SPECTATORS AT THE Australian Open are welcome to wear T-shirts supporting Peng Shuai, tournament director Craig Tiley has said.
Organisers have been heavily criticised after a woman wearing a “Where is Peng Shuai” T-shirt was ejected from the event last week, with Martina Navratilova branding the move “cowardly” and accusing Tennis Australia of “capitulating” to China.
There has been major concern inside and outside tennis for the well-being of the former world doubles number one since she disappeared from view in November after making allegations on social media about a senior Chinese official.
Peng has since made several public appearances but there remain serious question marks regarding her freedom and the WTA has suspended all tournaments in China.
Tennis Australia has come under fire for asking two activists to remove their 'Where is Peng Shuai?' shirts and a banner at the Australian Open. #AusOpen #auspol pic.twitter.com/vpA2iVNL8C
— 10 News First Melbourne (@10NewsFirstMelb) January 23, 2022
Craig Tiley, the chief executive of Tennis Australia and Australian Open tournament director, told the PA news agency the issue was not with the T-shirt but intent to disrupt the tournament.
He said: “We were on the journey at the very beginning with the WTA and that’s because we’re well connected in the region. We agree with the WTA’s position.
“However, coming onto the site we have some terms and conditions that are pretty clear and that is, if you are coming on site with the purpose of disrupting the safety and comfort of fans, you’re not welcome. But if you want to wear a T-shirt that says ‘Where’s Peng Shuai?’, you can come on site, that’s fine.
“There was a suspicion around the motivation of that individual coming on site but we’ve since contacted that person and told her that she’s welcome to come on site, she’s welcome to wear a T-shirt, but not bring a banner, because you can’t bring banners on site.
“It doesn’t have anything to do with a political or commercial statement. Our security people are trained to take a common sense approach, and I think that’s in the interest of everyone.”
Fans wearing Peng Shuai T-shirts were filmed entering Melbourne Park on Tuesday.
Having kept a very low profile in the aftermath of Novak Djokovic’s deportation, Tiley has been more visible in recent days.
Tennis Australia came under fire for its role in pushing for exemptions for unvaccinated players to enter the country, but Tiley dismissed suggestions the fiasco had damaged the tournament’s reputation.
“No I absolutely don’t (think so),” he said. “I think the reputation of the tournament’s been defined by what you see today. We’ve had more people from around the world watch the Australian Open than ever before.
“The feedback we’re getting from our customer satisfaction surveys on site has been the highest, even higher than 2020. The feedback we’re getting from our broadcasters has also been the highest. Eurosport put out a note this morning that they’re getting their biggest numbers ever.
“No one person is bigger than the event. I think we’re going to end up over the next five days firstly with a great event and potentially with a couple of new champions.”
Another hot topic has been around the issue of Covid-19 testing for players, who, along with the rest of the workforce, are being trusted to use the daily antigen tests provided.
Two players, Ugo Humbert and Alison Van Uytvanck, announced the tests they took to leave the country came back positive, and Alexander Zverev said last week that he believed positive cases were slipping through.
Tiley said: “It’s really impossible to supervise 3,000 people every morning. We’re trusting the players are doing the right thing.
“We know we’ve distributed thousands of antigen tests for the players, we’re getting feedback from a lot that they are continuing to do the right thing and we’re still getting some positives, so we know they are.
“On our mandatory tests, we’ve been well below the community averages so the approach of mandatory wearing of masks and social distancing, as well as the testing programme, is hopefully going to help us get through this event with much lower positive case rates than the community.”
Crazy decision. Completely accidental clash of heads.
A five game ban for this is outrageous. How is a decision like that arrived at. It was clearly accidental.
Cant watch the clips because I’m in Australia ffs. But the fans I’ve spoke to say it’s a yellow a most and even that’s harsh. Any truth to this??
@Dara: no
@Dara: Do they not have YouTube in Australia ?
Shameful decision. Warranted a yellow card at best. He’ll be badly missed for the ECC games where his brawn and explosive speed would have levelled things up for Connacht.
Whatever about whether it was right or wrong, how can they suspend 1 week off the 6 week ban for ‘remorse’ when the red card was challenged? Surely that is a prime indication that not alone was there no remorse but the feeling was that it wasn’t even a red card. This incident aside, I would be concerned that the judicial process is flawed on that basis.
His biggest mistake was not being Owen Farrell.
I think he’s a lucky lad to only get 5 weeks, accidental or not he clearly didn’t learn his lesson from the last high shot.
@Jim Demps: I don’t think people here understand. The tackler has an obligation to tackle safely. Accidental or not he has made head to head contact which could have been avoided. The player doesn’t dip in fact he may even come up a little at impact. It’s a clear red and when it’s your second of the season 5 weeks seems lenient.
@Jim Demps: It was an accidental clash of heads after the attacking player changed his running line. I think 5 weeks is harsh, I’d love to see how they arrived at this decision. He does need to lower his tackle height though. Owen Farrell only got 5 weeks for tackle on Charlie Atkinson and in terms of intent those tackles are like chalk and cheese. With Farrells tackling track record it should have been far longer.
@Jayme Mc Goldrick: yeah that’s it. Accidental or not the outcome is still a dangerous tackle. I get why people are annoyed, I’d probably be the same if it was a munster player but it’s not like it’s a new rule, a head shot has never been legal.
@MacEoin.T: I think the decision is pretty clear, he got 6 weeks the first time and it was reduced to 3 for having a clear record. He then got 6 weeks this time and didn’t get the reduction for having a clear record. If anything I’d be saying he didn’t deserve the one week reduction given he clearly hasn’t learnt his lesson.
@Jim Demps: Out of interest, does a player get a clear record at the beginning of each season or is it a pro career duration timeframe?
@MacEoin.T: I know in the amateur game in Ireland they look at your records for 5 years so I assume it’s probably something similar. They definitely don’t get a clean slate at the start of the season anyway. Punishing repeat offenders more harshly I think is a good way to go. Like if Papalli gets sent off again for another high shot I’d say he could be looking at 10+ weeks.
@Jim Demps: he’ll be back in time for the game against Munster on the 9th of January Jim. We’ll get a proper look at him in action then.
@Jim Demps: Would you stop Jim, Farrell got the same ban for trying to take Atkinson’s head off and you’re arguing the Papali’i deserves the same? You’re dreaming lad.
@Paddy Kennedy: I’m not arguing anything, I’m saying that’s how it works. Farrell actually got a 10 week ban reduced by half for a first offence. Farrells was worse and he got a bigger ban, papalli is in the dock for the second time in four games and gets less of a reduction. It’s fairly straightforward
@David Finn: great stuff, hopefully he takes the time between now and then to learn how to tackle in Union. He’ll be a serious player once he irons out those mistakes.
@Paddy Kennedy: It was Farrell’s first red so he got more lenient treatment. The fact that Farrell should have had plenty of reds in recent seasons can’t be taken into account.
Players & coaches have to understand how seriously World Rugby is taking head injuries and act accordingly. That means a lower body position in any potential tackle situation.
Clearly difficult to get it right all the time so some players will get unlucky from time to time. Lack of intent doesn’t seem to be a mitigating factor.
Crazy biased decision.
That makes no sense. How the ref made out he led with his head is beyond me. The attacking player steps and papali has to change direction to make the tackle, their heads collide. 5 games is ridiculous.
Outrageous decision! Ref & TMO bottled it!!
I really don’t understand all the comments arguing that this is somehow disproportionate. It was a clear red card, it was clear he was going to get a significant ban and if he doesn’t learn how to tackle lower he’s going to miss more games than he plays. Crazy decision by Connacht to contest this and I’d argue you shouldn’t get a reduction if you contest the decision, as you’re clearly not remorseful if you think you didn’t commit an offence.
The hypocrisy on this forum , when it was Peter O Mahony deliberately targeting someone’s head in the ruck with his shoulder a few weeks ago (imo, is much worse than an accidental clash of heads) people here were saying ‘he was frustrated’ and ‘playing on the edge’!