softshot said:
The girls would not win.
Jasmin Suspended
- Thread starter Johnnyt
- Start date
The girls would not win.
jay helfert said:
Jays right, it was Riggs. Just read the book Fast Company and the story was in there. Great book btw. the stories about titanic thomson where worth the price alone.
jay helfert said:
Of course I don't know what's going on inside Jasmin's mind but I strongly feel if they go through with the 2 tournament fine, she might be through with the WPBA tour. It fact the one tournament fine might be enough to tip the scales that way. I really don't think she needs the WPBA, she is very well known all over the world and has so many sponsors that she looks like a walking billboard when she plays. Johnnyt
wahcheck said:
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this but, they didn't suspend Annika Sorestien (#1 female Golfer in the World) when she played a few men's events and the events weren't even Major events.....
I agree the WPBA needs to lighten up.....She isn't going anywhere WPBA so take it as an compliment that she as a woman can hang wih the fellas... It is great for the WPBA and just another slap to the face of the mens profession of pool....imo
tigerseye said:
Same with Michelle Wie who has played several men's tourneys. With no luck might I add. The difference is that Jasmin has a chance! A good one!
The WPBA could find themselves with egg on their face
The WPBA is between a rock and a hard place. They have to punish Jasmin for not following rules or the rules become meaningless. On the other hand, if punished too harshly Jasmin focuses entirely on men's events there is a fair chance that she will be recognized as the best woman in the world in the coming years. How will the WPBA look if the acknowledged best woman player in the world doesn't play on their tour? My opinion they lose a lot of prestige.
There is a fine line to walk and with so few WPBA events a year, taking Jasmin out of three may not be walking it. She lost the points from one event on her own, not considering another event in their standings while letting her play might have been adequate. Only the WPBA and Jasmin know. Jasmin hasn't proven durability yet either, she may fade and all of this be a non-issue. I don't think that likely but we have seen it happen to many a young gun. She may discover there are more important things in life than pool.
Hu
The WPBA is between a rock and a hard place. They have to punish Jasmin for not following rules or the rules become meaningless. On the other hand, if punished too harshly Jasmin focuses entirely on men's events there is a fair chance that she will be recognized as the best woman in the world in the coming years. How will the WPBA look if the acknowledged best woman player in the world doesn't play on their tour? My opinion they lose a lot of prestige.
There is a fine line to walk and with so few WPBA events a year, taking Jasmin out of three may not be walking it. She lost the points from one event on her own, not considering another event in their standings while letting her play might have been adequate. Only the WPBA and Jasmin know. Jasmin hasn't proven durability yet either, she may fade and all of this be a non-issue. I don't think that likely but we have seen it happen to many a young gun. She may discover there are more important things in life than pool.
Hu
I'll start by giving very high marks to the posters in this thread for having framed the key issues so well. This subject is one which so many of us care deeply about and it shows in our posts and remarks.
The only thing I find unsettling is that some feel that the WPBA organization is unable to understand all the issues involved. Just as we understand them, the WPBA understands all the aspects and implications of Jasmin's participation in the WTBC.
The positives, they understand, are positive press for one of their player members and potentially increased respect for women's pro pool, which could ultimately help the WPBA.
The negatives, which they also understand, are what have been taken a bit too lightly in this thread, and they are significant and substantial. Exclusive rights may be the single biggest reason that the WPBA has lasted for over 30 years. It is the reason that the WPBA representatives can approach possible title and event sponsors and obtain sanctioning fees that are large enough to fund a solid WPBA prize fund that has grown continuosly over the years and the costs of the TV productions that have helped make the WPBA a brand name in pool.
In negotiations with the venue sponsor for WPBA Oregon, the WPBA was able to promise the participation of certain players, Jasmin Ouschan among them, barring unusual contingencies such as retirement, disability, illness, or personal tragedy. In return for its commitment to deliver the product as promised, the WPBA collects a sanctioning fee from the Chinook Winds Casino in Oregon. Along with Jeanette, Jasmin is probably the most marketable player on the WPBA tour, and you can be sure that Jasmin's picture appeared on some of the posters and ads prepared by Chinook Winds advertising the event.
Now put yourself in the position of the Chinook Winds Casino in Oregon. You paid the sanctioning fee and the WPBA didn't deliver the product as defined. Headliner Jasmin Ouschan, whose image appeared in a lot of your advertising for the event, did not participate. Are you upset? You bet you are!
Now put yourself in the position of the next potential venue sponsor that the WPBA approaches in hope of signing a contract to have an event. You noticed that the sanctioning fee was paid by the Chinook Winds Casino in Oregon but the WPBA didn't deliver its best prodcut, with one of its headliners playing in another event played the very same weekend. You ask for an explanation of what real assurance you have that the women's pro pool product as promised will be delivered by the WPBA.
Now put yourself in the position of the WPBA, which must answer this uncomfortable question. The only answer you can offer that will leave you with anything but egg on your face is that the player that played in the competing event was in breach of her WPBA contract and was, therefore, insubordinate, in the matter.
So, what are we to make of all this? The fact is that there are enormous, but not necessarily obvious, implications tied to the incident with Jasmin. That's why Jasmin, in her statement, conceded that she understood that the WPBA was protecting its tour through its actions. Don't sell Jasmin short. She is wise and mature far beyond her years, and fully understands these subjects.
To those who think granting a waiver here should have been a no-brainer for the WPBA, try to appreciate all the implications of granting such a waiver.
As the waiver was not granted, Jasmin knowingly violated a policy that has been fundamental to the sustenance of the only American pro pool tour that has withstood the test of time.
P.S.
As JohnnyT wisely notes, perhaps the player contract needs a rewrite. The players themselves can propose any changes they like, and if they feel that modifications in the exclusivity and waiver rules are needed, they can propose the changes that they see fit. I leave it in the capable hands of the players to determine whether such changes are required.
The only thing I find unsettling is that some feel that the WPBA organization is unable to understand all the issues involved. Just as we understand them, the WPBA understands all the aspects and implications of Jasmin's participation in the WTBC.
The positives, they understand, are positive press for one of their player members and potentially increased respect for women's pro pool, which could ultimately help the WPBA.
The negatives, which they also understand, are what have been taken a bit too lightly in this thread, and they are significant and substantial. Exclusive rights may be the single biggest reason that the WPBA has lasted for over 30 years. It is the reason that the WPBA representatives can approach possible title and event sponsors and obtain sanctioning fees that are large enough to fund a solid WPBA prize fund that has grown continuosly over the years and the costs of the TV productions that have helped make the WPBA a brand name in pool.
In negotiations with the venue sponsor for WPBA Oregon, the WPBA was able to promise the participation of certain players, Jasmin Ouschan among them, barring unusual contingencies such as retirement, disability, illness, or personal tragedy. In return for its commitment to deliver the product as promised, the WPBA collects a sanctioning fee from the Chinook Winds Casino in Oregon. Along with Jeanette, Jasmin is probably the most marketable player on the WPBA tour, and you can be sure that Jasmin's picture appeared on some of the posters and ads prepared by Chinook Winds advertising the event.
Now put yourself in the position of the Chinook Winds Casino in Oregon. You paid the sanctioning fee and the WPBA didn't deliver the product as defined. Headliner Jasmin Ouschan, whose image appeared in a lot of your advertising for the event, did not participate. Are you upset? You bet you are!
Now put yourself in the position of the next potential venue sponsor that the WPBA approaches in hope of signing a contract to have an event. You noticed that the sanctioning fee was paid by the Chinook Winds Casino in Oregon but the WPBA didn't deliver its best prodcut, with one of its headliners playing in another event played the very same weekend. You ask for an explanation of what real assurance you have that the women's pro pool product as promised will be delivered by the WPBA.
Now put yourself in the position of the WPBA, which must answer this uncomfortable question. The only answer you can offer that will leave you with anything but egg on your face is that the player that played in the competing event was in breach of her WPBA contract and was, therefore, insubordinate, in the matter.
So, what are we to make of all this? The fact is that there are enormous, but not necessarily obvious, implications tied to the incident with Jasmin. That's why Jasmin, in her statement, conceded that she understood that the WPBA was protecting its tour through its actions. Don't sell Jasmin short. She is wise and mature far beyond her years, and fully understands these subjects.
To those who think granting a waiver here should have been a no-brainer for the WPBA, try to appreciate all the implications of granting such a waiver.
As the waiver was not granted, Jasmin knowingly violated a policy that has been fundamental to the sustenance of the only American pro pool tour that has withstood the test of time.
P.S.
As JohnnyT wisely notes, perhaps the player contract needs a rewrite. The players themselves can propose any changes they like, and if they feel that modifications in the exclusivity and waiver rules are needed, they can propose the changes that they see fit. I leave it in the capable hands of the players to determine whether such changes are required.
Last edited:
sjm said:The negatives, which they also understand, are what have been taken a bit too lightly in this thread, and they are significant and substantial. Exclusive rights may be the single biggest reason that the WPBA has lasted for over 30 years. It is the reason that the WPBA representatives can approach possible title and event sponsors and obtain sanctioning fees that are large enough to fund a solid WPBA prize fund that has grown continuosly over the years and the costs of the TV productions that have helped make the WPBA a brand name in pool.QUOTE]
Careful....Jasmin may get the big head and start asking for some appearance fees...
jay helfert said:
Maybe not, but if the girls brought their game to the table (Jasmin didn't play her best at the 14.1 tournament), it could be a very interesting match up. Jean Balukus was a threat to any professional, she didn't crack under pressure. I don't know a lot about Jasmin but if she had Jean's nerve and composure, I'm sure men would cringe if they had to play her.
Poolmouse
Jay As Usual Has It Right
GO JASMINE WIN YOUR APPEAL. JASMINE IS ONE OF FEW REAL DRAWS THE TOUR I LOVE HAS. HER SUCCESS ANY PLACE HELPS THE WPBA IN THE LONG TERM AS HOPEFULLY IT GROWS QUICKLY IN $$$$ AND ESTEEM.
jay helfert said:She played in one tournament so suspend her for one tournament. Quid pro pro. If she does it again, break her thumbs.
Not so long ago, many of the the women were crossing lines set by the WPBA to play in the IPT, including board members. Who sat in judgement of them? I must not have heard about those suspensions.
This is what's called selective enforcement of the rules.
GO JASMINE WIN YOUR APPEAL. JASMINE IS ONE OF FEW REAL DRAWS THE TOUR I LOVE HAS. HER SUCCESS ANY PLACE HELPS THE WPBA IN THE LONG TERM AS HOPEFULLY IT GROWS QUICKLY IN $$$$ AND ESTEEM.
sjm said:
TXsouthpaw said:
I just saw Billy Jean King playing the Geico Caveman!
The very nature of the WPBA's structure will always involve a difficult struggle bewteen members who most of the time fiercly compete with each other and at other times, need to do the exact opposite. It is absolutely commendable what the WPBA has accomplished over the years under nearly impossible conditions and limited resources.
I can understand why the WPBA doesn't want it's members recklessly spouting off every time they get ticked off about something, but the current policy of leaving the the opinions of interested fans to be entirely determined by hearsay and speculation just seems ten times more dangerous than any reality that might exist.
A short and simple press release that can be easily reviewed via Email and approved by a designated group of board members, should go a long way to curb any reckless speculation or one sided rumors.
I can understand why the WPBA doesn't want it's members recklessly spouting off every time they get ticked off about something, but the current policy of leaving the the opinions of interested fans to be entirely determined by hearsay and speculation just seems ten times more dangerous than any reality that might exist.
A short and simple press release that can be easily reviewed via Email and approved by a designated group of board members, should go a long way to curb any reckless speculation or one sided rumors.
Last edited:
T said:
Every other professional sports organization in America does just that, when one of its players is fined or suspended. The fans want to know why so and so isn't playing and what happened to cause their suspension. It's time the WPBA came into the 21st Century.
jay helfert said:
The WPBA has evolved, but from my point of view, they should be in a much better place than they currently are after this many years (15-16). I remember when they walked away from the US Open while playing with the men back in the early nineties. I would of thought by now matters would of been allot different, and the payouts would be substantial enough for many to "be out there" full time.
jay helfert said:
Precisely.
This is not just a fan benefit either. Right now the "code of silence" policy seems to force all WPBA members, whether they had anything at all to do with the issue or not, to unintentionally become involved dealing with questions that they really shouldn't need to be.
mnorwood said:
PGA Tour Card Holders (USA and European Tours) do have various participation rules to comply with, though would agree that none are directly comparable with Jasmin's predicament.
For example they have a set minimum number of events in which they must compete during the season otherwise they automatically lose their card for the following season, no matter how far up the order of merit they finish as a result of prize money won in those events in which they did compete. Ironically the only players this rule has ever seemed to seriously inconvenience are the high profile guys who play all around the world. Ernie Els, Greg Norman and Sergio Garcia are only three of several famous golfers who have had 'disagreements' at times with the Tour over this very rule.
Getting back to pool, a large part of the WPBA's rationale for the event non-attendance rule being discussed here is stated to be that they have to support the goal of ensuring that sponsors are given every chance of seeing a quality field. Accordingly it does not appear to be very consistent that the punishment meted out to Jasmine will by its nature achieve (for at least two events) the type of dilution of the field quality which they say their rules are seeking to avoid in the first place.
Last edited: