Why is Rafa only threatening to sue over doping accusations now?

[mrzz]

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?

One person, which at a given period of time was closely related to sports, comes and make a heavy accusation. People answer: she's just a stupid person who can't control her mouth.

This is simple, and -- if it does not correspond to the exact truth behind the story -- therefore is simplistic.

But, as I conceded above, it could be quite possibly be the case. And, second, maybe my first line above does not sums up what people have written in this thread, even if I read it again and I honestly believe it does.

Look, Moxie, this is just a tennis forum. It should not be that serious.

 

[britbox]

I understand your angle... and it boils down to two options

a) She is an airhead, reckless with her mouth, a self-publicist who is making comments like this for self-gain.

or

b) She has "insider info", knowledge that we are unaware of... and something only a Minister of Sport may have been party to.

Neither are ridiculous assumptions... but one is only going to be correct.

Rafa filed the case already... so the wheels are in motion... and I guess we'll see it play out.

 

[Carol]

The title of this thread should be "Why Rafa IS suing over....etc? because he has all the right to do it .
The French people and players are on his side, including the Mayoress of Paris that is defending him 100%, the comments in general are against Bachelot , it means something, isn't?
Every single player is accused of PEDS (including Federer, I have some links about it) but in this particular case that woman even that never has had good reputation, she was accusing through the national TV where everybody was listening, she went too far so she deserves the worst. Hope she has the guts to apologize in public too

 

[isabelle]

According l'Equipe of today, Nadal said he was confident in French justice, hope this story"ll make Mrs Bachelot shut up for good

 

[britbox]

It doesn't really matter what the mayoress thinks or the public... What matters is, if she can back up her comments with credible concrete evidence. If she can't then she is a reckless airhead. If she can, then she'll blow the gates off ITF headquarters.

I predict the former, but we'll see what happens.

 

[isabelle]

It doesn't really matter what the mayoress thinks or the public... What matters is, if she can back up her comments with credible concrete evidence. If she can't then she is a reckless airhead. If she can, then she'll blow the gates off ITF headquarters.

I predict the former, but we'll see what happens.

this poor woman has no evidences that's her main problem !!!

 

[mrzz]

Dear Santa;

This thread gave me soooooo many opportunities to make sexist jokes, but I have been a good boy and made none. Zero. Zip. Nada. Nadica de nada.

Therefore please don't forget my flamethrower this year.

 

[britbox]

this poor woman has no evidences that's her main problem !!!

Well, usually we wait on the court proceedings to find out what evidence is provided, testimony given and witnesses called.

 

[Carol]

If someone is thinking that Nadal and his camp are stupid to take that determination having all the proof in their hands and the ITF on his said too then that someone is a lot more stupid

 

[britbox]

If someone is thinking that Nadal and his camp are stupid to take that determination having all the proof in their hands and the ITF on his said too then that someone is a lot more stupid

Well you would think so.

 

[Carol]

Well you would think so.

Britbox, Rafa knows perfectly well what he is doing

 

[DarthFed]

Let's see if it actually makes it to court. I'm interested to hear if she heard it through the grapevine vs. forming her own opinion and stupidly opening her mouth about it.

 

[Moxie]

One person, which at a given period of time was closely related to sports, comes and make a heavy accusation. People answer: she's just a stupid person who can't control her mouth.

This is simple, and -- if it does not correspond to the exact truth behind the story -- therefore is simplistic.

But, as I conceded above, it could be quite possibly be the case. And, second, maybe my first line above does not sums up what people have written in this thread, even if I read it again and I honestly believe it does.

Look, Moxie, this is just a tennis forum. It should not be that serious.

I don't think I was overly-serious about it. No need to be defensive. I thought it would be interesting to hear the context in which the comment was made. And why you thought it was being over-simplified. Thanks for the response. BB synthesized it reasonably well: either the ex-minister was drawing a conclusion based on nothing she has proof of, in which case she has been imprudent, and will likely lose her case; or, she has seen proof that encouraged her to speak out against Rafa, and convinces the court of it. Hopefully, all will come to light, eventually. I have a hard time imagining that it will happen soon, though.

 

[Moxie]

Let's see if it actually makes it to court. I'm interested to hear if she heard it through the grapevine vs. forming her own opinion and stupidly opening her mouth about it.

Even if she "heard it through the grapevine," she's going to come up with something better than that against a slander charge.

 

[mrzz]

I don't think I was overly-serious about it. No need to be defensive. I thought it would be interesting to hear the context in which the comment was made. And why you thought it was being over-simplified. Thanks for the response. BB synthesized it reasonably well: either the ex-minister was drawing a conclusion based on nothing she has proof of, in which case she has been imprudent, and will likely lose her case; or, she has seen proof that encouraged her to speak out against Rafa, and convinces the court of it. Hopefully, all will come to light, eventually. I have a hard time imagining that it will happen soon, though.

Don't worry. I wasn't being defensive, I was just having a little fun from the fact that the discussion got "serious", in the sense that all sentences were being put in its exact context. This a very healthy habit, one that you probably noticed that I have myself -- that's why I was so quick to try to make a little joke about it.

I obviously understand your concern on this topic. You don't like false accusations, you don't like when people don't have a chance to defend themselves (and you never have against gossip), and it is about Nadal, after all. So, ok, let's stick with the "she is a crazy b!tch" narrative. It seems that she worked hard to get that reputation for herself.

 

[DarthFed]

Even if she "heard it through the grapevine," she's going to come up with something better than that against a slander charge.

It depends who "the grapevine" is. If she heard it from someone involved with the ATP/ITF or someone who has inside knowledge that'd be different than her forming her own opinion or just hearing it from some drunks at a local bar.

 

[Moxie]

It depends who "the grapevine" is. If she heard it from someone involved with the ATP/ITF or someone who has inside knowledge that'd be different than her forming her own opinion or just hearing it from some drunks at a local bar.

I wasn't thinking of what would win an argument on the internet. I was thinking of what would work with a judge. She can't just say "someone told me," no matter who it is. She'd have to produce them, and get them to say it, if courts work in France as they do in the US. That was my point.

 

[DarthFed]

I wasn't thinking of what would win an argument on the internet. I was thinking of what would work with a judge. She can't just say "someone told me," no matter who it is. She'd have to produce them, and get them to say it, if courts work in France as they do in the US. That was my point.

Well definitely, I totally agree with that. If she named the person in court and it is someone who may be involved in the game then that person would have to testify. If she goes in and says I heard it from a random group of dudes at a sports bar she'd look like the biggest idiot in the room.

 

[Moxie]

Don't worry. I wasn't being defensive, I was just having a little fun from the fact that the discussion got "serious", in the sense that all sentences were being put in its exact context. This a very healthy habit, one that you probably noticed that I have myself -- that's why I was so quick to try to make a little joke about it.

I obviously understand your concern on this topic. You don't like false accusations, you don't like when people don't have a chance to defend themselves (and you never have against gossip), and it is about Nadal, after all. So, ok, let's stick with the "she is a crazy b!tch" narrative. It seems that she worked hard to get that reputation for herself.

OK, I didn't get the joke, but I think everyone is being careful, though, as it's a sensitive topic, and a lawsuit is kinda serious.

Just to point out, too, though, no one but you has called her "crazy," and no one has called her a "bitch," which you've done twice, in the guise of paraphrasing others. Personally, I have no reason to think she's a bitch, but I do think she's spoken unwisely, as her statement doesn't imply anything other than assumption. I know you were congratulating yourself for not making a sexist joke, but you're the only one making anything of the fact that the minister is a woman, which is pretty irrelevant, I'd say. But not to be too serious....

 

[Moxie]

Well definitely, I totally agree with that. If she named the person in court and it is someone who may be involved in the game then that person would have to testify. If she goes in and says I heard it from a random group of dudes at a sports bar she'd look like the biggest idiot in the room.

She has not said she heard it, nor that she'd seen evidence, which is why I quoted earlier exactly what she said. And if she hasn't, it's not going to be that she overheard it from a couple of guys in a bar. It's going to be that she's bought into the implications of others, and felt free to speculate out loud. Which is why I think all this long-term slur campaign against Nadal has been so damaging and unfair. And why Rafa is fed up and fighting back.

Let me be clear here: it may or may not be the case that Nadal is completely clean. But the singling of him out for a campaign of implication, and that's what it is - in the absence of proof - has been unfair, particularly when others get such a head-in-the-clouds pass. It's been going on since 2006, because of Dr. Fuentes. I've made what I think was a common sense case for why that was too early for Nadal to have looked for an advantage in chemistry. If anything, one can see why he might have looked for it, but much later than 2006. There's a much better argument for any of Federer, Djokovic or Murray earlier in their careers than Nadal. But speaking of Nadal and dope has become an easy crutch for those with various prejudices and motivations. And now people speak of so much "smoke," without realizing that they and their ilk have created most of it. And there, very possibly, is how you get such a comment from Mme. Bachelot.