Riyadh Season World Masters

mantorok wrote:@botty next event

Championship League - Winners' Group (Invitational) - Tuesday, March 12, 2024 to Wednesday, March 13, 2024
Morningside Arena in Leicester, England
Defending Champion: John Higgins.

underwhelming, the whole thing.

Graeme Bott wrote:

mantorok wrote:@botty next event

Championship League - Winners' Group (Invitational) - Tuesday, March 12, 2024 to Wednesday, March 13, 2024
Morningside Arena in Leicester, England
Defending Champion: John Higgins.

YES!

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/other-sp ... 290731.amp

Click the link, fools.

Yeah, we’re not clicking that.

Reg Varney wrote:

Holden Chinaski wrote:Vodkadiet seems a bit jealous to me. His obsession with Ronnie O'Sullivan can't be healthy. He's been posting about Ronnie for decades now, seems like a waste of life. It's sad and depressing.

He's not the only one. There are a few posters on here who have an obsession with disliking O'Sullivan. You don't like the guy? Fine; ignore him, turn him off, don't watch him, don't listen to him, don't read articles about him, yet these people seem to hate-read, hate-watch, hate-listen to him, so they can then find more things to moan and complain about. It's unhealthy and surely they can find better things to do with their time?

To be fair there are plenty of people that do that with Judd as well.

Guys, guys.

There's room in the world for them both to be annoying.

Nice to see Tatianna referee the final. How did that happen? It's great obviously but I didn't think it'd be allowed

Graeme Bott wrote:

mantorok wrote:@botty next event

Championship League - Winners' Group (Invitational) - Tuesday, March 12, 2024 to Wednesday, March 13, 2024
Morningside Arena in Leicester, England
Defending Champion: John Higgins.

botty next real event

Dragonfly wrote:Nice to see Tatianna referee the final. How did that happen? It's great obviously but I didn't think it'd be allowed

They’re willing to compromise somewhat in terms of their customs and laws in order to facilitate the wash. Greasing the wheels a bit.

It’s all in the details. They saw an opportunity to appear progressive and quieten the narrative around Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women. It was done without any fanfare, all quite matter-of-fact, but make no mistake - it was a deliberate and strategic decision to have Tatianna reffing. And those complicit in the operation (presenters, broadcasters) deliberately chose (or were advised) not to make a point about it*.

There’s a section of society who are fully aware of Saudi Arabia’s human rights record, fully aware of their sports washing campaigns, and probably see through it all.

There’s also a section of society who are vaguely aware of the human rights issues, possibly under-informed of the concept of sports washing, who now feel that Tatianna’s inclusion might be a sign of positive change, or even proof that the human rights issues are overblown, and that “they’re not that bad, really”.

That second group is of value to those doing the washing. A bit of cash here, a few little tweaks to the presentation, a bit more cash there, control perception; and plenty will turn a blind eye. They don’t even need everyone to turn a blind eye. Far from it, and they know that’s impossible, anyway. They only need enough for the circus to remain sustainable.

*It’s worth mentioning that I’m in no way criticising Tatianna. In truth, without knowing how she saw herself in the big picture, it’s impossible to say what’s right or wrong on a personal level. If anything, I’d say it was probably not the easiest decision she’s ever made. There are positive and negative implications. But again, we don’t know her motives or how she feels about it. In itself, a woman participating as a referee is positive change. It’s just a shame it comes with so many doubts.

Good post, Prop.

Graeme Bott wrote:

mantorok wrote:@botty next event

Championship League - Winners' Group (Invitational) - Tuesday, March 12, 2024 to Wednesday, March 13, 2024
Morningside Arena in Leicester, England
Defending Champion: John Higgins.

@botty next proper event

Juddernaut88 wrote:

Reg Varney wrote:

Holden Chinaski wrote:Vodkadiet seems a bit jealous to me. His obsession with Ronnie O'Sullivan can't be healthy. He's been posting about Ronnie for decades now, seems like a waste of life. It's sad and depressing.

He's not the only one. There are a few posters on here who have an obsession with disliking O'Sullivan. You don't like the guy? Fine; ignore him, turn him off, don't watch him, don't listen to him, don't read articles about him, yet these people seem to hate-read, hate-watch, hate-listen to him, so they can then find more things to moan and complain about. It's unhealthy and surely they can find better things to do with their time?

To be fair there are plenty of people that do that with Judd as well.

And Smurph, for sure.

Very odd behaviour, can't quite get my head around it. Still, keeps them off the streets I guess.

D4P wrote:Good post, Prop.

Seconded

Juddernaut88 wrote:

Reg Varney wrote:

Holden Chinaski wrote:Vodkadiet seems a bit jealous to me. His obsession with Ronnie O'Sullivan can't be healthy. He's been posting about Ronnie for decades now, seems like a waste of life. It's sad and depressing.

He's not the only one. There are a few posters on here who have an obsession with disliking O'Sullivan. You don't like the guy? Fine; ignore him, turn him off, don't watch him, don't listen to him, don't read articles about him, yet these people seem to hate-read, hate-watch, hate-listen to him, so they can then find more things to moan and complain about. It's unhealthy and surely they can find better things to do with their time?

To be fair there are plenty of people that do that with Judd as well.

There are posters here who for decades have only logged on to hate on Judd in insane tirades?

Sometimes I get why Ronnie is a bit weird. How would you feel if you had online psycho stalkers such as Vodkadiet who seem to be obsessed with you? It’s frightening.

Prop wrote:

Dragonfly wrote:Nice to see Tatianna referee the final. How did that happen? It's great obviously but I didn't think it'd be allowed

They’re willing to compromise somewhat in terms of their customs and laws in order to facilitate the wash. Greasing the wheels a bit.

It’s all in the details. They saw an opportunity to appear progressive and quieten the narrative around Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women. It was done without any fanfare, all quite matter-of-fact, but make no mistake - it was a deliberate and strategic decision to have Tatianna reffing. And those complicit in the operation (presenters, broadcasters) deliberately chose (or were advised) not to make a point about it*.

There’s a section of society who are fully aware of Saudi Arabia’s human rights record, fully aware of their sports washing campaigns, and probably see through it all.

There’s also a section of society who are vaguely aware of the human rights issues, possibly under-informed of the concept of sports washing, who now feel that Tatianna’s inclusion might be a sign of positive change, or even proof that the human rights issues are overblown, and that “they’re not that bad, really”.

That second group is of value to those doing the washing. A bit of cash here, a few little tweaks to the presentation, a bit more cash there, control perception; and plenty will turn a blind eye. They don’t even need everyone to turn a blind eye. Far from it, and they know that’s impossible, anyway. They only need enough for the circus to remain sustainable.

*It’s worth mentioning that I’m in no way criticising Tatianna. In truth, without knowing how she saw herself in the big picture, it’s impossible to say what’s right or wrong on a personal level. If anything, I’d say it was probably not the easiest decision she’s ever made. There are positive and negative implications. But again, we don’t know her motives or how she feels about it. In itself, a woman participating as a referee is positive change. It’s just a shame it comes with so many doubts.

Top post. It is indeed good to see Tatianna ref the final, but yeah it sure does have doubts attached.
I guess it's the Saudis saying "hey look at how progressive and Liberal we are now". Away from the cameras probably very little will change.

So what was it, the Worlds top 8 players or whatever got invited. I'm curious to know what would happen if one of those elite players was openly gay. Would he have got an invite? Even if he did how would he have been treated on arrival. Would snooker authorities have warned him don't be so open?!

I think that the whole thing was crass. I didn't watch much of it, but it was gaudy, and the sight of those guys strolling around during Higgins 167 attempt was truly awful. I won't be counting it as a major win for O'Sullivan. Not that he cares, he's even richer now, and loves Saudi culture it seems!

Prop wrote:

Dragonfly wrote:Nice to see Tatianna referee the final. How did that happen? It's great obviously but I didn't think it'd be allowed

They’re willing to compromise somewhat in terms of their customs and laws in order to facilitate the wash. Greasing the wheels a bit.

It’s all in the details. They saw an opportunity to appear progressive and quieten the narrative around Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women. It was done without any fanfare, all quite matter-of-fact, but make no mistake - it was a deliberate and strategic decision to have Tatianna reffing. And those complicit in the operation (presenters, broadcasters) deliberately chose (or were advised) not to make a point about it*.

There’s a section of society who are fully aware of Saudi Arabia’s human rights record, fully aware of their sports washing campaigns, and probably see through it all.

There’s also a section of society who are vaguely aware of the human rights issues, possibly under-informed of the concept of sports washing, who now feel that Tatianna’s inclusion might be a sign of positive change, or even proof that the human rights issues are overblown, and that “they’re not that bad, really”.

That second group is of value to those doing the washing. A bit of cash here, a few little tweaks to the presentation, a bit more cash there, control perception; and plenty will turn a blind eye. They don’t even need everyone to turn a blind eye. Far from it, and they know that’s impossible, anyway. They only need enough for the circus to remain sustainable.

*It’s worth mentioning that I’m in no way criticising Tatianna. In truth, without knowing how she saw herself in the big picture, it’s impossible to say what’s right or wrong on a personal level. If anything, I’d say it was probably not the easiest decision she’s ever made. There are positive and negative implications. But again, we don’t know her motives or how she feels about it. In itself, a woman participating as a referee is positive change. It’s just a shame it comes with so many doubts.

If the players should be criticised then Tatiana absolutey should also be.

Holden Chinaski wrote:

FoulNMiss wrote:

Prop wrote:

FoulNMiss wrote:Didn't know Luca had Sardinian origins.

Gianluca.

Italian origins were obvious, Sardinian specifically was hard to guess.

Luca is from an area in Belgium where lots of people have Italian roots. Their Italian ancestors moved there to work in the mines.

To be honest I thought this was more specific to Wallonia, especially the area around Charleroi.

Iranu wrote:

Prop wrote:

Dragonfly wrote:Nice to see Tatianna referee the final. How did that happen? It's great obviously but I didn't think it'd be allowed

They’re willing to compromise somewhat in terms of their customs and laws in order to facilitate the wash. Greasing the wheels a bit.

It’s all in the details. They saw an opportunity to appear progressive and quieten the narrative around Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women. It was done without any fanfare, all quite matter-of-fact, but make no mistake - it was a deliberate and strategic decision to have Tatianna reffing. And those complicit in the operation (presenters, broadcasters) deliberately chose (or were advised) not to make a point about it*.

There’s a section of society who are fully aware of Saudi Arabia’s human rights record, fully aware of their sports washing campaigns, and probably see through it all.

There’s also a section of society who are vaguely aware of the human rights issues, possibly under-informed of the concept of sports washing, who now feel that Tatianna’s inclusion might be a sign of positive change, or even proof that the human rights issues are overblown, and that “they’re not that bad, really”.

That second group is of value to those doing the washing. A bit of cash here, a few little tweaks to the presentation, a bit more cash there, control perception; and plenty will turn a blind eye. They don’t even need everyone to turn a blind eye. Far from it, and they know that’s impossible, anyway. They only need enough for the circus to remain sustainable.

*It’s worth mentioning that I’m in no way criticising Tatianna. In truth, without knowing how she saw herself in the big picture, it’s impossible to say what’s right or wrong on a personal level. If anything, I’d say it was probably not the easiest decision she’s ever made. There are positive and negative implications. But again, we don’t know her motives or how she feels about it. In itself, a woman participating as a referee is positive change. It’s just a shame it comes with so many doubts.

If the players should be criticised then Tatiana absolutey should also be.

Perhaps she is of the view that she was making a point or statement for women.

Iranu wrote:

Prop wrote:

Dragonfly wrote:Nice to see Tatianna referee the final. How did that happen? It's great obviously but I didn't think it'd be allowed

They’re willing to compromise somewhat in terms of their customs and laws in order to facilitate the wash. Greasing the wheels a bit.

It’s all in the details. They saw an opportunity to appear progressive and quieten the narrative around Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women. It was done without any fanfare, all quite matter-of-fact, but make no mistake - it was a deliberate and strategic decision to have Tatianna reffing. And those complicit in the operation (presenters, broadcasters) deliberately chose (or were advised) not to make a point about it*.

There’s a section of society who are fully aware of Saudi Arabia’s human rights record, fully aware of their sports washing campaigns, and probably see through it all.

There’s also a section of society who are vaguely aware of the human rights issues, possibly under-informed of the concept of sports washing, who now feel that Tatianna’s inclusion might be a sign of positive change, or even proof that the human rights issues are overblown, and that “they’re not that bad, really”.

That second group is of value to those doing the washing. A bit of cash here, a few little tweaks to the presentation, a bit more cash there, control perception; and plenty will turn a blind eye. They don’t even need everyone to turn a blind eye. Far from it, and they know that’s impossible, anyway. They only need enough for the circus to remain sustainable.

*It’s worth mentioning that I’m in no way criticising Tatianna. In truth, without knowing how she saw herself in the big picture, it’s impossible to say what’s right or wrong on a personal level. If anything, I’d say it was probably not the easiest decision she’s ever made. There are positive and negative implications. But again, we don’t know her motives or how she feels about it. In itself, a woman participating as a referee is positive change. It’s just a shame it comes with so many doubts.

If the players should be criticised then Tatiana absolutey should also be.

This is the thing. Is she complicit in creating a facade? Or was it a sincere gesture on her part towards positive and meaningful change? I know what I’d guess, but my hunch means nothing without knowing her intentions. Furthermore, her intentions will only ever go so far as long as the people pulling the strings have other ideas.

Prop wrote:This is the thing. Is she complicit in creating a facade? Or was it a sincere gesture on her part towards positive and meaningful change? I know what I’d guess, but my hunch means nothing without knowing her intentions. Furthermore, her intentions will only ever go so far as long as the people pulling the strings have other ideas.

She’s no less complicit than the players are, is my point.

She’s a human being with her own agency and though you’re right and her intentions may be different, the end result isn’t. I doubt she’s too stupid to recognise the superficiality that we all have.

That’s not to say I find the players particularly complicit or otherwise.

Iranu wrote:

Prop wrote:This is the thing. Is she complicit in creating a facade? Or was it a sincere gesture on her part towards positive and meaningful change? I know what I’d guess, but my hunch means nothing without knowing her intentions. Furthermore, her intentions will only ever go so far as long as the people pulling the strings have other ideas.

She’s no less complicit than the players are, is my point.

She’s a human being with her own agency and though you’re right and her intentions may be different, the end result isn’t. I doubt she’s too stupid to recognise the superficiality that we all have.

That’s not to say I find the players particularly complicit or otherwise.

Yep. This is what I was getting at regarding the people pulling the strings.

Tomorrow night's Anthony Joshua fight is also in Riyadh.

O'Sullivan said something mildly ridiculous after taking his 'blood money' akin to 'everyone wants to come to Riyadh.' Cringeworthy on a major scale. Bill Hicks used to call it 'Sucking Satan's pecker.'

It isn't just O'Sullivan who should be singled out for criticism. They are all guilty of immorality in playing in Saudi Arabia.

But O'Sullivan is easily the richest player in snooker and the number one box office draw. The money should be irrelevant to him. We're all dead soon enough.

He had the chance to make a stance by declining to play and that may have brought more attention to Saudi Arabia and their human rights record and their continuing obliteration of Yemenis. Instead he succumbed to selling his soul because of money he will never need.

Then again he isn't the brightest spark so he may not even be aware of Saudi Arabia and the regime he condoned by dressing up like a Sheikh and playing in their event.

It would be interesting to see how many players show some morality and backbone and don't support the much bigger event later this year.

A dark day for snooker.

Bill Hicks mention.

Everybody drink.

'Everyone wants to come to Riyadh.'

On March 11, 2002, 15 young girls were left to die in a fire at their school in Mecca. They could have escaped the fire but were not allowed to flee the burning building as they were not wearing proper ‘Islamic’ clothes. Saudi Arabia’s Religious Police prevented the Civil Defense Officers from entering the school to save the girls and stopped the girls from coming out of the building....

But money though....

vodkadiet1 wrote:He had the chance to make a stance by declining to play and that may have brought more attention to Saudi Arabia and their human rights record and their continuing obliteration of Yemenis. Instead he succumbed to selling his soul because of money he will never need.

Then again he isn't the brightest spark so he may not even be aware of Saudi Arabia and the regime he condoned by dressing up like a Sheikh and playing in their event.

I think it's more a case of ignorance than soul-selling. Snooker players are presumably not a very educated group of people. Most of them (including Ronnie, for sure) probably dropped out of high school to pursue a snooker career...

ADDENDUM: That isn't to imply that "ignorance" would be an acceptable excuse. Ignorance is often willful, especially if remaining ignorant means you can feel comfortable with making money that you wouldn't feel comfortable making if you weren't ignorant

D4P wrote:

vodkadiet1 wrote:He had the chance to make a stance by declining to play and that may have brought more attention to Saudi Arabia and their human rights record and their continuing obliteration of Yemenis. Instead he succumbed to selling his soul because of money he will never need.

Then again he isn't the brightest spark so he may not even be aware of Saudi Arabia and the regime he condoned by dressing up like a Sheikh and playing in their event.

I think it's more a case of ignorance than soul-selling. Snooker players are presumably not a very educated group of people. Most of them (including Ronnie, for sure) probably dropped out of high school to pursue a snooker career...

ADDENDUM: That isn't to imply that "ignorance" would be an acceptable excuse. Ignorance is often willful, especially if remaining ignorant means you can feel comfortable with making money that you wouldn't feel comfortable making if you weren't ignorant

This is probably true to a large extent.

World Snooker authorities should shoulder most of the responsibility. Many who decided to stage these events in Saudi Arabia must know all about their atrocities and yet they chose to prostitute the game.

And these authorities are the same that ban a player for a decade for throwing a match.

World Snooker are collective hypocrites of the highest order.

I have no problem with calling out Saudi Arabia. In fact, fair play to anyone who does. If a player or referee or whoever boycotts a tournament in Saudi Arabia I'll think more of them, not less, obviously.

But they are going to have to face some sticky questions. What's their objection? Is it the death penalty? Just because Saudi Arabia beheads people doesn't make them worse than China, who put miles more people to death. How many tournaments have we had in China now? How many times have we called for a boycott of Chinese tournaments on here?

As far as I know, women and gay people have an easier time in China than they do in Saudi Arabia. But is that the same as saying they have it easy compared to us in Britain and Ireland? Maybe some of our Chinese based posters here like Chengdufan can fill us in, I've never even been to China, so I don't know.

We know Saudi Arabia isn't even close to a democratic country. But, again, China!

None of this is a reason not to speak out or protest, but anyone who does is going to have to come out strongly against China as well, and when they do so, they're going to have to explain why it took a Saudi tournament to put a fire under their bottom about China. That bit might be uncomfortable.