Zverev sues Ben Rothenberg, Ben launches a fund raiser to cover legal fees $20000

Sinner is failed twice but as far as I heard they always test you twice if found positive first. If the drug takes time to get out of the system, it is possible.

Zverev case is much different.
Yes, the Skinner case is more like the same test given twice, about a week apart, to exclude the possibility of a false positive. The results do not mean that there were two separate episodes of exposure to a banned substance. The media's (and this forum's) emphasis on "failed  twice" distorts the meaning of the results. Uninformed readers assume that long-term usage has been established.

Zverev's situation involves two different people and separate alleged incidents.
 
Yes, the real fear in this world is men's careers being ruined by some alleged crazy allegations. Not the thousands of women ***** and murdered each week by men.
It is the men who are the the victims!

Some men indeed are victims, some of them would even go as far as commit suicide when their livelihood and reputation are ruined. Victims come in all shapes and sizes you know.
 
Agreed. You can extend Internet and SM logic to every topic on earth, including yes tennis here on TTW. Everyone is an expert and passes opinion and value judgement on a player’s level or injury or what you..even referees are not spared…as much as these tools have democratized access and helped increase participation, mob and herd driven outcomes are also on the rise. Zed fought this in a court of law, the parties settled and they move on. It is not always fair but that is the best process we have.

We all know the system is far from perfect but it's still a better alternative to destroying people based on instagram accusations.
 
To you it's nonsense, because you only see things one way. To him, it's just careful behavior considering the social climate he lives in.
I never imagined that my cautious and considerate and respectful behaviour would be criticised by someone on a thread about allegations of misconduct. This is really puzzling.
 
I'm British so it could be that, but I don't hear a difference between gorilla and guerrilla in how I think they are pronounced.
They're definitely technically pronounced differently - commonly "go-rilla" vs. something like "g'rilla" or phonetically "gah-rilla" with the "gah" being very short for "guerilla tactics" BUT, it's really not uncommon for people to basically say them very close to the same. I have no idea if the guy was trying to be sneaky and throw a racist bomb in there against Venus (it's not like no one has done such a thing). But from what I've read, it really doesn't seem like it, and certainly not fireable without examining the full string of comments and listening to his explanation.
 
We all know the system is far from perfect but it's still a better alternative to destroying people based on instagram accusations.
Someone said (Churchill?) that democracy might not be perfect but it’s better than all the other alternatives we have tried. The same goes for the legal system. What alternatives do we have? Instagram justice? Mob justice? TTW justice? LOL
 
Someone said (Churchill?) that democracy might not be perfect but it’s better than all the other alternatives we have tried. The same goes for the legal system. What alternatives do we have? Instagram justice? Mob justice? TTW justice? LOL

Heh, yeah. "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"

Unless someone develops some super AI or infallible lie detector or something.
 
While the court might be the best we have, blindly accepting its rulings without question is a dystopian mindset. It’s dangerous to follow any institution uncritically simply because it’s the best available. It’s no surprise that someone from academia would hold this view, given how often professors and "scholars" fail to challenge established systems critically.



I have no idea what you're crying about. My only view here is that the accuser's story and interviews should remain in print and not be censored in Germany or anywhere else. Anyone who finds that controversial is troubled, given Zverev was not found innocent or even not guilty and needed to pay a six figure sum in order to make his charges drop. Blind faith in any given institution or individual is obviously wrong, but people should be allowed to speak freely and citizens should be allowed to make their own judgements in the court of public opinion. Censorship and suppression of free speech is often the first symptom of totalitarianism, in history, it's never the good guys who are doing the censoring.
Well, maybe the one's free speech, is another's slander and false accusations, ever thought about that? Should we not be concerned to protect both free speech and people's right to be innocent until proven guilty? Yes, sometimes a fine balance, but we must hold to both in any free world.

Why are some mad only against the totalitarians who suppress free speech, but not also mad at the liberal social media freaks that seem to think they can say whatever they want wit no consequences, just let it go?
 
Well, maybe the one's free speech, is another's slander and false accusations, ever thought about that? Should we not be concerned to protect both free speech and people's right to be innocent until proven guilty? Yes, sometimes a fine balance, but we must hold to both in any free world.

Zverev has not been vindicated, why are you carrying water for someone who needed to pay a six-figure sum to make his assault charges disappear? He was not found 'innocent' or even 'not guilty.' In any reasonable country the alleged victim's words would never meet the standard for slander. Do you think OJ Simpson's case should have been banned from media discussion after he was acquitted? Serious question, please provide a serious answer.
 
They're definitely technically pronounced differently - commonly "go-rilla" vs. something like "g'rilla" or phonetically "gah-rilla" with the "gah" being very short for "guerilla tactics" BUT, it's really not uncommon for people to basically say them very close to the same. I have no idea if the guy was trying to be sneaky and throw a racist bomb in there against Venus (it's not like no one has done such a thing). But from what I've read, it really doesn't seem like it, and certainly not fireable without examining the full string of comments and listening to his explanation.

I haven't listened to the video so I don't know about this case. All I will say about it is that I very much dislike American at-will employment and think that firing someone should almost always be an absolutely last resort.

On the pronounciation: my sense is that many people are not really saying the "go" in gorilla and that that is why the pronunciations are in practice often basically identical, at least in the UK. I can see when it's spelled out that one might pronounce the animal that way, but I think in practice I and many others would say it more like ge-rilla, making it closer to the g'rilla used for guerilla. I really don't think many Brits at all call the animal a go-rilla. That seems like a very American pronunciation to me. (Bear in mind that I have lived in the USA for 17 of the last 19 years).
 
Some men indeed are victims, some of them would even go as far as commit suicide when their livelihood and reputation are ruined. Victims come in all shapes and sizes you know.

Because other men do bad things doesn't make all men guilty and deserving of punishment.
 
I remember reading the Slate article when it came out. Ultimately, I have to think that Ben R. will prevail and that this lawsuit, which one might see as "revenge" is going to backfire and put the spotlight back on Zverev and the allegations.
 
I remember reading the Slate article when it came out. Ultimately, I have to think that Ben R. will prevail and that this lawsuit, which one might see as "revenge" is going to backfire and put the spotlight back on Zverev and the allegations.
What are Zverev's allegations specifically?
 
Well, maybe the one's free speech, is another's slander and false accusations, ever thought about that? Should we not be concerned to protect both free speech and people's right to be innocent until proven guilty? Yes, sometimes a fine balance, but we must hold to both in any free world.

Why are some mad only against the totalitarians who suppress free speech, but not also mad at the liberal social media freaks that seem to think they can say whatever they want wit no consequences, just let it go?

Because I don't think this is a case of Ben just "saying whatever he wanted." He did a piece of reporting on the allegations. The piece in Slate relies on an interview he did with Zverev's former girlfriend and contains factual information about the ATP's response or lack thereof. Federer is also quoted in the article. Again, it's a piece of journalism...it's not like Ben was making up quotes.

Edit: Does anyone have the Racquet article? I can only find the Slate one.
 
I haven't followed this mess, but his sources folded like a cheap suit when it came to the legal process. This left all his journalism looking friendless. Germany has some sort of law that allows Zverev legal relief as a consequence.

You may not like the German system, but you can't do journalism always by American standards.

Because I don't think this is a case of Ben just "saying whatever he wanted." He did a piece of reporting on the allegations. The piece in Slate relies on an interview he did with Zverev's former girlfriend and contains factual information about the ATP's response or lack thereof. Federer is also quoted in the article. Again, it's a piece of journalism...it's not like Ben was making up quotes.

Edit: Does anyone have the Racquet article? I can only find the Slate one.
 
In the realm of speculative fiction, if Harris loses to Trump she has to put on her other hat and certify the results. If she wins, then she has to certify herself as the winner presumably.

I suppose the role could be delegated in either case and should be.

Kamala's (the wrestler) real name was James Harris, ironically.
 
Rothenberger should work for for NY Times or major outlet instead of freelancing.
He would then be protected by lawsuits. Zed would file against NY Times instead of reporter.
And as for your favourite VP she has gone 40 days without a press conference or interview. Unbelievable.
:rolleyes:
 
In the realm of speculative fiction, if Harris loses to Trump she has to put on her other hat and certify the results. If she wins, then she has to certify herself as the winner presumably.

I suppose the role could be delegated in either case and should be.
The last incumbent vice president to win a US presidential election was George H.W. Bush, in 1988.
 
I don't know if anyone chooses freelancing
It's bad for you.

Practically nobody chooses it except for independently wealthy writers which he is not. He would prefer to be working for NY Times or major media.
Was the article Zed is complaining about published by major media? Or just his Twitter?
 
Strangely enough, I read little that is not independent media. Rothenberg would have been reined in tighter by a legal team. That's surely not a good thing.

Rothenberger should work for for NY Times or major outlet instead of freelancing.
He would then be protected by lawsuits. Zed would file against NY Times instead of reporter.
And as for your favourite VP she has gone 40 days without a press conference or interview. Unbelievable.
:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Zverev has not been vindicated, why are you carrying water for someone who needed to pay a six-figure sum to make his assault charges disappear? He was not found 'innocent' or even 'not guilty.' In any reasonable country the alleged victim's words would never meet the standard for slander. Do you think OJ Simpson's case should have been banned from media discussion after he was acquitted? Serious question, please provide a serious answer.
Well, that is the question, you start with and presume he is guilty already, while I say, let's wait for the jury = until he is proven guilty? Serious question... please provide a serious answer.

And then yes, if found guilty, let's do the 'burning at the stake' stuff, but we must not fall for this social media mob 'how dare you' so called justice, that while the case has not been handled and decided already, that we must act and believe he is guilty already .... not only abusers should be punished, but liars and slanderers also, both should know there are consequences if you physically or spiritually abuse other people, no? Serious question ...

I said it many times, the fact that we have freedom of speech and must have it, does not mean we can presume guilty until proved innocent because some 'great writer' says so or 'investigating' it... to use a great fun tennis fight example here ... not the hype emo social media polls or likes determine the goat debate, but the tennis facts out there proved it ... in history = GS titles.

Beware of all the social warrior wars going on and growing in our times, also in tennis. Of course they can be right many times... but guess what, they can be totally wrong also... no? serious question, please provide a serious answer.

Of course the german courts or any other courts can make big mistakes... but, they can also be right, no? Serious question, please provide a serious answer.

Of course, if someone are found guilty, let the law courts and punishment accordingly deal with him, but whether you agree or not, this new 'social media warriors' online 'justice' department of our woke generation... are at least as screwed and questionable as every bad court past and current times.
 
Rothenberg is a freelancer, not simply a social media type, and he got his journalism published by important non-social media because they pay better and give you wider reach.

This is not a simple social media is bad story.

Well, that is the question, you start with and presume he is guilty already, while I say, let's wait for the jury = until he is proven guilty? Serious question... please provide a serious answer.

And then yes, if found guilty, let's do the 'burning at the stake' stuff, but we must not fall for this social media mob 'how dare you' so called justice, that while the case has not been handled and decided already, that we must act and believe he is guilty already .... not only abusers should be punished, but liars and slanderers also, both should know there are consequences if you physically or spiritually abuse other people, no? Serious question ...

I said it many times, the fact that we have freedom of speech and must have it, does not mean we can presume guilty until proved innocent because some 'great writer' says so or 'investigating' it... to use a great fun tennis fight example here ... not the hype emo social media polls or likes determine the goat debate, but the tennis facts out there proved it ... in history = GS titles.

Beware of all the social warrior wars going on and growing in our times, also in tennis. Of course they can be right many times... but guess what, they can be totally wrong also... no? serious question, please provide a serious answer.

Of course the german courts or any other courts can make big mistakes... but, they can also be right, no? Serious question, please provide a serious answer.

Of course, if someone are found guilty, let the law courts and punishment accordingly deal with him, but whether you agree or not, this new 'social media warriors' online 'justice' department of our woke generation... are at least as screwed and questionable as every bad court past and current times.
 
Well, that is the question, you start with and presume he is guilty already, while I say, let's wait for the jury = until he is proven guilty? Serious question... please provide a serious answer.

Really? Zverev's supporters never paused for proof--they were already self-triggered to defend his actions from the moment the story broke and since that time, often attacked women (examples in this thread), which speaks to a lack of conscience, and belief that somehow, women are "doing men in", while ignoring the fact violent men either need to control their bestial tendencies, or suffer the consequences.
 
From a PR perspective it would certainly not be in Zed's interests to drag the settled issue out in public again.
The fact that Zed is going after the writer only serves to reaffirm his innocence.
 
There is an upside to freelancing. No review board to censor you.
It is not clear whether Rothenberg's article would have even made it past the corrupt NY Times censors.
The NY Times has admitted to censoring what they knew perfectly well to be a true story.

Agreed

Only one upside and probably only in journalism

People want health insurance and liability protection at minimum from companies and also minimum wage guarantees.
 
I'll never forget

Edited to add:​

Alexander Zverev has filed suits against Racquet, Slate and Rothenberg in German court.​


A reporter detailed a tennis star’s alleged abuse. Now he’s paying for it.​

Ben Rothenberg was considered one of the nation’s best tennis writers. Then he got sued by Alexander Zverev, one of the world’s top tennis players.​

As the U.S. Open gets underway this week in New York, the most industrious tennis writer in the country is staying at home in Washington, watching it on TV.
After more than a decade building a reputation for incisive coverage of the sport, Ben Rothenberg has become disillusioned with it. The grueling travel schedule, dwindling access to players and pains of freelance employment all took their toll.

Ben explained it on the GoFundMe page, it’s pretty grim:



:oops:

I'll never get over the hell this jerk put Djokovic through in January 22. All the lies, slanders, fake news he posted on social medias. He basically spent the whole month dumping his hatred on Djokovic, his family and his fans. So many people believed his informations were true, and then he never owned it nor took responsibility when he realized everything was wrong. No disclaimer, not even an apology. A lot of people who don't watch tennis (specially in Australia) will always see Djokovic as a bad guy because of Rothenberg's calumnies. Some will always think he tampered with his PCR test and bribed judge Kelly (and so many other shady things) because Rothenberg said so and never corrected it. I always knew he had a bad reputation but this, I'll never forgive or forget.

I don't care for Zverev or if he's innocent or guilty but I'll applaud anyone who can put this guy through troubles. He should lose his job and be exposed. This is the least he deserves.
 
This seems to be where the case now rests:

C ) Retraction

Retraction or correction is only available in cases involving untrue factual statements (as opposed to opinions) and the claimant must also prove that a retraction is necessary to restore their reputation, i.e. that the untrue statement is significant enough to have harmed their reputation. Obtaining a retraction: Retraction does not merely involve the complainant expressing his own point of view but obliges the media entity to admit in its own publication that it was wrong and to do so in clear terms. Hence a retraction or correction will only be ordered after a full trial and the order only becomes enforceable when the publisher has exhausted all other avenues for appeal.

1. Does the fact that the case was not adjudicated mean the statements were not factual? I can't see Rothenberg's informants turning up to give evidence in his favour so what does he argue in court?

2. It seems almost a necessity for Zverev to try to restore his reputation under such a law. If he doesn't then he leaves his reputation unrestored, and he must feel confident about winning.

Rothenberg ventured into legal waters with a crew always likely to mutiny if provided with a better offer, which he unintentionally enabled, and now he is in a spot of trouble that is not too deep.
 
Last edited:
Paying off someone a 6 figure sum out of court to settle their domestic violence charge against you before a decision is set to be made is not "winning a court case". Why do you people have such little understanding of the court of law?
LOl. Guess what my job is!!
Zverev won his case. She caved in as she had no case so took the money. She was the claimant, so had to prover her case, she couldnt so took the money although she didnt get any money, the money went to a charity or something didnt it?
Innocent until PROVEN guilty. That didnt happen. Zverev won.
 
I'll never forget


I'll never get over the hell this jerk put Djokovic through in January 22. All the lies, slanders, fake news he posted on social medias. He basically spent the whole month dumping his hatred on Djokovic, his family and his fans. So many people believed his informations were true, and then he never owned it nor took responsibility when he realized everything was wrong. No disclaimer, not even an apology. A lot of people who don't watch tennis (specially in Australia) will always see Djokovic as a bad guy because of Rothenberg's calumnies. Some will always think he tampered with his PCR test and bribed judge Kelly (and so many other shady things) because Rothenberg said so and never corrected it. I always knew he had a bad reputation but this, I'll never forgive or forget.

I don't care for Zverev or if he's innocent or guilty but I'll applaud anyone who can put this guy through troubles. He should lose his job and be exposed. This is the least he deserves.
Great post again, you are on form. I tried contacting Novak many times telling him to sue Rothenberg as he had solid grounds.
Novak is too soft, Nadal for instance destroyed a French politicians career (i think she ended up in depression big time) for libelling him. Rafa showed no mercy at all. Hopefully Zverev shows the same ruthlesness and goes to trial.
 
Rothenberg can only be held to account for his actions, not for those of ESPN, and most people heard "gorilla" not "guerilla" but maybe Adler just pronounces words unusually.

He should have always been allowed to clarify and apologise for misunderstandings and we all could have moved on immediately.

It all got down to whether you heard "go-rilla" or 'g-rilla". Strangely enough, however, gorillas do charge whereas guerillas usually stealthily ambush the larger conventional force.
Agreed.

Ben can be criticized on other things, but not on Doug Adler.

I heard gorilla — and even aside from pronunciation disputes, one can only conclude "gorilla" from the context (the way Doug also used another word "charged" exposes what he meant: only the animal "charges". Guerrilla warfare is not charging — it is in fact the opposite: a sneak attack. Catch the enemy off guard and strike. So Ben was spot on to expose Doug, who should have come clean and admit that he did think of the animal. Then should have added that he was not equating a black woman to the animal, but only being descriptive of her gung ho transition tactics on the court. Then he would have had more sympathy. Doug's denial gave ESPN the excuse to fire him, as they felt he was unrepentant, and therefore possibly he'd say something similar again.

Covering up often reveals the guilty party more than the initial wrongdoing.
 
There are no big payouts in European jurisdictions and no quick victories elsewhere, so Novak mad the right decision.

Great post again, you are on form. I tried contacting Novak many times telling him to sue Rothenberg as he had solid grounds.
Novak is too soft, Nadal for instance destroyed a French politicians career (i think she ended up in depression big time) for libelling him. Rafa showed no mercy at all. Hopefully Zverev shows the same ruthlesness and goes to trial.
 
Doug seemed to use the non g'rilla pronunciation of gorilla. I find it easy to pronounce these two words slightly differently. It seems English is moving in a confusing direction.

Agreed.

Ben can be criticized on other things, but not on Doug Adler.

I heard gorilla — and even aside from pronunciation disputes, one can only conclude "gorilla" from the context (the way Doug also used another word "charged" exposes what he meant: only the animal "charges". Guerrilla warfare is not charging — it is in fact the opposite: a sneak attack. Catch the enemy off guard and strike. So Ben was spot on to expose Doug, who should have come clean and admit that he did think of the animal. Then should have added that he was not equating a black woman to the animal, but only being descriptive of her gung ho transition tactics on the court. Then he would have had more sympathy. Doug's denial gave ESPN the excuse to fire him, as they felt he was unrepentant, and therefore possibly he'd say something similar again.

Covering up often reveals the guilty party more than the initial wrongdoing.
 
Can any of you Zverev obsession freaks tell me why Zverev would gift 6 figures to a woman who accused him of domestic violence and bashing her? If he was SO SURE that he’d be proven innocent, why did he give her so much money? Why didn’t he wait for the judgement?

Do you ever ponder that?
Wait, so in Germany you can pay off the alleged victim and the state will drop all criminal charges against you? Is that what happened? Or was this a civil lawsuit being filed by the complainant in order to get money out of Zverev? Those are two very different scenarios with very different potential punishments (i.e. paying the accuser vs. going to prison). Most civil cases involving celebrities end in settlement before going to trial because it's cheaper to pay the accuser than to pay a team of lawyers to fight a lawsuit where the burden of proof is preponderance of evidence instead of beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning it's a crapshoot. When you factor in the negative press associated with trials and the damage that can cause to one's public image, famous figures are generally advised to settle instead of fighting it all the way through due to simple cost/benefit analysis.
 
Zverev did face criminal charges when he appealed the penalty order. The complainant could withdraw her support for the case as she said the child was suffering. The court agreed.

You would need to withdraw much earlier than this in other court systems, but it's their legal world.
 
I didn't realize the plaintiff settled. So Zverev is not guilty according to the terms of the settlement.

Prosecutors, the defence team and Patea as co-plaintiff approved the settlement in the interest of a “peaceful resolution”. It entails no acknowledgment of guilt on Zverev’s part.
.
.
.
The Association of Tennis Professionals, responsible for the men’s tour, halted its investigation into the claims in January 2023 after more than two years due to insufficient evidence.

So from my reading of the situation, he's not guilty on both allegations.
 
Back
Top