You need to take the cowboy out of you.

In the past whenever issues were brought up, MCF would be very reluctant to rectify the wrong doings. When there were unconstitutional sackings, they would close a blind eye. When there were banning without grounds, they would choose to be silent. When selection was subverted they will make don't know. When the selection criteria is substandard to facilitate washed out players, they will try to justify. When we say that the tournament was fixed, they will not investigate. When we say that Li Tian is not the strongest Junior and the other Juniors are being sabotaged and publicly attacked, they will send Li Tian to the Olympiads and the Zonals etc etc etc.

So it is not just Peter is it? He is probably the most toxic but it is not just him alone. Have you ever wondered why there is never any action despite the fact that the issues being brought forward is so blatantly and transparently unjust? Why the rule book is almost never used properly? They should know all these things shouldn't they. After all they lusted after the posts.

I think the reason is this. I think it is because that secretly they all want the same unfettered power to do all those things themselves. So their issues with Peter is probably more personal than principle based.

I agree with Peter's removal, he is just too toxic with almost no redeeeming features. And his sort of toxicity can spread like wild fire if left unchecked. Almost anything he touches or influences eventually turn to dust.

But the others are not pure either. If proper rules are followed, no official in the future will ever be able to abuse their power without challenge. So that is why they want Peter removed but not by using the rule book.

And that is why they speak to me. When I tell them to do it the proper way, they say I am trying to teach them how to suck sweets. So it seems to me that they want to use the power of this blog but without taking responsibility themselves. So it may seem that they want me to knock out Peter for them. Silly isn't it? The authority rests with them.

The solution is very simple. Get a resolution/motion to define the roles and responsibilities of each official. If Peter is that unmanageable then un-appoint him. It only needs a majority vote. And you are many. (The President can only appoint with the approval of the Council. Check the constitution.) Then define your own roles and responsibilities too. Use the rule book and use it fairly.

So this is my modified saying. You may be able to bring a cowboy into the Associations but only they can take the cowboy out of themselves.

I think we are now all sitting on a ticking time bomb. I tell them that all these new MACC, police reports is not good. I say that State Associations writing into COS about a fraudulent AGM is not good. I tell them that if there are even more reports from new people it may prove to be the tipping point. And I tell them that they may be a small step away from a legal challenge.

But I am told that they are not worried about that. They just want Peter out without using the rule book, without taking personal responsibility, without taking official responsibility or having accountability. And without transparency. What more can I say?