BBC forced to issue official apology after Inverdale's comments on Marion Bartoli

Given his penchant for rather bizarre comments during Wimbledon, it's perhaps a surprise that he hasn't been in trouble before now.

Didn't actually hear it myself at the time, but this is apparently what happened .....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/wimbledon/10164511/Wimbledon-2013-BBC-apologise-for-John-Inverdales-Bartoli-not-a-looker-comment.html

I guess it is a little insensitive, but I've watched tennis on sky where people like Stepanek have been mocked for not being the best looking and nobody batted an eyelid.

I'm not in "team Inverdale" in any way, shape or form... But this seems a little inconsistent. Plenty of media have mocked Wayne Rooney's looks over the years and I've yet to hear one apology, or seen any Twitter uproar.

Of course its inconsistent, thats the world we live in. This afternoon, women on social media were up in arms because men were tweeting about Lisicki's legs, when not even a day ago they couldnt stop themselves from drooling over Djokovic

Didn't Stepanek marry Nicole Vaidisova? She was great  

As for Inverdale, nothing surprises me with him. Poor comments to make, not needed and he deserves whatever stick comes his way.

Yeah Vaidisova... Also known for having played a few games braless... Oops  

John wrote:Didn't Stepanek marry Nicole Vaidisova? She was great  

Stepanek dated Hingis, too.

John wrote:As for Inverdale, nothing surprises me with him. Poor comments to make, not needed and he deserves whatever stick comes his way.

Bartoli was on the center court to make her racquet talk, not walking down the aisle.

He shouldn't have said that, it's insulting.

Of course there are double standards at work. I don't mind that, I think it's ok to have a pop at a guy but rude to insult a woman, but then I hold doors for ladies and things like that. I only object when people try to have it both ways. Anyone trying to tell me off for admiring Sabine Lisicki is on a loser.

Feminism is such a scam.

Double standards have to do a lot with difference in attitudes between both sexes. Women are very sensitive about things like getting called ugly. With men it's totally different. If men got told they were ugly, 50% would shrug their shoulders as they don't care about their looks at all, the other 50% wouldn't believe it as they think they are perfect as they are.

He had no rights to talk about Marion's look on a public media, he could do that on his local bar and stuff but certainly not on public media, do this muppet have guts to talk about Serena's looks? if he did he would have landed in prison by now.

He deserves stricter punishment and be sacked from his job.

mthierry wrote:Feminism is such a scam.

But you still need us, correct?

It's just rude, and coolers is right, it doesn't matter if it's a guy as we don't care.

It's just all the hypocrisy and double standards of many of the feminists I can't abide. The WTA sexualizes many of its stars in its commercials and individually, the poster faces of the tour fully exploit this sexuality for commercial gain and yet, you're viewed as some misogynist pig for daring to buy into what is being shoved in your face. It's funny not too long ago, I saw some talk show where the female hosts were making jest of an otherwise horrifying tale where a man had part of his organ clipped off by his irate wife for his infidelity. It was treated with such levity as if "the vile pig had it coming". I can just imagine the reaction if it had been males doing that on TV if a woman had been so assaulted.

Chydremion wrote:Double standards have to do a lot with difference in attitudes between both sexes. Women are very sensitive about things like getting called ugly. With men it's totally different. If men got told they were ugly, 50% would shrug their shoulders as they don't care about their looks at all, the other 50% wouldn't believe it as they think they are perfect as they are.

That is the whole reason why feminism is needed. For men their collateral remains financial... for women even in this day and age collateral is often their looks. In tennis though for women it can be their backhand. Thanks in no small part to to Billie Jean.

laverfan wrote:

mthierry wrote:Feminism is such a scam.

But you still need us, correct?

Of course, someone's got to do the dishes and ironing and cooking and cleaning. 

You're fighting biology and its pointless. We have hundreds of thousands of years of natural selection that means women assess men for suitability and give weight to ability to acquire resources and provide for them & their children, and men look for great breeding attributes.

Both look for intelligence, as that's a brilliantly accurate selector for reproductive success. That's one reason a good sense of humour is so enticing; you can't be funny and stupid.

Hawkeye, you really think women's tennis income correlates to backhand? Seriously?

That's just how it is. Go with it, it's fun.

bogbrush. Biology and Nature are enemies to be overcome. A good backhand may not completely overcome the natural order of things but its a start and it's always fun to hit one

Biology and Nature are what you are. You may as well decide its more humane to starve your kids to provide for others, but it's not going to happen.

We're just complex arrangements of matter that has hit on the practise of making copies. Once sexual reproduction became possible we got way faster evolution and here we are. It's what we do.

He shouldn't have said that, it was stupid, but it doesn't need a storm of criticism either.

When I read Inverdale's comments I could hear him saying them - could guess the exact vacuous intonation.

Boo to him - what a way to rain on someone's parade. Unchivalrous g*t!

Yep, I can see him saying it. He should stick to rugby, it's where he's at home.

The rudest one was not so much John Inverdale, who was not addressing Bartoli and was saying something that has an essential truth in a clumsy conversational fashion (i.e. she's there for the tennis not trying to trade on her looks), but the clown who confronted her with what Inverdale had said because he couldn't be ar$ed to ask a proper question or because he fell into the classic media trap of believing that what journalists say is newsworthy.

Inverdale should have done better, but was there ever any need to ask Bartoli what she thought about it when she had just achieved her dream on the tennis court (as opposed to on the catwalk)?

Inverdale's comments were out of line and he should have known better, but at the same time there is a double standard in this area. Less bad than many double standards that still discriminate against women but that doesn't make it acceptable

Is she really that unattractive by the way? probably not that different to the average for the WTA top 20 or if you picked a few random women on the street.

If you judge everyone by the standards of young underwear models most of us wouldn't do great.

Hmm, I dunno. The WTA hotties we can all think of (too often during Slams probably) are very hot. Maybe the others get forgotten.

Inverdale is an idiot.

On a broader level, I don't like the inconsistent standards of what is acceptable.

Roger Federer can do an advert where female customs officials get him to bend over so they ogle him and that is apparently seen as comedy.

Imagine the same with Sharopova and male customs officials. There'd be uproar.

Serena Williams can say in her documentary that she would never date a white guy. That's fine.

Now imagine the uproar if, for example, Novak said he'd never date a black girl. He'd be labelled a racist.

And in the example we are talking about, I bet if it were Lindsay Davenport making that comment about, say, Stepanek, there'd be very little complaining.

I understand what you are saying Murdoch, but you have to put these things into context -  in 1960s America, separation of the races was enshrined in Mississipi state law on buses, public conveniences, public places - that is living memory and prejudice is still alive and kicking in great tracks of land in the States.  I don't suppose Novak Djokovic has ever been booed by a black crowd so it would be inflamatory to say he wouldn't date a black girl - there is a lot of hurt and defiance behind Serena's comment.

It is so deeply rooted in all cultures to value a woman for her looks - otherwise the comment wouldn't have been made in the first place.  From the time we are all little girls, people remark on prettiness.  It was crass and lazily spiteful of Inverdale - I doubt many women would have been so insensitive to tell Stepanek (as the journalist who relayed Inverdale's remark to MB did) that he was unattractive in so many words.  It is not something that people feel the need to tell male players immediately after they have won a tournament they have dreamed of winning since they were a child.

Anyway, it was ridiculous.  Granted Marion is a little chubby and her hair scrapped back does not flatter her in the same way as it does an Ivanovic, but with her hair clean and loose around her face, being interviewed while she was relaxed and humorous then she looked lovely, maybe not the face that launched a 1000 ships, but she has a pleasant and intelligent and attractive face.

BTW, Lindsay Davenport has far too many manners to ever make a similar comment, though I seem to remember that many were made about her.

Rant over!  

In any case is beauty not in the eye of the beholder?

I think the key to take away from this is that Wimbledon (and rugby coverage too) would be far better if Inverdale was moved elsewhere in the BBC's workforces. Surely we can all agree on that?

time please wrote:I understand what you are saying Murdoch, but you have to put these things into context -  in 1960s America, separation of the races was enshrined in Mississipi state law on buses, public conveniences, public places - that is living memory and prejudice is still alive and kicking in great tracks of land in the States.  I don't suppose Novak Djokovic has ever been booed by a black crowd so it would be inflamatory to say he wouldn't date a black girl - there is a lot of hurt and defiance behind Serena's comment.

It is so deeply rooted in all cultures to value a woman for her looks - otherwise the comment wouldn't have been made in the first place.  From the time we are all little girls, people remark on prettiness.  It was crass and lazily spiteful of Inverdale - I doubt many women would have been so insensitive to tell Stepanek (as the journalist who relayed Inverdale's remark to MB did) that he was unattractive in so many words.  It is not something that people feel the need to tell male players immediately after they have won a tournament they have dreamed of winning since they were a child.

Anyway, it was ridiculous.  Granted Marion is a little chubby and her hair scrapped back does not flatter her in the same way as it does an Ivanovic, but with her hair clean and loose around her face, being interviewed while she was relaxed and humorous then she looked lovely, maybe not the face that launched a 1000 ships, but she has a pleasant and intelligent and attractive face.

BTW, Lindsay Davenport has far too many manners to ever make a similar comment, though I seem to remember that many were made about her.Rant over!  

First bold bit - given Stepanek's reputation with the WTA, I assume he'd come back with a comment about not needing to worry because elephants look at him and feel inferior in the trouser department  

As for Linday Davenport, she's another like Bartoli who when out on court wasn't considered attractive but who scrubs up quite well.

Actually, some of us are extraordinarily harsh about women's appearance - the abuse that Mirka Federer gets here is a prime example. Yes, she's not staggeringly beautiful like some of the trophy WAGs (Roddick's missus for example), but she'd not be considered unattractive in the real world - a good solid 6 or 7 out of 10.

I have no issues with Serena stating her preferences. I think the problem today is that we've confused opinion with violence. I wouldn't care if she said she wouldn't date a white guy because she thinks its not culturally acceptable to her. If she said its because white guys are creeps I'd say she was an idiot, but I doubt she did.

Course, I'd also defend a white guys right to express his opinion.

What Inverdale said was hurtful and rude. It was wrong to say it just out of politeness.

What people have to stop is being harmful. Short of that, let everything go. We're in an era of thought crime. It's insane.

The funny thing is that Serena is now (reportedly, by uhhh Maria) dating a white guy. Being on a world tour probably does wonders for your acceptance levels. I mean, a Madridistsa like Verdasco has/had a black guy in his camp.

Re: Invers... What a jacka$$! All this sexism talk reminds me of that Lay's ad

Re: Invers... What a jacka$$! All this sexism talk reminds me of that Lay's ad where the female cop spanks that guy...

bogbrush wrote:We're in an era of thought crime. It's insane.

We're in an era where the hobby of a great number of people is to be offended, usually on behalf of someone else.

So they should. It was not PC. As a friend of mine commented, that is something you would discuss in a pub not on air!

Facts are facts and yes, Bartoli is not a Maria Sharapova but she is a determined player and now Wimbledon Champion. A little respect won't go amiss.

Not a fan of invers. I hate him during 6 nations, mainly because him and many other bbc pundits know feck all and are generally boring old buggers

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:We're in an era of thought crime. It's insane.

We're in an era where the hobby of a great number of people is to be offended, usually on behalf of someone else.

I think those are both good points, and ones I have a lot of sympathy with in theory.

In this case, as BB says it was rude but that could have been overlooked if the boor's comments hadn't gone viral on Twitter turning a crass comment into internet bullying.

Not nice - and it is not a era specific thing for people to condemn that kind of unpleasantness. Both the comment and the condemnation are on a larger scale because of modern communications and instant response.