Parr & Evans on Dope Tests (1)
Parrthenon
THE CASE AGAINST DRUG-TESTING IN U. S. CHESS (part 1)
By Larry Parr and GM Larry Evans
"At the moment, I would have to freely admit that although there are drugs such
as caffeine, and nicotine (which is NOT at present illegal) which theoretically
COULD affect cognitive performance, we have NO real [as opposed to unreal?]
scientific proof that anything else can positively affect cognitive performance
and consequently, chess" – Dr. Stephen Press, vice-chairman of the FIDE
Medical Commission
"FIDE has made its decision, and players who do not accept it will not be able
to play chess."—Dr. Stephen Press, vice-chairman of the FIDE Medical
Commission
"FIDE must have total management and control of all activities related to
chess." – FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, in a memo to member nations
Screw reason. Screw privacy. Screw the USCF, if necessary.
Such are the imperatives of those few upper-rung chess politicians who are
laboring to impose drug-testing on American and other chess players and who are
so evidently smitten with Lucy-in-the-Sky-with-Diamonds dreams of becoming
Olympic quasi-diplomats consorting with the grand panjandrums of this world.
The decision about whether to support or to oppose drug-testing is not a
question to be resolved by specialists exchanging discrete bits of arcana.
This paper assumes that the decision is a political one, which must be grounded
in strong policy considerations about what best serves the interests of the
United States Chess Federation. This paper also assumes that the interests of
the USCF are generally congruent with the development of chess in the United
States.
Are USCF interests best served by accepting and promoting drug testing in
chess tournaments in the hope that chess will one day become not only an
Olympic event but that such status will result in tangible gains for the game
in American society? Or are USCF interests best served in making policy based
on reason, on respect for personal privacy and on a shrewd understanding of its
business interests, given the passionate and widespread opposition to drug
testing among its American chess customers of all strengths?
We answer the first question in the negative and the second in the
affirmative.
We hold that not only is there no demonstrable drug problem in chess,
there is not even a CLAIMED drug problem in chess. We hold that creating
bureaucracies to solve non-existent problems is an affront to reason and an
open door for predictable problems that will bedevil the USCF. We hold that
violations of privacy by third-rate, arrogant chess politicians without
grounding in mainstream refinements of behavior will end in lawsuits and
outrages that will drive Americans from chess. We hold that extending the
surveillance society and snoopism to chess with unaccountable FIDE officials
holding open the doors of toilet stalls and conducting numerous intrusive tests
is both immoral and an invitation to assorted forms of blackmail. We hold that
in this Internet age, the inevitable horror stories about drug-testing will
spread quickly to the USCF membership in spite of attempted news blackouts in
Chess Life. We hold that the USCF will suffer the loss of several thousand
financially beloved "regular" members once the bad news circulates
sufficiently. We hold that there is no benefit from drug testing posited by
even the most enthusiastic pro-surveillance chess politician that will justify
the entirely predictable consequences of player disaffection, of customer
dissatisfaction and of FIDE abuses. We hold that if drug snooping triumphs,
then one day a grandmaster will win the U. S. Championship over the board and
have his title revoked and be banned for years from international play because
he took a home cold remedy. We hold that a chess politician from a
much-diminished USCF, who owes his livelihood in some form to FIDE, will write
in 2020 to the 15,000 readers of Chess Life that the ban is "regrettable, but
inevitable if chess is ever to make it into the Olympics."
We hold, in the words of Ayn Rand, "Civilization is the progress toward a
society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the
laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."
We hold that Caissa’s precious realm has been historically amicable to
individuals leading free chess lives without a mammoth caste of bureaucrats and
that this freedom is more precious than the pipedream of chess reaching the
Olympic Games one of these many coming decades.
SCREW REASON
Let’s get one thing straight right off the bat, shall we?
There is no demonstrable drug problem in American chess. There is not
even a claimed drug problem in American chess. THERE IS NOT EVEN – as we
shall see – A CLAIM THAT THERE could BE A DRUG PROBLEM IN AMERICAN CHESS.
There is only a claim that IF there might be a drug that affects cognition,
then there COULD possibly be a drug problem in American chess.
We have a "could" conditioned on an "if." Wow!
Millions of games have been played in tens of thousands of tournaments
"From California to the New York Island,/From the redwood forests to the Gulf
Stream waters" – yes, yes, millions of games, and there has not been a single
complaint – even a bogus complaint – that someone won or drew a game
because drugs were ingested.
Millions of games. Not one complaint. Millions of games. Not one
complaint. Millions of games. Not one complaint.
Reasonable men will conclude that there is no problem.
Reasonable men will argue that catastrophes occur when solutions for
non-existent problems are forced upon unwilling players and USCF customers.
Reasonable men will conclude that human and financial resources should not be
lavished upon FIDE’s unaccountable Medical Commission – an international
bureaucracy that exists to create a problem rather than to unsolve a
non-existent problem. Reasonable men of prudent disposition will suspect that
the not-so-hidden FIDE agenda is to funnel political and financial perks to
appointees and to officials of national federations so as to corrupt further
the decision-making processes of these federations and to exert greater control
over players and tournament organizers. Reasonable men will conclude that a
vague promise of Olympic recognition is being used as a lever to open the doors
or our toilet stalls and the skin of our veins to a permanent FIDE medical
bureaucracy. Reasonable men will take note of FIDE’s proposal to rate
players down to 1000. Reasonable men will conclude that Kirsan Ilyumzhinov
means what he wrote, "FIDE must have total management and control of all
activities related to chess." Finally, reasonable men will conclude that FIDE
hopes one day to pose a mortal threat to USCF business interests.
In a memo to FIDE member nations, Ilyumzhinov added meat to the bones of
his dream of world chess control. He called for all tournaments being required
to receive prior approval from FIDE (defiant organizers would be blackballed),
all prize money flowing to a bank chosen by FIDE, establishing "Press
Commissars in all FIDE countries" (he wrote it, not us!), issuing a FIDE-VISA
credit card, and as mentioned, rating players starting at 1000 and having them
pay membership dues directly to FIDE to receive ratings.
To deny FIDE’s designs against the USCF and other national federations
is an affront to reason.
Dr. Stephen Press is – now get this pompous and ever-so-telling title
– "Director-General Commission of the Secretariat" of the FIDE Medical
Commission. Writes this would-be Schach-doc, "We have NO [his emphasis] real
scientific proof that anything else can positively affect cognitive performance
and consequently, chess."
Writes U. S. Zonal President Jim Eade in an e-mail response to GM Larry
Evans:
I do think it plausible to suggest that some people think amphetamines
[or a bottle of fresh orange juice] might enhance chess performance over the
short term. I think it plausible to suggest that people actually used them in
the highest levels of competition. I think it plausible to suggest that it is
reasonable to test for them so that nobody does that ever again.
Does what "ever again"? In the entire history of chess in these United
States, nobody has ever documented an instance of a single game won or drawn
because of drug use. And what if such a single instance actually existed,
would this micro-niggling difficulty justify the kinds of impositions and
inquisitions and prohibitions that will bedevil U. S. chess if we fail to
oppose drug-testing vigorously?
Notice the Zonal president’s statement, that he "thinks" it "plausible"
to "suggest" (though not insist) that "some people" might "think" that
amphetamines "might" enhance chess performance over the short term. What we
have here is an argument for a permanent FIDE medical bureaucracy on the basis
of what he thinks is a plausible suggestion about what others might think about
what might or might not be the case IF there were a drug that could affect
chess cognition positively. The really bee-you-tee-full bit of irony is that
there is not even a claim that drugs – developed or yet to be developed –
can affect chess cognition positively.
What we do not have is a demonstrated problem or even a claimed problem or
even a claim that there could be a problem. But, of course, we have a
solution.
"Drug testing in chess," writes Dutch GM Hans Ree, "is a perfect example
of officialdom drumming up a problem that did not exist before their
intervention." Wrong! The situation is still more absurd: officialdom is not
even claiming that there COULD be a problem. Only, rather, that there COULD be
a problem "IF" this and that were that or this.
Utterly astonishing. And, yes, an affront to reason.
The U. S. Zonal president writes, "Whether illegal substances or legal
ones enhance performance at chess is hardly the issue. The issue is abiding by
the rules of the IOC until such time as they can be modified to make more sense
in terms of chess competitions." TRANSLATION, with respect to Tennyson:
"Theirs not to reason why,/Theirs but to do and die."
Note the Zonal president’s phrase, "until such time." This may mean
never. Or a decade. Or two decades. But most probably never. Dr. Press, as
always, is candid in a grisly way, "We are at present still classified as a
sport, not separated as a mind sport, and that, i.e. the idea of presenting to
the IOC to create a separate category, is fraught with all sorts of potential
minefields for FIDE at the moment. It IS something being considered FOR THE
FUTURE [our emphasis]."
If chess were reclassified and if drug testing were disallowed, then there
would be no public justification for a permanent FIDE Medical Commission and
for handing business to the Schach-docs at a minimum of $300 a pop. At a
"minimum"? More anon about "minimum" requirements and undefined maximum
requirements.
We believe that our Zonal president was trying to peddle intellectual dope
about modifying the drug rules for chess at some unspecified point in the
future so that the chess community will permit the Schach-docs to get their
foot into our toilet doors now, today. Dr. Press tells us that there are "all
sort of potential minefields ... at the moment" and that any initiative must
wait "for the future."
To imagine that the Schach-docs and the non-medical bureaucrats at the
FIDE Medical Commission will try to become unemployed by convincing the IOC to
reclassify chess is, yes, another affront to reason.
What does Dr. Press mean when he writes that reclassifying chess as "a
mind sport" is "fraught with all sorts of potential minefields for FIDE"?
Could he possibly mean that basic vitamin supplements and herbal helpers such
as Gingko Biloba (thought to make Alzheimer’s less likely) would be outlawed?
Could he possibly be suggesting that substances that aid human health would be
proscribed and that chess players who wish to promote their health will face
lengthy playing bans? Could he possibly be implying that American chess
players will be told not to fortify themselves with health-giving substances if
they wish to fulfill whatever dreams they may have in chess? Could the
rationale behind drug-testing in a mind sport become this perversely subversive
of both human well-being and USCF financial health?
Oh, yes. Writes Dr. Press:
However, be aware that it [chess classified as a mind sport] will open
up the field of
drugs for which we have to test to then include nicotine, and may make
presently
[sic] legal substances like Ginko [sic] Biloba, commonly used by chess
players for an
advantage perceived by them, to first be studied, and if it actually
works, it may then
have to be first banned due to our new status, and consequent new banned
list ....
We have to carefully think if we are placing ourselves in a bigger
problem if we open
this can of worms.
The principle, as clearly framed by Dr. Press, is that if the functioning
of a brain is improved by a given substance and even if this substance is not
detrimental to health or even if it aids general health, it might be banned
according to the destructive logic behind the move to make chess an Olympic
sport.
Notice the reference to nicotine. Many smokers continue to play in USCF
tournaments even though they must leave the tournament room to smoke.
Drug-testing for nicotine will finally drive them from rated USCF play. One
doubts that many would bother to renew their membership in this age of Internet
chess news and play.
Banning health-giving substances and waging war against USCF customers is
NOT an affront to reason. It is the rape of reason.
One of the most insidious arguments used by drug-testing advocates is the
appeal to inevitability based on force majeure. "[W]e believe," writes someone
from the FIDE Medical Commission on FIDE’s web page, "that the governments of
the World will ultimately hold us to conform to these or similar rules at some
point in the near future anyway." Nonsense – at least in the United States
and many free Western countries. But the argument amounts to "Let’s do it
anyway because it is inevitable." This idea is allied with a certain
intellectual embarrassment that can also be found in a statement issued by the
FIDE Medical Commission and quite possibly written by Dr. Press:
<Please understand [a rhetorical plea for intellectual immunity] that this
Commission does not create the rules under which FIDE is required to perform
doping controls. That is the function of the World’s Sports Community, in
association will all the agency’s and under pressures caused by the problems
in our society today. The rules are the result of a collaboration of the UN,
the IOC, the WHO, the Council of Europe, the US Drug Czar’s Office, every
International Sports Federation, every National Olympic Committee, and
etc., etc., etc. In other words, society as a whole.<
TRANSLATION: We may not be able to defend our practices with reason, but
we can appeal to the argument that everybody’s doing it. As for "society as
a whole," the list given includes a bunch of government agencies and numerous
semi-governmental sports federations. Only a bureaucrat down to the warp and
woof of his soul would confound society with an alphabet soup of agencies.
In other words, another affront to reason.
SCREW PRIVACY
"1.5 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the FIDE Medical Commission
shall
have the right to request, without justifying the reason therefore,
that any
competitor undergo a doping control at any time during the relevant
competition."
-- From FIDE’s anti-doping disciplinary regulations
"1.1 The procedures which follow are those applicable to FIDE
Competitions. In
other competitions, as well as in out-of-competition testing, if the
FIDE Medical
Commission shall determine that out-of-competition testing shall be
introduced,
the same procedures shall apply, mutatis mutandis." – From
FIDE’s anti-doping
disciplinary regulations
"Anyone with a material condition requiring use of any prohibited
substance,
should contact the FIDE Medical Commission Secretariat office ASAP,
to obtain
a waiver from the IOC Medical Commission. Documentary evidence
provided,
should include AT A MINIMUM [our emphasis], records of tests taken,
affidavits
from prescribing physicians, consultants’ reports, etc." – From
the web page of
the FIDE Medical Commission, probably written by Dr. Press
Part of the soft-soap peddled by drug-testing advocates in the United
States is that intrusive knocks on the toilet door are meant only for those who
will compete in the Olympiad and that, in any event, there is no intention on
the part of the honorable men of FIDE – including the widely reputed killer
Kirsan Ilyumzhinov and the shadowy Armenian Artyom Tarasov – to abuse any
power by engaging in medical and financial blackmail of unruly players.
FIDE’s anti-doping regulations grant the FIDE Medical Commission the
power to test every single player at the U. S. Open, if it so decides. Section
or paragraph 1.1 is a blank check. Read it.
"The procedures which follow are those applicable to FIDE Competitions,"
1.1 begins. But, "In other [unspecified, undefined] competitions, as well as
in out-of-competition testing [a knock on your door at home], if the FIDE
Medical Commission shall determine that out-of competition testing shall be
introduced, the same procedures [more about the procedures in a moment] shall
apply." Moreover, the Commission need not provide any reason for demanding
testing at, say, the U. S. Open. "[T]he FIDE Medical Commission," states 1.5,
"shall have the right to request, without justifying the reason therefore, that
any competitor undergo a doping control at any time during the relevant
competition." Further, "without justifying the reason," the Commission may
require blood and urine tests "on more than one occasion during the
competition" (1.6).
An unfavored grandmaster may find himself tested at ruinous expense on
multiple occasions, including having blood drawn repeatedly during a tournament
if the Commission, "without justifying the reason therefore," so decides. An
unfavored organizer, given contracts with participating players, may have to
pay for an enormous number of drug tests at a minimum of $300 a pop.
In paragraph 1.1, we quoted the phrase "the same procedures" that could
apply to all national and local tournaments, if the FIDE Medical Commission so
decides "without justifying the reason." What do these procedures, which are
stated to be applicable to ALL FIDE events and which could be applicable to
non-FIDE events, encompass?
In paragraph 1.2, the FIDE Medical Commission will decide the number of
competitors to be subjected to doping control per day in each competition,
subject only to "available capacity of the laboratory." National federation
officials (who may or may not get a cut of the swag from medical testing) and
tournament organizers have no veto here. Their role is only one of
"co-operation" or facilitation.
In paragraph 1.3, the FIDE Medical Commission and a representative of the
national chess federation (who may or may not draw pay from the FIDE medicrats)
shall determine the number of competitors in each competition to be tested "in
accordance with the total number agreed upon under paragraph 1.2."
These regulations, as written, grant the FIDE Medical Commission
unlimited power to intervene in any tournament on earth – a power only
limited by available resources and the amount of resistance arrayed against
these regulations. These regulations permit any interference by the FIDE
Medical Commission on behalf of one national organizer against another national
organizer, allowing FIDE a foothold in political and business struggles within
national federations.
The above is the ANTI-SOFT SOAP analysis.
Against this hard soap analysis, we have assurances that none of the above
will happen because none of the above is meant to happen. Testing will only be
at the highest levels.
Which is why, of course, it has begun at one of the lowest of levels – a
world youth tournament in Argentina. As of this writing, we do not know
whether male FIDE officials violated the privacy of young girls. We do not
know whether children below the age of 16 were tested. What we DO know is that
parents and participants arrived in Argentina without any prior notification
that there would be drug testing – an example of the kind of wooden arrogance
that will eventually embroil the USCF in ruinous legal actions if we permit
drug-testing a toehold in the United States.
Still, we are told that children will be exempt.
Nonsense. The following addendum to FIDE’s anti-doping code provides
no guarantees of any kind: "d.- FIDE will NOT, for the time being, and subject
to IOC/WADA regulations, test competitors under 16 years of age." The phrase,
"for the time being," is clear enough.
Will one’s eight-year-old daughter have to undergo intrusive,
humiliating, perhaps psychologically damaging public urination, defecation or
emotionally grinding blood testing? The FIDE Medical Commission may so decide,
given its stated procedures, "without justifying the reason" if it shall also
decide that "for the time being" no longer applies.
The above is what the regulations say.
But are these regulations to be taken seriously? Or are they
window-dressing for the International Olympic Committee? The answer is that
the regulations will be taken as seriously as an unaccountable FIDE executive
headed by Kirsan Ilyumzhinov and an unaccountable FIDE Medical Commission, a
bureaucracy hungry to grow by increasing its "area of competence," to employ a
standard bureaucratic formula, wish them to be.
Logic, prudence and any reading of history leave no rational doubt that
the FIDE executive and its arms will wish to increase their "area of
competence" so as to extend their control over national federations and
rebellious players.
Certainly, FIDE’s public statements leave no room for doubt. "The
Board also resolved," reads one recent release, "to fully adopt the IOC Medical
Code as the only basis for the FIDE Anti-Doping Code with effect from 1 July
2001." We have already read that the procedures for implementation grant the
FIDE Medical Commission unlimited power to destroy the careers of professional
and amateur players – a power that need not even justify itself.
Another aspect of the IOC Medical Code is that Draconian punishments are
de rigeuer to ensure that athletes or, as FIDE would have it, grandmasters may
be smashed to professional smithereens if they refuse compliance. A key weapon
here is that "presumption" may substitute for proof. "Presumption" may, if the
FIDE Medical Commission so decides, end the career of any unwanted player.
Once again, let’s look at the regs.
Article 3 of FIDE’s anti-doping regulations covers penalties for both
unintentional and intentional violations. The penalties are – not so
surprisingly, if one understands bureaucratic logic – quite similar. The
penalty for a first, mayhap, unintentional offense ranges from a warning up to
"a fine of up to US $100,000." Given the limited economic wherewithal of our
chess world, a fine of 100Gs is, in effect, a career-ender. It is no
different than a formal lifetime time ban for intentional doping. A player
– perhaps an unwanted Karl Robatsch or a much-hated Miguel Quinteros – is
being told to find something else to do with his life.
In the event of a second, mayhap, unintentional or intentional offense, a
lifetime ban on chess competition may be levied. Dr. Stephen Press or a Casto
Abundo or another like him may, therefore, decide that a Yevgeny Sveshnikov of
Sicilian-Variation fame must leave chess. Just like that.
dsdsd
able
> Commission
>
>
> "FIDE must have total management and control of all activities related to
>
Scary
> FIDE's anti-doping
> disciplinary regulations
>
> "Anyone with a material condition requiring use of any prohibited
> substance,
> should contact the FIDE Medical Commission Secretariat office
ASAP,
> to obtain
> a waiver from the IOC Medical Commission. Documentary evidence
> provided,
> should include AT A MINIMUM [our emphasis], records of tests
taken,
> affidavits
> the web page of
> the FIDE Medical Commission, probably written by Dr. Press
>
>
> Part of the soft-soap peddled by drug-testing advocates in the United
> States is that intrusive knocks on the toilet door are meant only for
those who
> will compete in the Olympiad and that, in any event, there is no intention
on
killer
> Kirsan Ilyumzhinov and the shadowy Armenian Artyom Tarasov - to abuse any
> limited by available resources and the amount of resistance arrayed
against
> these regulations. These regulations permit any interference by the FIDE
> Medical Commission on behalf of one national organizer against another
national
> organizer, allowing FIDE a foothold in political and business struggles
within
> national federations.
>
> The above is the ANTI-SOFT SOAP analysis.
>
> Against this hard soap analysis, we have assurances that none of the
above
> will happen because none of the above is meant to happen. Testing will
only be
> at the highest levels.
>
> Which is why, of course, it has begun at one of the lowest of
> world youth tournament in Argentina. As of this writing, we do not know
> whether male FIDE officials violated the privacy of young girls. We do
not
> know whether children below the age of 16 were tested. What we DO know is
that
> parents and participants arrived in Argentina without any prior
notification
>
> Another aspect of the IOC Medical Code is that Draconian
punishments are
> de rigeuer to ensure that athletes or, as FIDE would have it, grandmasters
may
> be smashed to professional smithereens if they refuse compliance. A key
weapon
> here is that "presumption" may substitute for proof. "Presumption" may,
if the
> FIDE Medical Commission so decides, end the career of any unwanted player.
>
> Once again, let's look at the regs.
>
> Article 3 of FIDE's anti-doping regulations covers penalties for both
> surprisingly, if one understands bureaucratic logic - quite similar. The
> penalty for a first, mayhap, unintentional offense ranges from a warning
up to
> "a fine of up to US $100,000." Given the limited economic wherewithal of
our
> chess world, a fine of 100Gs is, in effect, a career-ender. It is no
> different than a formal lifetime time ban for intentional doping. A
player
Akorps666
to disassociate itself from FIDE and move
on to something new.
exorcise 666 to send email