Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Naomi’s sister implied that Naomi didn’t want to talk to the press because she didn’t want them to plant seeds of doubt in her head regarding her ability to win on clay. Of course they can’t let certain athletes skip universal obligations for strategic reasons.

https://nypost.com/2021/06/01/naomi-osakas-sister-on-deleted-reddit-post-i-f-ked-up/

She herself said it. I just don't get why anyone thinks she can just decide for herself what rules she'll follow and what she won't. She's "supposed" to be an elite tennis player. With that comes the obligation to meet with the media. But she doesn't want to because it messes with her self-confidence, wait, I have depression and anxiety. I'm just not buying it. Don't play Slam events then. It's ridiculous.

why does it come with that obligation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Naomi’s sister implied that Naomi didn’t want to talk to the press because she didn’t want them to plant seeds of doubt in her head regarding her ability to win on clay. Of course they can’t let certain athletes skip universal obligations for strategic reasons.

https://nypost.com/2021/06/01/naomi-osakas-sister-on-deleted-reddit-post-i-f-ked-up/

She herself said it. I just don't get why anyone thinks she can just decide for herself what rules she'll follow and what she won't. She's "supposed" to be an elite tennis player. With that comes the obligation to meet with the media. But she doesn't want to because it messes with her self-confidence, wait, I have depression and anxiety. I'm just not buying it. Don't play Slam events then. It's ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:Naomi’s sister implied that Naomi didn’t want to talk to the press because she didn’t want them to plant seeds of doubt in her head regarding her ability to win on clay. Of course they can’t let certain athletes skip universal obligations for strategic reasons.

https://nypost.com/2021/06/01/naomi-osakas-sister-on-deleted-reddit-post-i-f-ked-up/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BBC confirmed it’s the WTA tour rules.

“Many athletes, both in and out of tennis, applauded Osaka's stance after she announced it on Wednesday, although many said speaking to the media is "part of the job".
Grand Slam rules state players can be fined up to $20,000 (£14,160) for failing to meet their media obligations, with the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) saying players "have a responsibility to their sport and their fans" to speak to the media during competitions.
Following her win over Tig, Osaka did take part in the usual on-court interview with the victor.
Later on Sunday, organisers of the four Grand Slams released a joint statement saying Osaka could face "more substantial fines and future Grand Slam suspensions" for her decision.
The Grand Slams added that following Osaka's announcement on Wednesday, Roland Garros teams had asked her to reconsider her position and were unsuccessful in their attempts to check on her wellbeing.
After a "lack of engagement" from Osaka, the Grand Slam organisers wrote to her to offer support, as well as to "remind her of her obligations".

I do not think she handled this well. I do not think anyone is out to get her. If and when the rules change, she can follow the new rules instead. But the time to flaunt the rules is not in the middle of a tournament you’ve entered.

So, was the threat of “suspensions” part of the original agreement? My impression is that it was not. Osaka planned to pay the fines and speak to the press after the tournament was over. If the rules were changed to threaten Osaka, then, to echo your words, the time to change the rules is not mid-tournament.

What "agreement?" It seems like she unilaterally decided how she was going to handle this. And it wasn't good.

It sounded to me like there was a specific fine for not showing up. So if you're willing to pay, you're accepting the agreed-upon punishment. They appear to have changed the punishment.

Ironically, when the head of the French tennis federation gave his statement to the media on the situation, he left without taking questions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BBC confirmed it’s the WTA tour rules.

“Many athletes, both in and out of tennis, applauded Osaka's stance after she announced it on Wednesday, although many said speaking to the media is "part of the job".
Grand Slam rules state players can be fined up to $20,000 (£14,160) for failing to meet their media obligations, with the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) saying players "have a responsibility to their sport and their fans" to speak to the media during competitions.
Following her win over Tig, Osaka did take part in the usual on-court interview with the victor.
Later on Sunday, organisers of the four Grand Slams released a joint statement saying Osaka could face "more substantial fines and future Grand Slam suspensions" for her decision.
The Grand Slams added that following Osaka's announcement on Wednesday, Roland Garros teams had asked her to reconsider her position and were unsuccessful in their attempts to check on her wellbeing.
After a "lack of engagement" from Osaka, the Grand Slam organisers wrote to her to offer support, as well as to "remind her of her obligations".

I do not think she handled this well. I do not think anyone is out to get her. If and when the rules change, she can follow the new rules instead. But the time to flaunt the rules is not in the middle of a tournament you’ve entered.

So, was the threat of “suspensions” part of the original agreement? My impression is that it was not. Osaka planned to pay the fines and speak to the press after the tournament was over. If the rules were changed to threaten Osaka, then, to echo your words, the time to change the rules is not mid-tournament.

What "agreement?" It seems like she unilaterally decided how she was going to handle this. And it wasn't good.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BBC confirmed it’s the WTA tour rules.

“Many athletes, both in and out of tennis, applauded Osaka's stance after she announced it on Wednesday, although many said speaking to the media is "part of the job".
Grand Slam rules state players can be fined up to $20,000 (£14,160) for failing to meet their media obligations, with the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) saying players "have a responsibility to their sport and their fans" to speak to the media during competitions.
Following her win over Tig, Osaka did take part in the usual on-court interview with the victor.
Later on Sunday, organisers of the four Grand Slams released a joint statement saying Osaka could face "more substantial fines and future Grand Slam suspensions" for her decision.
The Grand Slams added that following Osaka's announcement on Wednesday, Roland Garros teams had asked her to reconsider her position and were unsuccessful in their attempts to check on her wellbeing.
After a "lack of engagement" from Osaka, the Grand Slam organisers wrote to her to offer support, as well as to "remind her of her obligations".

I do not think she handled this well. I do not think anyone is out to get her. If and when the rules change, she can follow the new rules instead. But the time to flaunt the rules is not in the middle of a tournament you’ve entered.

So, was the threat of “suspensions” part of the original agreement? My impression is that it was not. Osaka planned to pay the fines and speak to the press after the tournament was over. If the rules were changed to threaten Osaka, then, to echo your words, the time to change the rules is not mid-tournament.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Naomi didn’t even show up. Eye contact is part of being human. It sucks that the Internet has caused all this anxiety and depression but the way out is not LESS contact. We need to expect ourselves to do uncomfortable things from time to time. Particularly when someone is mandating that as part of your job. Suck it up, buttercup.

If I were Naomi Osaka, I'd probably do some work with educating the public on what introversion means and what social anxiety means for those of us who have trouble speaking up in public, and for whom it is not just an "uncomfortable thing" to do from time to time. This type of response just makes me throw up my hands in despair.

Anonymous wrote:BBC confirmed it’s the WTA tour rules.

“Many athletes, both in and out of tennis, applauded Osaka's stance after she announced it on Wednesday, although many said speaking to the media is "part of the job".
Grand Slam rules state players can be fined up to $20,000 (£14,160) for failing to meet their media obligations, with the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) saying players "have a responsibility to their sport and their fans" to speak to the media during competitions.
Following her win over Tig, Osaka did take part in the usual on-court interview with the victor.
Later on Sunday, organisers of the four Grand Slams released a joint statement saying Osaka could face "more substantial fines and future Grand Slam suspensions" for her decision.
The Grand Slams added that following Osaka's announcement on Wednesday, Roland Garros teams had asked her to reconsider her position and were unsuccessful in their attempts to check on her wellbeing.
After a "lack of engagement" from Osaka, the Grand Slam organisers wrote to her to offer support, as well as to "remind her of her obligations".

I do not think she handled this well. I do not think anyone is out to get her. If and when the rules change, she can follow the new rules instead. But the time to flaunt the rules is not in the middle of a tournament you’ve entered.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One part of me understand her completely, DS has social anxiety. The other part understands that she went about it the wrong way. I will not do it, the end? Yeah, how immature.
So, some interviews are ok and some are not? How come? Her anxiety is under control while playing, but not to answer a few questions?
Without the reporters, we have no reason to read and pay to watch tennis and be into the sport.
The other part says, we can have all the accommodations for gender issues but not for anxiety?
And why did she not say that right away? I have a health issue which is valid and I need this accommodation?
I mean, imagine her winning RG and not giving a speech? But, that is ok and the presser after the game is not? And it sounded like she was only against it if a player loses, based on her initial statement.
So, another part of me says she is entitled.

She is not entitled. She was ok with paying the fines. That's when they pulled the expulsion threat.

So is she ok with the expulsion? She decided to participate in an event that has its rules. They enforced those rules. Is the expulsion a part of their rules or was it arbitrarily threatened and it is not in the rule book of RG?

She quit on her own volition. If you read her message on social media, it is actually very humble and apologetic. It is not the message of an entitled person at all.

Yes, the post abut withdrawing was nice, however the one before that was vague and weird and entitled.

Thank you for acknowledging. Now go take a page from her, and be nice yourself.

I am nice. She should have handled it in a more mature manner. I certainly hope if she explained to organizers that she suffers from Social Anxiety they would have tried their best to accommodate her.
I recall how Mardy Fish felt he had to leave the sport when his social anxiety was out of control. Instead, her first post was like some justice crusader doing it for all the players.
I still recall how Serena bullied her and how terrible that was. Even if Serena and Osaka were faking that it was not a big deal. It was a big deal, Serena, don't bully those that beat you and then have them apologize for your bullying behavior.

Anonymous wrote:Are those of you who are spending hours and hours supporting your kid's sports dreams also taking them to drama lessons and toastmasters to develop their public speaking skills? Probably not. I sympathize with these athletes who have dedicated their lives to tennis or football or swimming or skating etc who then get thrown in front of cameras and subjected to negativity on social media. One of the saddest cases is Rebecca Adlington, a UK swimmer, who has been criticized constantly for her looks, weight, dress sense and relationships by the British public. Famous Australian swimmers have also suffered with anxiety and depression.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BBC confirmed it’s the WTA tour rules.

“Many athletes, both in and out of tennis, applauded Osaka's stance after she announced it on Wednesday, although many said speaking to the media is "part of the job".
Grand Slam rules state players can be fined up to $20,000 (£14,160) for failing to meet their media obligations, with the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) saying players "have a responsibility to their sport and their fans" to speak to the media during competitions.
Following her win over Tig, Osaka did take part in the usual on-court interview with the victor.
Later on Sunday, organisers of the four Grand Slams released a joint statement saying Osaka could face "more substantial fines and future Grand Slam suspensions" for her decision.
The Grand Slams added that following Osaka's announcement on Wednesday, Roland Garros teams had asked her to reconsider her position and were unsuccessful in their attempts to check on her wellbeing.
After a "lack of engagement" from Osaka, the Grand Slam organisers wrote to her to offer support, as well as to "remind her of her obligations".

I do not think she handled this well. I do not think anyone is out to get her. If and when the rules change, she can follow the new rules instead. But the time to flaunt the rules is not in the middle of a tournament you’ve entered.

They might not be out to get her, but they are certainly not supportive.