InsuranceMan
Hall of Fame
Well it’s basically come to this guy he’s like 40% of the posts here and they’re all equally as good
Vukov Banned
- Thread starter marc45
- Start date
RSJfan
Hall of Fame
No need for insults.
Last edited:
you know, I didn't know this. I've not been following tennis closely for over 15 years now (fatherhood). Always thought that Mouratoglou was a slime ball and more of a self promoter than a good coach. Yeah, I guess Serena did fine
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
I think his biggest contribution was to stabilize Serena's mind. Much like Bjorn has done with Keys
She was adrift, unmoored after she and her Daddy outgrew one another. Partying with Kim K and Lala Anthony and getting plastic surgery...and not playing tennis
Makes you wonder how many of these guys are on the teams because the star has Daddy Issues. I shudder to think about it
BallisticMissileFonseca
Semi-Pro
you're one of a kind
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
you're one of a kind
What part of this do you take issue with? It's all out in the open, aside from her never admitting to plastic surgery. But anyone with eyes can see there's a big difference between before she "cut her foot at a restaurant" and after.
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
Well Bencic just won a title as a new mom - her coach is the father. Kudermerova is also married to her coach. Both were coaches first, then husbands.
Did you follow tennis much in the 80s/90s? It was almost the norm with many of the European players(young women dating or even marrying their often much older coaches - Manuela Maleeva comes to mind, I remember her getting married to her coach when she was 19 after been having coached by him since childhood. Think they had 3 kids. Mary Carillo was the only one who had the guts to say anything on air on how weird that was. The average age of the entire tour was much younger in the 80s, and players had less entourages back then so many of these young women were just traveling alone with their male coaches. Not all families could afford to have a parent travel either(being top 100 in 1988 didn't exactly mean parents could quit their jobs and travel etc)
Also Ashley Harkleroad married her much older coach and former pro Chuck Adams(they were actually doing porn on onlyfans a few years ago!)
And the Meghann Shaughnessy situation was super disturbing, I think USTA investigated but did nothing. it's nice that WTA now doesn't turn a blind eye to this sort of stuff.
"Shaughnessy was in a relationship with her coach Rafael Font de Mora; they met when she was 13 and she moved in with him a year later.[9][10][11] Their romantic and coaching relationship ended in 2005. However, she briefly reunited with Font De Mora as her coach during the latter part of 2006.[12]"
I think this may be one positive result of social media. In 1995 or 2005, you'd just say "that's gross" but now hundreds or thousands of people can tweet WTA, USTA and its public, so the pressure is on to do something.
Last edited:
NattyGut
Professional
Safe Sport related, trying to avoid another lawsuit for allowing a coach to abuse a player. Makes sense.
apnews.com
mckenzie-v-united-states-tennis-assn-9
A jury awards $9 million to a player who sued the US Tennis Association over sexual abuse by a coach
A tennis player has been awarded $9 million in damages by a jury in federal court in Florida after accusing the U.S.
apnews.com
mckenzie-v-united-states-tennis-assn-9
NattyGut
Professional
Note: The USTA still employs Staciellen Mischel as its Chief Legal Counsel, despite her attempting to silence victims, including telling Pam Shriver to be silent and not talk with lawyers representing the victim abused by a coach at the USTA Orlando training complex. That victim prevailed in a jury trial in federal court obtaining a $9M judgment.
A key witness on this point was former tennis star Pam Shriver, one of only six women to have won more than 100 titles in a career spanning two decades. Shriver is the former president of the USTA’s charitable foundation and an outspoken critic of personal relationships between coaches and young players. Shriver said she encountered abusive coaching relationships every year on the Women’s Tennis Association Tour, and that USTA’s senior executive and corporate counsel had cautioned her against speaking out about her personal experience, including a “warning” against talking with McKenzie’s attorney.
A key witness on this point was former tennis star Pam Shriver, one of only six women to have won more than 100 titles in a career spanning two decades. Shriver is the former president of the USTA’s charitable foundation and an outspoken critic of personal relationships between coaches and young players. Shriver said she encountered abusive coaching relationships every year on the Women’s Tennis Association Tour, and that USTA’s senior executive and corporate counsel had cautioned her against speaking out about her personal experience, including a “warning” against talking with McKenzie’s attorney.
Yes, as well as satisfying the objective of protecting an individual, identified player, the WTA's actions here are elementary risk management protocols for the entity itself. All large organizations have strict codes of conduct forbidding abuse and harassment, appropriate investigative processes, and available disciplinary measures. Apparently a few members of this forum simply have no idea how such organizations function. Vukov may be a dangerous weirdo, but the procedures used for dealing with him have been pretty routine.
norcal
Legend
It's been a huge problem across many sports for a long time. These predators need to be exposed an kicked out of sports.
It's too bad there aren't more women coaches out the there teaching girls (I guess Margaret Court would object to that though).
NattyGut
Professional
From the 2024 case against the USTA --
As an expert on tennis, Shriver testified the problem has been wide-spread and she encountered abusive coaching relationships “each and every year on the [Women's Tennis Association] Tour” since she began in 1978, saying she witnessed “too many to count.” (Id. 32:24-25, 33:17-22, 37:25). At a Foundation charity event, USTA's senior executive and corporate counsel, Staciellen Mischel, approached Shriver to caution her against speaking out about her personal experience with abuse by coaches within tennis, including a “warning” against speaking with McKenzie's counsel in this case. (Id. 52:15-24, 64:13-16). Shriver took this to mean, “Don't say too much.” (Id. 64:16).
Meanwhile, verbose clown Roddick and Mr. Forehead co-host fail to "get it" believing this is open to debate.
As an expert on tennis, Shriver testified the problem has been wide-spread and she encountered abusive coaching relationships “each and every year on the [Women's Tennis Association] Tour” since she began in 1978, saying she witnessed “too many to count.” (Id. 32:24-25, 33:17-22, 37:25). At a Foundation charity event, USTA's senior executive and corporate counsel, Staciellen Mischel, approached Shriver to caution her against speaking out about her personal experience with abuse by coaches within tennis, including a “warning” against speaking with McKenzie's counsel in this case. (Id. 52:15-24, 64:13-16). Shriver took this to mean, “Don't say too much.” (Id. 64:16).
Meanwhile, verbose clown Roddick and Mr. Forehead co-host fail to "get it" believing this is open to debate.
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
Sounds like Shriver was more intimidated than the coaches themselves. Unfortunately that's always how it is
NattyGut
Professional
Don't forget that Patrick Jean André Mouratoglou not so quietly dated Serena in 2012, coaching her from 2012-2022
Serena Williams dating coach Patrick Mouratoglou?
(Landov) Earlier this week, Serena Williams appeared on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon and broke out into an impromptu rendering on Air Supply's All Out of
www.si.com
roysid
Legend
Looking at the information that's flowing, there is enormous mental dependency on vukov by rybakina. It has happened after years of working together and he reminds her that without him she would be nothing.
Rybakina called him back at her team in 2025 AO. That shows his influence was still very strong. That led Goran to leave.
And in Doha she said its disappointing that Vukov is banned.
All these points to a abuse scenario by a close one. Here its tennis. But its happening throughout in the hands of father, husband, boyfriend etc. Its not that easy to leave
Rybakina called him back at her team in 2025 AO. That shows his influence was still very strong. That led Goran to leave.
And in Doha she said its disappointing that Vukov is banned.
All these points to a abuse scenario by a close one. Here its tennis. But its happening throughout in the hands of father, husband, boyfriend etc. Its not that easy to leave
norcal
Legend
I understand your outrage but of course a lawyer defending the USTA is not going to want to give the plaintiff's attorney ammo against the USTA.
That's their job.
NattyGut
Professional
Wrong.
The USTA in-house scum bucket lawyer from a bottom tier school and certainly some sort of nepotist hire isn't hired to silence witnesses.
Similarly, the USTA in-house criminal Staciellen Mishcel didn't represent the USTA in trial, a real law firm with real lawyers billing the USTA millions defended the USTA in the trial against McKenzie.
Staciellen Mischel engaged in unlawful witness tampering with a third party witness. Her job remains in tact at the USTA! But her bar license is at issue, given a federal judge went out of his way to emphasize PUNITIVE damages were appropriate because:
"Staciellen Mischel, approached Shriver to caution her against speaking out about her personal experience with abuse by coaches within tennis, including a “warning” against speaking with McKenzie's counsel in this case. (Id. 52:15-24, 64:13-16). Shriver took this to mean, “Don't say too much.” (Id. 64:16)."
By the way, imagine all the dues that went to USTA lawyers (millions) to defend this case through trial. Then, in what was clearly a loser case that should have settled, the USTA got hit with a $9M verdict. In total, I expect this cost the USTA $12M.
The same USTA that requires a payment to enforce its own rules and makes grievances nearly impossible.
But you are correct that there is no love lost for the USTA
Last edited:
NattyGut
Professional
The U.S. District Court jury awarded McKenzie $3 million in compensation and added $6 million in punitive damages on May 7, 2024. The punitive damages awarded stems almost exclusively from the conduct of USTA staff, including its general counsel, Staciellen Mischel, who retains her job at USTA HQ in New York, in covering up its culture of silencing victims.
“We are very pleased with the jury’s decision to award Ms. McKenzie for her pain and suffering but more importantly we believe the jury’s decision to award punitive damages sends the correct message to all sports organizations that they must take necessary steps to protect the athletes under their banner,” Judkins wrote.
The Judge writing:
The Plaintiff is correct that USTA employee Ms. Battaglia's failure to report Coach Aranda's sexual assault is not the basis for punitive damages; it was, however, relevant to demonstrate the USTA's culture of silence and gross negligence. Similarly, the evidence concerning the USTA's attempt to cover up Ms. McKenzie's assault was relevant to the USTA's culture of silence and was not offered as a basis for punitive damages. And, as was previously discussed, the USTA's contention that the Rule of Three applies only to minors is wrong. The Rule of Three applies to children and teens. Ms. McKenzie was 19 when she was sexually assaulted by Coach Aranda. Had the USTA wanted to say “minor” instead of “teen” it would have done so. Mr. Malmqvist, as the Director of Women's Tennis, testified that “teen” includes Ms. McKenzie. He was correct, and the USTA cannot simply choose to ignore the plain and unambiguous language of the Rule of Three.
The Plaintiff presented evidence that USTA International Tennis Hall of Fame member Pam Shriver was told by the USTA's general counsel to “be careful” after Ms. Shriver began discussing sexual abuse within the USTA with Ms. McKenzie. USTA's general manager, Mr. Malmqvist, advised Ms. McKenzie not to discuss what happened to her but Mr. Malmqvist also directed her to report it. And Ms. McKenzie's former close friend, CiCi Bellis, broke off all contact with her after speaking with the USTA's general manager, Mr. Blackman.
Notwithstanding this rule, Mr. Blackman testified the USTA does not supervise its practices. This statement is dumbfounding since the USTA was warned to be on the lookout for grooming by coaches and had direct reports of 27 sexual assaults by coaches before Ms. McKenzie was assaulted. The USTA simply ignored the danger presented by coaches who wield considerable power over young female players. This is exactly what Congress legislated to prevent and is precisely what the USTA pushed back against. The punitive damages award was twice the compensatory damages and is justified by the facts. The USTA's Motion for Remittitur is denied.
“We are very pleased with the jury’s decision to award Ms. McKenzie for her pain and suffering but more importantly we believe the jury’s decision to award punitive damages sends the correct message to all sports organizations that they must take necessary steps to protect the athletes under their banner,” Judkins wrote.
The Judge writing:
The Plaintiff is correct that USTA employee Ms. Battaglia's failure to report Coach Aranda's sexual assault is not the basis for punitive damages; it was, however, relevant to demonstrate the USTA's culture of silence and gross negligence. Similarly, the evidence concerning the USTA's attempt to cover up Ms. McKenzie's assault was relevant to the USTA's culture of silence and was not offered as a basis for punitive damages. And, as was previously discussed, the USTA's contention that the Rule of Three applies only to minors is wrong. The Rule of Three applies to children and teens. Ms. McKenzie was 19 when she was sexually assaulted by Coach Aranda. Had the USTA wanted to say “minor” instead of “teen” it would have done so. Mr. Malmqvist, as the Director of Women's Tennis, testified that “teen” includes Ms. McKenzie. He was correct, and the USTA cannot simply choose to ignore the plain and unambiguous language of the Rule of Three.
The Plaintiff presented evidence that USTA International Tennis Hall of Fame member Pam Shriver was told by the USTA's general counsel to “be careful” after Ms. Shriver began discussing sexual abuse within the USTA with Ms. McKenzie. USTA's general manager, Mr. Malmqvist, advised Ms. McKenzie not to discuss what happened to her but Mr. Malmqvist also directed her to report it. And Ms. McKenzie's former close friend, CiCi Bellis, broke off all contact with her after speaking with the USTA's general manager, Mr. Blackman.
Notwithstanding this rule, Mr. Blackman testified the USTA does not supervise its practices. This statement is dumbfounding since the USTA was warned to be on the lookout for grooming by coaches and had direct reports of 27 sexual assaults by coaches before Ms. McKenzie was assaulted. The USTA simply ignored the danger presented by coaches who wield considerable power over young female players. This is exactly what Congress legislated to prevent and is precisely what the USTA pushed back against. The punitive damages award was twice the compensatory damages and is justified by the facts. The USTA's Motion for Remittitur is denied.
Last edited:
NattyGut
Professional
The USTA got to Ms. Bellis, just as it attempted to get to Ms. Shriver. This wasn't lost with the judge when he upheld the $6,000,000 punitive damages award against the USTA
Without commenting on the specific qualifications, actions, or possible scum-bucketry of the USTA lawyer, let me say that as an in-house attorney myself (Harvard Law School mcl if "tiering" is relevant), any defense of the organization is always a collaboration between the in-house legal department and outside litigation counsel. It's a mutual client. Not sitting at counsel table at the trial doesn't mean you're not representing the organization. Of course, this reality would not excuse any departures from ethical requirements.
What exactly are you quoting here? Because the trial court found, in denying the USTA's post-trial motion, that "the evidence concerning the USTA’s attempt to cover up Ms. McKenzie’s assault was relevant to the USTA’s culture of silence and was not offered as a basis for punitive damages." McKenzie v. USTA, No. 6:22-cv-615-PGB-LHP, slip op. at 29 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2024) (discussing the lawyer's "be careful" admonition to Shriver in the accompanying footnote).
As I interpret this case, the USTA lawyer's actions were a small sideshow at best. The real basis for liability was the USTA's organizational resistance to enforcing the code of conduct and its refusal to adequately monitor coaches left alone with vulnerable female players, even after a history of abuse reports.
NattyGut
Professional
Please go intimidate and silence third party witnesses to cover up bad acts of whatever corporation you represent. Doubt that works out favorably. In-house lawyers don't litigate cases. And clearly, your interpretation is mistaken.
"USTA counsel's [Staciellen Mischel] message to Shriver certainly looks like an untoward attempt to intimidate her and may be construed by the jury as being aimed at silencing victims of abuse by coaches. See Termilus v. Marksman Sec. Corp., 15-61758-CIV, 2016 WL 6212990, at *11 (S.D. Fla. June 27, 2016), report and recommendation adopted as modified, 2016 WL 6237264 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 1, 2016). Punitive damages are only tenable for “truly culpable behavior to express society's collective outrage.” Bistline v. Rogers, 215 So.3d 607, 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (cleaned up). McKenzie presents sufficient evidence from which a jury may conclude an award of punitive damages is warranted."
Last edited:
zvelf
Hall of Fame
You are bizarrely conflating the law with workplace rules. Your employer can fire you for reasons beyond you breaking a law. You can walk around in public shirtless without breaking any laws, but if you go to work shirtless every day, your employer can fire you for that. The WTA has a code of conduct, and if Vukoc breaks it, which they say he has, they can ban him.
GrassMasters
Rookie
Unfortunately I think it's going to take her career going down the crapper until she snaps out of it and admits this Vukov guy is scam. Right now she's still in the top 10 because she's still very talented. But if it's as bad as it sounds like, it's not going to stay that way. Expect more withdrawals, more injuries, more early exists. Anyone who has been following her since her Wimbledon win can see how much she deteriorated. Instead of building up her game, my guess is she spends most of her time and energy being exhausted by this Vukov guy. No coach who's worth anything would tell you you'd be nothing without him, much less so a boyfriend.
People spend years in bad relationships convincing themselves everything's fine until at some points it gets too far and it's over. And not a minute after that they tell themselves "I wasted years of my life and health on this human garbage". It's a tale as old as time. It's why I give very little weight to her words that everything is fine. Right now he has absolute control over her. I can only hope she finds herself out of it, and that it doesn't end badly, because for me it's just seeing a player I like throw her career in the toilet. For her it's much bigger than tennis. It's her life.
People spend years in bad relationships convincing themselves everything's fine until at some points it gets too far and it's over. And not a minute after that they tell themselves "I wasted years of my life and health on this human garbage". It's a tale as old as time. It's why I give very little weight to her words that everything is fine. Right now he has absolute control over her. I can only hope she finds herself out of it, and that it doesn't end badly, because for me it's just seeing a player I like throw her career in the toilet. For her it's much bigger than tennis. It's her life.
Vukov seems to be a little mouse in comparison to the amount of REAL criminal abuse USTA has knowingly facilitated throughout the years.
Has made Rybakina cry...
Has said without him she'd be picking potatoes...
What else do they have on him? Can't be much or they would say it. If it's so terrible that it can't be mentioned, where is the police?
At least we know what the victim of his abuse thinks of the whole thing. During tournaments she's inviting him into her hotel room overnight, ha!
Has made Rybakina cry...
Has said without him she'd be picking potatoes...
What else do they have on him? Can't be much or they would say it. If it's so terrible that it can't be mentioned, where is the police?
At least we know what the victim of his abuse thinks of the whole thing. During tournaments she's inviting him into her hotel room overnight, ha!
norcal
Legend
Very well said. Watching her play Iga today she looks like a shell of her former self. Couple years back I really thought she had a good chance of being a sustained #1 player, at least be a fixture in the top 3.
If Vukov *actually* cared about her he would end the chaos and let her focus on her career.
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
You mean like the woman who conspired against Nole by walking in front of that ball at the US Open?
If the person is shirtless , yes. But he wears purple shirt everyday may not hold in a court of law
JustMy2Cents
Hall of Fame
we also know what Ivanisevic thinks... he walked out! or is he not credible/unbiased enough for you?
does Ivanisevic's silent indictment by walking out good enough as he belongs to the same 'ov, ev' region?
[PM might be dubiously responsible for Halep issues and the serena coaching gesture resulting in her default but here Elena is visibly recoiling at the coach's demeanor. can't see any conflation at all!]
roysid
Legend
This url provides a lot of detail
