This is a tough one for me.  Ivanchuk, as a member of his national team, had the obligation to uphold his nation's honor and take the test.  The proposed punishments, as they have been listed here are at best harsh and some are ludicrous.

Having said that, I agree in principle that drug testing in chess is mostly a joke.  But, the idea of improving performance through chemistry isn't a joke, and drdokos' argument that competing in elite sports is an unhealthy activity may persuade him, but has no sway whatsoever with me.

Ivanchuk should not have taken the issue on himself; his national federation should have made a stand.  From what little information I have, Ivanchuk acted a bit tempestously and should be reprimanded.  If this was a stand against drop doping, then he should have made that clear and filed a formal complaint.  Again, he was representing his nation and that carries an extra burden of personal responsibility.

If you decide to play for your country, regardless of the sport or the level of competition, then remember that your actions reflect not only on you, but on those you claim to represent.


Btw, we don't really need all the F--- stuff here, do we?

Didnt take the test.  Asked to pee in a cup, not asked to kiss a pic of Kamsky then strip at the prize giving to his stars and stripes boxers.

Petulance - he was not taking a stand.

Failing to turn up for the prize giving is a disgrace too - sponsors, sponsors folks.

Rules is rules. Ban the fellow.
Face the consequences. Or no point having rules. 

Maybe then folks will start realising that there are wider things than their own personal feelings.

Stigma wrote on 12/02/08 at 21:49:41:

I simply think this is not true. There are several cultural differences between America and western Europe, but not on the subject of dope.

Doping tests only became serious in the Tour de France after this event had entirely lost its credibility. Doping tests in football competitions hardly ever happen. Kylemeister already mentioned the Spanish GM Rivas Pastor; I want to add Jan Timman, who never made it a secret that he would categorically refuse any doping test. In fact, instead of Ivanchuk, it could have been Timman indeed.

If Ivanchuk really gets a ban I hope some Dutch tournament boards will invite him, Rivas Pastor and Timman.

PS plus Shirov:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5047

Stigma wrote on 12/02/08 at 22:45:32:


I feel it is 100% up to the individual so long as they hurt no one else.  Beating someone in a chess game because I drank coffee after a good night's sleep and my opponent neglected to put caffeine in his brain is NOT harmful to others.


As for the "more advanced", I meant is as a joke.  Sorry, my sense of humour always bites me in the derriere   when used on the internet and I cannot also "sell the line" with body and other tells.



Running marathons is not good for anyone.  Period.

Does it really matter, I mean really make a differemce if it is Barry Bonds or Hank Aaron who hit the most HR's when a Japanese man has actually hit more anyway?

Most sports have a point of diminishing returns and it is only through advancing technologies like artificial components and lasic surgeries that allow the Tiger Wood (es) and Lance Armstrong (dope from Chemo treatments!) to excel.  Excelling at a high level in sports (beyond mere physical exercise for staying fit) is basically a unheathy pursuit for any body.  Not anybody, but any body.  Some mutants can take it.  

The average human cannot.    Nor can the professional athlete, as shown by actually life years lived by athletes.



So, I urge everyone  to step down off these high horses before someone falls and really gets hurt. Because what the F is the point of riding a bike 3,000 miles to begin with?  Eh?    


ALSO....I mean all this with a George Carlin-esque sense of humour and I respect differing opinions, but I also recognize that many could alos be built on faulty premises so here I firmly disagree-about-this-issue-but-remain-a-big-fan-of your-other-work and will probably forget this silly argument and stance I have taken in another week or so.....

Re:  Armstrong.  He pimps supplements!  He literally sells drugs on TV ads....  He has had more chemicals pumped through his body that has Ron Woods and Kieth Richard combined!  The idea that he somehow got so much better than all the other competition (who have almost all been confirmed to have been doping !!), and was able to totally dominate them  AFTER recovering from ravenous cancers and having parts of his body removed is just plain silly.  

But yet, some must live in denial and hold "faith."   Some people need some heroes real bad, I guess.

Silly rabbits.  Trix are for kids!


But yes, drugs are fine. My kids would not be here without anti-biotics.

Now, back to my hookah.....

Stigma wrote on 12/02/08 at 21:49:41:

Why should there be extra rules for sports? 
If you are serious with this argument, do it from another angle: Test people's health. If they have too high values of red bloodcells or somesuch just ban them from the event. This whole checking on doping is not only getting ridiculous it is also getting in the way of basic rights such as privacy. Athletes already have to give up there whereabouts for every hour of the day as they "may" get tested. 

Then again I see a steady decline in interest for "record" sports. The 100 metres are kinda fun at the olympics, but for the rest who bothers? People are watching ManU or the Browns instead, where it really doesnt matter if players are coked up like Maradona.

GM Manuel Rivas Pastor was disqualified at the Spanish championship a couple of months ago for refusing to take the drug test.  For that, GM Hans Ree (in his column in a Dutch newspaper) called him a hero.      

@Viking: The list is indeed identical, maintained by WADA (the World Anti-Doping Agency) and updated a couple of times per year.

To bring in some facts to the discussion here, several drugs that ARE suspected of being helpful to cognitive performance (and contrary to popular assumption there are several) are on that list, including amphetamine, modafinil, caffeine (not strictly forbidden) and beta-blockers (only banned for some very concentration-intensive sports like shooting and bridge). This should be enough to put an end to claims that FIDEs policy is simply absurd. You may disagree with it, but there is a logic behind it.

@Markovich: This has always seemed to me a strange cultural difference between America and (western) Europe; Why are americans often so lax on drugs in sport? The arguments against doping seem extremely obvious to me as a european: 

It should be possible to compete at the highest level and be considered a great athlete without risking hazardeous drugs and methods that can adversely affect health in the long term (or short term: I think some cyclists have actually died of heart failure following blood doping). Great sportsmen are also important role models for the young, and we absolutely don't want to send a message that medications, especially narcotics and stimulants, is the way to the top.

The exact same arguments apply to chess, except there are much fewer substances that are known to help performance here.