Innocent or Guilty?

One of the basic tenets of a democratic and civilised society is 'Innocent Till Proven Guilty'.

One of the basic corner-stones of Star Wars is Fear Leads to Anger, Anger Leads To Hate, Hate Leads to Suffering?

Which of the two is close to your philosophy about life?

If what you believe is outside these two, please share.

LOL, you will not believe it but for a few weeks now I have imagined that "one day I will get to discuss LF on the 'innocent till proven guilty' subject" - exactly like that. I have even started collecting my thoughts ahead of time. Do not have time now but will definitely try to respond sooner or later.

'Innocent Till Proven Guilty' is a concept that should apply on specific legal cases. Robbery, murder etc... It is the abuse of this noble principle which is kiling our societies.

Yes LA is still innocent, Blair and Bush may well have thought there really were WMDs in Irak, and you may give the benefit of the doubt to Murddoch when he says he never tried to influence the US and UK politicians. I choose not distrust those because I use my "gutfeel" as my main radar here.

When there is too much smoke I simply believe there is a fire. Nowadays, I'd rather be right in 99% of time and wrong the 1% than wrong 99% but right for the 1% case when there is no fire.

To deal with the cases you have in mind, we, certainly not I, are not accusing anyone but suspecting a few here with the obvious smoking guns.

SB... Looking forward to an interesting discussion.

Tenez... 'Where there is smoke there is a fire' is a generalization of a cause-and-effect, and perhaps requires judicious application, as you say, on a case-by-case basis. This is not asking for 'blind trust' literally, but using rational processes, a la Holmes, to arrive at the truth.

This looks like a lot of beating about the bush kind of topic, and makes me being "call spade a spade" type, feel a bit :study: (I needed that other smiley with the desert and the cactus, but this one will do)

Having said all this, I find the choice in the poll very limiting and cornering you to box yourself into a defensive corner.

As I have nothing to defend, I'll believe what my trusty eyes see and deduce.

I 'll leave the rest to fall into media fear-mongering trap .

I'm free and happy and I looooove tennis :bounce:

LF,

there was an ecellent documentary on the BBC before the Olympics called The Race That Shocked The World.
It's a documentary about the famous 100m sprint race in 1988 Seoul Olympics, the one whre Ben Johnson was caught doping and stripped of his gold medal.
The documentary (unfortunately no longer available on IPlayer), features all 8 sprinters in that race now and then admitting that they ALL took dope, except Da Silva.
It also shows US authorities who KNEW all the time their athletes were doped but allowed them to compete because they wanted the medals haul.
Have you seen it?

In case you haven't, here's one of the debates of the people who have seen it:
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1697750

I know about Marion Jones, Contador and many others. I am aware of the US MLB being rife with a Congressional investigation.

I have seen a US version of the Ben Johnson story.

noleisthebest wrote:features all 8 sprinters in that race now and then admitting that they ALL took dope, except Da Silva.

Are you implying about the Top 8 in Tennis?

Did you watch Bolt and his team in the Men's 4 x 100m? - Look at the Jamaican Athletics medals in Men's and Womens.

Should I suspect these athletes?

laverfan wrote:I know about Marion Jones, Contador and many others. I am aware of the US MLB being rife with a Congressional investigation.

I have seen a US version of the Ben Johnson story.

noleisthebest wrote:features all 8 sprinters in that race now and then admitting that they ALL took dope, except Da Silva.

Are you implying about the Top 8 in Tennis?

Did you watch Bolt and his team in the Men's 4 x 100m? - Look at the Jamaican Athletics medals in Men's and Womens.

Should I suspect these athletes?

I rarely imply LF. I didn't watch almost any athletics. Don' t like Bolt.

noleisthebest wrote:I rarely imply LF. I didn't watch almost any athletics. Don' t like Bolt.

Should I say insinuate? . Seriously, Bolt, since he showed up, has been accused of artificial enhancements. He is part of a fantastic Jamaican Athletics establishment. It would be rather for any such event to foreshadow a sportsperson's achievement.

laverfan wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I rarely imply LF. I didn't watch almost any athletics. Don' t like Bolt.

Should I say insinuate? . Seriously, Bolt, since he showed up, has been accused of artificial enhancements. He is part of a fantastic Jamaican Athletics establishment. It would be rather for any such event to foreshadow a sportsperson's achievement.

I don't like Bolt mainly because he is over-hyped and I don't think he's anything special as a sprinter, just a massive bloke with longer stride.

Now back to the main topic and the hot questions YOU haven't answered

Bolt is not special ???
You didn't even watch the races, how can you comment on him!

I saw one ages ago and that was enough.

LF, I watched Athletics. It will be shame if peds were used but then everyone is doing it. I can't imagine Gatlin to be clean if Bolt or Blake are not.

At least Bolt is winning and winning by miles. Some are still failing to qualify even by doping. Bolt is a legend and very special and anyone who has watched his sprints can see that. To add on, what a crowd pleaser he is! He has revived the sprinting after dark age. IMO he is the Fed of sprinting who draws support from all corners of the world.

Though I am in awe of Rudisha, Mobo, Kirani James and Felixstowe Sanchez.

Nitb, there are two words which describe you aptly- paranoid and myopic.

wow3 wrote:Nitb, there are two words which describe you aptly- paranoid and myopic.

I keep telling you this is not v2, wow.

I know and that's why expressing my opinion.

It is beyond comprehension that you can comment on an athlete when you have not even watched him.
It's like saying that Movie was boring without even watching it

wow3 wrote:LF, I watched Athletics. It will be shame if peds were used but then everyone is doing it. I can't imagine Gatlin to be clean if Bolt or Blake are not.

At least Bolt is winning and winning by miles. Some are still failing to qualify even by doping. Bolt is a legend and very special and anyone who has watched his sprints can see that. To add on, what a crowd pleaser he is! He has revived the sprinting after dark age. IMO he is the Fed of sprinting who draws support from all corners of the world.

This is why I was suspicious of Bolt before,if he is clean,how is he beating a bunch of other dopers?
But I have to say after watching him at the 2012 Olympics,I actually believe there is a great possibility he is clean
His wins looked more realistic then they did back in 08

I actually doubt about Bolt's cleanliness. Too big too tall to be that fast. However his big frame is actually his strength when competing with the rest. If you can add muscles to the big frame likeyou coudl not in the 80s, then being big becomes an advantage. This is why we have guys like Murray now able to move better than even smaller guys which would have been unthinkable 10 years ago.

However I am only speculating here as I am sure of nothing in those other sports.

wow3 wrote:Though I am in awe of Rudisha, Mobo, Kirani James and Felixstowe Sanchez.

I was very impressed with Pistorious. What spirit and determination!.

laverfan wrote:

wow3 wrote:Though I am in awe of Rudisha, Mobo, Kirani James and Felixstowe Sanchez.

I was very impressed with Pistorious. What spirit and determination!.

True,he is incredibly fast for someone of his disability
Sad thing is,its all very inspirational that he wants to compete at the games now,but watch the backlash the day he starts winning races

noleisthebest wrote:This looks like a lot of beating about the bush kind of topic, and makes me being "call spade a spade" type, feel a bit :study: (I needed that other smiley with the desert and the cactus, but this one will do)

Having said all this, I find the choice in the poll very limiting and cornering you to box yourself into a defensive corner.

As I have nothing to defend, I'll believe what my trusty eyes see and deduce.

I 'll leave the rest to fall into media fear-mongering trap .

I'm free and happy and I looooove tennis :bounce:

If what you believe is outside these two, please share. I did provide an open-ended arena for discussion.

There are several cognitive processes between 'seeing' and 'deducing'. These processes are influenced by experiences, make judgements, and many individual nuances get introduced. Your deductions may or may not match someone else who is also 'seeing'.

I'm not expecting any matching. I'm happy to believe my eyes and live with what they see.

I look forward to tennis being played faster and with less physicality very much in fact.

Veejay wrote:True,he is incredibly fast for someone of his disability
Sad thing is,its all very inspirational that he wants to compete at the games now,but watch the backlash the day he starts winning races

May I indulge a bit - youtube.com/watch?v=bKW3NGgLYA0

Also remember who invented Braille - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Braille.

Indomitable spirit.

LF: about your "innocent vs guilty".

My take on it is that it depends on the purpose of the discussion.

When society chooses to assume innocent until proven guilty, it is because the society takes the view that punishing an innocent person is worse than letting a guilty one go free.

It is not because we think that "assumed innocent until proven guilty" is the most likely way to reach the truth. Rather, it is because we recognize that there are many cases where the truth will be beyond us and in those cases we prefer to err on the side of leniency.

To put it yet differently, if - after careful deliberation - we assess that the probability of guilt is 70%, our verdict will be "innocent".

For me, debates with friends or on tennis forums serve different purpose. If a topic of discussion is a potential transgression (e.g., cheating), I am trying to figure out what is the "most likely" scenario. In this case, 70% chance of guilt does not translate to "innocent". Sure, I should still be careful not to translate 70% chance of guilt into "certainly guilty" but I would feel quite comfortable reaching the "likely guilty" "verdict". In a forum debate, I would not feel the need to default to the "innocent" assumption.

laverfan wrote:I know about Marion Jones, Contador and many others. I am aware of the US MLB being rife with a Congressional investigation.

I have seen a US version of the Ben Johnson story.

noleisthebest wrote:features all 8 sprinters in that race now and then admitting that they ALL took dope, except Da Silva.

Are you implying about the Top 8 in Tennis?

Did you watch Bolt and his team in the Men's 4 x 100m? - Look at the Jamaican Athletics medals in Men's and Womens.

Should I suspect these athletes?

Sure you can. But you need to back it up with your reasons for your suspicion. Logical of course. If your basis is just because you want to raise questions because the performance is incredible, then it doesn't hold much ground.

People who raise question on Nadal didn't start it when the first time came on the scene. It could be like Aggasi said "freak of nature". But with time lots of things started to pop up and they couldn't be denied or ignored or accepted (unless you are a blinkered Nadal fan who don't want to see anything beyond Rafa). Agassi's case was also kind of weird and people had their reasons to suspect him. He accepted it in his book for 1 occasion, but I won't believe that was the only time.

summerblues wrote:LF: about your "innocent vs guilty".

My take on it is that it depends on the purpose of the discussion.

When society chooses to assume innocent until proven guilty, it is because the society takes the view that punishing an innocent person is worse than letting a guilty one go free.

It is not because we think that "assumed innocent until proven guilty" is the most likely way to reach the truth. Rather, it is because we recognize that there are many cases where the truth will be beyond us and in those cases we prefer to err on the side of leniency.

To put it yet differently, if - after careful deliberation - we assess that the probability of guilt is 70%, our verdict will be "innocent".

In a social context it is a valid determination. US Juries behave this way. Till there is almost a 90%+ certainty, this is what should be done.

summerblues wrote:For me, debates with friends or on tennis forums serve different purpose. If a topic of discussion is a potential transgression (e.g., cheating), I am trying to figure out what is the "most likely" scenario. In this case, 70% chance of guilt does not translate to "innocent". Sure, I should still be careful not to translate 70% chance of guilt into "certainly guilty" but I would feel quite comfortable reaching the "likely guilty" "verdict". In a forum debate, I would not feel the need to default to the "innocent" assumption.

Ah, now we come to the 'perfection' scenario. In sports, our subjectivity drives the 'translation' of 70% as Guilty vs Cheating (I am not using Not Gulity or Nolo Contendre scenarios). My fundamental inclination is this 'standard' which may border on hypocritical. Another non-sport example is the Marijuana debate or in general legalising narcotics (notice I did not use PEDs here).

Another secondary question is the debate about an analgesic vs EPO, they both enhance performance, albeit using different routes. Think of Connors getting Cortisone injections or Murray (in the MC match v Nadal to be even able to play) doing the same. What is your view of such? Remember Khat in Somalia, or Betel Nut/Leaf/Marijuana (Bhang) in India.

I guess I am now pushing this into Morality and Ethics and Motivation, etc.

Is an Oxygen Tent, an Egg Chamber (for lack of a better word) or a BMR machine, in the same category? Did the city-states of Greece allow such enhancements during the days of 776 BC?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Sure you can. But you need to back it up with your reasons for your suspicion. Logical of course. If your basis is just because you want to raise questions because the performance is incredible, then it doesn't hold much ground.

So the links that SR(CommonSense) has posted from the French forums are reason enough? Are the French skits enough? Is Noah's statement enough? Why this assumption that ITF is corrupt? Is the traffic control system not run by the same police force, which you may suspect to be corrupt and take bribes from drug cartels? Yes, the traffic system is trusted by everyone and they do stop at a traffic light. If they do not, a Policeman, who is part of the same suspected Police force is allowed to write a traffic violation?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:People who raise question on Nadal didn't start it when the first time came on the scene. It could be like Aggasi said "freak of nature". But with time lots of things started to pop up and they couldn't be denied or ignored or accepted (unless you are a blinkered Nadal fan who don't want to see anything beyond Rafa). Agassi's case was also kind of weird and people had their reasons to suspect him. He accepted it in his book for 1 occasion, but I won't believe that was the only time.

Should I suspect Roger Bannister for breaking the mile-a-minute mark or Bolt of running 100m in 9.82 seconds? Another example, if you have ever heard of Paavo Nurmi. Please read en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paavo_Nurmi. (This is much before the African runners showed up).

laverfan wrote:
So the links that SR(CommonSense) has posted from the French forums are reason enough? Are the French skits enough? Is Noah's statement enough? Why this assumption that ITF is corrupt?

What is enough and what's not are choices which depend on individuals. What maybe enough for me may not be for the other.
These 3 are not the only things. There are plenty more. Are they enough for me to be suspicious? Yes. In fact they are in so abundance that I have to believe that the allegations and corruption in sports is reality and that includes tennis too.

laverfan wrote:
Is the traffic control system not run by the same police force, which you may suspect to be corrupt and take bribes from drug cartels? Yes, the traffic system is trusted by everyone and they do stop at a traffic light. If they do not, a Policeman, who is part of the same suspected Police force is allowed to write a traffic violation?

You still write in your old mysterious way picking up something entirely different that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Yes the traffic is run by police that are often assumed to be corrupt. Yes I stop at the red signal and if I don't the same suspected cop is entitled to bill me a fine. So what should I do now? Close my eyes and think that the police and everyone is clean and there is nothing wrong about it? I don't have the power to stop it and I have to accept the way it is, but why should that restrict me even from believing what I believe. Why should it stop me from talking and discussing about it.

So is the case with tennis. Even if I think ATP/ITF are currupt bodies, what can I do about it? Stop watching tennis? Will that make anything better? NO. It will only refrain me from enjoying a sport that I like for many years now. Now some will say if you watch it, why crib about it. So I watch because I pay for it which is my choice to do.

laverfan wrote: Should I suspect Roger Bannister for breaking the mile-a-minute mark or Bolt of running 100m in 9.82 seconds?

I already told you that you can be suspicious about anyone and everyone. Its your opinion and right to do it. But if you are going to talk about it in discussion forums, then make sure have your logical reasons to back you up. Else your suspicion will hold no water and you'll make yourself look stupid. You get your reasons to suspect bolt, Nadal, Federer or whoever you wish and then I'm all open to any discussion.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Stop watching tennis? Will that make anything better? NO. It will only refrain me from enjoying a sport that I like for many years now. Now some will say if you watch it, why crib about it. So I watch because I pay for it which is my choice to do.

Slightly off topic, but perhaps relevant. If you have been watching Arab Spring, you do realise the power of people. There is always the opportunity to continue to watch the sport you like, and, at the same time, get involved in addressing issues. Do you participate in your local Tennis council?

If there was enough critical mass to want change, it can be done. The power of the Internet and petitions should not be underestimated. It may take several decades for change to be visible, but it is worth the effort. Do you agree?

I will give you an example from Cricket. Audiences wanted excitement, Kerry Packer gave it to them via his Nine Network and World Series Cricket, which became the forerunner to One-Day Cricket and now Twenty20 cricket. It was purely driven by audience demands. Hardly anyone watches a 5+ day Cricket Test anymore. Audiences much rather watch the World Cup Cricket (based on the WSC 50-over model).

laverfan wrote:Slightly off topic, but perhaps relevant. If you have been watching Arab Spring, you do realise the power of people.

Oh dear! Do you really think people have any power over there? We have none here in so called democraties so imagine out there. You have mercenaries and weapons being sent by US, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UK and possible France to mess up what were stable countries and you call that people's power? Wake up LF!

laverfan wrote:Ah, now we come to the 'perfection' scenario. In sports, our subjectivity drives the 'translation' of 70% as Guilty vs Cheating (I am not using Not Gulity or Nolo Contendre scenarios). My fundamental inclination is this 'standard' which may border on hypocritical.

Are you saying that we are driven to black/white guilt/innocence choices - unable to properly distinguish the shades of probability - and you then prefer to choose innocence over guilt unless quite certain of the guilt?

I honestly hope that I am able to view "probably guilty" as such without jumping to any further conclusions. Nevertheless, for the sake of the argument let's assume that I am not - that somewhere in my mind I do make a black/white decision. Even then, I am inclined to think that in the context of say a tennis forum discussion I would not go with the "innocent until proven guilty". I think I would then be inclined to go with 51% chance of guilt means guilt and 51% chance of innocence means innocence. In the context of a forum discussion I am sort of trying to make a "best guess of how the world works". If I am consistently assuming innocence until I am getting 90%+ probabilities of guilt, the mental picture of the world that I get will be quite biased.

laverfan wrote:(notice I did not use PEDs here).

You may notice that neither did I . One does not have to right away think PEDs in this context. It can be things like trusting or not trusting players that their MTO are genuine or, in soccer, trusting or not trusting players that their handball was unintentional, or plenty of other items.

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:Slightly off topic, but perhaps relevant. If you have been watching Arab Spring, you do realise the power of people.

Oh dear! Do you really think people have any power over there? We have none here in so called democraties so imagine out there. You have mercenaries and weapons being sent by US, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UK and possible France to mess up what were stable countries and you call that people's power? Wake up LF!

My example of people power is lost on you. South Africa and Nelson Mandela come to mind. India and Gandhi. The world was once a peaceful place, till the so called 'civilised democracies' turned 'imperialists' decided to build a 'commonwealth'. Not a single politician learned from the past. It became a race for cheap labour and material wealth.

What is so different about the 21st century compared to the 16th/17th colonization and 'civilising' the 'uncivilised' world paradigm?

At least with Saddam, there were no Shia-Sunni blood-baths till the 'civilised' US showed up. Coalition of willing 'idiots'. Latin America's native civilisations were 'wiped' by Hispanic soldiers with the 'civilised' Cortez of Spain leading.

Let us not go 'political' here.

summerblues wrote:If I am consistently assuming innocence until I am getting 90%+ probabilities of guilt, the mental picture of the world that I get will be quite biased.

I dislike the idea of 'rumours' pushing a poster to that 90+% 'guilty' decision. I do agree that 90+% guilt is very hard to establish, except in TV crime shows. It does lead to a 'biased' world view.

summerblues wrote:It can be things like trusting or not trusting players that their MTO are genuine or, in soccer, trusting or not trusting players that their handball was unintentional, or plenty of other items.

Did you watch the Djokovic-Davydenko match last night? Prior to the actual MTO, observers could have said that Davy was under the weather. The Trainer and ATP supervisor was the 90+% where Davy retired.

Hand of God (Maradona), like Agassi, did admit his 'wrong-doing'.

Let us take a very simple example. Three slams use hawkeye system, the French does not. Hawkeye system is not biased, as human beings are.

DC matches with home teams have numerous examples of cheating. I would suggest reading Stan Smith or Rod Laver's biography in this regard.

The ability to minutely scrutinise MTOs now with TV camera (3D as well) has introduced even more bias with subjective opinions of commentators thrown in. Would you have made the same argument, if the Radio was the only medium for listening to commentaries?

Not sure where you are going with it. I agree - different times and circumstances allow different ways to observe what is happening and different methods to attempt to determine the "truth".

But what is the point? All we can do is take whatever is given to us, try to take all the factors into consideration as best we can and make our decision thus.

You say you dislike the idea of rumors pushing to a 90%+ guilty decision. But that is a somewhat separate question. I am not discussing what kind of evidence may be sufficient to obtain certain probability. I am just asking, assuming we can get to a certain probability somehow (say 70%, or 90%), what should we do with that data?

The question as to what constitutes a 70% probability is a different question. I think you are combining those questions. Perhaps you are suggesting that we as human beings are all too willing to believe what we want to believe, and so can convince ourselves of 90% guilt even if a fair minded observer would not get anywhere that far, and you are using "innocent until proven guilty" as a defensive mechanism against such dangers.

summerblues wrote:Perhaps you are suggesting that we as human beings are all too willing to believe what we want to believe, and so can convince ourselves of 90% guilt even if a fair minded observer would not get anywhere that far, and you are using "innocent until proven guilty" as a defensive mechanism against such dangers.

When I stated that the subjectivity of the observer came into play, this is what I was alluding to. In this thread, there are numerous examples of that process in play. I am not singling a specific poster, but for the purpose of an example, the post from Veejay (Scott Williams) and the link from the French forum, somehow is intended to provide a push from 51% to 90+% of 'guilt' of a specific player.

Tenez approached the problem differently. He is going from a 99+% 'guilty' to 51% guilty by debating such and stating the 'same' observations ad infinitum. The French skit and Yannick Noah's 'magic potion' statement is another of such 'subjective' opinions which should be guarded against.

A 'fair' minded observer, IMVHO, should give equal weight to Noah's statement and the corresponding Toni denial, but it is not case. Noah's statement was given a higher valuation which echoes what you have stated.

I know NITB is a Djokovic fan, but if Nadal made 2010 recovery with his 2009 debacle, with assistance, could it be said that Djokovic made the same with Cetojevic in 2010 and mimicd Nadal's 2010 (and some more) in 2011? (Notice my subtle approach to push from 51% to 53+% and try and shift the focus elsewhere ).

There is a comment about the 'negative' aspects of Tennis, with echoes of 'death of tennis'. Numerous times I have stated that this specific player has just continued (and perhaps brought it closer to perfection) the process of 'attritional' tennis to it's zenith. The achievements of this player are now being copied by the likes of Galo Blanco (Raonic's coach). Javier Piles did the best he could with Ferrer. Verdasco (working with Reyes in 2009) could compete with Nadal, but did not have the dedication of a Nadal/Toni to continue. Lendl is trying to reverse the McLagan legacy and give Murray an individuality.

There was a comment by ESPN commentators (Fowler/Gilbert/Arrias) about the 'improved' fitness of Haas, Stepanek and Gasquet.

I consider Toni a genius to have used the available framework to solve the problem of Federer 'the consummate' shot maker. Lendl, Borg, Muster, Connors, Agassi could be considered the 'killers' of the 'flamboyant' McEnroe, Sampras, Federer, Mecir, Rios, Nalbandian , et al.

The purpose is to guard against 'overzealous' persecution.

laverfan wrote:When I stated that the subjectivity of the observer came into play, this is what I was alluding to.

.

.

.

The purpose is to guard against 'overzealous' persecution.

Nice post, also some interesting tennis thoughts slightly off the main topic. I agree with a lot of these sentiments. I am certainly with you on the notion that we are good at convincing ourselves of what we want to believe. I would not be telling the truth if I said you changed my mind, but I can see where you are coming from.

I guess I feel I can see many examples where the same principle of seeing what we want to see works the other way - where we choose to ignore issues that really do exist because we do not want to see them. An extreme example would be Charles Cullen - in cases such as that one you will often only see statistical anomalies before you get a proof. The human nature will be to not to get involved, and we will be only too happy to convince ourselves we see nothing wrong. Charles Cullen is an extreme case, but similar reasoning may apply in many other cases. In those cases, applying "assume innocent until proven guilty" outside of the courtroom can have quite negative consequences.

A 'fair' minded observer, IMVHO, should give equal weight to Noah's statement and the corresponding Toni denial, but it is not case. Noah's statement was given a higher valuation which echoes what you have stated.
===============================

The "strange" logic is at it again. Toni is an interested party, Noah is not. So a "fair minded observer" would not give them the same weight.

I use the word "speculate" when I suggest something which could happen but am not drawing any conclusion over it. I don't use my speculations to add to my % of "guilt" belief. It's a completely different process. I speculate to explain why Nadal plays DC and not USO for instance...but him playing DC and not USO has nothing to do with what made up my 99% chance of guilt.

laverfan wrote:
Slightly off topic, but perhaps relevant. If you have been watching Arab Spring, you do realise the power of people. There is always the opportunity to continue to watch the sport you like, and, at the same time, get involved in addressing issues. Do you participate in your local Tennis council?

People power right, the POWER of people? I do realize it, of course. Isn't this people power, supreme power of millions of fans of all ages across the world, the power of young women and kids shouting their lungs out cheering their favorite player, power of millions of people who buy products the their favorite players endorse that we have been seeing so long that certain players so openly repeatedly kept on violating and abusing tennis rules but the umpire has no guts to impose anything serious on the culprit? I absolutely agree with your people power comment LF. It was all people power, the power of millions of American fans and even fans across the world and the whole sporting system that Agassi's doping was covered up. Did you not hear what Ben Johnson said about what people want? People want to see fast times, they want to see new records and records being broken. They don't care about how it is achieved. Its all people power LF.

And No I don't participate in any local Tennis council. I fact I don't even play tennis at all, I only play Table Tennis that too at work place in some leisure time.

laverfan wrote:If there was enough critical mass to want change, it can be done. The power of the Internet and petitions should not be underestimated. It may take several decades for change to be visible, but it is worth the effort. Do you agree?

Absolutely agree LF. I don't underestimate the power of internet and petitions. I totally agree it has the power to change the whole structure. This is exactly why the tennis changed and a star system got created. A system which wanted to create a rivalry because this is what the people wanted to see. It didn't take several decades, not .. just in about 1-2 years and it is absolutely visible.

laverfan wrote: I will give you an example from Cricket. Audiences wanted excitement, Kerry Packer gave it to them via his Nine Network and World Series Cricket, which became the forerunner to One-Day Cricket and now Twenty20 cricket. It was purely driven by audience demands. Hardly anyone watches a 5+ day Cricket Test anymore. Audiences much rather watch the World Cup Cricket (based on the WSC 50-over model).

Well I still watch test cricket more than any other form. In fact I'm watching the ongoing Eng-SA 3rd test, and I don't share my nationality with either.

laverfan wrote:
My example of people power is lost on you. South Africa and Nelson Mandela come to mind. India and Gandhi.

I'm sorry LF, but whatever you know about India and Gandhi, the reality is FAR from it. Trust me on this.

laverfan wrote:
The world was once a peaceful place, till the so called 'civilised democracies' turned 'imperialists' decided to build a 'commonwealth'. Not a single politician learned from the past. It became a race for cheap labour and material wealth.

Peaceful place? Okay, can you tell me exactly when was this? I need to know this because I think I've read a lot of history and there was never such a time in any human civilization, ever. The race always existed, only changed form.

summerblues wrote:I guess I feel I can see many examples where the same principle of seeing what we want to see works the other way - where we choose to ignore issues that really do exist because we do not want to see them. An extreme example would be Charles Cullen - in cases such as that one you will often only see statistical anomalies before you get a proof. The human nature will be to not to get involved, and we will be only too happy to convince ourselves we see nothing wrong. Charles Cullen is an extreme case, but similar reasoning may apply in many other cases. In those cases, applying "assume innocent until proven guilty" outside of the courtroom can have quite negative consequences.

Absolutely agree. It does work for and against. I can be accused of not wanting to see Nadal's excesses, because I am a 'fan' of his.

Tenez wrote:The "strange" logic is at it again. Toni is an interested party, Noah is not. So a "fair minded observer" would not give them the same weight.

Why was Noah, a retired French player, involved in a discussion regarding such topics. Did someone in the French press not ask him for his opinions? He became an 'interested and involved' party at the that time. You are exactly following what SB and I have been discussing. Similar to Noah, RFET made statements, which were ignored and not given any weight. Ferrer, an active player and closer to sport than Noah currently, made statements, which were also ignored, because of his nationality.

Tenez wrote:I use the word "speculate" when I suggest something which could happen but am not drawing any conclusion over it. I don't use my speculations to add to my % of "guilt" belief. It's a completely different process. I speculate to explain why Nadal plays DC and not USO for instance...but him playing DC and not USO has nothing to do with what made up my 99% chance of guilt.

Unless proven in a court of law, there are rumours that Prince Charles had a hand in Princess Diana's death. Unless WADA/ITF provide conclusive public domain proof (like Dimitar Kutrovsky), this is pure speculation. You can assign 101% guilt but it has no bearing in the real world and to real events.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

laverfan wrote:
My example of people power is lost on you. South Africa and Nelson Mandela come to mind. India and Gandhi.

I'm sorry LF, but whatever you know about India and Gandhi, the reality is FAR from it. Trust me on this.

I am all ears and eyes to learn more.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

laverfan wrote:
The world was once a peaceful place, till the so called 'civilised democracies' turned 'imperialists' decided to build a 'commonwealth'. Not a single politician learned from the past. It became a race for cheap labour and material wealth.

Peaceful place? Okay, can you tell me exactly when was this? I need to know this because I think I've read a lot of history and there was never such a time in any human civilization, ever. The race always existed, only changed form.

The race did always exist, but was local, not global. It became 'global' after the so called 'democracies' in western world wanted an infinite source of wealth and natural resources.

The Latin America colonization that came with Da Gama, De Sica, Drake and many 'explorers' is one example. Aztec, Mayan and a plethora of Latin American civilizations were very well established. Persia, before Greece got involved in building a world empire. The Ottoman's before the British, French and Russians started there chess games. Australia Aborigines were peaceful before British convicts showed up in Australia.

Africa, like Egypt (perhaps not that peaceful) due to Mediterrenean politics, Zimbabwe (the House of Stone), Ethiopia. The list is quite long.

Perhaps we need a separate history thread.

laverfan wrote:Absolutely agree. It does work for and against.

So it looks like - when all is said and done - maybe we are not that far apart. Even though, on the face of it, you choose to operate on the "innocent until proven guilty" basis and I do not, when we start looking at the detail we may not be looking at things so differently.

laverfan wrote:
I am all ears and eyes to learn more.

Thanks but I may not have the energy to talk about it given its tennis week. So we'll leave it for some other time when there is lull in tennis world.

laverfan wrote:The race did always exist, but was local, not global. It became 'global' after the so called 'democracies' in western world wanted an infinite source of wealth and natural resources.

Perfect!! If the 'race' which leads to problems exits locally and there is no global problem, then its a peaceful world. Is that really what you think LF?

laverfan wrote:The Latin America colonization that came with Da Gama, De Sica, Drake and many 'explorers' is one example. Aztec, Mayan and a plethora of Latin American civilizations were very well established. Persia, before Greece got involved in building a world empire. The Ottoman's before the British, French and Russians started there chess games. Australia Aborigines were peaceful before British convicts showed up in Australia.

Africa, like Egypt (perhaps not that peaceful) due to Mediterrenean politics, Zimbabwe (the House of Stone), Ethiopia. The list is quite long.

So Aztec, Mayan, Australia Aborigines and the plethora of Latin American civilizations didn't have any crimes like murder, robbery, corruption, no greed for power, no dirty scandals, crime against women and children, no forced slavery, in fact no crime of any kind, right? All peaceful and happy in a peaceful world, right? Now, since I know you are not a 5 year old child, I won't say. But you are indeed talking like one.

Understand this, one face of human nature is that of a criminal, and hence crime has and will exists till the human race exists. There is nothing called a peaceful world, it never was it never will be.

Tenez wrote:The "strange" logic is at it again. Toni is an interested party, Noah is not. So a "fair minded observer" would not give them the same weight.

Technically you have a point but on balance I am more with LF here. LF's choice of Toni may not have been ideal but clearly her point was not built around Toni and she could have easily picked someone else to support her point. If you disagree with her point, I'd rather see an argument against the substance of what she is saying. Otherwise this is bound to deteriorate into looking for minor errors in each other's arguments while leaving substance untouched.

The point is, neither has any real proof for or against either case, so it's a matter of what one chooses to believe.

The only thing is some are mature enough to accept that others think differently and others are not.

End of.

summerblues wrote:

laverfan wrote:Absolutely agree. It does work for and against.

So it looks like - when all is said and done - maybe we are not that far apart. Even though, on the face of it, you choose to operate on the "innocent until proven guilty" basis and I do not, when we start looking at the detail we may not be looking at things so differently.

Perhaps we are 51%/49% or 49%/51% apart.

noleisthebest wrote:The point is, neither has any real proof for or against either case, so it's a matter of what one chooses to believe.

Yes, there is real proof, of either Guilt Or Innocence of a specific player. Operacion Puerto evidence rotting in Spanish Judicial system.

The entire innuendo route is based on Fuentes and his links to players. Fuentes' records are another source, which are currently sealed. Samaranch (Juan Antonio Samaranch's son) has exhorted the Spanish authorities to release it.

noleisthebest wrote:The only thing is some are mature enough to accept that others think differently and others are not.

End of.

It works both ways.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

laverfan wrote:
I am all ears and eyes to learn more.

Thanks but I may not have the energy to talk about it given its tennis week. So we'll leave it for some other time when there is lull in tennis world.

Around DC in Gijon, perhaps.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

laverfan wrote:The race did always exist, but was local, not global. It became 'global' after the so called 'democracies' in western world wanted an infinite source of wealth and natural resources.

Perfect!! If the 'race' which leads to problems exits locally and there is no global problem, then its a peaceful world. Is that really what you think LF?

You are confusing social issues with world peace, which is what I had as context. I have used 'global' vs 'local' in such a context. If we are going to take the concept of 'peace' and apply it across social fabric all the way to the inner lack of it inside a self-contained human, we have a very large body of work and a debate which may take many lifetimes.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

laverfan wrote:The Latin America colonization that came with Da Gama, De Sica, Drake and many 'explorers' is one example. Aztec, Mayan and a plethora of Latin American civilizations were very well established. Persia, before Greece got involved in building a world empire. The Ottoman's before the British, French and Russians started there chess games. Australia Aborigines were peaceful before British convicts showed up in Australia.

Africa, like Egypt (perhaps not that peaceful) due to Mediterrenean politics, Zimbabwe (the House of Stone), Ethiopia. The list is quite long.

So Aztec, Mayan, Australia Aborigines and the plethora of Latin American civilizations didn't have any crimes like murder, robbery, corruption, no greed for power, no dirty scandals, crime against women and children, no forced slavery, in fact no crime of any kind, right? All peaceful and happy in a peaceful world, right?

See my point about social issues. Should we add cannibalism, human sacrifice and others into your list? We should not debate such a lareg context, lest we fail in the purpose of the debate.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Now, since I know you are not a 5 year old child, I won't say. But you are indeed talking like one.

Yet, you are saying it, very clearly.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Understand this, one face of human nature is that of a criminal, and hence crime has and will exists till the human race exists. There is nothing called a peaceful world, it never was it never will be.

We now have diversified from the issue of judging innocence vs gulit, into theory of motivation. Do you have time to discuss this, or should we wait for a lull in tennis?