Tennis Random, Random (On Court)

[ponchi101]

^ I disagree. ...

I find this very interesting.
1. Nobody said that the offense of the person disappears "magically". That is the reason society sets a punishment. The fault has disappeared so little that here we are, discussing an abuse case clearly in everybody's mind almost 3 decades ago.
2. But if the person will remain with a scarlet letter, then what is the point of a prison sentence? Myke Tyson is not running for public office; he is not running an orphanage. He gave an interview. Should this be something he should not be allowed to do? He was a top athlete in his sport. Should he not be allowed to talk about other athletes about sports matters, even if they ask him for that?
3. One major issue (I believe) in our societies is that once somebody goes to prison, that is never forgotten. A large number of these people then begin a cycle of terror: they cannot return to society not because they don't want to, but because they are never allowed. They therefore become a permanent member of crime. How is this beneficial to society?
4. Stating that Tyson has not been a force for good is a bit misleading. A quick internet search for MIKE TYSON CHARITY yields 890K hits; the first page takes you to this page, listing the causes and charities he supports. He seems to be as active as many other people. Cause for beatification? No, but it seems he has been involved in some goodwill. And to state that he is capable of re-offending is something that seems speculative. Sure, he could. Then again, maybe he won't. Looking at all the years he has been out of prison, it seems unlikely he will head there again, any time soon.
5. Compare Tyson to another rapist, Roman Polanski. A man that has spent zero days in prison after raping a minor, evading justice all around the world while not only being able to work in his profession, but being downright celebrated for his craft*. The difference in treatment is blatant, even though I know we will agree that Polanski deserves, at a minimum, some time at the cross-bat hotel.


You know I am not a person of religious inclinations. And I recently posted about "who we really are". In that, I agreed that you judge people by their worst, not their best. But the point we are articulating is that as opposed to many others, Tyson did spend his time in prison and therefore some differences with other people of ill-pasts exist. And if the scarlet letter will even preclude you from giving an interview, the message being given to any young man that commits one crime is "don't stop". Because from now on, no matter what you do, you are a criminal to society. No matter what good you do.

Off Topic

* How come people forget PIRATES escapes me

[Deuce]

1. Nobody said that the offense of the person disappears "magically". That is the reason society sets a punishment. The fault has disappeared so little that here we are, discussing an abuse case clearly in everybody's mind almost 3 decades ago.

^ By saying that the person who has committed the offence has a 'clean slate' as soon as their punishment has been served, you are in effect saying that all memory of and reference to their offence should disappear once their punishment has been served, and they should be viewed the same as one who has never committed such an offence. And to that, I say Absolute B.S. - for the reasons I stated - I believe clearly enough - in my previous post.

2. But if the person will remain with a scarlet letter, then what is the point of a prison sentence?

^ A prison sentence - or any other punishment - in no way eradicates the offence. No matter what punishment is served, the person will always be the person who committed the offence. The offence, and its effect on other people, will never, ever disappear. Does the rape victim suddenly feel wonderful after her rapist has served his punishment? Of course not! So no-one should pretend that it has disappeared just because a punishment was served. Punishment never eradicates the offence.

Tyson is not running for public office; he is not running an orphanage. He gave an interview. Should this be something he should not be allowed to do? He was a top athlete in his sport. Should he not be allowed to talk about other athletes about sports matters, even if they ask him for that?

^Seriously?? Do you seriously believe that people running for public office, or running an orphanage, etc. are the only circumstances where harm can be done? Hell, Tyson wasn't running an orphanage, or running for public office when he committed rape, assault, and other offences. But he still did those things. As long as there are potential victims - and they need not be orphans -, there exists the potential for someone to harm the potential victims.
And so everyone a person like Tyson comes into contact with deserves - and has every right - to know what terrible things he has done, so that they can decide how to treat him, or to avoid him, etc. Thus, the scarlet letter.

You ask Should Tyson not be allowed to talk about other athletes, other sports, etc?
He can talk about whatever he likes. But he should not be asked to talk about it in a public forum in an environment where he is asked to be viewed with respect, as if he never harmed anyone. He lost that right when he raped and assaulted people. You cannot separate a person from his or her actions. For good or for bad, we should be judged by our actions. It's up to each one of us whether we do good things or do bad things - and if we do bad things, one consequence is that it should never be forgotten or dismissed.

3. One major issue (I believe) in our societies is that once somebody goes to prison, that is never forgotten. A large number of these people then begin a cycle of terror: they cannot return to society not because they don't want to, but because they are never allowed. They therefore become a permanent member of crime. How is this beneficial to society?

^ As I said - everyone should have a fair opportunity to become a positive member of society. But their offence should never be forgotten. It is part of who they are - part of their identity.
Just as someone who saved a suicidal person from jumping off a bridge keeps that as part of their identity for the remainder of their life, someone who commits rape, and/or assault, etc. keeps that as part of their identity for the remainder of their life.

4. Stating that Tyson has not been a force for good is a bit misleading. A quick internet search for MIKE TYSON CHARITY yields 890K hits; the first page takes you to this page, listing the causes and charities he supports. He seems to be as active as many other people. Cause for beatification? No, but it seems he has been involved in some goodwill.

Again - Seriously?? Come on, ponchi, you're too intelligent to be this gullible. Can you say 'Public Relations B.S.'? Tyson knows that he has a bad reputation (well deserved, based on the harm he has done to people) - and so he hired a public relations agency to 'improve his image' through associations with charities, etc. It's the oldest trick in the book - come on!

And to state that he is capable of re-offending is something that seems speculative. Sure, he could. Then again, maybe he won't. Looking at all the years he has been out of prison, it seems unlikely he will head there again, any time soon.

^ A tiger rarely changes his stripes. And I have seen enough of Tyson in the past 20 years to be quite confident in saying that he is very capable of re-offending. His nature is violent, he lacks respect (because he was never taught it), he has a hair-trigger temper... all the ingredients are there for him to re-offend. Perhaps he has already, and simply hasn't been caught.

5. Compare Tyson to another rapist, Roman Polanski. A man that has spent zero days in prison after raping a minor, evading justice all around the world while not only being able to work in his profession, but being downright celebrated for his craft*. The difference in treatment is blatant, even though I know we will agree that Polanski deserves, at a minimum, some time at the cross-bat hotel.

^ Polanski deserves to be punished and treated in a similar way to Tyson. Actually, both of them deserve more punishment than Tyson has received.
And they deserve zero adoration.

You know I am not a person of religious inclinations. And I recently posted about "who we really are". In that, I agreed that you judge people by their worst, not their best. But the point we are articulating is that as opposed to many others, Tyson did spend his time in prison and therefore some differences with other people of ill-pasts exist. And if the scarlet letter will even preclude you from giving an interview, the message being given to any young man that commits one crime is "don't stop". Because from now on, no matter what you do, you are a criminal to society. No matter what good you do.

^ Conversely, what message does it send when a man convicted of rape and assault - among much other violent behaviour - is given the media spotlight in a context of adoration and respect? One could just as easily argue that this gives the message to young males that it's fine to go and 'have fun' raping and assaulting people, because after you're done having that 'fun', you will be respected.

People who have harmed others will always be able to find someone to give them a second chance. This should be done cautiously and with conditions attached - the offender has earned this by way of their harming another person. That should be absolutely non-negotiable.
But being given a second chance, and being given a second chance inside the spotlight of fame are two entirely different things. The spotlight of fame inherently carries with it a large degree of adoration and respect. Tyson forfeited his opportunity for that adoration and respect the second he decided to rape someone.
He deserves a second chance, like anyone else - with caution and conditions. But he doesn't deserve any spotlight or adoration or respect.

[ponchi101]

Interesting. If you carry your sentence, and come back and do nothing, you are still the same criminal as before.
If you carry your sentence and get involved in some charitable action, it is Public Relations BS.
Tough crowd.

[Deuce]

Interesting. If you carry your sentence, and come back and do nothing, you are still the same criminal as before.
If you carry your sentence and get involved in some charitable action, it is Public Relations BS.
Tough crowd.

I was hoping for a much more detailed response from you - I'm disappointed. Your response is the equivalent of the dreaded 'We'll just agree to disagree'.

Do you honestly believe that Tyson's charity involvement is sincere?
This is a man who was described by several people over the course of several years as a violent monster (outside of the boxing ring).
And since his various convictions, there have been repeated signs that his demeanor hasn't changed. This is not surprising, as it's incredibly difficult to overcome the childhood that he had.

His public reputation was terrible - which was deserved. This would obviously greatly impact the amount of money he could make as a public figure - be it appearances at various venues, acting, commentary, what have you. So he (or someone close to him) hired a public relations agency to try to 're-work' his image. A large part of that was to get him 'involved' with charitable organizations, with the obvious idea being that this would make it more difficult for people to hate him, and would thus improve his public reputation, which in turn would lead to more public opportunities, and more money. I don't think it could be more obvious. 2+2=4.
Like so much when it comes to public figures, it's artificial. Fake. Because, tragically, the majority look only at the surface of things. And if the surface is 'pretty', people are satisfied.
Sadly, it seems to have worked here.

[ti-amie]

[ponchi101]

I was hoping for a much more detailed response from you - I'm disappointed. Your response is the equivalent of the dreaded 'We'll just agree to disagree'.

Do you honestly believe that Tyson's charity involvement is sincere?
This is a man who was described by several people over the course of several years as a violent monster (outside of the boxing ring).
And since his various convictions, there have been repeated signs that his demeanor hasn't changed. This is not surprising, as it's incredibly difficult to overcome the childhood that he had.

His public reputation was terrible - which was deserved. This would obviously greatly impact the amount of money he could make as a public figure - be it appearances at various venues, acting, commentary, what have you. So he (or someone close to him) hired a public relations agency to try to 're-work' his image. A large part of that was to get him 'involved' with charitable organizations, with the obvious idea being that this would make it more difficult for people to hate him, and would thus improve his public reputation, which in turn would lead to more public opportunities, and more money. I don't think it could be more obvious. 2+2=4.
Like so much when it comes to public figures, it's artificial. Fake. Because, tragically, the majority look only at the surface of things. And if the surface is 'pretty', people are satisfied.
Sadly, it seems to have worked here.

It is just that I was thinking more of the person that wrote:
Let's be more careful about accusing people of things unless there is proof, please..
Plus, sometimes I want to see if a third party comes in. As you know, I truly believe in our collective brainpower.

[Deuce]

It is just that I was thinking more of the person that wrote:
Let's be more careful about accusing people of things unless there is proof, please..

There's also something to be said for using common sense.
And with Tyson and his 'charity work', it's quite obvious, and has dozens upon dozens of precedents in the 'entertainment industry'.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." ~ George Bernard Shaw

As a once famous tennis player said: "Image is everything." Image is only surface, of course. But that's all that most people look at. Never underestimate the lengths people will go to to improve their negative image - especially when it will bring them a lot more money.

[ponchi101]

Side track.
I remember Tim Henman once being asked about being a good loser. He said he was not; he was a terrible loser, He hated losing, he just simply kept it to himself.
Which was sort of validating the point of the journalist.
You have made your position clear. I ask you: what would it take for somebody that has committed serious crimes, like the one we are discussing here, to redeem himself? Is that an impossible proposition?
The gist of my position is that he did his time, and therefore he should not be banned from giving an interview. He can go on with his life and, if people like Moratouglu want to talk to him, he is free to do so. Or should even actions like these be banned from him?

[JTContinental]

They announced today her appeal to lift the suspension was denied, as well.

[Deuce]

Side track.
I remember Tim Henman once being asked about being a good loser. He said he was not; he was a terrible loser, He hated losing, he just simply kept it to himself.
Which was sort of validating the point of the journalist.
You have made your position clear. I ask you: what would it take for somebody that has committed serious crimes, like the one we are discussing here, to redeem himself? Is that an impossible proposition?
The gist of my position is that he did his time, and therefore he should not be banned from giving an interview. He can go on with his life and, if people like Moratouglu want to talk to him, he is free to do so. Or should even actions like these be banned from him?

Your link fails to mention that Tyson physically assaulted (beat up) 7 prostitutes in 2009, when he was supposed to have been ‘rehabilitated’ - again. And there are almost surely other offences he’s committed that he got away with.

My position, clearly, is that people who have harmed others in a significant manner - and rape and assault are significant manners - should not be viewed or treated the same way as a person who has never committed such offences. In the case of Tyson, when he is put in the spotlight by being interviewed, or being in movies, etc., he is inherently being held in a high and respectable esteem - because that is the well-known common public perception of ‘famous’ people (sadly).

It’s not so much a matter of legislating whether interviewing the person publicly is permitted or not... it’s that it is in extremely poor taste to showcase someone who has raped and assaulted people in the same manner as one who has never harmed others. I echo the sentiments of mmmm8 and Megan (who has been curiously absent from this discussion which she originated). People who have done significant harm to others should never be treated as if they have done no harm. I’d like it if, as Tyson is being interviewed in the media, the caption under his name on screen reads ‘Boxing champion and convicted of rape, assault, and other violent crimes’ - the equivalent of a ‘scarlet letter’. Everyone should know who they are - and part of who they are is what they’ve done. Their offences should not be conveniently and deceptively hidden.

If I’m making the decision, the only way that Tyson would be in the public spotlight would be to talk about his offences and to encourage young people to pursue a healthier path than his. No movies, no interviews about any subject except his offences, no speaking engagements except those relating to his offences, etc. That would be the extent of his public life.

[ti-amie]

If I'm reading this correctly she's asking them to suspend the suspension just because so that she can play the AO? Why would they do that?

[ti-amie]

Apparently Yastremska had to establish one of the three things listed here:



Otherwise she will face a 4 year ban. The ban would be 2 tears if she can prove she took the dope unintentionally.

Thanks to "meelis" on @TennisForum

[ponchi101]

From what you are saying, it looks as if she is in deep trouble.

[JazzNU]

If I'm reading this correctly she's asking them to suspend the suspension just because so that she can play the AO? Why would they do that?

Because she hasn't defended herself against the charges, so not letting her play AO can be seen as a punishment that she doesn't deserve when her case hasn't been fully heard.

Think of it like bail. She was charged with a crime on January 16th or thereabouts. She showed up and was arraigned on her charges but was released on bail. Court date on those charges has been set for March 1st. She tries to go to work on Feb. 8th and the company says, not so fast, you're been convicted. She says, no, I've been charged, but I didn't do it and my court date isn't until March. It's February, you have to let me work until I've been found guilty in court. That's basically what she's asking here.


All that being said. This process is never set up in favor of the athlete. It could use some revamping especially because they impose a "guilty until proven innocent" approach. They treat provisional rulings as definitive, when by their very nature, they are not. I don't see this going well for her in the long run, but she may very well get to play the Aussie Open.

[ti-amie]