[the hog]

MrAce, on 2014-May-07, 03:53, said:

Ron this was unfair. If you read my previous posts I clearly stated that you and Rainer made good points both here and in BW. But imo later it kinda went too far, Nige1 for example, who I really like his personality as far as I get to know him on forums, said something like "he doesn't know if they cheated or not" We are bridge players and most of us are not spring chicken. I expected from Nige1, just like Rainer made it clear, that he was at least convinced that this pair was dirty. And then you can still defend their right to have a fair trial. At some point some of you, except Rainer started to sound like these two are innocent people and the rest of the world is trying to screw them.

As Joerg Fritsche said very well, if there is a procedural mistake, and that the judgement was biased, there are lawyers who are expert on this subject and I am sure E+W are very capable of hiring a good lawyer to fight against it. Why should we bridge players play the lawyer?

Another thing that annoyed me was the tone of some posters, including you, which sounded like you guys have something against Americans. Forgive me if I am wrong, and I believed this affected your judgement. I believed if the cheaters was an American pair you would react differently. Again, forgive me if I am wrong, I may as well be.

I don't think it was unfair. There was a real "Schedenfreude" (Taking pleasure in others misfortunes), that permeated BW in particular, but also this forum.

I don't know if they are guilty, though, I agree that Kit's articles are fair and present a strong case. Much more so than some idiotic posts and threads particularly on BW. The one by Sapire was a case in point. If this guy really believes some of the comments he made about what constitutes good and bad action, then I am surprised he has ever even finished first in a club duplicate, let alone represent SA as he has.

I don't know where you get the anti Americanism idea from. It is true that cheating allegations stem mainly from the US. Wolff's comments about the Blue Team are disgraceful, as is Swanson's grubby little book for example. However this has nothing to do with the WE case and the points I made about natural justice being denied here.

[barmar]

the hog, on 2014-May-07, 17:40, said:

So Richard, you are arguing that smaller organisations have no need to adhere to the principles of natural justice because it is impractical? Knowing you as I do, I find this a surprising argument from you.

I have already shown why a video link up is not satisfactory to many people. I for one would refuse to take part in a trial or give evidence via such means.

Sometimes compromises have to be made. The ideals of "natural justice" must be weighed against the severity of the potential punishment. If you're talking about prison time or capital punishment, the burden must be on the accuser to give all possible benefit to the accused. In many societies, the government even offers to pay for legal represenation of the accused.

But we're not talking about a criminal prosecution. This is a private matter within the bridge community. There are no deep pockets here. Something has to give.

[Zelandakh]

the hog, on 2014-May-07, 17:41, said:

I don't think it was unfair. There was a real "Schedenfreude" (Taking pleasure in others misfortunes), that permeated BW in particular, but also this forum.

Schadenfreude. (No I am not going to become the German grammar police - can barely speak it myself.)

[the hog]

Zelandakh, on 2014-May-08, 02:23, said:

Schadenfreude. (No I am not going to become the German grammar police - can barely speak it myself.)

Typo, Zelandakh. Actually German is my first language.

[hrothgar]

the hog, on 2014-May-07, 17:40, said:

So Richard, you are arguing that smaller organisations have no need to adhere to the principles of natural justice because it is impractical? Knowing you as I do, I find this a surprising argument from you.

On a general basis, I think that its more important for an organization to act in accordance with the rules that are specified in its governing document than trying to meet (any) external standard. If there is a disconnect between the two, I am all for trying to get the organization to make changes to its documents. However, I am vehemently opposed to ad hoc changes to regulatory structures. I don't think that this should be all that surprising. I've gotten into any number of pissing matches with Bobby Wolff over the years based on his insistence that his own notions of justice should over ride the rules of the game and established precedent. You are Wayne are doing precisely the same thing by claiming that an external arbitrary standard should apply.

With this said and done, I also like to think that I am a practical individual. In this case, this means that when a grand and glorious theory like natural justice comes crashing into the harsh wall that is reality, I expect that reality will be the one left standing. It also means that I find it quite difficult to get too hot and bothered over a few minor issues in a very well run prosecution. (If I were going to start bitching over the WBF, I'd focus on idiocies like the drug testing regime or the piss poor state of record keeping)

[hrothgar]

It is interesting to note that the good Doctors were also unable to attend the WBF tribunal that was held in Lausanne on Thursday.
I guess the long, arduous trip from Germany represented too great a difficulty.

[Trinidad]

hrothgar, on 2014-July-20, 07:05, said:

It is interesting to note that the good Doctors were also unable to attend the WBF tribunal that was held in Lausanne on Thursday.
I guess the long, arduous trip from Germany represented too great a difficulty.

I thought (which means that I am not 100% sure) that Wladow lives near/in Hamburg. That is a more than 600 mile drive through heavy traffic.

I don't think the distance was ever a serious argument, so it isn't really relevant, but Lausanne might not be "just around the corner" for these guys.

Rik

[the hog]

Did anyone read Elinescu's rebuttal? He made some highly pertinent points.

[cherdano]

the hog, on 2014-July-20, 20:27, said:

Did anyone read Elinescu's rebuttal?

Yes.

[rhm]

the hog, on 2014-July-20, 20:27, said:

Did anyone read Elinescu's rebuttal? He made some highly pertinent points.

I agree

It shows what happens when you do not have a fair trial and and do not hear both sides to an accusation.
Note, I am not claiming they are innocent, only that the evidence is not as overwhelming as it seems on first inspection.

Rainer Herrmann

[billw55]

the hog, on 2014-July-20, 20:27, said:

Did anyone read Elinescu's rebuttal? He made some highly pertinent points.

It seems I cannot easily find an English translation. Can anyone link? I would like to at least read it.

[helene_t]

the translations linked from BW are quite terrible and look like automated translations. I believe someone tried to put a decent translation into Google Translate but was unsuccesful. It would be better if he just posted his translation somewhere else.

[BillHiggin]

billw55, on 2014-July-21, 06:13, said:

It seems I cannot easily find an English translation. Can anyone link? I would like to at least read it..

From Bridge Winners: a google translation
http://goo.gl/G2K6A2
from this page select the third item under "Papers"
The translation is rather low quality - note that it fails several times to translate "huster" which is German for "cough" (and therefore quite significant for this case).

[rhm]

The translation is terrible and the exact German meaning matters in my opinion.

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

Someone have a link to the original? Perhaps I can wade my way through the German if it is not too legalistic.

[nige1]

rhm, on 2014-July-21, 01:59, said:

It shows what happens when you do not have a fair trial and and do not hear both sides to an accusation. Note, I am not claiming they are innocent, only that the evidence is not as overwhelming as it seems on first inspection.

Agree. Earlier, Mr Ace asked how anybody can suspend judgement in the face of overwhelming evidence. Some of us felt we should wait for a fair trial with evidence and argument from both sides.

[rhm]

Zelandakh, on 2014-July-21, 08:35, said:

Someone have a link to the original? Perhaps I can wade my way through the German if it is not too legalistic.

Go to

http://www.bridge-ve...e/web/news/3028

If you click on "Stellungnahme von Dr Elinescu"

You get the original German version downloaded as a PDF, which you can save on your PC

Since Dr Elinescu responds to the findings of the German commission and refers to their pages

I would recommend that you also download from the same page

"Bericht von der vom DBV eingesetzten Kommission"

which is also a PDF download.


I am not prepared to translate all this but if you have difficulty understanding a specific paragraph let me know.

Rainer Herrmann

[hrothgar]

nige1, on 2014-July-21, 08:56, said:

Agree. Earlier. Mr Ace asked how anybody can suspend judgement in the face of overwhelming evidence. Some of us feel we should wait for a fair trial, with evidence and argument from both sides.

And some of us felt that the original tribunal was fair...

During the original proceedings, the major complaints seemed to be

1. It was unfair to hold the proceedings in the US because it was too far for W&E to travel.

The second tribunal was held in Switzerland (the venue that W&E were insisting on) and they still were unwilling to show.
(Note, during this latest round of the trial, W&E started claiming that the tribunal needed to be held in Germany

2. The makeup of the tribunal was unfair because there were Americans involved

Quoting the WBF" "The mere fact of nationality can not be the basis of bias"
(This arose because the Doctors were arguing that the new tribunal was also biased against them)

I'm not at all surprised that Elinescu is claiming to be innocent.

I'll simply let the following quote from the DBV stand for itself

The independent commission appointed by the DBV is "100% convinced that information as to shortness of balanced was exchanged in each of these 14 hands" (The video recorded boards. This statement was made by the country whose team will - most likely - be stripped of their medal, whose head was a team mate of the Doctors.

I understand that folks like to bitch about procedure and that conspiracy theories are fun.
Its time to give this one a rest...

(BTW, the WBF also hit the Doctors with a $25,000 bill for the tribunal)

[cherdano]

rhm, on 2014-July-21, 01:59, said:

I agree

It shows what happens when you do not have a fair trial and and do not hear both sides to an accusation.
Note, I am not claiming they are innocent, only that the evidence is not as overwhelming as it seems on first inspection.

Rainer Herrmann

This is a good example how far from reality this discussion is.
Elinescu's reply is entirely a reply to the report by the German commission. It does not say anything at all about the trial.

Also, can someone point me to a "highly pertinent" point by Elinescu? His first two are completely ridiculous, and show exactly why (if you are interested in finding out the truth) it can sometimes be best to just do it quietly on your own.

In any case, for me the larger picture is the following: Elinescu and Wladow are guilty, and were banned from bridge in a trial that was of a pretty high standard. Meanwhile, Amanda Knox is almost certainly innocent, and was sentenced to life multliple times; in the US, there are hundreds of innocents sitting in death rows.

If you need to satisfy your desire for outrage about unfair trials, there are plenty of better targets available. You can even choose them match your anti-American or anti-anti-American taste.

[rhm]

hrothgar, on 2014-July-21, 09:47, said:

And some of us felt that the original tribunal was fair...

During the original proceedings, the major complaints seemed to be

1. It was unfair to hold the proceedings in the US because it was too far for W&E to travel.

The second tribunal was held in Switzerland (the venue that W&E were insisting on) and they still were unwilling to show.
(Note, during this latest round of the trial, W&E started claiming that the tribunal needed to be held in Germany

2. The makeup of the tribunal was unfair because there were Americans involved

Quoting the WBF" "The mere fact of nationality can not be the basis of bias"
(This arose because the Doctors were arguing that the new tribunal was also biased against them)

I'm not at all surprised that Elinescu is claiming to be innocent.

I'll simply let the following quote from the DBV stand for itself

The independent commission appointed by the DBV is "100% convinced that information as to shortness of balanced was exchanged in each of these 14 hands" (The video recorded boards. This statement was made by the country whose team will - most likely - be stripped of their medal, whose head was a team mate of the Doctors.

I understand that folks like to bitch about procedure and that conspiracy theories are fun.
Its time to give this one a rest...

(BTW, the WBF also hit the Doctors with a $25,000 bill for the tribunal)

you are missing the point:

Neither am I surprised that Elinsecu claims to be innocent, but this does not mean it is not worthwhile reading the arguments of the defense.
And Elinescu's arguments are in response to the 27 page report of the commission you quote, which looks at the technical evidence.

Assume for just a moment they are innocent.
Would you have advised them to go to Lausanne?
That really depends how you assess their chances that the WBF would now be prepared to look at the evidence again with an open mind and be prepared to overrule itself.

This would have been sensational to say the least.
If I would be their adviser I would have considered the chance for an overrule close to zero irrespective of whether they are innocent or not.
There is now far too much bias against them and the WBF would have to lose face.

Note, that the successful appeal of the Reese Shapiro Buenos Aires affair happened by a completely independent organisation.

Rainer Herrmann