[mikeh]

I am sort of in-between the opinions voiced here.

I personally agree with the sentiments implied by the women in question, altho my not having voted for Bush is not much of an issue given that I am not an American.

I also agree that it was completely inappropriate for them to have used the bridge awards podium to make a political point having absolutely nothing with why they were there. I think it shows appallingly bad judgment, altho I don't doubt their sincerity and I don't discount that the euphoria of having won, plus the drain of the event, may have impacted their judgment.

I like Roland's point that we should judge our reaction by assuming that the poster/sign announced a politically incorrect or highly controversial view: 'Invade Iran', 'Abortion is Murder' and so on. How about 'Free Tibet!'?

It is wrong, in principle, to decide whether we allow the use of the podium, obtained in a bridge context, to be used for political purposes having nothing to do with bridge solely or at all on the basis of whether we personally agree or disagree with the sentiments expressed.

However, my suspicion is that there were no specific prohibitions against this conduct, and that what prohibitions did exist were vaguely worded: I have in mind the passages set forth by Roland, and assume that this is all there was.

If so, then this is a situation that calls, in my view, for an expression of regret by the USBF (not an expression of support for Bush but an expression of regret that these players overstepped the bounds of appropriate behaviour) and a requirement that the women in question sign that statement or issue a similar one themselves... or face sanction.

But if they apologize, which they can and should (imo) do, without in any way compromising the message they sent, that would satisfy me.

And, more importantly, the USBF, if not the WBF, should use this as the grounds for announcing that such behaviour will not be so lightly condoned in the future... no matter by whom or for what cause.


BTW, the CBF had to deal with behavioural issues amongst a (small) number of its Juniors a few years ago, including the wearing of a t-shirt that read, if memory serve (and it may not) 'F**k Milk'.. instead of the team uniform provided by the CBF. That player was, if I recall, ruled ineligible for the following year. Freedom of speech is not an absolute, no matter how strongly some people say it should be.

[mikeh]

hotShot, on Oct 13 2007, 04:34 PM, said:

We often read about censorship in china and that free speech is not possible there.

So I think this is a great place to show how much free speech a democratic nation can allow it's own people.

If the WBF where to disallow actions like that, it could be seen as sign of approval to censorship. I hope that won't happen.

Governments and politicians have used the success of athletes to prove their own superiority. Why should athletes not have the right to choose the politicians?

What if an athlete would not want to be used by an dictator or worse?

Your point might have some validity IF the USBF were in any way a governmental body or funding were provided by the government, or the US government used Bridge as a weapon of diplomacy.. heck I doubt that Bush even knows about the game. And I am certain he would be very bad at it, if only because success in bridge requires some degree of flexibility of thought.

[pclayton]

I don't like it. I think its bad taste. I don't need to cite any regulations either.

On the podium, your role is to thank the WBF, SMEG and your opponents for putting up a good fight. Thank your coaches, the USBF, ACBL, whatever.

At the cocktail parties, go ahead and talk about the administration and how much you hate Bush and the war in Iraq. Rant on as much as you want.

To make a statement like this on the podium is a distraction away from your reason from being up there.

[muggle]

Congrats to the winners -- it was exciting bridge and great show all around.

As far as personal statements, I totally agree they should be left at home or for a more appropriate venue. Everyone is a guest, in a neutral arena of unity and friendly competition. So it should be treated as neutral ground where bridge is the only business of the day. Leave home troubles at home.

Allowing outside issues to intrude is a real slippery slope that will only lead to more problems. I know in the recent World Cyber Games in Seattle (international video game competition) there was a physical confrontation between Chinese team and some Taiwan gamers because one of them wrapped himself in the Taiwan flag instead of the IOC Chinese Taipei one. Yeah, video gamers are young adult males, but most people who are serious about certain issues, when they hear or see what are fighting words to them, it is no different in setting them off.

So it is just in bad taste. I watch and play bridge to get away from the troubles of the everyday world.

[fred]

I am really baffled by some of the views expressed here.

Have you thought of the implications if the WBF did not take some kind of stand? I am not suggesting the players need or deserve to be "punished" in any way, but at the very least the WBF must make it clear that this is not to happen again.

Suppose that, instead of disapproving, the WBF embraced this brave expression of free speech by declaring:

That was great. Maybe next year every team can deliver a political message at the closing ceremonies so we can show the world that human rights are alive and well at the World Bridge Championships. Teams will be free to deliver any political message they want. Who are we to stand in the way of freedom of speech?

As for the player's themselves, keep in mind that they were INVITED to play in this tournament. When one accepts such an invitation it is simple and common courtesy to respect the rules of the host.

The players have a similar responsibility to the USBF (who they are representing and who are paying at least some of the bills). If they don't like the USBF's rules then they should not have agreed to follow them in the first place.

I don't know if the WBF and/or USBF even have rules that cover this. If they don't now you can bet they will soon

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

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?

I have no problem with the suggestions that the WBF and USBF could use this incident to state they will not condone this sort of thing in the future, presuming they don't want to condone it. Or to issue an apology if they thought it was appropriate. They can do what they want. I still stand by being unable to punish someone for breaking a nonexistant rule simply because someone doesn't like what they did.

[cherdano]

Jlall, on Oct 13 2007, 03:31 PM, said:

I really disagree with a lot of my good friends here, I think what they did was really really bad form and agree with Roland and Fred here.

There is a time and a place for everything and this was really not it. Even if you personally think it is the time and place, it is not about you, you are representing your federation and country and doing something like that is really an embarassment. I know several of the women involved and they are all very smart and nice people so I too am surprised at their lack of judgement in this situation. I think it was completely inappropriate.

I agree it may have been a bit of an embarrassment and inappropriate, but I think calling it a "sad incident", "shocking" and suggesting sanctions is equally inappropriate.

I just disagree with this whole "representing your federation", the players on stage mostly represent themselves, and whatever embarrassing they do they first of all embarrass themselves. Noone will think worse of the US because of such an incident, they will just think worse of they players if they disagree with it.

To reply to Fred: If you really want to keep all politics out of a victory ceremony, then you should just do away with the silly flag-and-national-anthem stuff. Both a flag and a national anthem are highly poltical symbols. Depending on the context, just standing in front of the flag and singing along (or NOT singing along...) can be a political statement. Where do you want to draw the line? What if Zia makes a funny face while the anthem is played? What if DrTodd did the same?

Of course I don't know what motivated the USA1 ladies. However, maybe they felt just standing there peacefully in front of the US flag, listening to their anthem, would associate them with politics they can't agree with. They didn't pick the ceremony, the WBF did.

[hrothgar]

Jlall, on Oct 14 2007, 12:31 AM, said:

I really disagree with a lot of my good friends here, I think what they did was really really bad form and agree with Roland and Fred here.

There is a time and a place for everything and this was really not it. Even if you personally think it is the time and place, it is not about you, you are representing your federation and country and doing something like that is really an embarassment. I know several of the women involved and they are all very smart and nice people so I too am surprised at their lack of judgement in this situation. I think it was completely inappropriate.

Hi Justin

I beg to disagree: If my team were to win a world championship, I would view it as being about "my team". I couldn't care less about my country or my federation.

In a similar vein, the fact that I live in the US doesn't mean that I identify with the USA1 or USA2 teams that competed in Shanghai. (Or, for that matter, the Boston Red Sox)

In general, when I am rooting for a team I do so because I know members personally or because I approve of some of the members in one way, shape, or form. Quite frankly, I think that the actions of the USA1 womens team make me more likely to root for them in the future.

As for speculations about "lack of judgment". My suspicion is that this action was carefully considered. I hope that the women involved were cognizant of the fact that there are a lot of officials wandering around with a stick up their ass. If they did recognize the potential that this could cause trouble, then I respect them even more.

Its worth noting: If folks are really worried about politicizing this type of event, then publicizing it is the last thing you want to do. I would have never even been aware that this happened had it not be for Walddk post..

[HedyG]

i for one was shocked by the photo of the USA ladies team at the prizegiving ceremony.
they represent their country, their team is called USA1! they made a mockery of their president and by doing so brought something into the ceremony that certainly didnt belong there.
i dont care for whom they voted. i doubt anybody present in Shanghai cared either.
i believe we should all keep politics, religion and such out of bridge.at the table as well as at the Venice Cup prizegiving ceremony. and these ladies should be giving a good example to lesser players.
is this now the photo that is to go around the world to show the winning team of the Venice Cup?i doubt the WBF will be happy about it nor the USBF.

[aaronh]

A Bad Argument Clinic here.

We have Roland, arguing, both pedantically and incorrectly, that the women violated the laws of Duplicate Bridge, as if such laws applied on the award podium. This creates a straw man that Josh gleefully knocks over. Then Josh, for his part, makes an equally pedantic argument that there are no rules against unfurling banners at awards ceremonies.

We have Cherdano, arguing that the women actually were representing their country, as if the majority of United States citizens would condone displaying an anti-Bush poster at an international awards ceremony, let alone hold one up themselves. The Venice Cup champions were sent to Shanghai to represent their country by playing bridge, not as a cross-section of the American public.

We have Hrothgar, who is apparently perfectly happy with any banner, anywhere, any time, so long as he agrees with the slogan.

Finally we have hotshot, invoking my favorite argument, the ghastly spectre of "censorship." To refuse to continue to sponsor someone -- which is what any USBF "sanction" would amount to -- for displaying a poster at an awards ceremony is censorship in the same sense as not inviting someone back to dinner who boorishly foisted his opinion on your other guests.

The USBF paid out of its pocket to send these women to Shanghai, where they represented the membership of the federation and their country. It underwrote the podium at which the Venice Cup champions chose to unfurl their banner. Any political view that they express, including this one, is bound to be at odds with a substantial percentage of the USBF membership and to offend more than a few. I see no reason that these members should have to pay for the forum to express such a view.

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.

[fred]

hrothgar, on Oct 13 2007, 10:06 PM, said:

As for speculations about "lack of judgment". My suspicion is that this action was carefully considered. I hope that the women involved were cognizant of the fact that there are a lot of officials wandering around with a stick up their ass. If they did recognize the potential that this could cause trouble, then I respect them even more.

I also would have expected these people to give this matter serious thought before making their decision. But there are 2 indications that they did not:

1) I like to think that this particular group of people could not possibly have made such a poor decision (in my admitedly subjective opinion) if they had really thought about it.

2) The message itself. The message wasn't "Bush is bad" - it was "it is not our fault that Bush is bad".

This suggests to me that either they were only thinking about themselves or they were not thinking at all - if they were they would have been careful to choose better words for their sign.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[helene_t]

cherdano, on Oct 14 2007, 12:06 AM, said:

To reply to Fred: If you really want to keep all politics out of a victory ceremony, then you should just do away with the silly flag-and-national-anthem stuff. Both a flag and a national anthem are highly poltical symbols. Depending on the context, just standing in front of the flag and singing along (or NOT singing along...) can be a political statement. Where do you want to draw the line? What if Zia makes a funny face while the anthem is played? What if DrTodd did the same?

Well said, Arend. If I were forced, at some official event, to listen to a song about God and King I would feel obliged to make public, at the same event, that I'm a republican and an atheist. If I were forced to listen to the Danish "Kong Christian" about cracking the helmet and the brain of the Goth then I would feel obliged to state what I think about all this germanofobia.

Justin said:

It is ESPECIALLY tacky to make a public statement that is a slap in a face to the country you are representing.

Some would say that a slap in the face of Bush is not a slap in the face of the USA but the opposite. I agree that it is inappropriate to make political statements at the victory ceremony, but I can't see why an anti-Bush statement is more inappropriate than anything else.

Besides they just stated that they didn't vote for Bush. That is just a fact I suppose. Nothing to be compared with "Nuke Israel", "Abortion is murder", "Free Tibet" and what else has been suggested as analogies.

[mikeh]

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?

I have no problem with the suggestions that the WBF and USBF could use this incident to state they will not condone this sort of thing in the future, presuming they don't want to condone it. Or to issue an apology if they thought it was appropriate. They can do what they want. I still stand by being unable to punish someone for breaking a nonexistant rule simply because someone doesn't like what they did.

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

Had there been specific rules (NO political statements may be made from the podium), then there should be serious consequences, beyond a mere apology. Where there is at least the possibility that the offenders (assuming you agree that there was an offence) were unaware that they were breaking a rule, then I think we should give the offenders a break IF they apologize. It's like giving someone a conditional discharge in a criminal case (not sure if the concept applies in the US, which throws more people in jail for more trivial crimes than any other western country... by a very wide margin) when it is a first offence and not a serious one. The analogy is inexact.

[cherdano]

fred, on Oct 13 2007, 04:21 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Oct 13 2007, 10:06 PM, said:

As for speculations about "lack of judgment".  My suspicion is that this action was carefully considered.  I hope that the women involved were cognizant of the fact that there are a lot of officials wandering around with a stick up their ass.  If they did recognize the potential that this could cause trouble, then I respect them even more.

I also would have expected these people to give this matter serious thought before making their decision. But there are 2 indications that they did not:

1) I like to think that this particular group of people could not possibly have made such a poor decision (in my admitedly subjective opinion) if they had really thought about it.

2) The message itself. The message wasn't "Bush is bad" - it was "it is not our fault that Bush is bad".

This suggests to me that either they were only thinking about themselves or they were not thinking at all - if they were they would have been careful to choose better words for their sign.

I don't follow - they chose this wording exactly in order not to make it a political statement, but to make it a personal statement. In my opinion, "Stop Bush" or something similar would clearly have been even more appropriate than the message they displayed.

[fred]

cherdano, on Oct 13 2007, 10:28 PM, said:

I don't follow - they chose this wording exactly in order not to make it a political statement, but to make it a personal statement. In my opinion, "Stop Bush" or something similar would clearly have been even more appropriate than the message they displayed.

You could be right, but that would be pretty deep thinking.

I personally think it is more likely that the specific words were selected through lack of deep thinking.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

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

We have Hrothgar, who is apparently perfectly happy with any banner, anywhere, any time, so long as he agrees with the slogan.

Learn to read Aaron: I believe that my quote was the following:

Quote

2. The members of USA1 made a deliberate decision to use their presence at the podium to make a political statement. Personally, I don't have any problem with this. Furthermore, I hope that I would maintain this position even if said players made a political statement that I found deeply distasteful.

[han]

fred, on Oct 13 2007, 05:21 PM, said:

2) The message itself. The message wasn't "Bush is bad" - it was "it is not our fault that Bush is bad".

Yes, and in my opinion that makes it much more innocent than if they had said that Bush is a chimp (quoting Richard). Many Americans have to defend themselves these days when they travel abroad. I have to, and I'm not even American. So I certainly understand them (by which I don't mean to say that they were right doing this).

The comparison with a poster that says "Nuke Iran" or even the black power fist isn't fair imo.

Maybe they were wrong doing this. Maybe they should even be told that they were wrong and that they shouldn't do this in the future. Maybe there should be a rule that the winning team should not make political statements at the ceremony. But asking for punishment is going too far imo.