Skip to main content

Serena out of perspective

Serena Williams says her record fine for her death threat to the lineswoman at the US Open is a sexist vendetta against her. Her argument is based on the "significantly lesser" punishments for John McEnroe (Aus Open, 1990) and Jeff Tarango (Wimbledon, 1995).

McEnroe swore at the chair umpire and tournament referee, and was defaulted - the first time that had happened at a Grand Slam in the professional era. He was heavily fined as well, by 1990 standards. Was there a death threat to any official? No.

Tarango had an argument with the umpire, called him corrupt, walked off, and later, his batty wife slapped the chair umpire. He was suspended from Wimbledon and another Grand Slam event, plus a US$63k fine. Was there a death threat involved? No.

Williams has been fined US$82500 provided she behaves herself at the Grand Slams for two years. Given inflation, that is much less than Tarango's fine! Relative to the prizemoney available on tour then and now, the full fine of $175k barely matches it. If the women's game wasn't so desperate for a genuine no.1, she'd have copped a suspension as well.


Please note: I am travelling for a month, so posts will be infrequent for a while.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

lay the field - my favourite racing strategy

Dabbling with laying the field in-running at various prices today, not just one price, but several in the same race. Got several matched in the previous race at Brighton, then this race came along at Nottingham. Such a long straight at Nottingham makes punters often over-react and think the finish line is closer than it actually is. As you can see by the number of bets matched, there was plenty of volatility in this in-play market. It's rare you'll get a complete wipe-out with one horse getting matched at all levels, but it can happen, so don't give yourself too much risk...

Racing has a Ponzi scheme - and the fallout will be enormous

When the term 'Ponzi scheme' is mentioned these days, the names Bernard Madoff and Allen Stanford instantly spring to mind. The pair of them ran multi-billion dollar frauds (US$60bn and $8bn respectively) that destroyed the lives of thousands of investors who had put their life savings into a 'wonderful' investment strategy. How so many people were sucked into the scheme is baffling to those on the outside. The lifestyle, the sales pitch, the success stories of the early investors - I suppose it all adds up.

So where does this link to racing you ask? A prominent Australian 'racing identity' this week has been reported to have lost access to a bank account with punters' club funds of $194m in it. Firstly - is there a worse term for anyone to be labelled with that 'racing identity'? It ALWAYS ends up meaning shonky crook! Secondly - who the hell has a punters' club with an active bankroll in the tens of millions? It simply can't be done.

The…

damage control when trading goals

When trades go bad, some people will say cut your losses immediately, others will recommend having a bit of patience as events tend to level out (i.e. games with two goals in the first 10 mins never end up with 18 goals in 90 minutes). This is something I like to do on certain matches.

Background:
1. You've backed Under 2.5 goals, trying to nick a few ticks at a time as the clock ticks.
2. You've been caught out by a goal.
3. The market has gone sharply against you.

On this particular match from a couple of weeks ago, there was an early goal (sixth minute) before I got involved. The period immediately after an early goal regularly shows a sharp drop in the Under price, so I was trying to capitalise on that. But Watford then scored again after 14 minutes. The Back price I took (3.95) was now out to 12 - I could close out for a big loss (not my style) or wait and wait for the price to come back to somewhere I could close out for minimal damage. But at 2-0 after 15 minutes, it w…