Chess politics - Drug Testing Petition

Author

Drug Testing Petition

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-10-26, 2:31 am

Here is a model drug-testing petition. Please circulate it locally and
send it to the President of the USCF and the other members of the EB.
Collect signatures with the pledge of honor by the signatories either
not to purchase or to reconsider purchasing USCF memberships and books
and equipment until the Federation takes a forthright stand against
drug testing.

Please note: the petition is a model. If portions of it appear
inadequate to you, then feel free to make suggestions to me or simply
to rewrite it when having your friends sign on. The key here is not
that we all agree on every single reason for opposing drug testing but
that we pledge to withhold financial support of the Federation until it
ceases de facto support of drug testing -- in violation of its own
Delegate mandate.

At the moment, the American member on the FIDE Medical Commission, Tim
Redman, is pro-drug testing. In the past, our FIDE team, which is under
Delegate direction to campaign against drug testing in any chess match
or tournament, actually promoted a resolution limiting drug testing to
Olympic requirements. Which, in effect, permits drug testing any time,
any place for any reason, stated or unstated. It accepts the
presumption of guilt until the accused proves his innocence.

YOU can make a difference here. Most people who sign on their honor a
petition will truly think twice about supporting the USCF with money.
Here, then, is the petition.

Yours, Larry Parr

PETITION TO PREVENT DRUG TESTING IN U. S. CHESS

"FIDE has made its decision, and players who do not accept drug
testing will not be
able to play chess." - Dr. Stephen Press, founding vice-chairman of
FIDE's Medical Commission

"Recently FIDE announced its doping regulations in a truly horrifying
document. The humiliations players will have to suffer are sketched
in gory detail. Exclusion from all events for life and fines up to a
million
dollars are threatened. It almost made me cry, for I realize that from
now on no
kindred soul, no young intellectual with any self-respect will ever
contemplate
a career as a professional chessplayer." - Dutch GM Hans Ree

We, the undersigned current and former U. S. Chess Federation (USCF)
members, HEREBY PLEDGE on our honor either to discontinue or to
carefully reconsider purchasing USCF memberships or books and equipment
until the Federation publicly rejects all mandatory drug testing in
chess.

We call on, first, the Executive Board and then the Board of Delegates
to take these steps: 1. Pass formal motions that there will be no
mandatory drug testing in any USCF tournament; 2. Pass formal motions
rejecting FIDE's drug code AS APPLICABLE TO THE USCF and stating that
the USCF will enforce no drug code sanctions on any player; and 3. Pass
formal motions to campaign actively in FIDE to cease all chess drug
testing and to abolish its drug code and medical commission. For these
reasons:

1. Drug testing violates privacy. Our medical files are no business of
chess officials.

2. Drug testing in chess is a "solution" without a problem.
Millions of games have been played without a single complaint that
drugs influenced the outcome.

3. No study exists showing that any of the over 100 banned IOC
substances, including too much coffee, can raise anyone's chess
rating.

4. Both the IOC and the USOC have rejected chess as a sport in the
Olympic Games, the stated reason for drug testing. Yet FIDE's drug
code permits testing in all tournaments, including low-level, non-FIDE
Swiss, speed and scholastic events. FIDE officials can observe the
private parts and functions of young children.

5. Many grandmasters state that FIDE's drug code attempts to control
players via Draconian penalties. No proof of violation is necessary.
Under the code: "Intentional doping can be proved by any means
whatsoever, including presumption." One may be "presumed" guilty.

6. For those with medical problems, FIDE states, "Documentary
evidence provided, should include AT A MINIMUM [emphasis added],
records of tests taken, affidavits from prescribing physicians,
consultants' reports, etc." Heavy medical bills and intrusive drug
testing will kill chess promotion in the United States.

drmacarena@dr.com

2005-10-26, 2:31 am

Why don't you ask Dato Tan to run for the position of FIDE President?

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-10-26, 2:31 am

<Why don't you ask Dato Tan to run for the position of FIDE President?>

I can't speak on Dato's behalf. It is, however,
a matter of public record that he was approached by
ALL factions to run for FIDE president several years
ago and refused. Age and other responsibilities were cited.

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-10-26, 2:31 am

REACTION OF THE OLD GUARD

<No decent USCF supporter should consider signing such a misguided and
damaging petition. We certainly will NOT circulate it locally.> -- Eric
"FIDE all the way" Johnson

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-10-26, 2:31 am

YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE

Eric "FIDE All the Way" Johnson, who described
himself exactly as quoted, opposes the petition
against drug testing in chess. Good. We are doing
something right.

We have already received expressions of support.
More will be coming.

The point I would like to make to many of you is
this: you have a chance TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE in a
small corner of the American landscape in favor of
privacy and social freedom. You may be powerless in
the wider realm of human events, but in this corner of
the world, which is our world of chess, you can make a
difference.

The politicians running the Federation may
appear all-powerful in USCF terms right now as they
totally stonewall inquiries from both members and,
yes, non-members. But they are not all-powerful.

The politicians may not understand the language
of right and wrong, of assaults on personal privacy,
of basic social freedom, BUT they do understand the
language of financial force majeure.

One would have wished to communicate with them
in a different language, but years have passed, and
they still cannot make a break with forced
drug testing -- namely, passing formal motions which,
among other things, state that FIDE's drug regulations
will not only NOT be enforced by the USCF but are
considered by the Federation to be inapplicable to the
USCF. The declaration must be clear, simply expressed
and public.

If you help out and contact friends and
circulate petitions at tournaments seeking that PLEDGE
of personal HONOR either not to purchase USCF
memberships and books and equipment or to reconsider
seriously making such purchases, the politicians will
eventually understand this language.

It is unfortunate that we do not yet have a
political class in the USCF that understands another
language.

Tom Klem

2005-10-26, 5:31 am

<parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1130307453.882069.159580@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

quote:

> YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE

quote:

> ,,, You may be powerless in
> the wider realm of human events, but in this corner of
> the world, which is our world of chess, you can make a
> difference.

Larry,

As a trial balloon, you might be right in circulating this petition at this
time. Afterall, it will give you some indication of where, who and how many
supporters are out there.

Smart move. Yea! on circulating the petition. Nay on signing the petition.

Drugs have pretty much killed Chess as an intellectual pursuit, in my
opinion (oft stated here). Privacy is a frequent flyer when people are
discussing the US Constitution. Were you aware that the "right" to privacy
is a completely manufactured idea stemming from law cases back in the
sixties? Griswold, Eisenstadt, Roe v Wade, etc. vs so and so.

It is true that the fourth amendment guarantees you the right to security in
your correspondence, documents, and so on, in your home; which is to say, no
one can seize your private papers without probable cause, an affirmation
(usually by law enforcement) and a warrant (some exceptions in the P.A.)

And, when you are involved in a competitive game, your opponent has the
right to be.assured that he has a level playing field, and not some Ritalin
enhanced zombie sitting across from him at the board.

I do like your thinking. Just remember the ballot box. And by the way,
remember this: You can't be just a little bit pregnant. If you support Bill
Goichberg's slate, but not him, you are on a fool's errand indeed.

Regards,
Tom Klem

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-10-26, 7:37 pm

A FOOL'S ERRAND

<I can't think of a better way to drive people away from chess than
drug testing.> -- GM Larry Evans

quote:

>And, when you are involved in a competitive game, your opponent has the right to be.assured that he has a level playing field, and not some Ritalin enhanced zombie sitting across from him at the board....I do like your thinking. Just remember the ballot

box. And by the way, remember this: You can't be just a little bit pregnant. If you support Bill Goichberg's slate, but not him, you are on a fool's errand indeed.> -- Tom Klem

Dear Tom,

I'm sorry you won't sign the petition, but that
is not a great surprise.

I think you are creating a constitutional issue
where none exists. Certainly, I made no such argument
and, as you appear to have forgotten, explicitly
rejected the entire red herring in earlier debates.

The USCF or FIDE violate no one's rights when
setting rules for competitition in their events. I do
NOT assert that any political rights are being
violated by private drug testing.

Repeatedly, I used the phrase "social freedom,"
deliberately attempting to avoid discourse on
"rights." I spoke of privacy not as a condition of
constitutional right but as a condition within society
or, quite simply, as a description of the way we live.

Just as the USCF and FIDE violate no rights when
either acquiescing in or promoting drug testing, so
those of us opposed to yet another curb on the private
side of our lives, have a perfect right to put plenty
of heat on these organizations -- in this instance,
though, the USCF.

There are two battles going on within America:
the political battle against overweening government
prying into our lives (violations, in many cases, of
the 4th Amendment and in nearly every case, the 10th
Amendment) and the social battle against private
companies and institutions, often taking a cue from or
acting on a legal requirement of government, seeking
ever large amounts of information about the private
lives of their employees and customers.

It is a branch of the latter battle that is being
fought over drug testing in chess. We oppose social
snooping, not because it violates our political rights
(which it does not) but because it represents yet
another attack on the overall free life in what used
to be a free republic.

You would use Ritalin as the reason for
acquiescing or, you hint, actually supporting the
creation of a bureaucracy in chess to hunt down those
who use a drug that has not been shown to improve
chess results. You see an unproven rating-enhancement
as sufficient reason to circumscribe yet more closely another
area of behavior in social life.

I think you are offering an excuse for giving
away another area of social freedom.

There are some such as our Eric Johnson and, I
believe, Tim Redman who are enemies of the free life
as a concept. They don't like it. I had not thought
you such, and I hope your position is an aberration in
a political position that is otherwise friendly to freedom.

Genesis Infinity

2005-10-26, 7:37 pm

-> parrthenon@cs.com said:

quote:

>
>Here is a model drug-testing petition. Please circulate it locally and
>send it to the President of the USCF and the other members of the EB.
>Collect signatures with the pledge of honor by the signatories either
>not to purchase or to reconsider purchasing USCF memberships and books
>and equipment until the Federation takes a forthright stand against
>drug testing.

Why would you be against drug testing unless you are an abuser?

"Privacy concerns"? Bwwhaha..

yeah right.

--
Genesis Infinity - ajc415x at newsguy.com (remove the "x" to email)

The content of this message is for information purposes only and should not be
construed as professional advice or opinion on any specific facts or
circumstances. Do not act upon this information without seeking medical counsel.

2005-10-26, 7:37 pm

"Why would you be against drug testing unless you are an abuser?"

Another predictable and stupid argument.

Why would you be in favor of gay rights unless you were gay?

Genesis Infinity

2005-10-26, 7:37 pm

-> jr said:

quote:

>
>"Why would you be against drug testing unless you are an abuser?"
>
>Another predictable and stupid argument.
>
>Why would you be in favor of gay rights unless you were gay?

Admirable attempt at wordsmanship, but not even remotely the same thing.

Retooling (no pun intended) your argument to read, "Why would you care if the
USCF banned gays from tournament play unless you were gay," and you might be a
bit closer.

--
Genesis Infinity - ajc415x at newsguy.com (remove the "x" to email)

The content of this message is for information purposes only and should not be
construed as professional advice or opinion on any specific facts or
circumstances. Do not act upon this information without seeking medical counsel.

Taylor Kingston

2005-10-26, 7:37 pm

jr wrote:

quote:

> "Why would you be against drug testing unless you are an abuser?"
> Another predictable and stupid argument.
> Why would you be in favor of gay rights unless you were gay?

Perhaps the first reasonable post I've seen from "jr". Any number of
similar responses come to mind:

Why would you support civil rights unless you were black?
Why would you oppose anti-Semitism unless you were a Jew?
Why would you be anti-war unless you were a coward?
Only people who have something to hide support the right to privacy.
Why would you support "presumption of innocence" unless you were a
criminal?
Why would you oppose water pollution unless you were a fish?

Chess One

2005-10-26, 7:37 pm

"jr" <julrem7@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1130338035.490185.223860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

quote:

> "Why would you be against drug testing unless you are an abuser?"
>
> Another predictable and stupid argument.
>
> Why would you be in favor of gay rights unless you were gay?

why would you be interested in civil rights unless you didn't favor the
little corporal sort of society?

larry parr's message is sure provoking as much response as mine - after all,
if you say to some subject 'so what?' the result is that if no one cares,
rascals will take over - because there are many rascals who like to get a
little bit of control over you anyway they can

the difference between the little corporal and the big one is only in
extent, not in kind

phil innes

Genesis Infinity

2005-10-26, 7:37 pm

-> Taylor Kingston said:

quote:

>
> Why would you support civil rights unless you were black?
> Why would you oppose anti-Semitism unless you were a Jew?
> Why would you be anti-war unless you were a coward?
> Only people who have something to hide support the right to privacy.
> Why would you support "presumption of innocence" unless you were a
>criminal?
> Why would you oppose water pollution unless you were a fish?
>

Those examples have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

We're not talking about civil rights, anti-Semitism, etc. And even though the
subtly of the point is not lost, it is misguided.

The following fact pattern may simplfy it.

0. The USCF/FIDE are not governmental agencies.
1. The USCF/FIDE are not bound by the same constitutional restrictions that
governmental agencies are.
2. The USCF/FIDE prohibiting drug use is well within their rights.
3. Enforcement of the drug prohibition is achieved through drug testing.
4. No one is forcing you to play in USCF/FIDE tournaments.
5. You are not forced to be drug tested by the USCF/FIDE.

If you don't approve of the drug testing policy, don't play in the tournaments.

That's all very well, you'll say. You're not questioning the legality of the
drug testing, at least I don't think you are.

You're saying that, on principle, the USCF/FIDE should not drug test because you
perceive it as an invasion of your privacy.

And my point is that companies should have the right of self-governance. If
you don't approve, then its your right to attempt to have the policies changed.

But the root of the matter is this: who has the right to tell USCF/FIDE how to
run their business? Their officers or you?

--
Genesis Infinity - ajc415x at newsguy.com (remove the "x" to email)

The content of this message is for information purposes only and should not be
construed as professional advice or opinion on any specific facts or
circumstances. Do not act upon this information without seeking medical counsel.

Tom Klem

2005-10-26, 7:37 pm

Larry,

It is not unbridled freedom that I object to. I simply wish to be spared
more predations by utopians. The very same drug and coffee laden (refuges
from Vienna coffee houses late 19th century).

I do not believe that mankind is either capable of, nor designed to, rule
himself. Freedom, as expressed by many in today's world sounds ominously to
me, like Satan's pitch to Eve at Genesis 3:4,5 and in general the entire
theme around which this conversation takes place when Satan says to Eve,
"[satan] said to the woman: "YOU positively will not die. 5 For God knows
that in the very day of YOUR eating from [the forbidden fruit] YOUR eyes are
bound to be opened and YOU are bound to be like God, KNOWING good and bad."

There is always someone promising, if we just disobey this or that authority
(no matter how it may appear to us at the moment in question), we will be
enlightened, or we will be enobled or we will become rich, or blah blah
blah. God save us from the Utopians.

Signing a petition against drug testing will neither enhance, nor abridge
the freedoms which I enjoy currently today. I am loathe to point out that a
lot of blood has passed into the ground, keeping the illusory idea of total
unbridled freedom alive. One wonders, for example, if World War II soldiers
(promoted now as the 'greatest' generation because of their sacrifice in
blood) had known what the United States would look like politically and
culturally in the year 2005 would have learned German and diserted en masse.

As to the comment that I am raising the penumbra of constitutional due
process over an issue which you are not. Words have meaning. If you use
words which today have a common usage, that they will not tomorrow, well the
only thing one could conclude from such a thing is that the entire argument
was silly in the first place, lacking the weight of continuity and relevance
necessary to remain after the writer's disappearance from the Earth.

The Utopian dream of social freedom, in my opinion, will never be realised.
We have had six thousand years of recorded human history to demonstrate that
we could actually do it, but as a species we have failed miserably. This is
due to exceeding design limits.

None of us are perfect. That's for sure. The temptation to use performance
enhancing drugs is overpowering to most. So, when I sit down in a big money
tournament, or one where the very prestige of my long years of study and
dedication to the sport are on the line, I want to know that the governing
body of my sport respects that effort and dedication enough to provide a
level playing field, guaranteed free from such drugs.

Cordially,
Tom Klem

<parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1130331129.598931.270550@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

quote:

> A FOOL'S ERRAND
>
> <I can't think of a better way to drive people away from chess than
> drug testing.> -- GM Larry Evans
>
right to be.assured that he has a level playing field, and not some Ritalin
enhanced zombie sitting across from him at the board....I do like your
thinking. Just remember the ballot box. And by the way, remember this: You
can't be just a little bit pregnant. If you support Bill Goichberg's slate,
but not him, you are on a fool's errand indeed.> -- Tom Klem[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Dear Tom,
>
> I'm sorry you won't sign the petition, but that
> is not a great surprise.
>
> I think you are creating a constitutional issue
> where none exists. Certainly, I made no such argument
> and, as you appear to have forgotten, explicitly
> rejected the entire red herring in earlier debates.
>
> The USCF or FIDE violate no one's rights when
> setting rules for competitition in their events. I do
> NOT assert that any political rights are being
> violated by private drug testing.
>
> Repeatedly, I used the phrase "social freedom,"
> deliberately attempting to avoid discourse on
> "rights." I spoke of privacy not as a condition of
> constitutional right but as a condition within society
> or, quite simply, as a description of the way we live.
>
> Just as the USCF and FIDE violate no rights when
> either acquiescing in or promoting drug testing, so
> those of us opposed to yet another curb on the private
> side of our lives, have a perfect right to put plenty
> of heat on these organizations -- in this instance,
> though, the USCF.
>
> There are two battles going on within America:
> the political battle against overweening government
> prying into our lives (violations, in many cases, of
> the 4th Amendment and in nearly every case, the 10th
> Amendment) and the social battle against private
> companies and institutions, often taking a cue from or
> acting on a legal requirement of government, seeking
> ever large amounts of information about the private
> lives of their employees and customers.
>
> It is a branch of the latter battle that is being
> fought over drug testing in chess. We oppose social
> snooping, not because it violates our political rights
> (which it does not) but because it represents yet
> another attack on the overall free life in what used
> to be a free republic.
>
> You would use Ritalin as the reason for
> acquiescing or, you hint, actually supporting the
> creation of a bureaucracy in chess to hunt down those
> who use a drug that has not been shown to improve
> chess results. You see an unproven rating-enhancement
> as sufficient reason to circumscribe yet more closely another
> area of behavior in social life.
>
> I think you are offering an excuse for giving
> away another area of social freedom.
>
> There are some such as our Eric Johnson and, I
> believe, Tim Redman who are enemies of the free life
> as a concept. They don't like it. I had not thought
> you such, and I hope your position is an aberration in
> a political position that is otherwise friendly to freedom.
>

Taylor Kingston

2005-10-26, 7:37 pm

Genesis Infinity wrote:

quote:

> -> Taylor Kingston said:
>
> Those examples have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Actually, they are very much equivalent to the argument you advanced,
i.e. "Why would anyone oppose drug testing unless he were a drug
abuser?". Your argument strikes me as an attempt to smear anyone taking
a principled stance against drug testing.

quote:

> But the root of the matter is this: who has the right to tell USCF/FIDE how to
> run their business? Their officers or you?

Since both organizations are chartered (at least in theory) as
democratic institutions answerable to their voting members, that right
ultimately lies with those members. In the USCF's case, since the
adoption of one-man-one-vote, the voters are its dues-paying individual
members. Therefore the right lies with them, and the petition process
is a completely appropriate way for them to tell USCF's officers how
they feel.

Chess One

2005-10-26, 7:37 pm

"Genesis Infinity" </dev/null@no-spam-for-joo.org> wrote in message
news:djof0l017dm@drn.newsguy.com...

quote:

> You're saying that, on principle, the USCF/FIDE should not drug test
> because you
> perceive it as an invasion of your privacy.
>
> And my point is that companies should have the right of self-governance.

Really, while I understand your point, I thought the Constitution gave
rights to individual people, not companies?

Where are the rights of individual people represented? Are we not innocent
until proven guilty - and is there not need to have cause in any
investigation?

quote:

> If
> you don't approve, then its your right to attempt to have the policies
> changed.

Yes!

quote:

> But the root of the matter is this: who has the right to tell USCF/FIDE
> how to
> run their business? Their officers or you?

The root of the matter is whose game it is? The players or their [apparently
indifferent] chess politicians.

Phil Innes

quote:

> --
> Genesis Infinity - ajc415x at newsguy.com (remove the "x" to email)
>
> The content of this message is for information purposes only and should
> not be
> construed as professional advice or opinion on any specific facts or
> circumstances. Do not act upon this information without seeking medical
> counsel.

Mike Murray

2005-10-26, 7:37 pm

On 26 Oct 2005 11:30:52 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
<tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote:

quote:

>Genesis Infinity wrote:

quote:

[vbcol=seagreen]
> Since both organizations are chartered (at least in theory) as
>democratic institutions answerable to their voting members, that right
>ultimately lies with those members. In the USCF's case, since the
>adoption of one-man-one-vote, the voters are its dues-paying individual
>members. Therefore the right lies with them, and the petition process
>is a completely appropriate way for them to tell USCF's officers how
>they feel.

Well put.

Now, how well does this answer map to questions about which
items/authors/publishers to exclude from the USCF catalog?

Taylor Kingston

2005-10-26, 7:37 pm

Mike Murray wrote:

quote:

> On 26 Oct 2005 11:30:52 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
> <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Well put.
> Now, how well does this answer map to questions about which
> items/authors/publishers to exclude from the USCF catalog?

I'm not sure I understand the question. What I said relates to USCF
governance; it has no bearing on what to put in the catalog.

Shaun Press

2005-10-26, 11:32 pm

Genesis Infinity wrote:

quote:

> -> parrthenon@cs.com said:
>
>
>
>
> Why would you be against drug testing unless you are an abuser?
>
> "Privacy concerns"? Bwwhaha..
>
> yeah right.
>
>

With the implication that anyone who refuses a drug test MUST be a drug
user.
I know of at least one person who isn't.