D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
guess what dumbo..if there is no guy on the other side of the net working his part of the show, neither will be working. so yes... Co-workers! that is what they are!
People need to lay off Nick
- Thread starter citybert
- Start date
guess what dumbo..if there is no guy on the other side of the net working his part of the show, neither will be working. so yes... Co-workers! that is what they are!
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
exactly my thoughts. it would seem a fórum on internet in 2015, there would be a rather simple concept- apparently, not....
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
--
-----------------------------
please
tennis is no longer a sheltered, Lilly-white, country club, expression of elitism.
yep. since jameka, it has become a crip dance hood, so all is fine in reprezentin' n bustin'
Inanimate_object
Hall of Fame
Please do better to not put words in my mouth. To suggest I am undermining or devaluing the hardwork of pro tennis players by stating that their relationships are fundamentally born on conflict and confrontation is ridiculous. There is no point to discuss the relationship of a tennis player when viewed in the perspective of the sport/business. The idea is to understand how pro players view each other, not how executives tournament officials and ATP suits would like them to appear. I don't see what you cannot understand that from a player's perspective, each other pro tennis player he meets in an ATP or ITF sanctioned event is someone he is trying to defeat. Both are competing for the same finite resources - that is to say tournament winnings and the prestige it implies. This is neither a controversial nor an overly complicated argument to make.
Nowhere did I imply that being in a competitive and confrontational relationship means that one should rationally be taking all means to sabotage his way to victory. That's a crazy strawman. Being in competition does not imply that one must win-at-all-costs or engage in some battle to the death where morals, rules and social standards are tossed aside. Clearly there are still rules to frame the limits of confrontations in tennis. Of course the tour does not wish to see Kyrgios behave this way. Who on earth is arguing this? No one here has disputed the fact that Kyrgios is behaving suboptimally to how the tour wishes to operate. That's neither the point I'm making nor at all relevant, as I have already stated - looking through the perspective of the pro tour, when we are actually trying to understand the relationship between the players themselves, is a convenient strawman for you, but grossly misses the mark.
I have to again address this strawman that is: "If I say that pro players engage in confrontation for limited resources by design - and this reflects how they view one another, then I am implying that the professional tour must perfectly reflect these preferences as it is impossible for a global professional tour with hundreds of independent contractors to have a principle-agent problem."
I am NOT talking about the goal of business, that much I have already made clear. It is the goal of the individual players. And in the confines of a tournament, the only way to achieve ones goals be they monetary, athletic or prestige-wise, is to break the player opposite, and rob them of a similar chance at success.
I don't see how I should have to define terms in common usage. Players are engaged in systematic confrontation. Even more simply, they compete against one another for limited resources - mainly the next spot in the higher tournament bracket and the winnings and prestige that come with it. Professional tennis is built around this confrontation. People want to watch tennis players play a competitive match and see who comes out on top. Very few tennis players see it as the end goal to destroy his opponent, but it is a systematically unavoidable consequence of playing the game.
And finally, you are missing the point related to by argument that different environments are not analogous. The relationships are so different, and you can't seem to understand this. ATP professionals are independent contractors who make their living off competing against one-another in a zero-sum game for finite resources. That forms the basis of the players' preferences. To earn money on the tour, and increase one's standing in the rankings, it requires defeating other players and using their defeats to propel one's self to the next higher echelon of tennis player. It was never suggested that somehow this absolves tennis players of having to follow a standard of conduct put forth by the governing body. The point is that this standard of conduct is understandably different from that of an office environment. I cannot make this point more emphatic or as simple as this.
In this whole post you seem to be under the impression that I think Kyrgios is free from the jurisdiction of the ATP's standard of conduct simply because I scoff at the fact that one can ignorantly put forth the argument that Kyrgios' actions should be judged by transposing his episode into an entirely different environment of office work where preferences and relationships form different standards of behaviour. It is entirely within the rights of the ATP to exercise an extremely liberal interpretation of their standard of conduct and seek to fine Kyrgios for 3 years. And Kyrgios by having signed his contract, knows that he has given the ATP this right. That is NOT the point in question. You are missing the point entirely if you think Kyrgios' behaviour should be viewed in the same context as that of an office worker. That is not to say employer-employee contracts do not exist, or that rules and regulations on how to behave with other colleagues do not exist, but they are different. And they are different necessarily because the relationships between players cannot be so easily transposed to the relationships between typical office co-workers.
And with everyone here so eager to raise the pitchforks against Kyrgios, they should be reminded that conduct is very much contextually defined and that Kyrgios' offense transposed to an office setting is far worse than the actual barb and setting in which he made it.
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
Not surprised that such a comment comes from you...
Based on your logic, two gladiators in the colosseum of Ancient Rome were co-workers.
Oh and in the case nobody is standing on the other side of the net... That's called a walkover. Happens quite regularly too. Despite "not working" they get their award for "working". So they're "not working" when they are actually working according to you. Keep it coming.
Calling tennis players "co-workers" leads to implications that simply do not hold water. In tennis, your desire as a player is the defeat of your opponent, as there is no win-win situation like there is with normal co-workers. Tennis players are professional athletes. The other players are fellow professional athletes competing against them. The English language and its implications are there to be used precisely, that's why its vocabulary is so expansive and meticulously precise.
Individual tennis players are more like employees from different companies than they are co-workers.
Last edited:
encylopedia
Professional
Indeed, I thought of this, but as I'm sure you realize this is a trivial objection - that has no bearing on the main argument - and moreover,
First, I do not know what your definition of "associate" is. They are coworkers, they are associates. They are not independent individuals who just show up at tournaments to compete - that is why he is accountable to his peers and the tour. That is WHY he can be either banned or suspended.
Now, you seem to only be arguing the degree of punishment to be administered - that is simply a subjective judgment call. I hope you can at least see that. You are now on page with most of the posters. You now seem to be using the term "ban" and differentiating it from "suspension", this is also ill-defined. In general we often use "ban" to imply some sense of permanency, but of course it need not be that way - they can be interchanged. I have seen few posters here calling for a permanent suspension (or as you seem to be referring to it, a "ban").
First, I do not know what your definition of "associate" is. They are coworkers, they are associates. They are not independent individuals who just show up at tournaments to compete - that is why he is accountable to his peers and the tour. That is WHY he can be either banned or suspended.
Now, you seem to only be arguing the degree of punishment to be administered - that is simply a subjective judgment call. I hope you can at least see that. You are now on page with most of the posters. You now seem to be using the term "ban" and differentiating it from "suspension", this is also ill-defined. In general we often use "ban" to imply some sense of permanency, but of course it need not be that way - they can be interchanged. I have seen few posters here calling for a permanent suspension (or as you seem to be referring to it, a "ban").
topspn
Legend
I've tried to be a Nick fan, I really did. Exciting young player who has talent for sure. My efforts I'm afraid are failing miserably. A young player who embodies a ****head attitude and literally tramples the sportsmanship in sport. I will never be a fan to any player who is not a good sportsman no matter how talented he is.
encylopedia
Professional
It's not, and I'm heartened to see that most posters apparently realize this - as well as the fans and the media. The players themselves are certainly taught this in tour school - if for some reason they didn't understand this before.
Aside from the common sense you are advocating, If one understands the business of professional sports and/or the history of pro tennis and/or the structure of the pro tennis complex, then this should be quite apparent.
There are a couple people who are spouting irrational arguments about this (mainly based on silly notions of "competition" and "all out enemies", etc....a grade-school notion of athletics...although even by high school most at least have some notion of sportsmanship and athletic peers, if not the business of pro sports!), and despite my repeated attempts to explain in detail they are not grasping it in the slightest. I do not know whether their further irrational objections stem from being sincerely obtuse, or an attempt to obfuscate (in which case they have no scruples about playing the dullard), but in any case, it is clear they will not get it - or will not admit it. Let them simply wonder what they perceive as the unfairness of this and/or the strange ability of the tour to punish somebody for this? How??? How can they even do this to completely independent enemy competitors? Why?? LOL. Quite a difference between pro sports and pick-up stickball at the playground....
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Hahaha, I imagine all those "pitchfork" folks retroactively hoping all their anti-Kyrgios postings will go away after he wins a couple of slams.
"I never said that" or "No that was obviously in jest"!
Just like the opinions about Nadal's shenanigans and gamesmanship went away after he won "a couple of Slams".
Oh, wait!
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Well, as somebody else also wrote on this thread, whether he CAN be banned or suspended is the prerogative of ATP as an organisation. I also differentiated ban and suspension just to highlight that the offence is really not THAT severe. It's not like he got caught using on court coaching...wait... So, is it then really worthy of the outrage it has provoked?
Now, as for their being co workers and therefore him being accountable, behaviour wise, to them, have you seriously never heard professional boxers trash talk each other? I posted an example earlier of where one cricketer sledged the other who just gave back as good as he got and it was over. So you cannot draw the line in the sand for sporting rivals at the same place as you would for people working with each other in the same organisation. Emphasis on working with. I may have to work with a colleague (could be a secretary or could be a senior) on something that directly impacts the organisation's effectiveness. Therefore, not being cordial with them is simply not desirable. What does Kyrgios or any other tennis player (other than maybe a fellow Swiss like Federer) have to lean on Wawrinka for? They are COMPETING for the same prizes and hoping to beat each other so that they can bag the trophy. You don't think such a situation by itself creates tension between the 'associates'? If you don't think so, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. But if you agree with that, then it follows that we cannot refer to tennis rivals as co workers in the same spirit as the word is used in an organisational context. If I did say something rude to a peer from a competing firm, I would get a rebuke to watch out but do you really think my organisation would suspend me from work for that? No way. And that's what's happened to Kyrgios ultimately. Just a slap on the wrist because there have been too many such incidents from him and he needs to be told he can't be a tool all the time. But going as far as taking him out of the tour for months or even years would be plainly overreacting. In cricket sledging is actually accepted up to a certain point as a legitimate tool of warfare and suspensions are handed out only when things get profane or the player gestures his opponent to leave the field or something like that. Even in such situations, it's only a one match or two match ban at best. And when I say sledging is accepted, it includes things like what Kyrgios said to Wawrinka. I am sure the situation is not very different in European football. I am not saying tennis has to be like those sports but I also remember when tennis was edgier and players were allowed to get away up to a point with some verbal warfare. So the outrage that the Kyrgios incident has sparked seems to suggest a lack of perspective of the history of tennis. Tennis may have been a gentlemanly sport in the era of Laver and Rosewall ( I don't know better so forgive me if I am wrong about that) but from the Connors era to the 90s, some mean spirited barbs were par for the course as was a little bit of cheating. I remember a match where Arantxa Sanchez kept playing on after the linesperson had made the call....the idea probably being to create confusion as to whose shot the call was intended for. If there were no on court mics to amplify the sound of the ball for the gratification of the viewers, what Kyrgios said wouldn't even have been audible. He had his back turned to Wawrinka and was muttering to himself.
Agree. and not even that. Its truly a zero sum game. there has to be one winner and one loser. very unlike what most people call work.
yes i know roger and rafa being successful can be called "good for all" and everyone wins. and you can say work is a zero sum game because one person can be promoted over another. but for most pratical cases sports is a zero sum game.
Inanimate_object
Hall of Fame
Yes! Distinctly, it is zero sum to the agents involved. From a principle outside the game, it can be seen as a series of symbiotic interactions that help grow the sport - both agents contribute a necessary piece to this goal and so work in tandem with one another (if you want to loosely call this cooperation, I guess that's your prerogative). But to the actual players themselves (and this is how we discuss games like these), there is nothing cooperative about how they are interacting with fellow players. It is an allocation of finite goods to multiple consumers and is absolutely zero sum.
Tshooter
G.O.A.T.
Please stop using this awful analogy (the awfulness of which I've discussed in other posts).
The players are not in fact or by analogy employees of the ATP tour. If you want to analogize then they are independent contractors and the tournament owners are the employers. The ATP is an association formed to protect the interests of the players. They also signed up tournament owners (not the Majors) because it was in their interest to do so. The tour is their product. As soon as the ATP stops working for players interests they will either remove the board or they will have a new press conference in the parking lot at Flushing Meadows and set up a new structure in which to deal with the tournament owners. They are not employees of the freakin' tour.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Tshooter
G.O.A.T.
I remember at the time thinking it was odd that Hamilton Jordan was in charge. From Carter Chief of Staff to head the ATP. That's a great move though. He died young. R.I.P. He helped move the power toward the players and most of them probably never heard of the guy.
Tshooter
G.O.A.T.
CrazyTennisFan
Rookie
I tend to agree. This guy has been in the shadow of RF far too long that when he emerged he was determined to change. His ex-wife still compared him to RF when they announced their split. she said something along the lines: it is not his career obligations that destroyed his family, higher ranked players are able to handle both their careers and family ;o) READ: Roger is still better than you in both!!
smalahove
Hall of Fame
I agree with your reasoning.
I can't understand how many want him banned for several months - or even excluded from the ATP. How the h*ll did he get under their skin that much? ;-)
If so, I guess the same people are ok with banning Djokovic and Murray for foul language, Nadal for MTOs, aso ...?
What constitutes the grounds of such a ban?
- Foul language? ("**ck my **ck")
- Personal attack? ("nobody likes you in the locker room")
- Unsportmanslike conduct? (no handshake)
Tshooter
G.O.A.T.
I think the ATP when they notify him would have to lay out the offending behavior with some specificity and your description is dead on : "vulgar language and disclosing of private information," which they can muscle into one or more violations of the player code. I also agree that it's a stretch to conclude at least from the tape I saw that he really intended Stan to hear. He's walking away from the baseline toward the back wall and doing his chatting/muttering routine.
Someone else asked on this board to deafening silence, has there ever been a case of a suspension from an instance of verbal abuse (let alone mumbled and that the other player didn't hear.). I suppose the players/tournament owners through the board can revise the ATP rules to make it clear that single instances of verbal abuse as determined on a case by case basis by some ATP official can result in suspensions but I doubt the players or tournament officials would go for it.
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
The problem I see is that the ATP needs to have clear, unambiguous guidelines that allow the suspension if it comes to pass. This applies to current guidelines, because any new guidelines will not be in effect until after the incident itself has happened and thus they are ineffective with regards to this incident. If the ATP extends the meaning of their current guidelines to the offense "vulgar language", they will get sued by Kyrgios and they will likely lose, for many players have repeatedly displayed vulgar language and yet they have not faced suspension (at times not even a fine). As far as I can see, there is no guideline for "disclosing of personal information" so that is a moot point too. That is the reason why I said long ago that the only thing the ATP can do is assign a hefty fine and that the rest would have to be discussed between the individuals involved, if necessary in front of a court of law. The ATP cannot overstep its boundaries and assign punishments of its own design without complying to their own regulations.
Tshooter
G.O.A.T.
SpinMan, I wasn't suggesting anyone can impose ex-post facto rules of any kind.
I think they have provisions in the ATP rules to squeeze what he did into one or more violations, hence the fines. But elsewhere I've agreed with your point I just don't see any precedent for a suspension based on any of the singular act violations in the player code. And I don't think he falls within the cumulative violations either.
Incidentally, Nick can not sue the ATP irrespective of whatever action they take. Or if he tries the case will get tossed. His only recourse is to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) because that's what the ATP regs provide for and Delaware law will enforce the arbitration provision. It's why every tennis doping case ends up at CAS.
I think they have provisions in the ATP rules to squeeze what he did into one or more violations, hence the fines. But elsewhere I've agreed with your point I just don't see any precedent for a suspension based on any of the singular act violations in the player code. And I don't think he falls within the cumulative violations either.
Incidentally, Nick can not sue the ATP irrespective of whatever action they take. Or if he tries the case will get tossed. His only recourse is to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) because that's what the ATP regs provide for and Delaware law will enforce the arbitration provision. It's why every tennis doping case ends up at CAS.
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
Wasn't criticizing you or anything, just building on the very valid points you made
Yeah, I won't pretend to be informed on the legal structures relevant in this instance (I quite obviously am not), but it seems doubtful to me personally that the ATP could enforce a suspension - given their current regulations - without raising several concerns and/or questions. The result most likely would be bad publicity for the ATP and a need to reevaluate guidelines and make them more precise in their formulation. As I doubt that the ATP desires either of those outcomes at this point in time, I don't see Kyrgios getting punished to an extent beyond a fine.
Similar threads
