PDA

View Full Version : "The Truth About Patty": analysis-update


swissfan
Feb 6th, 2004, 08:12 PM
for those who are interested in the Patty Schnyder story, some analysis of latest developments -

Patty Schnyder's performance in the last Australian Open was a big victory for her 35-year old German husband Rainer Hofmann and a step forward for him in his "societal ambitions", however it also was a victory that was coming at a certain price. Because for the first time since Hofmann's "reign" began, some of the major media outlets mentioned Hofmann and his criminal background in their write-ups following the quarterfinal match of Patty defeating Lisa Raymond. Although the dis-informational smoke-screen of the now five-year-old "Harnecker affair" still had the lead billing in all articles about Patty, last week was the first time that any major English language newspaper made note of the rise of Rainer Hofmann and his dominant, mysterious, yet almost wholely ignored role in Patty Schnyder's story during the last five years.

Hofmann's propaganda machine seems to be operating smoothly at the moment. The Swiss "Blick" tabloid is supporting him as always as a "mythical" figure, he is in a state of "detente" with Tages-Anzeiger, and he has hired a well known Eurosport commentator to manage media relations and write for his patty-schnyder.ch website. With Patty's tennis fortunes on a high and positive fan interest and money flowing in, it is looking like a "sweetheart deal" for all invloved. Traffic is also up at the English language patty-schnyder.com site, and while the operators of that site could not really be accused of creating open propaganda for Rainer Hofmann, they are however being careful to leave out any news items from their archives, whether Swiss or international, which are containing any mention about Rainer Hofmann's criminal or prior marriage history. On the other hand several blatantly irrelevant articles about Patty Schnyder's pre-Hofmann personal life dating from 1999, relating back to the "Harnecker affair", are conspiciously included in the patty-schnyder.com archive, serving dis-information purposes. It's not really propaganda but the schnyder.com admins clearly have their biass in favor of the official Rainer Hofmann line of "Rainer and Patty are so happy together and everything is wonderful" etc, in order to deflect the asking of uncomfortable questions.

Patty Schnyder has now shown that she can, at least in short-term, play her tennis quite well with a man (whom I and some other informed observers strongly believe) is a spectacularly corrupt, egomaniacal, psychopathic liar, in control of her career and life. But regarrdless of what happens on the tennis court, the larger story of Patty Schnyder, Rainer Hofmann, and associated characters is a story that could transcend the sport of tennis, a disturbing and scarcely believable story of real-life psychological abduction, with an as-yet un-determined conclusion, that is potentially far bigger and immortal than any Grand Slam title.

griffin
Feb 6th, 2004, 08:55 PM
*grabs a nice cold beer and some popcorn, props feet up on the couch and waits for the show to start*

*JR*
Feb 6th, 2004, 09:02 PM
OK, sf, a little reality please:

1) The article LINK (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/28/1075088090441.html) in the Sydney Morning Herald (and its sister paper, The Age) was "mild" in that it focused too much on Harnecker and lacked probing followup questions to PP's "topspin replies". Yet just the fact that some of the WTA's dirty laundry was aired in Oz is useful.

2) Re. the .com site: its easy 4U to question the motives of the couple who own that (as part of a family of player sites, of which Justine's not surprisingly gets by far the most hits.

(Shameless plug For Fingon: http://www.justine-henin-hardenne.net). The first "official status" was a coup, Rainer DOES NOT control their Schnyder Site, look @ the guestbook B4 making accusations, please! :rolleyes:

3) While you're correct about Blick, the reason Tages is silent is That There's Nothing New to report now.

4) If you bothered to follow tennis, you'd realize that her draw in the "Attrition Open" was "soft". (On Rebound Ace, Lisa Literally had to jump to hit some of PP's kick serves).

5) The (sometime) Eurosport guy will do Rainer little good, for reasons I can't divulge now. (Oooh, Griff, you heard me coming)! :p

JonBcn
Feb 6th, 2004, 09:04 PM
Just out of interest, why do so many people get so worked up about this girls private life?

*JR*
Feb 6th, 2004, 09:10 PM
Just out of interest, why do so many people get so worked up about this girls private life?
Jon, I couldn't give a FF about that. The Peppermint Patsy (TM) :p is a Mere Metaphor re. the failure of The Tour To enforce its own rules (one of which gave them a slamdunk reason to make her choose between Rainer and the game after his felony conviction, excuse me, guilty plea :lol: in Nov. '02.

JonBcn
Feb 6th, 2004, 09:17 PM
I wasnt accusing anyone...I always steer clear of the Patty threads cos I'm not familiar with the whole story and cant be bothered to go and find out about it. To me the girl seems happy, no matter how unorthodox her lifestyle/choice of partner/relationship with family/whatever else people like to have an opinion about; I just think its a pity she gets so much criticism. But, as I said, I dont really know much about the whole palaver :)

*JR*
Feb 6th, 2004, 09:28 PM
I wasnt accusing anyone...I always steer clear of the Patty threads cos I'm not familiar with the whole story and cant be bothered to go and find out about it....
No offence taken, but the very fact That "The Patty threads" Is Indicative of a tennis version of The Twilight Zone tells you that "something ain't right". ;)

Volcana
Feb 6th, 2004, 09:32 PM
Last I checked, Patty Schnyder is an adult. SHE is 'in control of her career and life'. If she chooses to take advice from her husband aboiut her life and career, how is that different from Justine Henin-Hardenne, Lindsay Davenport of Meghann Shaughnessy.

Patty Schnyder is NOT a child. It's well past time people stopped treating her like one.

swissfan
Feb 6th, 2004, 10:12 PM
The difference, Volcana, is your complete ignorance of Patty Schnyder's true situation in relation with the others you noted.

*JR*
Feb 6th, 2004, 10:28 PM
sf, as one who basically agrees with you re. the substance of this situation: lay off the personal attacks if you want ppl to listen, OK?

Volcana, here's where things are different:

PP voluntarily submitting to the Complete Control of orange juice guru Harnecker proves her vulnerability to older male exploiters. (Sylvia Plischke left Harnecker on her own, BTW).

Hofmann was retained by Patty's Parents to "free her". While she (already a young adult in '99) had every right to Refuse Reconciliation with them if she so chose, it was a blatant conflict of interest for Hofmann to literally become "Rainer II".

Though his guilty plea in the Deutsche Telekom case wasn't until Nov. '02, it was For Fraud committed between '95 and '98. Had the Schnyders had any idea That The "detective" was Actually A conman, they wouldn't have retained him, and he'd never have even known his Peppermint Puppet.

jimbo mack
Feb 6th, 2004, 10:36 PM
who are we to judge her? :shrug:

*JR*
Feb 6th, 2004, 10:43 PM
who are we to judge her? :shrug: James, to me its about The Tour's failure to enforce its own rules:

(b) A player shall not associate with or have dealings with persons whose activities, including gambling, reflect adversely upon the integrity of the game of tennis; nor shall a player bet money or anything else of value on a formal tennis competition in which she is a competitor.

(Top of page 247 in the '04 rulebook, 4.5.1(b) deals mainly with gambling, except that the (underlined by me) word "including" certainly means "not limited to".

raquel
Feb 6th, 2004, 10:48 PM
PP voluntarily submitting to the Complete Control of orange juice guru Harnecker proves her vulnerability to older male exploiters. (Sylvia Plischke left Harnecker on her own, BTW).

Hofmann was retained by Patty's Parents to "free her". While she (already a young adult in '99) had every right to Refuse Reconciliation with them if she so chose, it was a blatant conflict of interest for Hofmann to literally become "Rainer II".

Roger out of interest when did Patty get involved with Rainer Harnecker? You mention 1999 here. All I know is in 1998 Patty won 5 or 6 titles, got to the French QFs and took a set off eventual champion Arantxa, played a great Grand Slam Cup and people were talking about a possible Swiss number 1 and 2 in the world (we got the Williams 1-2 and the Belgian 1-2 in the world, but I do remember people were saying a Swiss 1-2 was possible). Was Harnecker and his OJ diet around at that time? Can he take any credit for Patty's rise or did he turn up in 1999. Because Patty has never fulfilled her potential since 1998 IMO. She is a talented girl and despite what is happening off court can still beat anyone on her day, hence her top 20 status the last few years, but even if she is happy with Rainer II, were her results actually better with Rainer I or was getting involved with Rainer I the beginning of her fall down the rankings? Rainer I gets a bad press, it would just be interesting to know if he was involved in her great 1998 or did he come after?

jimbo mack
Feb 6th, 2004, 10:48 PM
James, to me its about The Tour's failure to enforce its own rules:

(b) A player shall not associate with or have dealings with persons whose activities, including gambling, reflect adversely upon the integrity of the game of tennis; nor shall a player bet money or anything else of value on a formal tennis competition in which she is a competitor.

(Top of page 247 in the '04 rulebook, 4.5.1(b) deals mainly with gambling, except that the (underlined by me) word "including" certainly means "not limited to".

its ok, my comment wasnt aimed at u

u make very good points by the way :yeah:

*JR*
Feb 6th, 2004, 11:21 PM
Roger out of interest when did Patty get involved with Rainer Harnecker? You mention 1999 here. All I know is in 1998 Patty won 5 or 6 titles, got to the French QFs and took a set off eventual champion Arantxa, played a great Grand Slam Cup and people were talking about a possible Swiss number 1 and 2 in the world (we got the Williams 1-2 and the Belgian 1-2 in the world, but I do remember people were saying a Swiss 1-2 was possible). Was Harnecker and his OJ diet around at that time? Can he take any credit for Patty's rise or did he turn up in 1999. Because Patty has never fulfilled her potential since 1998 IMO. She is a talented girl and despite what is happening off court can still beat anyone on her day, hence her top 20 status the last few years, but even if she is happy with Rainer II, were her results actually better with Rainer I or was getting involved with Rainer I the beginning of her fall down the rankings? Rainer I gets a bad press, it would just be interesting to know if he was involved in her great 1998 or did he come after?
First, thanks James, no offence was taken. Now Raquel, I guess the origins here aren't discussed much After All. So:

PP was coached by Vito Gugolz of SUI when she won 5 titles @ age 19 and was the (Corel) WTA Newcomer of the Year in '98. She met Harnecker, a GER national, during the season. By year end, they were inseperable. (She Could Consume only water and orange juice B4 2PM).

@ first, the Peppermint Parents dealt with a reputable cult specialist, Hugo Stamm (who now writes about cults full-time for Zurich's Tages-Anzeiger). But PP has always been stubborn, and wasn't so easily rescued. They Then contacted a parents self-help group staffed by volunteers "in the same boat" (or who had been).

Not having the resources to screen the unregulated profession of deprogrammers, said group had been fooled by Hofmann much the way Deutsche Telekom had been earlier. And 2B fair, he DID "get the goods on Harnecker" re. bogus cancer treatments, for which "Rainer I" was prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license.

But Rainer II wasn't all that interested in What Willy Schnyder could pay him for nailing Rainer I. PP was only 20 as the '99 season drew to a close, with the prospect of many titles, even a few Slams. A far more lucrative Prospective Payment. The rest is largely in These Threads:

http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=58280

http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=64724

http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=74754

http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=79977

raquel
Feb 6th, 2004, 11:29 PM
Thanks Roger, I hope that did not take you too long ;) I will go look at these threads. It is a shame it looks like Patty won't fulfil the 1998-form potential. The whole thing is almost surreal but truth is stranger than fiction. I feel sorry for her parents.

*JR*
Feb 6th, 2004, 11:48 PM
Thanks Roger, I hope that did not take you too long ;) I will go look at these threads. It is a shame it looks like Patty won't fulfil the 1998-form potential. The whole thing is almost surreal but truth is stranger than fiction. I feel sorry for her parents.
Twas a pleasure. ;) As I Once Observed, Car Key Boi and I both realize that pro tennis is a business as Much (More, he'd say) than a sport. If not for its skin games, he wouldn't be here; if not for its con games, I wouldn't be.

Incidentally, despite Rainer's BS about the Peppermint Parents, they're nothing like Those "Tennis parents from hell" we discuss here sometimes. (The only raised voice, cursing, whatever in chats I've had with them has been mine)! :o

Sarah aka inkyfan can also vouch for their calm demeanor. (How I wish either would Sometimes Show whatever led the Peppermint Patsy to call Them The Taliban). I guess the only solution here is for Rothes to get PP 2B a Catholic Convert! :eek:

Philip
Feb 7th, 2004, 12:33 AM
to be quite honest, who cares.
i love patty for her tennis, couldnt give a monkeys ass about her personal life, and anyway, everytime i read something about it, its always the same.

go patty, keep the results coming! :)

*JR*
Feb 7th, 2004, 01:08 AM
to be quite honest, who cares.
i love patty for her tennis, couldnt give a monkeys ass about her personal life, and anyway, everytime i read something about it, its always the same.
@ this point, I couldn't either (so long as she doesn't Hurt Herself or anyone else). I do care about the integrity of the sport, though, and the rule posted above most certainly Applied After Rainer's day in court. So why did they chose to Ignore It? My guess is that it was a combination of 3 things (ranked in no particular order):

1) Then WTA chief Kevin Wulff was on his way out, with no successor chosen.
2) SUI was still in shock after Marti's "retirement for real" after the USO.
3) PP had just won Her Home Tier I in Zurich and was seen as Suisse Successor.

Which is all understandable, except That The rule is still there, the Suisse found a new sensation (ironically from the same Basle suburb as PP) and Rainer is Still Serving a suspended felony sentence. Where do we draw the line, Convicted Child molesters?

hewittrok
Feb 7th, 2004, 01:12 AM
Last I checked, Patty Schnyder is an adult. SHE is 'in control of her career and life'. If she chooses to take advice from her husband aboiut her life and career, how is that different from Justine Henin-Hardenne, Lindsay Davenport of Meghann Shaughnessy.

Patty Schnyder is NOT a child. It's well past time people stopped treating her like one.maybe shes being manipulated?:confused:

AjdeNate!
Feb 7th, 2004, 01:38 AM
*grabs a nice cold beer and some popcorn, props feet up on the couch and waits for the show to start*
Good idear Grif... however I'm having a bigggggggggg glass of orange juice. :p :tape:

*JR*
Feb 7th, 2004, 02:36 AM
Good idear Grif... however I'm having a bigggggggggg glass of orange juice. :p :tape:
While I'm not critical of you here, your post highlights an ironic element in all this. Undoubtedly PP was mixed up then. However, she dropped both Harnecker and his diet like the bad habits they in fact were (within a year after it all began).

But with Hofmann, she's "grown into the role" the way an earlier Patty (Hearst) might have if not arrested with the surviving SLA members. So the orange juice Image Is a virtual shield against Serious Scrutiny on the present-day issues. :(

Rothes
Feb 7th, 2004, 03:57 AM
Wishing Patty the best of luck in her next tournament, Swissfan just lay of the Private life of Patty or can't you talk about her in anyother way?

swissfan
Feb 7th, 2004, 07:05 AM
Rothes you are very hypocritical because back in 1999 when Patty was with Harnecker, who in truth was not even one thousandth as dangerous as Hofmann, I am quite certain that you were screaming as loud as many other Swiss to interfere in Patty's private life, saying that the "affair" had to be stopped! And why were you and the others screaming then? Because that is what was the opinion every day on the front pages of Blick at that time. But today, when Blick writes nothing about Hofmann's disturbing, threatening behavior, suddenly you are a defender of Patty's "private life"?? You are the kind of Swiss who is basing all your thoughts on what you are reading in Blick and believing every word that they are writing. Until you become able to think for yourself, then there is not much point for me to try and have a logical conversation with you.

GoSandrine
Feb 7th, 2004, 09:28 AM
poor Patty, what a tangled web she weaves! :speakles:

I hope she finds peace in her life. She seemed to be reeenergized in Oz and it was great to see her playing well again. I've never actually seen her in interviews but love her game and she's cute as a button.

hey swissfan, ever thought of writing a script for a mini-series or are you afraid you'll get sued? ;)

Greenout
Feb 7th, 2004, 09:35 AM
We're talking about Patty here, the tennis enigma. I'm just hoping for a
happy ending, better results and a real steady rankings level this
year.

It works both ways from what I've gathered following her career all
these wacky years, the parent's are over, over protective to the point
of suffocation. It's a catch 22. The more they try to keep her, the more
she turns away.

Rothes
Feb 7th, 2004, 09:57 AM
Rothes you are very hypocritical because back in 1999 when Patty was with Harnecker, who in truth was not even one thousandth as dangerous as Hofmann, I am quite certain that you were screaming as loud as many other Swiss to interfere in Patty's private life,
Swissfan This wasn't a matter of being hypocritical at all, This was a matter of me telling you to shut the hell up about the debarkle, spinning fabrications and rumours, you know just as much as I do, and the rest of the community that is interested,

Don't call yourself a Patty Fan ever, you didn't even post to wish her good luck at the Australian Open, instead you compose into the Hoffman Debarkle, You know where I stand on the subject and that is to keep out of it because from what I see everything is going fine and Patty Wouldn't of married Rainer just for the sake of it and that Patty has her own life to run, she is 25 and doesn't need childminders watching her every move in her love life, She is capable to make her own decisions in life and knows what she is doing, Not some Nobodies who probably get sexually ecxited when they hear the world "Hoffman"

And if your quite certain about my behaviour back in 1999, then how come your surprisingly wrong??

A) I was 14/15 at the time and wasn't even a fan for Patty, weird huh? but true
B) Everyone was curious as to what was happening, even I was, but in no way was I jumping up and down and anger and hatred, screaming at the top of my lungs and outrage at Harnecker Yes, have a quick look through Blick and other Papers but it wasn't something I was interested in, simply because I wasn't interested in Patty and in no way is it hypocricy on my behalf, You know from my posts that my stance is to be neutral on this subject, I blame no one and try to keep out of it as it is not even clear to anyone. Me or you so it would be a good gesture to really just give up on the issue because you spin the same information over and over again.

As the old saying goes, If you can't beat them, join them :o

saying that the "affair" had to be stopped! And why were you and the others screaming then? Because that is what was the opinion every day on the front pages of Blick at that time. But today, when Blick writes nothing about Hofmann's disturbing, threatening behavior, suddenly you are a defender of Patty's "private life"??
I'm not screaming or shouting, Do you here me shouting? Blick is a tabloid, and everyone knows it doesn't have the most cohesive and honest reporting, lve always been a defender for Patty's private life because theres alot of people in this world who don't know the full story or half of it, and that is part of the reason why I defend her private life on here is because all you ever talk about is Hoffman this or Hoffman that, nothing new or extra to the seen, and really Swissfan I just can't be botherd because it's just repetitive mumbo jumbo with no basis what so ever, you continually bring up the same information over and over again, whats the issue in debating something with no basis ?

Until something extraordinary does come along with Rainer Hoffman or something in relation to Rainer and Patty and it does have an impact on her Life or concerns her Tennis, Then I might opinionate, until then Swissfan keep bringing up the same facts to please your obsessive ego, have your litle "chess battle" with Rainer, no one cares anymore, find me some hardcore evidence providing it's new hot of the press then I will decide If I change my mind, until then Let Patty and Rainer be happily Married, Thats all Patty asks to live a life without the press and the likes of you hounding her.

You are the kind of Swiss who is basing all your thoughts on what you are reading in Blick and believing every word that they are writing. Until you become able to think for yourself, then there is not much point for me to try and have a logical conversation with you.
If thats what you want to think Swissfan then go ahead, Blick is just a Tabloid, whenever I get the chance to read it, I do, If there is an article of Patty and Rainer in it, I read it because it concerns a player that I like, I take notice of the article but its either about the Happy Couple or Patty's Progress at the Australian Open, nothing to argue in there right unless you force an argument for your own gratification and thats just pathetic,

I have been a firm believer of keeping out of their private life, why?? Because I look it at differently from you, see the thing is SwissFan, Patty and Rainer are happily married, they love each other and Patty married Rainer because she loved him, there is no need for me to investigate their life and poke and probe within it. Their happily married and thats how they it is, hence why should I bother about what happenes inside their four walls, there happy and thats how I see it,

Until you prove me wrong that Patty isn't happy or the Marriage is not what it looks to be, then your arguments and cases are irrelevant and based on nothing but fabrications and rumours on your behalf,

Im the realist here Swissfan, I see Patty is Happy in her newly founded marriage, I see that she is playing well that just shows in how she plays and what she has said in latest interviews, I can't be more right if Patty converges the same sentiments I have, that she has said she is Happy and is loving her husband, so you just keep to your little detective world trying to solve a mystery which doesn't exist.

Real Fans respect the player for who she is and how she plays, not disrespecting her private life.

How can you be a fan if you can't even acknowlege her own happiness ??

jimbo mack
Feb 7th, 2004, 10:01 AM
oh may god bless u for ur screaming and shouting rothes :haha: :haha:

:wavey: :angel:

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Feb 7th, 2004, 02:38 PM
Either way, I hope Patty is happy and I want nothing but success for her! :)

Experimentee
Feb 7th, 2004, 02:57 PM
James, to me its about The Tour's failure to enforce its own rules:

(b) A player shall not associate with or have dealings with persons whose activities, including gambling, reflect adversely upon the integrity of the game of tennis; nor shall a player bet money or anything else of value on a formal tennis competition in which she is a competitor.

(Top of page 247 in the '04 rulebook, 4.5.1(b) deals mainly with gambling, except that the (underlined by me) word "including" certainly means "not limited to".

The rule only seems to apply to gambling, or activities similar to gambling, understandably, due to sports betting scandals. I dont see any reason to restrict players associating with people who have been involved in other unrelated things such as fraud. That would be restricting their freedom too much. Patty seems to be very happy in her marriage, and maybe Rainer is really a good guy, we wont know unless we've met him ourselves, so who are we to question what she does with her life?

*JR*
Feb 7th, 2004, 02:58 PM
Rothes you are very hypocritical because back in 1999 when Patty was with Harnecker, who in truth was not even one thousandth as dangerous as Hofmann, I am quite certain that you were screaming as loud as many other Swiss to interfere in Patty's private life, saying that the "affair" had to be stopped! And why were you and the others screaming then? Because that is what was the opinion every day on the front pages of Blick at that time. But today, when Blick writes nothing about Hofmann's disturbing, threatening behavior, suddenly you are a defender of Patty's "private life"?? You are the kind of Swiss who is basing all your thoughts on what you are reading in Blick and believing every word that they are writing. Until you become able to think for yourself, then there is not much point for me to try and have a logical conversation with you.
Your tirade against Rothes, esp. what I underlined in your post, is shameful! So WHAT if she reads Blick? Who the fuck RU to say that she believes every word there? How do you know she hasn't read Stamm's Stories in Tages-Anzeiger too?

Personally, I'm for the WTA (belatedly) enforcing its own rule (thus making PP choose "them or Rainer") as stated above. But I will not villify those who disagree with me as you just did! :mad:

(Though They Are A bunch of enablers)! :p

swissfan
Feb 7th, 2004, 10:45 PM
Rothes you can run your mouth all day and all night and all day again, but nothing you say is changing the fact that your arguments in favor of Patty and Hofmann are basing on ignorance and above all lacking of original thought. Therefore, until I see some original and critical thinking from your side, nothing that you are saying is really making an impression on me. You can do what you like but I advise you to save your energy, sit down, and watch the show. And when the show is over I quite expect that it will be me doing the "beating" and you doing the "joining".

Schöne Abend!!

Volcana
Feb 7th, 2004, 11:23 PM
The difference, Volcana, is your complete ignorance of Patty Schnyder's true situation in relation with the others you noted.YOUR complete ignorance is the most prominent thing displayed in this thread. You know NOTHING about any knowledge I have of Patty Schnyder beyond the fact the I don't agree with YOU. I believe in accountability. If Patty Schnyder killed you tomorrow (i can hope) then SHE'D be the one going on trial. Not Hofmann. Not Harnecker. People are ALLOWED to make stupid decisions that are not in their best interest. That doesn't mean they are mind controlled. I see NO proof here that Patty Schnyder is manipulated or mind controlled. All I see are people claiming that because it's much better malicious gossip.

Patty Schnyder is one of the 20 best in the world at her profession. That's hardly failure. She's made hundreds of thousands of dollars, traveled the world and is quite successful at what she does. Why should I believe her choices are not her own? Because YOU think she's being manipulated? That's a reason to be even more sure her choices are voluntary.

JonBcn
Feb 7th, 2004, 11:54 PM
Amen.

Hurley
Feb 8th, 2004, 12:03 AM
*grabs a nice cold beer and some popcorn, props feet up on the couch and waits for the show to start*

Cheers *clink* :drink:

*JR*
Feb 8th, 2004, 01:46 AM
The problem with swissfan's reasoning is this Stupid Sequence:

1) Blick Indeed Is SUI's "Hofmann friendly" paper.
2) If Rothes sees a Hofmann related article there, she does read it.
3) Rothes (like most posters) chooses to ovalook the scandal.
4) Therefore, Rothes is "mind-controlled" by Blick. :rolleyes:

The problem with sf's logic is that It Ignores the fact that Rothes and others have ALSO read the critical pieces from Tages-Anzeiger, etc. (on this very board if nowhere else). And I disagree with her conclusions, but don't think Rothes is brainwashed!

sf is exhibiting serious paranoia in claiming that if others disagree with him, they're mind-controlled or whatever. As one who feels the WTA indeed had grounds under Rule 4.5.1(b) (see my post above) to force PP to choose Hofmann or the game after his guilty plea, I find sf's reasoning insulting to ppl I like; and illogical to boot. :(

~ The Leopard ~
Feb 8th, 2004, 03:24 AM
Experimentee is right. Hoffman does not fall under that rule.

Really, if the rule were that broad it would be an unconscionable interference with the players' private lives.

Rothes
Feb 8th, 2004, 05:13 AM
Swissfan whatever you say doesn't show any accountability or credibility, your NOT A FAN OF PATTY I don't care about her life Swissfan? why should I?? It's her life, she can do what the hell she wants with it, why should I make conclusions and references if it doesn't involve me, Im in it for the Tennis and Participation of Tennis, your in it for the politics, and it's starting to become annoying, The bottom line is Swissfan I don't care anymore about the situation because nothing new of relevance has been bought up to start talking about, so keep making stories to replenish your ego because no one believes you.

*JR*
Feb 8th, 2004, 10:33 AM
Experimentee is right. Hoffman does not fall under that rule.

Really, if the rule were that broad it would be an unconscionable interference with the players' private lives.
If It please the court :p would counsel kindly explain what the word "including" then means? (And I absolutely respect the right of Joui and Exp. to dispute whether "451b" should apply here). However, as written it would appear to, esp. as Mr. Hofmann pled guilty to a felony.

And received a suspended prison sentence, plus other things (NOT gambling, BTW) I won't bore you folks with (but which the WTA is fully aware of that would certainly trigger the clause). If the Peppermint Player then chose to contest the legality of the rule, She Should have that right, of course.

Experimentee
Feb 8th, 2004, 01:55 PM
If It please the court :p would counsel kindly explain what the word "including" then means? (And I absolutely respect the right of Joui and Exp. to dispute whether "451b" should apply here). However, as written it would appear to, esp. as Mr. Hofmann pled guilty to a felony.

And received a suspended prison sentence, plus other things (NOT gambling, BTW) I won't bore you folks with (but which the WTA is fully aware of that would certainly trigger the clause). If the Peppermint Player then chose to contest the legality of the rule, She Should have that right, of course.

I believe in that context "including" was inserted in there to cover other activities which may be similar to gambling, but not exactly fall within that category. Normally that word is put into rules and legislation so that it covers all bases, and is not to be taken as including some unrelated felony. If you read the rule as a whole, it only seems to be concentrating on gambling related offences, without any mention of anything else.

~ The Leopard ~
Feb 8th, 2004, 02:05 PM
Haven't you heard of the ejusdem generis rule, Roger? I think something like it applies here. It seems pretty obvious to me that the "including" here has the effect that certain kinds of gambling are covered but so are other things that bring the sport into disrepute. But the reference to gambling and the general context, which is all about gambling, gives an idea of the sort of things intended to be covered. I'd say they'd have to be reasonably analogous to what I'd call "insider gambling" - i.e. something that creates a moral risk, or amounts to corruption, within the sport.

What had Hoffman done to bring tennis into disrepute? Was his fraud related to tennis in some way? I don't believe so. It doesn't say that you can't associate with a person who has brought himself into disrepute by committing a crime. It's got to be tennis that he's brought into disrepute. It is defined so that it would certainly include various forms of insider gambling. It might also include various kinds of fraud that make it look like tennis is corrupt (which would be analogous). I don't think it includes just any old fraud that you committed and served time for.

If Hoffman had arranged for a player to throw a match or something, that would bring tennis into disrepute. Or maybe if he was a known supplier of anabolic steroids to to the players, or if was pimping out the pretty Russians. He didn't do any of those things as far as I know.

Rothes
Feb 10th, 2004, 04:05 AM
Trust you not to understand why some people are concerned with Hoffmann, If life was only a simple platter of bread and butter Joui.

LiliaLee-Frazier
Feb 10th, 2004, 04:10 AM
Just out of interest, why do so many people get so worked up about this girls private life? I havn't seen so much interest in a persons pvt life since Kylie Minogue in 2000! :drool:

~ The Leopard ~
Feb 10th, 2004, 06:36 AM
What are you talking about, Rothes? And what have I done to you?

Roger asked me why I interpret a rule as I do, in its legal application to Hoffman. I gave him a straight answer. I only wish I could have charged him a commercial rate for my trouble.

DutchieGirl
Feb 10th, 2004, 08:57 AM
I have an idea! Let's hire a hitman to get rid of Rainer II, and seeing as Patty likes Rainer's so much, let's find a nicer Rainer to put in his place...he can be Rainer III!

Sorry...just feeling like being stupid about this topic coz well...it's the only way I can get a laugh out of it.

:fiery: :smash: Rainer II :smash: :fiery: (And I met the guy BEFORE he was up for the felony charge).

DutchieGirl
Feb 10th, 2004, 09:02 AM
What are you talking about, Rothes? And what have I done to you?

Roger asked me why I interpret a rule as I do, in its legal application to Hoffman. I gave him a straight answer. I only wish I could have charged him a commercial rate for my trouble.

From reading this thread, I have to say I agree with you Joui (about the rule).

That said, I still hate Rainer and wish he'd just...hmmm better not go any further with that one... ;)

Rothes, just because Joui doesn't agree about the rule "including" Hofmann, doesn't mean he likes the guy...or even cares about him. I don't think the rule was meant to include anyone who commits a crime and then hooks up with a tennis player. It seems more to be about people involved with tennis doing something wrong...ie throwing matches and that sort of stuff.

*JR*
Feb 10th, 2004, 12:02 PM
I havn't seen so much interest in a persons pvt life since Kylie Minogue in 2000! :drool:
Re. Patty's Private life, let me quote Clark Gable's famous line from Gone With the Wind: "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn". (I wish her no ill, but have zero desire to run her life, And Am not even a fan of hers).

She (and the rule, as I Interpret It) are Mere Metaphors for The Tour's lack of a "moral compass". I've cited the "Elke Wildcard Racket" numerous times, but there's a lot worse Than That OR the Schnyder Saga (that I'm not prepared to discuss yet). ;)

vogus
Feb 10th, 2004, 06:39 PM
I can't wait to read the book JR, just try to keep the hardcover price below 25 bucks because you know that us wtaworld posters mostly fall into the low-income/working poor category.

inky, what about Rainer Schuttler? He seems like a really nice, down to earth guy, and the two of them could practice their tennis together as well. We should check his availability. ;)

You know something funny, last night i was up late watching a couple of Patty matches on tape (the final from Zurich '02 and the recent AO match), and Hofmann's face is pretty much completely unrecognizable from the first video to the second one, in the space of just a over a year. If i didn't KNOW that it's the same guy, i probly don't recognize him. Even with a weight loss of 50 or 60 pounds, it's hard to account for such a change in somebody's facial appearance. His face used to be pretty puffy, but not unnatural looking for somebody's who's moderately overweight, and the puffiness of his face sort of obscured the expressions in his eyes (Hubert Choudury had a similar sort of look as well). Now, a year later, Hofmann's face is chiseled like Sylvester Stallone's, his cheekbones are very prominent and his eyes are kind of bugging out and such. It's just something else weird to add to the general weirdness of the whole thing.

*JR*
Feb 10th, 2004, 07:14 PM
Vogus, if there's a book, the Peppermint Pages will be Only One Or two chapters. As I Implied In another post, much of The Tennis establishment is amoral. (Not immoral, as in "want to do the wrong thing" but they just don't put any emphasis on right vs. wrong).

A couple of the other things I've posted about on this board, like the Kim-Elke WC racket, and the blind eye turned to Petr the Terrible (Krajicek) abusing Richard physically and Mischa @ least verbally (inc. threats of beatings if he was displeased with her play).

And believe me, there's Much More. So again, I have no Particular Priority Regarding Rainer. Or to quote a famous song by Pink Floyd, "All in all, it's just another brick in the wall". ;)

vogus
Feb 10th, 2004, 08:55 PM
If you're trying to tell us that the tennis establishment is somehow more "amoral" than the rest of the business world, JR, i'd have to say that you are pretty naive. Amorality in any business is a fact of life and, IMO, nothing to write home about. Of course, i'll buy your book anyway though, just out of loyalty. ;)

*JR*
Feb 10th, 2004, 11:17 PM
If you're trying to tell us that the tennis establishment is somehow more "amoral" than the rest of the business world, JR, i'd have to say that you are pretty naive. Amorality in any business is a fact of life and, IMO, nothing to write home about. Of course, i'll buy your book anyway though, just out of loyalty. ;)
No, I don't Think "Tennis, Inc" Is worse than many other businesses. In fact, look @ how many players are sponsored by "Sweatshops, Inc" aka Nike (As An example of its collaborating with other Bad Business). But let the MF'ers just admit this and stop pretending that Ethics Even matter. :mad:

Rothes
Feb 11th, 2004, 12:21 AM
Rothes, just because Joui doesn't agree about the rule "including" Hofmann, doesn't mean he likes the guy...or even cares about him. I don't think the rule was meant to include anyone who commits a crime and then hooks up with a tennis player. It seems more to be about people involved with tennis doing something wrong...ie throwing matches and that sort of stuff.
I wasn't actually meaning that, It just so happened I had to see another one of his "Lets be Happy/Armchair Moderator" posts again to my avail had to be posted in here.

*JR*
Feb 11th, 2004, 01:37 AM
I wasn't actually meaning that, It just so happened I had to see another one of his "Lets be Happy/Armchair Moderator" posts again to my avail had to be posted in here.
As Joui never has a mean word to say to or About Anyone, why is that so bad? (Except mentioning his fee like the fucking lawyer he is)! :p He was specific enough, though I disagree re. the rule. OK, why? Let's forget what you, I, Joui, etc. would like it to mean and look @ it again:

A player shall not associate with or have dealings with persons whose activities, including gambling, reflect adversely upon the integrity of the game of tennis; nor shall a player bet money or anything else of value on a formal tennis competition in which she is a competitor.

(After the ; the rule addresses gambling by a player herself, so ignore that part). In terms of those she may not associate with, If It meant what Jouissant, QC submits, would it not have said "...whose gambling activities..."? In other words, the WTA's sloppy combination of different Concepts Creates the confusion here.

The "modifier" word (including) is the only thing in the entire rulebook that would apply to a war criminal, for instance. I think Joui ought to submit a bill To The WTA to do a competent rewrite of the rules. (Wait, he's too damn honest to give them what they wanted All Along: er, Swiss :o Cheese)!

xcrtbckhnd
Feb 11th, 2004, 03:01 AM
So anyways, I hope Patty can do well her in her next tournament. That's all I have to say. Good luck vs Dinara!!! I hope Patty wins this match!!! It would be great to see Patty play Sprem or Schiavone in the next round!!!! Keep going Patty!!!

*JR*
Feb 11th, 2004, 03:29 AM
Good luck vs Dinara!!! I hope Patty wins this match!!!
Hmmmm. The Choudury Championship, as "Hu-Bear" coached Patty to her 2 great '02 results and now coaches Dinara (after being fired by Rainer in early '03).

So in the CC, I'm totally rooting for SS ova PP (Sister Safina vs. Peppermint Patty). BTW, in their only past meeting, Dinara Double breadsticked the Bottimgen Brat (Sopot in '02). ;)

Rothes
Feb 11th, 2004, 04:15 AM
Your doing what Roger????? Cheering for Safina over Patty, Traitor. grrrr

vogus
Feb 11th, 2004, 04:24 AM
says on the website that Patty and Safina are playing doubles next week together -maybe Choudury and Hofmann smoothed over their differences.

Rothes
Feb 11th, 2004, 04:30 AM
hmmm at Antwerp Vogus, I was going over to Belgium to watch that, but thought I would be in better present at Zurich, Rightfully I was right.

Rothes
Feb 11th, 2004, 04:31 AM
As Joui never has a mean word to say to or About Anyone, why is that so bad?
Being Nice doesn't combat the essence of annoyance JR

~ The Leopard ~
Feb 11th, 2004, 06:21 AM
As Joui never has a mean word to say to or About Anyone, why is that so bad?
pffff, I'm not that nice.

*looking for someone to bad rep :devil: *

Rothes
Feb 11th, 2004, 06:47 AM
Hello Joui, I am in a better mood now :kiss: How is life in Australia :) Sorry I came around a little harsh :kiss: I geuss my English is still not at it's best!! Your not annoying, Your are good Volk, nacht Polezi!!!! :kiss: :wavey:

DutchieGirl
Feb 11th, 2004, 06:51 AM
inky, what about Rainer Schuttler? He seems like a really nice, down to earth guy, and the two of them could practice their tennis together as well. We should check his availability. ;)


:lol: I think Schuettler would be a much better match! ;) Plus he fills another requirement she seems to have; he's German! ;) But how old is he? ;)

*JR*
Feb 11th, 2004, 04:18 PM
says on the website that Patty and Safina are playing doubles next week together -maybe Choudury and Hofmann smoothed over their differences.
I guess he paid off Hubert's '03 contract Out Of PP's AO check or something.

vogus
Feb 11th, 2004, 09:00 PM
Schuttler is about 28 or 29, he's definitely a few years older than Patty, so that should satisfy her requirements on that end. We might just have ourselves a match! And yeah he's German too, now that you mention it, i think that all of Patty's boyfriends have been Germans, even her pre-Hofmann/Harnecker ones. Maybe she feels that the Germans are somehow more prestigious than Swiss guys or other nationalities (would seem unlike Patty to think that way but who knows).

*JR*
Feb 11th, 2004, 11:38 PM
Maybe she feels that the Germans are somehow more prestigious than Swiss guys or other nationalities (would seem unlike Patty to think that way but who knows). No Peppermint Perception would be unlikely. ;)

TennisHack
Feb 12th, 2004, 01:19 AM
Schuettler is 27 (will be 28 in April), but I don't think the man has ever committed a shady act! Isn't that also a requirement for Patty, that he be pretty sketchy vis-a-vis his past? ;)