Carlos Bernardes Withdrawn for Nadal Matches

[Moxie]

Moxie--I don't know why you are quoting articles about it not being "uncommon" for players to request that an ump doesn't officiate their matches. This comes from the same ATP who capitulated to Rafa's demands and is practicing damage control. More relevant: when Roger, Novak and Andy were each asked (live), NONE of them agreed with this characterization of requests like Rafa being common, and there are NO other examples of umps not working a match of any of the top players FOR MONTHS other than Bernardes, at the request of Rafa (and apparently agreed to by the ATP and the French Open--so far). I believe this is less about the backward shorts, and more about Rafa not liking the one ump who has been the most strict about his slow play. And Rafa said in his presser at the French that sometimes it's better to take a break---I say: give ME a break---these are adults. Rafa can't get over the fact that Bernardes "disrespected" him 4 months ago? I think he's being petulant, and the tennis powers are capitulating to the whims of one of their top stars. I bet there is PLENTY of discussion going on behind the scenes among players/their agents and the ATP!

I was given a hard time for mentioning that the original article posted from the Telegraph had no citations or quotes. Then I quoted a tennis.com article posted by GSM, who is absolutely not on my side, and you complain about that because you don't believe the source. You also don't believe that the source of Rafa's anger was the backward shorts in that particular match, even though he is rarely seen to lose his temper so badly. It's fine for you to believe whatever you want, but I'm quoting articles from reasonable sources that other people posted, so you can't really fault me for it. And I don't find quotes from Andy or Roger that say that it is not common, and their comments are mostly about themselves, and fairly mild, as one would imagine. Feel free to post them, though.

What I did find from Roger was this:

'I do not want to be treated differently,' Federer said. 'If you get angry or you break a racket, you don't want to get a warning right away. If the umpire does, then all players should be treated equally. Things have to be clear. I hope there are no bonuses. Big tournaments, umpires with a lot of experience, they know how to manage difficult situations.

'On Court 15 you can be stricter to educate players, but that has nothing to do with who is playing. On centre courts you can give a little more leeway to make sure the match goes well.'

Also:
Nadal's frustration in Rio was accentuated after he requested to change his shorts, which he had put on the wrong way round, but was warned it would cost him another violation to do so.
'In his situation there are maybe enough umpires out there that it's not such a big problem for the ATP or the umpire or the player,' Federer said.

The bolded contradicts the notion that some players should be given preferential treatment, it seems to me. Top players play on centre courts and not on court 15. And the last quote from Roger seems to indicate that he has no problem with separating a player and umpire for a period of time.

Moxie--Your are selectively responding to my statements and ignoring others. Again: 1)Look at what Novak said (see the French Open or ATP website to get the video--was also widely quoted in the press)---umpires are just doing their job--sometimes I don't like what they do/say, but I would NEVER ask to have one removed from my matches. That's not fair---he's just trying to do his job the best way that he can, etc. And Andy echoed the sentiment. 2)The "shorts" incident happened in February. You mean to tell me that Rafa, a grown man, is still in a lather about an incident several months ago? Seriously? And the ATP/whomever is acceding to his wishes? YES then, as someone said, the system is broken, Rafa is being unfairly catered to, and it only compounds the lack of enforcement about his slowness, unfairly disadvantaging his opponents. Although so far, it obviously hasn't helped his results any this year.

I was not selectively responding. TBH, I had already read Novak's statement, and had not read anything from Roger or Andy, so that's what I googled (since you didn't provide links, and as I said, I didn't read anything from them that characterized it as strongly as you paraphrased it.) So basically I forgot to address Novak, as I'd forgotten you'd mentioned him. Sorry.

As to the Rio incident, if you were reading carefully at all you'd see that Bernardes has not ump'd any of Rafa's matches since. THAT is when this dates from. It only came out recently, which is why everyone is relating it to RG, even though the French Federation said it hadn't been asked by the Nadal camp.

There is a very good overview of the whole thing in the New York Times. One thing it says re: the above is: "The rapprochement between Nadal, the tennis star, and Bernardes, a leading tennis umpire, might have taken place here in Paris, but that is no longer a possibility now that the issues dividing them have become public."

I know most think I'm just defending Nadal, but I have been trying to be a counter-point to so much bile against him, a lot of which I consider to be knee-jerk based on original bias, and to look at what might be a reasonable truth within the flack and hysteria. Which takes more careful reading than many here have bothered to do.

 

[Federberg]

^The volume may have risen because of initial defensiveness Moxie. There is no careful reading of what he did that puts what he did in another light. No matter how many times you try I doubt you'll convince anyone sadly. For those of us on the other side we see knee jerk bias on your side. From our perspective we see a guy who did something we believe is detrimental to the sport, there can be no extenuating circumstances that alter that

 

[Moxie]

^The volume may have risen because of initial defensiveness Moxie. There is no careful reading of what he did that puts what he did in another light. No matter how many times you try I doubt you'll convince anyone sadly. For those of us on the other side we see knee jerk bias on your side. From our perspective we see a guy who did something we believe is detrimental to the sport, there can be no extenuating circumstances that alter that

There is actually a careful reading that many on this thread haven't done, though I don't expect a different outcome from those who are already predisposed to an opinion. I don't know what knee-jerk bias you can accuse me of, if you read across this whole thread. (22 pages is boring, but you've been participating most of the way, so I can assume you are caught up.) I have been asking everyone to read the information as it came in, and it did become more clear over a few different articles. And even more so if you'd read the NYTimes one I just posted. That article describes a regular assessment of when players and umpires might need a break, for various reasons. (Even one, amusingly almost superstition on the part of the ump.) It seems that what happened between Rafa and Carlos is not a one-off, and I think it's a bit over-cooked to call it detrimental to the sport. But I'll agree with you on this: no matter how many times I try, I'll never convince those who already know what they think.

 

[Federberg]

^Look at it this way... If we had heard simply that a top player (no name specified), had been able to convince authorities to remove an elite umpire from officiating his matches, there would have been universal outrage on these boards. But because we know who the player is that consensus has been fractured. I think there's only one side that has a case to say that they would be consistent in their reaction to the news, no matter who the player turned out to be.

Let me be clear... if Federer had been the guilty party, I would be just as concerned as I would had it been anyone else. This is bigger than fandom to me, and I believe others as well.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Let me be clear... if Federer had been the guilty party, I would be just as concerned as I would had it been anyone else. This is bigger than fandom to me, and I believe others as well.

What if it was Serena?

 

[Federberg]

Let me be clear... if Federer had been the guilty party, I would be just as concerned as I would had it been anyone else. This is bigger than fandom to me, and I believe others as well.

What if it was Serena?

Same thing. Why should she be different?

 

[nehmeth]

Let me be clear... if Federer had been the guilty party, I would be just as concerned as I would had it been anyone else. This is bigger than fandom to me, and I believe others as well.

What if it was Serena?

If it were Serena? You mean the Serena who was going to shove a tennis ball down the little Asian lady line judge's throat Serena? :laydownlaughing Really? There would probably be a thread on the WTA forum rather than here.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Let me be clear... if Federer had been the guilty party, I would be just as concerned as I would had it been anyone else. This is bigger than fandom to me, and I believe others as well.

What if it was Serena?

If it were Serena? You mean the Serena who was going to shove a tennis ball down the little Asian lady line judge's throat Serena? :laydownlaughing Really? There would probably be a thread on the WTA forum rather than here.

I don't follow the WTA or visit the forums. How has the reaction been to Serena's, shall we say, questionable reasoning during the Azarenka incident?

Has anyone defended the Serena who wanted to shove a tennis ball down the little Asian lady line judge's throat?

 

[lacatch]

Moxie--I don't know why you are quoting articles about it not being "uncommon" for players to request that an ump doesn't officiate their matches. This comes from the same ATP who capitulated to Rafa's demands and is practicing damage control. More relevant: when Roger, Novak and Andy were each asked (live), NONE of them agreed with this characterization of requests like Rafa being common, and there are NO other examples of umps not working a match of any of the top players FOR MONTHS other than Bernardes, at the request of Rafa (and apparently agreed to by the ATP and the French Open--so far). I believe this is less about the backward shorts, and more about Rafa not liking the one ump who has been the most strict about his slow play. And Rafa said in his presser at the French that sometimes it's better to take a break---I say: give ME a break---these are adults. Rafa can't get over the fact that Bernardes "disrespected" him 4 months ago? I think he's being petulant, and the tennis powers are capitulating to the whims of one of their top stars. I bet there is PLENTY of discussion going on behind the scenes among players/their agents and the ATP!

I was given a hard time for mentioning that the original article posted from the Telegraph had no citations or quotes. Then I quoted a tennis.com article posted by GSM, who is absolutely not on my side, and you complain about that because you don't believe the source. You also don't believe that the source of Rafa's anger was the backward shorts in that particular match, even though he is rarely seen to lose his temper so badly. It's fine for you to believe whatever you want, but I'm quoting articles from reasonable sources that other people posted, so you can't really fault me for it. And I don't find quotes from Andy or Roger that say that it is not common, and their comments are mostly about themselves, and fairly mild, as one would imagine. Feel free to post them, though.

What I did find from Roger was this:

'I do not want to be treated differently,' Federer said. 'If you get angry or you break a racket, you don't want to get a warning right away. If the umpire does, then all players should be treated equally. Things have to be clear. I hope there are no bonuses. Big tournaments, umpires with a lot of experience, they know how to manage difficult situations.

'On Court 15 you can be stricter to educate players, but that has nothing to do with who is playing. On centre courts you can give a little more leeway to make sure the match goes well.'

Also:
Nadal's frustration in Rio was accentuated after he requested to change his shorts, which he had put on the wrong way round, but was warned it would cost him another violation to do so.
'In his situation there are maybe enough umpires out there that it's not such a big problem for the ATP or the umpire or the player,' Federer said.

The bolded contradicts the notion that some players should be given preferential treatment, it seems to me. Top players play on centre courts and not on court 15. And the last quote from Roger seems to indicate that he has no problem with separating a player and umpire for a period of time.

^The volume may have risen because of initial defensiveness Moxie. There is no careful reading of what he did that puts what he did in another light. No matter how many times you try I doubt you'll convince anyone sadly. For those of us on the other side we see knee jerk bias on your side. From our perspective we see a guy who did something we believe is detrimental to the sport, there can be no extenuating circumstances that alter that

There is actually a careful reading that many on this thread haven't done, though I don't expect a different outcome from those who are already predisposed to an opinion. I don't know what knee-jerk bias you can accuse me of, if you read across this whole thread. (22 pages is boring, but you've been participating most of the way, so I can assume you are caught up.) I have been asking everyone to read the information as it came in, and it did become more clear over a few different articles. And even more so if you'd read the NYTimes one I just posted. That article describes a regular assessment of when players and umpires might need a break, for various reasons. (Even one, amusingly almost superstition on the part of the ump.) It seems that what happened between Rafa and Carlos is not a one-off, and I think it's a bit over-cooked to call it detrimental to the sport. But I'll agree with you on this: no matter how many times I try, I'll never convince those who already know what they think.

Moxie---Talk about your feeling that you'll never convince readers of the thread to change one's mind---you keep going around in circles chasing your tail making the SAME arguments. The NYTIMES quotes an ATP official, who OF COURSE is going to put a nice spin on things, e.g., describing the process and saying it's happened before. But when speaking to Nadal's top competitors, Novak and Murray CLEARLY state that they have NEVER asked for an umpire not to officiate their matches, and Jim Courier said he was never aware of that option either. ATP officials are downplaying what happened because it's clear that many (both on and off the tour) are shocked that Rafa's request is STILL being honored several months after SHORTSGATE. As I said before---seriously? A grown man (Rafa) can't get over something that happened months ago? Any honest observer would have to admit that at least SOME of Rafa's anger towards Bernardes is because the latter has been the strictest about enforcing Rafa's chronic time violations, and Bernardes has rarely done so. I don't understand what you're still arguing about, Moxie. The facts are: 1)Rafa is the only current top player who has asked that an ump be off his matches; 2)His request is still being honored several months and many matches later; 3)Rafa is a chronic violator of the time rules, and Bernardes has been the strictest at calling Rafa on it, and even he has done so rarely. 4)Rafa doesn't like this (nor that he wasn't allowed to change his shorts which he had on backwards. OPINION (vs fact): ATP is probably embarrassed that this has gotten out in the open so much and is trying to downplay this dustup so it doesn't look like they are catering to one of their top stars. Please tell me what is still an issue to discuss?

 

[DarthFed]

Not to attack Moxie but I remember her defending Rafa from the "attacks" when Rafa happened to take a bathroom break before Roger served for the match at Indian Wells 3 years ago. If she'll defend him then she will defend anything.

 

[Federberg]

Not to attack Moxie but I remember her defending Rafa from the "attacks" when Rafa happened to take a bathroom break before Roger served for the match at Indian Wells 3 years ago. If she'll defend him then she will defend anything.

:laydownlaughing
That was truly indefensible. If that's the sort of stance I'm arguing against, then I think I'd better check out of this. Indian Wells was absolutely shocking, and low class :nono

 

[DarthFed]

^ Most Rafa fans did not even try to defend that one but there were still a few of the "what if he really had to go" people and those who asked how that was gamesmanship.

 

[nehmeth]

What if it was Serena?

If it were Serena? You mean the Serena who was going to shove a tennis ball down the little Asian lady line judge's throat Serena? :laydownlaughing Really? There would probably be a thread on the WTA forum rather than here.

I don't follow the WTA or visit the forums. How has the reaction been to Serena's, shall we say, questionable reasoning during the Azarenka incident?

Has anyone defended the Serena who wanted to shove a tennis ball down the little Asian lady line judge's throat?

I am rarely there either Broken. And I haven't been on there since the incident in the Vika match.

I do remember when it all went down with Serena and the line judge a few years ago. While the timing of the call was terrible, and some people stated that Serena was justifiably upset, I don't think anyone defended what she said.

 

[Denis]

The Cilic comparison was also pretty ridiculous here, given that Cilic has zero disillusional fans defending him for 22 pages in one thread. Besides, Cilic actually got punished and did not ask the doping official to refrain from checking on him.

 

[Federberg]

The Cilic comparison was also pretty ridiculous here, given that Cilic has zero disillusional fans defending him for 22 pages in one thread. Besides, Cilic actually got punished and did not ask the doping official to refrain from checking on him.

:laydownlaughing
Too funny!

 

[Moxie]

Moxie--I don't know why you are quoting articles about it not being "uncommon" for players to request that an ump doesn't officiate their matches. This comes from the same ATP who capitulated to Rafa's demands and is practicing damage control. More relevant: when Roger, Novak and Andy were each asked (live), NONE of them agreed with this characterization of requests like Rafa being common, and there are NO other examples of umps not working a match of any of the top players FOR MONTHS other than Bernardes, at the request of Rafa (and apparently agreed to by the ATP and the French Open--so far). I believe this is less about the backward shorts, and more about Rafa not liking the one ump who has been the most strict about his slow play. And Rafa said in his presser at the French that sometimes it's better to take a break---I say: give ME a break---these are adults. Rafa can't get over the fact that Bernardes "disrespected" him 4 months ago? I think he's being petulant, and the tennis powers are capitulating to the whims of one of their top stars. I bet there is PLENTY of discussion going on behind the scenes among players/their agents and the ATP!

I was given a hard time for mentioning that the original article posted from the Telegraph had no citations or quotes. Then I quoted a tennis.com article posted by GSM, who is absolutely not on my side, and you complain about that because you don't believe the source. You also don't believe that the source of Rafa's anger was the backward shorts in that particular match, even though he is rarely seen to lose his temper so badly. It's fine for you to believe whatever you want, but I'm quoting articles from reasonable sources that other people posted, so you can't really fault me for it. And I don't find quotes from Andy or Roger that say that it is not common, and their comments are mostly about themselves, and fairly mild, as one would imagine. Feel free to post them, though.

What I did find from Roger was this:

'I do not want to be treated differently,' Federer said. 'If you get angry or you break a racket, you don't want to get a warning right away. If the umpire does, then all players should be treated equally. Things have to be clear. I hope there are no bonuses. Big tournaments, umpires with a lot of experience, they know how to manage difficult situations.

'On Court 15 you can be stricter to educate players, but that has nothing to do with who is playing. On centre courts you can give a little more leeway to make sure the match goes well.'

Also:
Nadal's frustration in Rio was accentuated after he requested to change his shorts, which he had put on the wrong way round, but was warned it would cost him another violation to do so.
'In his situation there are maybe enough umpires out there that it's not such a big problem for the ATP or the umpire or the player,' Federer said.

The bolded contradicts the notion that some players should be given preferential treatment, it seems to me. Top players play on centre courts and not on court 15. And the last quote from Roger seems to indicate that he has no problem with separating a player and umpire for a period of time.

^The volume may have risen because of initial defensiveness Moxie. There is no careful reading of what he did that puts what he did in another light. No matter how many times you try I doubt you'll convince anyone sadly. For those of us on the other side we see knee jerk bias on your side. From our perspective we see a guy who did something we believe is detrimental to the sport, there can be no extenuating circumstances that alter that

There is actually a careful reading that many on this thread haven't done, though I don't expect a different outcome from those who are already predisposed to an opinion. I don't know what knee-jerk bias you can accuse me of, if you read across this whole thread. (22 pages is boring, but you've been participating most of the way, so I can assume you are caught up.) I have been asking everyone to read the information as it came in, and it did become more clear over a few different articles. And even more so if you'd read the NYTimes one I just posted. That article describes a regular assessment of when players and umpires might need a break, for various reasons. (Even one, amusingly almost superstition on the part of the ump.) It seems that what happened between Rafa and Carlos is not a one-off, and I think it's a bit over-cooked to call it detrimental to the sport. But I'll agree with you on this: no matter how many times I try, I'll never convince those who already know what they think.

Moxie---Talk about your feeling that you'll never convince readers of the thread to change one's mind---you keep going around in circles chasing your tail making the SAME arguments. The NYTIMES quotes an ATP official, who OF COURSE is going to put a nice spin on things, e.g., describing the process and saying it's happened before. But when speaking to Nadal's top competitors, Novak and Murray CLEARLY state that they have NEVER asked for an umpire not to officiate their matches, and Jim Courier said he was never aware of that option either. ATP officials are downplaying what happened because it's clear that many (both on and off the tour) are shocked that Rafa's request is STILL being honored several months after SHORTSGATE. As I said before---seriously? A grown man (Rafa) can't get over something that happened months ago? Any honest observer would have to admit that at least SOME of Rafa's anger towards Bernardes is because the latter has been the strictest about enforcing Rafa's chronic time violations, and Bernardes has rarely done so. I don't understand what you're still arguing about, Moxie. The facts are: 1)Rafa is the only current top player who has asked that an ump be off his matches; 2)His request is still being honored several months and many matches later; 3)Rafa is a chronic violator of the time rules, and Bernardes has been the strictest at calling Rafa on it, and even he has done so rarely. 4)Rafa doesn't like this (nor that he wasn't allowed to change his shorts which he had on backwards. OPINION (vs fact): ATP is probably embarrassed that this has gotten out in the open so much and is trying to downplay this dustup so it doesn't look like they are catering to one of their top stars. Please tell me what is still an issue to discuss?

I'm happy to stop, because you, apparently, can't read. There has been a rapprochement, but the publicity has made it too complicated for RG.

 

[lacatch]

I was given a hard time for mentioning that the original article posted from the Telegraph had no citations or quotes. Then I quoted a tennis.com article posted by GSM, who is absolutely not on my side, and you complain about that because you don't believe the source. You also don't believe that the source of Rafa's anger was the backward shorts in that particular match, even though he is rarely seen to lose his temper so badly. It's fine for you to believe whatever you want, but I'm quoting articles from reasonable sources that other people posted, so you can't really fault me for it. And I don't find quotes from Andy or Roger that say that it is not common, and their comments are mostly about themselves, and fairly mild, as one would imagine. Feel free to post them, though.

What I did find from Roger was this:

'I do not want to be treated differently,' Federer said. 'If you get angry or you break a racket, you don't want to get a warning right away. If the umpire does, then all players should be treated equally. Things have to be clear. I hope there are no bonuses. Big tournaments, umpires with a lot of experience, they know how to manage difficult situations.

'On Court 15 you can be stricter to educate players, but that has nothing to do with who is playing. On centre courts you can give a little more leeway to make sure the match goes well.'

Also:
Nadal's frustration in Rio was accentuated after he requested to change his shorts, which he had put on the wrong way round, but was warned it would cost him another violation to do so.
'In his situation there are maybe enough umpires out there that it's not such a big problem for the ATP or the umpire or the player,' Federer said.

The bolded contradicts the notion that some players should be given preferential treatment, it seems to me. Top players play on centre courts and not on court 15. And the last quote from Roger seems to indicate that he has no problem with separating a player and umpire for a period of time.

There is actually a careful reading that many on this thread haven't done, though I don't expect a different outcome from those who are already predisposed to an opinion. I don't know what knee-jerk bias you can accuse me of, if you read across this whole thread. (22 pages is boring, but you've been participating most of the way, so I can assume you are caught up.) I have been asking everyone to read the information as it came in, and it did become more clear over a few different articles. And even more so if you'd read the NYTimes one I just posted. That article describes a regular assessment of when players and umpires might need a break, for various reasons. (Even one, amusingly almost superstition on the part of the ump.) It seems that what happened between Rafa and Carlos is not a one-off, and I think it's a bit over-cooked to call it detrimental to the sport. But I'll agree with you on this: no matter how many times I try, I'll never convince those who already know what they think.

Moxie---Talk about your feeling that you'll never convince readers of the thread to change one's mind---you keep going around in circles chasing your tail making the SAME arguments. The NYTIMES quotes an ATP official, who OF COURSE is going to put a nice spin on things, e.g., describing the process and saying it's happened before. But when speaking to Nadal's top competitors, Novak and Murray CLEARLY state that they have NEVER asked for an umpire not to officiate their matches, and Jim Courier said he was never aware of that option either. ATP officials are downplaying what happened because it's clear that many (both on and off the tour) are shocked that Rafa's request is STILL being honored several months after SHORTSGATE. As I said before---seriously? A grown man (Rafa) can't get over something that happened months ago? Any honest observer would have to admit that at least SOME of Rafa's anger towards Bernardes is because the latter has been the strictest about enforcing Rafa's chronic time violations, and Bernardes has rarely done so. I don't understand what you're still arguing about, Moxie. The facts are: 1)Rafa is the only current top player who has asked that an ump be off his matches; 2)His request is still being honored several months and many matches later; 3)Rafa is a chronic violator of the time rules, and Bernardes has been the strictest at calling Rafa on it, and even he has done so rarely. 4)Rafa doesn't like this (nor that he wasn't allowed to change his shorts which he had on backwards. OPINION (vs fact): ATP is probably embarrassed that this has gotten out in the open so much and is trying to downplay this dustup so it doesn't look like they are catering to one of their top stars. Please tell me what is still an issue to discuss?

I'm happy to stop, because you, apparently, can't read. There has been a rapprochement, but the publicity has made it too complicated for RG.

Moxie--I really don't appreciate juvenile digs from you about my reading ability, when obviously you have nothing cogent to say to respond to the facts of this situation. And while I wouldn't dream of casting aspersions about YOUR reading comprehension, here's the exact quote from the NYTIMES article regarding rapprochement to which you are referring:

"The rapprochement between Nadal, the tennis star, and Bernardes, a leading tennis umpire, might have taken place here in Paris, but that is no longer a possibility now that the issues dividing them have become public."

In English, "might" implies a possibility of something happening; there is no certainty whatsoever.

 

[Moxie]

Moxie---Talk about your feeling that you'll never convince readers of the thread to change one's mind---you keep going around in circles chasing your tail making the SAME arguments. The NYTIMES quotes an ATP official, who OF COURSE is going to put a nice spin on things, e.g., describing the process and saying it's happened before. But when speaking to Nadal's top competitors, Novak and Murray CLEARLY state that they have NEVER asked for an umpire not to officiate their matches, and Jim Courier said he was never aware of that option either. ATP officials are downplaying what happened because it's clear that many (both on and off the tour) are shocked that Rafa's request is STILL being honored several months after SHORTSGATE. As I said before---seriously? A grown man (Rafa) can't get over something that happened months ago? Any honest observer would have to admit that at least SOME of Rafa's anger towards Bernardes is because the latter has been the strictest about enforcing Rafa's chronic time violations, and Bernardes has rarely done so. I don't understand what you're still arguing about, Moxie. The facts are: 1)Rafa is the only current top player who has asked that an ump be off his matches; 2)His request is still being honored several months and many matches later; 3)Rafa is a chronic violator of the time rules, and Bernardes has been the strictest at calling Rafa on it, and even he has done so rarely. 4)Rafa doesn't like this (nor that he wasn't allowed to change his shorts which he had on backwards. OPINION (vs fact): ATP is probably embarrassed that this has gotten out in the open so much and is trying to downplay this dustup so it doesn't look like they are catering to one of their top stars. Please tell me what is still an issue to discuss?

I'm happy to stop, because you, apparently, can't read. There has been a rapprochement, but the publicity has made it too complicated for RG.

Moxie--I really don't appreciate juvenile digs from you about my reading ability, when obviously you have nothing cogent to say to respond to the facts of this situation. And while I wouldn't dream of casting aspersions about YOUR reading comprehension, here's the exact quote from the NYTIMES article regarding rapprochement to which you are referring:

"The rapprochement between Nadal, the tennis star, and Bernardes, a leading tennis umpire, might have taken place here in Paris, but that is no longer a possibility now that the issues dividing them have become public."

In English, "might" implies a possibility of something happening; there is no certainty whatsoever.

You have cast aspersions on everything I have said here. I have appealed to careful reading. You have not done that. You say that Nadal is hanging on to a resentment from Rio, but you don't see that the request was made months ago, not just now, when the news came out. It just became public recently. That's not when it began. I am actually the one who has appealed to the facts. You don't have to agree with me, and clearly you don't, but don't say that I haven't been trying to drive folks towards the facts as presented. I agree that "might" doesn't mean that it has happened. But since you feel free to give opinions in addition to facts, I'll give mine: I think that Nadal and Bernardes are at the end of this, and Bernardes will umpire one or more of his matches at Wimbledon. Realistically, they'll have to.

 

[lacatch]

Moxie--how about : "You're right, sorry I made a personal dig at you which wasn't relevant to the discussion"? And I NEVER said anything about Nadal's request being recent; I'm quite aware of the press that reported that Nadal made the request after Rio. Perhaps you misconstrued a previous comment from me about Rafa still holding a grudge months after Rio. (If he were fine with having Bernardes officiate his matches now and told the ATP/French Open folks, Bernardes most likely WOULD have officiated one of his matches). I also happen to believe that Rio was the CULMINATION of Rafa's frustration with Bernardes who, according to most reports, has been the toughest on Nadal's violation of the time rules for quite some time. My comments have all been fact based, except where I have identified them as opinion. You seem to have a hard time (again) owning up to your guy's antics, unlike many who, while having favorite players, admit when their favorites have crossed the line behaviorally. Personally, I'd love to see the "rapprochement" take place this Wednesday, but doubt that's gonna happen!

 

[Moxie]

If you were offended by my comment, then I apologize on the personal level. Otherwise, I'm absenting myself from this conversation, as I have made my points and said my piece.

I don't think I'm obligated to apologize for Nadal, and you really shouldn't try to bully me into it, as others are trying, as well. If we were just talking about tennis, it would be one thing. But this, and conversations like this one, become opportunities for anti-Nadal folks to complain about his perceived 'moral failings.' In these cases, I'll argue his side, since there is such a virulent throng against. Why wouldn't I? Especially because the outrage is always barely disguised vilifying of a player who has threatened two strong camps. If it weren't factionalism, and fraught, there wouldn't be 22 pages, and there would be more discussion on point.