Are you trying to argue that he did not place bets on the players he was marking? **Or are you arguing thst even though he did, there is no eveidence that it did affect games?** To which I would say, it doesn’t matter. Even the intent to sabotage is just as bad as it would be if he succeeded. Not sure why he’s being defended here.
The second point (bolded) is what I’m arguing. And I argue that it does matter… there is a big difference between conspiring to fix a match and then actively following through with that during the game (Tandy), vs placing incredibly stupid bets but then still playing the game as usual... I haven’t seen any evidence that Simona tanked on game day.
I don’t see why that matters. He still placed bets on his opposing number. Are we supposed to believe if his opposite number was in a scoring position that he still would have given it his all to stop him from scoring?
That’s what I believe yes, because there is no evidence to the contrary. Three scenarios:
1) a tennis player bets on his opponent, actively throws the match to win the money, and succeeds in doing so
2) a tennis player bets on his opponent, plans to actively throw the match but either does not have the opportunity or is unsuccessful
3) a tennis player bets on his opponent, so if he loses he has a sort of consolation prize. He still goes out and gives 100% effort to win the match
I believe Simona is scenario number 3, sounds like you believe 1/2\. What Simona did was incredibly stupid, but IMO it does not compare to what Tandy did, because I haven’t seen evidence of Simona throwing parts of the game, so I’m giving the benefit of the doubt (scenario 3 vs scenario 2)