Michaela Sandu: "Pavel Eljanov's Lack of Intelligence Struck Me"

Время публикации: 25.09.2015 01:34 | Последнее обновление: 25.09.2015 01:37

Romanian player Michaela Sandu replied with her Facebook post to Pavel Eljanov who mentioned her while discussing his attitude towards anti-cheating measures in one of his interviews for our website. He said:

"Maybe it is trendy to rebel against such method, but it doesn't bother me at all. Ms. Sandu was unhappy when her games were broadcasted with delays, but I don't really understand why. I am, on the contrary, supporting all methods for identifying cheaters. They are seriously taking care of it at this competition."

Below you can find Ms. Sandu's post:

"I had a good opinion about Mr. Eljanov P and enjoyed watching his technique at the World Cup until today, when his lack of intelligence struck me while reading his latest interview.

I was never against anti-cheating measures, as long as they are written in the tournament rules. I remind Mr. Eljanov P that in my case they were CHANGED during the tournament because of my good performance at the European Championship. This is called DISCRIMINATION. And the change came with a PERSONAL HARRASEMENT and ILLEGALLY ACCUSING PAPERS posted on the walls everywhere, at the playing hall, at the hotel reception, at the restaurant entrance (breaking the FIDE and the Ethical code). That was a personal attack.

Doesn't Mr. Eljanov P understand that in his case every anti-cheating measure IS IN THE CONTRACT and that there is no discrimination, nor any personal attack directed against him? Why is it so hard to understand? And how can he compare his situation with mine? Where is the logic in that?

To me his image is COMPLETELY COMPROMISED now!"



There are two things here.

There are two things here. First is the issue mentioned by Eljanov, that Sandu was unhappy about the broadcast delay. This is clear in her letter, when she, before addressing anything else, inquired about "the official reason of the interruption of the transmission of my game in Round 6." I don't know if there has been an official answer yet. She then uses the word "discrimination", which while technically correct, is maybe misleading, as it certainly is not unheard of to apply greater scrutiny to tournament leaders than to others (eg doping controls are often mandatory for podium finishers). Neither this nor the later decision to delay all the games seems to go against the tournament regulations, which do not speak about broadcasts. It would thus seem to be the arbiter's prerogative to decide if/how a delay was to be made, and on which boards (only 35 of the boards were broadcast in the first place). While he might have been responding to popular opinion (which already existed at the start but was ignored), the "changes" for Rounds 8-11 did not disadvantage anyone nor contravene any rules, so the original impetus is not of primary relevance. It is not quite the same, but if (say) the top 8 boards were in a special roped-off section and the elite players petitioned mid-tournament to enlarge this area to allow easier pedestrian movement, would the arbiter be out of line for acceding to such a request?

Secondly, she then lumps together the change decided upon by the arbiters (broadcast delay) with other actions of those involved (harrassment, accusatory papers, and personal attacks). Eljanov was only directly commenting on the former, so her comments here seem rather out of place. "That was a personal attack" --- perhaps, but not by merely the broadcast delay. In the last paragraph, if Sandu is really arguing that the Chakvi broadcast delay was inapropos because the possibility of such was not mentioned in the contract (or supplementary documents), I find this to be rather baffling. Did the contract promise the games would be broadcast at all? The reason why "extreme" anti-cheating measures (body searches) must be contractually specified ahead of time is that else they might be illegal or infringe upon personal rights, whereas "simple" anti-cheating measures (something like asking a spectator to stand elsewhere, or relocating the smoking area to a place with easier visual oversight) can be applied by the arbiter whenever they are deemed warranted.

Смотрите также...