Sanctions for those proven to have cheated?

[Andrew Farthing]

I've yet to see the outcome of a recent alleged case of this but, if proven, then the ECF must publicise their sanctions widely as a means of deterrent.

If it gets brushed under the carpet (we like to pretend that cheating does not happen : this is the English way of doing things) then an opportunity will be lost.

If the player is a junior then naming them is not wise but demonstrating a robust attitude with cheating is crucial.

I've already stated that the one case of which I'm aware involved a junior. I've also made clear that the ECF is not in a position to impose sanctions as a matter of right. In the case alluded to, a sanction has been proposed but I am not certain whether this has been accepted by all parties. In any event, since we are dealing with the behaviour of a child, I am not comfortable making further details public.

As I said before, if the ECF were faced with alleged cheating in circumstances like the FFE case, I'd like to think that we would act in the same robust and open way. I'd hope that the ECF's recent track record offers some reassurance with regard to openness (e.g. the investigation into the non-use of directed proxies in the AGM vote for Non-Executive Director). Something like the FFE case is very different from dealing with the behaviour of one child at a private weekend congress. The fact that I am not willing to give details does not mean that the ECF is not taking a strong line on cheating; it simply means that we are mindful of the rights of the child to certain protections as well as the current restrictions on the ECF's authority.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I've yet to see the outcome of a recent alleged case of this but, if proven, then the ECF must publicise their sanctions widely as a means of deterrent.

If it gets brushed under the carpet (we like to pretend that cheating does not happen : this is the English way of doing things) then an opportunity will be lost....

.... The fact that I am not willing to give details does not mean that the ECF is not taking a strong line on cheating; it simply means that we are mindful of the rights of the child to certain protections as well as the current restrictions on the ECF's authority.

If I understand John Upham correctly he is calling for the end 'punishment' (for want of a better word) to be made public not necessarily any details like name of child concerned/congress/area of the country etc. This strikes me as an entirely appropriate response.

I'm sure many of us remember that 20 years ago there was a serious situation within the (then) BCF that did not receive a satisfactory investigation. I very much hope that you're right when you say things would be different now.

I must say, I find it rather concerning that the ECF is not in a position to do anything in particular about cheating at present. Not that I blame anybody in particular for that and I am reassured by your response in the sense that at least you recognise that there is a problem and are taking steps to address it.

I am, I'm afraid to say, within the camp that believes that the problem of cheating is only going to get worse. The one case thus far that you mention is almost certainly the only one where the person has been caught. I find it impossible to believe it's the only time that it has ever happened.

[James Coleman]

I've played regularly in tournaments in the Middle East where the games actually get paused for 15 minutes or so in order to allow the local players to observe prayer time. The break is at the same time every day so it wouldn't be too difficult if the position was critical to time things well and get a helping hand during the break.

That said, I've never actually seen anything dodgy looking going on there...

[David Sedgwick]

The formal advice that I have received indicates that "the ECF does not have any legal mechanism" to punish players for cheating. Sanctions are possible within the specific event (in accordance with the laws of chess), but more far-reaching sanctions - such as a fine or a ban - appear to be problematic.

There are various complicating factors, including the fact that the large majority of English players are not members of the ECF and almost all English events are not run by the ECF. Jurisdiction is therefore a consideration. The French Federation (FFE) is in a clearer position because all French players have to be members and, as I understand it, all events are officially deemed to be under FFE jurisdiction.

Presumably a ban would be simpler to enforce in a compulsory membership environment? Failing that, you would need the ECF to sanction events in advance for grading, a condition of which would not be to allow banned players to play.

Sean, I think you mean "a a condition of which would be not to allow banned players to play". Subject to that, I agree with you.

We have rules regarding eligibility of games for grading (time limits etc) and I don't see the difficulty in stipulating that an ECF graded event is under ECF auspices and must comply with ECF regulations of this kind.

If we retain Game Fee, perhaps we should specify that anyone in respect of whom Game Fee is paid is a (kind of) member, as the English Bridge Union has just done.

It's not just cheating - there's also violent and offensive conduct (mercifully also rare).

In my view we would do well to take a close look at the English Bridge Union's arrangements. They have had a formal disciplinary procedure for many years. It rarely needs to be invoked, but when cases do arise, they deal with them firmly. The sanctions taken are generally announced, sometimes naming names, sometimes not.

Andrew, thank you for again coming on here and acknowledging that this is yet another problem in your in tray.

[Sean Hewitt]

Re disclosure of past offenders: I agree with the comment that names should be withheld in the case of any juniors. My understanding is that the restrictions under Section 44 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 apply.

I'm no lawyer of course, but I think this only applies in criminal cases and so would be unlikely to be relevant to an allegation of cheating in chess.

[AustinElliott]

If I understand John Upham correctly he is calling for the end 'punishment' (for want of a better word) to be made public not necessarily any details like name of child concerned/congress/area of the country etc. This strikes me as an entirely appropriate response.

This is a little similar to what medical licencing bodies do as a "teaching tool". They give anonymous "case histories" of misconduct in things like their guidance and in their members' magazines or on websites There is no name, but the story will describe in an anonymised way what the person did, why it was judged as misconduct, and what the sanction was. We do this for student plagiarism at University too.

This also has the effect of helping avoid the response (fairly common in cases of student plagiarism) of "Oh, I did do that but I didn't know it was wrong". The more you publicize the case histories and the sanctions, the less people can plead ignorance. Much less of an issue with chess cheating, but I can just about imagine it in (say) cases of collusion involving young players.

[Andrew Farthing]

Re disclosure of past offenders: I agree with the comment that names should be withheld in the case of any juniors. My understanding is that the restrictions under Section 44 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 apply.

I'm no lawyer of course, but I think this only applies in criminal cases and so would be unlikely to be relevant to an allegation of cheating in chess.

I'm no lawyer either, but the source of the advice on which I based my comment is.

[Sean Hewitt]

I'm no lawyer either, but the source of the advice on which I based my comment is.

So is mine!

[Andrew Farthing]

This is a little similar to what medical licencing bodies do as a "teaching tool". They give anonymous "case histories" of misconduct in things like their guidance and in their members' magazines or on websites There is no name, but the story will describe in an anonymised way what the person did, why it was judged as misconduct, and what the sanction was. We do this for student plagiarism at University too.

I do understand the concern here, but in practice I am only aware of the one case that has been referred to the ECF, and a number of people are aware of the incident already, so the scope for "anonymity" in any such case history would be somewhat limited. Given that we are dealing with the actions of a child here, I have to be mindful of the need to protect the individual's identity.

In addition, I repeat my earlier comment that I am not certain whether the proposed sanction has been accepted yet, so any comment would in any event be premature.

[Andrew Farthing]

Andrew, thank you for again coming on here and acknowledging that this is yet another problem in your in tray.

You're welcome, David. It's getting so that the pile in the In tray is blocking the light through my windows, but I am trying!

[Jonathan Rogers]

Re disclosure of past offenders: I agree with the comment that names should be withheld in the case of any juniors. My understanding is that the restrictions under Section 44 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 apply.

I'm no lawyer of course, but I think this only applies in criminal cases and so would be unlikely to be relevant to an allegation of cheating in chess.

I'm no lawyer either, but the source of the advice on which I based my comment is.

Well, the advice is almost certainly wrong. The section could only apply if the investigation relates to a criminal offence - not obvious, and it would depend upon his motivation - AND also, moreover, if the police actually deign to investigate it, which I should imagine is unthinkable (see subsection 13).

We are not talking about a lawyer actually retained by the ECF, I hope?

(There are still good reasons not to name the child in my view, but YJCEA 1999, s.44 is not one of them)

[Sean Hewitt]

(There are still good reasons not to name the child in my view, but YJCEA 1999, s.44 is not one of them)

I agree with all of this.

[John Upham]

We are not talking about a lawyer actually retained by the ECF, I hope?

I was assured some time ago that the ECF does not retain a lawyer but has contact with someone who is able to offer free advice on legal matters.

Is this still the case?

[David Shepherd]

Legislation
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/23/section/44
One commentary
http://www.gdlaw.co.uk/news/documents/m ... ustice.pdf

[Jonathan Rogers]

That's useful. Note the para that begins

"This lobbying resulted in amendments so that reporting restrictions applied from the
commencement of a criminal investigation rather than from the time of an allegation that a criminal
offence had been committed."