John Millman first skeptical of the US Open going ahead, now praises the safety measures and efforts by the USTA after arrival

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
sure, until series of players start to test positive. they need a seal of plastic vacume around flushing. nonone goes in or out for 4 weeks
 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
Has the USO increased prize money for the first few rounds and qualifiers this year ?
First-round singles prize money at the US Open is going up 5%, from $58,000 to $61,000, the only level where there is a jump. Paychecks for players who reach the second round ($100,000) or third round ($163,000) will remain the same.

The prizes then decrease in each round of singles: from $280,000 to $250,000 in the fourth, from $500,000 to $425,000 in the quarterfinals, from $960,000 to $800,000 in the semifinals, and from $1.9 million to $1.5 million for the runner-up.
 

PeoplesChamp

Hall of Fame
First-round singles prize money at the US Open is going up 5%, from $58,000 to $61,000, the only level where there is a jump. Paychecks for players who reach the second round ($100,000) or third round ($163,000) will remain the same.

The prizes then decrease in each round of singles: from $280,000 to $250,000 in the fourth, from $500,000 to $425,000 in the quarterfinals, from $960,000 to $800,000 in the semifinals, and from $1.9 million to $1.5 million for the runner-up.
Why no mention of the winner's prize money? Is it because it dropped nearly a million bucks? Busted.
 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
Why no mention of the winner's prize money?
Well, maybe it was because the poster specifically asked about FIRST ROUND PRIZE MONEY.

First and second round prize money has not changed.

Let's all take a moment and ponder this wonderful news:

96 of the 128 players will be going home after Round 2 with more prize money than ever before, even though there is zero ticket revenue this year.

"Gee, I think I am not going to play the USO this year because the winner's prize money money has been cut ." :unsure:

Said no ATP singles player in the history of the known universe.
 
Last edited:

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Up until the pandemic hit, all the tennis "chatter" revolved around not paying money to people who lose in a first round due to it supposedly rewarding failure.

There is nothing like a pandemic to make some appreciate the workforce.


96 of the 128 players will be going home after Round 2 with more prize money than ever before, even though there is zero ticket revenue this year.

"Gee, I think I am not going to play the USO this year because the winner's prize money money has been cut ." :unsure:

Said no ATP singles player in the history of the known universe.
 
Last edited:

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
Tennis_Hands strikes again with his wonderful insight into the thoughts in other people's minds

Then why was he originally critical of the tournament?
He claimed that USO policy would automatically scrap the tournament after even just one player tested positive. Obviously the tournament could proceed if, for example, a losing player tested positive and had no contact with other players. It all depends on the circumstances.

The Troll has provided no link to such a policy, despite being asked countless times.
 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
There is nothing like a pandemic to make some appreciate the workforce.
First round USO losers were paid essentially the same last year as well, so your thesis that the pandemic is driving progressivism falls flat.

Sorry about your thesis.
:(
 
Last edited:

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Given that there is less money, they could have been paid less. This was your own point, not just two minutes ago. So make your mind up, dearie.

I don't see what your ramschackle medical insurance system has got to do with anything here.

First round USO losers were paid essentially the same last year as well, so your thesis that the pandemic is driving progressivism falls flat.

We also notice that Democrats are supporting Medicare For All at age 60. Hillary supported Medicare For All at age 50.

Pandemic has actually driven them backwards on this progressive issue.

Sorry about your thesis.
:(
 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
Up until the pandemic hit, all the tennis "chatter" revolved around not paying money to people who lose in a first round due to it supposedly rewarding failure.
There was no such pre-pandemic "chatter" about not paying anything to first round USO losers... Or even any major ATP singles tournament for that matter.

That is just preposterous!
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
You seem to read by closing your eyes and then transcribing whatever flashes upon the back of your eyelid.

There was no such pre-pandemic chatter about not paying anything first round USO losers .

That is just preposterous!
 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
You seem to read by closing your eyes and then transcribing whatever flashes upon the back of your eyelid.
The chatter was just the opposite. The concern was how to support struggling players outside the top 100. There were suggestions of sharing Slam prize money with low tier players that were not even in the tournament.

In such an atmosphere nobody was suggesting not paying the struggling player that clawed his way into the first round of an ATP tournament and lost.

This "chatter" was all inside your pretty little head!
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
There was that 'chatter', but then the backlash came. It was particularly virulent 'backlash chatter' around here.

The chatter was just the opposite. The concern was how to support struggling players outside the top 100. There were suggestions of sharing Slam prize money with low tier players that were not even in the tournament.

In such an atmosphere nobody was suggesting not paying the struggling player that clawed his way into the first round of an ATP tournament and lost.

This "chatter" was all inside your pretty little head!
 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
There was that 'chatter', but then the backlash came. It was particularly virulent 'backlash chatter' around here.
Why do you suppose these players do not unionize?

Yes, it is an individual sport but nothing precludes them from forming a union just as baseball and basketball players do.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Independent contractors can't unionize, either practically or legally. They can form an association within which they lobby. It's called the ATP.

In any event, outside a few fields unions are being crushed like ants.

Why do you suppose these players do not unionize?

Yes, it is an individual sport but nothing precludes them from forming a union just as baseball and basketball players do.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
Tennis_Hands strikes again with his wonderful insight into the thoughts in other people's minds

Then why was he originally critical of the tournament?
Because at the time he listened to his brain. Now he is listening to his check book.

Besides, I was right about what the USO organisers were cooking. The waiver confirmed 100% what I previously anticipated, so I will go with the facts from the reality as a way of determining whether my interpretations of the events are correct.

:cool:
 
Last edited:

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
He claimed that USO policy would automatically scrap the tournament after even just one player tested positive. Obviously the tournament could proceed if, for example, a losing player tested positive and had no contact with other players. It all depends on the circumstances.

The Troll has provided no link to such a policy, despite being asked countless times.
I actually provided the name of who said it, in what circumstances and then followed it up with quotes from other USO officials that showed how their position evolved from the original stance to where we are now, including the statement that any medical situation will be reviewed on a case to case basis, without them ever giving further details what that actually means. There was no link as that was said in an answer to a journalist question in a live Q&A session of which I am not aware to have a record. It was also in the early stages when the USO was still considering its options because the situation with the virus in NY was still grave, so they basically had to say something to that effect. Their position gradually deteriorated as far as their commitment to what they would or wouldn't do to the point of basically not giving a care about anything as long as they get their TV money.

Then again, you claimed at some point that you don't read my posts, so how would you know that, despite of me posting it directly as an answer to your request? Maybe your "oversight" has something to do with the fact that in the same answer I also asked you to clear for us:

1) what are the scenarios in which the USO organisers stop the tournament. Until this day we don't have that explanation, so you could still make good and explain what their plan for such emergencies is

2) what are the guarantees the USO organisers provide to the players as far as compensation goes, if players or other USO participants get ill. That was before the shameful waiver was issued and with it now we have the answer as to why you didn't want to answer that question

:cool:
 
Last edited:

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
Then again, you claimed at some point that you don't read my posts, so how would you know that, despite of me posting it directly as an answer to your request?
We temporarily released you from the killfile and waited for two weeks and there was no citation to this alleged USO policy from you. Also confirmed with @beard that you never came forward with supporting evidence of your claim that USO policy calls for tournament cancellation after one positive case

Common sense would dictate that the consequences of a positive case would obviously depend on the circumstances of said positivity.

If Djoker beats Joe Blow in straight sets in Round 1, while maintaining physical distancing, and Joe subsequently tests positive, there is no reason to cancel the tournament. That is absurd.Joe would be removed from the USTA campus and play would proceed.

But yet, that is what you were claiming; a blanket USO policy that calls for cancellation after one player tests positive.

1) what are the scenarios in which the USO organisers stop the tournament. Until this day we don't have that explanation, so you could still make good and explain what their plan for such emergencies is
We never claimed to know what the USO policy is regarding cancellation and we have not even bothered to look up whether the USO has published any official policy regarding what circumstances when the tournament will be stopped.

It will obviously depend on the circumstances. As stated in the above Joe Blow scenario, it would not affect the tournament.

2) what are the guarantees the USO organisers provide to the players as far as compensation goes, if players or other USO participants get ill. That was before the shameful waiver was issued and with it now we have the answer as to why you didn't want to answer that question
We never claimed to know what their compensation policy is if USO players get ill, nor are we particularly interested in researching whether they have officially published any policy.

We assume that the waiver addresses this and presumably players get some flat fee. Or not. It does not really concern us.

We are only concerned that the players maintain distancing and behave themselves off the court. If this is done we are confident that the tournament will be a success. Just like the Prague Tournament.
 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
I actually provided the name of who said it, in what circumstances and then followed it up with quotes from other USO officials that showed how their position evolved from the original stance to where we are now, including the statement that any medical situation will be reviewed on a case to case basis, without them ever giving further details what that actually means. There was no link as that was said in an answer to a journalist question in a live Q&A session of which I am not aware to have a record.
LOL. The USO policy was still under discussion and nothing formal had yet been published and yet you still definitively claimed that a single positive case would automatically spell the end of the tournament.

It is all meaningless until the policy is published....

in any case, post the link of the USO official describing the scenario of how the tournament would automatically be cancelled after a single positive case.
 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
He never stated any evidence/link for anything he "quoted" on this forum..
But he did claim that USO officials, at one time, were considering adapting the policy of automatically cancelling the tournament if a single positive case was found.

That was his claim, correct?

He has been mostly living in the killfile so maybe we have missed it, but he claims to have posted links to USO officials describing these scenarios.

Have you seen these quotes?
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
I temporarily released you from the killfile and waited for two weeks and there was no citation to this alleged USO policy from you.
So, did you read the post where I answered to your question, yes or no?

I never claimed to know what the USO policy is regarding cancellation and we have not even bothered to look up whether the USO has published any official policy regarding what circumstances when the tournament will be stopped.
If you don't follow the USO organisers' policies on the matter of politic towards the problem at hand what are you doing here?

I never claimed to know what their compensation policy is if USO players get ill, nor am I particularly interested in researching whether they have officially published any policy.
Same. If you don't follow the USO organisers' policies what are you doing here?

I am only concerned that the players maintain distancing and behave themselves off the court. If this is done we are confident that the tournament will be a success. Just like the Prague Tournament.

"Will be a success" need a qualification what constitutes a success, and you already admitted that you are not even interested in how that works regarding the virus, so your statement is absolutely empty.

:cool:
 
Last edited:

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
LOL. The USO policy was still under discussion and nothing formal had yet been published and yet you still definitively claimed that a single positive case would automatically spell the end of the tournament.

It is all meaningless until the policy is published....

in any case, post the link of the USO official describing the scenario of how the tournament would automatically be cancelled after a single positive case.
Oh, so now you admit that you understand the difference between an answer to a journalist question when asked about a particular problem and an official policy? Thanks for slipping like that, because without that concession it would have been hard to continue to argue with someone demanding a link to a statement that was made as a passing remark that might have reflected the PR intentions of the Open, but the organisers wouldn't dare to put into writing, unless they wanted to shoot themselves in the foot, by taking a definite stance before they review their options.

Your last request indicates that you don't know what you have said in the first paragraph. Long ways to go before you are capable of holding a position without compromising it as you did here.

:cool:
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
LOL. The USO policy was still under discussion and nothing formal had yet been published and yet you still definitively claimed that a single positive case would automatically spell the end of the tournament.

It is all meaningless until the policy is published....

in any case, post the link of the USO official describing the scenario of how the tournament would automatically be cancelled after a single positive case.
It is not meaningless as far as the intentions of the organisers are concerned (be it their real intentions or intentions to present themselves in a certain way).

It is highly amusing that you are engaged in trying to discuss politics, yet you don't know basic approaches to making politics.

With the said passing remarks the USO organisers were doing damage control by coming out and discussing their commitment to sticking to what is a responsible attitude at the time, and at the time the situation in NYC was such that everyone trying to get their business back on track was forced to stick to the "most safe" scenario.

Their position as to what they are prepared to commit to gradually deteriorated (with the relaxing of the situation in NYC) to end up with giving no fvcks about anything else, but their TV money. Seeing the end result and the gradual deterioration of their position only confirms what I said. Too bad that the situation elsewhere got worse, so that their hypocrisy was laid bare for everyone to see.

:cool:
 

ron schaap

Hall of Fame
First-round singles prize money at the US Open is going up 5%, from $58,000 to $61,000, the only level where there is a jump. Paychecks for players who reach the second round ($100,000) or third round ($163,000) will remain the same.

The prizes then decrease in each round of singles: from $280,000 to $250,000 in the fourth, from $500,000 to $425,000 in the quarterfinals, from $960,000 to $800,000 in the semifinals, and from $1.9 million to $1.5 million for the runner-up.
There are times i dont find that kind of money in my pockets:oops:
The real risk is not those tournaments but travelling abroad to the states in cramped airplanes and staying in busy airports and then after collecting paycheck doing the same process to return to homeland and than being 14 days in quarantaine even if not cought covid. Thats the risk players are having today. Not all are flying in private jets you know.
 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
I actually provided the name of who said it, in what circumstances and then followed it up with quotes from other USO officials that showed how their position evolved from the original stance to where we are now, including the statement that any medical situation will be reviewed on a case to case basis, without them ever giving further details what that actually means.
Oh you provided the USO official's name, is it? What was the name of the official? Can you remember that? :rolleyes:

Even if you can't name him, what was the circumstances he was describing?

That one positive case from a singles player will automatically spell the end of the singles tournament?

Regardless, do you agree with such a blanket tournament cancellation policy? We do not. It should be based on the circumstances and whether that positive player had successfully maintained physical distancing with other players.

There was no link as that was said in an answer to a journalist question in a live Q&A session of which I am not aware to have a record.
LOL.
 
Last edited:

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
Oh you provided the USO official's name, is it? What was the name of the official? Can you remember that? :rolleyes:

Even if you can't name him, what was the circumstances he was describing?

That one positive case from a singles player should automatically spell the end of the singles tournament?

Regardless, do you agree with such a blanket tournament cancellation policy? I do not. It should be based on the circumstances and whether that positive player had successfully maintained physical distancing with other players.



LOL.
It was Stacey Allaster, but I already told you that in the post some time ago. You claimed to have seen it, so why are you asking again?

She was describing what the USO organisers envisage in the situation that there is a registered infected participant at the USO. Considering how the players and staff wouldn't even know until it is found out, the organisers cannot guarantee anything.

Given your admission that you don't follow or care about tournament policies, it is baffling that you think that what you agree or disagree with is even remotely interesting.

You already admitted of knowing the difference between an answer to a question from an official, and an issued written statement from an organisation, so your lol-ing doesn't indicate anything else, but that you forgot what you said not even an hour ago.

:cool:
 
Last edited:

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
It was Stacey Allaster, but I already told you that in the post some time ago. You claimed to have seen it, so why are you asking again?

She was describing what the USO organisers envisage in the situation that there is a registered infected participant at the USO. Considering how the players and staff wouldn't even know until it is found out, the organisers cannot guarantee anything.
We never claimed to have seen anything from Stacey Allaster... You claimed many weeks ago that USO officials were considering a policy of cancelling the tournament after discovering one positive player. That type of blanket policy simply does not make sense. It will depend on the circumstances. Obviously a losing player testing positive will be less consequential than a winning player testing positive.

Even today, the USO has not officially spelt out a specific policy on how many positives will
result a cancellation. That is simply impossible to do as it depends on the circumstances.

The only certainty is that the positive player will have to be removed from the tournament as per NYC Health Department quarantine laws.

No set guidelines for canceling US Open in event of COVID-19 outbreak​
Aug 7, 2020 Associated Press​
A player testing positive for COVID-19 will be dropped from the US Open, but the U.S. Tennis Association has not established how many infected participants would force the Grand Slam tournament to be called off.
According to a 10½-page "Player Q&A Update'' sent out this week by the USTA, "There are no guidelines available to determine what number (of positive tests) will compel'' the cancellation of the US Open or the tournament that will precede it at Flushing Meadows this month amid the coronavirus pandemic.​
 
Last edited:

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
I never claimed to have seen anything from Stacey Allaster... You claimed many weeks ago that USO officials were considering a policy of cancelling the tournament after discovering one positive player. That type of blanket policy simply does not make sense. It will depend on the circumstances. Obviously a losing player testing positive will be less consequential than a winning player testing positive.

Even now, the USO has not officially spelt out a specific policy on how many positives will
result a cancellation. That is simply impossible to do as it depends on the circumstances.

The only certainty is that the positive player will have to be removed from the tournament as per NYC Health Department quarantine laws.
You are confused. You asked who said that and after I responded to you and asked you whether you have seen my previous post you start talking about you not having seen anything from Stacey Allaster. You lack even a minimal capacity to hold a logical conversation.

You also displayed a lack of even basic understanding how political stances are formed or held, what they depend on, and even more so how they are communicated.

You also admitted that you don't follow nor you are interested in knowing the actual USO policies on the matter you have been "discussing" for months now.

All in all, your contribution on that matter amounts to nothing.

:cool:
 
Last edited:

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
Because at the time he listened to his brain. Now he is listening to his check book.

Besides, I was right about what the USO organisers were cooking. The waiver confirmed 100% what I previously anticipated, so I will go with the facts from the reality as a way of determining whether my interpretations of the events are correct.

:cool:
Or maybe he just went there and saw by himself what the USTA is doing and that assuaged his concerns?

The waiver shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
Or maybe he just went there and saw by himself what the USTA is doing and that assuaged his concerns?

The waiver shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone
Sure, if you want to "believe".

I beg to differ, quite a few people were surprised by the waiver, for obvious reasons.

It is a kind of jarring to read that you are extremely naive and extremely pragmatic (not to say cynical) in one post, but hey, I have seen worse from certain people.

:cool:
 

Tshooter

Legend
...The matter here is the protection of the players local community...
[bolded added]

Get this straight.:mad: The only reason the USO is going forward is because it was sold as doable without putting the local community at risk. The primary purpose of the “bubble” is not to protect the players from the public (or from each other) but to protect the public from the players.

 
Last edited:

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
[bolded added]

Get this straight.:mad: The only reason the USO is going forward is because it was sold as doable without putting the local community at risk. The primary purpose of the “bubble” is not to protect the players from the public (or from each other) but to protect the public from the players.
I can get behind that noble intention. It is just that I don't believe that the USO organisers believe in noble intentions.

Still, if the policies at the tournament result in that it will be great, indeed, so let's hope that that is the case.

:cool:
 

Tshooter

Legend
I can get behind that noble intention. It is just that I don't believe that the USO organisers believe in noble intentions.

Still, if the policies at the tournament result in that it will be great, indeed, so let's hope that that is the case.

:cool:
The USTA ain’t in charge. The City or State can shut it down. It’s a high profile event and if Cuomo effs it up he’ll be as done as the Mayor.

And I’m not half as cynical as you. No ”USO organizer” wants to play a part in a new outbreak. Does it even have to be mentioned that the “USO organizers” live and work in the area. As do their families. As do their employees. And the constant harping by posters on the TV revenue as the deciding factor is grossly overblown. Reportedly $70 million TV revenue. They’re paying out around $53 million or so prize money plus they have expenses. That bubble isn‘t free. @Raul_SJ alone is billing zero dollars an hour and he’s put a lot of time and posts into it.
 
Last edited:

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
The USTA ain’t in charge. The City or State can shut it down. It’s a high profile event and if Cuomo effs it up he’ll be as done as the Mayor.

And I’m not half as cynical as you. No ”USO organizer” wants to play a part in a new outbreak. Does it even have to be mentioned that the “USO organizers” live and work in the area. As do their families. As do their employees. And the constant harping by posters on the TV revenue as the deciding factor is grossly overblown. Reportedly $70 million TV revenue. They’re paying out around $53 million or so prize money plus they have expenses. That bubble isn‘t free.
USTA is in charge of the event. Other big events have gone ahead, were effed up and nothing happened to anyone in charge. That is the reality.

:cool:
 

Tshooter

Legend
USTA is in charge of the event. Other big events have gone ahead, were effed up and nothing happened to anyone in charge. That is the reality.

:cool:
Not to play semantics but I don’t know what “in charge of the event“ means in this context. The USTA will no more be in charge of deciding when or if the event is shut down than any other NYC business is in charge of whether or when it is shut down all of which businesses are “in charge” of their events/operations.

What “big events” have happened that caused an outbreak and were not shut down ?

In any case, I think they can contain any cases within the “bubble.” @Raul_SJ has put a lot of work into it. The USO is really small potatoes compared to reopening the schools.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top