[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.

[jonottawa]

mikeh, on Nov 15 2007, 08:53 PM, said:

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.

Take a deep breath, Mike.

I'd be happy to explain to you what 'taken to its logical extreme' means if you'd like. Let me know if that's the case. If not, let me know which of the rules I mentioned a private non-profit organization would not be allowed to adopt.

The values I'm referring to (some American values and some 'Bridge values') are pretty much those I've outlined earlier:

Freedom of expression, decency, tolerance, compassion, forgiveness, sportsmanship ... and yes, sensitivity to decorum.

The fact that the ladies breached the last one in the mildest fashion imaginable doesn't give the USBF BoD carte blanche to violate virtually all of them.

[mrdct]

I read in one of the rgb threads on this topic that Jill Levin has some history of suing the ACBL and/or the USBF for one thing or another. Does anyone have any details?

[mike777]

mrdct, on Nov 15 2007, 04:08 PM, said:

I read in one of the rgb threads on this topic that Jill Levin has some history of suing the ACBL and/or the USBF for one thing or another.  Does anyone have any details?

She sued over what used to be called the Men's finals.......after law suit they are no more.

There are no more events limited to only Men.

[mrdct]

mike777, on Nov 15 2007, 04:14 PM, said:

mrdct, on Nov 15 2007, 04:08 PM, said:

I read in one of the rgb threads on this topic that Jill Levin has some history of suing the ACBL and/or the USBF for one thing or another.  Does anyone have any details?

She sued over what used to be called the Men's finals.......after law suit they are no more.

There are no more events limited to only Men.

lol - but she is happy to compete in ladies-only events!

[Walddk]

mike777, on Nov 15 2007, 11:14 PM, said:

There are no more events limited to only Men.

But there are events limited to only women. Can we get rid of those too by suing some NBO?

Roland

[geller]

mrdct, on Nov 16 2007, 06:08 AM, said:

I read in one of the rgb threads on this topic that Jill Levin has some history of suing the ACBL and/or the USBF for one thing or another.  Does anyone have any details?

See page 7 of an old (1998) Daily Bulletin for the US Nationals (NABC). The winners (Lew and Joanna Stansby) thanked Jill Levin (formerly Jill Blanchard) as follows.

Quote

“I want to thank Jill Levin,” said JoAnna. “Without her, Lew and I could not have played in this event.” Levin, then Jill Blanchard, filed suit with her husband Bob in 1984 over gender-based events, which she claimed violated a California anti-discrimination statute. The upshot was that, in 1990, three former men’s events were changed to open events, including the event the Stansbys won.

As suggested by the quote, the ACBL used to run parallel mens pairs/teams and womens pairs/teams events, but these were changed to open pairs/teams run simultaneously with womens pairs/teams as a result of the lawsuit filed by (among other plaintiffs) Jill Levin (then Jill Blanchard).

[cherdano]

With respect to the rules they broke: well, I guess one can argue that they breached the rules of the Olympic charter. Which I suppose has been added to the CoC while the WBF was trying to make bridge an Olympic sport. Probably neither the WBF officials nor any of the participating players nor the USBF BoD has ever read the Olympic charter. (Even then, I dispute that this sign was "political propaganda".)
Basing a one-year ban on such a hidden rule is the kind of lawyering that leaves a very bad taste to say the least. It's bad enough if bridge players go to lawyers to sue their bridge organizations. Now we are starting to see it go the other way, apparently.

As the claim that the VCT offended the Chinese government, by some of the posters here and by the USBF BoD: Do you really think the Chinese government is offended by a sign "We did not vote for Bush"??? I would guess they won't care at all, but if they do have an opinion, they would probably appreciate it...

And about sponsors: I suppose sponsors are more reluctant to support a sport where the leading players are banned for a year than to support a sport where once, during a victory ceremony, someone held up a scribbled sign "We did not vote for Bush".

[mikeh]

jonottawa, on Nov 15 2007, 04:06 PM, said:

Take a deep breath, Mike.

I'd be happy to explain to you what 'taken to its logical extreme' means if you'd like. Let me know if that's the case. If not, let me know which of the rules I mentioned a private non-profit organization would not be allowed to adopt.

The values I'm referring to (some American values and some 'Bridge values') are pretty much those I've outlined earlier:

Freedom of expression, decency, tolerance, compassion, forgiveness, sportsmanship ... and yes, sensitivity to decorum.

The fact that the ladies breached the last one in the mildest fashion imaginable doesn't give the USBF BoD carte blanche to violate virtually all of them.

It's the 'logical' part of your thinking process that I have been having difficulty with.

I say that people who (presumedly, for the purposes of the discussion) have broken rules, to which they had previously agreed to be bound and as a result of such agreement received benefit, should expect to be sanctioned. You somehow 'logically' extend this to mean that I wrote, implied, or believed that the USBF rules have to be obeyed even if they require illegal conduct (discrimination outlawed by state or federal law) or absurdity... swearing oaths of fealty to Bush.

If we assume a violation of rules, then the questions become the manner in which the process has been conducted and the degree of sanction.

It should be possible to conduct a debate about those questions without wrapping oneself in the american flag, or proclaiming that certain admirable human characteristics are 'american' or that stating that agreed-upon rules, accepted by participants can logically be extended to include absurdities.

You may have been one heck of a high-school debater, and with your patriotic fervour, you may become a populist politician, but your 'logic' does not impress me.

[cherdano]

mikeh, on Nov 15 2007, 12:52 PM, said:

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.

One can get the impression that the USBF BoD is (consciously or unconsciously) playing the role of the prosecution, not the role of the court. Also, my understanding is not that the USBF BoD went public, but that the e-mail from their attorney to the players got forwarded and then became public.

[hotShot]

We have read a lot on this topic here and at other sites.

Perhaps someone can point me to any valid source that documents that the WBF, the Chinese hosts or other honored teams present at the ceremony felt offended.

[mike777]

btw got an email today from a non bridge playing friend asking me if I heard of this issue

[mike777]

hotShot, on Nov 15 2007, 04:44 PM, said:

We have read a lot on this topic here and at other sites.

Perhaps someone can point me to any valid source that documents that the WBF, the Chinese hosts or other honored teams present at the ceremony felt offended.

obviously someone at the WBF which includes acbl members is.

[hrothgar]

joshs, on Nov 15 2007, 11:33 PM, said:

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...

I don’t find this at all clear cut.

The WBF Conditions of Contest require that participants abide by the Olympic Charter. Furthermore, the Olympic Charter states that

Quote

No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues, or other areas.

One can certainly make the argument that the WBF is entitled to take action against the USA1 Venice Cup Team for violating the Conditions of Contest of the Venice Cup. However, to date I haven’t seen any official notice from the WBF about the “incident” in question. I suspect that the WBF is either smart or lazy enough to keep its head down.

In theory, the USBF could certainly choose to act on behalf of the WBF or instead of the WBF and take actions against the USA1 team. Moreover, I agree that the USBF probably has the authority to refuse to permit members of the USA1 team the right to compete in future USBF events for almost any reason that they want.

Whether or not it is a smart idea to do so is a very different matter.

There are an awful lot of reasons that people start legal battles. In many cases the expected ruling has little or no impact on the decision to instigate litigation.
Simply put, I expect that the USBF would win in a legal fight, however, any victory would almost certainly be Pyrrhic in nature.

[goodwintr]

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

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. 

The Americans did in fact include freedom of expression in the FIRST amendment for a reason, but not the reason you suggest. When the Constitution was ratified, it was understood that Congress would immediately propose a Bill of Rights to amend the text. Accordingly, the First Congress enacted a Bill of Rights. It comprised twelve amendments, and the one including "freedom of expression" was number three on the list. The original First Amendment, having to do with the number of citizens in a Congressional district, and the original Second Amendment, having to do with compensation for Congressmen, failed of ratification by the States. The remaining ten were ratified and became part of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. The proposed Third Amendment became the First Amendment, the proposed Fourth became the Second, and so on. That is to say, the ordering of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights was to a large extent arbitrary.
[Unless, perhaps, you think the First Congress thought, for example, that their rate of pay -- proposed Amendment Two -- was a more important matter than Freedom of Speech -- proposed Amendment Three (eventual Amendment One); or that the right to a jury trial -- in proposed Amendment Eight (eventual Amendment Six) -- was a more important matter than the right to bear arms -- in proposed Amendment Four (eventual Amendment Two).]
TLGoodwin

[bid_em_up]

jonottawa, on Nov 15 2007, 04:06 PM, said:

The values I'm referring to (some American values and some 'Bridge values') are pretty much those I've outlined earlier:

Freedom of expression, decency, tolerance, compassion, forgiveness, sportsmanship ... and yes, sensitivity to decorum.

The fact that the ladies breached the last one in the mildest fashion imaginable doesn't give the USBF BoD carte blanche to violate virtually all of them.

So, if one were to claim "Freedom of Expression", even though the rules of the WBF/Olympic Code of Conduct expressly prohibit such actions, according to your own personal statements, it would be appropriate for someone to display a sign saying any of the following:

Free The Monks
The Internet Should Be Uncensored
Nuke Iran
We voted for Bush
Go Georgie. Kill 'em all!!
1/20/09
Viva Hong Kong
Taiwanese are people too
Our future president's a lesbian.

Would you still be as adamant if the sign said any of these as you are being in your defense over what the ladies displayed as you are being now?

Somehow, I don't think so. The only reason you are making such rash claims is that you happen to feverently agree with the message they were presenting. If however, the message they had displayed happened to offend you, you would be right here screaming for their butts in a sling, freedom of speech be damned.

But in reality, that is not the issue. The fact remains that they still violated the CoC that they had agreed to follow, regardless of the message they were sending. The USBF BoD must take action of some sort. Otherwise, the next time something of this nature happened, the perpetrators would just claim "well, the VCT did it and you did nothing to punish them".

Seriously, what would have happened to the members of the VCT would have displayed a sign stating "The internet should be uncensored" or "Free Taiwan"? Do you think the Chinese government would have allowed them to come home? Or come back at a later date? Or would it have arrested them, tried them and had them executed? Don't think for a moment that it couldn't or wouldn't happen.

I suggest maybe if you want to insist on Freedom of Speech in a country where you are supposed to be following their rules, which does NOT have freedom of speech, that maybe sometime you try making such a display and find out exactly what the consequences of doing so are.

(My apologies to anyone offended by the suggested signs. The purpose was however to show that some signs could be very offensive, either to a specific person or to a foreign government, and that depending on the message, different people would be offended by different things.)

[geller]

One of the questions throughout this thread has been whether the USBF is entitled to undertake disciplinary procedures without a specific notification in advance to the players that prohibited the conduct in question. The answer would appear to be yes. Among the offenses subject to discipline is the following: (from page 5 of the USBF Grievance, Appeals, and Disciplinary Procedures).

Quote

10. Actions unbecoming a member of the USBF (or a person participating in a tournament conducted by the USBF), including, but not limited to, improper actions at the time and site of a tournament, including parking lots, elevators, restaurants, and hotels.

That being the case, holding up a political sign (albeit one that many would agree with) at the closing ceremony seems clearly subject to disciplinary action. However the relatively innocuous nature of the offense suggests that the punishment ought to similarly be relatively light (a reprimand and/or probation). By seeking to impose a harsh penalty the USBF has unwisely subjected itself to needless negative publicity. (The USBF has also failed to get across to the public that the offense subject to discipline was not expressing anti-Bush sentiments, but rather making a political statement of any sort at the closing ceremony.)

[mikeh]

bid_em_up, on Nov 15 2007, 04:58 PM, said:

Seriously, what would have happened to the members of the VCT would have displayed a sign stating  "The internet should be uncensored"  or "Free Taiwan"?  Do you think the Chinese government would have allowed them to come home?  Or come back at a later date?  Or would it have arrested them, tried them and had them executed? Don't think for a moment that it couldn't or wouldn't happen.

While I agree with much of what you posted, the suggestion that the Chinese Government would have imprisoned (let alone 'executed') any BB or VC participant for any sign... including far more direct attacks on China than anything you suggested is misguided.

At more or less the same time as the WBF events, some Canadians participated in the unfurling of huge banners on the Great Wall, protesting the Chinese presence in Tibet. This conduct was timed to coincide with a lot of media attention surrounding the Beijing Olympics and the beginning of the fanfare leading up to it.

The protesters were arrested (as would any Chinese hanging banners on the Lincoln Memorial, for example) but their 'punishment' was being sent home. And I suspect that they won't be let back into China anytime soon

Now, if and to the extent that there were any chinese or tibetan protesters, my suspicion would be that their punishment would be far more severe, but I really don't see the Chinese government being so stupid as to imprison, let alone execute, American, or Italian, or.... you name it... bridge players for unbecoming behaviour on the podium of an international event the government sponsored.

[hrothgar]

geller, on Nov 16 2007, 01:02 AM, said:

One of the questions throughout this thread has been whether the USBF is entitled to undertake disciplinary procedures without a specific notification in advance to the players that prohibited the conduct in question. The answer would appear to be yes. Among the offenses subject to discipline is the following: (from page 5 of the USBF Grievance, Appeals, and Disciplinary Procedures).

Quote

10. Actions unbecoming a member of the USBF (or a person participating in a tournament conducted by the USBF), including, but not limited to, improper actions at the time and site of a tournament, including parking lots, elevators, restaurants, and hotels.

That being the case, holding up a political sign (albeit one that many would agree with) at the closing ceremony, seems clearly subject to disciplinary action. However the relatively innocuous nature of the offense suggests that the punishment ought to similarly be relatively light (a reprimand and/or probation). By seeking to impose a harsh penalty the USBF has unwisely subjected itself to needless negative publicity. (The USBF has also failed to get across to the public that the offense subject to discipline was not expressing anti-Bush sentiments, but rather making a political statement of any sort at the closing ceremony.)

The USBF is a private membership organization. Its BoD can (probably) do whatever they damn well want.

For example, the BoD grants itself the power to refuse to approve anyone's application for membership. Moreover, you must be a member in order to compete in the USBF events. Combine these together and ...

The core issue is not whether or not the BoD has the authority to take action, but rather, whether or not doing so is the smart thing to do.

This isn't an argument about authority, but rather legitimacy.

[bid_em_up]

mikeh, on Nov 15 2007, 05:10 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Nov 15 2007, 04:58 PM, said:

Seriously, what would have happened to the members of the VCT would have displayed a sign stating  "The internet should be uncensored"  or "Free Taiwan"?  Do you think the Chinese government would have allowed them to come home?  Or come back at a later date?  Or would it have arrested them, tried them and had them executed? Don't think for a moment that it couldn't or wouldn't happen.

While I agree with much of what you posted, the suggestion that the Chinese Government would have imprisoned (let alone 'executed') any BB or VC participant for any sign... including far more direct attacks on China than anything you suggested is misguided.

At more or less the same time as the WBF events, some Canadians participated in the unfurling of huge banners on the Great Wall, protesting the Chinese presence in Tibet. This conduct was timed to coincide with a lot of media attention surrounding the Beijing Olympics and the beginning of the fanfare leading up to it.

The protesters were arrested (as would any Chinese hanging banners on the Lincoln Memorial, for example) but their 'punishment' was being sent home. And I suspect that they won't be let back into China anytime soon

Now, if and to the extent that there were any chinese or tibetan protesters, my suspicion would be that their punishment would be far more severe, but I really don't see the Chinese government being so stupid as to imprison, let alone execute, American, or Italian, or.... you name it... bridge players for unbecoming behaviour on the podium of an international event the government sponsored.

The point was, you cannot claim to have "freedom of speech or expression" in a country that does not allow it.

And if you were to go "far" enough with your attempts to do so, it could have severe consequences.

It would really depend on how much you pissed the Chinese government off as to whether or not they would take such actions. International bridge event or not. It's not like they are not capable of doing so, only that they are unlikely to risk the international outrage that would result from such extreme actions.

(And I was simply attempting to make a point, not claiming that they would actually do so.)