ECF may join with English Bridge Union in Judicial Review

[LawrenceCooper]

He looks barmy enough to be a chess player. And given his close knowledge of East African baboons, I'd back him to know about us too.

[Mick Norris]

The sport England annual report shows more than £300,000,000 a year of money being distributed among recognized sport organizations and approved projects.

Unless I miss something, at the moment precisely £0 of those £300,000,000 is allocated to chess.

Being recognized as sport might open the door for the ECF and other chess organizations and projects to argue for public financing. Getting access to public financing might also make it easier to attract private corporate sponsors.

Back to your question: being recognized as sport gives you nothing just by itself, but might open the door to new financing opportunities..

I'm not at all poorly disposed to this argument: I live in a country where chess is classified as a sport and benefits hugely from that status, and I've always regarded chess as a sport (and obviously so).

But:

(a) I still would like to know how much we're in for and on what conditions ;
(b) I am sceptical of the chances of this particular approach.

Answer to a) appears to be a limit of £2,500 according to the Board minutes

[NickFaulks]

Mr Justice Mostyn probably makes up a four with his wife now and again

Not sure about that. Mr Justice Mostyn, who made his money as a top divorce lawyer, famously dumped his wife of thirty years for a younger model, but he does not appear to have married this one.

[Ian Thompson]

According to a Reuter's report:

Judge Ian Dove, who informed the court at the start of the two-day hearing that his wife was a member of a bridge club, rejected an application by Clayton to refer to a witness statement from a representative of the English Chess Federation.

The judge said bringing chess into the debate would "generate more heat than light" in terms of the legal issue he had to resolve, which was whether Sport England had unlawfully restricted its own powers by adopting too narrow a definition.

[Roger de Coverly]

According to a Reuter's report:

Meanwhile the Bridge case argues that Governments have misinterpreted the 1937 Physical Training Act. I've said Governments rather than Government as back in 1999, the then Minister argued that it was necessary to sneak support for chess through under culture. Previously, it had been under Education.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/Forum/vi ... t=60#p3088

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 315-42.htm

[Jonathan Rogers]

According to a Reuter's report:

Judge Ian Dove, who informed the court at the start of the two-day hearing that his wife was a member of a bridge club, rejected an application by Clayton to refer to a witness statement from a representative of the English Chess Federation.

The judge said bringing chess into the debate would "generate more heat than light" in terms of the legal issue he had to resolve, which was whether Sport England had unlawfully restricted its own powers by adopting too narrow a definition.

This is an important passage, which seems to clarify that the legal issue is whether Sport England's decision was flawed because it fettered its own discretion. The argument seems to be that that the 1937 Act did not seek to define a "sport" for present purposes, nor has any other statute, and so Sport England was starting with a clean sheet in deciding what counts as a sport. But, the argument continues, instead of considering each application on its merits, Sport England wrongly discounted bridge from the outset because it imagined it was required to do so by the Act.

If that is the issue, then I can indeed see why any statement from the ECF is neither here nor there.

But we can see the hurdles here.

1) The argument is still not very likely to convince. Sport England can surely still refer to the statute and draw inspiration from it, which is perhaps [what they will claim] is all that they did.

2) In practice, I sometimes wonder whether claims that a body has fettered their discretion are not always considered through that narrow prism. The court is likely aware that even if successful, all that happens is that the body must reconsider its decision in light of their judgment - it might still end up at the same decision at the end. So some review applications with some technical merit might fail if it is clear that in the long run there will no difference.

3) If Dove J grants review, it may still go to appeal. (We are not at the appeal stage yet. This is the first time that EBU's application has been considered on its merits).

4) In any event, all that Sport England would have to do, if unsuccessful, is draw up some tighter definition of its own. So chess and bridge might still lose out. Admittedly it does not want to have to do this, which is why it is resisting the case. As a public body it would have to consult with interested groups and it really doesn't want to have to wade through all the arguments that chess and bridge and scrabble would make, and find reasons to maintain the status quo. But as I say, that might influence the court in saving it the trouble (see above) if it considers that the ultimate outcome is all but inevitable.

[Paolo Casaschi]

According to a Reuter's report:

Judge Ian Dove, who informed the court at the start of the two-day hearing that his wife was a member of a bridge club, rejected an application by Clayton to refer to a witness statement from a representative of the English Chess Federation.

The judge said bringing chess into the debate would "generate more heat than light" in terms of the legal issue he had to resolve, which was whether Sport England had unlawfully restricted its own powers by adopting too narrow a definition.

Considering how little effort the ECF contributed to the ECB initiative and how chess players on this forum assess the chances of the review to succeed, I'm actually surprised that Sport England is not arguing in favor of their case by noting how even chess players themselves seem to support the current view that chess is not a sport and should not be regarded as sport.

What a missed opportunity

[Mick Norris]

If you have a spare half hour, you can wade through this, although WADA testing chess doesn't make it a sport

WADA report 2014

[Peter D Williams]

I'm actually surprised that Sport England is not arguing in favor of their case by noting how even chess players themselves seem to support the current view that chess is not a sport and should not be regarded as sport.

What a missed opportunity

Loads of chess players regard chess as a sport.

right time for a nice cup of tea

[Roger de Coverly]

although WADA testing chess doesn't make it a sport

Something never put to the test, but would a WADA related ban be enforceable in the UK?

[Brian Towers]

although WADA testing chess doesn't make it a sport

Something never put to the test, but would a WADA related ban be enforceable in the UK?

I suspect that if you put that question to the heads of the following UK sports - athletics, cycling, swimming, rowing, skiing, etc., etc. - then you would get a resounding and unanimous answer of "Yes".

I don't know exactly how anti-dope testing is done in these sports but I suspect that WADA related bans have already been enforced in this country.

[Roger de Coverly]

Something never put to the test, but would a WADA related ban be enforceable in the UK?
I suspect that if you put that question to the heads of the following UK sports - athletics, cycling, swimming, rowing, skiing, etc., etc. - then you would get a resounding and unanimous answer of "Yes".

My point being that these are legally defined as sports, whilst chess isn't.

[Brian Towers]

Roger, legal definitions have nothing whatsoever to do with it, neither in the case of chess nor in any of the other cases. If FIDE were to accept (or perhaps has already accepted?) WADA jurisdiction, a top English player to test positive for over the limits caffeine, say, and FIDE to ban them for 2 years then the ECF would either have to enforce the ban in England or divorce from FIDE and world chess. Whether or not chess is legally defined as a sport in the UK is irrelevant.

[Roger de Coverly]

a top English player to test positive for over the limits caffeine

There's no such thing as a caffeine test, WADA aren't that stupid.

I would think a player, particularly an amateur banned from playing chess in the UK for anti doping reasons could create a lot of legal trouble for organisers attempting to enforce such a ban.

[Michael Flatt]

a top English player to test positive for over the limits caffeine

There's no such thing as a caffeine test, WADA aren't that stupid.

I would think a player, particularly an amateur banned from playing chess in the UK for anti doping reasons could create a lot of legal trouble for organisers attempting to enforce such a ban.

FIDE have already signed up to the WADA anti-doping code: http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/ ... cle&id=182
Wada Prohibited list: https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com ... ist-en.pdf