| Vince Hart 2005-01-29, 5:46 pm |
| Kevin Bachler wrote:
quote:
> "Vince Hart" <VinnyJH@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1106871067.274238.280630@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
fraud[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
would[vbcol=seagreen]
been[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Again, you leap to a lot of conclusions.
>
> Is the gap in YOUR knowledge, an unofficial spectator of the
situation, a
quote:
> reason to risk reputations on the Internet, or is it a reason to sit
down
quote:
> and have a conversation with someone when they offer, so that you can
get
quote:
> more information?
>
> Which makes more sense - to destroy reputations on the Internet, or
to
quote:
> withhold the names of those raising the questions to begin with?
I have asked you many questions about this matter Kevin and I have
communicated with you extensively. I have avoided those issues where
you claimed to be bound to secrecy. I have relied on e-mail
communication in order to avoid learning anything about which you
asserted an obligation to maintain confidentiality. The questions I
am raising here are only those questions that you were willing to
discuss by e-mail.
I believe that every USCF member has a legitimate interest in the
integrity of the ratings system. I believe that every ICA member has a
legitimate interest in the integrity of its events and programs. I
understand that public discussion of these matters causes you
discomfort Kevin, but I think that it is vitally important air these
kinds of questions. I believe that the possibility of exposure is as
likely to induce ethical behavior from other members in the future as
is the threat of a formal ethics complaint.
It has not been my intent to mislead with respect to your term as
President of the ICA. You were not President in 1999 when the bogus
tournaments were submitted. You were not ICA President when your son
accepted an invitation to the 2000 US Masters, an invitation that most
likely would not have been extended your son's rating not been
inflated by the bogus tournaments. You were not ICA President when
your son accepted an invitation to the 2000 Denker qualifier.
You became ICA President in January of 2001. You were president when
your son participated in the 2001 Denker qualifier. It is this
tournament where an uniflated rating might have made your son the
lowest rated player in the field raising the possibility that a more
deserving player was denied a spot. It is with respect to this event
that I believe you had an obligation as ICA President to inform the
rest of the board and the ICA Denker committee of the existence of this
possibility so those bodies could decide the fairness of inviting your
son.
I believe that any USCF member has a legitimate interest in knowing why
corrections were not made to your rating and your title after you
reported these bogus tournaments in 1999. You have said that you
discussed these matters with officials at the USCF and that they
examined the effects of the bogus tournaments and that they decided
which ratings should be corrected and which ratings should be left to
self-correct. You have said that they decided that your son's rating
should be allowed to self-correct. Did they also say that your Life
Master title and 2200 floor should be allowed to self correct?
I am also wondering whether you shared your opinions about the wisdom
of letting a scholastic player's rating self-correct after it has
been inflated by illegitimate events. Did you share any of the
opinions you had previously or contemporaneously expressed about Stan
Vaughan's activities in Nevada? Here is what you said about that
topic on September 8, 1999:
"Ratings are a major factor in the determination of invitations to
special events, chess scholarships, etc. Therefore, this becomes a
major factor in what is rights (sic), since it can (and does) affect a
number of other children and their coaches."
"It's also the business of USCF, which governs the rating system, and
of other players and parents, and coaches. Their rights must be
protected as well. USCF has an obligation to its members to ensure the
integrity of the rating system."
"If Candice's rating was significantly above her strength as a result
of these games, then her rating was manipulated, whether or not it was
intentional."
"And in the meantime, what should we tell students who work hard but
don't receive a tournament invitation because we've allowed this type
of situation to go unchecked. Shall we say "Sorry, but over time her
rating will get corrected?"
Tell me Kevin, did you share any of these opinions with USCF officials
when your rating and your son's rating were at issue? If so, what
was the response of those officials?
Vince Hart
|