Olivier Ruel DQ'ed from GP Malmö

[Dozer]

This statement was prepared by Lubos Lauer - Head Judge GP Malmo

A spectator witnessed Olivier Ruel shuffle an opponent's deck while looking at the cards. In a later round a senior judge witnessed this as well. After thorough consideration he was disqualified. The DCI will determine further steps.

Call me a sensationalist, but I sure wish I'd have been there, as a coverage reporter no less. I can already imagine how the debate went between the judges, players, Olivier, Antoine, TO, the WotC people... and how they carefully crafted the above statement. Olivier is one of the most, if not *the* most public figure of tournament Magic. He has a column on MTG.com, he's working closely with WotC PR, he has been stylized as a "spokesman for the game".

I have no idea what exactly happened (as has nobody else), but it will be interesting to see which route the investigation takes and how Olivier will act in public. The last time Magic had a scandal of this magnitude was probably the Prosperous Bloom in Mike Long's lap, or maybe Trey Van Cleave's on-camera looky-looky. If I am not mistaken, what Olivier did is cheating by the rules, right?

I'm not pre-judging Olivier. I will read closely what else comes from everyone, and I grant you, we'll have a lot to read on that issue in the next couple of weeks.

[Komatteru]

Yes, this is cheating.  It is expressly written that players are to shuffle decks--their own and their opponents--without looking at cards.  Looking at your own is cheating enough, but an opponent's gives you an even more considerable advantage.

[CF]

There has been rumours of his shuffling being a little shady for a while and it seems judges were checking things out carefully in Malmö.

I know two people who played against him before he was DQ'ed and both had -significantly- more lands than spells in their games. One of them finished 65th, just outside of day 2, with a loss to Ruel (and me, coincidentally).. so if Ruel hadn't done anything wrong maybe he would have won - and if Ruel wouldn't have been caught, maybe his tiebreakers would have been better so he'd make day 2.. Bad luck I guess =)

This is, of course, huge news.. I really wonder what the DCI will do and how wotc will handle it. It would be very embarrassing for them to have their pet pro completely dishonoured.. and to think of how much money Ruel will be out by losing his level 6 status... And how will Antoine be treated now?

I suspect the game got too serious for Olivier.. it got too business-like, with such an immense pressure to always do well and he caved in to creating some advantages. I do not believe Antoine would do something like this though..

--
Chris

[Dozer]

Olivier has a statement up on the MTGFrance boards. I don't speak French, but someone ("lolo") has provided a rough translation on the MTGSalvation boards. Here's Olivier's original statement, and the provided translation. I'd be happier if one of the French speakers on this forum could confirm the translation:

Bon, je n'ai pas particulièrement envie d'écrire des tartines sur le sujet donc je me contenterai de ce seul post.

Quand je mélange, je fais régulièrement des shuffles en baissant les yeux, qui sont donc pointés sur les cartes adverses.
Au GP Dortmund, le HJ m'a dit "on pense pas que tu fais exprès mais change de manière de mélanger". J'ai fait gaffe jusqu'à la fin du tournoi, puis, vu que je n'avais pas vraiment l'impression de faire quoi que ce soit de mal, j'ai recommencé un ou deux tournois plus tard sans trop y réflêchir.
PT Honolulu, le HJ me fait exactement le même commentaire. Rebelotte, je fais gaffe jusq'à la fin du tournoi puis whatever.

Aujourd'hui, fin de la ronde 7, je suis à 6-1, un arbitre vient me voir et me dit que le HJ veut me parler. Je me dis que je vais avoir droit au "bababa mélange mieux", comme d'hab.

Je n'ai pas cette chance cette fois. Le HJ me signifie, en gros que:
il ne sait pas si j'ai vu les cartes, ni si je voulais le faire, mais on me l'a déjà fait remarquer, donc c'est un peu du foutage de gueule que je continue de mélanger en baissant les yeux.
Sur ce point, il a plutôt raison. Plutôt que d'y réflêchir sérieusement, je me suis toujours dit que dès lors que je ne faisais rien de mal, il ne m'arriverait rien de bien méchant.

J'aurais mieux fait d'écouter les remarques qui m'ont été faites. Pour tout cela, je comprends la décision du HJ de me disqualifier. Je regrette juste qu'il dise, sur le coverage, qu'on m'a vu mater, alors que ce n'est pas la version qu'il m'a donnée et qui devrait, je l'espère, apparaître dans le rapport à la DCI.
En attendant de voir ce que le dit report donnera.

Voilou,

Olivier

Translation:

I don't want to write too long about this issue so i'll limit my explanations to this unique post.
When I shuffle i'm used to look down so my gaze is oriented towards the opponent's cards. At GP Dortmund the Head Judge told me that he didn't think i was cheating, nevertheless he demanded that i alter my way of shuffling. So I shuffled carefully until the end of the tournament, and as I didn't think i was doing anything wrong I began to do it again one or two tournaments later.
PT Honolulu, the HJ made the same comment, once again i shuffle extra carefully.
Today, I am at 6-1, a judge come to me telling that the HJ wants to see me and i think i'll earn another scolding telling me to be more careful.
This time i'm not as lucky, the HJ say that he does not know wether i did see the cards neither if i wanted to see them. But he explains that it isn't the first time i'm doing this, and that it seems as i don't give a damn about the previous warnings they gave me. I think his point makes sense. instead of really thinking about it, I always tought that as far as i didn't meant to do anything wrong, nothing would happen to me.
I should have listened to what i'd been told. For all those reasons, i fully understand the decision the HJ took. I just regret he wrote on the coverage that i've beenn seen peeking at the cards, because it's not what he told me.
For now let's wait and see what this report will say and hope for the best.

that's all folks
Olivier

The statement makes sense to me except for the part where Olivier complains about the headjudge. I am pretty sure that Lubos Lauer gave him the reason for the disqualification, namely that he looked at his opponent's cards, otherwise the whole thing would not make any sense. If you shuffle your opponent's deck card-face up, and look in that general direction, how can you not peek at the cards? I think that's just Olivier trying to salvage some reputation, and it's also in line with his self-proclaimed intent of "doing nothing wrong, really, not by intention anyway".

With Olivier admitting that his shuffling technique has caused problems or rather irritations in the past, the only question is: Do we believe him that he wasn't intentionally cheating? Since this is really just a question of how much you like Olivier, it can't be answered. The question now is: What does the DCI believe? I think he'll be let off the hook by virtue of being a repentant sinner, especially since he is an important figure in WotC marketing. I predict it will go along the lines of "he did something wrong unintentionally, he has accepted the low-level penalty we give him, but because he didn't want to do it, his integrity will be preserved". I'm pretty certain that is how WotC plays this one, and as far as my personal judgement goes, I'll support that stance should it happen.

I've met Olivier a couple of times at GP's. He's a very easygoing person, but also one who lives through his tournament very emotionally. Wins make him happy (also if his brother wins), and losses make him angry and irritated. He's not a player who concentrates on the formal, technical aspects of the game a lot. He cares about Magic, but he really is not a rules stickler, which also means that he sometimes is unprecise in technical play and floor rule adherence. That's why I believe him when he said "I didn't really listen to what they told me, and now I'm biting that bullet."

[The M.E.T.H.O.D]

I've played him twice in GP's and he's a pretty nice guy. I can't exactly say whether he is guilty or innocent based on his story or the judges story because only Oliver will KNOW FOR SURE whether or not he cheated. His story makes sense because i've seen other people do It and I choose to trust/believe it...but also I understand the judges actions because he can't know for sure so he has to assume the worst and DQ him.

When I played him he was nice and funny and even allowed me a takeback or two (I was knew then).

[CF]

He is obviously able to shuffle without looking at any cards, so the fact that he keeps going back to his "oops, I got a peek at some cards here and there"-technique really is a suspicious one. Sure, he may not intentionally try to see some cards, but he seems quite fond of the fact that he gets to do it at every tournament until he is told not to. I sometimes get a glance at some cards when I riffle too, accidentally, but I never do this to an opponent's deck and if it does happen I will always shuffle carefully a good while after said accidental peek. The descriptions I got of Oliver's technique, however, seems far more grave. The angle at which he shuffles and looks both sound.. well.. wrong.

At least now he will get rid of that bad habit. IMO what he admits to is cheating, but not bad enough to warrant suspension.. Whether or not he is only guilty of what he admits to is an interesting question though.

--
Chris

[Machinus]

Someone schedule a proxy T1 in Paris - it looks like Olivier won't be playing sanctioned magic until February.

[Anusien]

Someone schedule a proxy T1 in Paris - it looks like Olivier won't be playing sanctioned magic until February.

They got him on Unsporting Conduct and not Cheating.

[Toad]

He actually decided to retire from the game after the announcement.

[LotusHead]

He actually decided to retire from the game after the announcement.

I am sure that WOTC/DCI had a hard time deciding to DQ Oliver Ruel.

That being said, I don't know him.

If his play (shuffling) in this case was sloppy, and a penalty of "Unsportsmanlike Conduct" was given, then he should just accept it, play some T1 (and have a BLAST, especially in a 5/10 proxy environment), then after the ban is lifted, decide to play or not.

He is not by any means "a bad guy".

The way I see it, Rel 4 is about 2 levels above what I play at (10 Proxy T1 Norcal), and at REL 4, you gotta be Uber Deliberate in everything you do. Tap City of Brass/Painland, Take 1 damage to the face like you MEAN it!

If he is at fault for shuffling without consideration of the randomization factor that each player is imposed to inflict on his deck (and his opponent's deck), then well...that is like saying "Shuffling your deck can be sloppy and fun and tourney legal!"

I myself have trained myself to shuffle my deck in a particular way so that I never know what is on the bottom of my deck, and if I DID know, I deliberately cloud my mind with other toughts/topics/randomizationFactors so that I feel my deck is REALLY shuffled (and I don't know what is on the bottom of my deck.).

I feel I would not be SportsmanLike if I didn't randomize my deck, with all cards completely randomized.

Once ever, I think I had knowledge of what was on the bottom of my opponent's deck, and I felt hella guilty (norcal slang) about it. It may have affected how I would cut his deck when presented.

Oliver Ruel: Take your whippings like a man, deal with it (play T1) and when the "Ban" is lifted, decide then if you want to sling T2 cards for a living, or just as a hobby.

To be banned from local shop Friday Night Magic: That sucks.

No one thinks you suck, or cheated.

Later, LotusHead

[Toad]

/Offtopic

Tapping and untapping a City of Brass or a painland wont get you a life loss, even in REL4. Asking for your opponent to take a life loss from that play will get you a Warning for Unsportsmanlike Conduct though

[Gabethebabe]

First Zidane
Now Olivier Ruel

The Frenchies are doing well...  :lol:

[Smmenen]

I just read that he has a 6 month suspension.  Wow.   Do you think this was justified?

[Klep]

I just read that he has a 6 month suspension.  Wow.   Do you think this was justified?

Honestly it wouldn't have been out of the question for them to call it cheating and suspend him for much longer.  A case could be made for that, since he has previously been warned about the behavior which caused the DQ.

[Dozer]

For Wizards, it's between a rock and a hard place -- ban him and lose Olivier, or treat him gently and risk compromising the DCI's stance on cheating. Even though he got an Unsportsmanlike Conduct ban, and was not banned for Cheating, if the DCI decided on this infraction, they had to give out the appropriate penalty. I don't think they had a real choice.

It's sad that Olivier has decided to give up Magic. (His short statement can be found here.) I don't think he will be gone forever, though. If he is a gamer at heart, he'll come back, and the suspension seems very harsh for the infraction in my mind... but then again, that's the policy. It seems like the suspension caught Oli out of the blue, though, which is surprising because he should know the DCI people well enough to be aware of their steely stance.

It's unfortunate that it is Olivier who had this happen to him, but he provoked it himself by doing what he did. All in all, it seems hard but fair, and Oli should be happy that he did not get banned for cheating, which is a much worse stain on his record and might even have lead to a longer suspension.

Link Fixed. -Klep

[Smmenen]

But what if he didn't deserve it?  What if he was innocent?

[Kowal]

You don't get warned by different judges for the same thing several tournaments in a row without being guilty.

His little "I don't understand why, so I'm leaving the game" quote bothers me.  You should understand why; you publically mentioned that you've been warned for the same thing dozens of time in the past.  To me, that implies that at least some level of foul play was intentional, and that he was deserving of a stiffer penalty.

[forests failed you]

he was either guiilty of cheating, stupidity, or arrogance.  Either way, good ridence.

[Smmenen]

And yet only one of those is impermissible. 

[Nazdakka]

he was either guilty of cheating, stupidity, or arrogance

And yet only one of those is impermissible. 

Stupidity/arrogance in thinking he could have gotten away with something which he had previously been explicitly told was against the rules. Yeah, I think that counts.

EDIT: I would agree that the evidence would likely not stand up before a court of law. However, WoTC isn't bound by criminal standards of proof, and honestly here I feel the balance is soundly against Ruel. He may not have been cheating, but given what has been said by Ruel and WoTC, could you really justify letting him off? If so, on what grounds?

[rvs]

Since what he has done comes _very_ close to cheating, I think he got away with a mild punishment. If he quits it would be too bad, since the PT would lose a great player, but he must understand that what he has done just doesn't go. Steve: why do you think the penalty is too harsh?
Innocence is no excuse, since he has been warned about this on more than one occasion.

[Smmenen]

Innocence isn't an excuse, its a complete defense. 

I'm not saying one way or the other whether he is guilty and I"m putting my faith in the DCI that they found him actually guilty because he was.   But if he wasn't, then he did not deseve this punishment. 

I hope he quits so that it causes a close examination of current DCI policy.  It is important to get it right, not just to act as a deterrent. 

[forests failed you]

Innocence isn't an excuse, its a complete defense. 

I'm not saying one way or the other whether he is guilty and I"m putting my faith in the DCI that they found him actually guilty because he was.   But if he wasn't, then he did not deseve this punishment. 

I hope he quits so that it causes a close examination of current DCI policy.  It is important to get it right, not just to act as a deterrent. 

But he had been warned several times previous for commiting the exact same offense.  Clearly, that mode of action was not working, because Ruel continued to shuffle in an inappropriate manner tournament after tournament.

[rvs]

Innocence isn't an excuse, its a complete defense.

That is kind of twisting my words, since I did include the condition why it isn't an excuse: he was warned before and should be aware of it. 

I'm not saying one way or the other whether he is guilty and I"m putting my faith in the DCI that they found him actually guilty because he was.   But if he wasn't, then he did not deseve this punishment.

Anyone who isn't guilty doesn't deserve punishment, so that doesn't really say anything. I'm just wondering what you think about what happened. Is the ban long enough? Or too short? Or is the infraction not a bannable (sp?) offence at all? As I pointed out, I think it is completely justified, and he got away pretty good since what he did comes very very close to cheating. (note: this is ofcourse assuming I have perfect information).

I hope he quits so that it causes a close examination of current DCI policy.  It is important to get it right, not just to act as a deterrent. 

I doubt that one banned player quitting will get the policy re-evaluated. The only way to get that done is mass dissatisfaction with certain measures taken by the DCI. So far, that hasn't happened. Perhaps, as a well known writer, you could try to get that going with one of your articles, just make sure it isn't premium.

[Razvan]

It might also be incidental to showing that no one is exempt from punishment if something fishy is happening.

I agree that if several judges at several events issued him the same warning, the chance of a vendetta is close to nothing, an excuse which several other people that have cheated used.

In the end, we'll see what happens in 6 months.

Of course, Ben summed it up in far better words than I ever could:

His little "I don't understand why, so I'm leaving the game" quote bothers me.  You should understand why; you publically mentioned that you've been warned for the same thing dozens of time in the past.  To me, that implies that at least some level of foul play was intentional, and that he was deserving of a stiffer penalty.