Off Topic Thread 5.0

Podge_irl

stephen_n wrote: »

That’s not what happened though is it? You are suggesting that mental health is a static thing. You do realize that people are signed off work all the time on the grounds of stress?

She spoke about enduring two years of anxiety. That were heightened around press duties. At this point in time she decided it was in her own best interest not to do them. There could be a multitude of reasons why that is. That we will never ever know about. So we can only take her word for it.

Yes, and I would equate that to her withdrawing from the tournament which I already stated is probably the best outcome for all.

Continuing in the tournament but refusing to do the press engagement is a)a potential competitive advantage seeing as no one likes doing them and b)picking and choosing what parts of her job she will do. Unfortunately for her, sport is pretty much the definition of a zero sum game and it is harder to make individual concessions while maintaining a fair competitive landscape.

Perhaps she engaged in a careful discussion with the WTA and the Majors over this but the impression is that she didn't and simply announced she would not do press. That absolutely not a good example to set.

stephen_n

sydthebeat wrote: »

her anxiety should first be diagnosed, and when diagnosed, should be used to take time away from the game to rehabilitate until she can return... just like any physical injury. tennis allows players to forgo media when physical injuries are involved, so should also allow the same when mental injuries are involved.

using anxiety (apparently as yet undiagnosed) as a reason not to carry out an employment duty, whilst still carry out other duties and receiving financial reward at the same time is tantamount to receiving a professional edge in a competitive sport. Saying "I'm just not going to subject myself to people that doubt me" is her call, but there will be consequences.

There are many many people out there who have lost jobs / cant apply for jobs because of their mental health issues which would be problematic for the required roles... and in many cases it is severe anxiety in public situations.

There’s no such thing as a diagnosis of anxiety. Some psychologists have thrown a wide variety of symptoms together to come up with a term generalized anxiety disorder. That’s just because everything needs to be catagorized and placed in a box. We all experience anxiety to a greater or lesser degree through out our lives. How can you diagnose something everyone has? There are scales and measures for the distress and disruption it causes. Though believe me, they are about as foolproof as astrology.

sydthebeat

stephen_n wrote: »

There’s no such thing as a diagnosis of anxiety. Some psychologists have thrown a wide variety of symptoms together to come up with a term generalized anxiety disorder. That’s just because everything needs to be catagorized and placed in a box. We all experience anxiety to a greater or lesser degree through out our lives. How can you diagnose something everyone has? There are scales and measures for the distress and disruption it causes. Though believe me, they are about as foolproof as astrology.

of course there are medical diagnoses of anxiety issues, its boxed off as a "disorder" when its an issue beyond acceptable health limits.
Anxiety can a symptom of many deeper medical issues.
there's medical thresholds to be met in order to diagnose it, often including a physical examination, and there are scaled metrics to compare diagnoses to.

if you picked up the phone tomorrow to your employer and said "im feeling anxious, i wont be in for a week" you can be damn sure they will look for a medical cert to confirm this.

however, thats the whole point here. If naomi is unable to carry out her professional duties due to her anxiety, then she needs to be stood down until she gets treatment until she can.

Former Former Former

stephen_n wrote: »

It’s not a Slavish devotion to celebrity. I have zero interest in celebrity whatsoever. I have a profound interest in mental health though. What I don’t like is people like you pontificating about other people’s experiences when they know the square route of fvck all about them. Mental health issues have been stigmatized for years. Yet when people come out and talk about theirs. You get idiots on the internet. Trotting out ignorant BS. Like how could someone earning 50 million a year possibly have any issues. It’s attitudes like that which prevent people from talking about their struggles and normalizing this experience. What would be more comforting for a 16 year old fan of a tennis star. Hearing they suffer from anxiety too and it’s ok to talk about it.

I have worked with people who are in high powered jobs, have all the trappings of wealth and success. Yet are absolutely crippled with anxiety. They are destroying themselves physically and mentally to try and hide it from people. Usually doing a fairly good job of that too. Success is not in any way a shield from the impact of stress.

Piers Morgan is a hypocrite of the highest order. Arrogant in the extreme and as you would put it, a complete snowflake when anyone challenges him on it.

I’m attacking your attitude, I’m attacking the way you post. If it’s a persona you create for online forums then so be it. Maybe that’s something for you to look at.

Oh that's OK then, I was worried it was me you had a problem with.

Look, if you're genuinely concerned about mental health, would you not share any concern about the numbers of people throwing out "my mental health" at the drop of a hat? Are you not worried that, far from destigmatising mental health, it will trivalise it? And thus people with really serious issues aren't taken as seriously as they should be?

BTW I never suggested that Naomi Osaka couldn't/shouldn't have issues because she's earning 50 million a year. That's a total misrepresentation. What I said was that if tennis is causing her issues, then maybe she needs to look at different careers.

stephen_n

sydthebeat wrote: »

of course there are medical diagnoses of anxiety issues, its boxed off as a "disorder" when its an issue beyond acceptable health limits.
Anxiety can a symptom of many deeper medical issues.
there's medical thresholds to be met in order to diagnose it, often including a physical examination, and there are scaled metrics to compare diagnoses to.

if you picked up the phone tomorrow to your employer and said "im feeling anxious, i wont be in for a week" you can be damn sure they will look for a medical cert to confirm this.

however, thats the whole point here. If naomi is unable to carry out her professional duties due to her anxiety, then she needs to be stood down until she gets treatment until she can.

What is this physical examination that doctors do to diagnose anxiety? I’d be very interested to hear about this. Maybe I could suggest my clients get it done.

sydthebeat

stephen_n wrote: »

What is this physical examination that doctors do to diagnose anxiety? I’d be very interested to hear about this. Maybe I could suggest my clients get it done.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/generalized-anxiety-disorder/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20361045

https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/conditions/generalised-anxiety-disorder/diagnosis/

maybe you should as a physical exam should be part of the diagnostic process

Zzippy

Former Former Former wrote: »

Oh that's OK then, I was worried it was me you had a problem with.

Look, if you're genuinely concerned about mental health, would you not share any concern about the numbers of people throwing out "my mental health" at the drop of a hat? Are you not worried that, far from destigmatising mental health, it will trivalise it? And thus people with really serious issues aren't taken as seriously as they should be?

BTW I never suggested that Naomi Osaka couldn't/shouldn't have issues because she's earning 50 million a year. That's a total misrepresentation. What I said was that if tennis is causing her issues, then maybe she needs to look at different careers.

Playing tennis is her career. Winning tennis matches is literally her job. You can make the argument that media duties are essential but others will disagree. We have as much right to hear Osaka's views as we do to know the injury status of a Leinster rugby player. If a rugby player can decide to keep his injury status private, why can't Osaka decide to keep her views to herself?

Doing interviews benefits sponsors. Sponsors can choose not to sponsor an athlete who doesn't do interviews. If an athlete decides to risk her income by refusing interviews, that should be her right. She should not be forced to do them at penalty of not being able to compete in a tennis tournament - her actual job. Tournaments benefit from players abilities, their image rights, the interest they bring. Why should they have access to the player's inner thoughts, or to put them in situations that cause anxiety?

stephen_n

Former Former Former wrote: »

Oh that's OK then, I was worried it was me you had a problem with.

Look, if you're genuinely concerned about mental health, would you not share any concern about the numbers of people throwing out "my mental health" at the drop of a hat? Are you not worried that, far from destigmatising mental health, it will trivalise it? And thus people with really serious issues aren't taken as seriously as they should be?

BTW I never suggested that Naomi Osaka couldn't/shouldn't have issues because she's earning 50 million a year. That's a total misrepresentation. What I said was that if tennis is causing her issues, then maybe she needs to look at different careers.

Again you are making yourself arbitrator for someone you know fvck all about. Did it ever occur to you that these people “throwing out” my mental health. Have experiences that you simply know nothing about. How do you know who or what is serious when it comes to mental health? You are making a judgement on her based purely on her being a successful tennis player. Nothing else, you know nothing about her life or her ability to deal with stress.

Tennis isn’t causing her issues. It’s the industry that goes around the tennis that causes her issues. This is also the industry that pays her. If this was just an issue about her marketability and controlling her image like you suggest. Walking away from a Grand Slam tournament she could easily win would be counter intuitive no?

I don’t know you, have never met you and probably never will. I can’t have an opinion of you, only what you post and your online persona. I would really hope the real life version of you is different. It certainly must have more nuance.

stephen_n

sydthebeat wrote: »

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/generalized-anxiety-disorder/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20361045

https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/conditions/generalised-anxiety-disorder/diagnosis/

maybe you should as a physical exam should be part of the diagnostic process

The physical exam is to rule out other causes, not identify anxiety. If you present with palpitations and a resting heart rate of 130. They need to be sure you don’t have heart disease. There is no physical exam that can diagnose anxiety. Also GAD is not what Osaka is experiencing. In fact she is experiencing the exact opposite.

sydthebeat

stephen_n wrote: »

The physical exam is to rule out other causes, not identify anxiety. .

maybe you should re-read what i actually said and not what you think i said...

and again, anxiety is a symptom........

stephen_n wrote: »

.Also GAD is not what Osaka is experiencing. In fact she is experiencing the exact opposite.

are you her personal physician with access to her medical records?

If you present with palpitations and a resting heart rate of 130

and how do you determine a resting heart rate and palpitations without a physical exam?

stephen_n

sydthebeat wrote: »

of course there are medical diagnoses of anxiety issues, its boxed off as a "disorder" when its an issue beyond acceptable health limits.
Anxiety can a symptom of many deeper medical issues.
there's medical thresholds to be met in order to diagnose it, often including a physical examination, and there are scaled metrics to compare diagnoses to.

if you picked up the phone tomorrow to your employer and said "im feeling anxious, i wont be in for a week" you can be damn sure they will look for a medical cert to confirm this.

however, thats the whole point here. If naomi is unable to carry out her professional duties due to her anxiety, then she needs to be stood down until she gets treatment until she can.

sydthebeat wrote: »

maybe you should re-read what i actually said and not what you think i said...

and again, anxiety is a symptom........



are you her personal physician with access to her medical records?

You said in the bolded bit that the physical examination is used to diagnose it. It is not used to diagnose it, it’s used to rule out other medical issues. A clinical psychologist with no medical background what so ever can give a diagnosis of GAD.

No I’m not her personal anything. You seem to think you have inside knowledge though. I’m basing my opinion on what she said. You are the one trying to diagnose her with a disorder.

sydthebeat

stephen_n wrote: »

You said in the bolded bit that the physical examination is used to diagnose it. It is not used to diagnose it, it’s used to rule out other medical issues. A clinical psychologist with no medical background what so ever can give a diagnosis of GAD.

No I’m not her personal anything. You seem to think you have inside knowledge though. I’m basing my opinion on what she said. You are the one trying to diagnose her with a disorder.

LOL absolutely the opposite.

im saying that it appears at the moment she has a lack of a diagnosis, and that is problematic for her job obviously.

as for the physical exam, if you cant grasp why a physical exam is carried out as part of a diagnosis of an anxiety / stress condition then Unfortunely there's no amount of explaining that will help.

it takes some leap of faith logic to claim that carrying out an exam to rule out other factors doesn't form part of the diagnostic process.

Podge_irl

Zzippy wrote: »

Playing tennis is her career. Winning tennis matches is literally her job. You can make the argument that media duties are essential but others will disagree. We have as much right to hear Osaka's views as we do to know the injury status of a Leinster rugby player. If a rugby player can decide to keep his injury status private, why can't Osaka decide to keep her views to herself?

Doing interviews benefits sponsors. Sponsors can choose not to sponsor an athlete who doesn't do interviews. If an athlete decides to risk her income by refusing interviews, that should be her right. She should not be forced to do them at penalty of not being able to compete in a tennis tournament - her actual job. Tournaments benefit from players abilities, their image rights, the interest they bring. Why should they have access to the player's inner thoughts, or to put them in situations that cause anxiety?

The interviews benefit the sponsors of the tournament who have paid and contributed to her prize money. Her personal sponsors are not the issue here and I am not surprised they have come out to support her. The duties are essential insofar as they are what she has contractually agreed to.

Also she is not obliged to say anything specific during the interviews - your comparison makes no sense. A proper comparison would be a captain and coach refusing to do any interviews at team announcements/before games/after games and that would not be accepted either.

Former Former Former

Zzippy wrote: »

Playing tennis is her career. Winning tennis matches is literally her job. You can make the argument that media duties are essential but others will disagree. We have as much right to hear Osaka's views as we do to know the injury status of a Leinster rugby player. If a rugby player can decide to keep his injury status private, why can't Osaka decide to keep her views to herself?

Doing interviews benefits sponsors. Sponsors can choose not to sponsor an athlete who doesn't do interviews. If an athlete decides to risk her income by refusing interviews, that should be her right. She should not be forced to do them at penalty of not being able to compete in a tennis tournament - her actual job. Tournaments benefit from players abilities, their image rights, the interest they bring. Why should they have access to the player's inner thoughts, or to put them in situations that cause anxiety?

Well, being a professional tennis player is her career. Playing matches is a big part of that but it is not the totality of it. When you sign up for a tournament, you sign up to the rules of that tournament. If media companies have paid for rights which include pressers, and the players then decline to attend, then the TV company suffers a loss. That's the reality of pro sport. What she does with her own sponsors is a separate question.

It's even more important in individual sports like tennis or golf; in the absence of teams to follow, you need personalities to drive interest. If everyone simply turned up, played and left, then suddenly you have a much less interesting product. Ask 10 people to name a current snooker player and I guarantee you 9 of them will say Ronnie O'Sullivan.

But per my original point, Osaka is not such a person. She has no problem putting herself in the spotlight when it suits. Even now, she could have just told us she was withdrawing for personal reasons but she chose to put all this out there. Fair play to her for doing so, and she came across really well in her statement, but it's contradictory to say that we should respect her privacy when she herself is the one putting her personal info out there.

stephen_n

sydthebeat wrote: »

LOL absolutely the opposite.

im saying that it appears at the moment she has a lack of a diagnosis, and that is problematic for her job obviously.

as for the physical exam, if you cant grasp why a physical exam is carried out as part of a diagnosis of an anxiety / stress condition then Unfortunely there's no amount of explaining that will help.

it takes some leap of faith logic to claim that carrying out an exam to rule out other factors doesn't form part of the diagnostic process.

You are using the diagnostic tool for GAD to make your argument but you are not suggesting it’s GAD? That’s a very interesting way of trying to make an argument. Look at this thing here, it has nothing to do with what your talking about but you are wrong.

Zzippy

Podge_irl wrote: »

The interviews benefit the sponsors of the tournament who have paid and contributed to her prize money. Her personal sponsors are not the issue here and I am not surprised they have come out to support her. The duties are essential insofar as they are what she has contractually agreed to.

Also she is not obliged to say anything specific during the interviews - your comparison makes no sense. A proper comparison would be a captain and coach refusing to do any interviews at team announcements/before games/after games and that would not be accepted either.

Coaches have done exactly that in the past. Alex Ferguson refused to speak to BBC for years.

I just find the pile-on by pundits, journalists and indeed posters here, on someone who has stated she has mental health issues, distasteful. For all the talk about destigmatising mental health, when someone high profile does come out and talk about mental health, she is ridiculed and derided for it. Thank God I've never suffered depression or severe anxiety, but while I can't profess to know anything about it, I can listen to those who do and show some empathy and understanding. Something that is sorely lacking in some it seems.

Zzippy

Former Former Former wrote: »

But per my original point, Osaka is not such a person. She has no problem putting herself in the spotlight when it suits. Even now, she could have just told us she was withdrawing for personal reasons but she chose to put all this out there. Fair play to her for doing so, and she came across really well in her statement, but it's contradictory to say that we should respect her privacy when she herself is the one putting her personal info out there.

People are entitled to divulge whatever personal info they want, or none at all. Their choice. Whatever information she voluntarily disclosed is her business, and you are not entitled to any more than that. And yes, you absolutely should respect her privacy beyond that, not criticise her because she disclosed what she did.

sydthebeat

I'm not the one who's gone all the way around the clock from "there's no such thing to a diagnosis of anxiety" to "you're using the diagnosis of anxiety in the wrong way"

I'm not a medical professional and obviously you aren't either so let's leave it there and say we disagree with each other

Podge_irl

Zzippy wrote: »

Coaches have done exactly that in the past. Alex Ferguson refused to speak to BBC for years.

I just find the pile-on by pundits, journalists and indeed posters here, on someone who has stated she has mental health issues, distasteful. For all the talk about destigmatising mental health, when someone high profile does come out and talk about mental health, she is ridiculed and derided for it. Thank God I've never suffered depression or severe anxiety, but while I can't profess to know anything about it, I can listen to those who do and show some empathy and understanding. Something that is sorely lacking in some it seems.

And he should never have gotten away with that. It was an absurd abuse of power. If Leo Cullen started posting Leinster teams on his Twitter account and never talking to any press so you really think anyone would accept it?

The usual bellends aside, she is not being ridiculed. But it is also not a straightforward issue and it is possible to empathise with her while acknowledging that it is a fundamental part of the job and if she struggles so much with it then she should take the time to get help and work on it. Presenting a fait accompli of "I'm not doing this anymore" is questionable at the best of times, but in a sports context it is utterly untenable as you are creating an unlevel playing field. Not to mention she is breaking her contract.

Saying her job is to play tennis and not the rest of it is utterly asinine. It wouldn't be a job for many people if the rest of it wasn't part of it.

Also, destigmatising mental health should not mean treating sufferers with kid gloves and infantilising them. She has a choice to make whether to fully engage with the requirements of her job, to seek help to aid her in fulfilling them or to just step away. I dislike the comparison of mental health to physical health as it is far more complicated, but you wouldn't accept someone refusing to do rehab on injuries and still getting paid either.

Former Former Former

Zzippy wrote: »

People are entitled to divulge whatever personal info they want, or none at all. Their choice. Whatever information she voluntarily disclosed is her business, and you are not entitled to any more than that. And yes, you absolutely should respect her privacy beyond that, not criticise her because she disclosed what she did.

I absolutely, 100%, did not criticise her for putting her info out there, unless "fair play to her for doing so, and she came across really well" is now considered criticism.

And how am I not respecting her privacy, exactly? Where did you get the idea that I think I'm entitled to anything? Genuinely baffled by this line of argument. Let me be absolutely clear that I don't want any details on her personal life or state of mind.

stephen_n

sydthebeat wrote: »

I'm not the one who's gone all the way around the clock from "there's no such thing to a diagnosis of anxiety" to "you're using the diagnosis of anxiety in the wrong way"

I'm not a medical professional and obviously you aren't either so let's leave it there and say we disagree with each other

You do realize that GAD and anxiety are not actually the same thing? I’m a psychotherapist, so forgive me for believing I know what I’m talking about.

pickarooney

Former Former Former wrote: »

Oh that's OK then, I was worried it was me you had a problem with.

Look, if you're genuinely concerned about mental health, would you not share any concern about the numbers of people throwing out "my mental health" at the drop of a hat? Are you not worried that, far from destigmatising mental health, it will trivalise it? And thus people with really serious issues aren't taken as seriously as they should be?

BTW I never suggested that Naomi Osaka couldn't/shouldn't have issues because she's earning 50 million a year. That's a total misrepresentation. What I said was that if tennis is causing her issues, then maybe she needs to look at different careers.

Someone not playing a game with a tight hamstring is not trivialising someone who's suffered a torn ACL. Looking after your health is important and nobody should decided that you're not unhealthy enough not to do your job.

Edit: did Kvitova actually injure herself at a press conference or is it a wind-up?

swiwi_

molloyjh wrote: »

She struggles with depression and anxiety. I can't imagine how difficult it must be for some to put themselves out in front of the world like that, especially now with the way media and social media can be.

In one way I understand the "its part of the job" perspective, but at the same time these people are human beings. Being good at the fundamentals of her job, ie the tennis, doesn't have to go hand in hand with being an extrovert who is completely okay with being front and centre in the media.

If a doctor is great at medicine but crap with people (we've all had experience of that I'm sure) or if a builder is great at construction but rubbish at costing stuff does that mean they shouldn't be doing the job? Or does it mean that they should get suitable supports to allow them to do their job? And how does that logic apply to pro athletes? Could her coach speak for her or could she hire someone to do it in her place? Or should she just not be a pro athlete?

If she has a mental illness, clearly that needs treating and support. But I struggle a bit if she says can't front for the media...but her mental state is just fine for competing in a major with the aim to win.

swiwi_

The guy is a little bit too attached to his octopus but nevertheless “My octopus teacher” is pretty cool. Didn’t realise how amazing those creatures are, nor that they eat lobster.

stephen_n

swiwi_ wrote: »

The guy is a little bit too attached to his octopus but nevertheless “My octopus teacher” is pretty cool. Didn’t realise how amazing those creatures are, nor that they eat lobster.

It doesn’t cover it in the program but how they change colors is amazing. They are basically living RGB monitors, with each cell controlled by a nerve ending. Swapping in and out pigmentation to camouflage themselves perfectly. The ability for their brain to interpret the visual image of what they are swimming over. Then translate it into all those nerve endings is quite amazing.

swiwi_

stephen_n wrote: »

It doesn’t cover it in the program but how they change colors is amazing. They are basically living RGB monitors, with each cell controlled by a nerve ending. Swapping in and out pigmentation to camouflage themselves perfectly. The ability for their brain to interpret the visual image of what they are swimming over. Then translate it into all those nerve endings is quite amazing.

Also they have individual control over 1000 suckers or something like that. Sounds like a mod on boards

Zzippy

Rory McIlroy pulls out of Memorial pro-am citing ‘personal reasons’

Rory McIlroy cited “personal reasons” for pulling out of the pre-tournament pro-am and cancelling a scheduled press conference ahead of the Memorial Tournament.

McIlroy’s agent did not immediately respond to a request for more information.

Just disgraceful. I mean, doing press is part of the job. Not just playing golf. Letting down the tournament sponsors and pro-am folks? For "personal reasons"! Pfft!

:rolleyes:

Podge_irl

Zzippy wrote: »

Rory McIlroy pulls out of Memorial pro-am citing ‘personal reasons’



Just disgraceful. I mean, doing press is part of the job. Not just playing golf. Letting down the tournament sponsors and pro-am folks? For "personal reasons"! Pfft!

:rolleyes:

Doing press is part of the job when it is in the rules of the tournament yes.

It's a pretty terrible comparison.

sydthebeat

Zzippy wrote: »

Rory McIlroy pulls out of Memorial pro-am citing ‘personal reasons’



Just disgraceful. I mean, doing press is part of the job. Not just playing golf. Letting down the tournament sponsors and pro-am folks? For "personal reasons"! Pfft!

:rolleyes:

?? he pulled out of the competition !!

he wasnt trying to play the competition and refusing to do media work

or is there some other situation you are implicitly referring to that hasnt been widely reported?

Yeah_Right

Zzippy wrote: »

Rory McIlroy pulls out of Memorial pro-am citing ‘personal reasons’



Just disgraceful. I mean, doing press is part of the job. Not just playing golf. Letting down the tournament sponsors and pro-am folks? For "personal reasons"! Pfft!

:rolleyes:

Remember all the fuss about Joe Schmidt and press conferences? What was your take on that?

I think dealing with the media is part of the job when it comes to pro-sports. Often it is in their contracts. If they can't do that then they need to learn. Either get training or if it is a mental health issue, then get help with it. Otherwise they can't do their job properly.

If they have to pull out of a tournament/appearance for personal reasons, so be it. If they started to do it repeatedly then it becomes an issue.