Sauce for the goose?
Does anyone know of a case other than the Passell case where a sanctioned player has been allowed to make a joint public statement with the ACBL about the nature of the sanction imposed?
Doesn’t E20 of the ACBL CDR
E20 Discussion of the content of the hearing, other than the committee decision, outside the hearing room by a disciplinary body member with any party (whether a party to the hearing or not).The Committee Decision includes the finding of Guilty/Not Guilty and the Penalty Imposed. CDR 3.22.
Reprimand and or up to 2 years Probation and or up to180 days Suspension
prevent the publishing of what Mr. Passell agreed to at the hearing, namely
Mike Passell acknowledges fouling a board at the 2015 Palmetto Regional.
Mike Passell acknowledges failing to call the director after the incident.
As the sanction guideline, the A&C Committee used E18
E18 Cheating and similar ethical violations not specifically cited by other sections of this Appendix (CDR 3.20)
90 days Suspension up to Expulsion
* # 0-100% of Disciplined Player’s total masterpoint holding
but upheld the EOC’s finding of “an ethical violation (but not cheating)“.
What then does the word “similar” in E18 mean? Similar to cheating but not cheating? Similar to something else not specified? One common definition of “similar” is “resembling but not identical”, so if the “similar ethical violations” resemble cheating, why would they not be treated as seriously? The EOC determined that the violation was not cheating, but the A&C Committee found that it was “similar” to cheating.
Can anyone cast some much needed light on all this?
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related
HBJ : I suppose cheating involves the fact that personal gain, profit or advantage is the obvious motive behind such action. The catch all phrase ” similar ethical violations ” possibly covers scenarios where damage has been inflicted upon the rest of the field , or that the final results have been seriously compromised.
In law one often uses specific labels before lumping all other forms of conduct violations under some general umbrella definition. For instance rape ( very specific and narrow ) as opposed to ” sexual harassment and/or assault ( very general and wide-ranging ).
Hi HBJ,
Thanks for your input – always appreciated!
If the criminal code had a statement “Sexual assault and similar violations” would that
include burglary? Or would it only include violations similar to sexual assault? Resembling
sexual assault? Doesn’t the phrase “Cheating and similar ethical violations” have to mean
violations similar to cheating? Like cheating? Resembling cheating? How can a violation
similar to cheating not be some form of cheating? But the conviction here was for an ethical
violation similar to cheating but not cheating ! I still don’t get it!
Hi Paul, you are not alone. I am having a very difficult time understanding this whole scenario. Perhaps the word I am searching for is ‘boondoggle.’ Whomever is in charge of clarification does not have a Master’s Degree in Elocution!
To me, the whole explanation is clear as mud.
Hi Judy,
Glad to hear that i’m not alone!
I really like your earlier suggestion about the EOC and A&CC that since there is more bridge expertise on the EOC than on the A&CC it would make more sense to give the EOC the final
say on cases rather than having the A&CC have the last word. This could be accomplished by reversing their roles, with cases going to the A&CC first, and then to the EOC for final review.
Paul, it is a start but not as simple as it appears. Careful thought must be given to the equitable ramifications plus the talents, knowledge, experience and legal background of those shaping the decisions. It is very serious stuff and many considerations are in order.
HBJ : Just an observation. Lawyers make a fortune about people’s inability to use the right words and to exercise that oh-so-important precision of thought. Lack of clarity , vagueness and sloppy generalisations give rise to more law suits that you could possibly imagine.
I once came across a case where the judge had to give a ruling on the meaning of the word “or “. In the absence of the preceding word ” either ” there was no certainty that a choice had to be made between two options. The judge ruled that ” or ” meant in the context of the document “and/or ” allowing the party concerned to exercise one of 3 options : A , B and A+B.
Far too often we use words failing to realise the difficulty others will have in interpreting them. The example you gave clearly illustrates that reality.
Boy, HBJ, you sure got that one 'right.' I know I am in the minority .. but like you .. that has never served as a stumbling block.
I have always felt that the bridge world has been crying out (and deserves) to be governed by a group who is KEENLY EDUCATED, ESPECIALLY TRAINED AND EXPERTLY INDOCTRINATED about the multitude of specialized and unique BRIDGE issues — not to be decided by bright, distinguished geniuses well schooled with 'degrees' and honors (but who represent totally uneducated and unfamiliar outsiders which are totally respected in the realm of law), rather than learned, long-experienced — or even intelligent (or brilliant rank and file) geniuses whose long-term unbiased bridge experiences qualify them to excel in the proprieties and strictures of the game. Bridge is a in a world of its own and I have always believed (with certain contingencies) we should have our own 'untouchable' governing body. But, don't hold your breath .. it won't happen in our lifetime.
Just an aside. Your “either/or” example is extremely familiar to computer programmers. Many programming languages have two types of “OR”: “exclusive or” = “Either this or that, but not both” and “inclusive or” = “either this or that, or both”. Just as the judge ruled, the latter is the common case, sometimes tripping up the careless programmer.