"We didn't vote for Bush"

[luke warm]

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...

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]

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.  :rolleyes:

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]

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]

"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)

 

/Claus

[kenrexford]

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)

 

/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]

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.blogspot.com/2007/11/bridge-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.bridgebase.com/index.php?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]

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]

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]

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]

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.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_122.pdf) but couldn't actually find the bit that Richard is referring to. Can someone help me out?

[jonottawa]

Page 82

[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]

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]

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]

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":

 

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]

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]

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]

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.