Appeal part2

[anatoli gantvarg]

Appeal (part 2)

Part 1 dealt with the women's draughts. http://belarus.fmjd.org/

Now, about the men’s system, designed by the same people from the top management of the FMJD.

My goal is to acquaint the draughts community with the lawlessness and incompetence of the system, created by people from the leadership of the FMJD (the Tournament Director J. Pawlicki, Secretary-General F. Teer, and the FMJD Acting President H. Otten), which leads to the lawlessness of the players participating in this system and the National Federations which try to oppose this system.

Violation of the principles of sportive selection and regulations of the FMJD
Facts:
a) Decision of the Ethical Committee (EC) of May 12, 2014, on the illegal non-including K. Thijssen into the World Championships (WChs) of 2013 and the violation of the FMJD Regulations.
viewtopic.php?f=65&t=6500


b) Decision of the EC of June 23, 2014, on the illegal non-including of A. Gantvarg into the WChs-2013 and violation of the Charter, Regulations and Rules of the FMJD.

The above decisions were not sent to National Federations and are presented below. The validity of the above decisions is confirmed in the decision of the Sports Arbitration Court of June 10, 2016.

According to the above EC’s decisions, it has been established that the FMJD leaders have violated at least 15 points of the Charter, and Regulations and Rules of the FMJD.

c) Incompetent distribution of places and restrictions for qualification for the World Championships.
Thus, for the qualification for the WC2013, the European Championship was given 3 places, while a much weaker tournament in Korbach – 11 places, and the tournament for "beginners" in Budapest – 5 places. The Netherlands was limited to 2 places out of 40.

In the World Cup 2011were illegally included 2 players from Russia, which showed the result worse than Martin Dolfing (6e in the European Championships).

The situation is the same as with A.Shvartsman WC2015 and M. Nogovitsyna and V. Motrichko WC2017.
The result: the some strongest players can not play in the world championships because of voluntaristic, incompetence of Y. Pavlitsky are decision-makers.

Recent examples:


d) Taking into account for qualification of the same World Cup tournaments for 2 years for several times. Ignoring the fact that players play a different number of matches. The strongest tournaments of Salou-2016 and Salou-2017 are awarded the coefficient of 3, and a significantly weaker tournament Suriname-2016 – the coefficient of 5.
The stars invented by J. Pawlicki are a perversion of sportive principles.

The players who showed the best results this year – A. Chizov, M. van IJzendoorn, as well as World champion R. Boomstra, vice-champion J. Groenendijk and N. Atse who are arousing the greatest interesting by their results and interesting play, have very problematic chances to get into the Elite Tournament of IMSA Games 2017.

e)The formation of a part of the participants of the WC-2017, of the final of World Cup with account of the tournaments, the results of which were known, that is, retroactively. The regulations of these tournaments said nothing about the qualification for the WChs-2017,final World Cup 2017.

The tournaments of the World Cup, held in 2015, before the WChs-2015, which were not qualifications for the WChs-2015, suddenly turned out to be qualifications for WChs-2017. Their results were known.
One of the results: FMJD General Secretary F.Teer, who did not qualify for the Dutch Championship 2015 and 2017, was included in the Tournament Elite IMSA2015 and Wchs 2017,
National championships are depreciating.

f) Places in the 2017 World Cup finals, WChs 2017, Tournament Elite IMSA2015 from tournaments with known results, even played 2.5 years ago, that is, retroactively .
Also the places for the President of the FMJD Nomination, for boys, for a rating of less than 2200 in World Cup tournaments (It is easy to prove that for F. Teier), 6 places for organizers WСhs 2017.
This is not a sporting selection. This is Pawlicki’s solitaire

g) Formation of the final of the World Cup-2017 in Ufa, a violation of FMJD Regulations on the qualification for this tournament: excessive and illegal organizers’ interference in the formation of the official FMJD tournament.

The rights of players qualified to the final according to the rules of the World Cup tournaments have been violated.

I have cited only a small number of examples., but these are enough

Finals of the World Cups-2017 in rapid, blitz and superblitz

J. Pawlicki's reaction is indicative towards the dissatisfaction of those grandmasters, who were deceived and not included into the final of the WChs-2017.

He announced on March 29, 2017, the December Elite Tournament in China to be the final of the World Championships in the fast game (rapid), blitz and superblitz, as if a sort of compensation. This changes the status of the tournament into the official one.

In this case, J. Pawlicki has no right to take into account for the qualification the results of the tournaments that had taken place before that date.

Also, if he has defined the tournament in China in quick draughts disciplines as the official final of the World Cup, then what right does he have to qualify for this tournament by other disciplines?
It is a demonstration of absolute incompetence.
Tournament Elite IMSA can not be called “the final of World Cup” in this case

What gives J. Pawlicki the right to resort, with impunity, to favouritism, settle scores with unwanted players and change rules and regulations, when he wants it?

Usurpation of power in FMJD. Players’ dependence on J. Pawlicki

J. Pawlicki has usurped the formation of participants of most important tournaments, although, according to the FMJD documents, this should be done by the Executive Committee.
How J. Pawlicki forms lists of participants is clearly above seen by the last tournament in China and the men’s WChs-2017 in Tallinn.(Items d,e,f,g)

A system has been created, in which qualification for main tournaments depends to a large extent not only on the results, regulations and rules, but on the proximity to J. Pawlicki.

For example, one of the FMJD leaders F. Teer, with a rating of 2220(166th), despite the fact that he cannot qualify for the championship of the Netherlands, easily finds himself among the participants of the Elite Tournament in China and the WChs-2017. F. Teer had no grounds to play in these tournaments.

This deal of F. Teer with J. Pawlicki is unacceptable for the sports community and is a disgrace for the FMJD.

According to the Code of Ethics, they both must be expelled from the FMJD leadership.

A system of dependence has been created not only for players, but also for members of the General Assembly (GA) and, most importantly, for the members of the Ethical Committee, many of whom are referees.

Who appoints referees?

Let's turn to the paragraph 3, Annex 4, The referee, Appointment of the referee
3.1. The Main Referee is appointed by the FMJD Executive Board
The FMJD Executive Board can delegate this right to the Tournament Director.

This item about the right of J. Pawlicki to appoint referees was introduced by him. At the General Assembly (GA), there were no such proposals.

Let's see how cleverly he manipulates this right granted him:
Most tournaments are refereed by himself; but he does not forget about the members of the Ethical Committee (EC).
Mr Ngondip from Cameroon was elected EC President and immediately offered to referee the most prestigious tournament in China. I have already mentioned I. Ismailov from Turkey. It seems that this is J. Pawlicki’s favourite referee. D. Tkachenko did not represent the country at all, and since she was playing for the FMJD at that moment, they introduced her into the EC.
J. Pawlicki does what he wants with such an EC, so much dependent on him.

Most revealing examples:

a) Change of result in the game of player from Guinea at WChs-2013. F. Teer changed the result of his game, after which the player did not come to the next game in protest. It's amazing that F. Teer, who has refereed world championships, does not know the rules.

They know rules better in Guinea. The appeal jury had to intervene, which, a priori, should consist of experts. But the jury included the "expert" J. Pawlicki, who did not react to the incompetence of F. Teer. In this case, the player should appeal to the Technical Committee (TC) in charge of the rules; however, J. Pawlicki is a TC member, and the Committee is headed by... F. Teer himself. It remains for the player to apply to the Executive Committee (EC) of the FMJD, where the same persons are decision-makers.

b) Same as with women, J. Pawlicki changed the results in men after the tournament in Suriname in 2016.

In such cases, the Code of Ethics assumes a suspension from refereeing for 3 years, but the EC is dependent. Thus is the type of democracy the FMJD has.

General Assembly

The General Assembly (GA), because of the above system of dependence of its members on the FMJD top management, has turned into a decorative body, which adopts all the numerous proposals by F. Teer and J. Pawlicki, including those that violate the FMJD Charter.

Thus, the decision of the Ethical Committee was concealed from the members of the GA.

It seems that in recent years there have been more changes than in all the years of FMJD existence.
Now again, they amend the FMJD Charter specifically for H. Otten.

FMJD Charter. Who is the author?

The fact is that the new FMJD Charter for the GA-2015 was drafted by J. Pawlicki. For players, the most important part is the Code of Ethics. It was the same as in chess, where it was drawn up by lawyers. However, F. Teer, and then J. Pawlicki made great changes. Even my small legal knowledge is enough to declare with full responsibility that the Code of Ethics of the FMJD (by J. Pawlicki) can be defined as a manual for swindlers. The main difference from Codes of Ethics of other federations is that, according to the FMJD Code of Ethics, decisions of the FMJD Ethical Committee are challenged at the other body of the FMJD – the General Assembly. That is, a complaint against to the leaders of the FMJD is considered by them themselves. The periodicity is once every two years. In jurisprudence, this is unacceptable. There are also other changes directed against the players.
For example, for a complaint against J. Pawlicki and his colleagues in the Executive Committee, one has to pay 100 euros for each of their violations, and so on.

Committee of Players

In any public body, the presence of a lawyer is a big plus.

The previous section explains why the lawyer B. Butulis from Latvia was not included into the Committee of Players, although he won the required third place in voting.
The presence of B. Butulis, as well as any independent lawyer, in the Committee of Players, is excluded for FMJD bosses. Therefore, without any explanations, he was replaced by the player, who won two times less vote. And no one asked the question about extraneous dictatorship: who and why took this decision?

Electronic voting cannot be secret. Where are the results corresponding to an open vote?

I did not participate in the voting, because I saw that everything was being done to form the majority, convenient to J. Pawlicki. And the actions against B. Butulis prove it.

Of course, everything is done so that the Committee of Players include the players for whom there is a conflict of interest, since all of them actively participate in FMJD official tournaments.

It is obvious to me that the Committee of Players should consist of and headed by known and respected players, independent from FMJD, like B. Butulis.

There are quite a lot of them in the Netherlands only: P. Meurs, V. Wesselink, J. Akker, S. Vinkel, P. Oudshorn, J. Stokkel and others.

Draughts-64

If you look at the GA-2013 report, you can see that the most part of the sitting was devoted to intrigues and attacks by J. Pawlicki against Section-64.

Then, F. Teer held an electronic voting on splitting the section into smaller ones. It was a violation of the FMJD Charter, which assumed only two sections. Constant intrigues and humiliations bored the leaders of Section-64, and they separated into the International Draughts Federation (IDF).

The federations of the countries of the former Soviet Union faced considerable problems and conflicts.

It should be noted that at official World and European Championships-64, the prize money is higher than in draughts-100; and most important is that in the countries developing draughts-64, the popularity of the game is much higher than that of the draughts-100.
I'm sure that this separation was one of the biggest mistakes of the FMJD.

And here again, everybody goes on in the wake of J. Pawlicki, whose goal was to seize control over the Brazilian version and to make an accent in favour of Turkish draughts.

For this purpose, I. Ismailov, the already mentioned J. Pawlicki’s favourite, is nominated for the post of the head of Section-64. As always, countries that do not play draughts-64 will be used for voting.

Rightlessness of national federations protesting against permanent violations of FMJD Charter, Regulations and Rules

I can write a lot about it, but I’ll give just one latest example.

The proposals of the Belarusian Draughts Federation were not included in the agenda of the GA-2015 by F. Teer. No decisions were made on them, which is a violation of the FMJD Charter.

The Belarusian Federation was audio recording the course of the GA, having received a permission to do so in advance.

According to this record, F. Teer's report is a falsification, of which the Belorussian Federation had repeatedly accused F. Teer in connection with the reports of some previous GA.

Also, the Belarusian Federation repeatedly demanded a full financial report, with the detailing of all expenses of the FMJD for each member of the Executive Committee. Being a member of the FMJD, the Federation must have such reports.

Who and how manages FMJD finances?
Absence of publicity and transparency in spending finances

The FMJD officials call themselves volunteers. In reality, only F. Luteyn can be considered a volunteer among the five members of the Executive Committee.

The financial side is causing especially many questions after the start of SportAccord tournaments. Prior to this, F. Luteyn provided full reports and satisfied the requests of national federations. Since 2011, when SportAccord began transferring 50,000 US dollars for each tournament to the FMJD, reports became brief. Despite the repeated applications and demands of the Belarusian and Russian Draughts Federations, the treasurer failed to present full reports, detailing all the expenses of individual members of the FMJD Executive Committee from the budget FMJD

For example, the Belarusian Federation, and I, as its member, are interested in the following issue: according to what Charter, did Mr Otten pay salary to Mr Kosters, as an assistant to the FMJD President? How is it consistent with the volunteerism of the FMJD President? Mr Otten may have as many assistants as he likes, but what has the FMJD budget to do with it?

And, of course, the main issue is in the expenses of the FMJD for the FMJD volunteers-managers.
The Belarusian Federation is a full-fledged member of the FMJD, and the treasurer is obliged to provide it with any requested financial information.

Also, the reports of the FMJD treasurer fail to present large judicial expenses for considerations against the decision of its own Ethical Committee. At the same time, the Ethical Committee has confirmed all the violations of the FMJD Charter; in total, about 15 violations, mainly committed by J. Pawlicki.

World Championships-2017

What J. Pawlicki has invented and created in relation to the WChs-2017 is perceived as a complete degradation of world championships.

It is known that for the first time 84 players will play in the WChs-2017. Also for the first time in the history of world championships, some players (34) will take part at their own expense by unclear criteria. The prize fund of 20,000 euros is ridiculous for so many players. Obviously, some of the participants will play at a level that is unacceptable for world championships. In other individual sports, for the participation of players from all countries there are Olympic Games or team world championships. It was like that in draughts. But with the advent of G. Otten, there are no Draughts Olympics. That is, neither organizationally, nor by the level of many players’ skills, this tournament can be called a world championship.

Players from different continents must spend huge sums of money to fly for 6 days, play 9 games, and leave without getting any prize. Under such conditions, many countries refused to participate.
A person who does not have experience and necessary understanding of the game determines unacceptable loads for the players of the World Championship.

I wrote above that many places are awarded not on sportive principles.

What is the expediency of such World Championships?

It is obvious: through the WC 2017, to draw out more of those weak players and referees to the General Assembly, who have always supported J. Pawlicki or handed the votes of their countries over to him.

It is for this purpose that this booth is organized under the name of the "World Championships",
from which for the first time in the history of the championships a large number of players refused.
There is another reason - to collect more fees from players. In this case are 16800 Euro (with a prize fund of 20,000 Euro). This is a typical arithmetic for tournaments held by FMJD.

Anatoli Gantvarg




Conclusion of the Ethical Сommittee on complain of A.Gantvarg.

The complain was received by the FMJD on 13.12.2013.
Ethical Сommittee received the complain on 14.01.2014.
Ethical Сommittee made a request to the EB FMJD on 18.02.2014.
Mr. F. Teeer replied on behalf of the EB FMJD on 22.03.2014.

The bases of the complain were:

Admission of A. Shaibakov to the Sportaccord tournament in 2011 and not admission of A. Gantvarg into the same tournament.
Not including of A. Gantvant into the list of reserve playesr for the World championship 2013
Organization of official tournaments of the FMJD and tournaments recognized by the FMJD not according to the rules of the FMJD.

Mr. A. Gantvarg quoted the Articles of the Statutes and Bye Laws of the FMJD which were violated according to his opinion. He added 11 enclosures in order to prove his point.
Ethical Сommittee considered it as well as the opinion of the EB FMJD.

Conclusions of the Ethical Сommittee

1. Mr. A.Gantvarg made the complaint against the admission of A.Shaibakov in March 2012 but the Ethical Сommittee (its previous composition) did not consider the complaint and did not submit a report to the General Assembly in 2013.
The interpretation of the regulations of the World Cup 2011 by Mr.F.Teer contradicts to the official letter of Mr. H.Otten from 24.01.2011 (appendix 2 of the complaint) where was mentioned that not more than 3 players from one country could participate in Beijing 2011 and to the article 3.4 of the contract of the FMJD and Sportaccord where was mentioned that 12 players from the top 20 should be admitted to participate in the tournament.
In the regulations of the tournament in Beijing 2011 (appendix 3 of the complaint) the order was mentioned as: first the FMJD Wild Card, and after that maximum 3 per country.
In this case the choice of the FMJD Wild Card was limited by above mentioned documents. So admitting A.Shaibakov to the tournament Sportaccord 2011 the EB FMJD of the FMJD violated the tournament regulations and the contract between Sportaccord and the FMJD.
The decision of the admission of A.Shaibakov to the tournament Sportaccord 2011 in Beijing was illegitimate also because it was taken by 4 members of the EB FMJD of the FMJD (appendix 1 of complaint) in violation of the article 2.5 of the FMJD Statutes , which require the presence of minimum 1/3 of the members of the EB FMJD (5 members) Also Mr. F.Teer doesn’t objects this point.
The admission of Mr. A.Gantvarg to the tournament wasn’t mandatory but according to the article “3.4 Qualification System “ of the contract between Sportaccord and the FMJD :«to ensure that the best players in the sport of Draughts participate in the Event (12 players ranked in the top 20 at the entry deadline). Under all circumstances IF shall make its best efforts to ensure that the best players do participate in the Event. In addition, SportAccord encourages IF to seek global representation of players”, confirmed by the letter of Mr. H.Otten (appendix 5 of complaints) Mr. A.Gantvarg probably more than other candidates satisfied these requirements as he was highest qualified from the top 20 players from a country still not being represented in the men’s tournament (Belarus wasn’t represented in the men’s tournament) and so has the best chances to be admitted to the tournament.
Also as he is one of the most titled and well-known players in the world could contribute to this decision. A.Baliakin also could have a ground for complaint against the decision of the EB FMJD in this case and while his admission also wasn’t mandatory .
The decision about the admission of A.Shaibakov ignored the result of A.Gantvarg, his rating and requirements of Sportaccord.
The illegitimate admission of A.Shaibakov led to the violence of the rights also of other players having possible claim to this place, but Mr. Gantvarg was the only one who made the complaint to the Ethical Сommittee. It should be noted that he didn’t receive a substantive answer to his arguments and facts he mentioned in his protest letter addressed to Mr. H.Otten (appendix 6 of complaint).

2.Mr. A.Gantvarg made the complaint against the non admission him to reserve list in June .2013, but the Ethical Сommittee (its previous composition) did not consider the complaint and did not submit a report to the General Assembly in 2013.
Responding to the request of Belarussian Draughts Federation (appendix 7 of complaint) President of the FMJD Mr. Otten wrote that he wasn’t involved to the making of the list of reserve players. Mr. F.Teer refer to the decision of the EB FMJD but didn’t provide the documents showing who and when took the decision on the list of reserve players. The information on the site of the FMJD doesn’t show that there were a meeting of the EB FMJD of the FMJD in this period.
That means the EB FMJD didn’t take a decision on the list of reserve players as required by Article 7 of Annex 17 (World Championship all categories).
The Article 7 of Annex 17 provide the criteria and its order. Both rating of Mr.Gantvarg (first criteria) and his place in the (strongest) qualification tournament - European championship 2012 (second criteria) was higher than of A.Ivanov((appendix 8 of complaint) and therefore he should be number one in the list of reserve players and eventually be admitted to the World championship.
The explanation of Mr. F.Teer that A. Gantvarg wasn’t included into the reserve list because he was already admitted to the World championship 2011 can’t be considered as the Article 7 of Annex 17 doesn’t describe the possibility to apply the same criteria by different way to different players.
Also the message of the Tournament director of the FMJD on the site of the FMJD about the forming of the reserve list according to the Article 7 of Annex 17 didn’t explain why Mr.Gantvarg wasn’t included into the reserve list.
Concerning the decision of the GA 2013 – bringing such a question to the hurry vote without reference to the documents included to the complaint to the EC can’t be seen as legal action as it was included into the running complaint to the EC and not yet considered. The GA violated the Article 9.4.5. Administrative Procedures ( Bye laws FMJD).

3.Obviously all competitions organizing and recognized by the FMJD should be organized according the rules of the FMJD as required by the Bye Laws and Annexes.

Annex 2 FMJD competitions .ARTICLE 2.5
“The national federations have to comply with the rules and regulations of draughts and of the FMJD for the organization of official competitions allotted to them. If a federation organizes a TIT tournament (official title tournament), or an authorized FMJD tournament (FIH), it has to use the official rules of the FMJD as well as its rules for the competition.”

The tournaments in Lille 2012, Wageningen 2013, Beijing 2011, 2012 fall under Article 2.5 Annex 2 and should be organized according to the Regulations and rules of the FMJD. The tournaments were organized with the Regulations and rules substantially different with the Regulations and rules of the FMJD. Particularly the following articles were violated :
7.1, 7.2 of Annex 1 OFFICIAL FMJD RULES FOR INTERNATIONAL DRAUGHTS
5.6.1, 5.6.2, 5.6.3 of the Official FMJD Competition Regulations.
2.5 Annex 2 FMJD competitions

If the members of the EB FMJD FMJD supposed that the rules need to be changed they should apply to the procedure described in the Article 11.1 of the Bye-Laws of FMJD “Miscellaneous”:
“The specific tournament regulations are edited by the General Secretary and the Tournament Director, who later justify any modifications made. Proposals for changes are submitted to the Executive Board. After approval they are submitted to the national federations for approval at the next General Assembly”

It hasn’t been done. The Article 11.1 of the Bye-Laws of FMJD “Miscellaneous”
was thus violated.
Mr F.Teer indicated the entertainment value of the tournaments with a shortened time control. The games with shortened time control have their own FMJD regulations for the rapid and blitz tournaments. Therefore there can be no discussion about the game rules of Beijing 2013. Also Mr. Gantvarg doesn’t complain about it.
Meanwhile Mr. F.Teer doesn’t mention the results 12-0, 9-3, 8-4, 7-5 which contradict to the rules of the FMJD.
Mr. F.Teer ans the other main arbitres of abovementioned tournaments violated Annex 4 The Referee
The referee must:
2.2 Delete any part of these Specific Regulations that changes or contradicts the general FMJD rules and regulations.

From the contract between Sportaccord and the FMJD is not to conclude that Sportaccord put the condition to change the FMJD rules but left the choice of rules to the International federations self.
Mr. F.Teer doesn’t come with ant prove of his statements and practically invite Ethical Сommittee to a discussion about the advantages of different rules.

We can remind that the World championship in Ufa with the biggest prize fund was organized in compliance with the FMJD rules.
But the further discussion about this matter isn’t the task of the Ethical Сommittee.
We have to check the correctness of the sides and the compliance to the Statutes of the FMJD, Bye Laws and Annexes considering the responsibility in possible juridical cases.
In his letters to the EB FMJD members Mr. H.Otten and Mr.F.Lutein (appendix 10,11 of complaint) and in complaint from 16.06.2013 Mr. A.Gantvarg mentioned that he would like to play in the tournaments in Lille and Wageningen but only according to the FMJD rules. As the tournaments were official tournaments of the FMJD and were a part of the system of World Cup his demands were logical and correct.
As a result of illegitimate decisions about the reserve list of the Wolrd championship 2013 and changed rules he didn’t participate in the abovementioned tournaments which were used as qualification to the Beijing 2013.
As a result of considerations given towards Anatoli Gantvarg's complaint, the Ethics
Сommittee complies with the following demands of A. Gantvarg:

1. Invalidate the decision about admission of A.Shaibakov to the Sport Accord World Mind Games in Beijing 8-16 december 2011, taken at the meeting of EB FMJD of the FMJD section 100 om 1.08.2011
2. Recognize that Mr. A.Gantvarg according to his result in the World Cup and rating was in the list of top 20 strongest players of the world and according to the requires of Sportaccord about the largest geographical representation made good chances to be included into the tournament SportAccord
3. Consider as invalid the non-admission of Mr.A.Gantvarg to the reserve list of the World championship 2013. Referring to the precedent, highest rating among the candidates and the high result in the European championship as the strongest qualification tournament he should be included into reserve list as the number 1 and eventually admitted to the World championship 2013.
4. Consider as invalid the use of the rules of “Beijing system” in the tournaments 2nd World Mind Games in Lille from 9 to 23 August 2012, World Cup in Wageningen from 14 to 22 September 2013, Sportaccord 2011, 2012 in Beijijng.
5. Recognize that due to the use of illegitimate rules in the qualification tournaments and non-admission of Mr. A.Gantvarg to the World championship as the reserve player he lost his chance to keep his place in the tournament Sport Accord 2013 which he had in 2012.
Ethical Сommittee decided to partially meet the requirements relating to compensation. In its evaluation of the compensation to Mr. A.Gantvarg Ethical Сommittee based on the probable results based on existing (at the moment of the tournaments) ratings of the participants.
6. Compensate to Mr. A.Gantvarg the following amounts:
a. Tournament Sport Accord 2011.
December 2011
6th rating on 01.10.2011: 3500 USD
b. World championship 2013.
01.06.2013 – 20.06.2013
6th rating on 01.04.2013
200 000 RUR bases on exchange rate of 20.06.2013.
c. Tournament Sport Accord 2013
12.12.2013-18.12.2013
6th rating on 01.10.2013 — 3.000 USD
d. Compensate the costs of complaint
To reject the following demands:

Ethical Сommittee can not meet the demands for compensation for tournaments in Lille 2012 and Wageningine 2013 as the change of rules while violated the rights of Mr.Gantvarg though didn’t bring him a damage.
Ethical Сommittee can’t meet the demand of annulations of the results of tournaments as it would damage the players who were not guilty in the mistakes of the errors of managers and structures FMJD.

[Casper van der Tak]

This was a bit of a hard read, and at some point I started skimming. In any case, it seems obvious to me that we need stable rules for qualification for official tournaments (i.e. each qualification cycle the same rules), and that IF the rules need changing, it should, as a matter of principle, be impossible to include the results of tournaments that that have started before the rule changes were published (I'd say that only tournaments starting at least 6 months after the publication of the rules changes could be used for classification purposes).