You should just give the tournament director the power to sanction it.
Then the guys would have gone to the director first, when the issue came up, and he'd have signed off on it, no problem.
Far better than making it possibly an offence, and severely dealt with, but with lists of exceptions, and warnings, etc. etc.
There was nothing bad in it, just needed the director to be made aware and approve (and for it to be an 'acceptable' thing).
NB I remember Katy Dunne losing in the FQR of one of the GB tournaments and her opponent then only playing a couple of games of her R1 before pulling out and Katy tweeting in exasperation that she'd have played for nothing, if only she could have had the chance. i.e. the same thing (although it wasn't done).
It makes perfect sense.
-- Edited by Coup Droit on Friday 27th of March 2015 09:39:33 AM
At least a goodwill story has come out of it though, with a friend setting up a crowd funding page to pay his fine and loads of players contributing. Shows how ridiculous the whole thing is.
At least a goodwill story has come out of it though, with a friend setting up a crowd funding page to pay his fine and loads of players contributing. Shows how ridiculous the whole thing is.
Good to see but it doesn't come close to making up for this utter farce. The TIU seem toothless in the face of genuine wrong doing and so are seemingly happy to jump on minor offences like this.
It isn't a minor offence. A player is under an absolute obligation to report any approaches, no 'if's or 'but's.
As Optimist writes, the difficulty here is a seeming failure to take mitigating circumstances into account. There may or may not be an understandable reason for this.
Yes, I think most folk's big problem here is the level of punishment, which seems absolutely OTT given the circumstances that the players have described and noone, including the TIU, seems to have suggested that there was anything more to it.
The player could certainly have not accepted the offer of playing in R1, but passing over the R1 cash, but it would have been unreasonable to report the approach to the TIU ( and thus hanging the other player out to dry ) if this is any example of how unreasonable the TIU can be.
From the reaction of many players the implication here is that this is a pretty regular practice. Seemingly the big mistake was that they transferred the money electronically rather than in cash.
The reason I think this is a minor offence is that the player who is "selling" his place in the main draw is not actually gaining anything. He is getting no more than he would if he took to the court and retired after one game. If he was being offered more than the value of first round prize money it would be more serious. That isn't to say I am completely okay with it as it could easily lead to a situation where no one ever drops out unless the LL was willing to pay up so it is rightly an offence.
Interesting they've done that seemingly without the involvement of the Tennis Integrity Unit. No press release on the TIU or ATP sites although I'm not surprised about the latter as they tend to steer clear of bad news.
A report on the BBC Sports Site has a Match fixing scandal report involving several current players. Also how the sports governing body seemed to not want to investigate.
Hope we aren't going to have another problem with a major Sports Organisation.
I think all sports organizations have their problems and this is a difficult one for tennis.
An expensive sport to play with most players outside the top 150 having to go cap in hand in search of money to keep them on the challenger and futures tours. There have been a number of comments on here about the performance of players/a player from a war torn countries where
That can breed an unhealthy pragmatism which in the unscrupulous may permeat higher in the rankings. I can't see the highest level being that vulnerable as the players (that everyone watches) are so well rewarded and why would they? The risks players take to get to that level are a completely different matter.
My reading of the various articles was that the problem involved/involves a fairly small group of repeat offenders. And that the tennis authorities have not done as much as they might have because of the higher standard of proof required to get a conviction (and because they would much rather keep it quiet due to the bad publicity).