Back to the main argument though...
my point is the debate should be focused on what power an employer has
to dictate what people do in private and:
But this isn't "the main argument." The topic addresses a player who got caught violating the standards set by (either, or both) the ATP and the ITF. He knew the rules. He violated them. He'll suffer the consequences.
b) is the ATP even seen as Gasquets employer.
No. The ATP is a Union. Unions frequently set the standards for another person to be part of their group. If they choose not to be part of it, they don't get the benefits.
It is upto the proper authorities
such as police etc to look after this matter and punishment etc.
Not so. He signed a contract to be a Professional Tennis Player. It's a contractual issue; not a legal one.
The first thing that can be said is that this sets an unjustifiably double standard with the rest of society.
Except that's not the position of the "authority" in this case.
Those who argue this is justified because tennis players are public figures and must act as role models, should answer simple questions like:
Why aren't the famous stars of the music and movie industries tested for all possible drugs also? Why do they have the right to do whatever they want during their parties, without fear of being tested? Aren't they public figures also? Don’t common people look up to them? Shouldn’t they be forced to be good “role models”? How about politicians? How about CEOs? Should we have squads of testers going randomly into Hollywood night parties, or in the homes of the rich in Pacific Heights, to see if they find any Impurities running through their blood? Why not? Shouldn't they be role models?
Why not institute mandatory random testing for the whole of society?
The Role Model argument is silly.
a) If Hollywood instituted testing like this, the whole place would be shut down.
b) Politicians? Washington DC and at least a third of the State Capitals in the USA would be operating on a Skeleton Crew. (And the argument that Pelosi, Kennedy, Barney Frank, Nixon, Newt or Larry Craig are "role models????" C'mon!)
c) CEO's? That would be up to the Boards of Directors.
d) The whole of society? I suspect you are using
argumentum ad absurdum. Or are you promoting a Police State?
The fact is, if the drugs are already illegal, whoever does them should run the same risk. If they happen to get caught with them, they face whatever charges apply like everyone else.
It's not a "legal" issue. It's a contractual issue.
Those who say the current practice is a good idea because it protects the health of the players against their own potentially destructive habits ...
Another misdirected point of debate. It's a contractual issue.
There needs to be a clear distinction between performance enhancing drugs and this kind of thing.
It's curious to me that you have spent so many keystrokes addressing the weaker arguments ... and pretending the stronger argument doesn't exist. A few TT-ers have pointed-out cocaine *does* give the user a sense of well-being and euphoria, which certainly can produce better performance. (Oops!)
BUT ... the issue is contractual; not "whether or not cocaine meets the definition of a performance enhancing drug."
Gasquet has no more obligation to stay away from a recreational drug during a party than the hottest movie star of the day, or a Senator, or a Bishop, or a Judge, or a TV evangelist, or you, or me. As far as I know, none of those people are subject to random testing for those things, and neither should he.
How you manage to keep ducking the
contractual obligation is a testament to your stubbornness. The difference you keep pretending doesn't exist is, Gasquet signed a contract promising to abide by the rules set forth by the Professional Organization. (Oops!)
Of course, if I had to give him advise, I'd say, be wise and stay away from those things.
A (brief) moment of clarity in your post.
But if he occasionally is unwise, as so meny people occasionaly are, why should he be singled out for special punishment? Just because he is a tennis player? It does not make any sense.
Contracts make no sense? Then he shouldn't have signed it. He'd probably make a great Waiter in a nice restaurant. (Nobody "owes" him a Professional Tennis career.)
- KK
