Tatishivili's fine for not meeting a professional standard at the French Open completely overturned, Tomic's fine upheld.

Was this the right move for Tatishvili and Tomic?

  • Yes, correct decision for both

  • No, correct decision for Tatishvili but incorrect for Tomic

  • No, incorrect decision for Tatishvili but correct for Tomic

  • No, bad decision for both.


Results are only viewable after voting.

Tshooter

Legend
Know nothing of Tatishvilli or her case, so I can't comment. Why do you think?
I don't know what your asking. I thought you wrote that a violation of the First Round Tanking Rule I'll call it because I don't want to find the official name is clear to "Any tennis fan, player, or official..."

Tatishvilli was fined under the rule as Bernie was. She appealed. Her fine was reversed in whole. So it follows application of the rule isn't so clear. :oops:
 
Last edited:

Lleytonstation

Hall of Fame
I don't know what your asking. I thought you wrote that a violation of the First Round Tanking Rule I'll call it because I don't want to find the official name is clear to "Any tennis fan, player, or official..."

Tatishvilli was fined under the rule as Bernie was. She appealed. The fine was reversed in whole. So it follows application of the rule isn't so clear. :oops:
Well, I don't know her situation, but I guess it is not so easy for some. I do know Tomic tanked. I just said I don't know the girls situation so I don't have anything to say about her.
 

Tshooter

Legend
Was this her first time being accused of tanking? I know this is not even the 3rd, 4th, or 5th time Tomic has tanked. Just like anything else, you should get punished more severely if this is a repeatable offense.
I think it was the first time this rule was applied against her. I believe it was also the first time Bernie had it applied to him. It's a relatively new rule.

And punished more severely for a repeatable offense is different from being punished by taking into account not just your effort in the match at issue but your reputation and prior behavior (which behavior as I said I do not believe has subjected Bernie to penalty under this rule) which seems to be what happened here based on that letter.

The guy basically wrote "I think you tanked here and everyone knows your reputation for tanking and that also counts in determining whether you tanked here."
 
Last edited:

Lleytonstation

Hall of Fame
I think it was her first time to have this rule applied against her. I believe it was also the first time Bernie had it applied to him. It's a relatively new rule.

And punished more severely for a repeatable offense is different from being punished under this rule by taking into account not just your effort in the match at issue but your reputation and prior behavior (which behavior as I understand has never been subject to penalty under this rule) which seems to be what happened here based on that letter.
True, he has not been reprimanded that I know of so I guess the prior behavior should not be taken into account.

All I know about the situation is when I watched the match live against Tsonga, it was clear as day he was tanking. In my opinion, he should be fined some amount for it, or at least be given a slam suspension or warning.

But to be honest, I don't feel too strongly either way, as he is burning bridges every time he does this, and eventually he will run out of opportunities to tank on the big stage.
 

jon70

Semi-Pro
When Tomic was a junior and he/his dad felt they weren't getting the rub of the green with umpiring, they'd walk off the court. Maybe they've been similarly dismissive towards Wimbledon in the past and this is a get square; there's not much justification for the wording in that letter otherwise.
 

Ann

Hall of Fame
Does Tomic work for this moron? It's not an employee-employer relationship. Not that any employer should publish a public comment like that about an employee.
Tomic in fact does work for the ATP and when he plays for Wimbledon he does work for Wimbledon's governing body. And using the words in this - no. But an employer will tell an employee in a 2nd warning, you completed none of your assignments, you show up late everyday, your attitude is detrimental to the department. Going forward if all isn't reversed immediately blah, blah, blah with a whole of words and approved by the company's attorney.
 

Tshooter

Legend
Tomic in fact does work for the ATP and when he plays for Wimbledon he does work for Wimbledon's governing body. And using the words in this - no. But an employer will tell an employee in a 2nd warning, you completed none of your assignments, you show up late everyday, your attitude is detrimental to the department. Going forward if all isn't reversed immediately blah, blah, blah with a whole of words and approved by the company's attorney.
Tomic doesn’t “do work for” the ATP, an association of players and tournament owners or for the ITF, a governing body.

He’s a professional tennis player and independent contractor. He “does work for” W. He plays tennis and they pay him if he wins matches. He agrees to follow the ITF rules at Slams and the ATP rules at ATP events and those rules form the basis for any fines not any kind of employer-employee relationship.
 

Ann

Hall of Fame
Tomic doesn’t “do work for” the ATP, an association of players and tournament owners or for the ITF, a governing body. He’s a professional tennis player and independent contractor. He “does work for” W. He plays tennis and they pay him if he wins matches. He agrees to follow the ITF rules at Slams and the ATP rules at ATP events and those rules form the basis for any fines not any kind of employer-employee relationship.
He agrees to follow their rules, if he doesn't then he doesn't play for them anymore. It's not "working for" but it's in essence the exact same thing. Break the ATP or Wimbledon's rules is the same thing as breaking your bosses rules and there will be repercussions.
 

Raiden

Hall of Fame
Next stop CAS. Bernie can just crib half or more of the Tatishvili appeal. 8-B Let’s find out what the vauge play to a “professional standard” means and who determines whether it was met and how.
That's where Tomic needs to take this. Tatishvili explicitly asked the Grand slam board what "professional standard" is and they refused to give her an answer... preferring to pay her back instead.

To me that smells like dirty lawyerly shenanigans and not an objective and neutral application of rules by fair-minded tennis officials. They are betting on Tomic's reputation & unpopularity to get away with it.
 

Lleytonstation

Hall of Fame
He agrees to follow their rules, if he doesn't then he doesn't play for them anymore. It's not "working for" but it's in essence the exact same thing. Break the ATP or Wimbledon's rules is the same thing as breaking your bosses rules and there will be repercussions.
Yep, yep, yep. Tomic is essentially a contractor working for WC. If he does a pist poor job and does not live up to his standards, he does not get paid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ann

Tshooter

Legend
That's where Tomic needs to take this. Tatishvili explicitly asked the Grand slam board what "professional standard" is and they refused to give her an answer... preferring to pay her back instead.

To me that smells like dirty lawyerly shenanigans and not an objective and neutral application of rules by fair-minded tennis officials. They are betting on Tomic's reputation & unpopularity to get away with it.
They refused her an answer because they haven’t defined it or can’t because they don’t know what it means and they prefer to use the “I’ll let you know when I see it” together with “helpful presence of a [anonymous] highly regarded independent coaching expert who has worked with numerous top players.” All in all, very transparent, easily understood by a pro tennis player and very fair. :rolleyes:

Whatever it means what Babcock wrote doesn’t explain it at all: “Despite the score line,” the letter [to Tatishvili] continued, “it is clear that you — even confirmed by your in-form opponent — were competing professionally from the first to the very last point, however unsuccessful in the end.”

What does that mean ? It can’t mean trying to win every point, game or set because anyone that has ever watched tennis knows what Tomic reportedly said is correct: conservation of energy and strategic tanking are part of the sport (see most recently Men’s Singles W final, 2019, 2nd set).

Onward and upwards to CAS !
 

Raiden

Hall of Fame
They refused her an answer because they haven’t defined it or can’t because they don’t know what it means and they prefer to use the “I’ll let you know when I see it” together with “helpful presence of a [anonymous] highly regarded independent coaching expert who has worked with numerous top players.” All in all, very transparent, easily understood by a pro tennis player and very fair. :rolleyes:

Whatever it means what Babcock wrote doesn’t explain it at all: “Despite the score line,” the letter [to Tatishvili] continued, “it is clear that you — even confirmed by your in-form opponent — were competing professionally from the first to the very last point, however unsuccessful in the end.”

What does that mean ? It can’t mean trying to win every point, game or set because anyone that has ever watched tennis knows what Tomic reportedly said is correct: conservation of energy and strategic tanking are part of the sport (see most recently Men’s Singles W final, 2019, 2nd set).

Onward and upwards to CAS !
Yup.

Not only does Tomic needs to get back his prize money but the whole rule needs to be abolished (regardless of whether there is a replacement ready or not).

It was a con job quietly concocted and rushed through by a self serving group of entities who thought of only one thing: how do we change the rule with the goal of maximizing our vested interest? Clearly players were never consulted, nor represented, nor did the media bring the issue to the players' attention, as they normally do before laws change.
 
Last edited:

beltsman

Legend
Tomic in fact does work for the ATP and when he plays for Wimbledon he does work for Wimbledon's governing body. And using the words in this - no. But an employer will tell an employee in a 2nd warning, you completed none of your assignments, you show up late everyday, your attitude is detrimental to the department. Going forward if all isn't reversed immediately blah, blah, blah with a whole of words and approved by the company's attorney.
No, they are not employees.
 

Tshooter

Legend
He agrees to follow their rules, if he doesn't then he doesn't play for them anymore. It's not "working for" but it's in essence the exact same thing.
So in essence an IC is the same thing as an employee. :unsure: Uber and every other alleged “platform” all breath a sigh of relief. It’s all the same.

Break the ATP or Wimbledon's rules is the same thing as breaking your bosses rules and there will be repercussions.
What the rule at issue means and how it was applied and whether any of it is defensible are some of the issues not whether there are repercussions to a player violating a rule which seems to me an obvious generality that doesn’t resolve anything with respect to Bernie.

Can you explain what playing to a professional standard means, who should determine it and how ?
 
Last edited:

Lleytonstation

Hall of Fame
o_O



What the rule at issue means and how it was applied and whether any of it is defensible are some of the issues not whether there are repercussions to a player violating a rule which seems to me an obvious generality that doesn’t resolve anything with respect to Bernie.

Can you explain what playing to a professional standard means, who should determine it and how ?
You make some good points that putting the rule on paper is virtually impossible, however, it should be easy to identify by watching the match. Then again they might have missed the mark on the girl, so maybe for some it is not as easy as it looks.

There should be a warning first, then a committee of some sorts that reviews the match and the players reasons for it. If a committee decides it is tanking, then it is. This should not be as hard as people are making it out to be. Tomic was obviously tanking.
 

Ann

Hall of Fame
o_O



What the rule at issue means and how it was applied and whether any of it is defensible are some of the issues not whether there are repercussions to a player violating a rule which seems to me an obvious generality that doesn’t resolve anything with respect to Bernie.

Can you explain what playing to a professional standard means, who should determine it and how ?
It's at the discretion of the governing body.
 

Ann

Hall of Fame
No, they are not employees.
They are de facto employees when they agree to be a member of the ATP or play at Wimbledon. They are subject to the rules of the organizations and in return can share in the wealth if they follow the rules or not get paid if they break them.
 

beltsman

Legend
They are de facto employees when they agree to be a member of the ATP or play at Wimbledon. They are subject to the rules of the organizations and in return can share in the wealth if they follow the rules or not get paid if they break them.
No it's not the same.
 

Tshooter

Legend
It's at the discretion of the governing body.
So no definition and no guidelines to players ?

I don’t think a completely subjective and non-transparent determination by the ITF should fly with the players or will fly at CAS, if push comes to shove.
 
Last edited:

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
Fact is Tomic earnt that money whether you like it or not. He wasn’t handed a wildcard or anything. He worked hard enough over the course of the whole year to earn that spot. Don’t give me any nonsense about any other player would do anything to take his spot. Clearly they didn’t work hard enough over to actually earn it, did they. What a massive c*** that Babcock guy is. An absolute shambles
this is where I am. I am happy that tatishaviili's fine was overturned, but tomic's should be too and I'm not even a fan of tomic. the letter is condescending as hell, and like you said its not just about the first round performance, he earned his right to be in the first round as well as the earnings. And honestly if you are going to set a precedent that apparently anyone who loses in less than an hour is tanking, well then you have a major problem and plenty of people need their earnings taken away.
 

Lleytonstation

Hall of Fame
this is where I am. I am happy that tatishaviili's fine was overturned, but tomic's should be too and I'm not even a fan of tomic. the letter is condescending as hell, and like you said its not just about the first round performance, he earned his right to be in the first round as well as the earnings. And honestly if you are going to set a precedent that apparently anyone who loses in less than an hour is tanking, well then you have a major problem and plenty of people need their earnings taken away.
So you think Tomic did not tank? The letter was as it should be, to the point, truthful, and bold.
 

Tshooter

Legend
You make some good points that putting the rule on paper is virtually impossible, however, it should be easy to identify by watching the match. Then again they might have missed the mark on the girl, so maybe for some it is not as easy as it looks....
Would you agree that at a minimum any appeal should be handled by a group of people that includes people appointed by the players and some kind of supermajority vote necessary to confirm a tank such that player reps having blocking power ? Not handled by one ITF guy and his anonymous pal. Otherwise I’d just as soon send Gimelstob to talk some sense into the ITF guy.
 

Lleytonstation

Hall of Fame
Would you agree that at a minimum any appeal should be handled by a group of people that includes people appointed by the players and some kind of supermajority vote necessary to confirm a tank such that player reps having blocking power ? Not handled by one ITF guy and his anonymous pal. Otherwise I’d just as soon send Gimelstob to talk some sense into the ITF guy.
Yes, and they would have come to the correct decision to warn Tomic, or if he already had a warning, they would define it as tanking and fine him some agreed upon amount.
 

Tshooter

Legend
Ok, deal. We have an agreement in principle. Someone else will have to work out the details. Gimelstob will be called off pending implementation of the new rules.

As a good faith measure I propose resolving Bernie’s specific case by giving him back 50%. (after all, even without watching it’s at least 50% odds he tanked. :-D).

A formal apology from Babcock to Bernie for that outrageous letter would be the decent thing and build trust with the players that he’s not trying to steal their prize money but I doubt anyone that wrote that patronizing screed will get there and I don’t want to blow up the deal over it.
 
Last edited:

Lleytonstation

Hall of Fame
formal apology from Babcock to Bernie for that outrageous letter would be the decent thing and build trust with the players that he’s not trying to steal their prize money but I doubt anyone that wrote that patronizing screed will get there and I don’t want to blow up the deal over it.
No, the letter was the correct wording.
 

Tshooter

Legend
They are de facto employees when they agree to be a member of the ATP or play at Wimbledon. They are subject to the rules of the organizations and in return can share in the wealth if they follow the rules or not get paid if they break them.
:rolleyes:

No such thing as de facto employee.

Your point about players being subject to rules generally is a repeat by you and no less irrelevant the second time insofar as determining whether any particular rule makes any sense either it’s meaning or application.
 
Last edited:

Tshooter

Legend
this is where I am. I am happy that tatishaviili's fine was overturned, but tomic's should be too and I'm not even a fan of tomic. the letter is condescending as hell, and like you said its not just about the first round performance, he earned his right to be in the first round as well as the earnings. And honestly if you are going to set a precedent that apparently anyone who loses in less than an hour is tanking, well then you have a major problem and plenty of people need their earnings taken away.
That letter was outrageous, funny and unprofessional. This guy should give the ruling and the strict rationale. Period.

Bernie owes ITF guy a hard tank after that letter. (y)
 
Last edited:

Lleytonstation

Hall of Fame
That letter was outrageous, funny and unprofessional. This guy should give the ruling and the strict rationale. Period.

Bernie owes that guy a hard tank after that letter.
I don't get your issue with the letter? Screw PC, say what you mean and what everyone else is thinking.
 

Ann

Hall of Fame
:rolleyes:

No such thing as de facto employee.

Your point about players being subject to rules generally is a repeat by you and no less irrelevant the second time insofar as determining whether any particular rule makes any sense either it’s meaning or application.
So the rules are irrelevant when you disagree with them? :rolleyes:
 

Tshooter

Legend
So the rules are irrelevant when you disagree with them? :rolleyes:
Why do you think trying to determine what a rule means and/or challenging how it has been applied suggests “the rules are irrelevant” when the rules are precisely what are being argued over.

Tatishvili didn’t argue the rule is irrelevant. Her arguments involved what the rule meant and its application.

Maybe what you mean is the ITF guy reviewing any appeal is the final decision maker concerning all issues whether you like it or not, which is not the case because I think a player could appeal to CAS or go to court if arbitration isn’t part of the ITF rules.
 
Last edited:

Ann

Hall of Fame
Why do you think trying to determine what a rule means and/or challenging how it has been applied suggests “the rules are irrelevant” when the rules are precisely what are being argued over.

Tatishvili didn’t argue the rule is irrelevant. Her arguments involved what the rule meant and its application.

Maybe what you mean is the ITF body reviewing any appeal is the final decision maker concerning all issues whether you like it or not, which is not the case because I think a player could appeal to CAS.
Why do you care so ******* much? I don't.
 

Ann

Hall of Fame
That’s one way to concede your point doesn’t make sense.

It’s just a discussion and you can check out whenever you desire.
No that's one way to say this is a stupidazz argument. I stated my opinion you stated yours. I haven't cared much from the beginning and think it's weird that you do. He broke the rules, you say there's no rule to be broken. Boom end of conversation but you want to go on for 154,686 hours saying the exact same thing over and over and over and over and over and over.

It's nothing that affects my or your life. And I just can't continue endlessly typing and reading bull**** because people can't accept that there's such a thing as a difference of opinion.
 

Tshooter

Legend
...He broke the rules, you say there's no rule to be broken...
You invented this: ", you say there's no rule to be broken."

A player arguing over the meaning or application of a rule is not saying “there’s no rule to be broken” which is just an iteration of your previously mistaken interpretation of a player appeal as suggesting a player is arguing “the rules are irrelevant.”

Your general theme seems to be the ITF has complete control over the interpretation and application of its Slam rules and the players have no input and no recourse. Which is unfair to the players.
 
Last edited:
Top