View Full Version : Dresden Doping Affair

03-12-2008, 08:22 AM
Apparrently in Dresden after the final round of the Olympiad (which Ukraine lost .5 - 3.5 against the USA) Vassily Ivanchuk was asked to take a drug test - which he refused to take. FIDE regulations state that if someone refuses, all their games will be given to their opponent instead, and the player will be disqualified. They can also be banned from top-level chess for two years.

Although Ukraine finished out of the medals in Dresden, this could have an effect on the other medals - if Ivanchuk is disqualified, the bronze medal would end up going to Hungary instead of USA.

A 5-person committe has 3 months to decide the consequences of Ivanchuk's actions.

Paraphrased from http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5048

Bill Gletsos
22-01-2009, 03:21 PM
FIDE decision:

January 21 2009 - FIDE

Drug testing is still relatively rare in chess. However, it does occur in various official events and was carried out during the course of the Dresden Olympiad. Unfortunately, a high proportion of the tests were scheduled during the last round and there was a lack of personnel, which lead to a procedural error: there was not a designated Doping Control Officer present at this match (USA v Ukraine).

After losing a crucial game for his country, Mr Ivanchuk was distraught. The Hearing Panel concludes that although the arbiter attempted to inform Mr Ivanchuk in English that he should accompany him for a doping test, Mr Ivanchuk apparently failed to understand the instructions, especially since English is not Mr Ivanchuk's first language. If there had been a Doping Control Officer present, he would have immediately gone to Mr Ivanchuk's board and there would have been communication between him and Mr Ivanchuk. In that case the outcome might have been different. Because there was no notification by the Doping Control officer, there was no refusal in the sense of the regulations.

The Conclusion:

The procedural error allied with Mr Ivanchuk's state of mind led him unintentionally to miss the test. The Hearing Panel therefore concludes unanimously that there should be no penalty.