5 years on from the 2011 world championship...

[PT13]

what most people forget is that a lot of bdo players played both codes in the mid 90s

From June 1997 until the end of 2001, yes. It became more blurred after that. Prior to June 1997, BDO players risked a ban from all BDO sanctioned darts. As Jeff Stelling said in June 1997, the players from different sides of the divide couldn't even be in the same building for the last 4 years, yet now that will be changing as Richie Burnett plays Phil Taylor.

Take the PDC world pairs, Barney and Scholten won that in 97, while Barney was still a bdo player

Yes, in 1997 in Bognor Regis, when both Barney and Scholten were still BDO players. It was different in Salford in 1996 when Phil Taylor and Bob Anderson won, and in Ayr in 1995 when Dennis Priestley and Eric Bristow won.

The only exceptions in those days seemed to be American and Canadian players and events (as the ADO and NDFC refused to implement the ban on the rebels and any dart players plying their trade), and also the WDC sanctioned Antwerp Open which allowed Dutch and Belgian WDF players to participate.

[Justin Credible]

what most people forget is that a lot of bdo players played both codes in the mid 90s

From June 1997 until the end of 2001, yes. It became more blurred after that. Prior to June 1997, BDO players risked a ban from all BDO sanctioned darts. As Jeff Stelling said in June 1997, the players from different sides of the divide couldn't even be in the same building for the last 4 years, yet now that will be changing as Richie Burnett plays Phil Taylor.

Take the PDC world pairs, Barney and Scholten won that in 97, while Barney was still a bdo player

Yes, in 1997 in Bognor Regis, when both Barney and Scholten were still BDO players. It was different in Salford in 1996 when Phil Taylor and Bob Anderson won, and in Ayr in 1995 when Dennis Priestley and Eric Bristow won.

The only exceptions in those days seemed to be American and Canadian players and events (as the ADO and NDFC refused to implement the ban on the rebels and any dart players plying their trade), and also the WDC sanctioned Antwerp Open which allowed Dutch and Belgian WDF players to participate.

Yep...think Spineless won one of the antwerp opens, might have been the same year as the scania open too

[cannibal]

It's against US and Canadian law to prevent the plying of one's trade, and explicitly so in US law. ...

Again not true in the USA laws. There is nothing in Anti trust laws that would make the banning of players of a professional org from competing in an amateur event and vice versa. It is not what is deemed a per-se violation, ie. no codes explicitly bar the behavior. In fact the courts have a long history of allowing sports especially pro level to act as monopolies and not view what in other cases would be anti competitive behavior as illegal. The case would not fall under labor laws because darts would not be considered a professional activity. Even if it was then prohibiting participation based on just about anything (except discrimination based on race and religion) would be allowed. In addition on the amateur side of things the courts have upheld the right of orgs to set their own criteria for competing in their events. This includes exclusion based on amateur or pro status for events. This was not explicit in the law back then but the court precedent was in existent with the stephens act it was made explicit.

Hate to bring this up but I hear this over and over and over and it is bullshit from a legal perspective. It is a myth.

[PT13]

Again not true in the USA laws. There is nothing in Anti trust laws that would make the banning of players of a professional org from competing in an amateur event and vice versa. It is not what is deemed a per-se violation, ie. no codes explicitly bar the behavior. In fact the courts have a long history of allowing sports especially pro level to act as monopolies and not view what in other cases would be anti competitive behavior as illegal.

When profit is the motive, corruption is rampant. That's what capitalism does. However, the BDO's actions from 1993-1997 were about denying dart players who broke away any chance to earn a living from playing darts, as a result of those Finchley motions. The BDO were effectively saying that what the BDO offers is as good as it gets, accept it or else we'll ban you, even as darts had declined to only 1-2 tournaments per year on TV and players struggling to make a living from exhibitions. And on top of that, the BDO then attempts to ruin the WDC players completely with those Finchley clauses which prevented BDO players from playing in exhibitions with WDC players.

Are you saying that US law doesn't forbid such things?

The case would not fall under labor laws because darts would not be considered a professional activity.

Really? Playing darts for a living is professional though. That, and the BDO's intransigence, is what caused the split.

[cannibal]

I am saying the US law would not forbid the ADO from barring professional players from competing in amateur events that they run. Darts is not a profession here and it wasn't then either. Every weekend in this country hundreds of amateur events are held and even professional events that have restrictive criteria as to who can participate and who can't. Many only allow members of their orgs to participate at the top level. The vast majority of all amateur events bar professionals from participating, or if they belong to a professional org.

The ADO could do nothing about exhibitions because they have no authority as a sanctioning body over those.
As to the exhibition side of things again it probably wouldn't be a violation of Anti trust or Clayton because it has to limit or prohibit competition. In this case there would be nothing stopping players from organizing their own exhibitions. So the barrier isn't so great to stop exhibitions of the WDC players. If the ADO, BDO, or WDF ran the exhibitions and colluded to prevent anyone else from running exhibitions then that would more than likely be a problem, because now it is a trade issue and not a labor issue. Labor issues would be under the NLRA and all its subsequent acts. The Finchley clauses as you describe them may cause an issue under the NLRA but it isn't clear because the discrimination has to come from an employer which the BDO, ADO, WDF are not so they couldn't be sued. Unless the WDC acts as a union they might have a case but more than likely against the exhibitions organizers only. A case against the BDO, ADO, WDF could only come if they violated their own by laws or the by laws of the WDF. Doesn't sound nice I know but the law is very specific in these issues.