Let it be said that on one day, on one occasion, sanity prevailed in FIDE.
January 21 2009 - FIDE
Drug testing is still relatively rare in chess. However, it does occur in various official events and was carried out during the course of the Dresden Olympiad. Unfortunately, a high proportion of the tests were scheduled during the last round and there was a lack of personnel, which lead to a procedural error: there was not a designated Doping Control Officer present at this match (USA v Ukraine).
After losing a crucial game for his country, Mr Ivanchuk was distraught. The Hearing Panel concludes that although the arbiter attempted to inform Mr Ivanchuk in English that he should accompany him for a doping test, Mr Ivanchuk apparently failed to understand the instructions, especially since English is not Mr Ivanchuk's first language. If there had been a Doping Control Officer present, he would have immediately gone to Mr Ivanchuk's board and there would have been communication between him and Mr Ivanchuk. In that case the outcome might have been different. Because there was no notification by the Doping Control officer, there was no refusal in the sense of the regulations.
The Conclusion:
The procedural error allied with Mr Ivanchuk's state of mind led him unintentionally to miss the test. The Hearing Panel therefore concludes unanimously that there should be no penalty.
Pretty much what I figured would happen. Nobody loses face. But had the same thing happened to a lesser-known player from a less important federation, I seriously doubt the result would have been the same. Nothing new there, or unique to chess, but not a comforting thought. Btw, when he was on Chess.FM with me for round one of Corus, Peter Svidler took a moment to criticize the continued existence of drug testing now that Ilyumzhinov's dream of getting chess into the Olympics is long dead.
there's another point which have not been discussed: how would the chess and world press deal with a relatively unknown player "refusing" to do the test? even better: what would be the outcome have 2 players, ivanchuk and another unknown guy, refused at the same round to do the test?
I'm one of the biggest chucky fans, but he should receive a penalty for what he did. if you don't agree with the rules, you don't enter the competition in the first place...
An 'unknown' refusing the test after major procedural errors already happened in Calvia 2004. The defence demonstrated a series of major errors - much worse than in the Ivanchuk case - which made the test request demonstrably illegal under Spanish law as well as WADA rules.
Yet the 2004 tribunal did not even consider guilt or innocence and just handed out the penalty to the PNG player Shaun Press - loss of all that player's Olympiad points. (Incidentally, the integrity of the tribunal can be judged by the fact that the penalty was announced in that day's El Pais before the tribunal even met.)
Remember also that in Bled 2002 one of the Russian players told a drug tester to 'F... off' and received no penalty for refusing a test.
FIDE has always had special rules for top federations - remember the Kasparov-Korchnoi and Ribil-Smyslov forfeits in the early 1980s; this case is nothing new.
Thank heavens sanity prevailed in the end. I cannot see any sensible reason, other than pecuniary ones by FIDE Medical Commission flunkies and allied contractors, for this stubborn insistence on doping control in a largely mental activity.
Indeed there are drugs (such as cognitive enhancers) that could theoretically enhance chess playing ability but it is not feasible to test for them. I doubt steroids and erythropoietin and the like do but aught to your chess. FIDE should call time on this silly piss-taking project.
It's all very dreadful having one rule for PNG and another for the Ukraine, of course, but frankly I'm sure Mr Press survived losing his Olympiad points a lot better than Ivanchuk would have done.
Anyway, good to see FIDE has some politicians in it and can at least manage a decent fudge/whitewash in propoer open and democratic style. Who were the panel, do we know?
Computer assistance is the performance enhancing equivalent of drugs for Chess. Certainly at the elite level all practical precautions should be taken to ensure chess does not get polluted like many drug infested sports. Dont see the value of drug testing chess players.
What I don't understand is why all the top GMs are so against the dope testing. Every other sport is monitored for this and so should chess be. Their resistance makes me wonder if there is something to hide.
BJ
I believe some chess players need drugs.
Chess players are more mad than other people. Without antidepressiva or psychopharmaka some players can`t play. I think mad chess players should have a right to play chess too as well at the highest level.
Athletes cannot take some medecine because they could be detected as drugs. It happened in hockey a couple of years ago when a goaly was taking pills to regrow hairs (or something like that). He was tested positive, but nothing was charged against him after some investigations...
I wonder what would happen if a chess player took a similar kind of pill and was tested positive.
I'm sure most of the top chess players are not followed by a doctor in order to understand all these rules and effects.
Thank heavens sanity prevailed in the end. I cannot see any sensible reason, other than pecuniary ones by FIDE Medical Commission flunkies and allied contractors, for this stubborn insistence on doping control in a largely mental activity. Indeed there are drugs (such as cognitive enhancers) that could theoretically enhance chess playing ability but it is not feasible to test for them. I doubt steroids and erythropoietin and the like do but aught to your chess. FIDE should call time on this silly piss-taking project.
It would be interesting to see whether Ivanchuk is going to play better after this. He is a top seed after all.
hahahaha
"Ivanchuk apparently failed to understand the instructions, especially since English is not Mr Ivanchuk's first language."
That's a pretty good joke. If there is a top GM who is multilingual it is Chucky.
I have myself followed some of Chuckys post game analysis and talk on different occasions and you can believe me, his English is pretty decent.
Anyway, thank God this issue caused no further harm.
Do you mean "nixes" as in Nixon?
Suggesting that Ivanchuk played badly so far is "judging a game by the result". Arguably, this is all what matters in the end. Yet he had better to winning positions in his first three games before spoiling (almost) everything in time trouble ... .
Last year at MTel, his incredible 5/5 start included some time scrambles - but then he somehow survived (both on the clock and on the board). And at the press conference, he stated that "one cannot be lucky all the time" - prophetic words in hindsight !!?
Anyway, today's round was quite spectacular (for once, not Ivanchuk's game against Carlsen) and a nice contrast to the dire 4th round. Still too early to predict who may be winning the tournament, same applies to the B and C groups.
More child abuse from Van Wely. And a very interesting Ruy from Carlsen. Is that approach completely new? And Short's Sicilian sidesteps don't always work, isn't Bb5+ a usual move in that variation? position collapsed pretty quickly..Karjakin, jaw-dropping stuff, kudos..don't you love those moves you gotta replay cause you cant believe them?? and no sympathy for time scrambles from me! perhaps the opponent could have played better if he had used as much time? if ivanchuck can't handle mr ticky by now...(end of sermon)
I am more inclined that drugs have a dumbing effect on chessplayers, more than enhancing their performance. I'd like to play an important round against a player who is all doped up. Hey, you can take all the drugs you want but if you don't know how mate with two bishops, those drugs are not going to help.
"The Hearing Panel concludes that ..."
... all players need a Hearing Aid, with a babelfish included.
"Remember also that in Bled 2002 one of the Russian players told a drug tester to 'F... off' and received no penalty for refusing a test."
Who was that, Tassie?
This totally stinks. If FIDE considers doping tests to be a good idea, then do doping tests. But then you CANNOT tolerate that a player - no matter how strong or popular - refuses to take them; you have to follow the rules, or it doesn't make any sense. Otherwise, don't do them, whatever it means for IOC recognition or otherwise. You can't have both.
And FIDE's excuse for not applying the rules on Ivanchuk is simply pathetic, arguably even by FIDE's own standards... Especially in the light of 'unknowns' (Press, Miller, others?) receiving punishments for the same 'crime'. (Btw, Press has said that a 2 years ban would have been BETTER than what happened - it would only have affected _him_, while the removal of his points in the Olympiad did no real harm to him personally - he even got to keep his considerable rating gain of 40 points! - it just hurt his team.)
"Chess players are more mad than other people. Without antidepressiva or psychopharmaka some players can`t play. I think mad chess players should have a right to play chess too as well at the highest level."
If you need to take a medication that is on the list of banned drugs (not that psychiatric medications in general are), I would suppose you apply for a Therapeutic Use Exemption in chess just like in other sports: http://www.wada-ama.org/en/exemptions.ch2
The Russian player refusing a test in Bled 2002 was supposed to be Morozevich, but as far as I know the name of the refusenik was never confirmed.
Thanks.
I would tell them they can have my urine if they hold the cup... then proceed to pee all over their hands!
Yeah, Mig is right, it boils down to a break for a big name from a major federation. Not only that, there appears to be relatively strong chess sponsorship in Ukraine, which FIDE couldn't afford to piss off. Lesser player from minor chess country would have been smacked down with a suspension.
> "If FIDE considers doping tests to be a good idea, then do doping tests."
If FIDE wants to do doping tests, they should have better methods. Just like all their actions, this part needs more transparency and more predictability. (Before someone jumps all over that last word, let me say that I don't mean predictability that would help someone evade discovery. I mean something along the lines of: "Every major event will have at least n players tested. Those players will be notified m hours before the game to show up k minutes earlier for the testing. The procedure for selection those players (unless they go with everyone gets tested) should be published and audited.")
Personally I agree with someone above who pointed out that they should concentrate on ensuring the lack of computer cheating (the logical equivalent of doping in some other sports), however, if they want to test, they should at least do it right. As the old adage goes, "If a thing is worth doing at all, then it's worth doing right."
Let's hope the IOC/WADA lets get them away with it.
I visited this page first time to get info on people search and found it Very Good Job of acknowledgment and a marvelous source of info.........Thanks Admin! http://www.bestphonelookup.com