Djokovic on Zverev and sports domestic violence policies.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Beckerserve

Hall of Fame
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.
Djokovic behaving more like his normal self at last after a year of being a fool. He was brilliant in his amswer.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
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.
An expert who is asked to share his expert opinion (has been asked specifically about it quoting his expertise), just like that decides to withhold it, but instead talks about something completely different? I know what explanation I would pick. There is no reason whatsoever that that is the case.

Djokovic's was just fine. There's no story here.
I see. That is why you are arguing.


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.
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.

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.

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.
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).


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..

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.

That was a serious example. You just want me to provide you exactly what you've prepared. I won't.
Saying things that he doesn't know is a "serious example"? At least we know where you stand.

Djokovic could have made statements a lot worse.
Of course, he could have ..... said things he doesn't know, but claims that he is sure of them.

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.
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).


 
Last edited:

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
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.
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!

I was arguing that Djokovic did not bring up Zverev and it was necessary to do so to properly respond to the question.
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 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 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.


Here:

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.
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.

 
Last edited:

pj80

Professional
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.
True but even then his haters would accuse him of silence on dom violence...he can never make them happy
 
Last edited:

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
So Djokovic supports a DV policy for tennis, but do you?

And what form do you think it should take using the "expert" route, of course?

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.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
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.
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.

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.
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.

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).
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.

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.
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.

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).
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.

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!
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.
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.
^ Your own quote from your first post. The one I've been refuting the whole time.
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 "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.

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.
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.
 

Zetty

Hall of Fame
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.
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.
 

Drob

Professional
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.
 

Slowtwitcher

Hall of Fame
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.
The answer is in my signature
 

Subway Tennis

Hall of Fame
I'm pretty impressed with Djokovic's response. He gave a much more detailed answer than many players would have done in this situation, and there is probably some truth to his answer on why the ATP did not have a domestic Violence policy in place (while also acknowledging that it should be set up).

Zverev's answer was appalling, and is in line with the fact that his defence throughout this process has been to downplay the seriousness of the allegations, attack the accuser's character, suggest there is an ulterior motive, suggest he has the "locker room support" or do whatever he can to avoid doing what he ought to do: formally deny that he committed any acts of domestic violence and provide his own detailed account of events that can reassure people of that.
 

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
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.
 

Drob

Professional
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.
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".
 

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
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".
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.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
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.
 

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
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.
 

pj80

Professional
well Djokovic said he is against any sort of violence but let's leave that part out and focus on wishing somebody well for the future and take that as something negative
 

Drob

Professional
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.
Yeah, my ignorance. I thought the incident (or maybe I have that wrong also, and it was multiple) happened earlier this year. If the alleged victim is bringing up one or more incidents from, like three or four years ago at a time when they were "dating" or living together, then, you are correct, it would be a domestic violence issue. That is what I was trying to learn - what was the relationship at the time of the alleged incident(s)? I could have looked it up, of course, but anyway thanks.
 

Drob

Professional
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 woman who accused him now denies her accusation?
 

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
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.

But hey that's the approach Zverev is taking
 

Arak

Semi-Pro
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.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Djokovic was not there, so he can not know what happened.

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.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
My DV policy would be as follows:

I would offer all the top 30-120 players a one hundred thousand dollar bonus to sign a good character agreement.

The top 30 players would have to sign such an agreement as a condition of seeding.

And then get some legal firm to deal with any contravention.

What would the DV policy be?
 

Arak

Semi-Pro
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.
 

Harry_Wild

G.O.A.T.
Bad boy image is better in this situation since the public and the social media and tennis press would just skip over something like this since the girlfriend know a bad boy image. They would turn on the girlfriend too! Think rappers who had the bad boy image and ended up hitting their girlfriends and nothing in terms of uproar. Bad boy image is like teflon for domestic assault that is not filed with the police.
 
Last edited:

Clay lover

Hall of Fame
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
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
It's all second-hand information that is never going to be tested through a criminal investigation process.

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.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
In sports where players are on contracts suspending or penalising a player can happen, but tennis players are contractors so their behaviour is traditionally their own responsibility.

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
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
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.
He is shielded form the media making the conclusion that he is biased one way or the other, because he is seen as an expert, if he answers like one. Your effort at deflection is unsuccessful.

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.
The moment you start going the route of unreasonable, illogical and misrepresentation you concede the debate. You can ascribe anything to anyone, if you act in such a manner. That is not what this debate is about.


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.
Same

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.
If he answers from a position of impartiality, he is not "claiming" it, he is in fact being impartial. The answer in the framework I already explained will give him that position. For the misinterpretation see above. You are not doing it right, and it is not because you can't underline or italicise.

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.
That is not true. When I say that you don't understand something I explained what the problem is. You are being brash for the sake of it. A clear distinction.

No, that is your interpretation of what would have happened: as already shown, you didn't analyse the scenarios well, that is why you now can't even start entertaining the other possibilities, despite of the discussion here.


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.
He refused to answer the questions AS IT WAS ASKED, and instead went on to answer a QUESTION that HAS NOT BEEN ASKED, so, he DIDN"T ANSWER the question. That you say that he had no say in the intepretaion of what was being asked, just because YOU think that the media would have taken his answer of the question AS ASKED as biased, has already been shown to be a faulty logic.

1) I established that he completely missed to entertain the question as an expert.

You tried multiple times with various tactics to disregard this possibility

> You tried to claim that the first part of the question is irrelevant, which is why you were completely missing it in your initial responses. That failed
> You tried to claim that he just decided to withhold whatever expertise he might have on that matter for no apparent reason. That failed
> You tried to claim that speaking as an expert would have brought upon him allegations of bias. That failed, and I used it to draw the parallel between that claim and you claim that if he entertained the question by including a specific example that would have been "neutral", showing the hilarity of such statement

2) establishing 1 automatically meant that your point about having to answer to an "implicit" example is simply wrong. You tried to argue that regardless of what he would have said in an expert position the media would still act illogically, irrationally etc, which was a desperate tactic, considering that we are leading a debate of logical and rational outcomes, so, you failed here as well.

3) I mentioned it before, but you deliberately ignored it: Zverev's case is not the only one here, Basilashvili is also in similar position, so the very fact they you thought that it was all about Zverev directly and utterly destroys your claim about what Djokovic achieved: he didn't manage to achieve "neutrality" even with you, let alone with the media. With his statement Djokovic himself made it about Zverev. I already entertained the scenarios what that means about the allegations, whether that means that Djokovic (and everyone else) thinks that Zverev is guilty of what he is being accused of (since the entire case of introducing of these regulations is now linked to him). You didn't answer that either,

Here, once again the whole point:

"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."

 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
^ Your own quote from your first post. The one I've been refuting the whole time.
So, you either you cannot read, you you rely on some sort of mercy of anyone not reading what you quote.

Let's see:

Tennis_Hands said:
The question wasn't about whether Zverev is telling the truth or not. (1)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.

Bolded red one: I state directly and unequivocally, that the question is NOT about Zverev.

Here is your claim:

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.
Oh yes, it was. I stated it directly, so your multiple accusations of me "lying/changing the subject", are smearing with no substance, and as shown in the example above, in fact it is you, who apparently forgot what you addressed. The temerity of quoting something that directly disproves what you are saying is not lost on me.

Bolded blue one: my claim that he should have taken it up as an expert. Again clearly and precisely stated.

Bolded green one: My explanation as to what might have not allowed him to not entertain the expert part as much as he wanted. That DOESN'T mean, that he should have "filled the void",by entertaining a different question, mind you. He could have left it then and there. Not knowing is not a reason to be presented as biased, and that was a worst case scenario in that framework

It was a mistake from you to remind everyone what you were "refuting". It just gave me the opportunity to confirm how straightforward and consequential I have been throughout that discsussion.

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.
Oh, you are begging now? But I don't agree with you, and I will repeat again, the fact that even YOU think that the regulations boil down to Zverev's case is a worse pointing of fingers than anything else. Basilashvili is in similar situation, but you completely forgot about him, didn't you? I wonder who is responsible for 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.
Your "woulda" scenarios only show that you lost the plot and are now projecting negative scenarios only so that your insistence that "ether was no other way" gets some weight. It doesn't work like that.

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.
Hilarious. Repeating it won't make it true. Even more hilarious is that you say that someone should talk about a question that is not being asked, and apparently the silence to an unasked question is "accusatory". You just can't make that up.

BTW, the more you claim that the question was about Zverev, the more you point a finger at Djokovic for bringing up unwanted attention to Sasha.

 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
TripleATeam sunk your leaking ship with his broadside and now you thrash about in the water like a drowning man.
You are reduced to a cheerleader. How sad is that?

So Djokovic supports a DV policy for tennis, but do you?
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.

 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
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".
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.

 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
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 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.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
You have a penchant for pseudo (social) scientific babble among your other intellectual failures.

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.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
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?

 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
You could write something substantive for a change?

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?
 

irishnadalfan1983

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.
True - only come into contact with this chap in the last few months....Doesn’t seem like your typical tennis journalist....Seems more like a tabloid journo....Very easy to dislike him...
 

irishnadalfan1983

Hall of Fame
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.
True about Rafa and Fed and I get why they would do that...I do feel there is a courage from Novak to speak on this situation....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top