And unsurprisingly FIDE chickened out. 
Must be nice for those players who were banned...

SWJediknight wrote on 12/06/08 at 11:31:10:


Mine too.

So what should FIDE do about Ivanchuk?

There's been hysteria about disqualifying Ivanchuk's results and/or banning him for two years.  Both penalties are described in the doping rules, but I don't see anything in those rules that requires either of those actions.  

Firstly, the doping rules don't say that they "must" disqualify a violator, only that they "may."  That suggests that there is room for discretion and, in my view, FIDE ought to consider the affect a disqualification will have on others.  This is a team event, not an individual event, and its one thing to disqualify someone when it only hurts them; its quite another to do so if it penalizes innocent teammates.  Even in the case of an individual event, it seems to me that you also have to consider the effect on other participants.  Here, disqualifying Ivanchuk would penalize not just his team, but whole other teams, since the Bronze medal would have to be reassigned.  That result would be ridiculous, which means that disqualification should really be out of the question.

Secondly and as to the two-year ban, its pretty clear that the two year ban is designed to punish players who are caught using or attempting to use prohibited substances.  No one is accusing Ivanchuk of that.  From the accounts of what happened, his intent in skipping the test was not to evade a negative finding; he was simply upset over his last round loss and stormed off.  His conduct may have been petulant, but it should not be criminalized.  Banning him for two years would be way over the top and unjustified.  
 
I think its pretty obvious that the punishment should fit the crime, and should be relatively light.  A slap on the wrist is all that's necessary here.

Mnb, I don't think your comparison with the soviet composer applys here. The soviet union tried to force the composer to lead a life in accordance to their system. The FIDE wants the chess player just to devote his time for a short moment to their test and then it's over.

MNb wrote on 12/07/08 at 12:44:38:

You also have to understand in what context the saying "rules are rules" is used. Taking the doping test wouldn't have been lifethreatening to Ivanchuk or to any other person. I could have understood the denial of the test, if it was dangerous for him, but it was not, Ivanchuk just didn't feel like going there, so it was simply an offense to the organizer, and so the organizer may punish him. If you agree to participate in a tournament, you also agree to the rules of the tournament.
Still, not taking the doping test in a chess tournament, is not unfair to any other player (drugs have not been proven to be useful for chess afaik) and didn't disturb the process of the tournament. 
The doping test is just a measure from the FIDE, to make chess compatible to an olympic sport, but normally only physical sports become olympic, but chess is a pure mindgame, so chess is very unlikely to become olympic, so it is questionable if a dopingtest is really needed. So the rule violation is not critical, the organizer is allowed to punish him, but not severly.

Stigma wrote on 12/06/08 at 16:08:49:

There's a big difference between supporting a position and not agreeing with the opposite position. There's no need to support FIDE, while you can still choose not to support Chucky on this issue.

Personally I cant think of any reason to ban doping in chess. If it is dangerous for the chessplayer then the country where he resides will most likely have laws on those particular substances (eg cocaine is illegal in every country I am aware of). 
If the reason is that it is deemed unfair I can follow that line of reasoning, though I disagree. With that line of reasoning one could ban the use of glasses as they give the player a better view of the board, which he otherwise wouldnt have had. 

Come to think of it, all matches of late have been won by a person wearing glasses, so maybe there is something to it...

Stigma wrote on 12/05/08 at 03:11:15:


The choice alas is not up to me. And Iljumzjinov seems have realized it as well:

Quote:


From IM's Monokroussos' site.
I would like to ask you to study the events regarding doping in Tour de France and Giro d'Italia last few years. It can't be denied that the consequence has been chaotical. And the people who executed this policy in cycling (the boards and also Hein Verbruggen) are much more reliable than Iljumzjinov.
The point you have missed with the Mugabe comparison is of course that Mugabe can be expected to use these speed limits to get a firmer grip on his political opponents and to benefit his supporters. So good luck with your support.