Talk About Tennis 2.0

So, Zverev is guilty? No due process?
Slate is reporting her side of the story, which is their right (and hers). I don't agree that they should be sued as they are reporting, but I would like to see/hear if he indeed did this to her. And not from Slate, but from a proper legal system. And if he did, yes, the hell with him.

Due process is for finding someone guilty in legal terms. Unlikely that will happen, but his reputation is tarnished forever. I personally see no good reason to doubt the woman.

He doesn't understand what a preliminary injunction is, which is fairly normal. It's not a trial on the merits, it's a one-sided look at a matter that will be brought in full at a later date, but that can cause you harm if the injunction isn't issued in the meantime. Injunction granted means the judge saw enough to agree that it would cause damage and that they think it's very likely you'll win the full trial at a later date.

I always find it real special when "journalists" expect athletes to know the law well when they themselves have displayed on multiple occasions how little they understand.

FYI, Ben took this piece to Slate because both NYT and Racquet magazine, his usual publishers, and potentially other outlets, wouldn't publish the article.

Slate doesn't appear to be taking the injunction all that seriously, the article remains up. It's an interesting approach.

Is this the Ben story?

He's been drawing criticism on Twitter yet again, this time for posting a link to this article along with brief mention of the topic before launching into multi-tweet essay about how hard it was for him to go back and write part 2 after the death of his father, in essence obscuring the purpose of publishing part 2 of the story in the first place.

JTContinental wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 10:55 pm Is this the Ben story?

He's been drawing criticism on Twitter yet again, this time for posting a link to this article along with brief mention of the topic before launching into multi-tweet essay about how hard it was for him to go back and write part 2 after the death of his father, in essence obscuring the purpose of publishing part 2 of the story in the first place.

It was by far one of the strangest things I've seen from a professional writer. The replies were at first largely about how sorry they were for his loss and I had to double check if I was checking the Tweet for the wrong story. I have no idea what he was doing as a leadup to an important story. It was a Tweet thread with very little of it being about the actual story.

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 10:23 pm No due process?

As long as it doesn't backfire on them or someone they know and love, people prefer trial by social media these days.

JTContinental wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 10:55 pm Is this the Ben story?

He's been drawing criticism on Twitter yet again, this time for posting a link to this article along with brief mention of the topic before launching into multi-tweet essay about how hard it was for him to go back and write part 2 after the death of his father, in essence obscuring the purpose of publishing part 2 of the story in the first place.

I thought he deleted the extra posts, but they are still there. So you can read the leadup to the article in this Tweet thread if you choose.

https://twitter.com/BenRothenberg/statu ... 2259648513

Suliso wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 10:42 pm Due process is for finding someone guilty in legal terms. Unlikely that will happen, but his reputation is tarnished forever. I personally see no good reason to doubt the woman.

I find this interesting. As you say, by now, his reputation has, at a minimum, taken a mighty blow. Any possible endorsements, for example, are in hold for a considerable time.
Another aspect is the timing. With this out there, I really don't see how he can perform at his best at the Open, a major tournament. It is a story that will be talked about, specially in the media capital of the world. And mostly it will be because, as you say, there is no reason to doubt the woman. Other than it is his word against hers.
Remember, I am not a great fan of him or his game (only his backhand). I do believe that women have to be believed. But, and I do hate to quote Ronald Reagan, "trust but verify". I am uncomfortable with the idea that it is one woman's comment, and your life is seriously affected.

ponchi101 wrote:

Suliso wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 10:42 pm Due process is for finding someone guilty in legal terms. Unlikely that will happen, but his reputation is tarnished forever. I personally see no good reason to doubt the woman.

I find this interesting. As you say, by now, his reputation has, at a minimum, taken a mighty blow. Any possible endorsements, for example, are in hold for a considerable time.
Another aspect is the timing. With this out there, I really don't see how he can perform at his best at the Open, a major tournament. It is a story that will be talked about, specially in the media capital of the world. And mostly it will be because, as you say, there is no reason to doubt the woman. Other than it is his word against hers.
Remember, I am not a great fan of him or his game (only his backhand). I do believe that women have to be believed. But, and I do hate to quote Ronald Reagan, "trust but verify". I am uncomfortable with the idea that it is one woman's comment, and your life is seriously affected.

I wondered about the effect it will have on Sascha during the tournament, but it could be very little. He wasn’t affected with part 1, and he knew this was coming and has been in fine form lately. His team will try to isolate him from it. Would not surprise me if it has little effect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was surprised that he was asked about it during his presser today. I figured someone would say to the press that the topic was off the table.

I really think he'll be fine. He has something to prove and sometimes that is all the motivation people need to excel.

The details of part 2 are disturbing and from what I've read follow classic escalation of violence towards the abuser's victim. It's interesting that he filed the suit in Germany because I don't think any of the alleged assaults happened there.

That's immaterial. It's a suit against Slate from what's been posted. File where he lives or file where they are based. Germany has strong defamation laws, so more than likely why they decided to file there.

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 11:37 pm

Suliso wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 10:42 pm Due process is for finding someone guilty in legal terms. Unlikely that will happen, but his reputation is tarnished forever. I personally see no good reason to doubt the woman.

I find this interesting. As you say, by now, his reputation has, at a minimum, taken a mighty blow. Any possible endorsements, for example, are in hold for a considerable time.
Another aspect is the timing. With this out there, I really don't see how he can perform at his best at the Open, a major tournament. It is a story that will be talked about, specially in the media capital of the world. And mostly it will be because, as you say, there is no reason to doubt the woman. Other than it is his word against hers.
Remember, I am not a great fan of him or his game (only his backhand). I do believe that women have to be believed. But, and I do hate to quote Ronald Reagan, "trust but verify". I am uncomfortable with the idea that it is one woman's comment, and your life is seriously affected.

I don't think you do. I think you believe women should be heard, but I don't think you believe they have to be believed, based on this post alone, and also on other discussions.

And that's ok. I'm not criticizing your point of view that an accusation cannot be taken at full value unequivocally, I'm just saying that you can't make absolute statements like that if you're going to contradict them right after. It makes it look like you' actually aren't an ally to potential domestic violence victims but just covering yourself before the next statement, and I don't think that's the case.

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 10:23 pm So, Zverev is guilty? No due process?
Slate is reporting her side of the story, which is their right (and hers). I don't agree that they should be sued as they are reporting, but I would like to see/hear if he indeed did this to her. And not from Slate, but from a proper legal system. And if he did, yes, the hell with him.

What due process would be satisfactory here? If she doesn't press charges (which would logistically be very difficult and expensive for her, besides the emotional pain), the best we'll get is this defamation suit against Slate (which he didn't file against The Racquet for the first piece...) that will at best shed light on the quality of reporting, but more likely not give us anything.

Should everyone pretend it didn't happen because she didn't press charges?

No one (here) is saying he should be banned from tennis forever. But if no one is going to investigate and he'd not out there proving it's false, then yes, he'll suffer reputationally and not in many other ways (unless/until others come forward and do press charges). That's fine by me. My opinion would differ if she didn't show receipts and/or he handled this less sociopathically.

Is there any history of the ATP, or tennis in general, suspending a player for alleged behaviour outside of the tournament grounds?