Accusation against Alejandro Ramirez

[Roger Lancaster]

I think we all agree on the correct course of action if you have first hand evidence of criminal behaviour.

The more difficult question is what to do with lots of second hand evidence of let's say 'sketchy' or 'creepy' behaviour. Naming them on a public forum wouldn't seem wise, but it still makes sense to warn players/officials/organisers etc. and to take appropriate action. There are players I would not want to invite to lecture at the club I'm on the committee for (in fact it was one of the reasons I joined the committee).

I believe that, where one has reasonable belief that something is amiss, certainly where minors and also 'vulnerable adults' are involved, correct procedure is to go via the ECF safeguarding officer. He or she is then in a position to make an assessment - one such report almost certainly means no action but multiple reports mean action is indicated. At least, that's how (based on my experience with statutory bodies) it should work. The problem with warning players/officials/organisers etc is that, in principle, that's little different from naming someone on a public forum which I think we all agree would be unwise - not least because there's always the possibility of someone's actions being found to be other than culpable.

[Chris Goodall]

it still makes sense to warn players/officials/organisers etc.

The problem with warning players/officials/organisers etc is that, in principle, that's little different from naming someone on a public forum which I think we all agree would be unwise - not least because there's always the possibility of someone's actions being found to be other than culpable.

We shouldn't have missing stairs in the chess community. It's unfair to shift all the liability for preventing harm onto the officials who happen to have inside knowledge. In 20 years' time, will we be thanking those people for the warnings they gave? Lolnope. Those are exactly the people we'll be accusing of "covering it up". Of knowing enough to warn other players/officials/organisers, and yet not doing anything because we all agreed it was unwise. We're experiencing in real time exactly the thought process everyone went through with Brian Eley in the 80s!

[John Upham]

Coincidentally, our film night (last night) chose Doubt with Philip Seymour Hoffman, Meryl Streep and Amy Adams.

[Roger Lancaster]

it still makes sense to warn players/officials/organisers etc.

The problem with warning players/officials/organisers etc is that, in principle, that's little different from naming someone on a public forum which I think we all agree would be unwise - not least because there's always the possibility of someone's actions being found to be other than culpable.

We shouldn't have missing stairs in the chess community. It's unfair to shift all the liability for preventing harm onto the officials who happen to have inside knowledge. In 20 years' time, will we be thanking those people for the warnings they gave? Lolnope. Those are exactly the people we'll be accusing of "covering it up". Of knowing enough to warn other players/officials/organisers, and yet not doing anything because we all agreed it was unwise. We're experiencing in real time exactly the thought process everyone went through with Brian Eley in the 80s!

Chris, in principle, the procedure isn't too different from that when dealing with (alleged) chess cheats. In the latter case, it's regarded as unacceptable that people should go around naming others and FIDE procedures are very clear that reports should be made only to them. Much the same - centralised reporting - should apply with (alleged) sex predators. Individual clubs with junior members (or, for that matter, vulnerable adults) should have their own safeguarding officers while the ECF safeguarding officer(s) is/are the lead safeguarding officers (to whom the local safeguarding officers should report their concerns) for chess.

The NSPCC website, in its 'Child Protection in Sport' unit, defines the role of a lead as "A lead safeguarding officer is the designated person within a sports organisation with primary responsibility for managing and reporting concerns about children and for putting into place procedures to safeguard children in the organisation, including supporting club, county and regional welfare officers, where relevant". That includes managing referrals, where the evidence warrants this, to Children's Social Services or the police, whichever is appropriate.

We've both drawn the comparison with Brian Eley where, many years later, there's criticism of how the ECF managed the matter. That may or may not be justified although it's clear that the matter was drawn to the attention of the police - look no further than Crimewatch - and the ECF can hardly be held responsible for the failure to extradite Eley from the Netherlands. But times have changed - both as regards attitudes (much of what might have been regarded as acceptable behaviour in the 1970s or 1980s is now off limits) and procedurally, by which I mean that the problem has since been recognised and procedures, such as the appointment of safeguarding officers, are now in place to try to deal with it.

It's something of a shame that the ECF safeguarding officers haven't commented (I assume the ECF permits this!) as it would be interesting to have their thoughts on the matter. Perhaps they will yet do so. This discussion suggests that there is some lack of clarity over their role.

[Thomas Rendle]

The Wall Street Journal follow-up will make uncomfortable reading for those at St. Louis Chess Club & U.S. Chess Federation:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/alejandro- ... s-622263b8

https://archive.is/H9Hv9 (de-paywalled)

[Chris Goodall]

Allegations didn't go unaddressed for years. Hearsay and innuendo went unaddressed for years. As soon as allegations were made in a way that would attract legal consequences for the person making them if they were lying, they were addressed within one day.

[Roger Lancaster]

Allegations didn't go unaddressed for years. Hearsay and innuendo went unaddressed for years. As soon as allegations were made in a way that would attract legal consequences for the person making them if they were lying, they were addressed within one day.

That's not entirely clear to me. The WSJ article includes "A lawyer for the St. Louis Chess Club wrote in a 2021 letter that it was aware of Ms. Shahade’s allegation in 2020. In 2021, the club and U.S. Chess were informed of allegations against Mr. Ramirez, including the abuse of a 15-year-old, according to interviews and documents reviewed by The Journal. Mr. Ramirez was nonetheless tapped to coach the U.S. women’s team at the World Chess Olympiad in Chennai, India in 2022".

We can't be sure that the allegations in 2020 and 2021 were not addressed at the time, because it's entirely possible that behind-the-scenes action was taken by USCF and/or St Louis Chess Club which - without proof - they didn't feel able to publicise. But it looks that way because any such action would almost certainly have included a decision, on whatever pretext was plausible, to avoid appointing Mr Ramirez as US women's team coach in 2022.

[NickFaulks]

Allegations didn't go unaddressed for years. Hearsay and innuendo went unaddressed for years. As soon as allegations were made in a way that would attract legal consequences for the person making them if they were lying, they were addressed within one day.

Oh, come on. I was about to rip this to shreds before noticing that Roger was ahead of me.

I'm always big on innocent until proven guilty, but appointing him as Women's coach as late as 2022 is beyond parody.

[Chris Goodall]

Nick, Nick, Nick. Your idea of politics is that you tell everyone what to do and they're either too overawed or too confused to question it.

a decision, on whatever pretext was plausible

USCF: "We have decided for administrative reasons not to re-engage Mr. Ramirez as coach of...
Ramirez: "Racists!"
USCF: "Excuse me?"
Ramirez: "This white supremacist country demonises Central American immigrants at every opportunity, our mere existence is seen as a threat to the purity of American women, and the USCF is notorious for how under-represented BIPOC people are compared to those of White European descent. This is obviously racism."
USCF: "It has nothing to do with race."
Ramirez: "What's the real reason then?"
USCF: "........ we can't say."
US Women's Team: "Justice4Alejandro!"
USCF: "You can't be serious?!?"
US Women's Team: "We know exactly what Alejandro is like, we're well used to working around him. But if we're ever going to get our stories believed, we can't be seen to have any personal grudges against the guy, especially not over his race."
USCF: "You know it's not about race, though."
US Women's Team: "The public don't. Make a statement giving the real reason."
USCF: "......... we can't."

[Roger Lancaster]

I don't wish to seem discourteous but the above post is nonsense. There's a very common situation, where someone is suspected of doing wrong but there's no proof, of people necessarily taking steps to minimise the risk in future. If, for example, an employee is suspected of being a thief then it's prudent for his or her managers to arrange things so that the employee in question doesn't have easy access to the petty cash box. Management aren't going to state their reasons because, without proof, they'd quickly find themselves in a difficult situation. Instead, they'll just find other reasons for arranging matters so there's no easy access.

Closer to home, if someone is suspected of being a computer cheat, the organisers or arbiters at the next event he or she enters will (or should!) pay more attention to the suspect than to the average competitor, with the object - through close observation - of minimising the opportunities for cheating. Again, with no proof, this should be done discreetly. Or if, as in the present case, a chess coach is suspected of being a risk to women and girls, then the organisation involved should make every effort to minimise this risk. I'm not aware of the terms of Mr Ramirez's employment and so can't be specific over the appropriate mechanics in his case but one possibility might have been to switch his coaching duties away from women and girls and 'discover' that his talents were more usefully employed coaching men and boys.

[Chris Goodall]

All your examples rely on the miscreant being a) basically powerless and b) accused of something that you're competent to rule on. Not being a public figure, not having a lawyer, not being a popular content creator, not having their own army of supporters, not having a neatly packaged narrative of their own that they can put out there and challenge you to gainsay (which you can't without breaking assorted confidences).

[Roger Lancaster]

All your examples rely on the miscreant being a) basically powerless and b) accused of something that you're competent to rule on. Not being a public figure, not having a lawyer, not being a popular content creator, not having their own army of supporters, not having a neatly packaged narrative of their own that they can put out there and challenge you to gainsay (which you can't without breaking assorted confidences).

Chris, let's take my third example as being most relevant here and put you in the position of being the (alleged) miscreant. You're told, "Chris, you've done a brilliant job with the women and girls. So much so that we'd like you to take on the more challenging post of coaching the men - that would also fit in well with our policy of rotating coaches so that none stagnate in the same old role". Powerless or not, are you seriously going to kick and scream about being moved when you can work out for yourself that this proposal has probably been made with the prior knowledge and approval of some of your female students? In any tribunal or whatever, do you really want young women saying that are 'uncomfortable' or worse with you?

[Chris Goodall]

Of course I'm not going to kick and scream about being promoted from US Women's Team coach to US Men's Team coach, but that's a long way from your initial bid of "find some pretext to get rid of him". (I note that Ramirez's lawyer HAS in fact kicked and screamed despite the allegations now being in the public domain.)

[Roger de Coverly]

but that's a long way from your initial bid of "find some pretext to get rid of him".

In a manner of speaking that's what the BCF/Anderton did with Eley. They used the pretext of the Glorney incidents not to appoint him to any BCF coaching or team management roles. That didn't stop his appointments at local and regional levels.

[Chris Goodall]

In a manner of speaking that's what the BCF/Anderton did with Eley.

And a fat lot of good that did the BCF/Anderton in the court of public opinion. All it did was confirm, to those with 40 years of hindsight, that they knew enough to have "done something". Like when a bishop moves a priest to another parish, usually at the suggestion of the old parish, as a compromise when allegations can't be proven but the old parish won't have him back.