[jdonn]

aaronh, on Oct 13 2007, 05:20 PM, said:

An analogous case occurred in the Mexico City Olympics in 1968, where the winning American 400 meter relay team stood with their fists outstretched in a black power salute while the Star Spangled Banner was playing. The US Olympic Committee banned them from representing the United States in amateur competition for life, despite there being no rule on the books against black power salutes. I think that's somewhat harsh, but it's closer to justice than no punishment at all.

And we have Aaron making bad analogies. There is a world of difference between showing approval/disapproval for some particular movement that has nothing to do with anything (but for the fact that the competitors have a strong opinion about it), and showing approval/disapproval for, as Arend was saying, the flag and national anthem under which you are now standing.

Actually I escaped the brunt of your attack so maybe I should feel lucky. Is pedantic all you got eh?

[aaronh]

Hrothgar is correct: I amend "so long as" in the sentence he quoted to "especially if."

[hrothgar]

aaronh, on Oct 14 2007, 01:20 AM, said:

An analogous case occurred in the Mexico City Olympics in 1968, where the winning American 400 meter relay team stood with their fists outstretched in a black power salute while the Star Spangled Banner was playing. The US Olympic Committee banned them from representing the United States in amateur competition for life, despite there being no rule on the books against black power salutes. I think that's somewhat harsh, but it's closer to justice than no punishment at all.

Hmm...

My reaction to this incident is that its a pity that the athletes in question weren't in a position to sue the US Olympic Committee into the ground.

I certainly don't consider banning these players to be "justice"...

Couple quick questions for those individuals who have represented the US in international competition.

1. Did you you sign any kind of contract?
2. If so, are there any clauses that might have touched on this subject?

The USBF and the WBF can certainly amend the conditions of contest to ban this type of behavior in the future. It might stop people from trying this type of stunt again.

Personally, I'd like to think that the satisfaction from winning and event like the Venice Cup comes from actually winning and not taking a medal home with you. I'm not sure the loss of the "official victory" woud matter all that much. One could argue that forcing the WBF to revoke a medal because of a political protest would make the initial protest MUCH more attractive.

[han]

fred, on Oct 13 2007, 04:58 PM, said:

Have you thought of the implications if the WBF did not take some kind of stand?

I am thinking about it. What would be the implications if the WBF would just let it go as an unfortunate display of poor taste. Then what? Maybe then nothing? I don't think that it would likely lead to another political statement by the next winners.

Quote

Suppose that, instead of disapproving, the WBF embraced this brave expression of free speech...

Yes that would be bad, but I don't think that is suggested by anybody here nor is it likely to happen. If the WBF does not punish the players then that doesn't mean that they are in favor of what happened.

[Walddk]

Maybe the women achieved what they really wanted: publicity. If so, they certainly got it. In my view, winning the Venice Cup gives you just that. Your result at the bridge table speaks for itself. You don't need to add personal political statements.

"We think Head&Shoulders is the best shampoo" is also a personal statement, but it doesn't have political undertones. Perhaps the management of "Wash&Go" will take offence, but hardly anyone else.

Roland

[the hog]

"Maybe the women achieved what they really wanted: publicity."

This is a pretty offensive comment. How can you impute motives to anyone? I think an apology is in order.

[fred]

hrothgar, on Oct 13 2007, 10:49 PM, said:

1. Did you you sign any kind of contract?

2. If so, are there any clauses that might have touched on this subject?

1. I have only represented the USA once. I am not sure, but I think they made me sign something. I have represented Canada many times and I am quite sure they never made me sign anything.

2. No chance I would have actually read the contract before I signed it.

There should not have to be a rule that says "Thou shalt not intentionally vomit at the table" or the need of a signed contract (complete with sub-clauses for to exempt bolemics) for a player to know that such behavior is not appropriate.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Walddk]

The_Hog, on Oct 14 2007, 12:58 AM, said:

"Maybe the women achieved what they really wanted: publicity."

This is a pretty offensive comment. How can you impute motives to anyone? I think an apology is in order.

Firstly, I wrote "maybe". I did not state that they did. Secondly, if publicity is not what they wanted, why did they think it was necessary to show the sign? Publicity in my world is: I want to make it public. That was exactly what they did!

Nothing offensive at all as I see it.

Roland

[jdonn]

mikeh, on Oct 13 2007, 05:27 PM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 13 2007, 05:05 PM, said:

mikeh, on Oct 13 2007, 04:43 PM, said:

However, my suspicion is that there were no specific prohibitions against this conduct

Quote

this is a situation that calls, in my view, for an expression of regret by the USBF ... and a requirement that the women in question sign that statement or issue a similar one themselves... or face sanction.

How can these two views coexist?

Because while there may be no 'specific' prohibitions, there were general rules, and the conduct (imo) contravened those general rules.

What general rules? I have yet to be pointed to any rules at all governing the closing ceremony. Maybe there really are some that can be shown to us.

[hrothgar]

fred, on Oct 14 2007, 02:02 AM, said:

There should not not have to be a rule that says "Thou shalt not intentionally vomit at the table" or the need of a signed contract (complete with sub-clauses for to exempt bolemics) for a player to know that such behavior is not appropriate.

Sorry, its just too amusing to have this state come up in the context of George Bush and Asia... (admitted, it was Japan not China, father rather than son, and almost certainly not deliberate. Even so...)

[the hog]

Walddk, on Oct 14 2007, 06:02 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Oct 14 2007, 12:58 AM, said:

"Maybe the women achieved what they really wanted: publicity."

This is a pretty offensive comment. How can you impute motives to anyone? I think an apology is in order.

Firstly, I wrote "maybe". I did not state that they did. Secondly, if publicity is not what they wanted, why did they think it was necessary to show the sign? Publicity in my world is: I want to make it public. That was exactly what they did!

Nothing offensive at all as I see it.

Roland

Well, some people feel very strongly about Bush. By the way you said, "maybe they achieved what they wanted", not maybe they wanted publicity - there is a big difference in meaning. The former means they wanted publicity and maybe they achieved it.

Anyway, back to the important issue. Congratulations Harald!

[han]

The_Hog, on Oct 13 2007, 06:20 PM, said:

Anyway, back to the important issue. Congratulations Harald!

Agree!

[Halo]

Really interesting Bermuda Bowl.

Free speech is just that and nothing at all to do with Bridge ethics, etiquette or any other excuse for gagging people.

[fred]

By the way, in theory one of the responsibilities of team's NPC (non-playing captain) is to make sure that the players behave themselves in a manner that is acceptable to the National Bridge Federation in question and that they follow the rules of the tournament itself.

I can tell you as a person who has been on both sides that, in practice, this often amounts to trying to ensure that the players don't get caught when they do something stupid

So don't be totally surprised if the team's captain (Gail Greenberg - someone who I happen to be very fond of) is singled out for "punishment". Evidently and not surprisingly, Gail was a fine NPC throughout the play itself, but I am guessing that the USBF will believe that she failed them at the closing ceremonies.

(I am assuming Gail knew what was going on).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[keylime]

I am quite happy for both South Africa and Norway in their successes. I have opened a bottle of fantastic Virginia wine to celebrate. A job well done.

With regards to the political statement, I have no public opinion (if you want to know, message me - I have much to say about this) - but do feel that there will be repercussions forthcoming for the members of the team.

This post has been edited by keylime: 2007-October-13, 22:57

[jonottawa]

As has been stated by others, if the sign had been political in nature but reflected a less controversial message, such as 'End Poverty' or 'Stop the Genocide in Darfur', I can't imagine it would have been condemned or even questioned by anyone.

Unfortunately, because of approximately 6 years of overwhelming bias and propaganda in the US mainstream media, what should be an equally obvious and uncontroversial message has become controversial. To NOT speak out against this administration would be evidence of a far greater lack of patriotism, or at the very least of colossal ignorance. Brainwashed naysayers notwithstanding.

Wingnuts will vilify the Dixieberg Chicks. Cowards will waffle.

I applaud them for their courage.

[jonottawa]

Speaking of inappropriateness and the USA 1 Venice Cup team ... Did this issue get resolved satisfactorily?

http://stacyjacobs.c.../bbo-commentary

[pokerbids]

I cannot imagine that this discussion is coming down to the fact now that posters at award cermonies perhaps should be allowed but the words should be better. Maybe I am old school on this - Its a ceremony. You represent your country. Why do anything controversial . any sign - end poverty, end land mines. end or start anything. It just expresses lack of grace, form, etiquette, good manners and everything else my parents taught me.

[uday]

I don't have a public opinion on the actual incidents referenced here but the debates are better than the ones on TV

Congratulations to Norway for such a strong performance.

[mike777]

Interestingly I saw no Chinese team show a poster saying they did not vote for Hu, President of China.

Given all the Chinese teams playing, you would think at least one of them voted for the other guy/gal.