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.
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.
Not so. He signed a contract to be a Professional Tennis Player. It's a contractual issue; not a legal one.
Except that's not the position of the "authority" in this case.
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?
It's not a "legal" issue. It's a contractual issue.
Another misdirected point of debate. It's a contractual issue.
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."
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!)
A (brief) moment of clarity in your post.
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
Hi KK, Sorry for the late reply...
The whole point of this thread is how fair the contract is gasquet signed...that's the point....
you seems to think that we are arguing about something that is known....(therefore there is no argument about it.) It is a fact that the contract
states that the penalty for cocaine abuse is two years.
we are not debating whether or not gasquet was an idiot for doing it.
we are arguing whether the clause has any basis in common sense.
let me give an blatant example, you do well in a great interview...get the job you love...at a manhattan law office...the contract states that if you transgress, it's 3 strikes you're out...unless you spill coffee...then it's instant dismissal.
Then if lightning strikes close one day and you spill coffee...the boss says "your fired!"....
and your workmate (KK) chants "you signed the contract, you signed the contract"
does the crime (spilling coffee) match the punishment (instant dismissal)
For everyone else reading this thread..please ignore Deuce...he seems to
believe that the Colarado Cinema Shooting means Christopher Nolan should spend a long time in jail.
