The filter removed the word where the #### is. It was not a swear, but the word c.o.c.k.t.a.i.l.
Sheesh.
Of all the foolish decisions the USCF has made, this is certainly the most appalling. It’s an embarrassment and a shame to see the federation has stooped to this level.
I’m going to vote this year. Since the Executive Board is selling drugs, even if it is not for scholastic age players. Someone, some coach or some parent, will feel free to give the child this drug. If the federation is going to support the drug, not going to be a coach or director of a scholastic event. How can I show good faith to the parents or the scholastic officials, if my federation is selling drugs to take at the tournament.
There was no Executive Board vote. The President, Beatriz Marinello, was also the Chief Operating Officer from 1/05 through 5/05 and apparently arranged the ill advised alliance with Natrol without consulting the Board. At Las Vegas, another Board member, Elizabeth Shaughnessy, vigorously supported the Brain Pills deal. I don’t know what the rest of the Board thinks but they are at fault for allowing one individual to have so much power and failing to monitor her.
A new Executive Board takes office in August. I am a candidate and if elected, will do whatever I can to end the Brain Pill alliance, though this may be difficult if a contract was signed. To replace the current group which has also committed many other blunders (see checkmate.us), I recommend that you also vote for Joel Channing, Robert Tanner, and IM Greg Shahade. Ballots are in the June Chess Life.
Bill Goichberg
This topic certainly has brought out the kooks. There’s the guy who thinks that accepting sponsorship money is like supporting child prostitution, the one who thinks that supplements manufacturers are like the Klan, andthe one who thinks they’re like bin Laden. Could you all be any more over the top? It’s not worth the time to address the other distortions in your postings when you engage in that kind of well-poisoning.
By the way, Doc Neuronet, should you really be saying that this stuff probably works? Is that a message you, as a neurologist, want to send to the children?
Finally, Bill Goichberg, is there any pandering you won’t do to make politcal hay? You were on the Board when the USCF started its slide to near bankruptcy, losing hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Why do you even want to be on the Board again? Trying to finish the job?
Bill Goichberg
You got my vote this year, do not make me into a fool for voting for you.
I was also Office Manager and Executive Director from 11/03 through 12/04. When I took office, USCF owed creditors at least $400,000 that it was unable to pay. When I left, USCF had about $200,000 more in its operating account than needed to pay its bills. I also upgraded our renewal mailings, offered a $38 promotional membership, and started the Activity Means Members program, and USCF’s adult membership decline has finally stopped.
I was also on the Board in 1989-92 and 1996-99, and the only year during that time that these Boards had a big loss was fiscal 1998-99. There was also a large loss in fiscal 1996-97, but it all occurred before the Board I was on took office.
Bill Goichberg
Thanks, and I won’t. I didn’t hear complaints about the job I did as Office Manager and ED from 11/03 through 12/04, except for the politically motivated ones coming from the “success team” people.
Bill Goichberg
Bill, thank you very much for the useful information. I wasn’t going to vote, but I am now, and I’ll put you on the ballot. I am very confused about how USCF works at the executive level: there is a President who can make major decisions? What is the function of the Board, then? Is there a good description of the decision-making structure in the USCF?
Edgy, if you won’t fire the synapses necessary to understand an argument from analogy, then arguing with you is a waste of my neurotransmitters. You have descended into sophomoric name calling.
How long before Chess Life runs an article calculating the effective pawn advantage that taking Brainspeed gives you? 3 pawns? Perhaps a full rook?
For those fed up with the executive decision to endorse a drug (a neuropharmacological agent that acts the same way nicotine acts in the brain, by increasing acetylchonine), please let your voice be heard. You can contact USCF through the following link, which includes phone, snailmail, and email addresses:
http://uschess.org/about/contact.php
Possible things to say:
- I am contacting you to voice my concern about the endorsement of a drug that affects people’s nervous systems in ways that aren’t understood.
- I am concerned about how this will affect my child, who looks up to the USCF for guidance about chess.
- I would like a copy of the contract signed with Natrol.
- I would like to know who made this decision so I can contact them. Who on the present Board supported this decision?
Add more if you like.
Note that USCF took the Natrol press release [originally shown with no editing!?] off the front of their web site. You can still access it via Google. search for ‘uscf natrol’, and instead of clicking on the link they give you, click on the ‘Cached’ (i.e., previously saved) button and it will show you the site.
The reason I do not like brainspeed, as it has the drug Dimethylaminoethanol Bitartrate (DMAE). Its’ a natural drug the body makes, only in small amounts. Each tablet has 150 mg of this drug, not everyone is going to take only 2 tablets before the start of the tournament or days before. The reason I cannot take brainspeed, as I am bipolar. The drug Dimethylaminoethanol Bitartrate, even with 2 tablets a day will make myself manic. Even if you are not bipolar, at high levels for some people can give a manic feeling. There are a number of people that are bipolar, never understanding they are. The average time between the first manic attack and treatment is 10 years. If someon is bipolar, without understanding it, this drug Dimethylaminoethanol Bitartrate can risk the person for suicide, suicide thinking, and other risks.
Thank you Neuronet. I encourage all memebrs to as suggested above.
I am very much surprised that the USCF has yet to make an announcement about this, or give the membership more information about this product, its sponsorship, and the individuals involved. Furthermore, you have the well-respected GM Susan Polgar denouncing this sponsorship and also alleging with first-hand knowledge that Natrol was going after kids at the tournament in Las Vegas.
Currently there are, as far as I know, unsubstantiated statements that Beatriz Marinello, and Elizabeth Shaughnessy are responsible for this sponsorship. I am surprised they have not come out to refute these allegations or explain their decision. If they are responsible, well they have many questions to answer. While I am unsure if this should/could/would amount to a resignation, I know that ignoring your members and coming out with no explanation will not get you re-elected and leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. If this whole thing was a blunder, then just come out and apologize for it and accept the consequences (if any).
Members deserve to see the details of this agreement…sooner rather than later, don’t wait for the next issue of Chess Life, just post it on the website.
Lastly, I think the mix up with the ballots (while unfortunate) and its delay is a good thing, as this Natrol sponsorship issue will most likely sway many members’ votes
I would have to agree that this partnership is a huge mistake. It seems to be promoting the quick fix to gain a competive edge over hard work and dedication. Any money received by USCF will be offset by the bad publicity and ill will that it generates.
For a group of people that play a game that relies on long-term analysis and planning, how come we (as a group) tend to be so short-sighted fiscally, politically, etc?
I received the Natrol email shortly before I went to the National Open and thought it was just spam. While I was in Las Vegas, I was mainly concentrated on enjoying myself attending the Polgar functions and trying to play well in my section, so I did not pay much attention to the whole Natrol thing.
However, my roommate who is 20 years old said he tried the stuff in their “challenge” and it seemed to be both harmless and ineffectual. As a medical doctor, I advised him to stay away from drugs or supplements that purport to affect the mind. Now that I’ve had time to digest the info and realize to what extent the USCF was getting into bed with this supplement company, I’m appalled and disappointed in the leadership of the USCF.
Whatever we do in medicine carries RISK. There is no such thing as a perfect treatment for an ailment and there is no such thing as a perfect performance-enhancing drug or supplement. Side effects are always there to be balanced against the gain, especially in an unknown substance that has not completed FDA scrutiny, which as we’ve seen recently is not failsafe in protecting the public. I agree that the scandal involving steroids in professional sports is exactly the path that the USCF is choosing when they ally themselves with a company that may have sponsorship dollars, but one that will also incur massive future PR costs.
The claims that Brainspeed will help you play better chess are fraudulent at best, dangerous at worst, and in either case it sends the wrong message to young people. Even if Brainspeed turned out to be the mythical perfect drug that improved your chess and never incurred side effects, do we really want to send kids the message that a shortcut as opposed to hard work is the best way to improve your chess or solve any other problem in life? Despite the troubled financial times the USCF has had, I’m surprised any USCF member can support this and I’m astonished that the USCF leadership can defend this decision. I would rather leave the USCF and play in coffeehouses the rest of my life than stick with an organization that sells a chess-enhancing drug to young people.
Ernest Hong, M.D.
Continuous USCF Member since January 1991
Club TD since August 2004
USCF Expert since December 2004
The President is not supposed to make major decisions, rather, the President communicates the will of the Board to the Executive Director. The ED makes most decisions, but the Board makes the most important ones, monitors the performance of the ED, and hires and fires the ED.
However, Beatriz Marinello as President frequently made decisions without consulting the Board, and her allies on the Board allowed this. For the first five months of 2005 Beatriz was both President and Chief Operating Officer (in effect, Executive Director), so had more power than is healthy to give any individual. We now know that she made the agreement with Natrol without consulting or even informing the Board. This demonstrates a disadvantage of one-person rule- had the whole Board considered the Natrol alliance, someone might have pointed out the drawbacks.
The good news today is that Randy Bauer has posted that Beatriz now realizes she made a mistake, and it sounds like the USCF partnership with Natrol will be discontinued.
Bill Goichberg
Until recently, I had hoped that these forums would always remain free of USCF election politics. There’s plenty of that on the newsgroup rec.games.chess.politics (RGCP).
Getting into cahoots, however, with the producer of an untested, unapproved, “performance-enhancing” drug is an extremely serious matter. I am unlikely to vote for any candidate who has expressed a favorable opinion of such an arrangement.
I would also like to see ALL candidates state clearly their views in this area, and will be unimpressed by any candidate who tries to play it safe by remaining silent.
Bill Smythe
The USCF forums are the place USCF members should first turn to discuss USCF issues. I am glad to see that Bill G. has taken the time to see what is being discussed and made the effort to respond. USCF politics belongs squarely in the USCF forums.
That is useful to know. It would have been nice, as a new member of USCF, for all of this to be explained somewhere. Did I miss it in a recent version of Chess Life: they included a ballot, but I don’t remember a detailed description of why these positions are important, what the job description is, how all this fits into the overall decision making apparatus of USCF. I just remember seeing a bunch of campaign blurbs, but having no idea what I was voting for.
I take it these are full-time board members, and a full time ED? Do they all have to live in Tennessee, or can people telecommute?
My impression so far, after a few months in USCF, is that it is a disorganized Keystone Cops operation, with very little communication to the members about major decisions (e.g., to not support the 2006 female olympiad, to team up with a shady drug manufacturer). In other words, they seem to be incompetent but powerful. That ain’t good.
I think the situation with the 2006 women’s olympiad team is largely a result of unresolved problems with the 2004 team.
If those problems can be amicably resolved, I think the USCF will be able to be more supportive of the 2006 team. However, if certain members of that team follow through with their threat of a lawsuit, that may hamper the USCF’s ability to support the 2006 team.