Did Osaka light the torch in Tokyo? If so, seems like she got over her “anxiety”

uh okay? wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

She's preserving her mental health. How are you people on here so dense? lol (quote)

What is threatening her mental health - media attention (which is what she gets from lighting the Olympic flame) or media attention (like answering questions after she has lost a tennis match)?

Are you usually this dumb, or do you just act that way when you post? Her contract states that she'll get fined for not doing press conferences and so she accepted the fine. End of story. You're not entitled to anything beyond whats in her contract. What don't you understand about how contracts work?

I'm trained in law, so I guess I know more than you. She broke her contract. That's why she was fined. She was obligated to provide press conferences if required - like all the other professionals on the tour. It wasn't an option for her. Since she refused she therefore had no choice but to pay the fine but it showed she was unwilling to meet her contractual obligations. And exactly, what was so onerous about this requirement, that all other tour pros could cope with?

Armstronglivs wrote:

uh okay? wrote:

Are you usually this dumb, or do you just act that way when you post? Her contract states that she'll get fined for not doing press conferences and so she accepted the fine. End of story. You're not entitled to anything beyond whats in her contract. What don't you understand about how contracts work?

I'm trained in law, so I guess I know more than you. She broke her contract. That's why she was fined. She was obligated to provide press conferences if required - like all the other professionals on the tour. It wasn't an option for her. Since she refused she therefore had no choice but to pay the fine but it showed she was unwilling to meet her contractual obligations. And exactly, what was so onerous about this requirement, that all other tour pros could cope with?

So she's still fulfilling the terms of the contract by paying the fine. You might want to get a refund on whatever "training" you paid for

It’s sad how you just don’t get it. You know you are wrong when Armstrong and I are on pretty much the same page.

Her anxiety is not being the center if attention

ubeu wrote:

There are parts of every career that people dislike. She wants the fame, money, etc but can’t be bothered with questions? She has mental health and/or maturity problems.

And as in most careers, the better you are at your job, the more power you have to avoid the stuff you dislike. Draining butt abscesses is a part of being a general surgeon, but if you're the best hernia repair guy in the city and you don't feel like dealing with butt puss, you'll have a pretty easy time negotiating a contract where someone else deals with the butt puss.

It's really just a question of whether you have the leverage to get what you want. Time will tell whether this player is ultimately able to play and make the same money without dealing with the media, but if she has the leverage to do what she enjoys while avoiding the part she doesn't enjoy, more power to her. Wouldn't you negotiate away the parts of your job you don't like if you had the bargaining power to do so?

I disagree with this Olympic policy of allowing whackadoos access to flammable materials. They need to curtail that in the interests of public safety, and the integrity of the Games.

i'm confused by your comment - what exactly are you saying that's new here? her initial instagram post already made it clear she knew she would be fined. she knew this was part of her contract and expected a fine. she wasn't expecting special treatment, she was dictating how she would act within the contract's stipulations.

so.. what's your point here, exactly?

this is irrelevant; a person isn't obligated to disclose their health issues just because they're an athlete/entertainer/in the public eye.

we're also not obligated to blindly support said athlete/entertainer/public person, however from the tone on here, a lot of ya'll sure do seem entitled to know their whole business.

uh okay? wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I'm trained in law, so I guess I know more than you. She broke her contract. That's why she was fined. She was obligated to provide press conferences if required - like all the other professionals on the tour. It wasn't an option for her. Since she refused she therefore had no choice but to pay the fine but it showed she was unwilling to meet her contractual obligations. And exactly, what was so onerous about this requirement, that all other tour pros could cope with?

So she's still fulfilling the terms of the contract by paying the fine. You might want to get a refund on whatever "training" you paid for

You're embarrassing yourself. She isn't fulfilling the terms of her contract - she is breaking them. That is why she was fined. A fine isn't part of her contract. It was imposed because she is subject to the authority of the WTF and tournament authorities. In the same way she can be fined by them for unsportsmanlike conduct, which is conduct in breach of her professional obligations. A solicitor can similarly be fined for unprofessional conduct by their professional body. Paying the fine isn't fulfilling a contract, it is simply that the individual is subject to the authority of their professional body. I don't expect you to understand that.

The point of the thread and some of the comment is that Osaka withdrew from professional media obligations, citing "mental health" issues, when she appears to have no problem with significant media attention in other parts of her life. It appears that she has no problems with being a celebrity if it doesn't involve accounting for how she has played a tennis match - which is her job.

Also, being fined isn't part of her contract. It was imposed because she is subject to the authority of the ruling bodies of tennis. They offered her the option of meeting her professional obligations or paying a penalty. Because she refused to meet those obligations she accordingly paid the penalty. In the same way, players are fined for professional misconduct - but don't have the option of fixing it, as she had.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The point of the thread and some of the comment is that Osaka withdrew from professional media obligations, citing "mental health" issues, when she appears to have no problem with significant media attention in other parts of her life. It appears that she has no problems with being a celebrity if it doesn't involve accounting for how she has played a tennis match - which is her job.

Also, being fined isn't part of her contract. It was imposed because she is subject to the authority of the ruling bodies of tennis. They offered her the option of meeting her professional obligations or paying a penalty. Because she refused to meet those obligations she accordingly paid the penalty. In the same way, players are fined for professional misconduct - but don't have the option of fixing it, as she had.

The first paragraph sums it up perfect. If she wants to have a contract where she doesn’t talk to press at all, I don’t care.

She made a big deal though about taking a step back for her mental health. Lighting a torch at the Olympics isn’t really a step back from the media.

Armstronglivs wrote:

uh okay? wrote:

So she's still fulfilling the terms of the contract by paying the fine. You might want to get a refund on whatever "training" you paid for

You're embarrassing yourself. She isn't fulfilling the terms of her contract - she is breaking them. That is why she was fined. A fine isn't part of her contract. It was imposed because she is subject to the authority of the WTF and tournament authorities. In the same way she can be fined by them for unsportsmanlike conduct, which is conduct in breach of her professional obligations. A solicitor can similarly be fined for unprofessional conduct by their professional body. Paying the fine isn't fulfilling a contract, it is simply that the individual is subject to the authority of their professional body. I don't expect you to understand that.

Guys be careful, he's trained in "law" so if that isn't vague enough he's also going to tell you what terms are in a contract he didn't read. Thank you for enlightening us, guy with training in "law."

If you find it "vague" I'll make it clearer: I have a degree in law. I studied contract law as part of that degree. So do you have any substantive points in response to what I said above?

Bird law

Yawn^9 wrote:

Grow up.

Love the irony.

kettlepot wrote:

Yawn^9 wrote:

Grow up.

Love the irony.

Good one.

Bird law[/quote]

I leave that to you bird brains.

Yawn^9 wrote:

kettlepot wrote:

Love the irony.

Good one.

Is that the retort of a mature individual?

kettlepot wrote:

Yawn^9 wrote:

Good one.

Is that the retort of a mature individual?

Is there one here?