Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 78

Thread: Concerning extra players representing CANADA at 2011 WYCC in Brazil

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    2,158
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Craft View Post
    The executive informed people that they would not be be allowed to attend the WYCC if they chose to attend the Pan Ams instead of the CYCC. This was a de facto rejection of an application for an exemption prior to one being filed. Such a statement compltely prejudiced any forthcoming application.

    Why would anyone choose to file a request for exemption prior to the CYCC when they were informed that a request for exemption based on the attendance at the Pan Ams would be rejected even before they requested one?
    Well their case would have been stronger before the CYCC. By your logic why would they bother coming forward now ?

    I think the reason is, because they told us they had absolutely no interest in playing in the WYCC, that they have simply changed their mind.

  2. #22

    Default

    I would wonder what a judge would think about an appeal system in which the appelant is notified prior to the appeal that the appeal would be rejected. Admit it Fred, the executive botched both the process and this decision.

  3. #23

    Default

    I'm actually really interested to hear any members of the exec respond to Ken`s post. I think that this should be brought before the governors with enough time so that action can be taken if needed. Also, I keep hearing over and over that it wouldn't be fair to the other top 3 players interested in playing in the Pan Ams who chose to participate in the CYCC. This is not an argument, stop using it. If the exec made a decision that the majority of the governors feel is wrong (they're human it happens) and it already affected a handful of people, allowing it to affect more to ensure uniformity is not an answer. Based on the situation in front of us, without being able to go back and change anything in the past, the question I think needs to be asked is "whats best for chess and chess players in Canada?"

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Clark View Post
    Based on the situation in front of us, without being able to go back and change anything in the past, the question I think needs to be asked is "whats best for chess and chess players in Canada?"
    Excellent point.

  5. #25

    Default

    I know I'm going to get flack for this point, but what is " best for chess... in Canada ", is that the CFC is able to say we pass rules, and stick to them.

    The CFC Executive seem to be not penalizing Dora for not making the " extraordinary circumstances " application to be an " additional " member " before the CYCC " as demanded by s. 2010 of the Handbook. They seem to be treating the situation as a rejected application made now.

    The reasoning seems to be that the attendance at the Pan-Am's is not " extraordinary cirucmstance ", because it was earlier explained at the time of choice, that going to the Pan-Am's would not be sufficient reason to allow joining the team - it was made clear that playing in the CYCC was a necessary prerequisite for all players, including the top three rated in each category, and that the Pan-Am would not constitute an exception under s. 2010 (e ) for the top three. We may disagree with the executive decision on this ( and I do ), but they have the power to decide - and they are sticking to their decision. And they are following the rule - that you must play in the CYCC to be on the Can. WYCC team, unless you are in the top 3. And they are deciding an applications under ( e ) as they are supposed to.

    So, at this point, as far as I can see, the only remedy, as I've posted elsewhere, is a motion of appeal to the governors.

    Bob A
    Last edited by Bob Armstrong; 09-13-2011 at 05:25 PM.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,361

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
    ...
    The reasoning seems to be that the attendance at the Pan-Am's is not " extraordinary cirucmstance ", because it was earlier explained at the time of choice, that going to the Pan-Am's would not be sufficient reason to allow joining the team - it was made clear that playing in the CYCC was a necessary prerequisite for all players, including the top three rated in each category, and that the Pan-Am would not constitute an exception under s. 2010 (e ) for the top three. We may disagree with the executive decision on this ( and I do ), but they have the power to decide - and they are sticking to their decision. And they are following the rule - that you must play in the CYCC to be on the Can. WYCC team, unless you are in the top 3. And they are deciding an applications under ( e ) as they are supposed to.
    ...
    Bob A
    Excellent point, Bob!

    Mr. Craft is misrepresenting the facts. The Executive did not "informed people that they would not be allowed to attend the WYCC if they chose to attend the Pan Ams instead of the CYCC." This is incorrect statement. The Executive in fact made the decision that Canada will not send the team to PanAm due to the fact that the dates of PanAm appeared to be in conflict with CYCC. After this decision Mrs. Daxin Jin made a claim saying that in this case her daughter will not be able to participate in International competition this year due to the fact that she is not planning to go to WYCC to Brazil. Mrs. Jin put a lot of pressure on the Executive explaining that (see the quote from her email):

    "we are not coming this year to Brazil 2011 WYCC because we already been there and she is not ready.
    But Pan-American she will have more chance coming top three, maybe the first. Because last year she got 11 place in her Junior year, only one junior girl won her( FIDE 1460), and other Junior girl draw her. So in this Senior year, she will have more chance because mostly strong players will come to WYCC in South American rather than to Pan-American."

    After that the Executive in favour of Mrs. Jin (actually just to please her) decided to send official Canadian team to PanAm based on the only reason that Dora is not interested to go to WYCC in 2011. Two more players joined this team for the same reason: they also were (and still are) not interested to go to WYCC in Brazil.

    So, the fact is: not the Executive "informed people that they would not be allowed to attend the WYCC if they chose to attend the Pan Ams instead of the CYCC", but just contrary, the Executive especially organized the team to PanAm just because these 3 players officially claimed that they have no interest to go to WYCC, and they prefer to go to PanAm. Bob Gillanders has allowed this team (with reluctance) to be official Canadian representatives in Colombia.

    "Your words and actions have consequences..."
    Thanks,
    Michael Barron

  7. #27

    Default

    That seems even more egregious to me that the CFC Executive would choose not to send a team to the Pan Ams, an international event, in order to protect the strength of the CYCC. Thanks for the extra information, Mr. Barron.

    As well, Mr. Barron, do you have Mrs. Jin's permission to share the contents of her email publicly on this site?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Mississauga ON Canada
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Craft View Post
    That seems even more egregious to me that the CFC Executive would choose not to send a team to the Pan Ams, an international event, in order to protect the strength of the CYCC. Thanks for the extra information, Mr. Barron.

    As well, Mr. Barron, do you have Mrs. Jin's permission to share the contents of her email publicly on this site?
    There is more to this than Mr Barron has revealed, but since I am not directly involved, I will let others deal with the situation. I do not believe it is correct to state that the CFC sent any representation to the Pan Ams - my understanding is that they sent no one, but several people went.

    As to the posting of email contents here, I suppose that can be another reason for the usual "outrage". I doubt there is enough server space to contain all the email contents, but that is just a guess.

    There were a lot of emails and a lot of statements made and then (apparently) reconsidered much later, but the bottom line is summarized well, I think, by Bob Armstrong's post just above in this thread.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    591

    Default PanAm conflict

    With the benefit of hindsight it does look a bit strange that the CFC did not support the PanAms they way we normally would.

    The Pan Am organizers were not communicative about their plans despite our inquires, as Michael B can attest. When they announced their dates in conflict with ours we were disappointed to say the least. The other concern at the time was the viability of our CYCC. For the first time, a qualification system was used and there was much concern by the organizers themselves that this would harm attendance and they would lose money. The Pan Ams posed an additional threat, sadly. If the organizers lost money the CFC would do likewise in an effort to field a team to the WYCC.

    Ken Craft's protectionism was Bob Gillander's fiscal prudence.

  10. #30

    Default

    Mr. Barron,

    So this is the real reason for not allowing youth to participate at Pan-Am games and penalize them, if they do?

    Quote:'The Executive in fact made the decision that Canada will not send the team to PanAm due to the fact that the dates of PanAm appeared to be in conflict with CYCC.

    In your previous post you claimed :
    ‘2. The main reason for the new motion was to allow more Canadian players to participate at WYCC (not only first 3 finishers).’

    I am really getting confused here, but thank you very much for additional information!

    Mikhail

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •