[mrdct]

In the version I linked to, page 82 is the by-laws to rule 42 (Nationality of Competitors).

I still can't find any mention of clients not being allowed to pay professionals to be their teammates. In any case, I think it would be completely unenforceable for so long as a trials-based selection method remains in place.

[jonottawa]

mrdct, on Nov 18 2007, 12:40 AM, said:

In the version I linked to, page 82 is the by-laws to rule 42 (Nationality of Competitors). 

I still can't find any mention of clients not being allowed to pay professionals to be their teammates.  In any case, I think it would be completely unenforceable for so long as a trials-based selection method remains in place.

It's on the previous page, in Bye-law to Rule 41, page 81 of the hard copy document, page 82 of the electronic document (which treats the cover as page 1.)

"Bye-law to Rule 41
1. Each IF establishes its sport’s own eligibility criteria in accordance with the Olympic
Charter. Such criteria must be submitted to the IOC Executive Board for approval.
2. The application of the eligibility criteria lies with the IFs, their affiliated national federations
and the NOCs in the fields of their respective responsibilities.
3. Except as permitted by the IOC Executive Board, no competitor, coach, trainer or official
who participates in the Olympic Games may allow his person, name, picture or sports
performances to be used for advertising purposes during the Olympic Games.
4. The entry or participation of a competitor in the Olympic Games shall not be conditional on any financial consideration."

[mrdct]

jonottawa, on Nov 17 2007, 07:46 PM, said:

4. The entry or participation of a competitor in the Olympic Games shall not be conditional on any financial consideration.

By what logic does that mean that clients can't recruit a professional team to contest and win the trials?

The participation of, for example, the Narasimhan team, in the Venice Cup was conditional on:

1. Winning the USBF trials;
2. Satisfying the conditions of contest of those trials;
3. Satisfying any other eligibiliy criteria established by the sports governing body (the WBF).

Looking at any of the individuals on the Narasimhan team or at the team as a whole, their participation in the Venice Cup was not conditional on any financial consideration. Whatever financial arrangements the individual members of the team had amongst themselves is their business but quite obviously Ms Narasimhan was able to put together a team that won the US trials and won the Venice Cup in compliance with all of the relevant conditions and criteria.

There are plenty of sports, including "real" Olympic sports where having lots of money will at the very least enhance your prospects of making it to the Olympic Games if not be a full pre-requisite. Take equestrian events for example where a competitve horse costs at least US$1 million to buy and a mother-load to feed, train and transport around the world. When Princess Anne competed in the 1976 Olympics do you think she was best female equestrian from Great Britain, or perhaps she just had the financial resources and influence to procure the best horse, the best facilities and the best trainers? Similarly do you think Prince Albert of Monaco made his way on to the Monaco bobsled team on pure athletic ability?

I would suggest that this By-Law is intended to outlaw the situation where a National Olympic Organisation or Sporting Federation could say, "Yes you can play tiddliwinks for the USA but only if you pay us $10,000".

[mrdct]

hrothgar, on Nov 14 2007, 08:56 AM, said:

The USBF has posted some interesting materials on its web site including a document titled "Statement regarding Damage to USBF" (available at http://www.usbf.org/index.php?option=com_c...368&Itemid=167)

The USBF have taken-down the "Statement regarding Damage to USBF" which was probably an unwise thing to put up in the first place. Did anyone retain a copy of the text of that statement?

They have now added a new "Open Letter from the USBF Board of Directors":

Quote

The USBF is proud of the achievements of our bridge teams in Shanghai; USA teams won Gold and Bronze in the Senior Bowl, Gold in the Venice Cup and Silver in the Bermuda Bowl, an outstanding accomplishment.  The players are all great competitors and outstanding world champions.  We do not, however, agree with the actions of the Venice Cup winners at the prize-giving ceremony, where they held up a sign saying "we did not vote for Bush".

The victorious women were supported financially by many United States citizens who had made direct or indirect contributions to the USBF and to the ACBL International Fund which provides financial support for North American teams playing in international events. As representatives of all of those people and of all of the members of the USBF, the champions had an obligation to behave in a manner that all of their supporters could be proud of. Their statement made some people less than proud. As such, it demonstrated conduct unbecoming a member of the USBF when representing the USBF on the international stage.

World Bridge Championships, like Olympic events, are intended as a respite from politics.  India plays against Pakistan.  Israel plays against Arab countries. All in a spirit of good will. It is simply not the time or place for any team to make a political statement -- and all participants should know that. The championship rules expressly require participants to abide by the provisions governing Olympic athletes, including the Olympic Charter ban on demonstrations and political propaganda. The women’s team may not have intended their sign as political but it was viewed by many on both sides as making a political statement.
 
Whatever the players’ intentions, the USBF cannot condone or ignore the actions of our Venice Cup champions. The USBF has commenced proceedings to review those actions. There will be a hearing in two weeks in San Francisco, at the next ACBL national championship, to determine if sanctions are warranted. No sanctions whatsoever are currently in place.

[jonottawa]

USBF makes error in judgment and adopts foolish strategy after weeks of planning and discussion.

Let's pretend it never happened.

USA1 Venice Cup team makes error in judgment on the spur of the moment and commits a minor act of poor taste.

Let's pretend we haven't made up our minds yet and then stick it to them like we've planned to do all along.

Uh, no.

Enough is enough already. Their rights to due process have been irreparably damaged. It is now impossible to get an impartial group to oversee the case. Dismiss the charges and move on.

[skjaeran]

jonottawa, on Nov 18 2007, 06:53 AM, said:

USA1 Venice Cup team makes error in judgment on the spur of the moment

What do you mean "on the spur of the moment"? Obviously the sign was made before they went to the podium and most probably prior to the start of the closing ceremony/banquet. To me that means it was duly planned and has nothing to do with "on the spur of the moment".

[kenrexford]

According to Wikipedia, "Spur" is a chain of restaurants in South Africa. The "Spur of the moment" would be the steakhouse in which one was eating presently. I think that this means that they made the sign over dinner.

[skjaeran]

kenrexford, on Nov 18 2007, 11:04 PM, said:

According to Wikipedia, "Spur" is a chain of restaurants in South Africa. The "Spur of the moment" would be the steakhouse in which one was eating presently. I think that this means that they made the sign over dinner.

I must admit South African restaurant chains are much like Greek to me.....

[cherdano]

skaeran, on Nov 18 2007, 03:29 PM, said:

jonottawa, on Nov 18 2007, 06:53 AM, said:

USA1 Venice Cup team makes error in judgment on the spur of the moment

What do you mean "on the spur of the moment"? Obviously the sign was made before they went to the podium and most probably prior to the start of the closing ceremony/banquet. To me that means it was duly planned and has nothing to do with "on the spur of the moment".

The message was apparently written on the back side of the dinner menu. Sounds like spur of the moment to me (though your definition of "moment" may differ, of course).

[mike777]

Enough!

I thought it was in bad taste but I thought if they felt strongly about it they need to do it. Who knew you could find 6 bridge players who agree on anything in politics.
Punishment has already exceeded the crime. Time served. Time to forgive, love and move on, please. Justice has been served, time for love.

[jonottawa]

I don't know if this has been linked already, but I liked this article.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...ed=rss.jcarroll

[han]

mike777, on Nov 18 2007, 10:45 PM, said:

Enough!

I thought it was in bad taste but I thought if they felt strongly about it they need to do it. Who knew you could find 6 bridge players who agree on anything in politics.
Punishment has already exceeded the crime. Time served. Time to forgive, love and move on, please. Justice has been served, time for love.

♥ Mike.

[stacy]

jonottawa, on Nov 16 2007, 02:14 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Nov 16 2007, 07:09 PM, said:

How do I earn my living?  Protecting the proper enforcement of the United States Constitution and of the Ohio Constitution.  If you believe that these documents have added to humanity, then I suppose I'm doing a lot more than most.

Judging from the 2004 Election controversy, you're not very good at your job.

Jon -- not okay to get this kind of personal.

[peterh]

jdonn, on Oct 14 2007, 06:30 PM, said:

Codo, on Oct 14 2007, 01:13 PM, said:

there are people out there who think it is nice to wear T-Shirts with "jdonn smells"

I would probably buy about 10 of those shirts.

reminds me of the old story of the australian in london. he went to marks and spencers and asked for 7 pairs of underpants.The lass behind the counter said "why 7 ?" 1 for every day of the week."
Jdonn soon followed and asked for a dozen ! " why a dozen ?" she asked .
He replied January February March .......

[Rain]

This actually made the Singapore papers

[kenrexford]

stacy, on Nov 19 2007, 08:13 AM, said:

jonottawa, on Nov 16 2007, 02:14 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Nov 16 2007, 07:09 PM, said:

How do I earn my living?  Protecting the proper enforcement of the United States Constitution and of the Ohio Constitution.  If you believe that these documents have added to humanity, then I suppose I'm doing a lot more than most.

Judging from the 2004 Election controversy, you're not very good at your job.

Jon -- not okay to get this kind of personal.

No big deal. I found it actually quite funny.

Plus, the 900 arrests per year that were occurring in Cleveland for two laws that had remained on the books until I arrived, reduced to 0 after I arrived and successfully challenged them, gives me quite a few counter votes to jonottawa. LOL Lots of additional stories, of course.

[jonottawa]

kenrexford, on Nov 19 2007, 02:56 PM, said:

stacy, on Nov 19 2007, 08:13 AM, said:

jonottawa, on Nov 16 2007, 02:14 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Nov 16 2007, 07:09 PM, said:

How do I earn my living?  Protecting the proper enforcement of the United States Constitution and of the Ohio Constitution.  If you believe that these documents have added to humanity, then I suppose I'm doing a lot more than most.

Judging from the 2004 Election controversy, you're not very good at your job.

Jon -- not okay to get this kind of personal.

No big deal. I found it actually quite funny.

Plus, the 900 arrests per year that were occurring in Cleveland for two laws that had remained on the books until I arrived, reduced to 0 after I arrived and successfully challenged them, gives me quite a few counter votes to jonottawa. LOL Lots of additional stories, of course.

Glad to hear it, Ken. The number of people our government incarcerates for trivial offenses is a disgrace. Good on you for doing your part to reduce that number somewhat.

Welcome to the forums, Stacy. Nice to see you posting.

I'd be happy to discuss with you privately, or on either of our respective blogs, whether it was too personal or not. But I've been asked politely to cut back on posts that stir up controversy and any detailed response I might make here might do that. I'll just say I wouldn't have made a post like that to someone I didn't have a history of 'back and forth' with and hopefully we can leave it at that.

[Bridge_Bain]

Their sign reads likes a personal statement, probably to the other bridge players at the event. It has no element of what I consider a political statement like “Stop the War Now”, “Get Out of Iraq”, “Fund health Care for all”,. “Vote for Hillary”, or “I Don’t Approve of Bush, Just Like 75% of Americans Don’t.

Would everyone be in the same uproar if each woman had worn a Pink Ribbon to show their support for Breast Cancer Research. What if they wore two ribbons where the second one was Red for AIDS Research? Do these types of personal statements also deserve sanctions?

Clearly, the USBF does not have a clearly defined dress policy or specific uniform the members must wear. Until they do create such a policy that clearly states what is acceptable to display on their person in any public place at the tournament, any talk of sanctions it completely out of line.

[owlhouse]

Hi all, and what is the White House saying to all this commotion?

[SchTsch]

I don't have the time to read the whole topic now, but I have to comment this, so if you have already discussed the issue before please tell me on which page.

As far as I know, bridge is the part of the Olympic Movement.
Therefore, the relevant documents should be the Olympic Charter and the Olympic Code of Ethics.
If you look at the Olympic Charter, in force since 2004, you can find several statements:
Fundamental Principles of Olympism:
....
5. Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person
on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is
incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.

Furthermore in chapter 16 Members it is written:
.....
1.3 The IOC admits its new members at a ceremony during
which they agree to fulfil their obligations by taking the
following oath:
“Granted the honour of becoming a member of the
International Olympic Committee, and declaring myself
aware of my responsibilities in such capacity, I undertake
to serve the Olympic Movement to the very best of my
ability; to respect and ensure the respect of all the
provisions of the Olympic Charter and the decisions of
the International Olympic Committee, which I consider as
not subject to appeal on my part; to comply with the
Code of Ethics; to keep myself free from any political or
commercial influence and from any racial or religious
consideration; to fight against all other forms of
discrimination; and to promote in all circumstances the
interests of the International Olympic Committee and
those of the Olympic Movement.”


So, there is a Code of Ethics that has been violated by this act.