[jonottawa]

pclayton, on Nov 15 2007, 06:03 PM, said:

I remember when Olbermann was a sportscaster in Los Angeles 20 years ago.

Not exactly qualified to be a talking head IMO.

And some people remember George Bush being a coke-snorting alcoholic failed businessman 20 years ago, who joined a cult to help him deal with his substance abuse problems.

Not exactly qualified to be POTUS, imo.

[jonottawa]

And while we're at it, what qualifies comedian Rush Limbaugh (another junkie) and Bill O'Reilly (a sexual harassing bully) to be talking heads?

I remember when Bill O'Reilly was the host of Inside Edition (an entertainment show) and it was a lot less than 20 years ago.

[mike777]

Character assasination of public figures is always such sport in modern discourse.

[Al_U_Card]

Especially when it is only a "glancing" blow....

[jonottawa]

mike777, on Nov 15 2007, 06:22 PM, said:

Character assasination of public figures is always such sport in modern discourse.

Character assassination? More like character suicide.

[mikeh]

I have just revisited this thread: whoo.... a lot of emotional utterances with relatively few rational contributions, imho.

Let's take a look at some basic facts:

1. The USBF is a private organization. The fact that it has chosen to call itself the USBF is NOT a political statement nor a claim that it represents the country: it is an identifier, making it clear that its goals are, within and under the ambit of the WBF (another PRIVATE organization), to be responsible for the selection and promotion of bridge teams representing US-based bridge players.

2. The USBF and the WBF have both the right and the obligation to provide for and to enforce rules: rules made in advance. Thus all members of any USBF team (or any Canadian, Italian, etc team) should be familiar with the rules.. if they are not, they cannot plead ignorance as a defence.

3. The rules for the BB and VC included compliance with certain behavioural standards

4. The VC team collectively decided to act in a manner apparently in contravention of some of the rules.

5. This breach happened, unfortunately, to occur in a context where the probability of harm to the USBF (and the WBF) was very real. While, on one level, all contraventions of the rules should be treated more or less equally, that is not the way the world operates, and (as far as I know) all members of the VCT are intelligent, informed adults. No-one except the most naive would assume that the Chinese government would take kindly to any political display. No-one but the most naive would think that a company such as Microsoft, with the billions it has at stake in terms of penetrating the Chinese market, is going to take kindly to any conduct by an organization to which it contributes (as I believe is the case.. if I am wrong, simply factor MS out of this post) which insults the Chinese government: does anyone really think the Chinese government doesn't know what Bill Gates does?

6. Punishment of some kind was inevitable, and the members of the VCT have only themselves to blame for attracting punishment.

7. The VCT got the opportunity to make their demonstration only by virtue of accepting the terms and conditions attached to their representation of the USBF. They cannot both sign on to represent the USBF (and to accept the funding, the publicity and (for the professionals amongst them) the financial rewards of being world champs and, at the same time, view themselves as immune from discipline for contravention of the rules.

So all of this 'free speech' nonsense is just that. Nonsense. The USBF is not some government trying to stifle freedom of expression. The VCT ACCEPTED and AGREED to comply with the rules governing behaviour and then chose to ignore them. They accepted all of the (considerable) benefits of representing the USBF but chose to reject some of the obligations that come with that.

I apologize for the use of CAPS, but it does seem to me that many posters here have overlooked or forgotten these basic truths.

The forgoing leaves open two (or more) issues:

1. the nature of the penalties, and

2. the nature of the process

No penalties have yet been handed down: a fact that is difficult to discern from some of the more fervent posts.

However, and here I join with some of those I have implicitly criticzed above, the way in which the USBF has handled matters so far is disturbing.

Imagine a criminal trial.. an accused is charged with an offence. The accused has not pleaded guilty.. perhaps the accused has acknowledged the act but has denied that the act constitutes a crime.

The court... not the prosecutor... the court goes public with an offer to the accused: plead guilty and accept the following punishment, or maintain your innocence and, should we decide you are guilty, we are going to really punish you!

That seems to be the approach taken by the USBF, and, in my view, it is wrong.

Now, the analogy with a court is flawed, because we are not dealing with a state v citizen issue, and there cannot, in the nature of the USBF, be the theoretical separation of prosecutor from judiciary that we see in common-law based systems. (My limited understanding of many western european methods suggest that the analogy may be more apt there, where magistrates conduct investigations).

Given the nature of the USBF, I have no problem with the idea that its counsel might and perhaps should engage in some form of plea bargaining, but I don't think that the plea bargaining should take place in public. Transparency is one thing, but there is no obligation on the USBF to engage in this kind of behaviour, which is bound to generate polarized and somewhat uninformed opinions. Far better, in my view, to engage in private bargaining and then, if the bargaining results in a settlement, to disclose the bargaining after the fact (or not at all). And NEVER, in the course of bargaining, threaten that there will be worse sanction if the accuseds do not knuckle under.

So I don't like the procedures.

But what about the proposed settlement on offer, and apparently rejected?

Banishment from USBF events for a year? Not, to me, inappropriate. What else can the board do without seeming to condone the infraction?

Accept a meaningless non-apology? As a lawyer who has litigated defamation cases, I can tell you that it is absurd to accept an apology that really says only that 'I am sorry that you took offence'. Such an apology expresses NO remorse, and no acknowledgement of culpability: it places the error, if there be one, on those who were foolish enough to take offence.

Impose a modest fine? I do not know of the financial circumstances of the VCT members but certainly a number of the more prominent bridge players in NA are extremely wealthy. A fine would likely be meaningless, and I do not even know if such a measure is enforceable.

Absent a true expression of apology (whether sincere or not, it is something that the USBF could point to), what real choice is there?

Apparently the VCT has chosen NOT to offer a true apology. If that is correct, then no matter how inappropriately the USBF is acting in terms of public disclosure, the VCT are even more at fault: they have to know... surely their advisors have to know... that they are forcing the USBF to hang tough. There is simply no credible alternative.

I could go on, but I probably have bored those who have read this far so will stop.

[jonottawa]

mikeh, on Nov 15 2007, 06:52 PM, said:

I have just revisited this thread: whoo.... a lot of emotional utterances with relatively few rational contributions, imho.

Let's take a look at some basic facts:

1. The USBF is a private organization. The fact that it has chosen to call itself the USBF is NOT a political statement nor a claim that it represents the country: it is an identifier, making it clear that its goals are, within and under the ambit of the WBF (another PRIVATE organization), to be responsible for the selection and promotion of bridge teams representing US-based bridge players.

I completely disagree with your first assertion.

The USBF, private organization or not, by calling itself the USBF is indeed making a political statement and a claim that it represents the country. To say otherwise is utterly absurd (the rule they're alleged to have broken is the Olympic Charter for goodness sake. Are you intending to suggest that olympic teams don't represent their respective countries?) If the United States Bridge Federation doesn't represent the values of the United States of America, they should change their name and make that explicit to their membership. They are welcome to change their name to the Neo-Contract Bridge Federation.

You, as a Canadian, can have your limited freedom of expression with your notwithstanding clauses and whatnot. Americans made it the FIRST amendment for a reason. And no, I'm not arguing that this is a first amendment issue, since the first amendment only applies to Congress and (via the 14th amendment) to the various state governments. But the traditional American value of freedom of expression should not be trampled on recklessly or impulsively and certainly not in the manner adopted by the USBF BoD.

[mikeh]

jonottawa, on Nov 15 2007, 02:13 PM, said:

mikeh, on Nov 15 2007, 06:52 PM, said:

I have just revisited this thread: whoo.... a lot of emotional utterances with relatively few rational contributions, imho.

Let's take a look at some basic facts:

1. The USBF is a private organization. The fact that it has chosen to call itself the USBF is NOT a political statement nor a claim that it represents the country: it is an identifier, making it clear that its goals are, within and under the ambit of the WBF (another PRIVATE organization), to be responsible for the selection and promotion of bridge teams representing US-based bridge players.

I completely disagree with your first assertion.

The USBF, private organization or not, by calling itself the USBF is indeed making a political statement and a claim that it represents the country. To say otherwise is utterly absurd (the rule they're alleged to have broken is the Olympic Charter for goodness sake. Are you intending to suggest that olympic teams don't represent their respective countries?) If the United States Bridge Federation doesn't represent the values of the United States of America, they should change their name and make that explicit to their membership. They are welcome to change their name to the Neo-Contract Bridge Federation.

You, as a Canadian, can have your limited freedom of expression with your notwithstanding clauses and whatnot. Americans made it the FIRST amendment for a reason. And no, I'm not arguing that this is a first amendment issue, since the first amendment only applies to Congress and (via the 14th amendment) to the various state governments. But the traditional American value of freedom of expression should not be trampled on recklessly or impulsively and certainly not in the manner adopted by the USBF BoD.

I, as an ignorant, ill-educated, repressed Canadian, struggling with unrelenting governmental interference with my freedom of expression, didn't realize that the use of the letters 'US' in an organization's name carried with it patriotic expressions of fealty to the government of the US or to the US Constitution.

Until now, I had (obviously erroneously) assumed that USA Today was NOT a news outlet that had obligations to serve the US Constitution.

Heck I didn't know the US had a national airline: I had thought that US Air was a private business!

I thought the US Bank was a private bank, not another name for the Federal Reserve!

Or that the US Power Squadron was a branch of the US Navy, rather than a social organization of private boat owners!

And so on.

Thank you for correcting my limited understanding of the relationship between use of the letters 'US' in the name of what I had mistakenly viewed as private organizations.

EDIT: btw, just what are these values that the USBF must ascribe to? The right to violate rules whenever it seems expedient to do so? Interesting concept for a nation that, I thought, prided itself on being governed by the rule of law.

[jonottawa]

Here's Mike's argument taken to its logical extreme.

The USBF is a private organization. They can make any rules they want. They can ban gays. They can ban women. They can ban atheists. They can make you swear a loyalty oath to President Bush. If you live in the United States and want to play bridge in world championships, you must agree to comply with their rules, no matter how vile, no matter how anathema they might be to traditional American values, and if you don't you have noone to blame but yourself.

I call bull$hit on that.

Then he continues with something like:

Yeah, it probably wasn't the best idea to publicly browbeat the women and threaten them with an even more insanely harsh punishment than the insanely harsh punishment outlined in the so-called 'compromise proposal.' But the women only have themselves to blame.

Jesus. Even Roland doesn't think that at this point the women only have themselves to blame. You're in awfully thin company, Mike.

Taking away someone's livelihood for a year, giving them 200 hours of community service, forcing them to sign an apology authored by the USBF lawyer and a confession is not remotely reasonable. It's insulting. It's inflammatory. It's inhuman. It's vile.

The sign was an incredibly MILD example of poor taste. It should have been ignored. Lawyers love to create tempests in teapots, though ...

[mike777]

Whether USA today or any american based media or USAir or US bank has some duty or obligation to put USA interests/traditions first or some other cultural values first is always an interesting debate.

In any event.....since we all agree this is not a first amendment issue....

We can now debate what the "tradition" of American private organization free speech means.

I vote that is has traditionally been very limited free speech or be fired....IMHO is seems naive at best to assume free unlimited speech/expression at your work place and many other private places....

[kenrexford]

Technically speaking, there is a misconception about the USBF that really does not matter. However, it should probably be cleared up.

The USBF is not just a group of people (like me) who are members. The USBF is a non-profit organization that has a charter or whatever papers establish that organization, registered in some State that I cannot remember (I did look it up once, though). The paperwork filed with the secretary of state for that state indicates that one of the purposes of the USBF is to select teams to represent the United States in international bridge competition. Do what you will with that information.

On a completely different note, "free speech" has nothing to do with this. I may be free to speak my mind and not have government intervene. However, I am not entitled to have the USBF pay me money to defray the costs of my business. I am not entitled to have the USBF use, on my behalf, its negotiated interest in having a team appear in one of two slots at WBF events.

[HeavyDluxe]

jonottawa, on Nov 14 2007, 11:21 PM, said:

I've come up with a way to resolve this.

It's time for the rednecks to secede from the ACBL.

Those of us who support American values like decency, tolerance, freedom of expression, dissent, compassion, and forgiveness can stick around.

Don't worry, though, the Neo-Contract Bridge League will still be allowed to send its best teams to the Trials every year. We'll even let you wear your hoods.

You know what Jon?

I'd give some number of fingers and toes to be half the bridge player you (probably) are... You seem be a real student of the game with the talent to make that study blossom into skill. In that, I envy you.

But this kind of ignorant, intolerant, name-calling rhetoric is just absurd. How do you expect anyone to take your point of view seriously when you resort to this kind of lowbrow politicking....?

Oh, wait! I can hear your response now! "Well, I'm just adopting the tactics of GWB and his cronies." Whatever.

Whatever talent you have, I can't help but imagine that the gigantic foot in your mouth is going to make it hard for you someday. In the meantime, if you want to spout stuff like this, might I suggest you use your blog for it and not these forums? Thanks.

[jonottawa]

mikeh, on Nov 15 2007, 07:43 PM, said:

I, as an ignorant, ill-educated, repressed Canadian, struggling with unrelenting governmental interference with my freedom of expression, didn't realize that the use of the letters 'US' in an organization's name carried with it patriotic expressions of fealty to the government of the US or to the US Constitution.

Until now, I had (obviously erroneously) assumed that USA Today was NOT a news outlet that had obligations to serve the US Constitution.

Heck I didn't know the US had a national airline: I had thought that US Air was a private business!

I thought the US Bank was a private bank, not another name for the Federal Reserve!

Or that the US Power Squadron was a branch of the US Navy, rather than a social organization of private boat owners!

And so on.

Thank you for correcting my limited understanding of the relationship between use of the letters 'US' in the name of what I had mistakenly viewed as private organizations.

EDIT: btw, just what are these values that the USBF must ascribe to? The right to violate rules whenever it seems expedient to do so? Interesting concept for a nation that, I thought, prided itself on being governed by the rule of law.

Nope ... no emotional utterances here.

Please answer the question, counselor. Do olympic teams represent their countries or not? I'll happily stipulate that the businesses you mentioned do NOT because no reasonable person would think that they do.

If you think it's also true that no reasonable person would suppose that a team of bridge players called USA 1 competing in a world championship (under the olympic charter) are representing the United States, then let's discuss this further.

If you agree that the team represents the US, but not the organization whose sole purpose is to select the teams, fund them and try to get the sport into the olympic games, then let's discuss that point.

As for employment relationships, we agree. This is not an employment relationship.

[jonottawa]

HeavyDluxe, on Nov 15 2007, 08:08 PM, said:

You know what Jon?

I'd give some number of fingers and toes to be half the bridge player you (probably) are... You seem be a real student of the game with the talent to make that study blossom into skill. In that, I envy you.

But this kind of ignorant, intolerant, name-calling rhetoric is just absurd. How do you expect anyone to take your point of view seriously when you resort to this kind of lowbrow politicking....?

Oh, wait! I can hear your response now! "Well, I'm just adopting the tactics of GWB and his cronies." Whatever.

Whatever talent you have, I can't help but imagine that the gigantic foot in your mouth is going to make it hard for you someday. In the meantime, if you want to spout stuff like this, might I suggest you use your blog for it and not these forums? Thanks.

FWIW I'm an average plus Flight A player and doubt I will rise much above that.

I do agree my comment was borderline. I thought it was clever, but also pretty mean. I wouldn't have made it if it had been directed at anyone in particular (generic 'rednecks'.)

Sorry I offended you.

[mike777]

I thought that USA1 representated the USA. I thought Italy1 representated Italy.

Represent seems like a very reasonable usage of the word.

Did these women say they do not?

Did Fred G. feel he was representing the USA, however he defined the phrase when he went to the championships? Did Bob Hamman or Mr. Lall?

[jtfanclub]

Quote

6. Punishment of some kind was inevitable, and the members of the VCT have

I don't think they have the right to punish. The USBF can....

1) Expel them as members, or
2) Keep them as members but not invite them to certain USBF events.

These other ideas...community service, fines, whatever, are bullshit. Find me something, anything in the agreement the players signed (or regular USBF members signed) that says that the players agreed to be fined or 'punished' by the USBF.

I'm not even sure some of these are legal. Let's say that I hold up a political sign at a workplace function. My employer can fire me, or they can keep me from going to office functions where I might be an embarrassment. But if they try to fine me or pressure me into giving community service, the Labor Board would be all over them in a hurry.

But again, expelling somebody from membership in your club is not punishment per se. It's just part of being a private club.

Quote

The USBF is not some government trying to stifle freedom of expression. The VCT ACCEPTED and AGREED to comply with the rules governing behaviour and then chose to ignore them. They accepted all of the (considerable) benefits of representing the USBF but chose to reject some of the obligations that come with that.

Fred asked earlier if anybody's mind had changed during the conversation. Mine did. I think the forms they signed (which I linked to earlier) made it damn clear that they couldn't post political signs. And while the USBF acting like a court of law is going to get them into a court of law, I don't think anybody should be surprised if the USBF decides they don't want to associate with these people.

[joshs]

mikeh, on Nov 15 2007, 01:52 PM, said:

I have just revisited this thread: whoo.... a lot of emotional utterances with relatively few rational contributions, imho.

Let's take a look at some basic facts:

1. The USBF is a private organization. The fact that it has chosen to call itself the USBF is NOT a political statement nor a claim that it represents the country: it is an identifier, making it clear that its goals are, within and under the ambit of the WBF (another PRIVATE organization), to be responsible for the selection and promotion of bridge teams representing US-based bridge players.

2. The USBF and the WBF have both the right and the obligation to provide for and to enforce rules: rules made in advance. Thus all members of any USBF team (or any Canadian, Italian, etc team) should be familiar with the rules.. if they are not, they cannot plead ignorance as a defence.

3. The rules for the BB and VC included compliance with certain behavioural standards

4. The VC team collectively decided to act in a manner apparently in contravention of some of the rules.

5. This breach happened, unfortunately, to occur in a context where the probability of harm to the USBF (and the WBF) was very real. While, on one level, all contraventions of the rules should be treated more or less equally, that is not the way the world operates, and (as far as I know) all members of the VCT are intelligent, informed adults. No-one except the most naive would assume that the Chinese government would take kindly to any political display. No-one but the most naive would think that a company such as Microsoft, with the billions it has at stake in terms of penetrating the Chinese market, is going to take kindly to any conduct by an organization to which it contributes (as I believe is the case.. if I am wrong, simply factor MS out of this post) which insults the Chinese government: does anyone really think the Chinese government doesn't know what Bill Gates does?

6. Punishment of some kind was inevitable, and the members of the VCT have only themselves to blame for attracting punishment.

7. The VCT got the opportunity to make their demonstration only by virtue of accepting the terms and conditions attached to their representation of the USBF. They cannot both sign on to represent the USBF (and to accept the funding, the publicity and (for the professionals amongst them) the financial rewards of being world champs and, at the same time, view themselves as immune from discipline for contravention of the rules.

So all of this 'free speech' nonsense is just that. Nonsense. The USBF is not some government trying to stifle freedom of expression. The VCT ACCEPTED and AGREED to comply with the rules governing behaviour and then chose to ignore them. They accepted all of the (considerable) benefits of representing the USBF but chose to reject some of the obligations that come with that.

I apologize for the use of CAPS, but it does seem to me that many posters here have overlooked or forgotten these basic truths.

The forgoing leaves open two (or more) issues:

1. the nature of the penalties, and

2. the nature of the process

No penalties have yet been handed down: a fact that is difficult to discern from some of the more fervent posts.

However, and here I join with some of those I have implicitly criticzed above, the way in which the USBF has handled matters so far is disturbing.

Imagine a criminal trial.. an accused is charged with an offence. The accused has not pleaded guilty.. perhaps the accused has acknowledged the act but has denied that the act constitutes a crime.

The court... not the prosecutor... the court goes public with an offer to the accused: plead guilty and accept the following punishment, or maintain your innocence and, should we decide you are guilty, we are going to really punish you!

That seems to be the approach taken by the USBF, and, in my view, it is wrong.

Now, the analogy with a court is flawed, because we are not dealing with a state v citizen issue, and there cannot, in the nature of the USBF, be the theoretical separation of prosecutor from judiciary that we see in common-law based systems. (My limited understanding of many western european methods suggest that the analogy may be more apt there, where magistrates conduct investigations).

Given the nature of the USBF, I have no problem with the idea that its counsel might and perhaps should engage in some form of plea bargaining, but I don't think that the plea bargaining should take place in public. Transparency is one thing, but there is no obligation on the USBF to engage in this kind of behaviour, which is bound to generate polarized and somewhat uninformed opinions. Far better, in my view, to engage in private bargaining and then, if the bargaining results in a settlement, to disclose the bargaining after the fact (or not at all). And NEVER, in the course of bargaining, threaten that there will be worse sanction if the accuseds do not knuckle under.

So I don't like the procedures.

But what about the proposed settlement on offer, and apparently rejected?

Banishment from USBF  events for a year? Not, to me, inappropriate. What else can the board do without seeming to condone the infraction?

Accept a meaningless non-apology? As a lawyer who has litigated defamation cases, I can tell you that it is absurd to accept an apology that really says only that 'I am sorry that you took offence'. Such an apology expresses NO remorse, and no acknowledgement of culpability: it places the error, if there be one, on those who were foolish enough to take offence.

Impose a modest fine? I do not know of the financial circumstances of the VCT members but certainly a number of the more prominent bridge players in NA are extremely wealthy. A fine would likely be meaningless, and I do not even know if such a measure is enforceable.

Absent a true expression of apology (whether sincere or not, it is something that the USBF could point to), what real choice is there?

Apparently the VCT has chosen NOT to offer a true apology. If that is correct, then no matter how inappropriately the USBF is acting in terms of public disclosure, the VCT are even more at fault: they have to know... surely their advisors have to know... that they are forcing the USBF to hang tough. There is simply no credible alternative.

I could go on, but I probably have bored those who have read this far so will stop.

Dear Mike,

Well I would dispute one major basic "fact." That there was a clear rule/condition that the VCT broke. I don't know much about canadian law, but in the US when laws or contract provisions are so vague that it is not obvious what actions are in fact prohibited, the laws or clauses of a contract are typically found to be invalid. So maybe I have just missed what you think is the rule that they agreed to follow when they accepted funding and then broke....

Also, even private organizations have some limitations on what they can and can't do. Some of them are not completely manditory ( for instance you might not have to do something unless you want to be treated under the tax laws as a charitiable organization). Others involve the organization not breaking a law. Others limitations are things which can be put in a contract (such as "can't sell this property to a member of a particular minority") whose contract terms just can't be enforced through the courts.

Most of the discussion in the thread has not been about if the VCT team broke a rule. Its been about
a. is what they did wrong/inappropriate by some measure
b. should the USBF make a rule that prohibits what they did (this is where the free speech discussion comes in)

I think implicit in the fact there there were 35 pages arguing about b, is that there isn't currently a rule that they actually broke...

[bid_em_up]

jtfanclub, on Nov 15 2007, 03:31 PM, said:

Quote

6. Punishment of some kind was inevitable, and the members of the VCT have

I don't think they have the right to punish. The USBF can....

1) Expel them as members, or
2) Keep them as members but not invite them to certain USBF events.

These other ideas...community service, fines, whatever, are bullshit. Find me something, anything in the agreement the players signed (or regular USBF members signed) that says that the players agreed to be fined or 'punished' by the USBF.

From the Grievance Procedure documentation:

http://usbf.org/docs...evanceprocs.pdf

Quote

10. Sanctions (Disciplines). The sections below set forth suggested disciplines which may be imposed by a USBF disciplinary committee. The disciplinary committees may choose to issue lesser or greater disciplines than those set forth below. It may likewise vary, combine or impose disciplines not set forth.

a. Probation - A determination that a person has committed an offense warranting discipline which is a matter of record. If the member is disciplined for another offense during the probationary period, then the probation becomes suspension for the remainder or half of the probation period, whichever is the greater. Such new discipline shall be consecutive, not concurrent.
b. Suspended Sentence - A determination that a person has committed an offense warranting discipline. When the discipline is imposed and the execution thereof suspended, such suspension shall be deemed to be probation.
c. Suspension - A determination that a person has committed an offense warranting abrogation for a specified period of all rights and privileges including membership.
d. Expulsion - A determination that a person has committed an offense warranting permanent abrogation of all rights and privileges including membership, provided that a person expelled may request of the USBF Conduct and Ethics Committee a lifting of such suspension after five (5) years.

Note the part about "vary, combine, or impose disciplines not set forth." This is where the fines and community service are defined.

I happen to agree with you that such sanctions are not explicitly and clearly defined, and that the possibility of imposing these as sanctions should be defined, but for now, this is how the Grievance Panel would impose such sanctions.

[mikeh]

jonottawa, on Nov 15 2007, 02:54 PM, said:

Here's Mike's argument taken to its logical extreme.

The USBF is a private organization. They can make any rules they want. They can ban gays. They can ban women. They can ban atheists. They can make you swear a loyalty oath to President Bush. If you live in the United States and want to play bridge in world championships, you must agree to comply with their rules, no matter how vile, no matter how anathema they might be to traditional American values, and if you don't you have noone to blame but yourself.

I call bull$hit on that.

Do you actually believe the nonsense you spout?

Where...precisely where. .did I say or suggest that the USBF could 'make any rules they want'???

What I said was that they had made rules, that the members of the VCT either knew or should have known what those rules were and that those members of the VCT who broke the rules should expect sanction. They agreed to abide by the rules (such agreement is implicit in entering the event). Gandhi, in protesting what he saw as unfair laws, did not protest that he should not be punished for violating them: his point was that the laws should be changed, not that he should be allowed to violate them with impunity.

Where do you go from that rather obvious proposition to me stating that the USBF can make any rules it wants, including the swearing of loyalty oaths to George Bush??

And I am truly bewildered by your apparent belief that the rules announced by the USBF and the WBF are 'anathema' to American values. Which rules? The ones that require sensitivity to decorum?

BTW, if the WBF rules are 'anathema' to American values, just who is it who forced any American to participate in the VC competition??

So when I see an appeal to 'traditional american values', a red flag goes up and I have to restrain myself from asking which values: the list of dubious values (as would be the case for just about every country I can think of) is quite long and easily compiled.

[mikeh]

joshs, on Nov 15 2007, 03:33 PM, said:

mikeh, on Nov 15 2007, 01:52 PM, said:

I have just revisited this thread: whoo.... a lot of emotional utterances with relatively few rational contributions, imho.

Let's take a look at some basic facts:


4. The VC team collectively decided to act in a manner apparently in contravention of some of the rules.

.

Dear Mike,

Well I would dispute one major basic "fact." That there was a clear rule/condition that the VCT broke. I don't know much about canadian law, but in the US when laws or contract provisions are so vague that it is not obvious what actions are in fact prohibited, the laws or clauses of a contract are typically found to be invalid. So maybe I have just missed what you think is the rule that they agreed to follow when they accepted funding and then broke....

I think it is clear that I did not mean to say that the VCT definitely broke a rule when I included the word 'apparently', not to mention when I later made the flawed analogy to a court or prosecutor making a threat about what would happen if the team were convicted.. but I guess the language in the rest of the post confused the issue. I should have prefaced the bulk of the post with the phrase: 'assuming that they broke a rule, then.......'

BTW, I suspect it is as true in the US as here that a misunderstanding of the law does not amount to a valid defence. It can seem harsh, but traditional common law practice is to assume that everyone always knew what the law really meant... unless the law is struck down on the basis of ambiguity..and the ambiguity must be in the law itself, not in the question of whether certain conduct contravened the law. In this case, from the limited understanding I have gleaned (primarily from the thread) the rules are not ambiguous but a case (weak, it seems to me) could be argued that maybe the conduct didn't contravene the rules.