It's a basic slander case. No, he hasn't lost sponsors, but, yes, it's his reputation that he is claiming is damaged. He's been the subject of innuendo for years, and he's sick of it, apparently. That woman named him directly, and claimed he'd been serving a silent ban. It impugns his reputation, and a reputation is still a thing, no matter how much you have sponsors and titles.
Respectfully, that's not a fair understanding of what Nadal has been up against, with regards to doping accusations. We've been over it on other threads, but, directly to your point, no one accused him specifically, before Bachelot (or since my mention below.) You can't sue the internet; or Yannick Noah, who just made generally rude and unfounded accusations against Spanish players; or a French satirical program that seems to imply Nadal, but it's not specific, and it was satire. There was one French publication back when Operación Puerto came out that put Nadal and Barcelona in it's headline, completely spuriously and sensationally, 10 years ago. As I have said before, Nadal, in retrospect, probably wishes he'd sued then. Everything in the interim was too vague to take on. This one called Nadal out, and he has grounds for his suit.
Given that the ITF has actually said there was no silent ban, she hasn't got a leg to stand on. I actually would like to see the Nadal camp push it...not to punish her, but to let as much light in as possible. If Nadal is clean and believes he has a case, he should pursue it in court.
Why not? Isabelle lives in France and says Bachelot's considered to be kind of an idiot and a self-aggransizer. I'm not sure about in Brazil, but here in the US just because someone has been in government doesn't prove they're not a fool, or don't perhaps think they're impervious to consequences. Here is exactly what she said: “On sait que sa fameuse blessure où il avait été arrêté sept mois est certainement due à un contrôle positif. Quand tu vois un joueur de tennis qui s’arrête pendant des mois, c’est qu’il a été contrôlé positif.†I think everyone can read that. She's merely speculating. Drawing a conclusion based on his injury lay-off. She neither says nor implies that she has proof or has seen any.
If you were summing up my "over-simplification," then I missed it. You understand that now she's a talk show host or something, right? So she talks and offers her opinions. She said what she said. I'm not sure what you would think is the less over-simplified version.
No worries. I'd be interested in the context in which she decided to make the comment, which I haven't found. But still, I'm interested to hear what you think is overly-simplistic. Or do you no longer think that?
