Beckerserve
Legend
Where does he even intimate that then lolYou are missing the point. Reading between the lines, I tend to believe that Djokovic is actually saying that Zverev did it. It’s my interpretation anyways.
Where does he even intimate that then lolYou are missing the point. Reading between the lines, I tend to believe that Djokovic is actually saying that Zverev did it. It’s my interpretation anyways.
Djokovic behaving more like his normal self at last after a year of being a fool. He was brilliant in his amswer.The reality is that Djokovic did several things here:
a.) he supported a DV policy ... directly
b.) he did so without criticising a friend
c.) he can't be criticised for condoning by silence by saying 'no comment'
All in all, he came out ahead on all three points.
It's ok for an expert to just say "that's my opinion" sometimes, buddy. Just because he doesn't share specifics doesn't mean he's not knowledgeable. Lack of evidence for something does not make evidence of its lack.
Djokovic's was just fine. There's no story here.
Wrong. There are two related clauses in this: 1. Djokovic talking about Zverev and 2. Djokovic talking about domestic abuse policies. If Djokovic supports 2, it can be claimed that Djokovic is taking a stand against abusers in tennis and the media would spin that as Djokovic vs. Zverev drama.
Best course of action? Make the case that he knows little about Zverev and is willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, while also clearly supporting domestic abuse policies.
They don't differ in that subtext is being presented and he's being asked to comment. It's a different thing entirely if you think Djokovic should stay out of it, but to say Djokovic was the one that involved Zverev is wrong. The interviewer asked the question with the clear Zverev subtext, and if you can't understand that then you're clearly not trying. You aren't dumb, Tennis_Hands, you just refuse to be wrong even when you are..
That was a serious example. You just want me to provide you exactly what you've prepared. I won't.
Djokovic could have made statements a lot worse.
He barely mentions Zverev and his history, and even the most generous estimates can't really call that a defense of the man. Learn first grade English comprehension and you'll learn the difference between a defense of a person and explaining a bit of background as to what you know about them.
You can say that Djokovic shouldn't have answered any question about Zverev. That wasn't what you were arguing nor what I was refuting.
I was arguing that Djokovic did not bring up Zverev and it was necessary to do so to properly respond to the question.
You can say that Djokovic shouldn't have answered any question about Zverev. That wasn't what you were arguing nor what I was refuting. You say Djokovic unnecessarily involved Zverev in the answer.
You say Djokovic unnecessarily involved Zverev in the answer.
There is no answer without bringing up Zverev, because that was subtext of the question. You can say Djokovic should have refused to answer that question, but to claim he could have answered it without bringing up Zverev is disingenuous at best. Also, the Basilashvili story dropped months ago. Current questions refer to the current news cycle, which has Zverev in it, not Basilashvili.
I'd work on my TripleATeam responses. You're failing completely on that front. The enemy has destroyed your defensive perimeter!
I am not going to engage in whataboutisms, dear. I prefer your statements direct, so that I can hold you responsible for them.
It's just fascinating to see that you seem to think that anything we write here matters.
Better year then FedererWhat a year this guy's having...
True but even then his haters would accuse him of silence on dom violence...he can never make them happyInteresting that Novak focuses on how Zverev is a nice guy and is sad he is going through this. He clearly does not believe it.
Then he goes back to say he does not condone this alleged behavior.
Seriously, Novak should just say No comment to any questions other than about his tennis game.
Have you not understood that your failed expertise bears no relevance?
WHAT? That is THE MAIN POINT I was making all the time: that Djokovic made a mistake by answering the question about what he thinks about Zverev's situation, instead of choosing the "expert" route, which would have given him the context to not even have to discuss specific cases without media making "accusatory" conclusions about his opinion for anyone in particular.
Djokovic isn't shielded from anything in the media. It's media. They look for stories, and will draw connections, regardless of the intent. It must be qualified.You completely forgot the first part of the question, didn't you? That is why you are constantly reverting to talking about Zverev. However, the first part of the question exists. It gives context to the question that actually doesn't allow for a free speculation from the media: if Djokovic has said his "expert" opinion on the introduction and nature of the regulations against DV, he wouldn't have been perceived as anything else but an expert giving his honest "solution"/ his suggestion. That brings with it the spirit of impartiality, because the matter is being discussed on principle, so if you don't forget the first part of the question, the framework within which this situation is reviewed is completely different, and Djokovic is shielded from his position being interpreted as anything else, but his solution to the problem. No connection whatsoever to any specific case.
No, no one reasonable would be for abusers, but media is oft unreasonable. You may call the premise faulty, but it's just the world we live in, not the world you'd like to live in. And no, my point doesn't destroy my point. You just don't understand the way the world works.There are more problems with your claims however: Is there ANYONE that wouldn't be against the abusers? How is Djokovic's stance even questionable on this? So if he says what every decent person would say, it will be interpreted as an "attack" on Zverev? Is every person that assumes that position attacking Zverev? That would suggest that everyone views Zverev as an actual abuser!
From that follows that your scenario relies on a presumption that is 1) faulty, and 2) that Djokovic thought in the same (faulty) way, and if he really thought what you here describe, that would be an even bigger news that Djokovic opening his jab to talk where he shouldn't have.
BTW, the fact that you cannot get away from reducing the general talk about the introduction of anti DV measures to only Zverev shows how much of a damage Djokovic's statement has produced, as now everyone is focused on Zverev in relation to that problem. That alone destroys your point that it created neutrality of opinion.
It's not a deflection, it's how media works. Shocker - I know! They ask about news! And yes, people would assume that. You don't speak for everyone, no matter how much you'd like to.Bolded: you don't make a case that you know little for someone, by talking him AND his family up, so you got that completely wrong.
"Is willing to give him the benefit of the doubt" shouldn't even be a question: Zverev is presently innocent, so the whole debacle of whether Djokovic should say something about Zverev's guilt or not is just a deflection.
In reality Djokovic said a lot more than he should have, if he wanted to show how little he knows about Zverev (fact of matter is that not talking about him would fit that bill the best, which is what I was saying from the very beginning) and also a reality is that no one would assume from Djokovic not talking about Zverev in particular, that he thinks that he is guilty (in fact, I already showed the opposite to be the case above).
Claiming impartiality doesn't make you impartial. (Am I doing it right?)The interpretation of his response depends on whether he is a side in this debate or not, what is it that you don't understand? If he is not party in the action he is invited to comment, he can claim impartiality, especially since he is asked as an "expert", which in itself suggest objective approach. That in turn, determines whether his words will be interpreted with a bias or not. What we have here, and what you described in those two situations, are completely different things from that perspective, and that is the most important part: how the media views Djokovic, as an expert, or as an involved party. The question in its entirety gives him the leeway to take the expert route. Regardless of whether he wants to say what he knows (if he knows but decides to not say anything, is a secondary thing to that scenario) or not.
Saying things that he doesn't know is a "serious example"? At least we know where you stand.
Of course, he could have ..... said things he doesn't know, but claims that he is sure of them.
You made just as many, Sir Tennis_Hands. I know it's not pleasant to be met with someone who won't let you use as many big words as you can and get tired of arguing, but it's finally happened. Djokovic has to get ahead of the media to keep them from spinning his words. Any other thing he said would be misconstrued much worse. This was the response that would provoke the least outrage.I lost count of the number of such statements that you made. They don't strengthen your case, they weaken it, as there is barely anything attached to them: in this case the irony of inviting me to understand subtext, but ignoring the importance of his words in the context of the situation. As I pointed previously, you have pretzeled yourself quite well, by claiming that not saying anything is more biased than saying something (positive for him and his family in this case).
WHAT? That is THE MAIN POINT I was making all the time: that Djokovic made a mistake by answering the question about what he thinks about Zverev's situation, instead of choosing the "expert" route, which would have given him the context to not even have to discuss specific cases without media making "accusatory" conclusions about his opinion for anyone in particular.
It was YOU, who claimed that there was no enough merit in the expert route, and also it was YOU who claimed that talking about Zverev is A-OK and should be estimated as "neutral".
If I have to I will quote every part from my previous posts that indicate that. What a way to try to get out of the mess you got yourself into!
^ Your own quote from your first post. The one I've been refuting the whole time.The question wasn't about whether Zverev is telling the truth or not. In fact, the question wasn't about Zverev at all. Djokovic was supposed to share his knowledge on the regulations in other sports, as he supposedly was in the know of how these other sports are organised. Either Djokovic doesn't have a clue, or he has difficulty understanding what is being asked. Instead he went on a tangent to explain what a good lad Zed is.
There is no "expert" route. When asked this question if you don't answer it in the context of Zverev, that is seen as support by the media. "The silence speaks volumes" and all that. Zverev was implied in the question, don't act like you don't see that.I want to you to read your own sentence: Djokovic did not bring up Zverev: Oh yes, who did? I don't see any mention of Zverev anywhere in the question.
second bolded red: that is YOUR estimate, and I already laid out the "expert" route, why it, how and so on. You directly contradict this.
You have been doing exactly the bolded the entire time: you were refuting that Djokovic could have answered the question without bringing up Zverev. In fact, you whole stance boils down to that that without answer about Zverev there is no answer at all.
There is no way to do it. Zverev is implied in the question and by not talking about him, your silence is taken to be acceptance of its alleged actions. Any pro that is asked about it needs to not take any position too strongly - exactly what Djokovic did.Here:
Bolded blue: not only is it not "disingenuous", but that is the crux of the matter: the art of saying just enough, without springing the trap and still without exposing yourself towards criticism.
You seem to be swinging between the desperation of claiming that there is no other way than to talk about Zverev, and the other extreme of accusing of disingenuity, if that doesn't happen. It looks like you see that the question is perfectly workable without talking about Zverev, and the only thing that stops you from admitting that is your self-imposed condition that for Zverev should be talked at any cost.
As I said previously, you see the springing of the trap as the only solution. Well, not only I explained to you in detail what is the alternative, but went at length to show you WHY that is so, and WHY what you suggest is erroneous on multiple levels.
He's still getting criticized, by offering "support" to Zverev while he's being accused of abuse. He doesn't really have any way of avoiding criticism from somewhere. Saying no comment on that particular situation but saying he supports a domestic violence policy would probably be the best backdoor exit, so he was close.The reality is that Djokovic did several things here:
a.) he supported a DV policy ... directly
b.) he did so without criticising a friend
c.) he can't be criticised for condoning by silence by saying 'no comment'
All in all, he came out ahead on all three points.
A non-argumentative question:
How is this allegation "Domestic" violence? Have not been following but thought alleged victim was a friend or a friend's girlfriend.
To be domestic has to be close family, or someone you are living with (could be roommate), or someone with whom you have a "dating relationship" as the criminal law many of the States of the USA phrase it.
Are you referring to Zverev? If yes, the answer is the accuser was his ex girlfriend and I do think they lived together as well. So it is domestic violence accusations.A non-argumentative question:
How is this allegation "Domestic" violence? Have not been following but thought alleged victim was a friend or a friend's girlfriend.
To be domestic has to be close family, or someone you are living with (could be roommate), or someone with whom you have a "dating relationship" as the criminal law many of the States of the USA phrase it.
Are you referring to Zverev? If yes, the answer is the accuser was his ex girlfriend and I do think they lived together as well. So it is domestic violence accusations.
The accusations of the domestic violence occurring were when they were still together, not now. Just because time moves on doesn’t remove it from being domestic violence since they were partners. I understand your point, if it was a random person off the street then it’s just violence but this was domestic violence.Thanks, that at least is a non-frivolous basis. But the "dating relationship" goes away after awhile, I mean once there is a breakup, as long as one party isn't acting a fool, stalking or whatever. Same with living together. Once you are not living together it is not "domestic" violence. I think people should have been more careful about characterizing this as "domestic".
How about the claims that Zverev got an ATP doctor to help cover up her suicide attempt? That’s direct involvement by the ATP now, no statement on that one but.It's an allegation of domestic violence made to a reporter, which was followed by a denial. Even if tennis had a DV policy I can't see it operating in this specific instance.
The accusations of the domestic violence occurring were when they were still together, not now. Just because time moves on doesn’t remove it from being domestic violence since they were partners. I understand your point, if it was a random person off the street then it’s just violence but this was domestic violence.
It's an allegation of domestic violence made to a reporter, which was followed by a denial. Even if tennis had a DV policy I can't see it operating in this specific instance.
How about the claims that Zverev got an ATP doctor to help cover up her suicide attempt? That’s direct involvement by the ATP now, no statement on that one but.
The woman who accused him now denies her accusation?
No, Bartleby meant a denial by Zverev. Olya stands by what she said and did an interview with corroborating people and showed texts and asked for hotel footage and mentioned the ATP covering it up. No statement from the ATP and Zverev has offered nothing but statements and saying that people are trying to wipe the smile off his face. Not a great comment when you've been accused of shoving a woman's head into the wall causing her to attempt suicide.The woman who accused him now denies her accusation?
I’m starting from the presumption Djokovic knows what happened and he’s lying about not knowing. If he knows Zverev is innocent he would defend him more vigorously. He would say Zverev is my friend and I know he didn’t do it. Only if he knows that Zverev actually did something that he would choose to defend the character but not actually denying the allegations.Where does he even intimate that then lol
I’m starting from the presumption Djokovic knows what happened and he’s lying about not knowing. If he knows Zverev is innocent he would defend him more vigorously. He would say Zverev is my friend and I know he didn’t do it. Only if he knows that Zverev actually did something that he would choose to defend the character but not actually denying the allegations.
What would the DV policy be?
Many people know what happened. Medvedev’s wife was hanging out with Sharypova in NY the night of the first alleged incident. It was the reason of the fight according to Sharypova. I find it difficult to believe that Medvedev’s wife doesn’t know. Consequently, Medvedev knows too. Rublev is Medvedev’s best friend so he should know too. Djokovic and his wife are close to the Zverev family. And so on and so forth. You can imagine that many people must be in the know of what and what didn’t happen.Djokovic was not there, so he can not know what happened.
Many people know what happened. Medvedev’s wife was hanging out with Sharypova in NY the night of the first alleged incident. It was the reason of the fight according to Sharypova. I find it difficult to believe that Medvedev’s wife doesn’t know. Consequently, Medvedev knows too. Rublev is Medvedev’s best friend so he should know too. Djokovic and his wife are close to the Zverev family. And so on and so forth. You can imagine that many people must be in the know of what and what didn’t happen.
He probably had to give some sort of response as he was prompted but honestly having a rule specifically for domestic violence would be weird. Having a more universal rule that for example forbids people guilty of ANY crime from playing for the image of the sport and to protect other players make more sense but I'm sure they already have that.
If it's just lawsuits or allegations we're talking about we're in tricky territory. Seems unfair to suspend or penalize a player in any way if by any chance he's in fact slandered
Djokovic isn't shielded from anything in the media. It's media. They look for stories, and will draw connections, regardless of the intent. It must be qualified.
No, no one reasonable would be for abusers, but media is oft unreasonable. You may call the premise faulty, but it's just the world we live in, not the world you'd like to live in. And no, my point doesn't destroy my point. You just don't understand the way the world works.
It's not a deflection, it's how media works. Shocker - I know! They ask about news! And yes, people would assume that. You don't speak for everyone, no matter how much you'd like to.
Claiming impartiality doesn't make you impartial. (Am I doing it right?)
People will interpret his words whether he wants them to or not. He doesn't get a say in it. The best he can do is make a statement beforehand that will keep it from being too misinterpreted.
You made just as many, Sir Tennis_Hands. I know it's not pleasant to be met with someone who won't let you use as many big words as you can and get tired of arguing, but it's finally happened. Djokovic has to get ahead of the media to keep them from spinning his words. Any other thing he said would be misconstrued much worse. This was the response that would provoke the least outrage.
Wrong. You said he didn't answer the question, instead bringing up Zverev for no reason. He did not. He brought up Zverev because the question asked about Zverev implicitly. You might disagree about whether he should have answered it, but you are definitely lying here.
^ Your own quote from your first post. The one I've been refuting the whole time.
You can say that Djokovic shouldn't have answered any question about Zverev. That wasn't what you were arguing nor what I was refuting.
There is no "expert" route. When asked this question if you don't answer it in the context of Zverev, that is seen as support by the media. "The silence speaks volumes" and all that. Zverev was implied in the question, don't act like you don't see that.
And of course there is no way to answer this question without bringing up Zverev unless you want to answer a plethora of much more direct questions asked by people dissatisfied with your answer here.
There is no way to do it. Zverev is implied in the question and by not talking about him, your silence is taken to be acceptance of its alleged actions. Any pro that is asked about it needs to not take any position too strongly - exactly what Djokovic did.
TripleATeam sunk your leaking ship with his broadside and now you thrash about in the water like a drowning man.
So Djokovic supports a DV policy for tennis, but do you?
Thanks, that at least is a non-frivolous basis. But the "dating relationship" goes away after awhile, I mean once there is a breakup, as long as one party isn't acting a fool, stalking or whatever. Same with living together. Once you are not living together it is not "domestic" violence. I think people should have been more careful about characterizing this as "domestic".
You are reduced to a cheerleader. How sad is that?
Of course I do. Any normal person would be for that. I stated it multiple times here (explicitly) and elsewhere. Apparently you are not reading what I am writing, which, judging by your reactions, is not all that surprising.
While I think that you are making a point for a different reason (to qualify any potential case in its respective domain), it has another interesting angle: their relationship seem to have been a pretty sporadic one, as they were breaking up and then getting together again. Domestic violence is strongly influenced by the multiple binding factors that are working continuously between the partners. Getting in and out of relationship does't allow for those factors to take hold of the attachment, so that is exposing what the two parties were bringing to the table as characters and cultural identity (rather than it being a drawn out influence of those other factors) each for himself.
You have a penchant for pseudo (social) scientific babble among your other intellectual failures.
I don't argue with obsessives, but TripleATeam seems to enjoy it as much as you do. That is indeed sad.
The point is to develop a DV policy in the organisational context of tennis, and that is not the same thing as supporting such in general.
You are on record of twisting yourself in all sorts of knots, so your statements have become an entertainment of witnessing which one will fail first. Obsessive is what you are now, so I guess you don't look yourself in the mirror all too often. What happened with "you are wasting my time"? Oh, you obsessive, you!
Anyway, you are running out of ideas even how to be obsessive here. Maybe I should relieve you from your situation by not responding to you in the thread, so that you can have a peace of mind?
The worst part of how this case has played out in social media is Rothenberg's involvement. That muckraker polarizes people so much that even people that might be well disposed to his side of the issue (like me) recoil at the fact that he is involved. It always seems like he is pursuing his own agenda. What does the guy even know about tennis other than the gossip?
Also, what was Djokovic supposed to have said there? Sell Zverev out to the media? It's Zverev he practices with, not the Twitterati.
And some people here claim that Djokovic is not misogynist and sexist.It would have been hilarious if Djokovic had said that he supports Zverev because women have hormones and are not to be taken seriously:
https://theconversation.com/djokovi...that-women-are-victims-of-their-biology-56644
Absolutely. Djokovic shouldn't be commenting whatsoever on these allegations, since it doesn't involve him in any way. You know that Nadal or Federer simply would have deflected the question and not waded into it.