Talk Tennis Guru
There's certain decisions that the organisation of the AO must make every year that may or may not benefit a player, and it's very hard to claim impartiality when one of those players is your business partner.Care to explain the bolded?
I'm not saying Federer got an unfair advantage, but it's not ideal and it makes the lines blurry in my opinion.
This is a pretty one sided view.Dope, take PEDs, etc... I don't care. It's all entertainment to me.
- You don't want to allow so much doping that people dope themselves to death
- It's an extra financial barrier to young players who can't afford the better stuff yet
- Players are generally glorified and not put into question
- You don't know if players are treated equally in terms of anti doping efforts, and I'm actually pretty sure that they aren't at all.
That said, I think it shouldn't be so demonised as it is now. That only works counterproductively. It makes all the doping stuff that does happen go underground and shadier. Sports have more to lose by being associated with hit so more is swept under the carpet