Pat Cash's new book details his downfall into drugs and the use by other players.

The following is one of the funniest quotes:
Cash recalls Philippoussis' former girlfriend, Anna Kournikova, demanding daily phone calls in which Philippoussis was required to tell Kournikova how beautiful she was.

Oh Anna you are so beautiful.....

If Mark needs a call, I am willing to do it....

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: bostonlob ]

He names names about which people used drugs? That sounds rather unprofessional. Eh, Pat Cash just needs to make sure McEnroe's book isn't the only one on the market.

Speaking of Johnny Mac's book, is it out yet? If so, has anyone read it? Entertainment Weekly gave it a good review, for whatever thats worth.

As for Cash's book, I don't think I like the notion of him "outing" recreational drug users, or anyone else for that matter. Not really his place to name names, IMO.

It's not his place? Every other media moron can write about whoever they want and an actual player can't? Come on..If he wants to write a tell all especially if it chronicles what mistakes he made, and what mistakes future young athletes shouldn't make..than by all means, name some names..let's hear all about the madness behind the fame and glory...

I'm curious about why some believe it's not Cash's (or any other player's) place to name names when it comes to drug use. If you choose to break the law, then you bring upon yourself all sorts of possible consequences. Why should a person who engages in illegal activity be entitled to some code of confidentiality? As long as Cash reports only things he's sure of (e.g., saw himself that person buy or take drugs as opposed to rumor and hearsay), I see no problem with it.

Well I guess I just put myself in their position and think I'd rather someone wasn't taking notes on what I've been doing, whether illegal (of course this discounts some serious crime like rape or murder)or just embarrassing. I'd like to think I am entitled to my privacy when it comes to some youthful indiscretions. So if I think I am, I gotta believe Cash's fellow players are as well. Just because someone has the right to do something, doesn't mean its the right thing to do. Would you want someone you knew in your past reporting whatever you may have done that you are not particularly proud of? Otherwise our friends become nothing more than Ntional Enquirer reporters.

[ June 21, 2002: Message edited by: George_vikingfan ]

I guess where our opinions diverge is that I do believe that recreational drug use is a serious crime. Drug dealers, suppliers, and traffickers are the scum of the earth: they sell to children who are way too young to know better, they destroy neighborhoods, they terrorize communities, they murder police/FBI/DEA, they murder witnesses, or even innocent bystanders. You might rationalize that your drug dealer is pretty harmless, but you have no idea what kind of nefarious activity or scum-of-the-earth characters were involved in getting the drugs from the original source to your dealer. And do you think drug users give a flying f**king shit about any of this? Hell no. The only thing that matters is their own selfish pleasure. Their money is feeding an industry that causes untold destruction of human life? So the f**k what? Recreational drug users care only about themselves ... "it's ALL about ME!!"

We're not talking about a married player who cheated on his wife, or a player with rather unusual sexual fetishes who indulged them with an endless stream of groupies. Yes, there are many things that are private and should stay that way. But in my opinion, a drug user, someone so uncaring and callous about the eventual toll their selfish pursuit of pleasure inflicts on others, loses all rights to privacy.

First off, I don't have a drug dealer as I don't use drugs of any kind, unless a bartender counts as a pusher. I won't get into a debate about the drug problem, as that's not really the topic and may be better done in another thread.

However, if Pat Cash were so concerned with the issues you mentioned, he would have notified the proper authorities instead of saving it all up so he could sell a few books. And if he was partaking in the festivities, then he's a hypocrite to boot.

I didn't mean you specifically, I meant "you" as a general term. Perhaps I should have used "one", but that always struck me as horribly pedantic.

First of all, police usually don't bother to arrest casual users. Second, if Cash had turned them in, he would have been a pariah on the tour.

You (specifically) seem to be quite concerned about the "rights" of drug users and their selfish pursuit of pleasure. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. In my opinion, these users (selfish f**ks) knowingly violated the law, with callous disregard as to how they hurt other people. If their selfish pursuit of pleasure comes back around to bite them in the ass, tough shit. They deserve whatever they have coming to them, and then some. Again, we're not talking about something like marital infidelity or indulgence with groupies. Such things are private, and that privacy should be respected. While such behavior may or may not be immoral (who knows? maybe the guy has an open marriage?), it is not illegal, and therefore in a different realm.

As for the dismissal of drug use to "youthful indiscretions", spare me. Whether you (general "you") are 18 or 88, that's no excuse. At 18 you're of the age of consent, you're old enough to vote, and old enough to die for your country. Even at a young age, a drug user knows exactly what he's doing. He's making his own pleasure as paramount, and he doesn't give a shit whom he hurts. Selfish f**ks like that don't deserve any so-called "rights".

Wow. BoSox. Recreational drug use is far more horrible than infidelity? And less private? What's it all about, BoSox? Is all this anger based on a specific incident or observation?
When you start suggesting that a person's rights should be suspended because of what you view as selfish behavior, well, you're getting into dangerous territory. Is this based on the propaganda the government put out in those commercials a few months ago? Or, I suspect, something far more personal?

[ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: bryan d. ]

It's nothing personal. It's just disgust at a liberal society's acceptance of recreational drug use. As I stated earlier, and as you know whether or not you're willing to acknowledge as much, recreational drug use feeds money into an industry that is responsible for selling drugs to children who are far too young to know better, destroying families/neighborhoods/communities, murdering witnesses, law enforcement officers, and even innocent bystanders. The individual drug user blithely ignores all this damage for which he is indirectly responsible because he thinks of nothing and no one else except his own selfish pleasure. A liberal society works as an accomplice. Mention of recreational drug use usually gets a wink and a nod, if not an outright high-five.

But any notions of personal responsibility are ignored by liberals. The devastation that drugs wreak is all society's fault. No one brings up fact that drug use is a choice, and that by making that choice, you are a knowing/willing accomplice to child abuse, to the destruction of human lives/families/communities, and to murder.

I fully respect an individual's right to privacy, but do you (speaking in the general sense here) think that right is limitless and all-encompassing? If you commit murder in the "privacy" of your home, are you any less guilty? Should you be immune from society's judgment and the legal system's prosecution because of your rights to privacy? If you commit a crime, I don't believe you have any rights to privacy. I don't believe that the crime of drug use should be an exception, and am baffled as to why the hell anybody could possibly believe that drug use is somehow protected by any rights of privacy. Criminals are subject to stigma in our society, and rightfully so. I just wish that drug users (who are criminals, lest we forget) faced the same fate, and if some tell-all book works to that end, fine by me.

With the hypothetical case of tennis players and marital infidelity, perhaps the couple has an open marriage. Perhaps she cheated on him first and he's trying to exact some revenge. Whatever's going on, it's between the two of them, and they are entitled to their privacy because it's their business, certainly none of mine. In contrast, when someone buys and uses drugs, I know for a fact that they are hurting other people. And yes, it is my business because I must live in a society that is damaged by drugs in so many ways.

If you want to believe that recreational drug use is cute, something that deserves a smirk instead of disapproval, that drug users are somehow entitled to "their fun", and that all this is must be completely protected by an unconditional right to privacy, that's your opinion. I have mine. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

My problem is the line between whats legal and whats not. Lets face it, prescription drug abuse is a huge problem as well. And there are many people getting filthy rich off that-doctors, investors all under the guise of helping people. Pharmaceutical companies make the most obscene profits imaginable. And yet its all condoned by the law.

I personally don't see whats gained by us knowing who did what 15 years ago. The issues you raise are important, but what do Cash's revelations do to improve that? Are we somehow going to be better off knowing Jose Luis Clerc smoked a joint or Henri Leconte snorted some coke? Sorry, but its none of my business.

[ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: George_vikingfan ]

Again, spare me the bullshit rationalizations. How does prescription drug abuse and whatever goes on with that in any way change the fact that a when a person indulges in illegal recreational drugs, he is selfishly putting his personal pleasure ahead of the unspeakable harm that the industry of illegal drugs inflict? The fact remains: illegal drugs are just that, ILLEGAL. And as long as drug dealing and trafficking remains a multibillion dollar illegal industry, the drug industry will continue to destroy and murder, and any user knowingly and willingly makes himself an accomplice. And any academic discussions about the legalization of drugs are just that, academic. You can deal with reality or you can deal with theory. In the world as it is, "recreational" drugs are illegal. Deal with it, and accept some f**king personal responsibility.

What good does it do to reveal recreational drug use? The criminals (remember, they are criminals) named will suffer some social stigma. The stigma might result in a decrease of the player's popularity, damage to his endorsement earnings, or at the very least give him some public embarrassment.

With liberalism run amok, no one is responsible for anything, and everything is society's fault. "Oh, if we just impose enough taxes and create enough government programs, all our problems would be solved for us." Again, I say BULLSHIT. We have to take some responsibility and set about solving our own problems. People make their own decisions, and the consequences of those decisions are what determine a society's welfare. If social stigma does something to deter recreational drug use, I say bring it on.

While you make several thought-provoking points, and the damage that drugs and alcohol can do is monumental, I find your calling a casual pot-smoker, who say smokes weed grown in a northern california field, a criminal a bit excessive. Alcohol causes far more problems in our society and in our families than recreational drugs ever have and yet it's legal and acceptable and creates far more winks and nods on a daily basis. That's an hypocrisy far worse and more often perpetuated than any regarding drug usage.
Mankind has shown the need to alter their consciousness throughout recorded history. Whereas many societies had different rituals and ceremonies where they would guide their consciousness changing activities, we have the weekend party.
The hypocrisy lies in governments and their people being unable to have a dialogue about the reality of drug usage: people want to engage in recreational drug use, that's a fact. Is it a minefield? Absolutely. Do I recommend, encourage, or endorse recreational drug usage? Absolutely not. But, until the dialogue regarding this subject becomes more honest and less politically driven, I can't endorse or agree with such a hard line dogmatic point of view such as yours, BoSox.
Alcohol and Guns may be legal but they're far more lethal and damaging to our country's youth than any recreational drug. The black and white approach to this issue has again and again proven futile. The War on Drugs is political propaganda and anyone who blindly endorses it is simply turning a blind eye to reality.

let me see if I'm understanding you: guns and alcohol cause far more damage, so that makes the purchase and use of recreational illegal drugs kinda sorta in a way not so bad and maybe even kinda sorta in a way OK? Again, spare me the SELFISH bullshit rationalizations.

Don't get me wrong. I actually have no problem with a guy growing a few pot plants in his basement, getting high off the fruits of his labor, and even inviting a few friends over and having a very mellow time. There is nothing wrong with that. The problem lies with the supply chain. I recently saw an interview with a mother who was devastated over the murder of her (adult) son. As it turns out, the son was a medium-scale pot dealer, and he was killed over ... well, whatever drug dealers/suppliers kill each other over. Since the police had a few leads but ultimately could not make a case against anyone, the murderer runs free, probably still dealing/trafficicking drugs. This kind of story happens in the illegal drug trade all the time, every single day. While a drug user might know his dealer well enough to know he's OK, he has no idea who else is involved in the process. For example, X users in Arizona lined the pockets of Sammy "The Bull" Giammalva, who continued his murdering ways while he controlled a monopoly over almost the entire state's X trade.

Talk and discussion is all well and good, as long as you deal with the world as it is as opposed to living in intellectual theories and academic debates, something I don't believe those with liberal drug attitudes do. But doesn't personal responsibility have any kind of place or significance here??? Until the day comes that your (speaking in the general sense) recreational drug of choice is made legal, you have to accept the reality that your pursuit of pleasure fuels an industry that destroys human lives.

If you believe that talk and discussion and bantering about in the realm of intellectual theories is the solution to the destruction that drugs inflict, like I said, that's your opinion and you're entitled. I believe that if more drug users directly confronted the consequences of their drug use (just as a person who drove drunk and killed someone must face the victim's family, or an idiot who left a loaded gun lying around must confront a child's death by accidental gunshot), the damage done by drugs, while it may not disappear entirely, would significantly diminish. I'm not big on theory and academic debate. I'm far more focused on personal responsibility, and if more people accepted personal responsibility, we'd live in a far better society. That's my opinion. Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree.