[mikeh]

The problem with what the VCT tried to do, if Fred's understanding is correct, is that they tried (it appears) to negotiate the language of an apology before making it. As a lawyer with experience in defamation, I can tell you that that smacks of trying to appease someone with a fake apology: trying to smooth things over or dodge a bullet rather than to really apologize. I stress I am speaking of perceptions, because I do not know either the language suggested by the VCT nor their motives.

A sincere apology, as opposed to a negotiated one, doesn't need to be run past a disciplinary authority. You simply announce: "We made an error in judgment. Our conduct was inappropriate. We meant no harm, but we recognize that we should not have behaved as we did. We wish to apologize to anyone to whom we caused offence. We are sorry'

What on earth is wrong with that or similar language? It is not even an admission of breaking any rules, and it contains no retraction of the underlying statement yet surely expresses adequate remorse about the time and place of the behaviour.

Remember, the offence, if there was one, was not simply offensive to the USBF: it was embarrassing to the Chinese Government (whether or not it was also amusing to it) and to the WBF and to all bridge players (other than those who thought and still think it was perfectly ok). So the apology was owed to everyone, not just to the organization that might punish them.

When they begin the 'apology process' by trying to negotiate, it simply sends the wrong message.

[geller]

mikeh, on Nov 17 2007, 07:44 AM, said:

When they begin the 'apology process' by trying to negotiate, it simply sends the wrong message.

Since they were already subject to disciplinary action, and since an apology is a public announcement of a guilty plea, it would be unreasonable for them not to plea bargain.

[mike777]

mikeh, on Nov 16 2007, 05:44 PM, said:

The problem with what the VCT tried to do, if Fred's understanding is correct, is that they tried (it appears) to negotiate the language of an apology before making it. As a lawyer with experience in defamation, I can tell you that that smacks of trying to appease someone with a fake apology: trying to smooth things over or dodge a bullet rather than to really apologize. I stress I am speaking of perceptions, because I do not know either the language suggested by the VCT nor their motives.

A sincere apology, as opposed to a negotiated one, doesn't need to be run past a disciplinary authority. You simply announce: "We made an error in judgment. Our conduct was inappropriate. We meant no harm, but we recognize that we should not have behaved as we did. We wish to apologize to anyone to whom we caused offence. We are sorry'

What on earth is wrong with that or similar language? It is not even an admission of breaking any rules, and it contains no retraction of the underlying statement yet surely expresses adequate remorse about the time and place of the behaviour.

Remember, the offence, if there was one, was not simply offensive to the USBF: it was embarrassing to the Chinese Government (whether or not it was also amusing to it) and to the WBF and to all bridge players (other than those who thought and still think it was perfectly ok). So the apology was owed to everyone, not just to the organization that might punish them.

When they begin the 'apology process' by trying to negotiate, it simply sends the wrong message.

1)Yes, I was wondering..these are adults..if they are sorry ok say it....
2) If this is some legal document, some step in the process of a lawsuit....ok.....sounds like step 2.

[hrothgar]

mikeh, on Nov 17 2007, 01:44 AM, said:

Remember, the offence, if there was one, was not simply offensive to the USBF: it was embarrassing to the Chinese Government (whether or not it was also amusing to it) and to the WBF and to all bridge players (other than those who thought and still think it was perfectly ok). So the apology was owed to everyone, not just to the organization that might punish them.

Silly question:

Has the WBF issued any opinion on this incident what-so-ever?

I've heard a lot of folks claiming that this was embarassing to the WBF, the Chinese, what have you. I have yet to have heard from any of the "injured" parties with the exception the USBF who seems most concerned abouts its revenue stream.

As I noted in the past, to the extent that there was any violation of a clear Code of Conduct, it was the WBF / Olympic Code. My own belief is the the WBF should be capable of acting for itself. For what its worth, I understand why the WBF doesn't want to start enforcing provisions of the Olympic Charter. As soon as you start enforcing one part of the Charter, you probably need to start enforcing all elements of the charter which means that clauses like the following start coming into play:

Quote

By Law to Rule 41

...

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

[fred]

In awkward situations like this one, the WBF traditionally (and wisely IMO) lets the National Bridge Federation in question do their thing first before deciding what if anything to say or do themselves.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[mike777]

Go down to your local dues paying bridge club and ask the players if you have not heard of anyone being offended.

OF course what, if anything, should be done is another issue.

[luke warm]

kenrexford, on Nov 16 2007, 10:57 AM, said:

jonottawa, on Nov 16 2007, 12:48 AM, said:

Aight, the joke was a little over-the-top and I've deleted it.  It was meant to poke fun at men who complain that women have women's only events and men don't, but I asked a female friend of mine what she thought of it and she said it sounded a little sexist.  Fair enough.

I don't see what your problem with Jill Levin is if she is the one responsible for abolishing Men's events and you think it was an archaic concept that was good to drop.

Why don't you take the next step and sue to get Women's events dropped as well?

~~I noted a hypocrisy problem, an inconsistency of thought. I despise arguments that claim logic but have illogical agenda behind it. Fighting to shut down the Men's Pairs but playing in the Women's Pairs is hypocritical, but more importantly to me it is logically inconsistent. ~~

actually it isn't... logically inconsistent, that is (it might be hypocritical)... the one has nothing to do with the other...

jonottawa, on Nov 16 2007, 04:52 PM, said:

mikeh, on Nov 16 2007, 09:37 PM, said:

Champions should strive to a level of conduct beyond reproach. I know, personally, how tough that can be, and my claim to 'champion' status is far more tenuous than that of the VCT. So we all (or most of us) fail from time to time. In my view, perhaps old-fashioned, the measure of a person is not whether that person lives a perfect live. It is how that person acts once he or she has fallen from grace, by committing an error in judgement or by giving in to an emotional urge.

"Champions should strive to a level of conduct beyond reproach."

So should governing boards.~~

i know i am but what are you?

[mike777]

I do not know why the ladies just do not say sorry:
sorry idiot americans voted for bush twice but we did not.
sorry idiot americans voted for Congress...again and again who keep funding wars but we did not.
sorry idiot americans in the polls vote the leading candidate (Mrs. Clinton) who is for/against/for/ this war.....or that war..or some war someplace...but we did not....
sorry but we are victims...and female at that.

[kenrexford]

jtfanclub, on Nov 16 2007, 03:56 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Nov 16 2007, 03:44 PM, said:

BTW, after re-reading it, I have one clarification.  My bridge partner and I (at these tourneys in the past) had the same sex organs.  Not that this is important, but it did read with some suggestion that was not intended. 

You were Siamese twins?

Didn't that make for problems for setting up the bridge table?

rotflol!!!

Wow. An attorney, known for very careful choice of words, and yet I keep messing this up.

Yes. That's exactly what I meant. LOL

[kenrexford]

jonottawa, on Nov 16 2007, 04:52 PM, said:

Someone on that board needs to grow a pair. If they don't, there need to be consequences.

Hah! Caught again! This time, BTW, with prattling about sex organs.

Translation:

"Someone on the board needs to evolve from an hysterical woman into a much more practical and logical man, with testicles, because we all know that men are the more logical of folks, because they have testicles. If the board members do not quit acting like women, who do not have testicles, but who act irrationally because they have ovaries, there will be consequences, suggested by me, a non-sexist protester who is obviously non-sexist because I loudly proclaim and protect the rights of my less fortunate testicle-lacking ovary-possessing friends. Anyone want to sign a petition that I drafted?"

[kenrexford]

mike777, on Nov 16 2007, 04:56 PM, said:

"It is in no one's best interest that the USBF commit suicide like this"


Again how is the USBF committing suicide? Exactly what are they doing that is suicide?

Just ask all of the bloggers and news reporters out there who have donated time and money to Hillary 2008. It is obvious.

[cphastrup]

A couple of Youtubits about the whole thing:
(Keith Olberman and Fox News - there has been direct links to them earlier in this thread somewhere)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GmZ9ErkVCkU
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KA4yv1tfXYk

/Claus

[kenrexford]

cphastrup, on Nov 16 2007, 09:31 PM, said:

A couple of Youtubits about the whole thing:
(Keith Olberman and Fox News - there has been direct links to them earlier in this thread somewhere)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GmZ9ErkVCkU
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KA4yv1tfXYk

/Claus

I'm not sure whether the clip showing Paul's USBF obit. was a good thing or not. I'm glad that others got a chance to see that, but I wish the context were different.

On the other hand, I am definitely glad that the picture of Paul and Bob having a cold one got in there.

[jkljkl]

fred, on Nov 16 2007, 05:22 PM, said:

The USBF's very existence is at risk here. The ripples could go well beyond the USBF and cause significant damage to other critical bridge instituations and to bridge players in every country in the world.

Is this statement not a little bit to apocalyptical? Ok lets assume the USBF would disappear. Then another DFGTREDGF would send the teams to competitons.

But on a personal note, where do I have to expect damage?

ciao stefan


btw, I found

http://jonswift.blog...ge-too-far.html

and the comments there worth reading.

While I suppose that Keylime would rather suggest

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/14/bds-a...-championships/

[uday]

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=22345

[hrothgar]

For anyone who cares, I sent the following email to the USBF and ACBL BoDs

I am writing this letter to indicate my support for the USA1 Venice Cup Team and to respectfully request that the USBF ceases its attempts to punish members of the team. I believe that the controversy surrounding the sanctions has eclipsed the original incident. At this point in time, the over riding concern of both the USBF board and the bridge playing public needs to be deescalation A politically charged battle that has rapidly spread into partisan blogs and even the mainstream media doesn't benefit anyone other than a small number of individuals who thrive on petty political intrigue and personal conflict.

I recognize that there is enormous controversy regarding the action of the USA1 team on the podium in Shanghai. I think that everyone would have been happier had this incident never taken place. However, the USBF Board made a much more significant mistake when they decided that it was necessary to actively insert themselves into this altercation. The USBF had a number of alternatives available: The simplest course of action would have been to play down the significance of the event and not dignify it with any response. If the USBF BoD felt forced to comment, the following would have sufficed

1. The USBF noted that the behavior of the USA1 Team violated the WBF Code of Conduct
2. The USBF regretted the behavior of the USA1 Team and recognizes that the WBF might chose to impose sanctions
3. The USBF would implement its own Code of Conduct designed to avoid repeat incidents.

The decision of the USBF to take an activist role has transformed it into a principal in a highly partisan fight.

The USBF BoD has the authority to take almost any action that it wants. However, this isn't a question of legal authority, but rather institutional legitimacy. If the player base comes to believe that the USBF is wielding its authority in an arbitrary or biased manner it could very well cripple the organization. For example, it is true that the Olympic Charter prohibits political demonstrations. However, it is equally clear that this same charter bans clients from from paying professionals to act as their team mates. The USBF Board is projecting a message that certain clear cut violations of the Olympic Charter are considered completely acceptable while other marginal cases are singled out for selective enforcement.

For what its worth, I don't believe that partisan political calculations entered into the Board's calculations. I don't think that the Board originally viewed this as a “Red versus Blue” issue. However, you've allowed yourself to be dragged into a “Red versus Blue” fight. Both sides in this affair will start looking for proxies and the partisan Blogsphere is always more than happy to take sides.

I recognize that its much harder to walk away from this sort of controversy once lines start getting drawn in the sand. However, ultimately I believe that the costs of pursuing this affair to its bitter end will far outweigh any possible benefits.

Respectfully,

Richard E. Willey

[jonottawa]

hrothgar, on Nov 17 2007, 07:22 PM, said:

For anyone who cares, I sent the following email to the USBF and ACBL BoDs

I am writing this letter to indicate my support for the USA1 Venice Cup Team and to respectably request that the USBF ceases its attempts to punish members of the team.  I believe that the controversy surrounding the sanctions has eclipsed the original incident.  At this point in time, the over riding concern of both the USBF board and the bridge playing public needs to be deescalation  A politically charged battle that has rapidly spread into partisan blogs and even the mainstream media doesn't benefit anyone other than a small number of individuals who thrive on petty political intrigue and personal conflict.

I recognize that there is enormous controversy regarding the action of the USA1 team on the podium in Shanghai.  I think that everyone would have been happier had this incident never taken place.  However, the USBF Board made a much more significant mistake when they decided  that it was necessary to actively insert themselves into this altercation.  The USBF had a number of alternatives available:  The simplest course of action would have been to play down the significance of the event and not dignify it with any response.  If the USBF BoD felt forced to comment, the following would have sufficed

1. The USBF noted that the behavior of the USA1 Team violated the WBF Code of Conduct
2. The USBF regretted the behavior of the USA1 Team and recognizes that the WBF might chose to impose sanctions
3. The USBF would implement its own Code of Conduct designed to avoid repeat incidents.

The decision of the USBF to take an activist role has transformed it into a principal in a highly partisan fight. 

The USBF BoD has the authority to take almost any action that it wants.  However, this isn't a question of legal authority, but rather institutional legitimacy.  If the player base comes to believe that the USBF is wielding its authority in an arbitrary or biased manner it could very well cripple the organization.  For example, it is true that the Olympic Charter prohibits political demonstrations.  However, it is equally clear that this same charter bans clients from from paying professionals to act as their team mates.  The USBF Board is projecting a message that certain clear cut violations of the Olympic Charter are considered completely acceptable while other marginal cases are singled out for selective enforcement.

For what its worth, I don't believe that partisan political calculations entered into the Board's calculations.  I don't think that the Board originally viewed this as a “Red versus Blue” issue.  However, you've allowed yourself to be dragged into a “Red versus Blue” fight.  Both sides in this affair will start looking for proxies and the partisan Blogsphere is always more than happy to take sides.

I recognize that its much harder to walk away from this sort of controversy once lines start getting drawn in the sand.  However, ultimately I believe that the costs of pursuing this affair to its bitter end will far outweigh any possible benefits.

Respectfully,

Richard E. Willey

That letter rocks. A few typos/glitches, but the message is spot-on.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Nov 17 2007, 02:22 PM, said:

For example, it is true that the Olympic Charter prohibits political demonstrations.

But, is it clear that the sign amounted to a "political demonstration"? If flag waving and anthem singing at the award ceremony does not amount to a political demonstration, I don't believe the sign does either.

[jonottawa]

TimG, on Nov 17 2007, 08:38 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Nov 17 2007, 02:22 PM, said:

For example, it is true that the Olympic Charter prohibits political demonstrations.

But, is it clear that the sign amounted to a "political demonstration"? If flag waving and anthem singing at the award ceremony does not amount to a political demonstration, I don't believe the sign does either.

In theory, you're right, it's not at all clear that what the ladies did amounts to a political demonstration.

In practice, when you can concede your opponent's strongest argument (Olympic Charter bans demonstrations) and use their own argument against them (Olympic Charter bans playing professionally) you win the argument much more painlessly.

Hey, I might win me a spot on the US team after all if we start suspending everyone who violated the Olympic Charter.

[mrdct]

hrothgar, on Nov 17 2007, 02:22 PM, said:

For example, it is true that the Olympic Charter prohibits political demonstrations.  However, it is equally clear that this same charter bans clients from from paying professionals to act as their team mates.

I've just had a read through read through the Olympic Charter (http://multimedia.ol..._report_122.pdf) but couldn't actually find the bit that Richard is referring to. Can someone help me out?