"We didn't vote for Bush"

[david_c]

I totally agree with what Fred wrote. An apology was needed, but the punishment reported here (the second version seems more believable) is disproportionate.

[JanM]

If I attempted to respond to every incorrect rumor about this matter that is flying around, I would have even less time than I do at the moment for anything else. However, I do think it is important to correct the false impression that any sanction (or punishment if you prefer that word) has been imposed in this matter.

 

Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Hearing Panel of the USBF Grievance & Appeals Committee has scheduled a hearing in this matter to start at 9:00 am on Thursday, Nov. 29th in San Francisco. Unless some settlement is reached between the USBF Board, as Charging Party, and one or more of the members of the USA1 Venice Cup team between now and then, and that settlement is approved by the Hearing Panel, no resolution will be reached until after the conclusion of that hearing. Any settlement discussions that do not result in an agreed-upon settlement will not be considered by the Hearing Panel.

 

Jan Martel

President, USBF

 

(once again, please disregard my normal signature, which is usually applicable to posts on these forums)

[david_c]

Hmm ... I don't like it ... even if all the rumours were false, everything we've heard from official sources suggests they are taking it far more seriously than I think is appropriate.

[hrothgar]

If I attempted to respond to every incorrect rumor about this matter that is flying around, I would have even less time than I do at the moment for anything else. However, I do think it is important to correct the false impression that any sanction (or punishment if you prefer that word) has been imposed in this matter.

Hi Jan

 

Nothing that I've read suggests that the USBF has imposed any sanctions. (The Dutch newpaper article could be interpreted this way, but I assume that this is a function of translating from English to Dutch and then from Dutch back into the English)

 

With this said and done, there are a number of write ups that claim to represent the USBF's "opening salvo" during the negotiations.

 

"Here is what we are willing to offer" +

"Its only going to get worse if you reject this gracious compromise offer"

 

I believe that most of the comments aren't directed at a hypothetical final settlement, but rather, what has been represented as being the USBF's initial offer.

 

For what its worth, I'm sorry to have added to the workload.

[bid_em_up]

Henk Uijterwaal posted the following on rec.games.bridge.  I make no claims regarding the veracity of the Volkskrant's account.  (I'd go so far as to say that I don't believe it)

 

I think that it would be a mistake for the USBF to link itself to the ACBL by banning participation in ACBL events.  It behoves the management of the USBF to maintain the "Chinese Wall" between the two organizations.

 

Moreover, the punishment seems way out of proportion to the supposed offense.  As I noted before, if I were a pro and anyone tried to impose these types of sanctions on me, I'd sue them... 

 

The Volkskrant (one of the Dutch newspapers with a well informed

author for their bridge news) has an item on it:

 

http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/bericht/165269.  For those who don't read Dutch, it says that the ACBL Grievance Panel (without a hearing of the involved players) offered the following sentence to the 6 players and NPC for their conduct during the closing ceremony:

 

  1. Suspension from any ACBL game for 1 year.  Suspension for the 2008 Olympiad in Beijing.

  2. Probation for another year after 1, during which the players can enter ACBL events again.

  3. 200 hours of community service for all players, half of which must have been carried out before the probation period.

  4. The team has to write a letter of apology.  The ACBL will decide to publish the letter or not.

  5. The team has to write a document specifying all details of the incident.   (Who had the idea, who made the sign, ...).  This document  can be used as evidence in a court of law.

 

This is apparently a compromise, if the players don't accept it, more severe punishment will follow.

 

Henk

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------­---

Henk Uijterwaal       

To the best of my knowledge, the USBF has no authority regarding the ACBL. So the majority of this letter is in error (assuming it actually meant the ACBL and not the USBF, and was not simply an error in translation).

 

The players could be warned, suspended, barred or whatever else from playing in USBF events.

 

Now....if the ACBL has something within its by-laws about you must be a member in good standing of any other organization which you are affiliated with, thats a different story.

 

Furthermore, as Jan points out, the USBF discplinary committee has not met yet, and this isn't a "court" procedure. Again, to the best of my knowledge, offering a "plea bargain" is not part of the USBF procedures. The committee meets, the players will be given an opportunity to present their case, the committee then decides, what actions (if any) are warranted.

 

Anybody posting information such as this is simply blowing smoke out their ass, imo.

 

EDIT: I stand corrected. Someone who would know for certain has since emailed me and informed me that "Hrothgar's 4:15 post on page 30 (of BBO forums) contains an accurate excerpt from a letter sent to some members of the Venice Cup team, signed by Allan Falk who is representing the USBF in this matter. Thank you for doing so. :P

[bid_em_up]

Jan,

 

I stated this before, and I will do so again.

 

If I read the procedures for the disciplinary committee correctly, the committee can consist of up to 15 members of the USBF.

 

As of now, I think the listed committee stands at 6 members, three of which serve on the BoD of the USBF. Is that correct? Given that the BoD's chose to proceed with the disciplinary hearing by a unanimous vote, it is hard for me to see how these ladies can get a fair and impartial hearing.

 

It is my belief that regarding an issue of this nature, it would be in the USBF's best interest to have a full 15 member panel so that it will be clear that any action taken by the committee is not the "opinion" or "decision" of a select few who disagreed with the actions of the Venice Cup team and chose to punish them. And if the full 15 member panel chose to impose no punishment, then so be it.

 

I also think that you, as president of the USBF, probably have the authority to mandate this as well (or at least some number greater than 5 or 6, I can't seem to determine if Ms. Meltzer is on the committee or not), although I could be mistaken or you may not wish to do so. I hate to add more to your plate, so to speak, but given that any action taken by the disciplinary committee appears to be final, its seems to me that it would be the right thing to do.

 

jmoo.

 

P.S. (I can't tell if the players have the right to appeal or not. In one place in the USBF bylaws, it says any decision is final, and in another place, it says an action by a Tournament Conducts and Ethics committeee is appealable?)

[kenrexford]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/13/america/cards.php

 

http://nytimes.com/2007/11/14/arts/14brid.html?8dpc

 

It is starting to heat up, and outside of the bridge world.

[kenrexford]

A few nuggets from the USBF site:

 

"After the Oct. 25 meeting, the USBF Board retained attorney Allan Falk to represent it before the Hearing Panel. Subsequently, the USBF Board has conferred at length with Mr. Falk, by conference calls and e-mail exchanges. Mr. Falk has moved rapidly to amass evidentiary materials and recruit witnesses, to research, analyze and resolve various potential defenses to the disciplinary charge, to formulate opening and closing statements, to outline the USBF’s position as to sanctions, and otherwise to prepare for the hearings and any contingencies that may arise. In his preparation, Mr. Falk reviewed the USBF and WBF Conditions of Contest and the Olympic Charter, which the WBF Conditions of Contest require participants in WBF events to abide by. The Olympic Charter provides “No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues, or other areas.”

 

This looks like it covers the sign.

 

"The Hearing Panel has scheduled hearings to start on Thursday, Nov. 29th at the Marriott Hotel in San Francisco, and to continue each of the next two mornings as necessary."

 

I have had very few jury trials in felony cases that lasted that long.

 

"Meanwhile, the USBF Board, through Mr. Falk, offered three of the respondents—those who had submitted a prompt written apology before disciplinary proceedings were commenced—an opportunity to accept discipline and resolve the charge short of a hearing, subject to the approval of the Hearing Panel as to the sanction proposed. The Board later offered the remaining four respondents an opportunity to accept discipline and resolve this matter. No respondent has accepted the settlement offers."

 

More vague than the growing number of newspaper articles.

 

J.H.C. == just go there and read it. There's a book over on the USBF site now.

[jonottawa]

I'll just quote Zia:

 

"The bridge world is full of interesting guys. A lot of them are idiots, a lot of them are, you know, autistic — deformed mentally. They’re complete nuts. They wouldn’t even fit into the trailer of a movie of life."

 

Now the USBF is determined that the Venice Cup team be judged by a group of these guys. Apparently the nuttier the better.

 

Didn't we just lose a giant of the game? Shouldn't that have been a wake-up call for everyone that life is too short for this *****?

 

The USBF 'offer' is a disgrace. Whoever drafted it should be sent to his room where he can go back to tearing wings off flies and smelling his own armpits.

 

I'd sooner see the ACBL and USBF bankrupted than see these courageous women be victimized by this kangaroo court.

[JanM]

As of now, I think the listed committee stands at 6 members, three of which serve on the BoD of the USBF.  Is that correct?  Given that the BoD's chose to proceed with the disciplinary hearing by a unanimous vote, it is hard for me to see how these ladies can get a fair and impartial hearing. 

The USBF Grievance and Appeals Committee, from which Hearing Committees are selected to hear individual matters can have (and does) 15 members. Hearing Panels usually have 3 or 5 members, because a larger panel is unwieldy. In this case, the Hearing Panel has 5 members, none of whom is a member of the USBF Board.

[cherdano]

If it is correct that the USBF's lawyer pressed for a settlement including the suggested sanctions, then I am totally disgusted. Sorry I can't put it less strongly.

And if a significant part of the bridge world considered the proposed sanction even somewhere close to adequate, then that would seriously alienate me from the bridge world. (In fact this whole thread has been reminding me why I feel more at home among go players than among bridge players.)

[mrdct]

What a farce this seems to be turning into.

 

Surely an apology, a reprimand and a period of probabtion (during which the ladies could continue to earn a living so long as they don't reoffend) would've resolved the matter to everyone's satisfaction without having to get so litigious - but I guess "lawyering-up" is the American way.

 

With the USBF appearing to be living from hand-to-mouth anyway, and now facing the prospect of the ACBL pulling its funding, can they really afford to expose themselves to half a dozen lawsuits by professional bridge players being denied an opportunity to earn a living?

[jdonn]

The way the USBF is responding is causing me to wonder if I would even accept anything from them any more. Maybe but I'm not sure I could stand to. Ditto Arend (except I don't know go).

[Elianna]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/13/america/cards.php

 

http://nytimes.com/2007/11/14/arts/14brid.html?8dpc

 

It is starting to heat up, and outside of the bridge world.

Both of those articles seem to be by the same author. (Not to deny that two newspapers picked it up.)

[karlson]

The IHT and the NY Times are actually published by the same group.

[sceptic]

haha, this is very funny,they just needed a kick up the backside and apology would have been enough, Americans sure know how to make a mountain out of a molehill, I wonder if any of these people were responsible for looking for WMD a few years ago HAHAHA

[kenrexford]

If I am reading this correctly, it sounds like the USBF has let three of them off the hook because the three simply apologized that the may have offended some people. A very tame apology.

 

The remainder apparently told the USBF to take a flying flip. So, the USBF responded with a slap-down.

 

If this is accurate, if the remaining folks refused to simply apologize for possibly offending, then the "penalty" is not just for the sign. The penalty for the sign is to show some damned respect for others and issue the limited "I'm sorry that you were offended" apology all the rage these days.

 

Idiotic defiance of a simple request for an apology of this nature forced the issue, IMO. If you insist on your right as a Bridge Player to do that which offends many folks who support you, emotionally and financially, an act that no other Olympic competitor is allowed to do, then the agency sending you off to represent the rest of us has a duty to stop that sh%$ right now. If expressions of disappointment are futile, then sanctions are what is left.

[hrothgar]

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)

 

While I don't agree with many of the organizations decisions, I do applaud its attempts at transparency. Its rare that one sees comments like the following published in publically available documents:

 

This reflects a complete disregard for the fact that the Chinese government, which does not exactly have a history of sympathetic views toward political dissent, provided the bulk of financial support for both the 2007 World Championship and the 2008 World Bridge Olympiad.

 

Some of the opinions brought forward in this document may lead to some interesting debates. For example, the section on "damages" focuses on the ability of the USBF to raise money. It notes that the behaviour of the Venice Cup Team might impact

 

1. The willingness of the ACBL to distribute funds

2. The willingness of corporate sponsors like Microsoft and the General Group to sponsor events

3. The willingness of foreign governments like China to subsidize events

 

This could lead to some interesitng discussions

[bid_em_up]

If I am reading this correctly, it sounds like the USBF has let three of them off the hook because the three simply apologized that the may have offended some people.  A very tame apology.

 

The remainder apparently told the USBF to take a flying flip.  So, the USBF responded with a slap-down.

 

If this is accurate, if the remaining folks refused to simply apologize for possibly offending, then the "penalty" is not just for the sign.  The penalty for the sign is to show some damned respect for others and issue the limited "I'm sorry that you were offended" apology all the rage these days.

 

Idiotic defiance of a simple request for an apology of this nature forced the issue, IMO.  If you insist on your right as a Bridge Player to do that which offends many folks who support you, emotionally and financially, an act that no other Olympic competitor is allowed to do, then the agency sending you off to represent the rest of us has a duty to stop that sh%$ right now.  If expressions of disappointment are futile, then sanctions are what is left.

Nobody has been "let off the hook" as of yet.

 

This is copied from the USBF website:

 

"Meanwhile, the USBF Board, through Mr. Falk, offered three of the respondents—those who had submitted a prompt written apology before disciplinary proceedings were commenced—an opportunity to accept discipline and resolve the charge short of a hearing, subject to the approval of the Hearing Panel as to the sanction proposed. The Board later offered the remaining four respondents an opportunity to accept discipline and resolve this matter. No respondent has accepted the settlement offers."

 

Three of the ladies apologized. The USBF then stated if they would accept the (outrageous, imo) disciplinary actions outlined in the USBF attorneys letter, that they would not be subject to any further sanctions by the Hearing Panel. All of the other ladies have been given the same opportunity to apologize and accept the disciplinary actions outlined.

 

Should they fail to accept the outlined sanctions (including the apology), the disciplinary panel is apt to impose harsher penalties. At least, thats the way I read it.

[geller]

The money quote from the USBF statement.

The VCW [Venice Cup Women] have in no way acknowledged that the action has created a serious problem for the USBF. They instead have chosen to go on the offensive by extremely aggressive defensive actions, rather than simply acknowledging, “We made a mistake. What can we do to rectify the situation?”

Reading between the lines, the VCW (or at least some of them) have offended USBF officials (who may initially have been somewhat sympathetic) by not affecting contrition. If they had initially said they were sorry and wouldn't do it again they probably would have gotten off with a slap on the wrist....

[helene_t]

I do applaud its attempts at transparency

Not sure in whose interest this transparancy is. If it hadn't been for the USBF-generated publicity, this whole story would still have been confined to BBF, r.g.b., IMP, Democratic Underground, Jonottawa's blog and one or two other blogs. While it was certainly the Venice Cup team who started this mess, what USBF is doing now seems suicidal.

 

Quoting from New York Times

There was a lot of anti-Bush feeling, questioning of our Iraq policy and about torture,” Ms. Greenberg said. “I can’t tell you it was an overwhelming amount, but there were several specific comments, and there wasn’t the same warmth you usually feel at these events.

If the U.S.B.F. wants to impose conditions of membership that involve curtailment of free speech, then it cannot claim to represent our country in international competition

[jonottawa]

Ah, I get it now. They held up the wrong sign. The USBF would have been fine with a sign like:

 

"The Chinese government doesn't sympathize with political dissent."

 

I think the USBF owes the Chinese government an apology for posting such belligerent and arrogant western propaganda on their website. Did the USBF become a political organization all of a sudden?

 

Whoever's bright idea it was to post such inappropriate blather should of course be suspended from USBF events for a year, be required to do 200 hours of community service, and be required to sign a letter of apology, contrition, submission and self-flagellation authored by me.

 

After all, everybody knows that the reason there's no political dissent in China is that everybody loves the system of government there so much.

 

The USBF is carrying on very much like what I'd expect from these guys:

 

http://www.usbf.net/

[blackshoe]

From the USBF web site, with respect to the winners of the Venice Cup:

 

They instead have chosen to go on the offensive by extremely aggressive defensive actions

 

One wonders what these unspecified "extremely aggressive" actions are.

[jkljkl]

Ah, I get it now.  They held up the wrong sign.  The USBF would have been fine with a sign like:

 

"The Chinese government doesn't sympathize with political dissent."

 

I think the USBF owes the Chinese government an apology for posting such belligerent and arrogant western propaganda on their website.  Did the USBF become a political organization all of a sudden? 

 

No, no Jon,

 

why such an angry answer? The solution is likely to be much more simple.

 

I suspect that some of those hollywood screenplay writers on strike felt bored and put up a story with some twists .....

 

"Aunt Usbf had to punish the kinky niece ViCtoria for her childish behaviour. One of the punishments was to not allow ViCtoria to go to the 18th Birthday party of a friend held at the World Bridge Olympiade.

 

But afterwards she felt somehow bad for having been so draconic. How could she make some amends without losing her face? A plan began to form in her mind ....

 

if I try hard to get the whole family disinvited from the party ViCtoria will not be left alone at home ....."

 

Hollywood at the best, tears, laughs and a drumfire of unxepected turnarounds to keep the spectator breathless.

[jonottawa]

EDIT: In response to this, I wrote this:

 

The following statement was written by one member of the ACBL:

 

Post-Shanghai Actions of deranged USBF meathead BoD ("DUMB")

 

It may be the case that the DUMB did not intentionally act detrimentally to the USBF. But the evidence suggests that is extremely unlikely. The DUMB have acted in a way that has, in fact, been extremely detrimental to the USBF.

 

1) The Venice Cup-winning team members ("VCTMs") held up a small hand-made sign during the victory ceremony in response to a handful of comments they'd received during the tournament about the policies of torture, kidnapping, preemptive war, indefinite detainment without trial, and various other traditionally unAmerican and inhuman policies advocated by the current president of the US.

 

2) This sign indicated that VCTMs had not voted for the current president. It was in poor taste and would not have met with Miss Manners' approval, but was in keeping with traditional long-standing US values of tolerance for open dissent and criticism of government, a government that has from the beginning been of, by and for the people, and which has earned the admiration of the world for tolerating, and occasionally even encouraging, such dissent.

 

3) It was not in any way critical of the Chinese hosts, the United States of America, any participants in the event, or openly critical of anyone at all. VCTMs waved US flags and sang the anthem as they held the sign.

 

4) A small percentage of the bridge community demanded that VCTMs be punished. A much larger percentage asked that either no action be taken or that minimal action be taken to ensure that such behavior not reoccur and that VCTMs acknowledge that they had offended some people with their behavior.

 

5) The DUMB took it upon themselves to escalate the situation by treating what was essentially a non-issue as an emergency, cataclysmic, outrageous affront. The DUMB harangued and bullied VCTMs, offering them what amounts to a lengthy prison sentence with a Scarlet Letter thrown in for good measure for what was, at worst, a misdemeanor.

 

6) Upon being informed of the decision, many of those members of the bridge community who had called for a slap on the wrist condemned the DUMB in unusually harsh language for their conduct.

 

7) The DUMB have acted in a way that is bad for bridge, bad for the USBF, and that diminishes us all as human beings. Their belligerent, arrogant, draconian conduct undermines the spirit of friendship, tolerance, sportsmanship and goodwill that the vast majority of bridge players aspire to. At this point, any loss of sponsorship, drop in membership, or any other negative repercussions stemming from recent events can be completely attributed to their behavior. Furthermore, their behavior has all but guaranteed that this incident will not be resolved in an appropriate and satisfactory manner.

 

8) The DUMB should all resign, effective immediately. The US bridge community has no obligation to coddle, foster, or protect the megalomaniacal ambitions of any demonstrably unqualified group to serve as its spokespeople. Once that has occurred, sanity prevailing,we can return to the issue of what, if anything, ought to be done with respect to VCTMs.