Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Paul Weinstock
1 2 3 4 ... 44 45 46 47
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gene said :

“If the law is clear, then you wouldn't need a director”.

Huh ?

OK, then you (almost) never need one.
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree to your first paragraph. But the DC too took on themselves to challenge a large number of world class players' competence, ethics, whatever, so they deservedly should feel that burden on their shoulders.

Exactly because of that you are so right in the second paragraph. To publish the transcript of the hearing would be the only way to get clear in the open, for them and for B/Z.
Feb. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why, it's not clear ? It was not suitable for the espresso served to the DC.

Let's be serious, Ron, don't bury your head in the sand. There could be no reason to discard experts based on that. Any.
Feb. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ron said: “…Are you asking what if the ”judges“ made a mistake? Yes that is possible. In legal cases there is the possibility of an appeal. How would we know though that this is the case?…”.

By discussing it, Ron.

If we shut up, they'll do it again. Even if we don't shut up, more or less probable that they'll do it again, only with more care (Polish Club expertise ?! What a nonsense of a reason to discard prosecution experts…).
Feb. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
These are the names of the DC of EBL who delivered the verdict on the four cases of alleged cheating:

Fischer-Schwartz
President: Mr. Jurica Caric (CRO), Members: Mr. Gabor Winkler (HUN), Mr. Rex Anderson (IRL).

Piekarek-Smirnov
President: Mr. Jurica Caric (CRO), Members: Mr. Gabor Winkler (HUN), Mr. P.O. Sundelin (SWE).

Fantoni-Nunes
President: Mr.Jurica Caric (CRO), Members: Mr. P.O.Sundelin (SWE), Mr. Rex Anderson (IRL).

Balicki-Zmudzinski
President: Mr. Gabor Winkler (HUN), Members: Mr. Peter Schaltz (DEN), Mr. Rex Anderson (IRL).

I wonder if Mr. Peter Schaltz was brought in for the B/Z case as an expert in Polish Club…
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BTW, Eugene, interesting that an article with 370 comments and counting is not labeled “trending”.
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Beautiful diatribe, Amir. Really agree with every word. But beside my point.

The point is “,,, IF they win IBF and/or IBF officials could be crippled financially, and then we all pay…”. Explain then to the judge that we have already paid in full.

I suggest we, and surely IBF, would learn something from ACBL's very careful and sometimes annoying legal approach.
Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. Actually, paying for the procedures seems OK with me.
2. Reimbursement is impossible, and you know it. Not in this case and not in the other two cases “solved”.
3. The downside of an appeal to a civil court is that IF they win IBF and/or IBF officials could be crippled financially, and then we all pay.
Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gary, I quote from DC's decision :

“… the Commission first notes that two of the experts refused to give evidence. The Disciplinary Commission did not give any weight to the disputed evidence of an expert witness who did not give evidence at the hearing…”.

So it's not clear that this has anything to do with their personal identification, but is explained by the DC as not physically attending the proceedings.

A large number of questions are arising here. Examples:

1. Prosecution didn't knew that DC will want the experts on place? Allegedly not, because otherwise they would have been choosing other experts in due time.
2. “…Refused to give evidence…”. Ridiculous. This cannot be. I understand from this that the DC didn't advise Prosecution in due time that the experts have to give evidence at the meeting.
3. Knowledge of Polish Club. As a number of commentators here stated here, no having such knowledge was helping actually the Defense. Cancelling experts based on that gives us an insight into DC's (non)understanding of the problem at hand.

We need to abide by the decision of the DC, but with every second passed by I like it less.
Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree fully.

Even if the ruling was taking into consideration the history of the defendants, to try to terminate their bridge life is a little far fetched IMO.

They did bring that upon themselves, but something closer to 6 years (conviction plus history) should have been enough.

Notwithstanding, this ruling became in itself the incentive to appeal it in court.
Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Two out of seven. Two were disqualified by the DC because they didn't attend the proceedings and another three others were cancelled because not being expert enough in Polish Club.
Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“… My name is Sue… How do you do ? … ”.
Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
… But certainly not enough if they cancelled 3 experts for lack of Polish Club knowledge …
Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Joe, I think that the wording “connected with IBF” wants to make sure that any bridge activity they'll do (if they'll do) wont be in anyway IBF's sanctioned.

Let's presume they'll open a club, not IBF sanctioned. Anything happening in that club is their personal business, lBF wont have any right there.
Feb. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Alex wrote :

“The reasoning in DC's decision dealt a significant setback to those of us who believe in due process. The due process won't work if we can't arrange for juries rendering competent decisions based on sound reasoning”.

Hear, hear.

This is, IMO, the biggest impact of the decision. And is for worse.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nigel, before the double-jeopardy diversion, you asked a question. I tried to address this up thread.

“A DC who serve bridge, not some Dark Side plot, would honor themselves and postpone the proceedings after cancelling 5 out of 7 expert witnesses of prosecution and would give prosecution enough time to come up with new experts, according to DC's request.

Of course, all that would be needed in case the DC has not announced prosecution long enough time before the meeting about the cancelling of the experts, which was the right path since the beginning”.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Khokan, when somebody accuses me of murder, and I respond “you should shut up, I saw you pushing that old lady” - his accusation is still on me, whatever that somebody else did.

Your comment is a spin.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As we're speaking, I realize something else.

A DC who serve bridge, not some Dark Side plot, would honor themselves and postpone the proceedings after cancelling 5 out of 7 expert witnesses of prosecution and would give prosecution enough time to come up with new experts, according to DC's request.

Of course, all that would be needed in case the DC has not announced prosecution long enough time before the meeting about the cancelling of the experts, which was the right path since the beginning.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Idea, that the impartial judge should work hand in hand with the prosecutor - is kind of radical” .

Tomasz, I said nothing of the kind, it's your own idea. I agree that the judge should work with both sides, in order to understand the case. No more, no less.

But I feel that the DC worked here with (or for) the defense, cancelling 5 prosecution experts out of 7, when cancelling entirely 3 of them for “not being experts enough in Polish Club” was scandalous, IMO.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ok, so your personal idea was to bring the “so-called” into this discussion.

You should look at other news channel.
Feb. 13
1 2 3 4 ... 44 45 46 47
.

Bottom Home Top