I was reading the so-called anti-cheating measures for 42th Chess Olympiad — the whole document is worth reading — and the following paragraph caught my attention:
3. IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE END OF THE GAMES OF EVERY ROUND: there will be random checks for approximately 5 to 10 players according to the article 11.3.b of the Laws of Chess (The arbiter may require the player to allow his clothes, bags or other items to be inspected, in private. The arbiter or a person authorized by the arbiter shall inspect the player and shall be of the same gender as the player. If a player refuses to cooperate with these obligations, the arbiter shall take measures in accordance with Article 12.9 and will forfeit the player), in the presence of the Sector and/or the Chief Arbiter.
|
Of course the reader should not be too impressed by the pompous self-referential title “Laws of Chess”. It simply makes no sense, and the legislator, more properly speaking, should have written “Laws of FIDE” — that means less than nothing.
The legal uncertainty associated with pervasive investigative procedures is, indeed, a controversial feature of any legal system. But in the case of FIDE, even with all the good will in the world, we cannot speak of legal system with reference to a fictional society in which any rule can be considered discretionary for the personal purposes and/or ambitions of its majority shareholders.
For example, under the actual scenario, it is very likely that strange things may occur before, during and after the fulfillment of such anti-cheating procedures, and no one can exclude the possibility of unlawful entries, discriminations, and, in extreme cases, even harassament and forgery, in order to alter the legitimate outcome of a competition.
The legal uncertainty associated with pervasive investigative procedures is, indeed, a controversial feature of any legal system. But in the case of FIDE, even with all the good will in the world, we cannot speak of legal system with reference to a fictional society in which any rule can be considered discretionary for the personal purposes and/or ambitions of its majority shareholders.
For example, under the actual scenario, it is very likely that strange things may occur before, during and after the fulfillment of such anti-cheating procedures, and no one can exclude the possibility of unlawful entries, discriminations, and, in extreme cases, even harassament and forgery, in order to alter the legitimate outcome of a competition.
Chinese Chess Association’s Delegate & Vice General Secretary 田红卫 (Tián Hóngwèi) provided a detail about the not-always-easy atmosphere which can occur in an event organised under the aegis of a sports federation such was the last Women’s World Chess Championship match in Lviv, Ukraine. After the eight match game on March 12, 2016, anti-doping tests were carried out. The doping control procedure lasted more than four hours, in a frozen room temperature, and 侯逸凡 (Hóu Yìfán) was not allowed to eat or drink anything until the test ended. Then she’s got a fever. “We were all very worried about 侯逸凡 (Hóu Yìfán) and her health”, 田红卫 (Tián Hóngwèi) said, “but on March 14 she did not show any weakening sign, and played wonderfully the last game, unequivocally demonstrating why she is the Women’s World Chess Champion”.
|
田红卫 (Tián Hóngwèi). Photo: Sina Sports.
No comments:
Post a Comment