Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who watch tennis, Naomi doesn't do as well on clay. She was trying to avoid questions about playing on clay due to her poorer performance in the past on clay. This is not some secret plot to take down a major player. All players get asked questions--it's the job of the press. If the paradigm needs to change, great, but then it has to start with conversations before a player just refuses to follow a rule.

A rule, a rule. OH MY GOD a rule! Who gives a crap what you think the job of the press is. Her well being matters more than the press. This is so stupid and it's clear who the boomers are here.

Lots of people who aren’t boomers (including myself) care about fairness and believe the rules should be the same for everyone. It does seem like mainly the younger generations who think the rules shouldn’t apply to them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who watch tennis, Naomi doesn't do as well on clay. She was trying to avoid questions about playing on clay due to her poorer performance in the past on clay. This is not some secret plot to take down a major player. All players get asked questions--it's the job of the press. If the paradigm needs to change, great, but then it has to start with conversations before a player just refuses to follow a rule.

A rule, a rule. OH MY GOD a rule! Who gives a crap what you think the job of the press is. Her well being matters more than the press. This is so stupid and it's clear who the boomers are here.

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who watch tennis, Naomi doesn't do as well on clay. She was trying to avoid questions about playing on clay due to her poorer performance in the past on clay. This is not some secret plot to take down a major player. All players get asked questions--it's the job of the press. If the paradigm needs to change, great, but then it has to start with conversations before a player just refuses to follow a rule.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't understand all the controversy here.

1) The reason the players get paid lots of money, is because of the tv contracts and sponsors, and making interviews mandatory to give them their money's worth is entirely reasonable.

2) Mental health is a serious thing, and if a player fells they are not mentally capable of playing and fulfilling their media obligations, then they should withdraw, and take care of themselves, just like they would for a physical injury.

No.

1) players are supposed to do interviews on game day and if they don’t they get fines. No problem, that’s the rules and she agreed to pay the fine.

2) if organizations get frustrated because the player plays under the fine rule with no problem they should not threaten to expel them from the tournament. Don’t Change the rules .

Where are you seeing that they changed the rules? I see them explaining the escalating rules. I see Osaka deciding for herself what the rules should be for her. Instead, they're saying, no, these are the rules, up to and including expulsion. She doesn't get to decide her own punishment. They do. And they're in agreement, so I don't see where or how the rules changed.

Using Code of Conduct article III Is unprecedented in this situation. It has never been levied against another player for the same actions. It was actually used to manipulate her not to evenly enforce an already established rule.

I disagree. Repeated violation of *any* rule is subject to suspension or expulsion. Lower-tier players can't afford to pay $15k/day to avoid the press conference. Are you suggesting that only the rich players can take care of their mental health and avoid the press "messing with their game"?

Anonymous wrote:If you can't see this entire thing was cooked up by Nike and then astroturfed with likely a $10+ million pr campaign you're a hopeless sap.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Citation for repeated rule violations resulting in expulsion/suspension. They did not change the rules.

As might be expected, repeat violations attract tougher sanctions including default from the tournament (Code of Conduct article III T.) and the trigger of a major offence investigation that could lead to more substantial fines and future Grand Slam suspensions (Code of Conduct article IV A.3.).

https://www.rolandgarros.com/en-us/article/statement-from-grand-slam-tournaments-regarding-naomi-osaka

Curious - did the officials sit for a press conference on this and take questions?

the officials aren't entertainers, the players are

+1. Athletes are paid to entertain, not officials. Their jobs are very different.

If you want to run an organization you are required to answer questions from the press. If you don’t like it don’t take the job.

Nope commissioners and other tournament officials do press. Are you living unde a rock.

Well, now you're just making $h!t up, aren't you...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't understand all the controversy here.

1) The reason the players get paid lots of money, is because of the tv contracts and sponsors, and making interviews mandatory to give them their money's worth is entirely reasonable.

2) Mental health is a serious thing, and if a player fells they are not mentally capable of playing and fulfilling their media obligations, then they should withdraw, and take care of themselves, just like they would for a physical injury.

No.

1) players are supposed to do interviews on game day and if they don’t they get fines. No problem, that’s the rules and she agreed to pay the fine.

2) if organizations get frustrated because the player plays under the fine rule with no problem they should not threaten to expel them from the tournament. Don’t Change the rules .

Where are you seeing that they changed the rules? I see them explaining the escalating rules. I see Osaka deciding for herself what the rules should be for her. Instead, they're saying, no, these are the rules, up to and including expulsion. She doesn't get to decide her own punishment. They do. And they're in agreement, so I don't see where or how the rules changed.

Using Code of Conduct article III Is unprecedented in this situation. It has never been levied against another player for the same actions. It was actually used to manipulate her not to evenly enforce an already established rule.

I disagree. Repeated violation of *any* rule is subject to suspension or expulsion. Lower-tier players can't afford to pay $15k/day to avoid the press conference. Are you suggesting that only the rich players can take care of their mental health and avoid the press "messing with their game"?

Are you saying that there should be a sliding scale for fines? I’m cool with that.

The rules were she would be fined for not doing interviews, she agreed to those rules. Then they decided to change the rules because they didn’t like that she was willing to pay the fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Citation for repeated rule violations resulting in expulsion/suspension. They did not change the rules.

As might be expected, repeat violations attract tougher sanctions including default from the tournament (Code of Conduct article III T.) and the trigger of a major offence investigation that could lead to more substantial fines and future Grand Slam suspensions (Code of Conduct article IV A.3.).

https://www.rolandgarros.com/en-us/article/statement-from-grand-slam-tournaments-regarding-naomi-osaka

Curious - did the officials sit for a press conference on this and take questions?

the officials aren't entertainers, the players are

+1. Athletes are paid to entertain, not officials. Their jobs are very different.

If you want to run an organization you are required to answer questions from the press. If you don’t like it don’t take the job.

Nope commissioners and other tournament officials do press. Are you living unde a rock.

Well, now you're just making $h!t up, aren't you...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't understand all the controversy here.

1) The reason the players get paid lots of money, is because of the tv contracts and sponsors, and making interviews mandatory to give them their money's worth is entirely reasonable.

2) Mental health is a serious thing, and if a player fells they are not mentally capable of playing and fulfilling their media obligations, then they should withdraw, and take care of themselves, just like they would for a physical injury.

No.

1) players are supposed to do interviews on game day and if they don’t they get fines. No problem, that’s the rules and she agreed to pay the fine.

2) if organizations get frustrated because the player plays under the fine rule with no problem they should not threaten to expel them from the tournament. Don’t Change the rules .

Where are you seeing that they changed the rules? I see them explaining the escalating rules. I see Osaka deciding for herself what the rules should be for her. Instead, they're saying, no, these are the rules, up to and including expulsion. She doesn't get to decide her own punishment. They do. And they're in agreement, so I don't see where or how the rules changed.

Using Code of Conduct article III Is unprecedented in this situation. It has never been levied against another player for the same actions. It was actually used to manipulate her not to evenly enforce an already established rule.

I disagree. Repeated violation of *any* rule is subject to suspension or expulsion. Lower-tier players can't afford to pay $15k/day to avoid the press conference. Are you suggesting that only the rich players can take care of their mental health and avoid the press "messing with their game"?

Are you saying that there should be a sliding scale for fines? I’m cool with that.

The rules were she would be fined for not doing interviews, she agreed to those rules. Then they decided to change the rules because they didn’t like that she was willing to pay the fine.

The rules stated that there were escalating punishments, not just fines. Just because the first rung on the punishment ladder was a fine doesn't mean they stayed that way. The rules state that the punishment can be escalated up to and including expulsion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Citation for repeated rule violations resulting in expulsion/suspension. They did not change the rules.

As might be expected, repeat violations attract tougher sanctions including default from the tournament (Code of Conduct article III T.) and the trigger of a major offence investigation that could lead to more substantial fines and future Grand Slam suspensions (Code of Conduct article IV A.3.).

https://www.rolandgarros.com/en-us/article/statement-from-grand-slam-tournaments-regarding-naomi-osaka

Curious - did the officials sit for a press conference on this and take questions?

the officials aren't entertainers, the players are

+1. Athletes are paid to entertain, not officials. Their jobs are very different.

If you want to run an organization you are required to answer questions from the press. If you don’t like it don’t take the job.

except they aren't and it's not part of the job. Don't believe me? Find how many times league commissioners have been fined for not doing pressers and compare that to athletes

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can't see this entire thing was cooked up by Nike and then astroturfed with likely a $10+ million pr campaign you're a hopeless sap.

Put your tinfoil hat back on.

Anonymous wrote:If you can't see this entire thing was cooked up by Nike and then astroturfed with likely a $10+ million pr campaign you're a hopeless sap.