English Arbiters to suffer???

[Andrew Farthing]

I don’t believe that Andrew Farthing is progressing this issue very well. On the surface its about arbiters being banned but its more about National Federations being denied the right to take a dispute to the Sports Arbitration Court for fear of reprisals; Mr Danailov is more on the ball in that respect.

We have to deal with the action in front of us. The ECF has not been denied the right to take a dispute to CAS; English arbiters have, however, been refused roles at the olympiad on purely political grounds. (It's true, of course, that the latter may put pressure on anyone considering using CAS in future.)

[Ernie Lazenby]

An abuse of office, in awarding Vice Presidencies for political favours, is not a minor breach of the rules.

By what standard do you judge 'minor'. The writer of the finance report did not judge it so. Are ECF rules less important than FIDES?

[Nigel Short]

I am sure Andrew Farthing will correct me if I am mistaken. I believe any initial irregularities in the 2011 accounts have been subsequently rectified. And to repeat - no one has been damaged.
As regards the CAS case - one would have thought that a former police inspector would be able to recognise that a perversion of the electoral process (if proven) is a serious matter...

[Andrew Farthing]

An abuse of office, in awarding Vice Presidencies for political favours, is not a minor breach of the rules.

By what standard do you judge 'minor'. The writer of the finance report did not judge it so. Are ECF rules less important than FIDES?

The ECF was prepared to investigate the deficiencies in its accounting entries - the report was produced through a collaborative effort involving myself, John Philpott and Mike Truran - and immediately accepted the report, acknowledged its failings and committed to putting them right and ensuring that they would not be repeated.

In the case of the FIDE Vice Presidents, the FIDE Administration not only refused to accept the fact that it had breached its own rules but was prepared to defend an action in CAS rather than rectify the breach.

To my mind, this alone is a significant difference, one which speaks volumes.

[Roger de Coverly]

By what standard do you judge 'minor'. The writer of the finance report did not judge it so. Are ECF rules less important than FIDES?

In its way, failing to do accounts properly shouldn't be made into a major issue. Kirsan did that as well, a point made in his defence (!) was that he directly paid some of the prizes in past world championships

CJ's reputation wasn't helped by the moveable nature of some of the financial contributions published as being made. It's not an issue to not disclose the proceeds of a fund raising dinner or a simul tour provided such amounts aren't ever paid directly in the name of the ECF. But if amounts are undisclosed, they should remain that way, you cannot boast about the amounts except in very general terms.

A comparable issue to the FIDE one would have been if CJ had insisted that 3 additional ECF directors were appointed, all to be his nominees.

[E Michael White]

We have to deal with the action in front of us. The ECF has not been denied the right to take a dispute to CAS; English arbiters have, however, been refused roles at the olympiad on purely political grounds. (It's true, of course, that the latter may put pressure on anyone considering using CAS in future.)

You dont see it do you ? In an official FIDE event, the Chess Oympiad, a FIDE agent organiser is being allowed to take action, as a punishment/deterrent to CAS users, which is not compliant with FIDE statutes or the undertaking made to the IOC by FIDE in 1995/99. The half of this, which you are ignoring, can only be corrected by the reversal of the other. Try reading FIDE statues chapter 14. Decisions are binding on all parties, including agents running events for FIDE, that means reprisals before or after the CAS process are not allowed.

[Ernie Lazenby]

Nigel, Of course I recognise that however I also recognise politics when I see them and there is little doubt that what is going on at international level has much more to do than just the FIDE President appointing three vice presidents. Failure by the FIDE President to follow rules should be followed up no querstion about that, through FIDES internal system, but I know the Court case has very much more to do with other chess politics some going many years. BTW confirmed by Mr Kasparovs statement I think.

[Andrew Farthing]

You dont see it do you ? In an official FIDE event, the Chess Oympiad, a FIDE agent organiser is being allowed to take action, as a punishment/deterrent to CAS users, which is not compliant with FIDE statutes or the undertaking made to the IOC by FIDE in 1995/99. The half of this, which you are ignoring, can only be corrected by the reversal of the other. Try reading FIDE statues chapter 14. Decisions are binding on all parties, including agents running events for FIDE, that means reprisals before or after the CAS process are not allowed.

I'm sorry if I'm being slow. You seem to be arguing that the actions of the President of the Turkish Chess Federation are a breach of the FIDE Statutes. This is also the ECF's argument, and it is part of the basis on which we protested to FIDE.

We now await FIDE's response to see whether FIDE respects its own statutes and code of ethics and chooses to take action or prefers to position itself with Mr Yazici.

[Paul McKeown]

The person to come out of this debate with the most credibility is Andrew Farthing. Plays everything with a straight bat, when many would be tempted to smash someone else's block for six.

[Andrew Farthing]

The Russian Chess Federation has issued a statement on the arbiters controversy:

Russian Chess Federation resolutely refuses to accept the position of the Turkish Chess Federation demonstrated in its President’s, Mr. Ali Nihat Yazici’s, latest statement.

The refusal to accept referees [arbiters] from 7 unnamed federations for the forthcoming Olympic Games in Stambul as a sort of punishment for FIDE’s financial problems caused by the lawsuit in the name of Anatoly Karpov and these federations is by all means a very alarming precedent.

Defending a principal position in court is the right of any person as well as of any chess federation – member of FIDE. It is the basis of democracy and a guarantee of development of any organization. Moreover, the right to submit lawsuits is stipulated in FIDE’s Charter. Consequently, Anatoly Karpov and the federations which have appealed to court followed the civil norms and rights of any civilized society.

However, the statement and the intentions of Ali Nihat Yazici cannot be considered as such. His announcement sounds as if political differences are to intrude into the Game, not to mention the fact that the referees would lose their only source of income which is unfair play.

Taking into account the above mentioned, the Russian Chess Federation is appealing to Mr. Ilumzhinov for clarification. We would be interested to know if this statement is an official position of FIDE or Mr. Yazici’s personal initiative.

Anyway, the Russian Chess Federation strongly believes that the only acceptable course of action for FIDE would be to disavow the above statement, offer the job to the excluded referees and summon up the courage to apologize for the notorious statement to the chess federations and all chess fans across the world.

Source: http://www.whychess.org/en/node/2030

[E Michael White]

I'm sorry if I'm being slow. You seem to be arguing that the actions of the President of the Turkish Chess Federation are a breach of the FIDE Statutes. This is also the ECF's argument, and it is part of the basis on which we protested to FIDE.

My main point was that instead of doing this:-

In the last hour, a formal letter of protest over the actions of the President of the Turkish Chess Federation has been sent to the FIDE Secretariat, asking for the FIDE Presidential Board and Ethics Commission to consider this matter urgently and to demand that the Olympiad organisers be required to reconsider their arbiter appointments, this time in an impartial and non-discriminatory fashion.

The letter was prepared by the ECF and formally supported by the French, German, Swiss, Ukrainian and US chess federations. The ECF is grateful to each of these organisations for their support and for responding so quickly to its efforts to achieve a robust, coordinated response.

a wider lobbying for support would have sent a more powerful message rather than restricting yourself to the author nations of the dispute presented to CAS. I think you have overfocussed on the wrong aspect ; dont forget this is not a court but an arbitration service which can rule on process in place.

We now await FIDE's response to see whether FIDE respects its own statutes and code of ethics and chooses to take action or prefers to position itself with Mr Yazici.

Which is when wider support for the CAS principles and IOC conditions would have been more influential. Other nations may support the general CAS process and deplore reprisals but not necessarily suuport the cases presented.

[Ian Kingston]

My main point was that instead of doing this:-

In the last hour, a formal letter of protest over the actions of the President of the Turkish Chess Federation has been sent to the FIDE Secretariat, asking for the FIDE Presidential Board and Ethics Commission to consider this matter urgently and to demand that the Olympiad organisers be required to reconsider their arbiter appointments, this time in an impartial and non-discriminatory fashion.

The letter was prepared by the ECF and formally supported by the French, German, Swiss, Ukrainian and US chess federations. The ECF is grateful to each of these organisations for their support and for responding so quickly to its efforts to achieve a robust, coordinated response.

a wider lobbying for support would have sent a more powerful message rather than restricting yourself to the author nations of the dispute presented to CAS.

Doing the former does not preclude also doing the latter. It may be that such lobbying is going on behind the scenes - we don't know. But in this context the statement by the Russian Chess Federation is an encouraging development.

[Nigel Short]

I am sorry Mr White, but the Court of Arbitration in Sport (CAS) is most certainly a court. Having stood on the witness stand myself, back in 2010, I very well know the criminal penalties for perjury, applicable under Swiss law, having been informed by the judge, as all witnesses were, before I began my testimony.

[Roger de Coverly]

The Russian Chess Federation has issued a statement on the arbiters controversy:

You have to hope that they don't find out that they didn't issue the statement, or it wasn't properly authorised.

For example
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6335

was followed by
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6354

[E Michael White]

I am sorry Mr White, but the Court of Arbitration in Sport (CAS) is most certainly a court. Having stood on the witness stand myself, back in 2010, I very well know the criminal penalties for perjury, applicable under Swiss law, having been informed by the judge, as all witnesses were, before I began my testimony.

In that respect yes but they dont have the same power to subpoena witnesses unless you have contracted in as it were.