French Chess Federation investigates cheating players

[James Plaskett]

Me too.
Mr Ian Davis: ´B´ must have been a bit mentally sluggish - to say the least - if he thought nothing at all was going on, i.e. that ´A´ was not up to something.

[IanDavis]

Me too.
Mr Ian Davis: ´B´ must have been a bit mentally sluggish - to say the least - if he thought nothing at all was going on, i.e. that ´A´ was not up to something.

Rev James Plaskett, that's quite possible. However, we need to consider the entire range of options. For example:
1. Cheap deal, no questions asked, must sell right now. A straightforward option if 'B' is greedy/unscrupulous/a lawyer, and it always worked for Arthur Daley.
2. 'A' uses some form of sob story to fool 'B'
Neither of these two indicate complicity in child abuse, which I presume is what you sought to infer.

PS: I agree with the suggestion that moderators remove the references to the current given endpoint

[Michael Jones]

My knowledge of Sumo isn't extensive, but my understanding from the book I mentioned in the previous post is that cheating/fixing matches in the sport is a HUGE scandal. Not at all the same thing as obviously pre-arranged WWF and more akin to, say, the impact on Pakistanis of cheating allegations against some of their cricketers.

Speaking of which, there's been a further development in that story, and since the article in this case is in English there shouldn't be the same room for doubt about its exact meaning as there is trying to translate a press release from French:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan/co ... 99519.html

So at least in some cases, dishonest practice in a sporting competition apparently can be considered a criminal offence. It remains to be seen whether the same will apply in the case of Feller et al.

[James Plaskett]

Rev James Plaskett, that's quite possible. However, we need to consider the entire range of options. For example:
1. Cheap deal, no questions asked, must sell right now. A straightforward option if 'B' is greedy/unscrupulous/a lawyer, and it always worked for Arthur Daley.
2. 'A' uses some form of sob story to fool 'B'
Neither of these two indicate complicity in child abuse, which I presume is what you sought to infer.

er.. YOU wrote that last line, Mr Davis. Not me.

A man who, like Lazenby, has been in the Police, would surely be dubious of such offers.
I would be.
The whole thing was suspiciously...swift... behaviour from Eley, and should have caused antennae to twitch.

no questions asked

That´s my point, he should have asked questions.
The suggestion that Butterworth

is greedy/unscrupulous

and/or an

Arthur Daley

type, was also yours.

[James Plaskett]

So at least in some cases, dishonest practice in a sporting competition apparently can be considered a criminal offence. It remains to be seen whether the same will apply in the case of Feller et al.

At the time of goalkeeper Bruce Grobelaar standing trial for alleged match-fixing, in 1997, several people in the chess world raised the issue of the rigging of the British chess syndicate of the early 1980s to me and said that what they had done was essentially the same thing.

[IanDavis]

Sorry, but I do not suggest that Andrew Butterworth is greedy, unsrupulous, etc This is because I do not know for a fact, nor do I even suspect, that he directly bought Brian Eley's business.

If you want sought to imply something else, other than complicity, about any person directly involved in the swift purchase of items from Brian Eley I apologise fully. -edit- Actually thinking again, I notice that I didn't write down on the page what I actually meant. So my inference as to your presumption is doubly inaccurate. Sorry.

Rev James Plaskett, that's quite possible. However, we need to consider the entire range of options. For example:
1. Cheap deal, no questions asked, must sell right now. A straightforward option if 'B' is greedy/unscrupulous/a lawyer, and it always worked for Arthur Daley.
2. 'A' uses some form of sob story to fool 'B'
Neither of these two indicate complicity in child abuse, which I presume is what you sought to infer.

er.. YOU wrote that last line, Mr Davis. Not me.

A man who, like Lazenby, has been in the Police, would surely be dubious of such offers.
I would be.
The whole thing was suspiciously...swift... behaviour from Eley, and should have caused antennae to twitch.

no questions asked

That´s my point, he should have asked questions.
The suggestion that Butterworth

is greedy/unscrupulous

and/or an

Arthur Daley

type, was also yours.

[Jonathan Rogers]

I believe that Grobelaar was tried for conspiracy to defraud, an offence that is wider than fraud itself and is something of a "prosecutor's darling". Match-fixing could probably be prosecuted on this basis if the intent was to make bookmakers suffer a loss, or to make other competitors less likely to win a prize (since the object need only be to deprive of them of something to which they may be entitled).

Whether France has such a widely drafted offence, I don't know. Much also depends on whether the French courts accept jurisdiction where the offence in question occurs outside France. If not then the question is whether the offence did take place in France after all, on the basis that that is where the conspiracy may have been formed, even though the defrauding would take place elsewhere.

I don't suppose anyone here (including myself) knows enough about French criminal law to take this further! But my guess is that criminal liability (if the allegations are proven) is unlikely, though conceivable.

[Sean Hewitt]

Jonathan. Consider yourself told off for trying to bring this discussion back on topic

[Carl Hibbard]

This is not an acceptable post about Andrew Butterworth who is respected and well liked. He is in no way connected to Eleys wrong doings so why mention it in the way you have. Way out of order.

As Ernie is suggesting I see no relevance between the two issues James is trying to link?

[Carl Hibbard]

The problem with the way you've brought up this question is that you've implied a chain of events A->B rather than A->?->?->-B in which B is entirely innocent in the latter sequence and thus need not have been mentioned.

Correct, it seems that James is way out of order in that respect

[Carl Hibbard]

I think the moderators would do well to remove some of Jims last post before all hell breaks loose.

I go on holiday for two days and look what happens

[Michael Jones]

Jonathan. Consider yourself told off for trying to bring this discussion back on topic

That's a bit harsh Sean - I started it.

[Carl Hibbard]

I have hopefully stopped this nonsense, or I will do if I have to close it and people off...

[Matthew Turner]

I hope that we can return to the topic as I think it could have a huge impact on chess. Hauchard has now issued a statement, which is translated below.

The Declaration of the Human Rights says that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The European Convention on Human Rights itself states in Article 6, paragraph 2, that “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law”. Finally the [French] Civil Code, Article 9-1, under Act 2511 of June 15, 2000, stipulates that “Everyone has the right to respect of the presumption of innocence.”.
It is therefore forbidden prior to a conviction to hold somebody publicly guilty of acts under investigation or on trial. Attributing an offense to somebody damages the social values which the presumption of innocence is intended to protect.

One of these values is the right of each individual to dignity and respect, the other one is the authority and serenity of justice. It seems obvious that the Federation didn’t take into account these articles when it published my name on its official site before the end of the investigation.
I’m waiting for the disciplinary hearing in order to say more about this case and I deny the allegations made against me on the federation website.

Arnaud Hauchard, International Grand Master

It has taken Hauchard a long time to issue this statement which suggests to me that he has done so under legal advice. It also seems that the main thrust on his statement is to question the procedure - his public naming, rather than denying the charges per se. It looks like this is going to end in the Courts. If the French Federation fail to bring a case to Court or are unsucessful then Hauchard's statement seems to lead the way for him bringing a deflamation case.
Interestingly there is no word yet from Marzolo, but he might have the least to lose, so could he end up being the star witness for prosecution?

[Ian Thompson]

It has taken Hauchard a long time to issue this statement which suggests to me that he has done so under legal advice.

You may be right about him taking legal advice, but it hasn't taken him as long as you suggest to issue it. I'm sure I first saw it at least a week ago. If you assume that reports on Europe Echecs are in chronological order, then it was issued between 26 and 29 January.

For those previous posters who were wondering what the "Bureau Fédéral" is, it's part of the FFE and its members are listed here.