Tennis-X Notes: Rafter Returns, Players Busted for Gambling

“a fine coating of soot covered her body during matches. “It was a quite dirty, quite polluted area, but hopefully they will do the best they can to clear it because sometimes it looks like it’s foggy,” she said. “It can affect your breathing.”…”

Not good, not good. Betcha this affects the USO. Players will be dropping like flies. They were last year, and they weren’t breathing soot for a week or two beforehand.

July 28th, 2008 at 11:39 am

“Blogger Cheryl Murray from TennisTalk at the ATP Toronto stop: “I should qualify that by saying that SOME ATP players are pigs. It just so happened that I ran into at least four players on Monday that have porcine tendancies. Judging by the reaction one particularly attractive journalist got, oggling is de rigeur on the men’s tour. I personally watched a German player look down this woman’s shirt TWICE. Poor form, Tommy. Very poor form.”…”

If you’re going to dress in a way that invites people to look, do not be surprised if they take you up on it. If you don’t want us to look, don’t dress that way, and then call us out for it. Admit it, if not for attention, why DO you dress that way?

July 28th, 2008 at 12:34 pm

patrick rafter…i always liked him. very congenial.

i know everyone loved the wimby final this year but the year that patrick and goran played was the craziest fan environment i’ve ever witnessed at wimbledon – the loud aussies and the crazy croats. it was electric.

despite it being the second year in a row that rafter went down in the final, i was happy that goran won. particularly since he’d been runner up three other times and won the damn thing on a wild card!

July 28th, 2008 at 5:21 pm

giner:

If you’re going to dress in a way that invites people to look, do not be surprised if they take you up on it. If you don’t want us to look, don’t dress that way, and then call us out for it. Admit it, if not for attention, why DO you dress that way?”

I absolutely agree. If a shirt is buttoned up correctly, it would be impossible to look down the opening. Women who dress in that mannerare seeking attention due to some underlying insecurity. You don’t put bait on a fishing rod unless you want the fish to bite and be caught.

July 28th, 2008 at 5:57 pm

giner,

I also agree.

Von,

I agree with your assessment except that I don’t think it’s a phenomenon that is exclusively motivated by insecurity. There are many reasons for such behavior. For example, it may very well help her get her questions heard, or it may be that she wants to hook up for purely hedonistic purposes. I often hear insecurity cited as the blanket reason for anything overtly sexual, but I tend to think that is a gross oversimplification that pigeonholes something that is not necessarily motivated by weakness, insufficiency, or character flaw.

July 28th, 2008 at 6:32 pm

Wait a second – I just have to ask – did it *say* the interviewer was wearing a revealing top? It said she was “attractive” but I don’t see anything about what she was wearing. It *is* possible to look down a person’s top even if the top is not “revealing”. For instance, perhaps she bent forward to pick up something, and the top moved away from her body. Maybe this is less likely than the interviewer dressing provacatively, but I’d like to see the full evidence before I blame the victim.

July 28th, 2008 at 7:17 pm

Wow, I wasn’t expecting agreement from a girl. :)

I read a bit of research that when women dress scantily or tantalisingly, it may have something to do with fertility. During certain cycles of the month they are more fertile. Subconsciously of course. But they do want to be noticed. It’s hard to argue against that. In some cases, it’s blatant.

I just don’t think Cheryl Murray has a valid complaint. Tommy is a man, and he’s driven by pre-programmed instinct. I wouldn’t call him a pig for it. Ask any straight man if they’ve ever looked down a woman’s top, and if they say no, chances are, they’re lying. Sorry, but there’s nothing unusual about it.

July 28th, 2008 at 7:18 pm

“Wait a second – I just have to ask – did it *say* the interviewer was wearing a revealing top? It said she was “attractive” but I don’t see anything about what she was wearing. It *is* possible to look down a person’s top even if the top is not “revealing”. For instance, perhaps she bent forward to pick up something, and the top moved away from her body. Maybe this is less likely than the interviewer dressing provacatively, but I’d like to see the full evidence before I blame the victim.”

The blogger said she caught him doing it TWICE. There is a chance she may have dropped her pen twice, but my eyes are rolling right now. The blogger also says she caught at least FOUR guys doing it.

I’m not really blaming the victim, I’m just saying that you can’t really blame Tommy for it either. If I’m blaming anyone, it’s more the blogger. She shouldn’t act so surprised or repulsed that it happens. If she is serious about her objection, then I’d say she doesn’t know men as well as she should.

July 28th, 2008 at 7:24 pm

Giner,

I agree that the blogger’s blanket statement that players on the ATP tour are “pigs” is downright stupid (too much blonde hair dye there Cheryl?). But I wanted to take issue with the fact that it wasn’t stated what the woman was wearing. You presumed she was dressed provocatively. Moreover, it could be that something else was pushing her top away from her body allowing men to look down it – think Pam Anderson – so it’s not necessarily what she was wearing, ya know? I hope you take my point.

It’s like saying if a woman goes out wearing a short skirt, well then… .I have a problem with that; maybe she likes short skirts; maybe she’s gay, even; maybe it has nothing to do with wanting men to look at her.

July 28th, 2008 at 7:37 pm

Ra:

“There are many reasons for such behavior. For example, it may very well help her get her questions heard, or it may be that she wants to hook up for purely hedonistic purposes ….”

If you noticed I mentioned attention and insecurity. What I’m trying to imply hinges on the theory that in order for someone to receive attention if there’s an underlying insecurity, e.g., getting her questions heard, then she might need to do something a little out of the ordinary, e.g., dressing provocatively. Who knows, Tommy most probably had that certain gleam in his eye, and it may not have had any association whatsoever with provocative dressing.

July 28th, 2008 at 8:10 pm

Hey guys,

Check this site out.Its the coolest search engine that I’ve seen so far.

http://www.searchme.com

July 29th, 2008 at 12:44 am

Von,

I think I understand where you are coming from, but the statement “Women who dress in that manner are seeking attention due to some underlying insecurity.” is complete and definitive in nature. Also, I don’t see that having “an underlying insecurity” is an implicit causal factor for doing “something a little out of ordinary” (whether that something is dressing provocatively or not). In the realm of human perception and cognition, that which stands out from the ordinary is precisely what gets attention and, in that sense, is really the only device that one can use to get attention regardless of the motive. It’s not that I don’t agree that your premise is often relevant; I just think it is unfair as an all-encompassing explanation.

July 29th, 2008 at 12:51 am

Pat Rafter!

Is there a feed for Black Rock?

****
well, not to say that all the ATP players are saints, but I, too, think that’s a harsh blanket statement from that blogger.
Specially naming names, without giving the full detail, is not fair.

*****
I didn’t know MAry Pierce was still playing. Didn’t she hurt ( or rather broke ) her knee? I thought she retired from tennis after that injury.

July 29th, 2008 at 1:08 am

Ra:

“In the realm of human perception and cognition, that which stands out from the ordinary is precisely what gets attention and, in that sense, is really the only device that one can use to get attention regardless of the motive.”

I understand and agree with you that we tend to give attention to that which stands out, or catches the eye, sort of taking a second look, or doing a double take.

July 29th, 2008 at 2:58 am

I happened to see the woman to whom she referred in her blog, and her dress was not particularly provocative. I have a feeling that Mrs. Murray’s comment was meant to be tongue in cheek, rather than taken literally.

July 31st, 2008 at 2:16 pm