BTW this is from Europe-Echecs.com...

Well, if we dont have access to those SMS, it is just speculations...

In any case, it was up to the FFE to make sure they couldn't communicate and yet they provided the phones and then they try to sue them, how can people not condemn such behavior?

There is no interpretation, It is a big blow for the FFE: this means that they won't have access to the content of those SMS which is probably the only evidence they had to build their case before the disciplinary commission.
Besides they have to pay them for their legal expenses(the quotes are from Europe-Echecs.com), isn't it enough for you to change your mind already?

"And maybe they have something to hide, else they could agree to share the SMS's?"

I have nothing to hide but I wouldn't show you my SMS, thankfully there are laws to ban people like you to trash the right to privacy!

Home-page worked! Thank you! :)

I think it shows that you should always use a pre-paid phone - not registered in your name - to cheat, rather than one you got from your chess federation! Amateurs.

I don't know the source for your French quote, but your summary or interpretation of the Chessbase article is biased and misleading, to say the least. Apparently one judge "refused to allow the federation to go through the SMS", but the last word in court still has to be spoken. Some quotes:
- "The judge hearing determined ... that "no legal provision gave him the power to waive the confidentiality”, since it could be done “only in a criminal case or one of security." [so it depends whether cheating in chess constitutes a criminal case or not?]
- "the magistrate ruled that "it would be unfair for Mr Marzolo, Hauchard and Feller (...) to bear the full cost of the procedure", and ordered the FFE reimburse them part of the fees." [so the sums you mentioned are not çompensation for reputation damage]
"As it had announced in a press release on January 27, the FFE therefore reserves the right to take the case to a criminal court, where the secrecy of correspondence could be lifted. [last word still to be spoken?]
Nevertheless , and given the decision of the Judge, the FFE, which notes the absolute refusal by the defendants to have these documents handed to a bailiff, will not seek their communication, which in any case would merely have added to the different elements regarding the disciplinary case. [SMS's aren't "the only thing they had"!?]
In any event, the Judge’s ruling only concerned the availability of the contents of the SMS exchanged, without addressing the case’s merits." [The players may have scored a procedural victory, in tennis terms they won a set but not the match. And maybe they have something to hide, else they could agree to share the SMS's?]

It seems there is a misunderstanding in the english translation.

It is not the Federation that gave a mobile phone to Marzolo, but Mrs Pomian, as CEO of her self-owned consultancy company, to her accountant in this company, Cyril Marzolo.
Mrs Pomian is btw the VP of the French Federation, and Cyril Marzolo IM.
But the connection between Pomian and Marzolo is the one from an employer with an employee, and it seems that both are as well currently in conflict on the term of terminating Marzolo employment and will have a hearing in front oif the Judge for Working Affaire (Prudhomme) in a near future.
So Mrs Pomian had access to the webportal of this account, and that's the way she seems to have seen SMS exchanged between Marzolo and Hauchard. As she was not supposed to supervize this account, this is already in two way against the law: against the law protecting the employee against illegal intrusion from the employer (the employer has to inform the employee about the suprvizing of communication) and secret of correspondance.
This is what has been confirmed by this judgement: Mrs Pomian has no right to have access to this messages (and any other messages) whatsoever.

There are still no information yet on what happenned with these sms and on their contents. Even, let's imagine that, if an IM is exchanging analysis with a IGM during a tournament, both not playing that tournament, how do they complete the cheat?
How do this informnation reach the playing IGM?
Did the information reached him? How?
And even if the information reached him, did he used it? Did he asked for it? Or was it in fact a disturbance?

The SMS are just one of the flaws in the way the Federation is managing the whole story.
Anmd the fact that one of the player accused by the Frenche Federation VP is in fact a previous employee of this very VP shades IMHO a very stange light on the whole story.

Great show guys. I´ve listen the first time to FEB and found it really amusing and informative especially the part with Malcolm Pein.
Grzegorz Gajewski :-)))

Can some kind soul please post a transcript? I am unable to get the audio working (problem on my end). :(

Haha I was right all along, if you read Chessbase (and I'm sure CV is preparing an article), the FFE got spanked by the judge:
their evidence is supposed to be SMS from a phone the FFE provided to Marzolo, but the Judge refused to allow the federation to go through the SMS...
So the only thing they had is gone...LMAO
What a shame...now they will have to pay some compensation for the reputation damage done to those players...

As I understand it, the French Federation handed out mobile phones to its players during the Olympiad and had these handed back in after the competition.
The person from the Federation happened to see the SMS messages, showing moves being transmitted from the person with the computer to the person relaying moves to the player.
They will have been able to see from the Time Stamp that this happened during the games, and the team captain will have been able to check his log, and will have seen that the two cheating assistants were not in active play.

France did amazingly well during the Olympiad, and the Federation has integrity, which they should be lauded for - it's a heavy burden to accuse one's own players of cheating.
They have the evidence, and now wish to present it. The players, in desperation, are trying to turn this into a human rights issue, basing their case on jurisprudence that will not hold up anywhere, hoping that the SMS messages will not be admissible as evidence, resulting in a dismissal of the charges.
However, it will be easy to prove thatbthis was criminal behavior, and the SMS messages will be made public as evidence in the criminal court.
The Federation probably wanted to sort this out in quiet, but when the players refused to accept responsibility it made the case public.

The players have much to lose, but clearly didn't care less about the other teams at the Olympiad they defrauded of their rightful place in the standings.

And as I've written before. It is super easy to cheat. Moves should always be transmitted with fifteen minute delay. WiFi, BluTooth and Cell phones, PDAs should be electronically suppressed if you want to avoid cheating. Unless strong measures are enacted, then all results become dubious, at the expense of those players who do not cheat.

Reasons for the decision

Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure limits the measures that the "judge in chambers" [the judge of the current decision] may order regarding what evidence can be legally presented at a trial.

It is undisputed that the messages that exchanged communications were made on a telephone line owned [subscribed] by Ms. Pomian, and just as undisputed that this line was put at the disposal of Marzolo.

Under Article 1 of Law 91-646 of July 10, 1991, the secrecy of correspondence sent through electronic communications is guaranteed by law. This can only be abrogated by the public authority in cases of public necessity prescribed by the law and within the limits fixed by it.

This right to secrecy of correspondence is general in scope, and is not limited only to correspondence exchanged by the holder's contractual means by which they are addressed (guessing, this means that "correspondence" is implied between persons, and not the gadgets they own or borrow). It follows that when the owner of a phone line confers the use of this to a third party, said owner may not undermine the secrecy of correspondence of any communication made on this phone line.

Therefore, although he himself is not the subscriber to line **********, Marzolo enjoys the right to secrecy of correspondence exchanged via this line, from the time when the permament(?) use of this line was granted to him by the owner of this line, Ms. Pomian. ("Permanent" I surmise here means more of that he was using the line on his own volition, and not as Pomian's agent.)

The fact that Pomian signed the subscription contract and has the ability to access the message content via the technical device made available from the SFR website does not exempt the legal obligation to respect the secrecy of correspondence.

No legal provision confers the "judge in chambers" the right to lift this secrecy, and it follows that the claims by the FFE and Pomian, as they demand such a lifting, cannot be received.

It would unfair that Marzolo, Hauchard, and Feller, and the SFR bear the full cost of the proceedings, not included in expenses. (?)

FOR THESE REASONS

The suit of the FFE and Pomian is rejected.

On the basis of Article 700 of the Code of Criminal (sic) Procedure, the FFE is to pay:
- to Marzolo the sum of 2500 euros
- to Feller the sum of 2500 euros
- to Hauchard the sum of 2000 euros
- to the SFR the sum of 500 euros

The FFE is also to pay (court?) costs.

Feller's father said two weeks ago: "Tout est parti d'un témoignage de la vice-présidente de la Fédération, qui aurait vu un SMS sur le téléphone d'Arnaud Hauchard disant : dépêche-toi de me filer des coups, témoigne Christian Feller, le père de Sébastien. Translation: 'Mais ça ne tient pas debout. It all started with testimony of the vice-prez of FFE who saw an SMS from Hauchard that said 'hurry up and send me moves'---but that makes no sense." This from the Europe Echecs site, they link to a Lorraine newspaper
http://www.republicain-lorrain.fr/fr/article/4680807/Le-Grand-maitre-Fel...

Otto, The Cheaters' Tool, should stop giving negative ratings to people who disagree with his attempts at spin.

To continue this debate and be on-topic at the same time, please visit http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/french-cheating-case-federation-cannot...

Here is the game where Lawrence ran his king to g3:

http://www.essexchess.org.uk/Old_site/game_txt/GajTre.htm