Djokovic on Zverev and sports domestic violence policies.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Keizer

Professional
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.
 

Slowtwitcher

Hall of Fame
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.
Rothenberg quoted what your boy said, no more no less. He only commented that the comments were interesting, which they are.
 

Arak

Semi-Pro
Djokovic is clearly defending Zverev so it only shows what kind of person he is. He’s clearly a misogynist and hates women. Instead of supporting that poor woman who got her head banged against a wall, he’s supporting his buddy Zverev.
 

Bumbaliceps

Rookie
Rothenberg quoted what your boy said, no more no less. He only commented that the comments were interesting, which they are.
Rothenberg also said in the 2nd tweet that it was for him an "immense delight" that Novak received an other question about this. He is definitely admitting he likes the fact that Novak is not accusing Zverev of being a wife-beater.

Djokovic is clearly defending Zverev so it only shows what kind of person he is. He’s clearly a misogynist and hates women. Instead of supporting that poor woman who got her head banged against a wall, he’s supporting his buddy Zverev.
I believe that it's okay to be partial towards your buddy when there is no clear definite proof against him. I just don't think it is Novak's role to state on this subject. If a friend of mine was accused of such a thing, I would believe him if he told me he was innocent because I would just be biased. I'm saying this as someone who thinks Zverev is guilty.
 

Slowtwitcher

Hall of Fame
Rothenberg also said in the 2nd tweet that it was for him an "immense delight" that Novak received an other question about this. He is definitely admitting he likes the fact that Novak is not accusing Zverev of being a wife-beater.
Rothenberg also saw Olya's photos. If we saw those photos, I'm pretty sure our opinions would change (except for the Misogyny Brigade which just hate women).
 

Arak

Semi-Pro
Rothenberg also said in the 2nd tweet that it was for him an "immense delight" that Novak received an other question about this. He is definitely admitting he likes the fact that Novak is not accusing Zverev of being a wife-beater.


I believe that it's okay to be partial towards your buddy when there is no clear definite proof against him. I just don't think it is Novak's role to state on this subject. If a friend of mine was accused of such a thing, I would believe him if he told me he was innocent because I would just be biased. I'm saying this as someone who thinks Zverev is guilty.
I am pretty sure that Djokovic knows the truth, as do many other players. I don’t think it’s possible to hide these things when on tour. Now, if Djokovic knows that Zverev is guilty and still defends him, that would be unethical and inexcusable.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
Novak treaded that line as well as you can expect. If he said "I wholeheartedly condemn Zverev" and then it turned out these allegations turned out to be false, Djokovic would have been in a bad position, as well as he would have started drama between himself and Zverev. Similarly, if he actually supported Zverev, he would have been on the side of an abuser if the allegations are true.

He took a neutral position (the we-don't-know-all-the-facts-yet position), distanced himself from it, supported the idea of a zero-tolerance policy on domestic violence on the ATP tour. What else could he have done without a media firestorm?
 

TripleATeam

Legend
I am pretty sure that Djokovic knows the truth, as do many other players. I don’t think it’s possible to hide these things when on tour. Now, if Djokovic knows that Zverev is guilty and still defends him, that would be unethical and inexcusable.
It's possible for friends to know each other. These people are just colleagues. They interact less than coworkers at the office. They might hit together a bit, do a little hangout for publicity, but generally will stay within their own bubbles. I don't think anyone but Zverev's close friends know if he's really an abuser or not.

I mean it's not like Zverev and Djokovic go on double dates. How would any pro player have met his former girlfriend?
 

Arak

Semi-Pro
Interesting 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.
It‘s very interesting that he said Zverev is a nice guy. He didn’t say Zverev is innocent.
 

Arak

Semi-Pro
It's possible for friends to know each other. These people are just colleagues. They interact less than coworkers at the office. They might hit together a bit, do a little hangout for publicity, but generally will stay within their own bubbles. I don't think anyone but Zverev's close friends know if he's really an abuser or not.

I mean it's not like Zverev and Djokovic go on double dates. How would any pro player have met his former girlfriend?
Probably he wouldn’t know first hand, but there is a lot of gossip on the tour. There are cliques and entourages and players, and players wives/girlfriends who are on friendly terms. I’m sure such matters are difficult to keep in secret.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
Novak treaded that line as well as you can expect. If he said "I wholeheartedly condemn Zverev" and then it turned out these allegations turned out to be false, Djokovic would have been in a bad position, as well as he would have started drama between himself and Zverev. Similarly, if he actually supported Zverev, he would have been on the side of an abuser if the allegations are true.

He took a neutral position (the we-don't-know-all-the-facts-yet position), distanced himself from it, supported the idea of a zero-tolerance policy on domestic violence on the ATP tour. What else could he have done without a media firestorm?
Actually, he didn't take a neutral position: that would have required for him to talk on principle what his expectations regarding the potential regulations in that regard are. He didn't say a word about what was actually being asked. 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.

:cool:
 

Milanez82

Semi-Pro
It‘s very interesting that he said Zverev is a nice guy. He didn’t say Zverev is innocent.
I think he implied through that it doesn't seem its within Zverev character and the way he acted in the past to do such a thing

Its a sad a fact a lot of men are great fathers husbands until the moment they get drunk and start beating up their very own family.

Of course if Zverev had past history of violence someone else will probably get the courage to come out
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Djokovic might have heard rumours, but it is fanciful to say he knows the truth.

I am pretty sure that Djokovic knows the truth, as do many other players. I don’t think it’s possible to hide these things when on tour. Now, if Djokovic knows that Zverev is guilty and still defends him, that would be unethical and inexcusable.
 

Arak

Semi-Pro
Sorry to be the one to inform you of this, but we sometimes say what we mean indirectly. It's called subtley.
Yes you were just patronized and you deserved it.
You are also on ignore. I'm tired of your defending abusers with such pride.
I think Djokovic knows that Zverev is guilty. That’s why he said he’s a nice guy, but didn’t say he’s innocent.
And, thank you for the ignore. It’s really devastating.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
Actually, he didn't take a neutral position: that would have required for him to talk on principle what his expectations regarding the potential regulations in that regard are. He didn't say a word about what was actually being asked. 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.

:cool:
You're right, I'm sorry. I just heard the news that subtext was outlawed. Asking about domestic violence policies is clearly alluding to Zverev.

And no, Djokovic was not "supposed to share his knowledge on the regulations in other sports", he was simply asked if the ATP should "develop a policy for these sorts of incidents moving forward", to which Novak responded "Yeah, I mean, why not? Probably it should be there in place."

So yes, he understood and answered the question, something you seem to be unable to do.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Where players are the employees of clubs there are usually a lot of 'good behaviour' and 'not bringing the game into disrepute' clauses.

Tennis can't and shouldn't enact such clauses because they are not paying wages. If a player is charged and convicted then suspension may be appropriate.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
It's probably the case that deflection does not work with 'hot button' issues.

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.
 

The Guru

Hall of Fame
Djokovic said what he was supposed to say here. It's a really difficult situation to be in and he did the rational thing: condone domestic violence, say he doesn't know if Zverev is guilty or not, say he's there for his friend who's going through a tough time. You guys will criticize anything he says
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
You're right, I'm sorry. I just heard the news that subtext was outlawed. Asking about domestic violence policies is clearly alluding to Zverev.

And no, Djokovic was not "supposed to share his knowledge on the regulations in other sports", he was simply asked if the ATP should "develop a policy for these sorts of incidents moving forward", to which Novak responded "Yeah, I mean, why not? Probably it should be there in place."

So yes, he understood and answered the question, something you seem to be unable to do.
You must have missed the entire first half of the question. The reporter clearly asked him for his opinion based on that first half of the question. As I said, Djokovic either doesn't know anything about how these matters are regulated in other sports, or he didn't understand the first part of the question.

Instead he went on to talk about Zverev, who Djokovic was not in any way forced to bring into the conversation.

:cool:
 

Keizer

Professional
Rothenberg quoted what your boy said, no more no less. He only commented that the comments were interesting, which they are.
I invite you to furnish even one post by me that is evidence for Djokovic (or any of the other frequently stanned individuals) being "my boy."

What set of comments by Djokovic on this issue would Rothenberg not have found "interesting"? The guy is the resident cosmopolitan reporter of the tennis world. He writes nothing of value about the actual sport.

Imo he did the smart thing here. He didn't pick a side, but picked the cause.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
That's the very definition of dumb. You always answer the question that you choose.
I thought that I was a waste of your time? Oh, well, maybe not.

Well, then.

In this particular case a smart person would have left any hot topic with a lot of unknowns around it aside, and would have answered the question asked, IF he knew something about it. That would have been both uncontroversial, would have guaranteed that he wouldn't delve into topics he knows little about and would have actually provided useful information to the audience (again, assuming that he actually knew something about these things).

So, my dear Red Star hero, what he chose to do was dumb, and what I said would be the right framework for his potential correct answer was smart.

:cool:
 

TripleATeam

Legend
You must have missed the entire first half of the question. The reporter clearly asked him for his opinion based on that first half of the question. As I said, Djokovic either doesn't know anything about how these matters are regulated in other sports, or he didn't understand the first part of the question.

Instead he went on to talk about Zverev, who Djokovic was not in any way forced to bring into the conversation.

:cool:
I did not.

Consider the statement
"You're a man with a lot of experience piloting airplanes. Other airplane companies have instituted restrictions on the type of metal they're using to create their planes to avoid incidents. Wondering if you think this is something your airplane company should do?" asked immediately after a plane went down because of a malfunction.

As a company spokesperson, do you address the incident the question was clearly asking about, or your decades of flying experience?

Seriously, did you want Djokovic to just talk about what the NBA did instead of saying "yes, the ATP should institute something like that?" Djokovic literally answered the exact question he was asked, and you say he didn't. Djokovic used his personal experience to form the answer, which was all that was asked of him.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
You'd think Djokovic dumb if he jumped to get out of the way of a speeding car.

There are two reasons for this. Can you guess both?

In this particular case a smart person would have left any hot topic with a lot of unknowns around it aside, and would have answered the question asked, IF he knew something about it. That would have been both uncontroversial, would have guaranteed that he wouldn't delve into topics he knows little about and would have actually provided useful information to the audience (again, assuming that he actually know something about these things).
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
I did not.

Consider the statement
"You're a man with a lot of experience piloting airplanes. Other airplane companies have instituted restrictions on the type of metal they're using to create their planes to avoid incidents. Wondering if you think this is something your airplane company should do?" asked immediately after a plane went down because of a malfunction.

As a company spokesperson, do you address the incident the question was clearly asking about, or your decades of flying experience?

Seriously, did you want Djokovic to just talk about what the NBA did instead of saying "yes, the ATP should institute something like that?" Djokovic literally answered the exact question he was asked, and you say he didn't. Djokovic used his personal experience to form the answer, which was all that was asked of him.
A spokesperson is an employee of the company, and as such his/her position is to answer on behalf of the potentially responsible for the incident.

You need to find out what the difference between your example and the situation at hand is.

Saying whatever he thought about what ATP should do (it really isn't a choice, is it?) is not mutually exclusive with sharing any knowledge on these matters on principle. I am sure that not only the journalist, but also you, would have been interested in hearing about it.

However (and what you deliberately left out) was that his main answer went well beyond whether ATP should introduce such policies.

:cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top