[debrose]

I'm new to posting, so forgive me if the formatting is poor.

This thread is being started to address some of the erroneous or misleading statements going around the internet about this matter; in newspaper articles, forums, blogs, and elsewhere, and to answer some of the many questions. Perhaps I can also point readers to the right place to find further data. Regardless of one’s sentiments regarding the actions of the United States Bridge Federation Board (USBF), or those of the winning Venice Cup team, I hope this information will be of some use to those of you engaging in thoughtful discussions about the matter.
My purpose here is NOT to “plead my case”, as I am soon expected to do at a disciplinary hearing, though I’m sure some of what I say will come across as self-interested. I seek only to promote truth, justice, and the American way (sorry, couldn’t resist).

[debrose]

Signing Statements:

Contrary to some rumors, my team was not given any document to sign, by the USBF or any other bridge organization, before going to Shanghai, or before playing in the USBF Trials. Until today, not one of the 20 or so players I have spoken to, who have qualified this past year or before for a world championship through a USBF trials, clearly remembers ever signing anything. Today Fred G. told me he thinks he remembers signing something a couple of years ago when he went to play in the Bermuda Bowl, but that he could be wrong. A couple of weeks back, I read an email in which a player who also qualified for Shanghai in the USBF team trials, claimed that the members of US teams who qualify for world competitions must sign a document. I never saw that assertion repeated, and I believe it to be false.

[debrose]

Response from the World Bridge Federation (WBF) and Chinese Contract Bridge
Association (CCBA):

Despite implications to the contrary, there has been no evidence of a
negative reaction from the World Bridge Federation or the Chinese Contract
Bridge Association. Indeed, I am fairly certain that there was no response whatsoever
before the USBF’s unsolicited apology letter. Subsequent communications from the
WBF indicated that, as far as the WBF and the CCBA were concerned, the matter was at
an end.
If you look on the www.worldbridge.org website, you will see that they have chosen to publish a photo of the winning Venice Cup team, which includes “the sign”, albeit not all that legible without a magnifying glass. There were many photographs taken while we are on stage, and the sign was only visible part of the time. This last part is not fact, but speculation on my part, but if the WBF were worried about their “sponsors’ reactions, as the USBF implies would be the case, I think they might have chosen a different photo for their site.

[debrose]

Separation of Powers:

The USBF Board and the Hearing Panel are not one and the same, as seems to be a common misconception. One of the USBF Board Members, Rose Meltzer, who is also the chairperson of the Grievance and Appeals Committee, followed USBF procedure and formed a panel by selecting people on that Committee to become the Hearing Panel. According to the USBF, only one standing member of the committee was free of conflicts, so four temporary members were appointed, and a five-person panel formed. Rose Meltzer herself is not on that panel.
Normally, the complaining party would be a USBF member or members. In this case, the complaining party was the USBF Board itself.

[debrose]

Olympic Charter “Violation”:

The claim by USBF attorney Allan Falk, on Fox News Channel and elsewhere, that we agreed to follow the Olympic Charter does not seem credible to me, but I’ll allow you to judge for yourself.

Here’s Bermuda Bowl silver medalist Michael Rosenberg’s take on the subject:

THE “OLYMPIC CHARTER” ARGUMENT

All a person would need to do to know the occurrence in Shanghai
was a violation worthy of USBF sanction was to discover “the USBF’s
General Conditions of Contest, Part VII of which provides: ‘Each player
in a USBF Championship, by entering the event, agrees that in the event
the player represents the United States in a WBF Championship, he or she
will comply with WBF requirements for the championship.’”, THEN,
discover among the many pages of WBF conditions that “section 4.1 of the
WBF General Conditions of Contest, which reads: ‘To be eligible for
participation in the World Bridge Championships a competitor must comply
with the Olympic Charter as well as with the rules of the WBF, and must
be entered by his NBO. He must notably respect the spirit of fair play
and ethics, and behave accordingly.’ ” AND THEN look up the Olympic
Charter (more than 100 pages), and find: “Chapter 5, Rule 51,
Section 3 of the Olympic Charter in turn specifies: ‘3. No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues, or other areas.’ ” No problem.

Could anyone but a maniac really think that it is appropriate to bring
charges based on this purported “violation? This isn’t just a technicality. This is a technicality within a technicality within a technicality.
Using the USBF “violation route”, the number of violations by USBF members
might be in the millions.

I don't know how many players in the trials HAD ever read the USBF conditions for the trials (probably two, me and Michael Becker). I don't remember the words "WBF requirements" jumping out at me - surprisingly, they were not emblazoned on my mind. I just now looked at the WBF requirements. This is what I found (there may be more):

Thing to Study No. of Pages

WBF General Conditions of Contest 34
WBF Supplemental Conditions of Contest 29
Anti-Doping Regulation 6
Convention Card Rules 76
Systems Policy 10
Alerting Policy 2
Psychic Bidding 2

Total 159


There were also many requirements that we could only learn about on-site.

Each page would tend to have several items (some short some long). For example, there were about 140 items in the Supplemental Conditions of Contest. There were about 50 items in the Anti-Doping regulations. When I saw there were 76 pages on Convention Cards, I stopped counting the number of items, and just did pages.
So, somewhere, in the General Conditions, is that one line about the Olympic Charter (I had actually skimmed the General conditions (probably the only one to do so since Michael Becker was not present), but I somehow missed it. Obviously, had I seen it, my first thought would have been to break off from reading the other stuff and peruse that. Had I done so, I would have found a 105-page document with I have no idea how many items.

Now, if I could just be certain of the definition of propaganda......

Michael Rosenberg

[debrose]

More on Olympic Charter:

Another significant point was made by Giulia Nastase, a relatively new bridge player who attended the tournament in Shanghai as an observer:

“The Olympic Charter argument is that [No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues, or other areas]
This is correct; however further down, Article 56 of the same charter clearly requests that [During the entire period of the Olympic Games, including all ceremonies, no speeches of any kind may be held by any representative of any government or other public authority, nor by any other politician, in any venue placed under the responsibility of the OGC]. Now, this puts the entire opening and awards ceremonies in Shanghai, as well as the WBF, in violation of the Olympic charter, as I recall a good number of Chinese government representatives/politicians delivering speeches at these ceremonies].

Guilia Nastase

[debrose]

Still more on Olympic Charter:

I understand and agree with the general principle that “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” so perhaps this next point of mine is not relevant from a “defense” perspective. However, since some have speculated on this, I would like to mention that nobody from the USBF, ACBL, or WBF ever suggested to me that I familiarize myself with the USBF conditions of contest, the WBF requirements, or the Olympic Charter.


Also, it was pointed out to me tonight that most players who participate in WBF events (or watch the Daily Show, or read the Bridge World), are familiar with the drug testing requirements that the WBF enforces. It is widely recognized that these requirements are related to attempts to get bridge into the Olympics, so it was put forth that this should have made me aware that we were expected to follow the Olympic Charter. I was certainly familiar with the drug testing requirements before this tournament, so perhaps I was remiss in not researching and investigating the charter further.

[debrose]

Misquotes, and misunderstandings:

Gail Greenberg is a longtime friend and business associate of mine, who served in the thankless job of non-playing captain in Shanghai. It is not surprising to me that her experiences there, in the role of captain rather than player, were quite different from the rest of ours. She has spoken to the press, and while I believe she has stressed that she is speaking only for herself, naturally some of her quotes have been taken out of context, giving the appearance that she is speaking for the team. In particular, I noticed at least one column online mistakenly attributing the following to me:

Quote

The woman who actually held the sign told reporters she did so in response to questions from players from other countries who challenged the war in Iraq, American interrogation techniques and other foreign policy issues, the Times reported. "There was a lot of anti-Bush feeling, questioning of our Iraq policy and about torture," she said. “[T]here wasn’t the same warmth you usually feel at these events."

So I’d like to clarify, that while I feel a heightened awareness of the world’s mostly negative opinion of current US policies when I travel abroad, based among other things on reading different newspapers from my usual, I do not recall any bridge player giving me a hard time while I was in Shanghai. I have had critical comments made directly to me in other recent travels, but I don’t believe anyone at this tournament questioned me about Iraq policy, or torture, or anything of the kind. As far as I know, the other team members, aside from our captain, did not have this happen. Again, it makes sense to me that a non-playing captain has different interactions, spending more time with fellow npcs, and with spectators in the vugraph room, than the players do. When Gail speaks of receiving such questions, she is speaking of her own experience.

[debrose]

Jan Martel:

USBF President Jan Martel has been vilified in many articles, blogs, and on television in the US. While I won't say she is not deserving of criticism for her handling of this matter, the personal attacks are both disturbing, and I believe most are extremely inaccurate. And while I find some of the actions of the USBF shocking, especially given that I've known them to be thoughtful and reasonable people, I am virtually certain that any assumption that they have been acting on some sort of right wing agenda is false. In Jan's case, I am certain it is false.




I'm going to bed now. Have a good night all.

[uday]

Debbie, thank you for the post. Locking down this thread now.

edit: pinning this now-locked thread for a few days for easier access. Neither approval nor disapproval of the contents is intended by this action.

You can comment, if you choose, here

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=22384

Uday