Accusation against Alejandro Ramirez

[Kevin Thurlow]

"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."

In that case, they had received many complaints before appointing him to the Glorney role.

[Roger Lancaster]

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.)

Would you mind pointing out where I used the phrase you have attributed to me ?

And, while I think of it, where does "promoted"' come from - I merely used the words "more challenging" ?

[NickFaulks]

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.

Thanks, I shall bear that in mind. Not sure what it has to do with this discussion, though. Politics?

[Chris Goodall]

Okay, can we clarify whether we're talking about:
Moving Ramirez to a less desirable role, or in common parlance, getting rid of him, or
Moving Ramirez to a more desirable role, or in common parlance, promoting him?
We seem to be hovering awkwardly between the two.

[Roger Lancaster]

Okay, can we clarify whether we're talking about:
Moving Ramirez to a less desirable role, or in common parlance, getting rid of him, or
Moving Ramirez to a more desirable role, or in common parlance, promoting him?
We seem to be hovering awkwardly between the two.

Perhaps you would first care to answer my post a little earlier where I suggested you were, for whatever reason, misquoting and misrepresenting me.

[Chris Goodall]

Perhaps you would first care to answer my post a little earlier where I suggested you were, for whatever reason, misquoting and misrepresenting me.

Yes, I am trying to understand the distinction between

a decision, on whatever pretext was plausible, to avoid appointing Mr Ramirez as US women's team coach in 2022.

and

"find some pretext to get rid of him"

because if I don't then I'm probably going to carry on misrepresenting you, and that's not what you want. If you like I can edit out the offending quotation marks, which as you rightly point out are indicating where I'm talking about what you said, but not quoting it.

[Roger Lancaster]

Okay, can we clarify whether we're talking about:
Moving Ramirez to a less desirable role, or in common parlance, getting rid of him, or
Moving Ramirez to a more desirable role, or in common parlance, promoting him?
We seem to be hovering awkwardly between the two.

Perhaps you would first care to answer my post a little earlier where I suggested you were, for whatever reason, misquoting and misrepresenting me.

The immediate issue of how to mitigate any future Ramirez-related risk seems to have been resolved as I understand he has resigned from St Louis. How any past issues should be handled is another matter and, without full information, I'm unwilling to comment on his specific case.

As to the substantive question as to what action should be contemplated in a similar case, there isn't a single simple answer. Although the legal situation may be identical if no-one is prepared to give evidence before a court or tribunal, in real life there's a world of difference between a situation where there are just one or two verbal complaints (when it's open to the accused to respond that these were motivated by malice or were the result of misunderstandings) as opposed to the situation where complaints are numerous and a similar response would be barely credible. I earlier gave just one possible answer to the problem.

To clarify the aforesaid answer, "Moving Ramirez to a less desirable role, or in common parlance, getting rid of him" (Chris's words) without being able to produce evidence to a court/tribunal is likely to amount to unfair or constructive dismissal, or counterpart in non-UK jurisdictions, and to be costly - both financially and reputationally. "Moving Ramirez to a more desirable role, or in common parlance, promoting him" (Chris again) is clearly undesirable as it risks rewarding misbehaviour. What I've been talking about is risk management through a sideways move to a position where the alleged past actions are, through lack of opportunity, unlikely to be repeated in future. That opens up time to analyse what happened in the past.

[Roger Lancaster]

One small point of detail. Unless Ramirez already had a firm undertaking that he would be appointed US women's team coach in 2022, failure to appoint him would not be equivalent, under any legislation of which I'm aware, to firing him.

[Joey Stewart]

One other point of detail, we are talking about a chess "job" not the appointment of a CEO from a multitude of prospective qualified candidates. If the us chess is anything like the UK then most positions are filled grudgingly because nobody else wants to do them rather then a competitive process so he probably got the job by default.

[IM Jack Rudd]

While that may be the case for most chess jobs, Joey, "chess coach to an Olympiad team" is the sort of job that strong players compete to get. It shouldn't be too hard for the USCF to find a replacement for him.

Roger's point about the firing/failure to appoint distinction is a good one, and it also applies to Thomas's point about the guest lecturer - nobody has a reasonable expectation that they will be the guest lecturer for any specific club, so the club committee has free rein to invite or not invite any speakers it wants. Complaints of creepy or sketchy behaviour from an existing club member are a thornier issue, because there the member has the reasonable expectation that they will be allowed to turn up every club night.

[Roger Lancaster]

One other point of detail, we are talking about a chess "job" not the appointment of a CEO from a multitude of prospective qualified candidates. If the us chess is anything like the UK then most positions are filled grudgingly because nobody else wants to do them rather then a competitive process so he probably got the job by default.

Joey, most chess positions in the UK are unpaid. In the UK, and presumably also in the USA, paid coaching is another matter entirely. (While I was typing that sentence, Jack made much the same point).

[LawrenceCooper]

https://new.uschess.org/news/us-chess-s ... llegations

"Mr. Ramirez has had no meaningful engagement with US Chess since the allegations were made to US Chess in 2020. Third, Mr. Ramirez was selected as the coach of the 2022 Women’s Olympiad Team; however, as is standard practice for our Olympiad teams, that decision was made by the team independently of US Chess."

[NickFaulks]

"In 2020, when US Chess learned of allegations regarding Mr. Ramirez’s conduct in years prior, it stopped engaging Mr. Ramirez in any capacity where he would come into contact with minors."

That might have been a good moment for an investigation.

[Roger Lancaster]

One has to wonder, I suppose, if the allegations against Mr Ramirez were as widespread as we are led to believe, how did the 2022 USA Women's Olympiad team come to choose him as their coach? Did they decide they didn't believe the allegations or did they feel that Mr Ramirez was such a good coach that this overrode other factors?

[Paul Cooksey]

It's hard to imagine a more mealy-mouthed attempt to squirm out of taking responsibility. What is the ******* point of a governing body if it does not govern? Who in the USCF was aware of these allegations? If I was a USCF member I would be seeking answers