Accusation against Alejandro Ramirez

[Roger Lancaster]

It's hard to imagine a more mealy-mouthed attempt to squirm out of taking responsibility. What is the ******* point of a governing body if it does not govern? Who in the USCF was aware of these allegations? If I was a USCF member I would be seeking answers

If it is true, as USCF declares in its statement of 9 March, that (a) it "has no record of any reported allegations regarding Mr. Ramirez’s conduct prior to 2020" and (b) it then "stopped engaging Mr. Ramirez in any capacity where he would come into contact with minors" then it seems to me that, even leaving to one side any question of the investigation which is said to be ongoing, USCF did take action. Does anyone happen to know whether Malcolm has good reason to doubt the truth of those statements because, otherwise, his remarks might be regarded - and I'll put this politely - as inappropriate?

[Chris Goodall]

"In 2020, when US Chess learned of allegations regarding Mr. Ramirez’s conduct in years prior, it stopped engaging Mr. Ramirez in any capacity where he would come into contact with minors."

That might have been a good moment for an investigation.

That's the easiest thing in the world to say in hindsight. They should have pressed the red button labelled "Investigate". How would you have suggested they investigate this, Nick? Do you honestly want to live in a world where officials who were selected for their ability to run a national chess organisation, who don't have the police's power to compel anyone to tell them anything, are expected to out-perform the actual police? Without accidentally compromising (for example, by facilitating collusion between accusers) any evidence that might be needed by the actual police, or alerting the Costa Rican suspect that it might be worth basing himself back in Costa Rica for a while?

[Roger Lancaster]

"In 2020, when US Chess learned of allegations regarding Mr. Ramirez’s conduct in years prior, it stopped engaging Mr. Ramirez in any capacity where he would come into contact with minors."

That might have been a good moment for an investigation.

That's the easiest thing in the world to say in hindsight. They should have pressed the red button labelled "Investigate". How would you have suggested they investigate this, Nick? Do you honestly want to live in a world where officials who were selected for their ability to run a national chess organisation, who don't have the police's power to compel anyone to tell them anything, are expected to out-perform the actual police? Without accidentally compromising (for example, by facilitating collusion between accusers) any evidence that might be needed by the actual police, or alerting the Costa Rican suspect that it might be worth basing himself back in Costa Rica for a while?

Hope you won't mind my pointing out that, in the UK at least, "the police's power to compel anyone to tell them anything" does not generally - there are, I think, certain exceptions - exist. In general, if a complainant declines to make a formal statement, that is his or her right.

[NickFaulks]

Chris, are you just taking the other side of this for the hell of it?

According to the USCF, they heard nasty stories about him to which they gave enough credence to cut their ties with immediate effect. Why is it so outrageous to suggest that they might have have tried to find out whether the allegations were actually true? It could appear that they just wanted to distance themselves as far and as fast as possible.

They may have succeeded, since St Louis seems to be taking the worst of the flak.

[NickFaulks]

One has to wonder, I suppose, if the allegations against Mr Ramirez were as widespread as we are led to believe, how did the 2022 USA Women's Olympiad team come to choose him as their coach?

They may have been influenced by the experience of the Kosintseva sisters. They were at the top of women's chess, both in the world top five, but made the mistake of repelling the advances of their national coach and their careers were over.

[Chris Goodall]

Why is it so outrageous to suggest that they might have have tried to find out whether the allegations were actually true?

Because they are not the police, nor have they gotten their positions by being good at investigating crimes, and people can lie to them without any repercussions, and what exactly is the best case scenario? They decide that the allegations are true on the balance of probabilities, but there is no smoking gun - then what? They announce it on Twitter and get slapped with a libel suit? They hand a dossier to the actual police, who have to re-interview everyone to get sworn statements that can stand up in court, if they're even interested in the case? Or do they simply "cancel" the individual quietly without putting anything in black and white, which is what happened anyway, and which to the social media mob is indistinguishable from "doing nothing"?

[NickFaulks]

but there is no smoking gun - then what?

The real fear is that they will find a smoking gun, which gives them a big problem. Better not to look.

[Mick Norris]

One has to wonder, I suppose, if the allegations against Mr Ramirez were as widespread as we are led to believe, how did the 2022 USA Women's Olympiad team come to choose him as their coach?

They may have been influenced by the experience of the Kosintseva sisters. They were at the top of women's chess, both in the world top five, but made the mistake of repelling the advances of their national coach and their careers were over.

Chessbase

The sisters say they refuse to play for the team under the leadership of the trainer Sergei Rublevsky, citing 'psychological incompatibility'

[Roger Lancaster]

One has to wonder, I suppose, if the allegations against Mr Ramirez were as widespread as we are led to believe, how did the 2022 USA Women's Olympiad team come to choose him as their coach?

They may have been influenced by the experience of the Kosintseva sisters. They were at the top of women's chess, both in the world top five, but made the mistake of repelling the advances of their national coach and their careers were over.

Nick, maybe I'm being simple but isn't there a fundamental difference in power between one system where the team picks the coach and another where the coach picks the team?

[Paul Cooksey]

They were at the top of women's chess, both in the world top five, but made the mistake of repelling the advances of their national coach and their careers were over.

Nick - are you sure "advance" is the word you want to use? That is not how it was reported at the time

I don't want to defend a coach aggressively berating his team. But it is not the same.

[NickFaulks]

That is not how it was reported at the time.

No it wasn't, but Russians have learned to read between the lines.

[LawrenceCooper]

One has to wonder, I suppose, if the allegations against Mr Ramirez were as widespread as we are led to believe, how did the 2022 USA Women's Olympiad team come to choose him as their coach?

They may have been influenced by the experience of the Kosintseva sisters. They were at the top of women's chess, both in the world top five, but made the mistake of repelling the advances of their national coach and their careers were over.

That is certainly a revelation I wasn't aware of. I followed the story at the time and I thought it was more bullying behaviour than what you stated. I had witnessed how Dokhoian behaved towards Tatiana at the 2009 European Team in the playing hall after a loss to Georgia and so did wonder what Rublevsky could have done that was even worse. With your connections you are more likely than me to know the inside story though. I suspect I'm not the only one that wasn't aware, until now, of the real reasons.

[Paul Cooksey]

The Caruana and Chirila Podcast. Uncomfortable viewing, particularly when they talk about the parties they attended with Ramirez

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Watched the whole podcast, and they clearly felt they had to address the criticism they had received, partly it seems in light of the 'jokey' (after-party) podcast with Ramirez from earlier (now taken down). I had not realised that Caruana and the other person (Chirila) were that close to Ramirez (he worked with them and they were friends).

It did make me a bit uncomfortable that they spoke of a lot of this as proven based on the number of allegations and the suspensions and so on. AFAIK, no charges have been brought or civil case started (yet), and Ramirez is a pariah (with no future in chess coaching, work or organising) but not more than this yet (please correct me if I am wrong there).

Earlier in this thread, it was said that via his attorney "Ramirez “categorically denies the allegations”". If this is still the case, I would think that this podcast might not be up for very long. Hopefully it will get archived or the transcript preserved somewhere (along with the previous one that was taken down).

I think it is brave of Caruana and Chirila to take this stance (which as private individuals they can do, whereas organisations such as USCF and St Louis Chess Club will have to follow the advice of their lawyers), but in some ways you only take that stance if you know (deep down) that it is all true. That is what comes across in this podcast. On the one hand they say "it was NOT an open secret". But I get the impression they have looked back at their experiences and realised "oh crap, he really was doing all that, wasn't he?" That it all makes sense to them and they have weighed things up and come to their own judgment.

The cat (not sure if it was Chirila's or Caruana's) seemed oblivious to it all (it makes a brief appearance at about 20-21 minutes on the chair inbetween them, and accounts for the strange sideways glances some of the two were making, if you study their body language and the careful adjusting of items on the table and touching of their faces, which to me showed how uncomfortable they were with the subject matter, which is understandable - I do applaud them for taking the initiaitive and doing this podcast, but it may have been in part to distance themselves from this.)

I hope reform happens and there is justice for the women (and girls) affected. There should be processes and support in place to help those stepping forward with allegations to get the legal assistance and counselling that may help drive reform and get justice.

[Matt Bridgeman]

I imagine we don’t know the full scope of what he did as yet. I would guess he’s having some sleepless nights, with some awareness that recently in the gymnastics world Larry Nassar was sentenced to 175 years, in entertainment Harvey Weinstein got 16 years and just got another 16 years to add on, and even the NXIVM cult leader, Keith Raniere got 120 years. There no time out for good behaviour or coming out on licence after serving half your sentence over there! I guess it depend which jurisdiction Ramirez is falling under and the appetite of the prosecutors to go after him.

If you look at the timeline of the Weinstein case, the big story broke in The New Yorker and The New York Times in October 2017, and then it took through to the end of May 2018 for the New York District Attorney’s Office to charge him.