in chess.

So, then, Honest John has taken to multiplying years to raise his
figure higher and adding expenditures for an Olympiad to the total (never mind
that Chess Olympiads and their expense existed BEFORE drug testing).

On one occasion, Honest John multiplied his figure over a 10-year
period to get over $20 million for the entire world; on another occasion, he
multiplied it five-times to reach $11 million. Down below, he multiplies it
four times.

Using this logic, we can argue that the USCF is a $50 million, $25
million or $20 million dollar business -- just like that. We just multiply the
Federation's balance sheet as many times as we wish!

So that the reader can wend his way through Honest John's nonsense, the
practice of multiplying a number over several years that pertains to the entire
world also requires multiplying the number of worlds involved. So, yes, we can
say that over four years, if one accepts Honest John's claimed number that he
cannot support, the total would be $8.8 million for FOUR ENTIRE WORLDS.

See below for my comments in multiple brackets.

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: -- John Fernandez

[[[[[In short, Honest John is arguing the drug testing has benefits,
contrary to his "None" comment above.]]]]]


IOC recognition of FIDE and NOC recognition of at least 95 different National
Chess Federations -- John Fernandez

[[[[[IOC recognition means nothing in the United States and many other
countries. The sum for the entire world -- if one accepts Honest John's
unproven claim -- is $2.2 million. A pittance. Moreover, the actual number is
likely far less than one million, if one remembers that some of this money
existed BEFORE there was drug testing.

Such recognition means something to the politicians of these countries
who get invited now and then to parties and to meet the higher and mightier.
It also gives the politicians a lever, if they choose to push it, to destroy
the career of any player who steps out of line.

There are virtually no benefits derived from drug testing, but there
is a new power over players being established by FIDE. Honest John ever so
obviously hopes to become one of the power brokers -- he will not rule out such
an appointment.]]]]]

- 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. -- John Fernandez

[[[[[I dealt with this ludicrous point above.]]]]]]


- Chess being a medal sport at multiple Continental Level Competitions - the
highest step in the IOC before the Summer/Winter games. -- John Fernandez

[[[[[Honest John is talking about such sub-events at the SEAGames which have
no conceivable interest to us.]]]]]

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. -- John Fernandez

[[[[[Stop right there. Notice that Honest John is saying -- he tries
to slip it past very quickly -- that drug testing is "basically limited" to
something called "the international arena." RIGHT. FIDE is entitled to test
"any competitor" in "any FIDE Competition."

We have gone from Honest John telling us about testing in a single
tournament to talking about testing being "limited" (the correct phrase is "now
encompassing") "the international arena."

There is also Article 3.4 calling for testing "in all other events" by
national chess federations which "shall be responsible" for sending your
records to FIDE headquarters. I urge everyone here to read what Honest John
writes ever so carefully to see that he is admitting above that testing now
encompasses "the international arena."]]]]]


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

[[[[[[Honest John is a doozy. Drug testing is considered an invasion
of privacy in the United States without reason. For there is NO drug problem
in chess. When talking about Europe, he is referring to sports such as
weightlifting. Remember: there is NO drug problem in chess; no duty of any
kind is involved to permit invasions of privacy without reason.

Honest John favors destroying the careers of players who will not crawl
to Fidecrats. Refusal to be tested leads to lifetime bans under the code that
Honest John supports. That's the bottom line.]]]]

NOT EVEN A MESS OF POTTAGE

By Larry Parr

The Modern Caveman finds the idea of surrendering freedom in return
fior security to be noxious. So do I.

But what is probably still worse is surrendering freedom when you
don't even get a mess of pottage in return. Indeed, you may end up losing the
little pottage you have.

John Fernandez claims that $2.2 million enters chess WORLDWIDE because
players must put up with the invasion of privacy called drug testing or have
their careers destroyed. This amount is a pittance for the entire world.
Still worse, Honest John is unable to say how much of this sum came to chess
before there was drug testing and how much would remain if there is no more
drug testing.

When one considers the costs of a permanent medical bureaucracy and
the damaging effects drug testing will have on chess promotion once the first
scandals begin to occur, one has to conclude that one is not trading freedom
for security. One is trading freedom for the loss of whatever little security
that chess people now enjoy.

Too, one is trading away freedom for the added insecurity of crooked
FIDE officials having the power to destroy careers. Players who run afoul of a
mincing Honest John, once he gets the FIDE position he desires, or a Casto
"Totie" Abundo would pay with their professional lives.

Bottom line: an individual of the Honest John type favors destroying
the careers of his immense chess betters if they refuse to accede to
irrational, intrusive invasions of privacy. In return one does not even get a
decent mess of pottage.

LeModernCaveman wrote:

That you are willing to capitulate on the issue of personal freedom for
"olympic" money?

Athletes clearly don't have such "personal freedoms". While clearly
significantly less necessary in chess, drugs tests have been worldwide agreed
to NOT be a violation of personal freedoms.

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.

I don't find drug testing to be THAT reprehensible. The issue, for me, is what
is best for the sport, and for the players? Clearly, given THIS drug testing
environment, IOC recognition is a very strong positive - especially given that
in all of the countries with drug testing - the issue has not come about
because of FIDE, but because the countries themselves or the NOCs have laws on
the subject.

Either you believe chessplayers
should be tested or they shouldn't.

No, it's not that black and white. There are reasons for and against.

Ideally, it shouldn't be necessary.

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?

Whether or not it was the real world championship has nothing to do with
anti-doping.

And hey, such a scenario would end it, no? The IOC and the NOCs would withdraw
their funding.

John Fernandez

LeModernCaveman wrote:

So you're against drug testing in principle

In principle - not that my principles tell me drug testing is bad. It's quite
good and necessary in many sports - in chess, significantly less so. It is NOT
an infringement- although I know this view, while agreed to pretty much
everywhere in sport, isn't agreed in the USA.

but willing to set aside those
principles so that we can keep FIDE or the IOC or whatever alphabet-soup
people
happy.

Even if I was, yes, the fact is that the benefits outweigh the negatives. Of
course, at every turn we should maximize positives and minimize negatives.

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.

The reality is that a top player (Kasparov), refusing anti-doping in chess
would put it to the question rapidly - would IOC/WADA look to accomodate this,
or would they not, and kick out FIDE and the National Chess Federations. If the
latter, drug testing in chess would end anyway.

John Fernandez

Honest John then said Section D events, which are not mentioned in the
FIDE drug code

Check the preamble in your copy, Larry.

John Fernandez

In an answer to Tom Klem, John Fernandez is back to inflating his
claimed figure

Are you denying that the figure is annual and that the money has been received
for at least 4 years?

for how much money enters chess because players must take random
drug tests.

And again, the money isn't directly related to drug testing in every case. Of
my $13.3 Million (over 4 years) figure, $7.8 Million of it had absolutely no
attachment to drug testing.

Honest John claims a pittance of $2.2 million enters chess worldwide

Annually.

because players have to sacrifice their privacy through drug testing or have
their careers destroyed.

No, in fact, about $800,000 annually is not attached in any way to drug testing
by those NOCs.

He knows that such a number is virtually nothing for
the entire world

Not really, since we know it is bigger.

and he further knows (though he wishes you did not) that most
of this money goes to a half dozen or so federations.

No, money goes to at least 42 federations.

Honest John is also aware that most of you now understand that his
figure of $2.2 million for the entire world cannot be verified.

It has been verified. Multiple times, by the National Chess Federations and
National Olympic Committees themselves. In one case (Netherlands), I've even
had the number verified by 4 sources (2 within the Federation, 1 from the NOC,
and 1 player.)

All of the facts in my report have been verified, and I have indexed each piece
of data I have. Parr doesn't want you to know that.

He cannot tell
you how much of this amount existed BEFORE there was drug

Yes I can. $0.

testing and would
continue to exist once drug testing ended in chess.

If drug tested ended because WADA/IOC/NOCs removed it as necessary, then none
of it would disappear. If drug testing ended because WADA/IOC/NOCs removed
chess as a recognized sport, then all of it would disappear.

So, then, Honest John has taken to multiplying years to raise his
figure higher

Actually, I'm just going back 4 years to show the $4.5M amount for Istanbul
2000.

and adding expenditures for an Olympiad to the total (never mind
that Chess Olympiads and their expense existed BEFORE drug testing).

I'm not looking for before drug testing (although Drug testing started in chess
in 1996), I'm looking for before IOC and NOC recognition. In many cases, the
NOC recognition has come without drug testing.

On one occasion, Honest John multiplied his figure over a 10-year
period to get over $20 million for the entire world

Uh, no. That would be insane, considering that these federations have been
recognized for 4 to 8 years maximum.

on another occasion, he
multiplied it five-times to reach $11 million.

Which again, is not accurate, since it misses out on the 2000 bonus money, and
ignores Spain's money going back 8 years.

Down below, he multiplies it
four times.

Which is the accepted one since the mass recognition happened in 1999-2000.

That's the TOTAL money that's come in.

Using this logic, we can argue that the USCF is a $50 million, $25
million or $20 million dollar business -- just like that. We just multiply
the
Federation's balance sheet as many times as we wish!

Total, sure.

So that the reader can wend his way through Honest John's nonsense, the
practice of multiplying a number over several years that pertains to the
entire
world also requires multiplying the number of worlds involved.

Not at all.

If you got paid $100,000 per year to work, would you be lying if you said you
made $400,000 over the past 4 years? No. So shut up.

John Fernandez

That you are willing to capitulate on the issue of personal freedom for
"olympic" money?

Athletes clearly don't have such "personal freedoms". While clearly
significantly less necessary in chess, drugs tests have been worldwide agreed
to NOT be a violation of personal freedoms.

Actually they are a violation, but they are considered a JUSTIFIED one. Slight
difference.

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.

I don't find drug testing to be THAT reprehensible. The issue, for me, is
what
is best for the sport, and for the players? Clearly, given THIS drug testing
environment, IOC recognition is a very strong positive - especially given
that
in all of the countries with drug testing - the issue has not come about
because of FIDE, but because the countries themselves or the NOCs have laws
on
the subject.

Those countries aren't America.

Still, is making chess an "olympic sport" really something we want? I could
see the comedians having a field day mocking the game and whoever dreamed up
the idea of putting it in the "olympics."

Chess has had its own world title for over a century. Until recently, the
system worked, and hopefully it will be restored. Chess in the olympics would
be like boxing, mostly strong amateurs.


Either you believe chessplayers
should be tested or they shouldn't.

No, it's not that black and white. There are reasons for and against.

And you are either FOR or AGAINST it, in principle, i.e., where money isn't a
factor.

Should players be tested or not? I'd imagine that there are some drugs that
could enhance performance, but that's a risky endeavor.

Ideally, it shouldn't be necessary.

What's the purpose of the testing other than to gain IOC approval? What are we
trying to stop?


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?

Whether or not it was the real world championship has nothing to do with
anti-doping.

And hey, such a scenario would end it, no? The IOC and the NOCs would
withdraw
their funding.

No, they'd disqualify those who refused to be tested.

Look at Boxing when the best fighter in the world isn't the one with the belt.
Ruins everything.

IT IS NOT "MY COPY"

By Larry Parr

Check the preamble in your copy, Larry. -- John Fernandez

Honest John asks me to check the Preamble to "my copy" of the "FIDE
Anti-Doping Regulations."

First, it is not "my copy." It is Annext 46a of the FIDE Congress
papers, and it contains the entire code, which runs 11 pages.

I simply must get this code webbed and up for your inspection. Honest John
is simply lying. There is NO MENTION OF ANY SECTION D IN THE DRUG CODE
ANYWHERE.

Anywhere!

The preamble to which he refers reads as follows IN TOTO:

"In furtherance of its role, Federation Internationale Des Echecs (FIDE), in
close collabortion with the National Chess Federations (NCFs), the
International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the National Olympic Committees
(NOCs) dedicates its efforts to ensuring that in chess the spirit of Fair Play
prevails, leads the fight against doping in sport and takes measures the goal
of which is to prevent endangering the health of competitors. (Within FIDE the
body responsible for the above is the Medical Commission.)"

THAT'S ALL. The entire preamble. Period. Every word.

Honest John Fernandez has simply LIED, AND LIED AND LIED that there is
any qualification in the code about what events may be tested beyond the
absolutely clear call for testing in "ANY FIDE Competition" and "at ALL other
events." In short, universal, random testing, which Honest John defends.

DEFINITIONS OFFERED IN BACK

Honest John lied about another matter -- the meaning of what a "competition"
is. There is a GLOSSARY attached to the code.

"Competition" is defined as "A single game, match, tournament or team
competition." Period. No mention of the non-existent Section D in the drug
code.

Now, then as for "Competitor," it is defined as follows: "For purposes
of Doping Control, any Person who participates in sport at the international
level (as defined by an International Federation) or national level (as defined
by each National Anti-Doping Organizaton) and any additional Person who
participates in sport at a lower level if designated by the Person's National
Anti-Doping Organization. For purposes of anti-doping information and
education, any Person who participates in sport under the authority of any
Signatory accepting the Code."

There you have it. Everyone involved in FIDE or national events or any
lower event may be tested under either Article 3.1 or 3.4 ("all other events").
Article 3.4 holds National federations "responsible" for testing "all other
events" and sending your medical records to the Medical Commission. There is
no mention of "requesting" federations to act thusly; there is a clear
statement that they "shall be responsible" for doing so.

Honest John has lied to everyone on this forum. There are no limits on
what events and players may be tested. None.

Except: the limits of FIDE's weakness and the level of resistance
offered. The code itself calls for universal, random testing.

PUBLIC NOTE TO TOM KLEM

By Larry Parr

Honest John Fernandez told you there were these votes which ended in
majorities of 160-2 or 161-1 against the United States. I challenged him to
provide references in the minutes to such votes, which I believe NEVER TOOK
PLACE, and he said he would check with Keller and Eade then get back to us.

That's right, Tom. Just as Honest John invented the idea that there
was a Section D mentioned somewhere in the drug code, so too he has come up
with votes that never occurred.

The bottom line is that Article 3.1 of the code calls for testing in
"any FIDE Competition," with competition being defined in the glossary to the
code as "A single game, match, tournament or team competition." Article 3.4
calls for testing in "all other events" -- for which national chess federations
"shall be responsible."

Tom: if you wish to remain agnostic on this issue until I finally get
the entire code webbed on line, then I fully understand.

"Parrthenon" wrote in message
...
PUBLIC NOTE TO TOM KLEM

By Larry Parr

Honest John Fernandez told you there were these votes which ended
in
majorities of 160-2 or 161-1 against the United States. I challenged him
to
provide references in the minutes to such votes, which I believe NEVER
TOOK
PLACE, and he said he would check with Keller and Eade then get back to
us.

That's right, Tom. Just as Honest John invented the idea that
there
was a Section D mentioned somewhere in the drug code, so too he has come
up
with votes that never occurred.

The bottom line is that Article 3.1 of the code calls for testing
in
"any FIDE Competition," with competition being defined in the glossary to
the
code as "A single game, match, tournament or team competition." Article
3.4
calls for testing in "all other events" -- for which national chess
federations
"shall be responsible."

Tom: if you wish to remain agnostic on this issue until I finally
get
the entire code webbed on line, then I fully understand.


Actually, Larry, I do believe you to be honest.

Personally, I'm just tired of all the "cheats" which abound in the world
today. I'm tired of hearing that the 61* home runs of Roger Maris, were
surpassed by a drug infested competitor.

I also realize, that drug testing at this time for both Chess and Baseball,
would be a disaster for the current crop of professionals whose lives were
altered by their governments or societies in the pursuit of the prize of the
"Intellectually Superior" stamp or "Most Productive/Prolific" system.

So, let me propose a solution. It's definitely too late in my life for me to
become World Champion of Chess, though I don't doubt that with a liberal
dousing of Ritalin, I could have become just that ("I'm joking folks"). And,
since this proposal will not impact in any way, my pursuit of the World
Championship, I should like to suggest a actuarial method which the
Eisenhower Administration attempted to implement in the '50s to eliminate
segregation in the school system and society in general.

Starting with the children who enter the Chess arena with the crop of let's
say 5 - 12 year olds in 2005, drug testing be mandatory at all
Internationally sanctioned FIDE events for the target age group (TAG), and
as each year goes by, the upper age increase by some arbitray factor (say
three (3) or point 5 (.5)). After time, the TAG will see to it that the
problem dissolves itself and we can get back to the less than mundane
pursuit of Chess excellence, without the drugs and drug dealers, and Chess
competitione will once again be fair, and our noble sport once again "just a
game".

Short of that, I just say---"Duck"

Because drug testing is coming. Whether our drug addled talent wants it or
not. Note: I cast aspersions on no one here. For all I know, the greatest
players of all times---our day's chess professionals are as virtuous and
unblemished as Caesar's wife.

Regards,
Tom Klem