PDA

View Full Version : Great Article about Gasquet


BigServer1
05-13-2009, 05:48 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=4164293&name=tennis

I agree completely. Recreational drugs should be frowned upon and given a penalty that is in accordance with the law, but treating it like a performance enhancer is absurd. Coke would almost certainly hinder any player's game, which is maybe why we saw Richard never live up to his potential and drop in the rankings of late.

Go after steroids users and guys that cheat the game, but don't paint Gasquet a cheater for stupidly putting something in his body that doesn't belong there.

I assume some will flame me for "not having a problem with drug use", but I could care less. These guys don't need to be role models and they surely don't need to be held to a higher standard than anyone else.

Discuss...

tacou
05-13-2009, 06:06 PM
I couldn't agree more OP. I really don't understand the logic. A large fine, sure. A 3-month ban, ok. But I don't see how a sentence can be given which is the same sentence to a far more severe offense.

There is no advantage to blowing dope, period.

Rules are rules, yes, but the rule is bad. Richard is 22 and should learn from his mistake. Now he will learn nothing but how ridiculous people are when they form official committees.

BigServer1
05-13-2009, 11:02 PM
I'm actually surprised that there isn't more response to this...

BorisBeckerFan
05-13-2009, 11:25 PM
I'm sorry for your failure. He should face the law. Nothing more nothing less. Cocaine is a helluva drug. I am sad Gasquet went down this road. The only people he cheated are himself, the atp, his fans. His friends and family. He certainly did not cheat in the performance enhancement sense but he's deprived many of watching him play.

raygo
05-14-2009, 03:50 AM
If the government found a way to effectively tax recreational drugs, they'd be selling them at Wal-Mart already. Law for law's sake is naive. Alcohol is pretty destructive, but nobody's going to jail for having a drink. (I'm not talking about drinking and driving, I'm talking about just having a drink.)

vtmike
05-14-2009, 03:57 AM
If the government found a way to effectively tax recreational drugs, they'd be selling them at Wal-Mart already. Law for law's sake is naive. Alcohol is pretty destructive, but nobody's going to jail for having a drink. (I'm not talking about drinking and driving, I'm talking about just having a drink.)

I agree...If cocaine was going to give him an advantage on the tennis courts then yes he should be heavily penalized...But anything else you consume which is not going to enhance your performance & give you an edge should not be made such a big deal out of...It is kinda similar to smoking a cigerratte, or drinking like raygo pointed out...

cucio
05-14-2009, 04:36 AM
I'm actually surprised that there isn't more response to this...

There's already plenty of response, only you didn't look for it. It has been bashed to death here:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=260245

Besides those 350 posts there must be some other 200 that have been deleted by a moderator since anything loosely resembling any other thing than drug usage firm condemn is frowned upon, so don't put much effort into it.

obsessedtennisfandisorder
05-14-2009, 06:34 AM
I'm actually surprised that there isn't more response to this...

there was....

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=260245

and it was hot on tuesday from what i hear, with many posts apparently
deleted by moderators(I'm only going on later posts) for fear of it turning
into another "drugs" debate...which is fair enuff...go to rants and raves.

I, myself, take the same position as the OP and realised a lot of it comes down to the contract the players sign and my argument was these contracts
do not stand up in a court of law...they are exploitative of ones privacy.

I was argued against(many making good points by the way) and interesting
thats for sure.

I'm totally against cocaine, have never taken it and don't intend to, I believe it can destroy ones life if not handled
properly...but no matter how much you despise this drug...The OP's article is actually centrally focusing the debate
on a players privacy...and the difference between performance enhance and recreational drug.
Interesting.

split-step
05-14-2009, 06:37 AM
Where was all this outrage when Hingis was banned?

mandy01
05-14-2009, 06:46 AM
Where was all this outrage when Hingis was banned? Hingis took it during Wimbledon 07 when she was competing.

obsessedtennisfandisorder
05-14-2009, 06:47 AM
Where was all this outrage when Hingis was banned?

I myself was not happy with what the WTA did there either.
neither was Jon Weirtheim...read his colomn? or Peter Bodo.

There was was on the other tennis sites I frequented, including tennis.com
and tennis-x...

part of the deal there was that Martina "pre-empted" everything by retiring
and she was on the downside of her career anyway. Had she not retired
and decided to fight more in the courts/serve sentence etc...would have been
more debate here.

Stchamps
05-14-2009, 07:07 AM
Yea I thought the same thing. A two year ban for using cocaine is stupid. 2 years is a long time in any sport, but in tennis when players retire by age 30 that is way too long.

veroniquem
05-14-2009, 07:12 AM
We need to keep drugs out of tennis, no matter what they're used for. The ban is very fair. I've also read that cocaine can be used to mask actual doping substances. Regardless, the tour will become a real mess if the no drug principle is not respected, notwithstanding the health risks for the player himself from exerting himself physically intensively while consuming drugs, great recipe for heart failure.

obsessedtennisfandisorder
05-14-2009, 07:29 AM
We need to keep drugs out of tennis, no matter what they're used for. The ban is very fair. I've also read that cocaine can be used to mask actual doping substances. Regardless, the tour will become a real mess if the no drug principle is not respected, notwithstanding the health risks for the player himself from exerting himself physically intensively while consuming drugs, great recipe for heart failure.

veroniquem,

no ones saying "nothing" should be done....if they discover traces of cocaine
they could suggest rehab clinic or counselling for anything...

but the shouldN't have to power to dictate or punish him because at the
end of the day...it's his life.

Your quote above would be the equivalent of me saying:

"hey my fellow ATP officials, we've finally found some private dirt on that gasquet guy, lets ban him for two years and give no other help and so he becomes an addict and out of the tennis world"

ATP MARKETING TEAM: HOORAY...

"Now we can continue to market our players are perfect role models(me puking) and live like monks to continue our competitive advantage over other sports...we market our sports stars as upstanding beings" NODS from others"

"DOWN with Gasquet" chants ensue...

yes , i know it's an OTT example but I hope you catch my theory on all this.:)

PS: if cocaine can mask performing enhance, you may have a point

sureshs
05-14-2009, 07:32 AM
If they really wanted players to be role models, JMac would have been banned a long time ago.

veroniquem
05-14-2009, 07:34 AM
veroniquem,

no ones saying "nothing" should be done....if they discover traces of cocaine
they could suggest rehab clinic or counselling for anything...

but the shouldN't have to power to dictate or punish him because at the
end of the day...it's his life.

Your quote above would be the equivalent of me saying:

"hey my fellow ATP officials, we've finally found some private dirt on that gasquet guy, lets ban him for two years and give no other help and so he becomes an addict and out of the tennis world"

ATP MARKETING TEAM: HOORAY...

"Now we can continue to market our players are perfect role models(me puking) and live like monks to continue our competitive advantage over other sports...we market our sports stars as upstanding beings" NODS from others"

"DOWN with Gasquet" chants ensue...

yes , i know it's an OTT example but I hope you catch my theory on all this.:)

PS: if cocaine can mask performing enhance, you may have a point
I understand your point of view but I don't share it. It's up to Gasquet himself and his entourage to take the necessary recovery steps. The role of the ATP is to sanction the players and to protect tennis fans from drug infiltration in the tour.

Dilettante
05-14-2009, 07:36 AM
but treating it like a performance enhancer is absurd.

No, it isn't.

l_gonzalez
05-14-2009, 08:02 AM
Ok, what would happen if a player turned up to a match and was just off his face, clearly still drunk, maybe even throws up on court...

He'd be tarnishing the image of the game, letting down himself, fans, the tour, parents, coach etc... setting a bad example for the kids, not being a role model and all that.

Would he get a 2 year ban? No.

So if i'm getting this right, the only reason he gets a 2 year ban is because cocaine is illegal.

what a bunch of crap.

RCizzle65
05-14-2009, 08:08 AM
I agree, I don't see why he should be banned for a couple of years for a drug that won't even enhance his playing abilities.

skip1969
05-14-2009, 08:08 AM
well, as was mentioned in the other thread (by mt99):
"The International Tennis Federation, like so many other sports federations, is a participant of WADA, which sets the doping standards for all sports. In that context, cocaine is a stimulant which can enhance performance is some sports and is therefore in WADA's banned list. "

i also think it is important not to paint gasquet as some serial cocaine user or addict. we don't know that he is. if you stop at the pub every day after work to have a beer, it doesn't make you an alcoholic. many people are drawing too many conclusions about gasquet's positive results, using it as an explanation for his unfulfilled potential, etc. it is totally possible that he might actually not need rehab or recovery or anyone looking over his shoulder.

skip1969
05-14-2009, 08:08 AM
i guess it is the length of the ban that is a bit troublesome. or rather, the potential length of the ban.

bluetrain4
05-14-2009, 08:13 AM
I generally agree with a lot of posters that the consumption of coke by tennis players does not enhance performance and a 2-year ban, in many instances, would be absurd (though there probably could be instances where consumption should be harshly punished, such as a player showing up at a match coked-up out of his mind, which would reflect horribly on the sport. Probably not likely though).

But, as much as I agree with this general idea, I can't ignore the fact that at the time Gasquet allegedly consumed coke, it was a banned substance. It was on the banned substances list. It was the policy of the ATP, and Gasquet knew it. The "stupid rule" excuse seems lame when someone is aware of the rules and chooses to break them.

The rule may be stupid, but Gasquet is an adult and had fair notice of what could happen to him if he broke the rule. It was still his choice to break that "stupid rule."

Many laws, workplace rules and regulations, etc. are "stupid", yet we all have to go along. I have trouble feeling sorry for Gasquet.

rafan
05-14-2009, 08:20 AM
It surprises me that atheletes who are in fantastic physical shape should need drugs. I mean us lesser mortals can get a high from good excercise and not need an artificial stimulant or downer - so they must feel this to a far greater extent than me

l_gonzalez
05-14-2009, 08:20 AM
^^^ True about WADA, stupid archaic rules. it's more than likely that Gasquet is not a cokehead, he probably just made a mistake... he was a little drunk, someone offered and he thought: "screw it, i'm hardly taking the tennis world by storm right now so i'm not gonna get tested..."

If he's setting a bad example because he made a mistake, then what kind of example is the ATP setting for kids when it's message is: "make ONE mistake and you'll be screwed forever"

Why hasn't the ATP made an announcement like: "this clearly must be a tough time for Richard and while he must face the consequences of his actions we would also like to make it clear that should he have a substance abuse problem then we are 100% committed to offering him all the help and support that he needs..."

skip1969
05-14-2009, 08:20 AM
i agree with blue. it's not like i feel bad for him. i said in the other thread that you can't cry ignorance after the fact. basically, that implies that either you didn't do your homework, or you did . . . and you took your chances anyway. the only exception would be if your ingestion of the banned substance was accidental and completely unknown to you. but that's the excuse that everyone whips out once they are busted, and no one really buys it off the bat.

however unfair it is, in this day and age, athletes who come up with a positive test are guilty until proven innocent. it stinks, sure. but it is what it is. that would be reason enough for me to be extra vigilant, if i were in his shoes.

danb
05-14-2009, 08:26 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=4164293&name=tennis

I agree completely. Recreational drugs should be frowned upon and given a penalty that is in accordance with the law, but treating it like a performance enhancer is absurd. Coke would almost certainly hinder any player's game, which is maybe why we saw Richard never live up to his potential and drop in the rankings of late.

Go after steroids users and guys that cheat the game, but don't paint Gasquet a cheater for stupidly putting something in his body that doesn't belong there.

I assume some will flame me for "not having a problem with drug use", but I could care less. These guys don't need to be role models and they surely don't need to be held to a higher standard than anyone else.

Discuss...

He should be given community service (let's say 30 days) and fined a symbolic amount (like 5k$). He did not get any advantage from using drugs- actually they hurt his game (given his talent).
Or you know what? Make the drugs legal and let's get over it. At least the state would make some money out of taxes; people buy drugs anyway.
Now flame me.

BigServer1
05-14-2009, 09:39 AM
There's already plenty of response, only you didn't look for it. It has been bashed to death here:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=260245

Besides those 350 posts there must be some other 200 that have been deleted by a moderator since anything loosely resembling any other thing than drug usage firm condemn is frowned upon, so don't put much effort into it.

Yeah, I saw the thread, I'm not a moron.

At the time, I meant more response to the specific article, which attacks the punishment of the positive test...

If this article was included in the 350+ post thread, then forgive me for not wanting to waft through the crap to get to it. I am more interested in how the ATP handles this than I am about Gasquet's use of cocaine, hence this thread.

CCNM
05-14-2009, 09:51 AM
He should be given community service (let's say 30 days) and fined a symbolic amount (like 5k$). He did not get any advantage from using drugs- actually they hurt his game (given his talent).
Or you know what? Make the drugs legal and let's get over it. At least the state would make some money out of taxes; people buy drugs anyway.
Now flame me.

^^that makes sense. Also I've read that racehorses & greyhounds are sometimes injected with cocaine. It's all sad....

marcl65
05-14-2009, 11:01 AM
but the shouldN't have to power to dictate or punish him because at the end of the day...it's his life.
It isn't really. To some extent the ATP/WTA "own" the players. They have to play a certain amount of events, they are subject to fines, they have to do interviews (even if they don't want to) or photo ops…and they have to adhere to a certain code of conduct IF THEY WANT TO PLAY ON THE TOUR.

It's hard for me to feel too sorry for these guys. I mean really, how hard is it to keep your nose clean (har har) for the 10 years or so that you can be competitive in the sport all the while making a more than decent wage? And it's not like he didn't have other vices he could partake of (drinking, tobacco). For me, they have to draw the line somewhere and if that somewhere is all illicit drugs then so be it.

Still, I think it's a bit absurd that Gasquet suspension for use of a recreational drug is the same as Canas' for using a performance enhancer.

BigServer1
05-14-2009, 01:54 PM
It isn't really. To some extent the ATP/WTA "own" the players. They have to play a certain amount of events, they are subject to fines, they have to do interviews (even if they don't want to) or photo ops…and they have to adhere to a certain code of conduct IF THEY WANT TO PLAY ON THE TOUR.

It's hard for me to feel too sorry for these guys. I mean really, how hard is it to keep your nose clean (har har) for the 10 years or so that you can be competitive in the sport all the while making a more than decent wage? And it's not like he didn't have other vices he could partake of (drinking, tobacco). For me, they have to draw the line somewhere and if that somewhere is all illicit drugs then so be it.

Still, I think it's a bit absurd that Gasquet suspension for use of a recreational drug is the same as Canas' for using a performance enhancer.

And Canas' sentence was shortened to just 15 months, so it makes it even more ridiculous.

tacou
05-14-2009, 02:09 PM
The "stupid rule" excuse seems lame when someone is aware of the rules and chooses to break them.

The rule may be stupid, but Gasquet is an adult and had fair notice of what could happen to him if he broke the rule. It was still his choice to break that "stupid rule."

How is it lame? did you know it's illegal to sit on a crate on any New York side walk. so if you were arrested for doing that you would not complain about the law being stupid, you'd gladly serve your jail time?

the point is the rule does not make sense. the WADA thing is true and sucks, but no one has provided a reason to why this ban would be FAIR.

the only other argument has been Gasquet is "tarningishing" ATP image by doing this. so, would he get a ban for dancing shirtless like a stripper at some crazy night club? because that's not a great role model for little kids.
oh wait, he did that and no one cared because no one should look up to a tennis player for moral guidance.

raygo
05-14-2009, 07:55 PM
How is it lame? did you know it's illegal to sit on a crate on any New York side walk. so if you were arrested for doing that you would not complain about the law being stupid, you'd gladly serve your jail time?

the point is the rule does not make sense. the WADA thing is true and sucks, but no one has provided a reason to why this ban would be FAIR.


thank you. there are all sorts of laws like this. in charleston, SC, you can beat your wife, but only on Sundays, on the steps of city hall, and only with an object equal to or smaller than your thumb. you can also announce your arrival at an intersection by discharging a firearm.

how about crossing the street against a 'Don't Walk' sign when it's 2am and there's no one on the road? is there something morally outrageous about doing that?

whatever happened to having real role models? these people play sports for a living, for crying out loud. i wonder about the education level of most professional athletes, actors, celebrities in general. College sports have already cheapened the meaning of a degree already.

Shaolin
05-14-2009, 08:04 PM
It should be a one year ban. Long enough to teach a big lesson, not destroy his career. 2 years in pro tennis is eternity.

Deuce
05-14-2009, 11:20 PM
no one should look up to a tennis player for moral guidance.
What planet do you live on?

It is very easy to simply say that people SHOULD or SHOULDN'T do this or that, and then walk away.
It's much more difficult to face the REALITY of the situation and discuss it intelligently.
I guess that's why you didn't.

The FACT is that children DO look up to these tennis pros as role models. Inherent in that is the moral guidance you speak of.
'Should' children be so influenced by these strangers? Of course not. Their parents should be by far their main - if not their sole - influence. Sadly, the parental influence is not always positive. Neither is the role model influence.
But the fact is that children DO look up to these tennis players. Regardless of whether they should or shouldn't - they DO. And so, THAT REALITY is what we must deal with - not the easy and comfortable illusion that they 'shouldn't'.

By saying that no-one should look to these tennis pros for moral guidance, what you are saying in effect is that those who do so deserve their fate. In other words, if children look up to a particular tennis pro who displays unhealthy behaviour, and the child is influenced by that behaviour to copy the player's unhealthy actions... then to hell with the kid.
But we can't be saying that about children. The issue is so much more complex than just saying that no-one should be 'morally influenced' by these players, and washing our hands of it.

For once, let's deal with the reality of life. And the reality is that these players ARE role models for kids in the world as it is currently constructed. Whether they should be role models or not; whether the kids should be influenced or not - that is all completely irrelevant, because it is not addressing the reality.

So... they ARE role models. They know that going in - it comes with the territory - it is absolutely inherent and unavoidable. They therefore have a responsibility to behave in a healthy fashion.
If they don't want to accept that responsibility, they should have taken a different career route - one where they are not in the position of a role model. They didn't - therefore they must accept the responsibility. When they don't, they should be punished.

It is the same with parents. Parents are in the position of being a role model. They therefore have a responsibility to handle that role in a way which reflects positively on their children. When they don't, they are punished.
Yes, parents enter this role voluntarily. But so do tennis pros.

And yes, Gasquet should be helped, as well, if indeed the test results are legitimate.

bluetrain4
05-14-2009, 11:37 PM
How is it lame? did you know it's illegal to sit on a crate on any New York side walk. so if you were arrested for doing that you would not complain about the law being stupid, you'd gladly serve your jail time?

the point is the rule does not make sense. the WADA thing is true and sucks, but no one has provided a reason to why this ban would be FAIR.

the only other argument has been Gasquet is "tarningishing" ATP image by doing this. so, would he get a ban for dancing shirtless like a stripper at some crazy night club? because that's not a great role model for little kids.
oh wait, he did that and no one cared because no one should look up to a tennis player for moral guidance.

Let me be clear. I really don't want to see Gasquet get banned for two years. And, as previously stated, I do agree that a 2-year ban is a harsh punishment for what is not a performance enhancing drug.

But, since he knew beforehand that this could happen, I just don't think it's the greatest injustice ever if he does gets banned as some posters seem to think.

obsessedtennisfandisorder
05-15-2009, 12:01 AM
The FACT is that children DO look up to these tennis pros as role models. Inherent in that is the moral guidance you speak of.
'Should' children be so influenced by these strangers? Of course not. Their parents should be by far their main - if not their sole - influence. Sadly, the parental influence is not always positive. Neither is the role model influence.
But the fact is that children DO look up to these tennis players. Regardless of whether they should or shouldn't - they DO. And so, THAT REALITY is what we must deal with - not the easy and comfortable illusion that they 'shouldn't'.

For once, let's deal with the reality of life. And the reality is that these players ARE role models for kids in the world as it is currently constructed. Whether they should be role models or not; whether the kids should be influenced or not - that is all completely irrelevant, because it is not addressing the reality.

So... they ARE role models. They know that going in - it comes with the territory - it is absolutely inherent and unavoidable. They therefore have a responsibility to behave in a healthy fashion.
If they don't want to accept that responsibility, they should have taken a different career route - one where they are not in the position of a role model. They didn't - therefore they must accept the responsibility. When they don't, they should be punished.

It is the same with parents. Parents are in the position of being a role model. They therefore have a responsibility to handle that role in a way which reflects positively on their children. When they don't, they are punished.
Yes, parents enter this role voluntarily. But so do tennis pros.

And yes, Gasquet should be helped, as well, if indeed the test results are legitimate.

the end of this quote you argue against yourself....that's right parents
are the role model...and if they can't do that job...MAYBE it's the responsiblity
of the country govt or EXtendedfamily....it is not my problem, gasquets
or yours if little johhny isn't getting decent parenting....sounds harsh...but
it's the way it is....by your reasoning...when adverts for charity come on tv
we must donate immediately because...hey, it's our problem right? If we do
help i often do,it's goodwill...nobody Owes another a free lunch.

And gasquets fans were accused of going off topic...looks like this threads
turning into a rolemodeldebate KK.

the reality is they aren't rolemodels....parents are ..whether you like it ornot. Is britney spears a rolemodel?..answer that question yourself...how is she different from fed?

Deuce
05-15-2009, 12:32 AM
the end of this quote you argue against yourself
^ Not in the least.

....that's right parents
are the role model...and if they can't do that job...MAYBE it's the responsiblity
of the country govt or EXtendedfamily....it is not my problem, gasquets
or yours if little johhny isn't getting decent parenting....sounds harsh...but
it's the way it is
^ We all have a responsibility to help in such circumstances - no matter how inconvenient it may be - because the alternative is to say "To hell with the kids". And that is simply not acceptable.

....by your reasoning...when adverts for charity come on tv
we must donate immediately because...hey, it's our problem right? If we do
help i often do,it's goodwill...nobody Owes another a free lunch.
^ You don't get it at all...
By "my reasoning", there would be fewer and fewer reasons for the existence of these "charities" - because we would accept much more of our social responsibilities as individuals.
Charities exist only because the populace doesn't give a damn.

Donating money to a charity is not the answer. Getting off your *** and helping directly is the answer.

the reality is they aren't rolemodels....parents are ..whether you like it ornot. Is britney spears a rolemodel?..answer that question yourself...how is she different from fed?
^ Again, you are totally, absolutely, 100% wrong.
The facts very clearly show you to be totally wrong... because the facts clearly reveal that these athletes/singers, etc., etc. are role models to children. That is what our society - sick as it is - has decided. The proof of this is in virtually every child under, say, 15 years old. They look up to these 'stars'. They are influenced by them. Kids see them as role models - that cannot possibly be argued against, as it is clear as day.
What you are saying is that they SHOULD NOT be role models - which is an entirely irrelevant and separate topic.

The FACT is that they ARE role models - and, for the sake of the children, at least, they should behave responsibly. (And behaving responsibly would be good for them, too.)

tacou
05-15-2009, 07:34 AM
What planet do you live on?

It is very easy to simply say that people SHOULD or SHOULDN'T do this or that, and then walk away.
It's much more difficult to face the REALITY of the situation and discuss it intelligently.
I guess that's why you didn't.

The FACT is that children DO look up to these tennis pros as role models. Inherent in that is the moral guidance you speak of.
'Should' children be so influenced by these strangers? Of course not. Their parents should be by far their main - if not their sole - influence. Sadly, the parental influence is not always positive. Neither is the role model influence.
But the fact is that children DO look up to these tennis players. Regardless of whether they should or shouldn't - they DO. And so, THAT REALITY is what we must deal with - not the easy and comfortable illusion that they 'shouldn't'.

By saying that no-one should look to these tennis pros for moral guidance, what you are saying in effect is that those who do so deserve their fate. In other words, if children look up to a particular tennis pro who displays unhealthy behaviour, and the child is influenced by that behaviour to copy the player's unhealthy actions... then to hell with the kid.
But we can't be saying that about children. The issue is so much more complex than just saying that no-one should be 'morally influenced' by these players, and washing our hands of it.

For once, let's deal with the reality of life. And the reality is that these players ARE role models for kids in the world as it is currently constructed. Whether they should be role models or not; whether the kids should be influenced or not - that is all completely irrelevant, because it is not addressing the reality.

So... they ARE role models. They know that going in - it comes with the territory - it is absolutely inherent and unavoidable. They therefore have a responsibility to behave in a healthy fashion.
If they don't want to accept that responsibility, they should have taken a different career route - one where they are not in the position of a role model. They didn't - therefore they must accept the responsibility. When they don't, they should be punished.

It is the same with parents. Parents are in the position of being a role model. They therefore have a responsibility to handle that role in a way which reflects positively on their children. When they don't, they are punished.
Yes, parents enter this role voluntarily. But so do tennis pros.

And yes, Gasquet should be helped, as well, if indeed the test results are legitimate.

I don't know where your attitude is coming from sir or madam. I am an intelligent person and come from the planet earth.

you said it yourself, athletes SHOULD NOT be role models. it doesn't matter if they are. obviously they are. 90% of the young children I see are wearing sports jerseys of some sort.

It doesn't change the fact that athletes are humans. Richard is 22, he is still a kid himself. he did not ask to be idolized by a bunch of little french kids, he just wanted to play tennis.

to a statement like that you keep talking about the reality of the situation and how complex it is, but all you've done is taken the opposite stance from me. do the the children deserve the fate-- what fate?? the fate of their favorite tennis player doing cocaine? that doesn't make sense and that's what I'm saying; drawing a parallel between one random person's behavior and another random person's behavior is useless, even if one of them is on TV playing tennis maybe once a week (let's face it, Gasquet was slowly disappearing, or so it seemed)

call me delusional or unintelligent or accuse me of being from some other planet but I stand by the fact that if a 12yr old kid idolized Richie Gasquet and last week decided to become a coke-head to be more like Richard, yes, to hell with that kid. get him help, counseling, whatever, but someone who is so easily influenced by a person they've likely never seen in real life has all sorts of problems.

tacou
05-15-2009, 07:42 AM
The FACT is that they ARE role models - and, for the sake of the children, at least, they should behave responsibly. (And behaving responsibly would be good for them, too.)

I'm assuming you have children?

you are saying the fact that they SHOULD NOT be role models is a separate topic and that is not true. we are talking about the role of a specific person (Richard Gasquet) in his younger fans life.

what I'm saying, and I believe some agree with me, is that athletes/singers/actors were kids like everyone else. they decided they wanted to be tennis player/pop signer/actor and pursued that dream, much like one would want to be a lawyer and pursue that dream.

by achieving their goals and reaching the upper echelons of their profession, they for some reason must forfeit their personalities and act differently because they've made the magical transition to role model? no. that is silly.

I frown on cocaine, but if Richard wants to do it he should be able to, it is his choice. straight up. a true separate topic is how this decision fits into WADA and ITF rules, but no decision in any celebrity/athletes life should be based on how little kids will react to it.

veroniquem
05-15-2009, 07:54 AM
I'm assuming you have children?

you are saying the fact that they SHOULD NOT be role models is a separate topic and that is not true. we are talking about the role of a specific person (Richard Gasquet) in his younger fans life.

what I'm saying, and I believe some agree with me, is that athletes/singers/actors were kids like everyone else. they decided they wanted to be tennis player/pop signer/actor and pursued that dream, much like one would want to be a lawyer and pursue that dream.

by achieving their goals and reaching the upper echelons of their profession, they for some reason must forfeit their personalities and act differently because they've made the magical transition to role model? no. that is silly.

I frown on cocaine, but if Richard wants to do it he should be able to, it is his choice. straight up. a true separate topic is how this decision fits into WADA and ITF rules, but no decision in any celebrity/athletes life should be based on how little kids will react to it.
"If Richard wants to do cocaine, he should be able to". Are you out of your mind? What if he wants to do heroin, is that OK too?
You're way out of line, those are illegal drugs and they are for good reasons because they're dangerous. The players have a contract with the ATP like any employee with an employer and the contract clearly stipulates "no drugs".
If you break that contract, you'll have to deal with the consequences.
Socially, in general, if you do cocaine, you're breaking the law, possession of illegal drugs is a crime and you'll also have to deal with harsh consequences if you get caught.
Saying that anyone should be able to do hard drugs is really crazy. Everyone should be able to stay away from them and avoid wrecking their own life and other people's as well (a big part of crime: theft and prostitution are drug related).

obsessedtennisfandisorder
05-15-2009, 08:09 AM
"If Richard wants to do cocaine, he should be able to". Are you out of your mind? What if he wants to do heroin, is that OK too?
You're way out of line, those are illegal drugs and they are for good reasons because they're dangerous. The players have a contract with the ATP like any employee with an employer and the contract clearly stipulates "no drugs".
If you break that contract, you'll have to deal with the consequences.
Socially, in general, if you do cocaine, you're breaking the law, possession of illegal drugs is a crime and you'll also have to deal with harsh consequences if you get caught.
Saying that anyone should be able to do hard drugs is really crazy. Everyone should be able to stay away from them and avoid wrecking their own life and other people's as well (a big part of crime: theft and prostitution are drug related).

No , I think you're missing the point,no ones telling richard to "do" anything.


We are just saying he is his own person, making his own stupid mistakes.

I think you're trying to either turn this thread into a drugs debate...or a
role model debate.(like deuce, and BTW they aren't))..in order to get the mods onto us again..
when many of us are asking simple questions such as:

why no name suppression?

7 athletes tested positive for nandrolone in 2004 and we still don't know who they are....if it's coke...you're names out there before the sun is up.

Why is a ban for cocaine possibly even greater than that of performance enhancing drugs?

Coria and canas and Korda may could serve bans shorter
than gasquet if he's found guilty.

Was gasquet in competition or not? I'd love this question answered clearly.

YES yes yes...we all no gasquet was stupid, especially as it was on his contract...we all know that...we(well I at least) are not arguing against that..... I'm arguing against stupid, anti privacy things in That contract.
the contract is unfair....and a 2 year ban is unfair.

Ok i can see a flame war coming....I can reply to all deuces stuff too...but it's not worth it belongs in rants and raves section.

my last word on this is about bodo's (spot on) article except they "inevitably get caught part"....here's after retirement:

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22337373-5001021,00.html

stormholloway
05-15-2009, 08:35 AM
What planet do you live on?

It is very easy to simply say that people SHOULD or SHOULDN'T do this or that, and then walk away.
It's much more difficult to face the REALITY of the situation and discuss it intelligently.
I guess that's why you didn't.

The FACT is that children DO look up to these tennis pros as role models. Inherent in that is the moral guidance you speak of.
'Should' children be so influenced by these strangers? Of course not. Their parents should be by far their main - if not their sole - influence. Sadly, the parental influence is not always positive. Neither is the role model influence.
But the fact is that children DO look up to these tennis players. Regardless of whether they should or shouldn't - they DO. And so, THAT REALITY is what we must deal with - not the easy and comfortable illusion that they 'shouldn't'.

By saying that no-one should look to these tennis pros for moral guidance, what you are saying in effect is that those who do so deserve their fate. In other words, if children look up to a particular tennis pro who displays unhealthy behaviour, and the child is influenced by that behaviour to copy the player's unhealthy actions... then to hell with the kid.
But we can't be saying that about children. The issue is so much more complex than just saying that no-one should be 'morally influenced' by these players, and washing our hands of it.

For once, let's deal with the reality of life. And the reality is that these players ARE role models for kids in the world as it is currently constructed. Whether they should be role models or not; whether the kids should be influenced or not - that is all completely irrelevant, because it is not addressing the reality.

So... they ARE role models. They know that going in - it comes with the territory - it is absolutely inherent and unavoidable. They therefore have a responsibility to behave in a healthy fashion.
If they don't want to accept that responsibility, they should have taken a different career route - one where they are not in the position of a role model. They didn't - therefore they must accept the responsibility. When they don't, they should be punished.

It is the same with parents. Parents are in the position of being a role model. They therefore have a responsibility to handle that role in a way which reflects positively on their children. When they don't, they are punished.
Yes, parents enter this role voluntarily. But so do tennis pros.

And yes, Gasquet should be helped, as well, if indeed the test results are legitimate.

And yet, ironically, it is the drug rule itself which has led to Gasquet's image as a role model being negatively affected. If cocaine weren't a banned substance in the ATP, we would never have heard about his using it and all the little kiddies wouldn't be crying that their tennis hero is a drug user.

If Gasquet used cocaine once or twice at a party it's nobody's business. There are plenty of actor and musician role models who remain role models because their privacy is protected, i.e. they do "bad" things in private but since they aren't tested for drugs their business remains just that: their business. And since you admit that athletes being role models is farce, the illusion would be far better served if these athlete's weren't tested for recreational drugs.

The drug rules of the ATP should exist only to make tennis fair. That's the whole point of them in the first place. Rather than hearing about how McEnroe and Borg snorted coke at parties in the late 70s, we think of them as great ambassadors to the game. Why? Because rules then didn't expose them for what they were: successful people who occasionally took drugs in their own privacy. Tennis is better because McEnroe et al weren't exposed, as they would have been today, for taking drugs during their time. I don't hear anyone complaining about the leniency of the rules then.

You say Gasquet "displayed unhealthy behavior". How so? By putting something in his body, allegedly? Where is the display beyond the invasive drug test?

tacou
05-15-2009, 08:52 AM
"If Richard wants to do cocaine, he should be able to". Are you out of your mind? What if he wants to do heroin, is that OK too?
You're way out of line, those are illegal drugs and they are for good reasons because they're dangerous. The players have a contract with the ATP like any employee with an employer and the contract clearly stipulates "no drugs".
If you break that contract, you'll have to deal with the consequences.
Socially, in general, if you do cocaine, you're breaking the law, possession of illegal drugs is a crime and you'll also have to deal with harsh consequences if you get caught.
Saying that anyone should be able to do hard drugs is really crazy. Everyone should be able to stay away from them and avoid wrecking their own life and other people's as well (a big part of crime: theft and prostitution are drug related).

I'm not out of my mind...I think you're just a little too narrow minded.
I'm not advocating drug use and I personally don't and have never done hard drugs (or what I consider hard drugs).
I know several people who have tried cocaine 1-2 times. I don't think they are horrible people, they are my friends. Cocaine addiction is very serious and a terrible thing but there is nothing wrong with experimenting.
Just because you don't want to do something does not make it wrong for everyone else.

veroniquem
05-15-2009, 09:03 AM
I'm not out of my mind...I think you're just a little too narrow minded.
I'm not advocating drug use and I personally don't and have never done hard drugs (or what I consider hard drugs).
I know several people who have tried cocaine 1-2 times. I don't think they are horrible people, they are my friends. Cocaine addiction is very serious and a terrible thing but there is nothing wrong with experimenting.
Just because you don't want to do something does not make it wrong for everyone else.
It does if it's illegal and punishable by law. About your friends, I hope it won't ruin their lives if they ever get caught. To me once or twice is not fine, once or twice is already a big risk and you have to know what it entails.
Sure there are a lot of drugs going around in show biz where their use has been banalized extensively: you want a list of actors and musicians who died because of that? For whatever reason that list doesn't amuse me especially since a lot of people on that list were extremely young.

veroniquem
05-15-2009, 09:06 AM
No , I think you're missing the point,no ones telling richard to "do" anything.


We are just saying he is his own person, making his own stupid mistakes.

I think you're trying to either turn this thread into a drugs debate...or a
role model debate.(like deuce, and BTW they aren't))..in order to get the mods onto us again..
when many of us are asking simple questions such as:

why no name suppression?

7 athletes tested positive for nandrolone in 2004 and we still don't know who they are....if it's coke...you're names out there before the sun is up.

Why is a ban for cocaine possibly even greater than that of performance enhancing drugs?

Coria and canas and Korda may could serve bans shorter
than gasquet if he's found guilty.

Was gasquet in competition or not? I'd love this question answered clearly.

YES yes yes...we all no gasquet was stupid, especially as it was on his contract...we all know that...we(well I at least) are not arguing against that..... I'm arguing against stupid, anti privacy things in That contract.
the contract is unfair....and a 2 year ban is unfair.

Ok i can see a flame war coming....I can reply to all deuces stuff too...but it's not worth it belongs in rants and raves section.

my last word on this is about bodo's (spot on) article except they "inevitably get caught part"....here's after retirement:

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22337373-5001021,00.html
Edifying article. There's no doubt a lot of people have gone through the net over the years. They're trying to improve the detection process now but obviously it will never be perfect. That doesn't mean that those who get caught should get away with it.

BigServer1
05-15-2009, 09:53 AM
Edifying article. There's no doubt a lot of people have gone through the net over the years. They're trying to improve the detection process now but obviously it will never be perfect. That doesn't mean that those who get caught should get away with it.

I'm not even saying that he should get away with it, I'm just saying that he should be punished in accordance with US law (if indeed this was a positive test in the US). To treat this like a performance enhancer doesn't make any sense to me, and if we go back and say, "all these PED users in tennis were given an 8 to 15 month ban from the sport, but wow, that Gasquet guy got 24 for coke use", it will be a massive injustice to the sport, and to Richard's chances at future success (because he already appears to be getting in his own way plenty...).

I agree with a lot of the posters who say that the sport shouldn't test for recreational drugs...Keep it to performance enhancers and that's it. Because man, if we see a legacy like Hingis' and now a young career like Gasquet's ruined by the idea of positive tests for a drug that a substantial part of the population has at least tried a time or two, it will be really too bad.

I don't condone the use of cocaine, but it seems like your personal life is your personal life, and Richard's recent fall from the rankings and lack of performace on court has been punishment enough for his alleged actions...If he's using and destroying his own career, it will show in the rankings, as it already is. I don't feel bad for Gasquet, per se, but I do hope that his situation is one that maybe forces a second look at the testing policy and how they handle rec. drug suspensions in the future.

CyBorg
05-15-2009, 09:59 AM
Tennis is a business. It's smart for them to severely punish Gasquet and thus distance themselves from him.

tacou
05-15-2009, 03:21 PM
It does if it's illegal and punishable by law. About your friends, I hope it won't ruin their lives if they ever get caught. To me once or twice is not fine, once or twice is already a big risk and you have to know what it entails.
Sure there are a lot of drugs going around in show biz where their use has been banalized extensively: you want a list of actors and musicians who died because of that? For whatever reason that list doesn't amuse me especially since a lot of people on that list were extremely young.

not to offend but how old are you? my friends are fine. they did not become addicted immediately and start selling their furniture to support their habit.

p.s. have you ever drank alcohol? the argument has been beaten to death but just curious

fastdunn
05-15-2009, 03:44 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=4164293&name=tennis

I agree completely. Recreational drugs should be frowned upon and given a penalty that is in accordance with the law, but treating it like a performance enhancer is absurd.

I agree completely.

But how long should be the ban ? Should it be more serious or lighter than a performance enhancer ban ?

tacou
05-15-2009, 04:14 PM
I agree completely.

But how long should be the ban ? Should it be more serious or lighter than a performance enhancer ban ?

why would it be more serious? or even as. that's my only issue

fastdunn
05-15-2009, 04:28 PM
why would it be more serious? or even as. that's my only issue

Why should it be lighter then ? It's a different issue from cheating but definetly should be dealt with, we all agree. I myself can not think whether it should be lighter or more serious than cheating with performance enhancer. Can you ?

Maybe ATP official was in the same shoes and went with just same size of ban, I guess.

deltox
05-15-2009, 05:36 PM
"If Richard wants to do cocaine, he should be able to". Are you out of your mind? What if he wants to do heroin, is that OK too?
You're way out of line, those are illegal drugs and they are for good reasons because they're dangerous. The players have a contract with the ATP like any employee with an employer and the contract clearly stipulates "no drugs".
If you break that contract, you'll have to deal with the consequences.
Socially, in general, if you do cocaine, you're breaking the law, possession of illegal drugs is a crime and you'll also have to deal with harsh consequences if you get caught.
Saying that anyone should be able to do hard drugs is really crazy. Everyone should be able to stay away from them and avoid wrecking their own life and other people's as well (a big part of crime: theft and prostitution are drug related).

lets say for example if it were to be marijuana? what would be your thoughts then? now you should be careful and do research here. drinking is worse for your body than marijuana and i doubt seriously your opinion would change.

you cannot cut hairs by giving different views to alcoholism and prescription drugs who many athletes are addicted to. recreational drugs are recreational drugs no matter how they effect you. alcohol, prescription med, joints and ecstasy are all drugs but yet they require totally different views.

each seperate instance something happens requires specific understanding of the instance, you cannot give a blanket effect to them all without thought of circumstances.

the level of the drug in his system should be considered as well, is he a habitual user or was it a party drug. in your eyes the way your seeing it, those 18 year old kids on the street caught smoking a joint should get the prison maximum? 2 years in prison for taking one toke. think long and hard about your views.

drugs dont wreck peoples lives in some cases, in some they do, some fortune 500 CEOs are such coke heads its not funny, while approx 70% of the worlds population smokes weed. you cannot simply pick a spot to stand in the middle. do you yourself drink? if so your doing more harm to your body than some drug users.

there is no simple side to pick when it comes to drugs

deltox
05-15-2009, 05:45 PM
now, on another note, i keep reading how the law should prosecute him. well unless he is caught in the act with possession of the drug, no self respecting DA is gonna get laughed outr of court for it simply being caught in his system. unless the person in question is already on a drug related probation period. understand the law, there is some thing not worth pursuing.

tacou
05-15-2009, 06:22 PM
Why should it be lighter then ? It's a different issue from cheating but definetly should be dealt with, we all agree. I myself can not think whether it should be lighter or more serious than cheating with performance enhancer. Can you ?

Maybe ATP official was in the same shoes and went with just same size of ban, I guess.

Should be dealt with, I do agree, but I think it's clearly a lesser offense than a performance enhancer. The name says it all, one gives you an unfair advantage in the actual sport, the other is a banned substance but has no bearing except possibly a detrimental one.

That is why I believe it should be lighter.

NandoMania
05-15-2009, 06:42 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=4164293&name=tennis

I agree completely. Recreational drugs should be frowned upon and given a penalty that is in accordance with the law, but treating it like a performance enhancer is absurd. Coke would almost certainly hinder any player's game, which is maybe why we saw Richard never live up to his potential and drop in the rankings of late.

Go after steroids users and guys that cheat the game, but don't paint Gasquet a cheater for stupidly putting something in his body that doesn't belong there.

I assume some will flame me for "not having a problem with drug use", but I could care less. These guys don't need to be role models and they surely don't need to be held to a higher standard than anyone else.

Discuss...

They don't NEED to be role models, but they ARE role models. Did you see those little kids at the evening session at the Madrid Open? Nadal vs. Verdasco? The group of little boys wearing the headbands and mimicking Rafa's every move, down to every time he tucked his hair behind his ear? Those boys are modeling their behavior on Rafa's, plain and simple. And I'm sure Richard Gasquet has his own band of adoring fans.

Bjorn99
05-15-2009, 07:05 PM
Most of the players have done coke, but got away with it. It is a bad drug, one of the worst. We lost Vitas Gerulaitis to it. He was doing it HUGE for years.

The greatest tennis player of all time, imo, spent the evening with me doing it, before a big final, and called in, in the morning and said he was injured. It is a big, wasteful, drug, and something should be done, TO GET HIM OFF OF IT. Ban him for a smaller period of time, and test him daily, at his expense.

I myself, won a very big tournament, after doing it all night, and drinking, but almost passed out, the next day while competing. I wish someone had done something to me, but I wasn't as important to the sport as Gasquet.

This drug, coupled with high exertion, is potentially fatal. And it is fun for the few months, but after that........... it is all downhill.

NandoMania
05-15-2009, 07:13 PM
Most of the players have done coke, but got away with it. It is a bad drug, one of the worst. We lost Vitas Gerulaitis to it. He was doing it HUGE for years.

The greatest tennis player of all time, imo, spent the evening with me doing it, before a big final, and called in, in the morning and said he was injured. It is a big, wasteful, drug, and something should be done, TO GET HIM OFF OF IT. Ban him for a smaller period of time, and test him daily, at his expense.

I myself, won a very big tournament, after doing it all night, and drinking, but almost passed out, the next day while competing. I wish someone had done something to me, but I wasn't as important to the sport as Gasquet.

This drug, coupled with high exertion, is potentially fatal. And it is fun for the few months, but after that........... it is all downhill.

That's a scary wakeup call. Thank you for sharing your experiences.

Gugafan
05-15-2009, 07:13 PM
And yet, ironically, it is the drug rule itself which has led to Gasquet's image as a role model being negatively affected. If cocaine weren't a banned substance in the ATP, we would never have heard about his using it and all the little kiddies wouldn't be crying that their tennis hero is a drug user.

If Gasquet used cocaine once or twice at a party it's nobody's business. There are plenty of actor and musician role models who remain role models because their privacy is protected, i.e. they do "bad" things in private but since they aren't tested for drugs their business remains just that: their business. And since you admit that athletes being role models is farce, the illusion would be far better served if these athlete's weren't tested for recreational drugs.

The drug rules of the ATP should exist only to make tennis fair. That's the whole point of them in the first place. Rather than hearing about how McEnroe and Borg snorted coke at parties in the late 70s, we think of them as great ambassadors to the game. Why? Because rules then didn't expose them for what they were: successful people who occasionally took drugs in their own privacy. Tennis is better because McEnroe et al weren't exposed, as they would have been today, for taking drugs during their time. I don't hear anyone complaining about the leniency of the rules then.

You say Gasquet "displayed unhealthy behavior". How so? By putting something in his body, allegedly? Where is the display beyond the invasive drug test?


You, certainly make some valid points. The critics are no doubt going to keep boring us with the 'contractual agreement' and 'role model' argument. It's a shame we dont have more open minded users on TW like yourself.

stormholloway
05-15-2009, 07:28 PM
Most of the players have done coke, but got away with it. It is a bad drug, one of the worst. We lost Vitas Gerulaitis to it. He was doing it HUGE for years.

What the hell are you talking about? Gerulaitis died from carbon monoxide poisoning. You can stop the slander now.

Ripster
05-15-2009, 08:13 PM
2 years is ridiculous, I'm sorry. For something that doesn't actually enhance his performance. Why should we care? I don't care what Gasquet does in his free time and we never would have heard of this in the first place if the ATP didn't broadcast it to everyone. I know there are rules but they need to be amended.

Hingis went down in flames for the same silly reason.

NandoMania
05-15-2009, 09:39 PM
What the hell are you talking about? Gerulaitis died from carbon monoxide poisoning. You can stop the slander now.

I vaguely remember something about that. Was it thought at the time that he committed suicide? Something about his bedroom sharing a common wall with a garage so perhaps it was an accident?

dwhiteside
05-15-2009, 09:44 PM
What's the real difference besides legality if a player gets drunk every weekend compared to if they do cocaine every weekend?

CyBorg
05-15-2009, 09:49 PM
I vaguely remember something about that. Was it thought at the time that he committed suicide? Something about his bedroom sharing a common wall with a garage so perhaps it was an accident?

Accidental.

Deuce
05-15-2009, 10:13 PM
call me delusional or unintelligent or accuse me of being from some other planet but I stand by the fact that if a 12yr old kid idolized Richie Gasquet and last week decided to become a coke-head to be more like Richard, yes, to hell with that kid. get him help, counseling, whatever, but someone who is so easily influenced by a person they've likely never seen in real life has all sorts of problems.
^ Yes - has all sorts of problems. And deserves better than his role model leading him astray.

We're already beyond the point where his parents should have taught him to not worship 'famous stars', etc. It's too late for that for a bunch of kids. So let's deal with the reality that there are millions of kids out there right now who are very easily and heavily influenced by their idols.

you are saying the fact that they SHOULD NOT be role models is a separate topic and that is not true. we are talking about the role of a specific person (Richard Gasquet) in his younger fans life.
^ Indeed, it is a separate topic.
Related, naturally, but very separate, requiring a completelt separate discussion.

what I'm saying, and I believe some agree with me, is that athletes/singers/actors were kids like everyone else. they decided they wanted to be tennis player/pop signer/actor and pursued that dream, much like one would want to be a lawyer and pursue that dream.

by achieving their goals and reaching the upper echelons of their profession, they for some reason must forfeit their personalities and act differently because they've made the magical transition to role model? no. that is silly.
^ No, it's not silly. It's called responsibility.
And that responsibility is just as inherent in becoming one of the planet's top players as is the millions of dollars waiting to be put in their pockets.
It is absolutely inherent. It's part of the job. In a healthy culture, it would not be. But we are far from being a healthy culture - and so, for the sake of the children, we must stop behaving as if things are the way we want them to be, and start seeing the way that things actually ARE.

I frown on cocaine, but if Richard wants to do it he should be able to, it is his choice. straight up. a true separate topic is how this decision fits into WADA and ITF rules, but no decision in any celebrity/athletes life should be based on how little kids will react to it.
^ Yes, it should.
Again - it is called responsibility. The influence they have comes with their job. It cannot be separated from their job. It is inherent.
Fulfilling this responsibility is not only good for the kids who idolize the 'star', but it will also keep the 'star' out of a lot of trouble - legally, emotionally, and physically.
Seems like a win - win situation to me.

And yet, ironically, it is the drug rule itself which has led to Gasquet's image as a role model being negatively affected.
^ No - it is Gasquet's irresponsible actions, as well as the media reporting of the incident, which is responsible.

If cocaine weren't a banned substance in the ATP, we would never have heard about his using it and all the little kiddies wouldn't be crying that their tennis hero is a drug user.
^ And if steroids weren't a banned substance... and if all forms of cheating were tolerated... and if drunk driving weren't illegal... then everything would be perfectly fine, right?
What in hell is your point here? How many wrongs evventually make a right in your world?

If Gasquet used cocaine once or twice at a party it's nobody's business. There are plenty of actor and musician role models who remain role models because their privacy is protected, i.e. they do "bad" things in private but since they aren't tested for drugs their business remains just that: their business. And since you admit that athletes being role models is farce, the illusion would be far better served if these athlete's weren't tested for recreational drugs.
^ No - actually everyone would be better served if they lived more responsibly and in a more healthy manner.

The drug rules of the ATP should exist only to make tennis fair. That's the whole point of them in the first place.
^ Well, that would be the selfish angle.
Perhaps the ATP is also concerned about losing one of their 'stars' to some sort of drug-related mishap... or concerned that the law will catch up to them, and thus tarnish both the ATP's reputation, and possibly their revenue.
Perhaps even, the ATP is concerned about the players' health - both physical and psychological.
To say that the only reason they test for drugs is to make sure that no-one is gaining any sort of on-court advantage is a rather narrow view.

Rather than hearing about how McEnroe and Borg snorted coke at parties in the late 70s, we think of them as great ambassadors to the game. Why? Because rules then didn't expose them for what they were: successful people who occasionally took drugs in their own privacy. Tennis is better because McEnroe et al weren't exposed, as they would have been today, for taking drugs during their time. I don't hear anyone complaining about the leniency of the rules then.
^ I've heard several people - players, umpires, and others involved in the game back then - say that, had the ATP been more strict with drugs back then, not only would the tennis have been better than it was, but the individuals doing the drugs would not have had the troubles they had (emotional/phychological troubles, financial troubles, etc.). In the past 20 or so years, I've read numerous articles which stated just that.

You say Gasquet "displayed unhealthy behavior". How so? By putting something in his body, allegedly? Where is the display beyond the invasive drug test?
^ The unhealthy behaviour I see relates not only to the physical and psychological effect of cocaine, but also to the fact that he knew he was a role model for children, and he knew that if he gets caught doing certain things, the media will make sure that it is widely reported - and the kids who idolize him will hear about it, and some will be influenced by it.
To go ahead and do it anyway - with this knowledge - is selfish. And unhealthy.


I agree with a lot of the posters who say that the sport shouldn't test for recreational drugs...Keep it to performance enhancers and that's it. Because man, if we see a legacy like Hingis' and now a young career like Gasquet's ruined by the idea of positive tests for a drug that a substantial part of the population has at least tried a time or two, it will be really too bad.
^ To say that their careers were ruined is a rather large leap.
But even if it's true that their careers were ruined because of the testing - maybe their lives were saved also because of the testing. Maybe it was the wake-up call they needed to get themselves straightened out.

They don't NEED to be role models, but they ARE role models. Did you see those little kids at the evening session at the Madrid Open? Nadal vs. Verdasco? The group of little boys wearing the headbands and mimicking Rafa's every move, down to every time he tucked his hair behind his ear? Those boys are modeling their behavior on Rafa's, plain and simple. And I'm sure Richard Gasquet has his own band of adoring fans.
^ Absolutely.
It is sad... but it is a fact of life right now that millions of children worldwide are hugely influenced by 'famous stars'.

You, certainly make some valid points. The critics are no doubt going to keep boring us with the 'contractual agreement' and 'role model' argument. It's a shame we dont have more open minded users on TW like yourself.
^ Might be the first time ever that Storm has been referred to as "open minded" on this message board.

NandoMania
05-16-2009, 03:45 AM
What's the real difference besides legality if a player gets drunk every weekend compared to if they do cocaine every weekend?

No difference whatsoever if alcohol is illegal.

deltox
05-16-2009, 04:12 AM
^ Yes - has all sorts of problems. And deserves better than his role model leading him astray.

We're already beyond the point where his parents should have taught him to not worship 'famous stars', etc. It's too late for that for a bunch of kids. So let's deal with the reality that there are millions of kids out there right now who are very easily and heavily influenced by their idols.


^ Indeed, it is a separate topic.
Related, naturally, but very separate, requiring a completelt separate discussion.


^ No, it's not silly. It's called responsibility.
And that responsibility is just as inherent in becoming one of the planet's top players as is the millions of dollars waiting to be put in their pockets.
It is absolutely inherent. It's part of the job. In a healthy culture, it would not be. But we are far from being a healthy culture - and so, for the sake of the children, we must stop behaving as if things are the way we want them to be, and start seeing the way that things actually ARE.


^ Yes, it should.
Again - it is called responsibility. The influence they have comes with their job. It cannot be separated from their job. It is inherent.
Fulfilling this responsibility is not only good for the kids who idolize the 'star', but it will also keep the 'star' out of a lot of trouble - legally, emotionally, and physically.
Seems like a win - win situation to me.


^ No - it is Gasquet's irresponsible actions, as well as the media reporting of the incident, which is responsible.


^ And if steroids weren't a banned substance... and if all forms of cheating were tolerated... and if drunk driving weren't illegal... then everything would be perfectly fine, right?
What in hell is your point here? How many wrongs evventually make a right in your world?


^ No - actually everyone would be better served if they lived more responsibly and in a more healthy manner.


^ Well, that would be the selfish angle.
Perhaps the ATP is also concerned about losing one of their 'stars' to some sort of drug-related mishap... or concerned that the law will catch up to them, and thus tarnish both the ATP's reputation, and possibly their revenue.
Perhaps even, the ATP is concerned about the players' health - both physical and psychological.
To say that the only reason they test for drugs is to make sure that no-one is gaining any sort of on-court advantage is a rather narrow view.


^ I've heard several people - players, umpires, and others involved in the game back then - say that, had the ATP been more strict with drugs back then, not only would the tennis have been better than it was, but the individuals doing the drugs would not have had the troubles they had (emotional/phychological troubles, financial troubles, etc.). In the past 20 or so years, I've read numerous articles which stated just that.


^ The unhealthy behaviour I see relates not only to the physical and psychological effect of cocaine, but also to the fact that he knew he was a role model for children, and he knew that if he gets caught doing certain things, the media will make sure that it is widely reported - and the kids who idolize him will hear about it, and some will be influenced by it.
To go ahead and do it anyway - with this knowledge - is selfish. And unhealthy.


^ To say that their careers were ruined is a rather large leap.
But even if it's true that their careers were ruined because of the testing - maybe their lives were saved also because of the testing. Maybe it was the wake-up call they needed to get themselves straightened out.


^ Absolutely.
It is sad... but it is a fact of life right now that millions of children worldwide are hugely influenced by 'famous stars'.


^ Might be the first time ever that Storm has been referred to as "open minded" on this message board.

your living inside a bubble, the world isnt perfect. test everyone or test noone. you really think noone else does drugs in the atp or wta?

stormholloway
05-16-2009, 08:02 AM
^ No - it is Gasquet's irresponsible actions, as well as the media reporting of the incident, which is responsible.

The only way Gasquet was irresponsible was because he knew that cocaine was a banned substance and took it anyway. Taking the drug in and of itself is not irresponsible. The only truly negative consequence is his getting caught.

^ And if steroids weren't a banned substance... and if all forms of cheating were tolerated... and if drunk driving weren't illegal... then everything would be perfectly fine, right?
What in hell is your point here? How many wrongs evventually make a right in your world?

Putting a drug in your body is not implicitly wrong. Steroids are a form of cheating. Cheating is wrong. Drunk driving puts other people in danger. That is wrong. Taking drugs isn't wrong in and of itself; it's careless.

^ No - actually everyone would be better served if they lived more responsibly and in a more healthy manner.

Hard to debate that, but that's really not your business. You can live healthy if you want. Richard Gasquet wants to party. That's his business.

^ Well, that would be the selfish angle.
Perhaps the ATP is also concerned about losing one of their 'stars' to some sort of drug-related mishap... or concerned that the law will catch up to them, and thus tarnish both the ATP's reputation, and possibly their revenue.
Perhaps even, the ATP is concerned about the players' health - both physical and psychological.
To say that the only reason they test for drugs is to make sure that no-one is gaining any sort of on-court advantage is a rather narrow view.

Their concerns are valid, but it shouldn't give them the right to invade privacy, a principle in which you obviously have little interest. These people are adults and should be able to live their lives as they see fit as long as it doesn't give them an unfair advantage on the tennis court.

^ I've heard several people - players, umpires, and others involved in the game back then - say that, had the ATP been more strict with drugs back then, not only would the tennis have been better than it was, but the individuals doing the drugs would not have had the troubles they had (emotional/phychological troubles, financial troubles, etc.). In the past 20 or so years, I've read numerous articles which stated just that.

The tennis was pretty good back then actually. In fact, weren't those the "tennis boom" years? I think this only supports my argument. A person can have troubles in innumerable ways. The question is whether it is the role of the ATP to get involved in people's personal lives if it isn't affecting the game of tennis or the ATP in any measurable way.

Ironically, in the effort of making the tennis "better," the ATP will ban one of the sport's most beloved players. Good work.

^ The unhealthy behaviour I see relates not only to the physical and psychological effect of cocaine, but also to the fact that he knew he was a role model for children, and he knew that if he gets caught doing certain things, the media will make sure that it is widely reported - and the kids who idolize him will hear about it, and some will be influenced by it.
To go ahead and do it anyway - with this knowledge - is selfish. And unhealthy.

Yes. Doing cocaine was careless since he knew it was banned and knew the possible consequences. These people are human Deuce. One man and the perception of many adoring fans shouldn't be ruined just because of what could amount to one instance of cocaine usage. We don't really know the circumstances either. He could have been drunk and used bad judgment just once. The punishment may not fit the crime.

^ Might be the first time ever that Storm has been referred to as "open minded" on this message board.

...implying I'm close-minded? That's an odd insinuation.

stormholloway
05-16-2009, 08:04 AM
I vaguely remember something about that. Was it thought at the time that he committed suicide? Something about his bedroom sharing a common wall with a garage so perhaps it was an accident?

Apparently he stayed in a guest house that had leaking carbon monoxide. Maybe it was a cover for suicide? I don't know but I doubt it. Stuff happens.

tacou
05-16-2009, 11:27 AM
Deuce, you sound like someone who believes in a Utopian society. Is that what you're getting at here?

you keep saying Richard Gasquet owes something to his fans and has responsibility, a responsibility that is somehow inherent to his job. I don't understand or buy that. there is a fascination with celebrities in this world, but that is the public's fault, not the celebrities themselves.

for me, it boils down to Richard being his own man and making his own decisions. he is not a martyr, he is a tennis player and a person who has free will. that's all I can say really.

chief wiggum
05-16-2009, 03:46 PM
Gasquet messed up and now he is going to have to own up to it and be a man. He can tell his career goodbye.

Jchurch
05-16-2009, 04:07 PM
I agree...If cocaine was going to give him an advantage on the tennis courts then yes he should be heavily penalized...But anything else you consume which is not going to enhance your performance & give you an edge should not be made such a big deal out of...It is kinda similar to smoking a cigerratte, or drinking like raygo pointed out...

I am with you on legalization and taxing of drugs. Now I doubt cocaine would give him an advantage with just sparse recreational use, but I wonder what it would do to his game right before a match? His band is one of the dumbest things that I have ever seen happen. And if this country would wake up and realize that rehab is the way to go versus incarceration for drug users, it would save a lot of money and lives in the process.

ESP#1
05-16-2009, 04:16 PM
Considering how short the career of a pro tennis player is 2 years is an insane punishment of time for such a minor crime, 3 months and a hefty fine would be reasonable

Deuce
05-16-2009, 08:53 PM
The only way Gasquet was irresponsible was because he knew that cocaine was a banned substance and took it anyway. Taking the drug in and of itself is not irresponsible. The only truly negative consequence is his getting caught.
^ That is your perspective - your opinion. That's all it is.
You write as if it is an absolute fact that taking cocaine is not an irresponsible act. I happen to think, based on my experiences, that it is irresponsible. You don't.
There is no absolute fact here.

Putting a drug in your body is not implicitly wrong. Steroids are a form of cheating. Cheating is wrong. Drunk driving puts other people in danger. That is wrong. Taking drugs isn't wrong in and of itself; it's careless.
^ Again - you are taking your perception of right and wrong, and making it absolute.
That's not how life works.

Hard to debate that, but that's really not your business. You can live healthy if you want. Richard Gasquet wants to party. That's his business.
^ "Social progress makes the well-being of all more and more the business of each." - Henry George.
I subscribe to this perspective, as well.

Their concerns are valid, but it shouldn't give them the right to invade privacy, a principle in which you obviously have little interest. These people are adults and should be able to live their lives as they see fit as long as it doesn't give them an unfair advantage on the tennis court.
^ See the Henry George quote above.
Many people who are doing unhealthy things - be it drugs or any other type of self-destruction - would rather not be doing those things. They often are so screwed up emotionally that they don't know what they want. And the only reason they continue down the self-destructive path is because no-one has reached out to help them.
I've worked with many people who were screwed up - and some of them resist initial attempts to help them. But the majority A) appreciate the offer, and B) if they do clean themselves up due to the help that someone offered, they are very thankful.

And so, to pretend that these self-destructive people are making a conscious and rational choice to be self-destructive, and to say that we should simply leave all of these people alone because their life is "none of our business" is an extremely lazy and/or incredibly selfish position to take.

The tennis was pretty good back then actually. In fact, weren't those the "tennis boom" years? I think this only supports my argument.
^ No, not really.
We can, unfortunately, only imagine how much better the tennis could have been had the drug use not been an obstacle.

A person can have troubles in innumerable ways. The question is whether it is the role of the ATP to get involved in people's personal lives if it isn't affecting the game of tennis or the ATP in any measurable way.
^ As I've already stated, it is the role of someone to get involved.
Not getting involved and claiming that the non-involvement is out of a respect for the person's privacy and right to do what he/she wants with his/her life is an absolute cop-out.
It's just an excuse to conveniently do nothing.

Ironically, in the effort of making the tennis "better," the ATP will ban one of the sport's most beloved players. Good work.
^ It will also send the message to others that certain unhealthy things are not tolerated. And that seems like a positive thing to me - for both the ATP and for the players personally.

Yes. Doing cocaine was careless since he knew it was banned and knew the possible consequences. These people are human Deuce.
^ Yes, and in this society, constructed by humans, there are consequences for certain actions.
I don't see a problem here.

One man and the perception of many adoring fans shouldn't be ruined just because of what could amount to one instance of cocaine usage. We don't really know the circumstances either. He could have been drunk and used bad judgment just once. The punishment may not fit the crime.
^ Firstly, to say that Gasquet "will be ruined" is a huge and unjustified leap.
For all you know, this could be exactly the wake-up call he needed to straighten his life out.

As you yourself stated - we don't know the details. Maybe the cocaine was a one-time thing (which still doesn't excuse it), or maybe he has a profound drug problem.

All I know - from my own experience working with people who've had drug problems - is that this potential punishment to Gasquet - which is restricted only to the tennis context of his life, by the way - he is still a free man otherwise - has a better chance of helping him as a human being in the long run than it has to ruin him as a human being.

...implying I'm close-minded? That's an odd insinuation.
^ I'm simply going by your reputation on this board - which is not that of an open minded individual.

Deuce, you sound like someone who believes in a Utopian society. Is that what you're getting at here?
^ Actually, I seem to be one of the few in this thread who is addressing how things really are, and how we should respond to that, rather than wearing rose coloured glasses and pretending that things are better than they are in order to conveniently justify indifference and inaction.

Yes, I do believe in a better society. And the best way to achieve that, in my view, is to take an honest look at the society we have now, figure out where the problems are, and address them.

you keep saying Richard Gasquet owes something to his fans and has responsibility, a responsibility that is somehow inherent to his job. I don't understand or buy that. there is a fascination with celebrities in this world, but that is the public's fault, not the celebrities themselves.
^ But it is also a fact. An undeniable fact of life in today's world.
So, rather than conveniently say that it should not be so, and thus saying, in effect, "to hell with children who are stupid enough to be easily influenced", I am placing the responsibility on the adults who are the role models, and demanding more from them.
They knew what they were getting into. If they didn't want the pressure of being a role model, they should have chosen another line of work, or have gotten out of it when they realized the inherent responsibility of the position - because being looked up to by easily influenced children is absolutely inherent in any job where the person is a 'star'.
And it's about time that these people accept that inherent responsibility.

for me, it boils down to Richard being his own man and making his own decisions. he is not a martyr, he is a tennis player and a person who has free will. that's all I can say really.
^ A parent doesn't have the right to do whatever they want. They cannot do things which will knowingly put their child in danger.
The same principle of responsibility must be applied to 'famous stars' - because their power of influence on children is just as great as the parents' influence - and, sadly, often even greater.

I am with you on legalization and taxing of drugs.
^ It always amuses me how some naive people believe that if drugs (and/or prostitution) were legalized, somehow, all the drug dealers and pimps would magically disappear - maybe they'd all become real estate agents or chartered accountants, or join the circus or something, right?
It's ridiculous.

The only thing that legalization of drugs and prostitution would do would be to create a parallel market - whose result would be the criminal side going to greater extremes to take clients away from their competition (the legal side).
These extremes would include more potent drugs/drug combinations, recruiting more children into prostitution, prostitutes offering more extreme 'services', etc.
It would get very ugly.
And if this country would wake up and realize that rehab is the way to go versus incarceration for drug users, it would save a lot of money and lives in the process.
^ I'm not sure that it would save a lot of money - but I agree that help (rehab, etc.) is usually better than punishment.
Although mixing in a degree of punishment can also be considered helping for many people.

Gasquetrules
05-17-2009, 11:23 AM
Refined sugar is just as addictive as cocaine... and over a lifetime it is just as destructive. Look at the epidemic of obesity and type II diabetes in the US and Europe.

In fact, most simple carbohydrates are unhealthy when they become the predominate portion of a person's diet. This is especially true for world-class athletes.

Remember how much Andre Agassi was criticized for eating fast food and donuts early in his career? It certainly did hurt his performance on the court. Once he got serious about healthy eating and fitness, he achieved true greatness.

My point here is that an occasional line of cocaine is not as harmful for an athlete as a consistently junky diet loaded with corn syrup and bleached flour is. Agassi wasn't banned for underachieving early in his career, something that was partly caused by a cavalier attitude about diet and fitness. But Agassi finally matured and made the right decisions with his tennis.

I pretty much take StormHolloway's point of view about personal freedom and freewill. It's an individual's life and his choice how he wants to live it. If we are going to demand that players not smoke pot or toot coke, we should also test them for alccohol and tobacco use and ban them for eating too many French Fries, Big Macs, Cokes and donuts.

The single-elimination format of tennis competition will do the job of disciplining pros who are not totally committed to winning. It did it for Agassi, and if winning tennis matches is important to Richard Gasquet, he will mature and make the right decisions, too, or be forced from the arena by his rivals.

tacou
05-17-2009, 12:53 PM
Deuce you keep repeating the same thing and are not listening to what I'm saying my friend. I am not wearing rose colored glasses, I know how the world is, I'm not saying how it should be.

I am saying that despite how the world is, Richard Gasquet does not need to act like someone he is not simply because he has a fan-base. He is still his own person and can lead his own life. It is a free world and no matter how bad you feel for the little children you can't make Richard live a life he doesn't want to lead.

Deuce
05-17-2009, 09:56 PM
Deuce you keep repeating the same thing and are not listening to what I'm saying my friend. I am not wearing rose colored glasses, I know how the world is, I'm not saying how it should be.

I am saying that despite how the world is, Richard Gasquet does not need to act like someone he is not simply because he has a fan-base. He is still his own person and can lead his own life. It is a free world and no matter how bad you feel for the little children you can't make Richard live a life he doesn't want to lead.
If he (or anyone else, for that matter) wants to live an unhealthy or self-destructive life, then there is a problem.
The problem is much larger if they are a role model (which Gasquet IS - like it or not; agree that he SHOULD be or not), because of the negative influence on children.

Gasquet, I would presume, is as free as the rest of us to live a self-destructive life. Just not as a well known athlete.
If he makes the unfortunate choice to make cocaine important in his life, he can. The ATP is just telling him that he can't do that as a pro tennis player. In other words, the message here is that he can't have his cake and eat it, too. I see absolutely no problem with that. Especially since these pro athletes (and other 'famous' persons) are already incredibly spoiled as it is.
And that is my perspective, as well - that 'famous stars' behave responsibly, knowing the influence they have on children. If they want to do harmful, self-destructive things, then they cannot be in any position of influence. And if they want to be in a position of influence, they can't do harmful/self-destructive things, because of the undeniable effect it will have on children.
It all comes down to making the decision as to what is more important to you. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

obsessedtennisfandisorder
05-18-2009, 02:55 AM
If he (or anyone else, for that matter) wants to live an unhealthy or self-destructive life, then there is a problem.
The problem is much larger if they are a role model (which Gasquet IS - like it or not; agree that he SHOULD be or not), because of the negative influence on children.

Gasquet, I would presume, is as free as the rest of us to live a self-destructive life. Just not as a well known athlete.
If he makes the unfortunate choice to make cocaine important in his life, he can. The ATP is just telling him that he can't do that as a pro tennis player. In other words, the message here is that he can't have his cake and eat it, too. I see absolutely no problem with that. Especially since these pro athletes (and other 'famous' persons) are already incredibly spoiled as it is.
And that is my perspective, as well - that 'famous stars' behave responsibly, knowing the influence they have on children. If they want to do harmful, self-destructive things, then they cannot be in any position of influence. And if they want to be in a position of influence, they can't do harmful/self-destructive things, because of the undeniable effect it will have on children.
It all comes down to making the decision as to what is more important to you. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

duece...you talk about stars "get" adulation/money etc as if they are demanding it....when actually...it's the other way around..

people heap adulation on them...
media portray them as our "saviours etc"
businesses usually approach them to sell their product(esp tops stars) not the other way around.

In many cases...yes...they accept it with open arms and "play up" to the
whol rolemodel crap...but they don't have to.

you should read some of pete sampras early interviews 91 -92 where he
sees right through all this role model bs right fromthe start..

"I'm uncomfortable with any adulation"

I' will write more later...sorry to cut ff..

how about CEOS..they on huge money not in public eye..etc...

sorry i'llbe back

Dilettante
05-18-2009, 02:58 AM
I don't want to go Freudian, but if I went Freudian, I'd say it's some kind of self-boycott because the pressure of not having lived up to the expectations and hype.

Of course, it's a heavily stupid reasoning... but just came to mind.

obsessedtennisfandisorder
05-18-2009, 05:50 AM
"If he makes the unfortunate choice to make cocaine important in his life, he can. The ATP is just telling him that he can't do that as a pro tennis player."


This is where you lose it my friend...you just say "ATP", just like that, as
if it's God almighty...actually there are serious questions being asked of everyone ...like Gasquets management:twisted:






You're absolutely right if regards to the XTRA advertisements...as I pointed out before....you won't have me arguing against you if it's a deal with ,say,
Yoplait french yogurt adverts id pulled

But richard job situation...inherently role model stuff...?

obsessedtennisfandisorder
05-18-2009, 06:39 AM
OK...first to duece,

As above , if gasquet gets other adverts pulled, that's fine with me, probably
with gasquet, and you won't get 500 posts threads either.

Secondly...gasquet is just a tennis player...that's it nothing more or less...
If other people won't to idolise him etc (like the kids being rafa etc) the whole
discussion about "what's missing" as you put it, turns to the kids....I can
imagine if that was sampras he would be bemused....to say the least.

These guys are good tennis players, just like there's good lawyers out there
and good secretaries.

i can tell you have some "issue" with the money these guys get on the tennis tour ATP...this is what their job IS WORTH....it has nothing nothing to do with
"because of all the money they get, they owe something back to the community bla bla"....as if the world is doing them some BIG FAVOUR.WRONG....if they owe something,anything back..it's to the game of tennis itself. CEOS get huge money...they aren't in public eye...are they roile models too....

you'll have trouble drawing a line because there is no line to draw.

The whole"role model" debate is clouded by businesses who want athletes
to advertise a product...completely outside of their job (get it?) yes, they

get extra dosh for "playing along" with the whole pathetic role model thing...but won't lose too much sleep over it if they don't...it's not their job.

ITS ONLY ABOUT MARKETING A PRODUCT.

OK...start rant.....trying to get this thread back to the OP>

Look at this backwards

People talk about the "ATP" as if

a) it's his employer
b) there are no serious questions about this organisation.

POINT: The ATP has a monopoly over the tennis players of the world.

They can effectively "force" them to sign any contract they want.

I mean if there's something in the contract gasquet doesn't like...what can he do....say "oh I'll just go somewhere else thanks"...

Now the ATP being a monopoly, is not a problem, in itself...BUT what are
people like IMG actually doing for the players ....zip?

Next....as a result of this power the atp have.....they know they Don't
have a monopoly over the entertainment industry....so how do they

try and get a....COMPETITIVE MARKETING ADVANTAGE....

you guesssed it....market our players as ROLE MODELS....

that will SELL MORE TICKETS....nothing wrong with that....but at the expense
of your own players dignity and right to freedom?....

in an attempt to get market share over other sports like baseball etc.

unfortunately...this decision, this CCTV Big Brother, unrealistic and anti-privacy decision....puts pressure that no human being deserves...all in the name of marketing....and In a court of law...I believe these contracts would
be found flawed.

Most of these guys are just tennis players and people don all this adulation on them...the ATP ...Laps It Up.

Gasquet doesn't deserve this , no-one does, and anything more than 6 months i think is unfair...yes i realise he was in competition...but if the
ATP make the argument "cocaine can "mask" performance enhancing drugs,
they have apoint so 3 to 6 months is fair...the role model argument disturbs me.

End rant....thankyou for reading and yes, it's only my opinion...feel free to dicuss/shoot me down....and I haven't quite finsihed on the ATP organisation

stormholloway
05-18-2009, 07:19 AM
^ That is your perspective - your opinion. That's all it is.
You write as if it is an absolute fact that taking cocaine is not an irresponsible act. I happen to think, based on my experiences, that it is irresponsible. You don't.
There is no absolute fact here.

Of course he's responsible. He's putting it in his body. If he hadn't been tested then there would have been zero impact on those beyond himself, therefore he is completely accountable for whatever health effects the drug may have had. Accountability = responsibility.

^ "Social progress makes the well-being of all more and more the business of each." - Henry George.
I subscribe to this perspective, as well.

And so, to pretend that these self-destructive people are making a conscious and rational choice to be self-destructive, and to say that we should simply leave all of these people alone because their life is "none of our business" is an extremely lazy and/or incredibly selfish position to take.

This is a cop out. The ATP has no interest in making Gasquet's life better. They're about image. They're a business. The well-being of Gasquet is the business of those close to him, not some bureaucracy.

There's no evidence he's being self-destructive. Should alcohol also be banned? You're drawing a pretty solid line between cocaine and alcohol. Players win bottles of champagne at tournaments. This is one of society's accepted drugs, one the ATP essentially endorses, while they choose to ban players for two years for having any amount of cocaine in their bloodstream.

So it's not so black and white. Believe it or not, one can use cocaine responsibly. It's powder synthesized from the coca leaf. It's not Russian roulette.

^ As I've already stated, it is the role of someone to get involved.
Not getting involved and claiming that the non-involvement is out of a respect for the person's privacy and right to do what he/she wants with his/her life is an absolute cop-out.
It's just an excuse to conveniently do nothing.

Of course it's the role of 'someone'. I thought we were talking specifically about whether it's the ATP's role, whether the ATP should be that 'someone'. I believe not, just as I don't believe it's the government's role to get involved in such things.

^ Yes, and in this society, constructed by humans, there are consequences for certain actions.
I don't see a problem here.

Umm, right. You seem to miss the point here: I disagree with this particular instance of how society has been constructed. You're being redundant here. You're essentially saying: "That's just the way it is." Would you have the same answer if the death penalty were given to someone who runs over a cat in the street? Or would you perhaps object to the severity of this particular consequence?

I know - from my own experience working with people who've had drug problems - is that this potential punishment to Gasquet - which is restricted only to the tennis context of his life, by the way - he is still a free man otherwise - has a better chance of helping him as a human being in the long run than it has to ruin him as a human being.

It has a chance of helping him, sure. Perhaps not banning him for two years could help him even more. At this point, it's up to him what he wants to do. I'm simply debating the fairness of the potential severity of this punishment. I believe a two year ban for testing positive for cocaine is too severe. My argument is supported heavily by the fact that this drug ban exists to combat cheating, i.e. performance enhancing drugs. This particular enforcement of the rule, therefore, is invalid and misdirected.

I think a far shorter ban should be in order. A two year ban can set a tennis player back light years. Look at Juan Carlos Ferrero. He went away just for a little while and came back a shadow of his former self. Two years is a long time.

^ I'm simply going by your reputation on this board - which is not that of an open minded individual.

Really, where'd you read that, Talk Tennis Digest? Who are you to make such a declaration? At least one poster in this thread alone completely disagrees with you.

Deuce
05-18-2009, 09:03 PM
OK...first to duece,

Secondly...gasquet is just a tennis player...that's it nothing more or less...
If other people won't to idolise him etc (like the kids being rafa etc) the whole
discussion about "what's missing" as you put it, turns to the kids.... ^ Yes - that's why I said that whether children should or should not idolize these 'stars' is a separate discussion.

My point in this thread is that they DO idolize these 'stars' - that is the reality that must me addressed - not the 'what should be', but the 'what IS'.

These guys are good tennis players, just like there's good lawyers out there
and good secretaries.
^I think it's safe to say that lawyers and secretaries are not a significant influence on children - except perhaps their own.
Your reference, therefore, is invalid and irrelevant to the circumstance of this discussion.

i can tell you have some "issue" with the money these guys get on the tennis tour ATP...this is what their job IS WORTH....it has nothing nothing to do with
"because of all the money they get, they owe something back to the community bla bla"....as if the world is doing them some BIG FAVOUR.WRONG....if they owe something,anything back..it's to the game of tennis itself. CEOS get huge money...they aren't in public eye...are they roile models too....
^ I have no clue where you're going with this - except to think that you are perhaps deliberately trying to change the subject of the discussion.
Indeed, I did mention that these famous people are very spoiled - getting virtually everything they want - and so someone must let them know that they cannot have their cake and eat it,too.

The money they make is absolutely and entirely irrelevant to this discussion. This discussion is about the influence they have on children, and their responsibility to that. Whether they make $50,000 per year, or $5 Million doesn't matter at all. It's the level of influence they have that matters.

The whole"role model" debate is clouded by businesses who want athletes
to advertise a product...completely outside of their job (get it?) yes, they get extra dosh for "playing along" with the whole pathetic role model thing...but won't lose too much sleep over it if they don't...it's not their job. ITS ONLY ABOUT MARKETING A PRODUCT.
^ This is entirely false.
Children don't 'love' and idolize Federer because he does commercials for razors, they idolize and worship him because he is famous. And he reached that fame through his tennis. The endorsements, naturally, came only after he had achieved a certain level of 'fame'.


This is a cop out. The ATP has no interest in making Gasquet's life better. They're about image. They're a business. The well-being of Gasquet is the business of those close to him, not some bureaucracy.
^ Quite likely. But that doesn't mean that the punishment imposed by the ATP will not help him.
Nor does it even mean that the ATP - or even certain individuals within the ATP administration - do not care about Gasquet as a person.

There's no evidence he's being self-destructive. Should alcohol also be banned? You're drawing a pretty solid line between cocaine and alcohol. Players win bottles of champagne at tournaments. This is one of society's accepted drugs, one the ATP essentially endorses, while they choose to ban players for two years for having any amount of cocaine in their bloodstream.

So it's not so black and white. Believe it or not, one can use cocaine responsibly.
^ This doesn't occur very often. I've quite a bit of experience knowing drug users. 'Responsible' is not a word I'd use to describe 98% of them.
Add this to the fact that history shows that with drugs like cocaine, once you start, you want more. And more.
I guarantee you that every person whose life has been ruined by cocaine - or any other drug, including alcohol - was convinced when they began their use that they could handle it, and were in total control.
They were wrong.
I'm not here to defend alcohol - lord knows it has caused many problems for many people. But history shows - keeping in mind the relative proportions of users of each, as they are not equal - that alcohol consumption is easier for most people to control than cocaine consumption.

It's powder synthesized from the coca leaf. It's not Russian roulette.
^ In fact, you're very wrong.
It is very much Russian Roulette. That's the way street drugs are. What you get on the street is far from pure (pure would probably kill you).
Again - I have the experience of having known and worked with many drug users. Of course, the reason that drugs are 'cut' (mixed) with other substances is to increase the quantity (weight), and thus make more money. And when you're buying your drugs from a drug dealer, you have no bloody clue what's in there. Could be baking soda, could be rat poison, could be cyanide... could be one part cocaine, could be 5 parts cocaine... Your neighbourhood dealer doesn't even usually know what's in there.
So, when using any street drug, it is very much Russian Roulette. Drug dealers - or pushers - at any level are not generally people whom I would suggest you trust. Especially not with your life.

Of course it's the role of 'someone'. I thought we were talking specifically about whether it's the ATP's role, whether the ATP should be that 'someone'. I believe not, just as I don't believe it's the government's role to get involved in such things.
^ Ideally, someone in Gasquet's family would have intervened, rather than the ATP.
But, to view the situation from a practical perspective, family members and friends usually don't have access to drug tsting equipment. The ATP does. So they did the testing - with the result that's been reported.
Now, because of this, perhaps Gasquet's family and friends can help him.

Umm, right. You seem to miss the point here: I disagree with this particular instance of how society has been constructed. You're being redundant here. You're essentially saying: "That's just the way it is." Would you have the same answer if the death penalty were given to someone who runs over a cat in the street? Or would you perhaps object to the severity of this particular consequence?
^ You're reaching pretty far here.
Running over a cat is not generally a deliberate act. Doing cocaine is.
I could retort with 'If you know that the punishment for stealing a watch is a $1000 fine, and you steal the watch anyway, why should you not be fined $1000? You knew everything about the situation - including what the punishment was - and you still decided to steal the watch. To NOT fine you $1000 would be ludicrous.

Ok - you disagree - thinking the punishment to Gasquet is too harsh. Fine. That's obviously your right.
My position on a 2 year ban is that it's ok. He knew very well that this was the potential consequence to doing what he did. And in life, there are consequences to actions.
Had the ATP advertized that their ban for cocaine use is 2 months, and then punished Gasquet for 2 years after testing positive, that would not be fair. But, by all accounts, the ATP made it very clear to all their players, the media, etc. what are the consequences of certain actions.
Gasquet perhaps felt he could get away with it; thought he could 'outsmart' the system. If that's what he thought, he was clearly wrong. Is that the ATP's fault? I don't think so.
Again, we come back to personal responsibility...

It has a chance of helping him, sure. Perhaps not banning him for two years could help him even more.
^ Perhaps. But neither you or I are in a position to say which would help him more, because we don't know him.
The fact remains that this is the ATP's punishment - which they let be known to everyone in flashing lights long before Gasquet was tested.
Gasquet screwed up - and should pay the advertized consequence.

At this point, it's up to him what he wants to do. I'm simply debating the fairness of the potential severity of this punishment. I believe a two year ban for testing positive for cocaine is too severe. My argument is supported heavily by the fact that this drug ban exists to combat cheating, i.e. performance enhancing drugs. This particular enforcement of the rule, therefore, is invalid and misdirected.
^ And my argument is, I believe, even better supported by the fact that he knew what the punishment was before he decided to commit the offence.

Really, where'd you read that, Talk Tennis Digest? Who are you to make such a declaration? At least one poster in this thread alone completely disagrees with you.
^ Who am I to make such a 'declaration'?
Gee... I'm just a fellow poster who has seen many others on the board refer to you as being very narrow - or closed - minded.
So I commented that when one referred to you as being open minded.
You see a big deal here? I don't.

obsessedtennisfandisorder
05-19-2009, 03:33 AM
Duece,

Guess we will just have to agree to disagree, thats what these opinion
forums are all about.....my main aim was to respond to the thread which
is clearly asking US if 2 years is justifyable punishment. If the contract
was put before court, what justification would the ATP give for a recreational drug being punished just as much time as performance enhancing.

^ Yes - that's why I said that whether children should or should not idolize these 'stars' is a separate discussion.

My point in this thread is that they DO idolize these 'stars' - that is the reality that must me addressed - not the 'what should be', but the 'what IS'.


first of all what is good role model behaviour anyway? entirely subjective.

but lets respond to doing coke as "Bad", to help explain.

a) we've been thru this, if kids want to copy gasquets "bad", but that's dumb behaviour right there and then from the child, the fact the child won't make a
decision for itself is the child's lack of judgement...and has nothing to do with any sports star.

So what anyway?

If a kid goes to jail because they copied a stars bad behaviour..DUMB KID.
no one cares man,end of story....doesn't affect me, you or anyone really so what? whats the problem exactly? This is the part i think you don't get.

You seem to think that this "failing" should be addressed by the star.
It's not his problem

You say no absolute truths, then argue as if "the reality of kids idolizing"
is an absolute truth....when in fact 99% kids don'tknow who gasquet is,
and some who do...probably start threads like "why is gasquet mental flake?"
so obviously gasquet not a "role model" for those kids...debatable right there.


^ I have no clue where you're going with this - except to think that you are perhaps deliberately trying to change the subject of the discussion.
Indeed, I did mention that these famous people are very spoiled - getting virtually everything they want - and so someone must let them know that they cannot have their cake and eat it,too.

cake and eat what? the stars made the cake themselves, with a little help
from tennis coaches:), Noone is forcing the fans to buy tickets..so of course they can eat it.

"spoiled" ???100% wrong...i will say again...they get paid what their worth.they don't Owe anything...except to those that helped them in their "ascent" so to speak....eg family, early tennis coaches etc.
They give back to the fans by giving us great matches...end of.

^ And my argument is, I believe, even better supported by the fact that he knew what the punishment was before he decided to commit the offence.

we all agree gasquet was an idiot,unfortunately for you, thats not what the
OP is asking...we are also not arguing whether he tried beat the system or
whatever...the question is very clear:

"do YOU think 2 years in suitable punishment for doing coke?"

Your entitled to your opinion,and I'm entitled to mine, people like
veroniquim have a strong argument against me i think, as gasquet was tested
on site and cocaine can (debatable) mask EPO etc....even then that would
only justify 3 to 6 months(what i think is good punishment for him) but 2 years because he's a role model (your idealism) doesn't wash with me.

I keep coming back to this post because it's interesting discussion...many
other threads i think are trolls etc...can't be bothered posting.

joeri888
05-19-2009, 03:36 AM
Richard has a problem, and I really can't blame him. The pressure, the media, the week in week out living of a sportsman, I don't think it's that great. Especially if the faith of a nation is in your hands for so long and slips away.. It's kind of like the Tom Boonen case. I hope he gets some help and isn't punished for this, because not being able to play the sports you love is not going to help him lose his drug problem.

tacou
05-19-2009, 08:14 AM
Gasquet, I would presume, is as free as the rest of us to live a self-destructive life. Just not as a well known athlete.
If he makes the unfortunate choice to make cocaine important in his life, he can. The ATP is just telling him that he can't do that as a pro tennis player. In other words, the message here is that he can't have his cake and eat it, too.


For me, you just really threw out your argument. First you said Richard has the "influence" of a parent and therefore has the responsibility of a parent (which is a ridiculous thing to say, because in that sense he has the responsibility of a million parents at once while only 22) but now you are saying he is free to do what he wants as long as he is not a tennis player?

That is not what the ATP is doing, saying "you can't have your cake and eat it too." They know Gasquet is popular and that cocaine should not be a banned substance in tennis. They are simply following the rules.

Deuce I hope you didn't take any of this personally as a lot of people on this board do, it was a nice discussion. I've said my piece and am leaving before it gets ugly.

Here's hoping Richard clears his name/gets a lighter sentence

Cloudy
05-19-2009, 09:31 AM
Richard has a problem, and I really can't blame him. The pressure, the media, the week in week out living of a sportsman, I don't think it's that great. Especially if the faith of a nation is in your hands for so long and slips away.. It's kind of like the Tom Boonen case. I hope he gets some help and isn't punished for this, because not being able to play the sports you love is not going to help him lose his drug problem.

He had a very small concentration of cocaine in his body and a negative hair strand test. Where is the evidence that he has a drugs problem?

tacou
05-19-2009, 10:24 AM
^ I believe the hair strand test came back positive

Cloudy
05-19-2009, 10:32 AM
Nope the urine samples were positive, the hair strand test was negative

http://www.lequipe.fr/Tennis/breves2009/20090510_182155_gasquet-confirme.html

Leublu tennis
05-19-2009, 02:24 PM
Where was all this outrage when Hingis was banned?Interesting point. But I don't remeber loud protest from Hingis either.

Leublu tennis
05-19-2009, 02:30 PM
Nope the urine samples were positive, the hair strand test was negative

http://www.lequipe.fr/Tennis/breves2009/20090510_182155_gasquet-confirme.htmlI will take your word on it. Merci. Any other news on him?

tacou
05-19-2009, 03:38 PM
wait so if the hair test was negative he's got to have a good chance of over turning, no?

fastdunn
05-19-2009, 03:47 PM
no. independent hair test was to support that he is not regular user.

tacou
05-19-2009, 05:23 PM
I'm sorry I guess I am confused... I understood he failed the first test, then got a follow up or b sample test (which I thought was the hair test) and failed that as well.

is the hair test a third test?

Tennis360
05-19-2009, 05:45 PM
I'm sorry I guess I am confused... I understood he failed the first test, then got a follow up or b sample test (which I thought was the hair test) and failed that as well.

is the hair test a third test?

the A and B samples (urine) which was taken on the same day I believe - both came back positive. the independent hair test was negative....note also that he had 10 times lesser amount of drug in his system than originally reported and some articles I've read suggested that the positive test could be due to contamination or involuntary ingestion - but who knows?

tacou
05-19-2009, 06:15 PM
thank you for clearing that up

Deuce
05-19-2009, 11:00 PM
first of all what is good role model behaviour anyway? entirely subjective.
^ I'm not saying that they have a responsibility to be good role models.
I'm saying that they have a responsibility to not be bad role models.
Big difference.

a) we've been thru this, if kids want to copy gasquets "bad", but that's dumb behaviour right there and then from the child, the fact the child won't make a
decision for itself is the child's lack of judgement...and has nothing to do with any sports star.

So what anyway?

If a kid goes to jail because they copied a stars bad behaviour..DUMB KID.
no one cares man,end of story....doesn't affect me, you or anyone really so what? whats the problem exactly? This is the part i think you don't get.
^ Ok. I care about children, and you don't.
You don't care if children are healthy or unhealthy; happy or unhappy.
With that unfortunate and selfish outlook, I hope you have no children of your own - and that you won't have any until your perspective changes for the better.

You seem to think that this "failing" should be addressed by the star.
It's not his problem
^ Yeah - it is. If a kid emulates negative behaviour of the 'star', the 'star' should accept responsibility - because he/she knew beforehand that he/she has a strong influence on children.
Of course, if parents do their job properly, the influence of 'stars' will be minimal. But - again - that's another topic.

You say no absolute truths, then argue as if "the reality of kids idolizing"
is an absolute truth....when in fact 99% kids don'tknow who gasquet is,
and some who do...probably start threads like "why is gasquet mental flake?"
so obviously gasquet not a "role model" for those kids...debatable right there.
^ It is an absolute fact that many thousands of children in various parts of the world idolize Gasquet.
It is an absolute fact that many of these kids are influenced by what Gasquet says, does, wears, etc.
If you deny these absolute truths, you simply make yourself look even more foolish.

"spoiled" ???100% wrong...i will say again...they get paid what their worth.they don't Owe anything...except to those that helped them in their "ascent" so to speak....eg family, early tennis coaches etc.
They give back to the fans by giving us great matches...end of.
^ No - they are spoiled. They get chauffeured around town... stay in the best hotels... have people waiting on them hand and foot... etc., etc...
To say they're not spoiled is to be blind... among other things.

For me, you just really threw out your argument. First you said Richard has the "influence" of a parent and therefore has the responsibility of a parent (which is a ridiculous thing to say, because in that sense he has the responsibility of a million parents at once while only 22) but now you are saying he is free to do what he wants as long as he is not a tennis player?
^ Indeed, he has a similar influence to the influence of parents. Sometimes even a stronger influence.
Last I checked, kids don't dress like their parents. But they do dress like their favourite 'star' (be it tennis 'star', music 'star', movie 'star', etc.).
That's the position he is in - inherently.
You can say that it should not be that way... but the fact is that it IS that way.
It's like saying that the idiot weaving in and out of traffic at 100 mph SHOULD NOT be doing that... but the FACT is that you still have to deal with him (take evasive action, etc.)
So ... we have to deal with the way things are - not the way things should be.

As for him being free to do what he wants as long as he's not a tennis player... well, in a sense, he is.
The ATP has rules. One of them is that cocaine use is not allowed, and is a punishable offence.
There are other rules, too, in the ATP. You can't yell out during a point to distract your opponent. You must change sides every two games. Certain soles of shoes are not allowed on certain courts... Plus, there is a code of conduct...
So players cannot do what they want.

Even as a private citizen, Gasquet cannot do what he wants without risk of punishment.
It was not society that caught Gasquet with cocaine - it was the ATP. Therefore, the punishment comes from the ATP, not from society by way of the justice system.

Michael Vick's disgusting abuse and killing of dogs did not enhance his performance on the football field - but the NFL suspended him.
The same principle is at work in the Gasquet case. And has been in many other sports suspensions over time.

That is not what the ATP is doing, saying "you can't have your cake and eat it too." They know Gasquet is popular and that cocaine should not be a banned substance in tennis. They are simply following the rules.
^ The ATP is saying exactly "You can't have your cake and eat it, too" by saying that you cannot test positive for cocaine and continue to play in our tournaments. That seems very clear.

As for the ATP "knowing that cocaine should not be a banned substance in tennis"... where in the world did you come up with that?
If cocaine is on their list of substances that players are not allowed to take, then it's obvious that they think it should be on the list.

Again, I refer you to Michael Vick (rhymes with Sick)...

Here's hoping Richard clears his name/gets a lighter sentence
^ Why? To show everyone (including kids) that you can get away with doing cocaine and still come out smelling like a rose?

Here's hoping that Gasquet gets the help he needs.

Underhand
05-20-2009, 03:12 AM
Believe it or not, one can use cocaine responsibly. It's powder synthesized from the coca leaf. It's not Russian roulette.

Word! And heroin is just synthesized from poppies. What could go wrong?

stormholloway
05-20-2009, 03:33 AM
^ This doesn't occur very often. I've quite a bit of experience knowing drug users. 'Responsible' is not a word I'd use to describe 98% of them.
Add this to the fact that history shows that with drugs like cocaine, once you start, you want more. And more.

True, but then again there are a lot of guys who do it once in a blue moon when they're drunk. I imagine Gasquet falls into this category. For all we know it's just a single drunken mistake.

^ In fact, you're very wrong.
It is very much Russian Roulette. That's the way street drugs are. What you get on the street is far from pure (pure would probably kill you).
Again - I have the experience of having known and worked with many drug users. Of course, the reason that drugs are 'cut' (mixed) with other substances is to increase the quantity (weight), and thus make more money.

No doubt, but Gasquet is a wealthy guy who probably has pretty wealthy circles. In other words, in all likely-hood he has acccess to "the good stuff".

^ Ideally, someone in Gasquet's family would have intervened, rather than the ATP.
But, to view the situation from a practical perspective, family members and friends usually don't have access to drug tsting equipment. The ATP does. So they did the testing - with the result that's been reported.
Now, because of this, perhaps Gasquet's family and friends can help him.

A legitimately good point here. The drug tests have shed light on this and given his family a chance to set him straight. It's just a shame it has to be publicized like this. Ideally, in my opinion, the ATP would report it directly to his family and give him a private warning. That should be the policy in my opinion. People deserve a second chance before they're banned for two years, which in the life of a professional tennis player can be a lifetime, if not the end of his career.

^ You're reaching pretty far here.
Running over a cat is not generally a deliberate act. Doing cocaine is.
I could retort with 'If you know that the punishment for stealing a watch is a $1000 fine, and you steal the watch anyway, why should you not be fined $1000? You knew everything about the situation - including what the punishment was - and you still decided to steal the watch. To NOT fine you $1000 would be ludicrous.

But to me, a $1000 fine is appropriate. On the other hand, a two year ban for one positive test of cocaine is not appropriate. Think of how many thousands will be denied Gasquet, nevermind millions, and he didn't even steal from anyone. In fact, there are no criminal charges against him, and there has been no third-party victim.

Ok - you disagree - thinking the punishment to Gasquet is too harsh. Fine. That's obviously your right.
My position on a 2 year ban is that it's ok. He knew very well that this was the potential consequence to doing what he did. And in life, there are consequences to actions.
Had the ATP advertized that their ban for cocaine use is 2 months, and then punished Gasquet for 2 years after testing positive, that would not be fair. But, by all accounts, the ATP made it very clear to all their players, the media, etc. what are the consequences of certain actions.
Gasquet perhaps felt he could get away with it; thought he could 'outsmart' the system. If that's what he thought, he was clearly wrong. Is that the ATP's fault? I don't think so.
Again, we come back to personal responsibility...

Totally agree that it was stupid of him. Very careless and stupid. I'm just forgiving. I don't think the punishment fits the crime, despite the fact that he was aware (though probably very 'unaware' mentally at the time he took the drug) of the consequences.

^ Who am I to make such a 'declaration'?
Gee... I'm just a fellow poster who has seen many others on the board refer to you as being very narrow - or closed - minded.
So I commented that when one referred to you as being open minded.
You see a big deal here? I don't.

Well I've been called a lot of things on this forum, but close-minded is one I don't recall at all, however, you're entitled to that opinion.

Word! And heroin is just synthesized from poppies. What could go wrong?

It's possible to use herion responsibly as well. I'm not saying it's common, but it's possible. Heroin is also a lot more intense than cocaine. Believe it or not, you can't just lump all psychoactives together.

jimbo333
05-20-2009, 10:38 AM
Hold on, he may not actually be a cocaine user!!!

Maybe he tested positive by licking all his $50 notes:)

obsessedtennisfandisorder
05-20-2009, 08:58 PM
Deuce,

thanks for your reply and I just want to second what tacou said, don't take anything personal etc with what I write etc..i don't want to get into slanging match etc...I don't take anything personal...

unfortunately I'm short on time, just just to reply to the "don't care about the kids comment". I made this statement to make it clear to you my
default position..that is...stranger a does not have any repsonsibility to stranger c or stranger c's kids. You disagree, fair enuff, I base my views
on the world I see around me..and the animal world as a base to work from.

You argue "influence" changes this equation and you make some points
in your last post and hopefully I can reply to them tomorrow...(such as the
influence of all media and businesses simply trying to make money)

for the moment i post this:

http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/index.php/site/battles/2295/

As for myself being a parent: I care about my own kids 100% responsiblity,
that's what i think is so huge about becoming a parent. the realisation You
at the end of the day are responsible for that kid...not some obscure "star"

Do i care about other people's kids? you're right..at the end of the day i don't...because I base my beliefs on the idea people act in self-interest primarily.....criticise me for that if you wish.

Like i said..I think thinks it's interesting discussion and good talking to you.

Deuce
05-21-2009, 12:46 AM
True, but then again there are a lot of guys who do it once in a blue moon when they're drunk. I imagine Gasquet falls into this category. For all we know it's just a single drunken mistake.
^ And a lot of these "drunken mistakes" turn into further "drunken mistakes"... and eventually into a very big problem.

I don't think either of us should assume that in Gasquet's case, it's this way or that way - because we don't know.
We can discuss the potentials and possibilities, though, I suppose.

No doubt, but Gasquet is a wealthy guy who probably has pretty wealthy circles. In other words, in all likely-hood he has acccess to "the good stuff".
^ In the drug world, even the 'good stuff' carries inherent risks. There is crap in all drugs. They don't make drugs for the rich and drugs for the poor - all illegal drugs go through essentially the same process.
Again - the people who buy the stuff from the growers, etc. - the various levels of dealers - are not exactly honest, model human beings. They're typically very selfish people who are out to make as much money as possible - be it a tennis star's money, or the money of a street junkie - it's all the same to them. They are generally not very honest or moral or ethical people.

A legitimately good point here. The drug tests have shed light on this and given his family a chance to set him straight. It's just a shame it has to be publicized like this. Ideally, in my opinion, the ATP would report it directly to his family and give him a private warning. That should be the policy in my opinion.
^ I agree. But I also think there needs to be some punishment.

As for myself being a parent: I care about my own kids 100% responsiblity,
that's what i think is so huge about becoming a parent. the realisation You
at the end of the day are responsible for that kid...not some obscure "star".^ But if the parents fail, others have to take on the responsibility that the kid's parents have not taken.
We cannot - and MUST not - simply say "to hell with these kids".

tacou
05-21-2009, 07:58 AM
But if the parents fail, others have to take on the responsibility that the kid's parents have not taken.
We cannot - and MUST not - simply say "to hell with these kids".

An Richard Gasquet is the man to take on this responsibility? Why don't you take the responsibility, Deuce, since you love the children so much?

Deuce
05-21-2009, 08:54 PM
An Richard Gasquet is the man to take on this responsibility?
^ Naturally, yes. Those in a position of influence need to take the responsibility

Why don't you take the responsibility, Deuce, since you love the children so much?
^ I rather obviously do.

Instead of trying to be a smart ***, why don't you do something positive for children, too?

LES
05-22-2009, 02:36 PM
Interesting thread.

I just have one reply to Duece. Why do you keep insisting that kids mimic everything their 'role models' do? You think most kids are that stupid?

Let's say that some 12 year old idolizes Gasquet and wears Lacoste hits a 1BH, etc... You seriously think that kid will start doing coke because Gasquet is exposed as a coke user?

Where is 12 YO supposed to get coke any ways? I lived in the ghetto for years in a heavily drug infested neighborhood and I've never seen any kids under high school age buying drugs. Most of the drug buyers were college aged and older.

I agree with everyone else that ATP has no business punishing Gasquet's livelihood for some outside event that is of no consequence to their organization. As for his sponsors, I have no problem if they canceled his endorsements because he has responsibilities to represent their image and market their products. Gasquet's sole responsibility to the ATP is that he shows up and plays matches without cheating or unfair advantage (without performance enhancing drugs)

tacou
05-22-2009, 02:51 PM
^ Naturally, yes. Those in a position of influence need to take the responsibility


^ I rather obviously do.

Instead of trying to be a smart ***, why don't you do something positive for children, too?

I'm no smart ***. I do plenty for the children. Well, my younger brother, that is, and my niece and nephew. Because they are my responsibility not Richard Gasquet's.

Deuce
05-22-2009, 11:11 PM
Interesting thread.

I just have one reply to Duece.
^ It's Deuce, actually.
Just look to the left - in big blue letters - for help with the spelling...

Why do you keep insisting that kids mimic everything their 'role models' do? You think most kids are that stupid?
^ Ironic, is it not, that you are asking this from within a society where people drink Pepsi because a TV commercial has influenced them to do so?

That you think this has to do with intelligence when it comes to children betrays that you are entering an area you know nothing about.

Let's say that some 12 year old idolizes Gasquet and wears Lacoste hits a 1BH, etc... You seriously think that kid will start doing coke because Gasquet is exposed as a coke user?

Where is 12 YO supposed to get coke any ways? I lived in the ghetto for years in a heavily drug infested neighborhood and I've never seen any kids under high school age buying drugs. Most of the drug buyers were college aged and older.
^ And this absolutely confirms it.

Dilettante
05-22-2009, 11:25 PM
^ But if the parents fail, others have to take on the responsibility that the kid's parents have not taken.
We cannot - and MUST not - simply say "to hell with these kids".

So if the parents fail, Richard Gasquet has to take the responsability?

Deuce
05-22-2009, 11:52 PM
So if the parents fail, Richard Gasquet has to take the responsability?
We all do.
Especially those in a position of influence.

Seems a rather simple concept to understand.
Especially since it is children who are at stake.

tennisplaya
05-23-2009, 12:42 AM
Are there any recent developments on Gasquet? He would have been my pick of the Frenchies for Roland Garros, although he has a history of cramping in the legs sometimes. Maybe he can use his break to his advantage by doing a little endurance work.

Gasquetrules
05-23-2009, 06:38 AM
I wouldn't expect anything more than a quarter-final result for Gasquet at the French, but I would have expected another semi-final or run to the finals would have been possible for Gasquet at Wimbledon this year. He was playing some pretty good tennis this year when his shoulder was OK.

stormholloway
05-23-2009, 08:29 AM
Tennis loses in the end. I think a fine and a short ban should be given, and obviously a stern warning. If he's banned for two years, there goes any potential Gasquet highlights in the future. Stick a fork in him.

Dutch-Guy
05-23-2009, 12:45 PM
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/6337/6a00d8341c730253ef00e55.jpghttp://img36.imageshack.us/img36/7623/snn0705ll280642706a1.jpg

maximo
05-23-2009, 12:47 PM
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/6337/6a00d8341c730253ef00e55.jpghttp://img36.imageshack.us/img36/7623/snn0705ll280642706a1.jpg

Gasquet's a gangsta.

tacou
05-23-2009, 02:12 PM
no one needs cocaine to grind with strippers. though ,it does help ;]

LES
05-24-2009, 05:49 PM
no one needs cocaine to grind with strippers. though ,it does help ;]

LOL. Well here's the thing. It's not that easy to find drugs unless youre in the drug scene.

TO DEUCE : your'e incredibly naive about how accessible drugs are. As well as how much children are influenced by external forces.

OK DEUCE: First of all, Advertising != Celebrity influence (Advertising is designed to inlfluence buying decisions. Sometimes advertisers use celebrities to endorse their products, but it's mainly designed to influence the buyer to choose Nike over Adidas, Coke over Pepsi, and so on.)

Two, I would guess that the most influence over kids is the moral code instilled by parents/ authority (teachers, rule of law, etc.). Then maybe peer pressure. Then maybe celebrity/ idols. Even when kids idolize celebrities it only limited to certain things. If some kid idolizes Gasquet, it's probably for his tennis. There's no reason make the leap to using coke. i.e. No Chris Brown fan is going to start beating his girlfriend cause Chris Brown did it. If they are going to partake in such behavior, then their moral code already allows such behavior. Most likely all three factors can contribute to influence depending what the exact situation is. But if you are talking responsibility, then the kid is responsible for his own action. If a minor commits a crime he will be on trial. Not his parents, not Gasquet, not me. Get it fool?

And finally DEUCE, since you have poor reading comprehension....What everyone is trying to tell you is, this issue is about the ATP rules about drug use and NOTHING to do with parenting or children or personal responsibility.

Should cocaine be classified in the same category as performance enhancing drugs? Even if it is, should the infraction be punished more severely?

If you can be objective, then it seems like Gasquet's fine should follow past precedents of steroid use About 6 months and some monetary fine. Or maybe they should mind their own business if the drug in question does not enhance perfomance. Just let the police deal with it. << A point well made by Tacou & Storm Holloway.

If your'e and idiot like DEUCE, then you turn this into an argument about personal responsibility. Whether or not you believe celebrities should be responsible for their fame & collateral influence there's no way to legislate this. You can't make rules based on something that cant be quantified. Celebrity influence on children CANNOT be quantified. Get it fool?

Gasquets overly severe punishment has nothing to do with OMG! WILL SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN! It's just an overreaction from a politically conservative ATP who is trying to protect themselves because of the negative image of cocaine. And their letting Gasquet hang dry. Shame on you ATP

Deuce
05-24-2009, 08:34 PM
TO DEUCE : your'e incredibly naive about how accessible drugs are. As well as how much children are influenced by external forces.
^ Indeed - it must be my 20 years of experience working with children in various contexts (in youth centres, kids in 'the system', kids rejected from school, kids on the street, etc.) that renders me so "naive".
As opposed to your vast experience and your ever so eloquently expressed peanut gallery comments...
OK DEUCE:
Get it fool?

And finally DEUCE, since you have poor reading comprehension....

If your'e and idiot like DEUCE...

Get it fool?



Trying to get through the numerous errors in your writing was no simple task... although I did manage to do so to the point of once again concluding that you've very little knowledge of this subject.

LES
05-25-2009, 07:14 AM
^ Indeed - it must be my 20 years of experience working with children in various contexts (in youth centres, kids in 'the system', kids rejected from school, kids on the street, etc.) that renders me so "naive".
As opposed to your vast experience and your ever so eloquently expressed peanut gallery comments...



Trying to get through the numerous errors in your writing was no simple task... although I did manage to do so to the point of once again concluding that you've very little knowledge of this subject.

Whatever dude. Correcting grammar/ typos on message boards cause you have nothing to say. Wow how original. LAME!

Your resume is not impressive and you are some kind of 'counselor' I'd fire your *** for being so naiive and disconnected from reality.

if the kids you know start doing coke cause of Gasquet (or whoever) then they're fools. Or youre a fool for believing that's the reason. I bet you never even met a kid who does coke. First of all, they can't score without being in the drug scene. 2nd of all, they probably cant afford a habit. 3rd, kids will often start smoking cigarettes, drinking beer, then maybe smoke weed before they get into coke. This pathway into harder drugs had very little to with celeb influence, but rather involvement in a drug / party scene. By this time they're probably already college aged.

If for reason you know some 12 year old coke head. That kid is no angel and his *** should be thrown in juvie.

I believe that No.1 reason for getting into drugs is peer pressure. Nobody starts smoking weed cause of Snoop Dogg or whoever. They start cause they want to hang with the crowd that smokes weed. If you've ever been to High School this would be obvious.

Anyways, there's no point to keep going on about this because it's off topic. Your !ZOMG WILL SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN! is a ruse and a red herring.

fps
05-25-2009, 07:41 AM
some good points made on both sides. Deuce, what do you mean when you say "we must take responsibility for these kids"? do you mean, rehab programmes, counselling, foster homes, youth centres?

i remember being a teenager, lol, and i remember the hypocrisy of the media that would celebrate sex drugs and rock n roll but become holier than thou when a sportsman failed a test. i remember thinking drugs appeared to be "bad" because of the consequences of their being taken, as in, the ban, rather than anything harmful they could do in themselves. there needs to be a clear, marked campaign showing just how harmful it is in terms of damage to communities and loss of human lives to GET CONTROL of the cocaine that floods markets. most people who take cocaine are totally unaware of the harm, they consider only the consumer end, wrapped up in reassuring themselves and others that they can take it, it won't harm them, when them and their decisions are not as important as the damage that fighting for control of supply is doing around the world.

Tennisplaya10
05-25-2009, 01:18 PM
I'm sorry for your failure. He should face the law. Nothing more nothing less. Cocaine is a helluva drug. I am sad Gasquet went down this road. The only people he cheated are himself, the atp, his fans. His friends and family. He certainly did not cheat in the performance enhancement sense but he's deprived many of watching him play.

ahahah. he didnt cheat anyone. hes and adult and he made decided to take cocaine. stop acting like he raped a someone.

tacou
05-25-2009, 01:36 PM
ahahah. he didnt cheat anyone. hes and adult and he made decided to take cocaine. stop acting like he raped a someone.

ya but BorisBeckerFan has a point. it's still debatable whether he took the drug or not, but if he did he'd probably only get a fine from the government.

I think that is acceptable, since cocaine is illegal in America, where he took the test.

that's what it boils down to , I think, and a lot of people are missing this: why should a tennis player be penalized in regard to tennis, when the infraction has no relation to the sport outside of the ensuing punishment?

Deuce
05-25-2009, 08:21 PM
some good points made on both sides. Deuce, what do you mean when you say "we must take responsibility for these kids"? do you mean, rehab programmes, counselling, foster homes, youth centres?
^ Well... on a larger scale, yes - as long as the things you mention are well run. I've seen youth centres and foster homes that did more harm than good... I've seen counselors who had no clue what they were doing - yet they were in control of a significant portion of a child's life...

Most importantly, though, is prevention.
Prevention is supposed to be the job of the parents - to arm the children with the tools necessary to resist negative influences. When the parents fail, it is up to the rest of us to take on that responsibility.
By that I mean any kid that you know - or have contact with... as a teacher, it could be a kid in your class... as a youth worker, it could be a kid at your youth centre... as a baseball or soccer coach, it could be a kid on your team... it could be a kid who's your neighbour, etc... if you know a child who seems to be headed down the wrong path, do something. Get to know the kid. Find out what healthy things he/she is interested in, and encourage that... maybe by byuing them a book on the subject, or doing some kind of research... there are many ways that one can help. And these are the kids who need that - who need someone to reach out to them, because their parents have failed.

By doing this, you might well be saving a life.

tacou
05-25-2009, 08:47 PM
what happened to celebrities saving children's lives? I thought that was your whole argument.

obsessedtennisfandisorder
05-25-2009, 08:49 PM
some good points made on both sides. Deuce, what do you mean when you say "we must take responsibility for these kids"? do you mean, rehab programmes, counselling, foster homes, youth centres?

i remember being a teenager, lol, and i remember the hypocrisy of the media that would celebrate sex drugs and rock n roll but become holier than thou when a sportsman failed a test. i remember thinking drugs appeared to be "bad" because of the consequences of their being taken, as in, the ban, rather than anything harmful they could do in themselves. there needs to be a clear, marked campaign showing just how harmful it is in terms of damage to communities and loss of human lives to GET CONTROL of the cocaine that floods markets. most people who take cocaine are totally unaware of the harm, they consider only the consumer end, wrapped up in reassuring themselves and others that they can take it, it won't harm them, when them and their decisions are not as important as the damage that fighting for control of supply is doing around the world.

FPS, good point about the media..they are screwed up...if you believe what they say then we should know what everyone on this planet does 24/7.

Be careful on the rest though..that will just give storm even more ammunition for it to be legal...but that will go totally off-topic again as this thread does.

tacou makes some good points...but that is the issue i was trying to get at.

If the ATP justify the ban because cocaine is a performane enhancer..they have a problem..they can't be sure richy was doing it just in his spare time.

For example if an athlete says "i took EPO in my spare time cause it tastes nice" in court...it sounds ridiculous....but cocaine to get high spare time? Thus less than 2 years i think because of that doubt is WASNT perform enhance.

IF the ATP justify 2 years because masking agent...well then that means
less time right there...it's not ACTUALLY a perfomance enhancer..how can they prove he actually took a performance enhancer.

IF the ATP argue it's illegal and nothing to do with performance enhance..then
Then we are starting to get into the realm which is not ATP territory at all.
they just hand over the evidence for police to do something.

Thus from all 3 directions the ATP's attempt to justify 2 years is severly flawed and
full of "if's but's and maybe's if in front of court.

Unfortunately for Gasquet the ATP is a monopoly(like the NFL) if it wasn't
the ATP might find itself where it can't afford Not to Have him Back.

See European soccer for more details on those scenarios.

that's my ten cents...

Dilettante
05-25-2009, 09:47 PM
Deuce,

I'll make it simple:

Gasquet hasn't decided to raise his own child yet, so I don't see why he should worry about everyone's else children to the point he changes his lifestyle.

I'm against cocaine, I don't use it at all, but you just can't say Gasquet has to take care of everyone's else children's education just because he happens to be somewhat famous.

Every childhood problems would solve if every single parent took adequate care of their OWN children.

It may sound harsh, but I don't have children and that's because I don't want to take care of any child at all. Selfish? Maybe, but coherent and responsible. So people please don't force me to shape my life according of your parenthood needs. The same works for Gasquet.

JoshDragon
05-25-2009, 09:50 PM
I'll make it simple:

Gasquet hasn't decided to raise his own child yet, so I don't see why he should worry about everyone's else children to the point he changes his lifestyle.

I'm against cocaine, I don't use it at all, but you just can't say Gasquet has to take care of everyone's else children's education just because he happens to be somewhat famous.

Every childhood problems would solve if every single parent took adequate care of their OWN children.

It may sound harsh, but I don't have children and that's because I don't want to take care of any child. So people please don't force me to shape my life according of your parenthood needs. The same works for Gasquet.

I'll admit, this is probably one of the best posts that I've read since I joined the forums.

Dilettante
05-25-2009, 09:52 PM
BTW I edited it to add a couple points.

Deuce
05-25-2009, 10:15 PM
Deuce,

I'll make it simple:

Gasquet hasn't decided to raise his own child yet, so I don't see why he should worry about everyone's else children to the point he changes his lifestyle.

I'm against cocaine, I don't use it at all, but you just can't say Gasquet has to take care of everyone's else children's education just because he happens to be somewhat famous.

Every childhood problems would solve if every single parent took adequate care of their OWN children.

It may sound harsh, but I don't have children and that's because I don't want to take care of any child at all. Selfish? Maybe, but coherent and responsible. So people please don't force me to shape my life according of your parenthood needs. The same works for Gasquet.
^ Sorry - but those in a position of influence have a responsibility that is greater than the responsibility that an unknown person has - because the unknown person obviously has no influence.
In a position like Gasquet's, this influence comes with the territory. The influence IS THERE. No matter how much it shouldn't be - the FACT is that it IS there. So that's what we must deal with.
And, if the influence is there, then effort should be made to make it either a benign influence, or a positive and healthy one. Anything less is irresponsible.

By accepting this responsibility, and proceeding in a manner in which there would be an influence which is either benign or healthy and positive, everyone benefits - the children for whom he is a role model, and he himself benefits by living a healthier lifestyle.
I see no negative.

Every childhood problems would solve if every single parent took adequate care of their OWN children.
^ Yes - some of you keep repeating this over and over...
I don't think I've ever disagreed with that.

However, the FACT - once again - is quite obviously that not all parents take adequate care of their own children. And when I ask you what should become of those children (for it is those children about whom I speak, as those are the ones who will be most succeptible to influence) - when I ask what should become of those children whose parents have failed... I get either silence, or, from the intellectual geniuses, "Throw their *** in juvie" or something equally caring and compassionate.

I'm saying that we all have a responsibility to troubled children... and you are saying that if their parents fail, then to hell with these kids.

Caring sure has disappeared in this dysfunctional culture when people tell you you're full of crap for trying to do what's best for troubled children.
Apparently, caring today is just too damned inconvenient.

Dilettante
05-25-2009, 10:31 PM
^ Sorry - but those in a position of influence have a responsibility that is greater than the responsibility that an unknown person has - because the unknown person obviously has no influence.
In a position like Gasquet's, this influence comes with the territory.

So now I record a country & western hit song and become famous as "that guy who came from Europe or Mexico or something like that and plays country" and I'm supposed to take responsability of other people's children because I had a music video on the MTV????

What should I do if I get famous and still don't want to shape my life according to your parenthood needs? Reject the success of my song? Fade away in an unknow island? Really? I get famous and should I, for example, reject taking three women to my hotel room because now I'm forced to be an educative figure to all the kids out there and having group sex is a bad example for kids? What if I DO want to take those girls to my room? Who are you or any other parent to tell me I shouldn't?

I see no negative.

The negative is you are telling other people who are they supposed to live just because they're famous.

Deuce
05-26-2009, 12:32 AM
So now I record a country & western hit song and become famous as "that guy who came from Europe or Mexico or something like that and plays country" and I'm supposed to take responsability of other people's children because I had a music video on the MTV????

What should I do if I get famous and still don't want to shape my life according to your parenthood needs? Reject the success of my song? Fade away in an unknow island? Really? I get famous and should I, for example, reject taking three women to my hotel room because now I'm forced to be an educative figure to all the kids out there and having group sex is a bad example for kids? What if I DO want to take those girls to my room? Who are you or any other parent to tell me I shouldn't?

The negative is you are telling other people who are they supposed to live just because they're famous.
What I write seems perfectly easy to read.
Yet you're clearly having many problems reading the words I'm writing. Instead, you claim that I'm writing things that I'm not.
You ignore what I do write, and respond to things that I don't write.
Bizarre.

I never once said that celebrities must effectively shape their life according to my parenthood needs.
What I wrote was that there is an inherent influence - and therefore an inherent responsibility to not be a negative influence.
I'm not saying that these celebrities must be a positive influence and effectively bring up thousands of children.
I said that they have a responsibility - because of their position of influence - to not be a negative influence.
Teachers, big brothers/sisters, youth workers, social workers, sports coaches, etc., have a similar responsibility - because they, too, are in a position of influence. But, of course, those people don't have the added sensationalism of the media to carry the news of their faults the way celebrities have.
But it still comes down to the fact that this influence comes with certain positions. It can't be avoided. So there is a responsibility to not do damage with it. Especially to children.

Selfishness to me is not a positive virtue.
To you, it apparently is.

Dilettante
05-26-2009, 12:56 AM
Let me put it this way:

Teachers, big brothers/sisters, youth workers, social workers, sports coaches, etc., have a similar responsibility


Big brothers aside, that people choosed to work with young people. It's a personal choice to have a position of direct influence.

Being famous it's not a choice to work with young people.

When someone's famous, he/she can be known among many different kinds of people: conservatives, atheists, christians, muslims, gays, whatever. All that people may have very different values and ways of living. What's right to one of them, may be wrong for another.

So how can you ask a single famous person to take any kind of responsability on all that people's children? What should he do if, for example, he's gay? Should he marry another man or not? He may make the mistake of trying to give an example that is good for come but bad for another. He has enough trying living his own life to think he also has a responsability in the education of kids he doesn't even know.

It's not like Gasquet went to TV and said "hey yo school kids, let's do cocaine, cocaine is good!". He didn't do anything like that. He took cocaine and he will pay for that, being banned in sports or judged in a law court, whatever. But he was living his own life and taking responsability for his own acts.

Selfishness to me is not a positive virtue.
To you, it apparently is.

Don't go demagogic.

What I said is I have the perfect right to choose having my life only for myself and not having children. That may be selfish, but it's a kind of selfishness that won't hurt anyone.

It's much, much worst and more selfish (and in a worst way) having children WITHOUT the clear desire of taking care for them and educate them no matter how much work it takes.

Many parents just don't care enough or don't want to take all the work. That's the real problem.

stormholloway
05-26-2009, 01:00 AM
What is this nonsense about only being able to get coke if you're in the drug scene? That's completely nonsense.

Deuce
05-26-2009, 01:14 AM
Big brothers aside, that people choosed to work with young people. It's a personal choice to have a position of direct influence.

Being famous it's not a choice to work with young people.
Regardless of voluntary choice or not, the bottom line is the same - all of these positions - including 'celebritydom' - is a position of influence to children. That's really the only thing that matters - the effect on children.
If anything, celebrities have more of an influence on kids than teachers, coaches, etc. - because everything a celebrity does will be made public.
It shouldn't be - but it IS - so we have to deal with that reality and ensure that no damage is done to children as a result of the unfortunate realities of celebrity influence and media attention.

When someone's famous, he/she can be known among many different kinds of people: conservatives, atheists, christians, muslims, gays, whatever. All that people may have very different values and ways of living. What's right to one of them, may be wrong for another.

So how can you ask a single famous person to take any kind of responsability on all that people's children? What should he do if, for example, he's gay? Should he marry another man or not? He may make the mistake of trying to give an example that is good for come but bad for another. He has enough trying living his own life to think he also has a responsability in the education of kids he doesn't even know.
I'm talking about things that are universally unhealthy, not religion or mere personal values.
I think that's quite clear.
Nice effort, though, to deflect the issue.

What I said is I have the perfect right to choose having my life only for myself and not having children. That may be selfish, but it's a kind of selfishness that won't hurt anyone.
^ Correct. But when you say that celebrities have the 'right' to do whatever they want - even if it harms children who are influenced - that's a selfish perspective.

It's much, much worst and more selfish (and in a worst way) having children WITHOUT the clear desire of taking care for them and educate them no matter how much work it takes.
^ Yes, it is.

Many parents just don't care enough or don't want to take all the work. That's the real problem.
^ Of course that's the root of the problem.
But the fact is that it is a problem that is very prevalent in our culture today.
So, rather than sit here and whine that it shouldn't be like that, and that children should be taught by their parents to not be easily influenced, let's accept the fact that this influence exists, and ensure, as much as possible, that the influence is not a negative one.

We all have a responsibility to not harm children.

Dilettante
05-26-2009, 03:03 AM
That's really the only thing that matters - the effect on children.

I don't agree. That reminds me a character in "The Simpsons" who always say "Won't somebody please think of the children!".

The key here is the degree and depth on the influence. There are so many close, big and direct influences to a child by people that surrounds him, that it would be very sad to think that a famous -yet unknown and unrelated- person can have a influence which overcomes the others.

You can't ask a celebrity to sacrifice his freedom more than other people do just because his supposed "influence to children".

All of we avoid certain behaviours in presence of children, that's completely normal. Those behaviours are the same that a celebrity should avoid when he's in direct presence of children. But when he's not, why should he/she? There's a long chain of filters and influences between a celebrity and any given child to think that we need regulate celebrities' lives.

we have to deal with that reality and ensure that no damage is done to children as a result of the unfortunate realities of celebrity influence and media attention.

No: you have to deal that any celebrity has exactly the same right to do just the same stuff we common people do.

Is Gasquet is penalized, which is OK with me, it will (and it should) be only for sport competitive reasons.

austro
05-26-2009, 03:06 AM
Incidentally, I saw him yesterday with what must have been his mum. I was walkingout of Paddington train station in London. First I wasn't quite sure but I couldn't help myself staring at him and when I heard him speak French it was clear. I wondered why he wasn't at RG but remembered the cocaine story and then it became clear again. He must be in London for the doping story.

tacou
05-26-2009, 07:25 AM
How about if you want to go pro ATP makes you sign a contract that says you're ready to be a responsible, good role model.

wait no, that's a ******** idea.

LES
05-26-2009, 08:49 AM
What is this nonsense about only being able to get coke if you're in the drug scene? That's completely nonsense.

What's nonsense about that? Maybe my use of 'drug scene' is not what you imagine. Let's say I've got a hypothetical Wall St. friend who does coke regularly. If I hang out with him & his boys then I'm part of their 'drug scene', because I can get drugs by being in their social circle. If I join them for Sunday golf then I'm part of their 'golf scene'. I can play golf by myself and not be in any scene. But if I don't know where to score then I have to be in their 'scene' to get stuff. Or I can get hooked up with some numbers, but I'd still need to be introduced through the friend.

It's not like you can walk into a drugstore and buy the stuff. You have to know a dealer or knows someone who knows a dealer. If you can find a dealer then you've found the drug scene. Dealers get busted all the time so in order to keep your contacts you have to keep buying regularly because they always change their numbers/ move around. You can also hang out with other users and share their contacts but it's the same issues.

Point is: if a 12 yo kid went out looking for coke he'd have very hard time finding it unless he knows a user or dealer.

Deuce
05-26-2009, 09:32 PM
How about if you want to go pro ATP makes you sign a contract that says you're ready to be a responsible, good role model.

wait no, that's a ******** idea.
^ Try as you might, being the resident smart *** is clearly too tempting for you to pass up.


The key here is the degree and depth on the influence. There are so many close, big and direct influences to a child by people that surrounds him, that it would be very sad to think that a famous -yet unknown and unrelated- person can have a influence which overcomes the others.
^ It may be sad - but it's also the reality of today's culture.
"So many close, big, and direct influences to a child by people that surrounds him"?? Like who? Parents? We've dealt with that ad infinitum. Ideally, parents will be the major positive influence for a child. But the FACT (there's that word again that everyone keeps ignoring) the FACT is that A) not all parents are positive influences, and B) not all parents care for their children.
And so we have children who are led astray into unhealthy things by parents who are negative influences, and we have other children who have never been armed against the many negative influences that exist in today's culture.

You can't ask a celebrity to sacrifice his freedom more than other people do just because his supposed "influence to children". ^ If the 'freedom' of which you speak includes unhealthy behaviour that a child will learn about and possibly copy, then, yes, I definitely can - and do - ask celebrities to sacrifice that 'freedom'.
Having a negative influence on children is not among my personal list of what I refer to as 'freedoms'.

All of we avoid certain behaviours in presence of children, that's completely normal. Those behaviours are the same that a celebrity should avoid when he's in direct presence of children. But when he's not, why should he/she? There's a long chain of filters and influences between a celebrity and any given child to think that we need regulate celebrities' lives.
^ This is absolutely absurd and has nothing to do with the reality of life in this culture today.
What in hell is this "long chain of filters and influences between a celebrity and any given child"?!!? Please name them - because, in all too many cases, I don't see these filters and other (positive) influences.
Parents? Less and less.
Friends? To a point, yes. But these friends also follow their favourite celebrities. The influence of 'music stars' in particular on children is absolutely huge.
Where are the filters??

No: you have to deal that any celebrity has exactly the same right to do just the same stuff we common people do.
^ Not if they care about children - because for celebrities, whatever they do, it's like doing it right in front of the children.
You say that there are things that none of us should do in front of children. But EVERYTHING a celebrity does is done in front of children - because the sensationalistic media, combined with bad parents, will make sure that the children know all about it.
So there is effectively no difference between you or I or a celebrity doing something harmful/unhealthy in front of a child, and a celebrity doing it in 'private' - because when you're a celebrity, privacy does not exist - everything that is done is done in front of children.

You keep living in an imaginary little world where children are not influenced by celebrities, because they shouldn't be. Your position is no different than saying "Hey - if these kids are stupid enough to be so easily influenced by celebrities, then to hell with them."
And that is a position which betrays a total lack of understanding of children, and of the current situation in this culture.

Puma
05-27-2009, 10:31 AM
Deuce,

But, this person has no children, HOW can he understand?

To the childless, you would be amazed at what kids notice, hear and see. My kids noticed the funniest things that amazed me. They would watch the Olympics on tv and imitate some person picking their nose. They think this stuff is funny, but the point is, they are very very observant. And, you never know what they focus on.

I came home one day and both kids were shirtless running around outside. I asked them what they were doing and they told me they were tree trimmers. I asked wife, and there were tree trimmers near by that had no shirts on. The kids keyed on the "no shirt" thing...

To me, this argument is an important one. The networks have really allowed way too much provocative and perverse veiwing on tv at all times. This is THE pathway that the sensationalisitc media survives upon. And we all know sex sells. But today, tv, for the most part is trash in my opinion. It has become too acceptable to show provocative scenes in almost all shows that it is dangerous to allow young kids to watch much at all.

Puma
05-27-2009, 10:37 AM
One more thing......I will get flamed for this....

Having kids taught me one thing for sure.

The most beautiful/purest thing in the world is kids. They don't hate, the accept one another for who and what they are, they are full of life and marvel at it almost every day. The word innocence (sp?) is defined by younger children.

Any thing that is a move to protect children, no matter how offensive it might appear to someone, should be supported in my opinion.

35ft6
05-27-2009, 11:00 AM
Can't imagine how many players from the 70's would have been booted out if they tested for cocaine back then.

LES
05-27-2009, 10:40 PM
One more thing......I will get flamed for this....

Having kids taught me one thing for sure.

The most beautiful/purest thing in the world is kids. They don't hate, the accept one another for who and what they are, they are full of life and marvel at it almost every day. The word innocence (sp?) is defined by younger children.

Any thing that is a move to protect children, no matter how offensive it might appear to someone, should be supported in my opinion.

I disagree that kids are 'pure & innocent'. If you believe this then it follows that you believe that WE are born with an innate morality. If you think we are born pure & innocent then how do you explain what happens as we age? Are we no longer pure nor innocent? Does that make us wicked?

I think WE are born blank (ignorant) with some primal instincts. The reason children don't know hate is not because they are pure. They just haven't learned it yet. Kids take property from others. Kids can inflict violence on others. They are capable of many things you might consider wicked. But we excuse wicked behavior in children we know they are ignorant and needs to be taught otherwise

I don't know if you've heard of feral children. They basically behave like animals because they haven't been socialized. That is the natural state of man - nothing to do with purity or innocene

And for the last time this Gasquet issue has nothing to do with children.

Dilettante
05-27-2009, 11:08 PM
Deuce,

But, this person has no children, HOW can he understand?

The fact is: I don't really feel the need to understand kids. What I'm saying is not about understanding kids, but about understanding adults, including parents.

What I don't get is the idea of a famous person having a more restricted freedom than any other individual. I just don't get it.

I don't get the idea of one famous individual having more influence on a kid that parents, brothers, teachers, relatives, friends, doctors, school janitors or any other individual who is in direct contact with kids. I don't get it.

I'm starting think you guys want to feel more comfortable about your parenthood trying to deflect a part of YOUR responsability to famous people that know nothing about you or your kids.

Get over it: Gasquet didn't have any role on your decision of having kids, he doesn't even know you guys exist. Why should he take responsability of YOUR children? He's responsible for himself: did he something wrong? Ok, he will be punished by sport authorities (or if it's the case, by law).

TAny thing that is a move to protect children, no matter how offensive it might appear to someone, should be supported in my opinion.

There's never an "any thing". You can't do just any thing. You have to weigh when a idea is fair or excessive. You simply cannot punish people based solely on the indirect and remote influence they are supposed to have on children. That influence that you guys are talking about is anything but clear or demonstrate, while there's a clear and direct influence by people who live or work directly with those children.

And you can't restrict people's freedom on a unclear and undemostrated basis just because their work made them notorious. It's like saying: "OK pal, now that you're famous you have less civil rights and you'll be punished in a way you wouldn't if you weren't famous".

All that seems just absurd to me.

Deuce
05-27-2009, 11:28 PM
Deuce,

But, this person has no children, HOW can he understand?
I have no children of my own, either. But I understand.
Having worked with children of different ages in various contexts obviously contributed a great deal.

To the childless, you would be amazed at what kids notice, hear and see. My kids noticed the funniest things that amazed me. They would watch the Olympics on tv and imitate some person picking their nose. They think this stuff is funny, but the point is, they are very very observant. And, you never know what they focus on.

I came home one day and both kids were shirtless running around outside. I asked them what they were doing and they told me they were tree trimmers. I asked wife, and there were tree trimmers near by that had no shirts on. The kids keyed on the "no shirt" thing...
^ Yes. You seem to understand.

To me, this argument is an important one. The networks have really allowed way too much provocative and perverse veiwing on tv at all times. This is THE pathway that the sensationalisitc media survives upon. And we all know sex sells. But today, tv, for the most part is trash in my opinion. It has become too acceptable to show provocative scenes in almost all shows that it is dangerous to allow young kids to watch much at all.
^ I agree.
Entertaining adults (incredibly immature adults, at that) is not remotely near important enough to sacrifice childrens' welfare through the influence that this 'entertainment' provides.

The fact is: I don't really feel the need to understand kids. What I'm saying is not about understanding kids, but about understanding adults, including parents.
^ Well... thanks for clearing things up somewhat...
There are two principles in this equation - children, and the adults who influence them. And you only feel the need to understand one side of the equation.

That explains why you wrote this:
I just don't get it.
^ Well said.

LES
05-28-2009, 12:24 AM
If the 'freedom' of which you speak includes unhealthy behaviour that a child will learn about and possibly copy, then, yes, I definitely can - and do - ask celebrities to sacrifice that 'freedom'.

There it is folks. Words of a tyrant.

Hey Deucie, your self righteousness is negatively affecting my kids would you mind shutting that pie hole of yours?

BTW, I saw Gasquet getting lap danced today in my strip club. Asked him to leave because you disapprove of this behavior. You know, the tennis kids might want to hang out in strip clubs if the news gets out. He apologizes. Your welcome.

Deuce
05-28-2009, 12:30 AM
There it is folks. Words of a tyrant.

Hey Deucie, your self righteousness is negatively affecting my kids would you mind shutting that pie hole of yours?

BTW, I saw Gasquet getting lap danced today in my strip club. Asked him to leave because you disapprove of this behavior. You know, the tennis kids might want to hang out in strip clubs if the news gets out. He apologizes. Your welcome.
Please don't tell me that you have children.
Please...

Puma
05-28-2009, 07:07 AM
I disagree that kids are 'pure & innocent'. If you believe this then it follows that you believe that WE are born with an innate morality. If you think we are born pure & innocent then how do you explain what happens as we age? Are we no longer pure nor innocent? Does that make us wicked?

I think WE are born blank (ignorant) with some primal instincts. The reason children don't know hate is not because they are pure. They just haven't learned it yet. Kids take property from others. Kids can inflict violence on others. They are capable of many things you might consider wicked. But we excuse wicked behavior in children we know they are ignorant and needs to be taught otherwise

I don't know if you've heard of feral children. They basically behave like animals because they haven't been socialized. That is the natural state of man - nothing to do with purity or innocene

And for the last time this Gasquet issue has nothing to do with children.


I would caution your use of the word "We". But, even you are entitled to your opinion.......

LES
05-28-2009, 10:18 AM
Please don't tell me that you have children.
Please...

Doesn't matter if I have children or not. I just wanted to show how absurd you are for thinking anyone should modify their behavior for the sake of other people's children.

Can't practice what you preach, can you?

Deuce
05-28-2009, 08:14 PM
Doesn't matter if I have children or not. I just wanted to show how absurd you are for thinking anyone should modify their behavior for the sake of other people's children.

Can't practice what you preach, can you?
Feel free to give an example.

(If nothing else, this thread is occupying your time, thus keeping you from producing children...)

ESP#1
05-28-2009, 08:22 PM
So how long is gasquet out for? anyone know?

Tennisplaya10
05-29-2009, 05:13 PM
Tennis is a business. It's smart for them to severely punish Gasquet and thus distance themselves from him.

it should be a sport

Tennisplaya10
05-29-2009, 05:14 PM
There it is folks. Words of a tyrant.

Hey Deucie, your self righteousness is negatively affecting my kids would you mind shutting that pie hole of yours?

BTW, I saw Gasquet getting lap danced today in my strip club. Asked him to leave because you disapprove of this behavior. You know, the tennis kids might want to hang out in strip clubs if the news gets out. He apologizes. Your welcome.

ahahaahaha