Djokovic on Zverev and sports domestic violence policies.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Reason a.) Djokovic is always dumb in your eyes so why would he be any smarter in this case?

Reason b.) You would be driving the car.

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?
 

Devtennis01

Hall of Fame
Djokovic didn't need to say all the nice guy stuff about Zverev.
They know each other as work mates. I doubt they are going round to each other's houses or engaging in a real friendship.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
It's not a whataboutism, so you need to get your strategies of evasion down a bit more pat.
The one evading to tell me what his post was supposed to mean is you. I can wait.

:cool:

Edit: So, you have no answer but to attack the person. I guess that tells the whole story of your little objection.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
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:
Hands, learn some subtext. The question was asking about Zverev, clearly.

It's as if I asked Djokovic about if hitting linespeople should be a disqualifiable offense. I'd obviously be alluding to the US Open incident, and if he didn't mention it, I would say he's dodging the question.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
Hands, learn some subtext. The question was asking about Zverev, clearly.

It's as if I asked Djokovic about if hitting linespeople should be a disqualifiable offense. I'd obviously be alluding to the US Open incident, and if he didn't mention it, I would say he's dodging the question.
If you didn't know by now that I am aware of the subtext of the question, you need to start reading my posts more carefully.

You should learn, for example, that some questions are traps, and if one is dumb enough to spring the trap, the one who set it up will be more than happy to run away with whatever he can. In this particular case you are insisting that Djokovic's adequate response was to spring the trap. Absolutely hilarious.

Again, your example is lacking, as Djokovic was the person that would have spoken as an offender (similar to the spokesperson that acts on behalf of the offender (company)).

:cool:
 

Super_Server

New User
Pretty clear at this point that Djokovic isn't intelligent or well educated to comment on difficult issues. He has the arrogance to think that he does but should be batting this stuff aside for others to deal with.

What an absolute shambles he has come across this year, defies belief.
 

Beckerserve

Hall of Fame
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.
Ever thought the woman is making it up?
Great reply by Djokovic.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
If you didn't know by now that I am aware of the subtext of the question, you need to start reading my posts more carefully.

You should learn, for example, that some questions are traps, and if one is dumb enough to spring the trap, the one who set it up will be more than happy to run away with whatever he can. In this particular case you are insisting that Djokovic's adequate response was to spring the trap. Absolutely hilarious.

Again, your example is lacking, as Djokovic was the person that would have spoken as an offender (similar to the spokesperson that acts on behalf of the offender (company).

:cool:
You miss the point. You lied and are squirming about because you know I've caught you. Djokovic answered the question, and you insist he didn't. Hands, I know you're not dumb. You're just ingenuous as they come.

Anyhow, Djokovic was in a catch-22.

If he dodges the question. He answer the question with a simple "Maybe. I'm not the one who makes those decisions" and instead it's "Djokovic refuses to talk on Zverev abuse".

If he talks about it, then they can talk about the things he said. Djokovic was about as noncommittal as you can get here. There's nothing to be said one way or another, and you've got to go back to school and learn some rhetoric if you think that it's a bad look for him.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
You miss the point. You lied and are squirming about because you know I've caught you. Djokovic answered the question, and you insist he didn't. Hands, I know you're not dumb. You're just ingenuous as they come.

Anyhow, Djokovic was in a catch-22.

If he dodges the question. He answer the question with a simple "Maybe. I'm not the one who makes those decisions" and instead it's "Djokovic refuses to talk on Zverev abuse".

If he talks about it, then they can talk about the things he said. Djokovic was about as noncommittal as you can get here. There's nothing to be said one way or another, and you've got to go back to school and learn some rhetoric if you think that it's a bad look for him.
He didn't answer the question related to his supposed knowledge. The nominal answer that he gave was not even in discussion (imagine the journalist asking him whether ATP should adopt such policies and him saying "No"), so while I am already used to many of you clutching at straws, the reality is that he didn't gave any satisfactory answer to the full question. You may pretend that the first part of the question was never asked, but it won't change anything, it was asked and he didn't answer to it, and it was integral part of that question.

I am in constant awe from the comments about "lying/disingenuity". As far as I am concerned the question in its entirety is pretty clear. Do you think that ad hominems will help you remove that?

What is more amazing: you accuse others of disingenuity, and at the same time pretend that we are not taking about his comment about Zverev. You failed to show why he was supposed to answer that (with your two failed examples) i.e. the relevance of his answer to the question asked, and now you fail to acknowledge that that was a bad idea in the first place. Essentially you give him a pass about not answering the full real question, and then give him a pass for answering a question that hasn't been asked, and which he could and IMO should have avoided. Just how twisted is that?

I disagree with your comment about "noncommittal". He vouched for Zvered as a good character. Considering what is at stake here (if we treat the situation seriously) that would actually play a part in the way Zverev is perceived by the public. I challenge you to tell me how he could have committed more to Zverev's side, without lying (if we assume that he doesn't know what transpired between Zverev and Sharypova).

:cool:
 
Last edited:

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
I thought Djokovic was being far better than Presidential!

Pretty clear at this point that Djokovic isn't intelligent or well educated to comment on difficult issues. He has the arrogance to think that he does but should be batting this stuff aside for others to deal with.

What an absolute shambles he has come across this year, defies belief.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
He didn't answer the question related to his supposed knowledge. The nominal answer that he gave was not even in discussion (imagine the journalist asking him whether ATP should adopt such policies and him saying "No"), so while I am already used to many of you clutching at straws, the reality is that he didn't gave any satisfactory answer to the full question. You may pretend that the first part of the question was never asked, but it won't change anything, it was asked and he didn't answer to it, and it was integral part of that question.
Yes, he did. The journalist didn't ask "based on the other sports, should the ATP institute it?", it was "what is your opinion, since you've been studying other sports organizations?". What did you expect him to do, pull out his notebook and cite 12 sources in different sports from credible news sources?

I am in constant awe from the comments about "lying/disingenuity". As far as I am concerned the question in its entirety is pretty clear. Do you think that ad hominems will help you remove that?
Nope. I expect you to just be more real. You take whatever position will help you say "Djokovic is stupid" quickest. You're not likely to find a better answer to that question, any other response could be used to say he either supports or doesn't support Zverev. This way he made it clear whatever answer he gives on whether the ATP should have that rule, it should not be taken as support or condemnation of Zverev.

What is more amazing: you accuse others of dis ingenuity, and at the same time pretend that we are not taking about his comment about Zverev. You failed to show why he was supposed to answer that (with your two failed examples) i.e. the relevance to his answer to the question asked, and now you fail to acknowledge that he that was a bad idea in the first place.
Wrong. I did show it, you just decided the first example wasn't exactly the same situation, so I gave you a second, which you just said is "failed" without explaining why. You're deflecting, Hands. Subtext exists and you want to erase it...

I disagree with your comment about "noncommittal". He vouched for Zvered as a good character. Considering what is at stake here (if we treat the situation seriously) that would actually play a part in the way Zverev is perceived by the public. I challenge you to tell me how he could have committed more to Zverev's side, without lying (if we assume that he doesn't know what transpired between Zverev and Sharypova).

:cool:
Easy. By saying he believes Zverev and that the Zverev he knows would never do something like that.

All he did was say "I've known Zverev for a while, and I think he's a nice guy and I don't know anything about his situation. That being said, I do support a domestic violence rule." That's not a rousing endorsement. It's qualifying his answer. It's making sure when he says "yes, there should be a rule" that he isn't misconstrued as saying "Zverev should be punished" because he doesn't know the ins and outs of that situation.

Learn some more reading comprehension and maybe you'll actually be able to understand what I'm saying. Subtext is a hard concept, but it shows up a lot in the real world, I'm sure you'll get it eventually.
 

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
I understand you defend your friends so I’m not going to pile on and slam Djokovic but jeez it’d be nice if people acknowledge the woman who claims to have been abused instead of just ignoring her like the ATP is doing. Not one mention of her by Novak. The woman says she tried to kill herself and an ATP doctor helped fix her up and cover it up. And yet silence.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
We can also usefully add that the big North American leagues:

1. may have a DV policy unlike tennis

2. but they also have lenient doping policies that do not follow USADA/WADA protocols and give derisorily small penalties unlike tennis

This does not stop USADA lecturing other countries about doping, obviously!
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
If this is true then the answer is simple. The ATP can order an inquiry into the circumstances of the ATP doctor's action and whether any recommendations should stem from the incident.

The ATP could do that tomorrow with no help from Djokovic, who is someone they don't want to talk with in any event.

I understand you defend your friends so I’m not going to pile on and slam Djokovic but jeez it’d be nice if people acknowledge the woman who claims to have been abused instead of just ignoring her like the ATP is doing. Not one mention of her by Novak. The woman says she tried to kill herself and an ATP doctor helped fix her up and cover it up. And yet silence.
 
Gracious.

Boys, do we need an arbitrator up in this *****? :oops:

Some classic argumentative fallacies are being employed. I have borne witness to a number of low blows, to boot.

Gents, I implore you: Step up the levels.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
I should add that the big North American leagues have DV policies because they have their players on contract, unlike tennis.

You pay peanuts and you get monkey business, apparently.

We can also usefully add that the big North American leagues:

1. may have a DV policy unlike tennis

2. but they also have lenient doping policies that do not follow USADA/WADA protocols and give derisorily small penalties unlike tennis

This does not stop USADA lecturing other countries about doping, obviously!
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
Yes, he did. The journalist didn't ask "based on the other sports, should the ATP institute it?", it was "what is your opinion, since you've been studying other sports organizations?". What did you expect him to do, pull out his notebook and cite 12 sources in different sports from credible news sources?
Why would he need to do absurd things? I already gave the two possible scenarios in my post #40, so like I said, read my posts carefully.


Nope. I expect you to just be more real. You take whatever position will help you say "Djokovic is stupid" quickest.
If I wanted I could have easily done that without any justification whatsoever. Here on this forum that is done all the time. I am not that kind of person, so it is on you that you have made up your mind on that matter.

You're not likely to find a better answer to that question, any other response could be used to say he either supports or doesn't support Zverev. This way he made it clear whatever answer he gives on whether the ATP should have that rule, it should not be taken as support or condemnation of Zverev.
If he answered only to the journalist's question, that would have been taken as either a support or refusal to support Zverev? Really?

Wrong. I did show it, you just decided the first example wasn't exactly the same situation, so I gave you a second, which you just said is "failed" without explaining why. You're deflecting, Hands. Subtext exists and you want to erase it...
That is not true. The situations you presented do not differ only in technicalities. They differ in the role of the person asked to answer the question. In the situation at hand he is IMPARTIAL to the action. In both your examples he is either the perpetrator or the representative of the perpetrator. If you don't understand this, I am afraid that one of us in not doing very well with the comparisons.

Easy. By saying he believes Zverev and that the Zverev he knows would never do something like that.
That truly is a kindergarten level of reasoning. In saying that his experience with Zverev is overwhelmingly positive, he is talking from the position of fact: it is his experience with Zverev. In saying that he believes that Zverev wouldn't do something like that, he is talking about things he knows nothing about. That would not be vouching, or at least not seriously, which is why I allude to it as a "kindergarten level of reasoning". It is just not serious.

All he did was say "I've known Zverev for a while, and I think he's a nice guy and I don't know anything about his situation. That being said, I do support a domestic violence rule." That's not a rousing endorsement. It's qualifying his answer. It's making sure when he says "yes, there should be a rule" that he isn't misconstrued as saying "Zverev should be punished" because he doesn't know the ins and outs of that situation.
The question was not about Zverev. That he discussed it means that he feels that he needs to say something about Zverev, and what he decided to say was an endorsement to him and his character (went as far as to vouch for his good family).

 

DSH

Legend
Let Justice be the one who defines with reliable evidence who is guilty and if it is proven that Zverev has committed these violent acts, be sanctioned with the maximum rigor of the Law.
The rest, the comings and goings, does not bring anything relevant to the heart of the matter.
:X3:
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The first rmaxim of justice here is that you should face your perpetrator, and that means going to the police and making a statement.

Let Justice be the one who defines with reliable evidence who is guilty and if it is proven that Zverev has committed these violent acts, be sanctioned with the maximum rigor of the Law.
The rest, the comings and goings, does not bring anything relevant to the heart of the matter.
:X3:
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
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.
That might have been the easy way out, but it has been obvious to me that Novak has been very friendly with Zverev and his brother, so it is natural that he would give the answer he did.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
Why would he need to do absurd things? I already gave the two possible scenarios in my post #40, so like I said, read my posts carefully.
Already did. You read mine, he answered the question based on his experience. That's more than enough for that question.

If I wanted I could have easily done that without any justification whatsoever. Here on this forum that is done all the time. I am not that kind of person, so it is on you that you have made up your mind on that matter.
Say what you want, this was a decent response. Clearly you can't see that through some lens, I wonder what it is.

If he answered only to the journalist's question, that would have been taken as either a support or refusal to support Zverev? Really?
Yes. Words are easily spun, especially by reporters. If this exchange had happened:
"Do you support domestic violence policies for the ATP?"
"Yes."

It would be seen as a condemnation of Zvere, even if not meant that way necessarily.

That is not true. The situations you presented do not differ only in technicalities. They differ in the role of the person asked to answer the question. In the situation at hand he is IMPARTIAL to the action. In both your examples he is either the perpetrator or the representative of the perpetrator. If you don't understand this, I am afraid that one of us in not doing very well with the comparisons.
One did. The other was just me asking Djokovic about hitting linespeople with balls, a 1-to-1 parallel to the current situation. You refused to answer that example.

That truly is a kindergarten level of reasoning. In saying that his experience with Zverev is overwhelmingly positive, he is talking from the position of fact: it is his experience with Zverev. In saying that he believes that Zverev wouldn't do something like that, he is talking about things he knows nothing about. That would not be vouching, or at least not seriously, which is why I allude to it as a "kindergarten level of reasoning". It is just not serious.



The question was not about Zverev. That he discussed it means that he feels that he needs to say something about Zverev, and what he decided to say was an endorsement to him and his character (went as far as to vouch for his good family).

"I challenge you to tell me how he could have committed more to Zverev's side, without lying"
"[I give an example on how he could have committed more]"
"That truly is a kindergarten level of reasoning."

You're hilarious, Hands. He barely said anything good about Zverev, just enough to give him the benefit of the doubt. Learn some critical thinking.

The question was not about Zverev. That he discussed it means that he feels that he needs to say something about Zverev, and what he decided to say was an endorsement to him and his character (went as far as to vouch for his good family).
It was. Subtext exists, and you can't spot it. The question was about domestic violence in tennis while a specific player is going through an allegation of it. Clearly the question is asking about that incident.
 

Devtennis01

Hall of Fame
That might have been the easy way out, but it has been obvious to me that Novak has been very friendly with Zverev and his brother, so it is natural that he would give the answer he did.
Natural of course if it is true. How friendly do you think they are? Hanging out on weekends? Calling each other when they have good news? Or just people who work together and barely see each other and only mix in very artificial situations?
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
My grade three teacher asked me whether I thought it was a fine day. I said yes. He then replied that you'll never make it as a politician.

Journalists are in an antagonistic relationship with their interviewees. They want a scoop, so they set traps hoping that you'll fall in.

Answering questions directly would be a form of public suicide.

Huh? What do you mean? You don’t believe a question should be answered directly or else passed upon? I am not understanding your point.
 
My grade three teacher asked me whether I thought it was a fine day. I said yes. He then replied that you'll never make it as a politician.

Journalists are in an antagonistic relationship with their interviewees. They want a scoop, so they set traps hoping that you'll fall in.

Answering questions directly would be a form of public suicide.
Thanks. I understand now.
 
Having read all of this back and forth (or a lot of it), my own opinion is, while it’s obvious the question alluded to the allegations against Sascha, in this particular case, answering the question directly in terms of domestic violence policies in sports and especially tennis, or else just saying “no comment,” would have been the wiser answer. Not that it matters what I or anyone else thinks. To me though, it just seemed a little bit awkward. Not really a big deal in any case.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
Already did. You read mine, he answered the question based on his experience. That's more than enough for that question.
If that is the only thing he knew that is more than enough. I described in my post #40 why then he didn't eventually say much more. You don't even understand that I already described ALL aspects of what was answered and if not fully why not. You are still arguing that he answered nominally that question and I am already far away, as not only I have described as to why a nominal answer is of no interest (because there is no real alternative to it), but I also described the other two scenarios: Djokovic not knowing, in which case he couldn't possibly answer the question, or not understanding the question, which would explain why he would answer nominally (and obviously), but wouldn't venture into sharing his experience (assuming that he had any).

Say what you want, this was a decent response. Clearly you can't see that through some lens, I wonder what it is.
A "decent response"? I already told you, I don't need such tactics, if I was committed to what you claim. Clearly, you are wrong, regardless of how much you like your response.

Yes. Words are easily spun, especially by reporters. If this exchange had happened:
"Do you support domestic violence policies for the ATP?"
"Yes."

It would be seen as a condemnation of Zverev, even if not meant that way necessarily.
So a simple "yes" would have been construed as a condemnation of Zverev? Hilarious.

Even more hilarious: explaining at length about his good relationship with Zverev AND his family is seen from you as "neutral"

That is some next level pretzeling.


One did. The other was just me asking Djokovic about hitting linespeople with balls, a 1-to-1 parallel to the current situation. You refused to answer that example.
I will just copy my previous description of what is different.

Tennis_Hands said:
That is not true. The situations you presented do not differ only in technicalities. They differ in the role of the person asked to answer the question. In the situation at hand he is IMPARTIAL to the action. In both your examples he is either the perpetrator or the representative of the perpetrator. If you don't understand this, I am afraid that one of us in not doing very well with the comparisons.

If you can't distinguish between the bolded in orange and the bolded in blue, that is nothing that can be done to make you understand it.

"I challenge you to tell me how he could have committed more to Zverev's side, without lying"
"[I give an example on how he could have committed more]"
"That truly is a kindergarten level of reasoning."

You're hilarious, Hands. He barely said anything good about Zverev, just enough to give him the benefit of the doubt. Learn some critical thinking.
I asked you to give me a real example, not to tell me that Djokovic can go into fantasyland. Critical thinking is not fantasyland, and you are going exactly there with your example. You seem to think that as long as you write some words that is enough of an execution, regardless of how they stack up against the task that has been given to you.

I will repeat again: I requested a serious example, which is why I specifically said that Djokovic shouldn't be lying. While that condition treats the situation where he has malicious intent, fantasising would be equally problematic as his opinion will be similarly distorted (this time from not knowing the facts, but stating something nonetheless).

It was. Subtext exists, and you can't spot it. The question was about domestic violence in tennis while a specific player is going through an allegation of it. Clearly the question is asking about that incident.
Not only have I "spotted it" but my entire premise is based on the fact that, because I spotted it, I can claim that Djokovic made a mistake, by commenting on it. That is fairly obvious from about my third post on this matter, and that was a long time ago.

You repeat that "the question is asking about that incident" and I have by now repeatedly answered that whatever the underlying intention of the question was, Djokovic would have been smart to not answer it, but instead to answer the actual question itself.

Also, about the "specific player: that is not true: Basilashvili's case is also affected by that eventual regulation.

All in all, not only are you disoriented about the separate points regarding that question, but you are also not aware that the question is indeed brought to the fore by a more general concern. That Djokovic chose to talk about one specific example was a double fail.

 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
You have the losing hand in your discussion with TripleATeam, Mr Hands.

You've got to know when to fold them!
Today you already told me that I am wasting your time. Then you were tempted to comment. Then once again. Then two more times. etc and all had a common characteristic: you moved from arguing with arguments once upon a time, to simply personally attacking the opponent.

It is bye bye for you.

 

TripleATeam

Legend
If that is the only thing he knew that is more than enough. I described in my post #40 why then he didn't eventually say much more. You don't even understand that I already described ALL aspects of what was answered and if not fully why not. You are still arguing that he answered nominally that question and I am already far away, as not only I have described as to why a nominal answer is of no interest (because there is no real alternative to it), but I also described the other two scenarios: Djokovic not knowing, in which case he couldn't possibly answer the question, or not understanding the question, which would explain why he would answer nominally (and obviously), but wouldn't venture into sharing his experience (assuming that he had any).
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.

A "decent response"? I already told you, I don't need such tactics, if I was committed to what you claim. Clearly, you are wrong, regardless of how much you like your response.
Yes, a decent response. It was a good way to shut down potential media coverage because he said almost nothing there. Clearly you're misunderstanding me, Tennis_Hands, I don't care about my response. Honestly, I don't even care about yours. Djokovic's was just fine. There's no story here.

So a simple "yes" would have been construed as a condemnation of Zverev? Hilarious.

Even more hilarious: explaining at length about his good relationship with Zverev AND his family is seen from you as "neutral"

That is some next level pretzeling.
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. If Djokovic doesn't support 2, it would be said he doesn't condemn abusers. 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.

It doesn't take a genius to understand, so I'm hoping that explanation is simple enough for you. I know it's hard, but if you make a real effort, I'm sure you'll get it.

I will just copy my previous description of what is different.

Tennis_Hands said:
That is not true. The situations you presented do not differ only in technicalities. They differ in the role of the person asked to answer the question. In the situation at hand he is IMPARTIAL to the action. In both your examples he is either the perpetrator or the representative of the perpetrator. If you don't understand this, I am afraid that one of us in not doing very well with the comparisons.

If you can't distinguish between the bolded in orange and the bolded in blue, that is nothing that can be done to make you understand it.
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.

I asked you to give me a real example, not to tell me that Djokovic can go into fantasyland. Critical thinking is not fantasyland, and you are going exactly there with your example. You seem to think that as long as you write some words that is enough of an execution, regardless of how they stack up against the task that has been given to you.

I will repeat again: I requested a serious example, which is why I specifically said that Djokovic shouldn't be lying. While that condition treats the situation where he has malicious intent, fantasising would be equally problematic as his opinion will be similarly distorted (this time from not knowing the facts, but stating something nonetheless).
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.

Not only have I "spotted it" but my entire premise is based on the fact that, because I spotted it, I can claim that Djokovic made a mistake, by commenting on it. That is fairly obvious from about my third post on this matter, and that was a long time ago.

You repeat that "the question is asking about that incident" and I have by now repeatedly answered that whatever the underlying intention of the question was, Djokovic would have been smart to not answer it, but instead to answer the actual question itself.

Also, about the "specific player: that is not true: Basilashvili's case is also affected by that eventual regulation.

All in all, not only are you disoriented about the separate points regarding that question, but you are also not aware that the question is indeed brought to the fore by a more general concern. That Djokovic chose to talk about one specific example was a double fail.
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 keep changing your argument ever so slightly every time you respond, but you can't get that past me. I was arguing that Djokovic did not bring up Zverev and it was necessary to do so to properly respond to the question. 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.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
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.

Having read all of this back and forth (or a lot of it), my own opinion is, while it’s obvious the question alluded to the allegations against Sascha, in this particular case, answering the question directly in terms of domestic violence policies in sports and especially tennis, or else just saying “no comment,” would have been the wiser answer. Not that it matters what I or anyone else thinks. To me though, it just seemed a little bit awkward. Not really a big deal in any case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top