Why do people say LP's should be banned?

[NextLevel]

The LARC is a list of approved racket coverings. When it comes to pips-in rubbers, a racket covering is always both a rubber and a sponge (since it is not legal to use pips-in rubber without a sponge), So, in the case of pips-in rubbers, the LARC is encompassing both the rubber and the sponge because it is always a rubber and an attached sponge that is sent for approval. Rule 2.4.7 prohibits post-manufacture chemical, physical or other treatments to racket coverings (not just the upper rubber!), therefore you as a player cannot boost the sponge.

The LARC are tested as a rubber and a sponge, but in reality the manufacturers are able to send in topsheets with a particular sponge for approval and sell other things combinations using the same topsheet. They are not forced to submit every single combination of rubber and sponge for testing and approval. If you believe my interpretation is wrong (based on my experience using rubbers) or that things have changed, please explain or point to the basis of your disagreement. I did not see a LARC entry for every different sponge hardness or type under Hurricane 3, but to be fair, I haven't checked recently.

 

[Johnniedarko]

So, you again imply that once the factory boosting wears off from my Rasanter 53 I must boost it, otherwise it's something different from what was presented to ITTF. Well, if you say so 🤷🏻‍♂️

Unless you partake in corporate espionage, you can't prove you 'restored' it to factory spec or made something new altogether. So you'd need to get LARC approval for this new invention.

And yes, also every time you sweat on it.

 

[NextLevel]

Unless you partake in corporate espionage, you can't prove you 'restored' it to factory spec or made something new altogether. So you'd need to get LARC approval for this new invention.

And yes, also every time you sweat on it.

And maybe every time you glue it at well. Isn't gluing a chemical treatment? Especially when some of these glues have different levels of adhesion with the sponge and the blade?

 

[ViperTableTennis]

Do you acknowledge that following that rule as written would prohibit a large number of perfectly reasonable things that you and all players do that would be deemed perfectly legai by you and which you have argued are perfectly legal based on the same rule?

Potentially yes. Please refer to post number 238 where I touched upon this issue and wrote the following:

"...in practice any rule enforcement process by a governing body will always go beyond the wording and introduce additional context etc. I would like to think most table tennis players can understand that there is a clear and qualitative difference between (a) using a rubber cleaner to restore the rubbers original playing characteristics, and (b) using some form of treatment to change the rubbers original/intended playing characteristics. And I'm pretty confident that ITTF would rule that (a) is acceptable but that (b) is not".

 

[Johnniedarko]

Usually I judge by whether people are liking your posts. My discussing with you is just about the last word phenomenon, your arguments are precisely the kind that most serious organizations gave up on using years ago in their ethical manuals. By this I mean that if you join an association of chartered accountants , they try to make sure their ethical instructions are practical, not deontological. Don't confuse that with taking you seriously.

This seems a bit harsh. It's not Vipers fault that the rule exists in its current form. I like Vipers adherence to clean logic, I was just late to like his posts

This discussion is about many things at once:
- Is boosting allowed?
- Is rubber cleaning allowed?
- Is the rule clear?
- Is the rule fair?
- Is the rule enforcable?
- Should we adhere to a unfair rule?
- Should we adhere to an unfair rule ehen nobody else does?

Viper has been debating point 3: "Is it clear?" And I summarise his point as: Yes, as written everything is forbidden. Boosting is definitely forbidden, the rest is forbidden as written but probably intended to be allowed."

I find this hard to disagree with. If you forbid everything, then booster is definitely also forbidden. Like the law against being a "public disturbance". Vague as hell, and police can use it for whenever deemed necessary.

I think everyone is actually agreeing with each other. Viper is more concerned with the literal clearness, and 'the others' are debating the usefulness and fairness. Which are both true.

Edit: some words

 

[Johnniedarko]

And maybe every time you glue it at well. Isn't gluing a chemical treatment? Especially when some of these glues have different levels of adhesion with the sponge and the blade?

Definitely. Maybe much moreso than boosting. If I understand correctly, boosting is a soluable process that turns solid sponge into liquid and adding air pockets. As the oil very slowly evaporates, the dissolved sponge particles become solids again, squeezed in the shrinking sponge. That's less permanent than the permanent chemical change of a glue bond on the sponge and the "sponge function" (esp. lateral elasticity) the glue layer has.

Edit: to be clear, this is just my mental picture based on some forum posts. I don't know what boosting really does.

 

[ViperTableTennis]

The LARC are tested as a rubber and a sponge, but in reality the manufacturers are able to send in topsheets with a particular sponge for approval and sell other things combinations using the same topsheet. They are not forced to submit every single combination of rubber and sponge for testing and approval. If you believe my interpretation is wrong (based on my experience using rubbers) or that things have changed, please explain or point to the basis of your disagreement. I did not see a LARC entry for every different sponge hardness or type under Hurricane 3, but to be fair, I haven't checked recently.

But the salient point is that regardless of what sponge gets paired with the rubber top sheet, it is necessarily the totality of that pairing that constitutes the racket covering when it comes to pips-in rubbers...and since 2.4.7 prohibits after-manufacture treatment of the racket covering, then that means you cannot carry out a post-manufacture boosting to the sponge, because the sponge is part of the racket covering. Unless, of course, you can somehow argue that applying booster isn't a form of 'treatment'.

 

[NextLevel]

This seems a bit harsh. It's not Vipers fault that the rule exists in its current form. I like Vipers adherence to clean logic, I was just late to like his posts

This discussion is about many things at once:
- Is boosting allowed?
- Is rubber cleaning allowed?
- Is the rule clear?
- Is the rule fair?
- Is the rule enforcable?
- Should we adhere to a unfair rule?
- Should we adhere to an unfair rule ehen nobody else does?

Viper has been debating point 3: "Is it clear?" And I summarise his point as: Yes, as written everything is forbidden. Boosting is definitely forbidden, the rest is forbidden as written but probably intended to be allowed."

I find this hard to disagree with. If you forbid everything, then booster is definitely also forbidden. Like the law against being a "public disturbance". Vague as hell, and police can use it for whenever deemed necessary.

I think everyone is actually agreeing with each other. Viper is more concerned with the literal clearness, and 'the others' are debating the usefulness and fairness. Which are both true.

Edit: some words

Not really, I think that using semantics to adjudicate an issue without looking at implications is a dangerous approach to many things. Viper is more comfortable with the fact that the boosting is illegal than the implications of what he is claiming on the lives of individuals and TT players (or of he has made such concessions, I have missed them). Even if we agree that boosting is illegal, the implications for many players, both hobby and professional, are such that the rule is causing more damage than helping.

 

[NextLevel]

But the salient point is that regardless of what sponge gets paired with the rubber top sheet, it is necessarily the totality of that pairing that constitutes the racket covering when it comes to pips-in rubbers...and since 2.4.7 prohibits after-manufacture treatment of the racket covering, then that means you cannot carry out a post-manufacture boosting to the sponge, because the sponge is part of the racket covering. Unless, of course, you can somehow argue that applying booster isn't a form of 'treatment'.

Again, semantics over substance. Based on a rule that would prevent us from even breathing on our racket or cleaning it, we have deemed boosting illegal. When we look at it in practice, the result is that if you are a top player with manufacturer support, you can legally do things to your equipment that most players cannot. In fact, there is no requirement that a treated/boosted sponge and rubber combination be commercially available before it can be used in a competition. But you are far more concerned with the fact that boosting is illegal than you are with the implications of bad law and bad enforcement.

 

[NextLevel]

Potentially yes. Please refer to post number 238 where I touched upon this issue and wrote the following:

"...in practice any rule enforcement process by a governing body will always go beyond the wording and introduce additional context etc. I would like to think most table tennis players can understand that there is a clear and qualitative difference between (a) using a rubber cleaner to restore the rubbers original playing characteristics, and (b) using some form of treatment to change the rubbers original/intended playing characteristics. And I'm pretty confident that ITTF would rule that (a) is acceptable but that (b) is not".

"Potentiallly". Okay.

 

[ViperTableTennis]

Not really, I think that using semantics to adjudicate an issue without looking at implications is a dangerous approach to many things. Viper is more comfortable with the fact that the boosting is illegal than the implications of what he is claiming on the lives of individuals and TT players (or of he has made such concessions, I have missed them). Even if we agree that boosting is illegal, the implications for many players, both hobby and professional, are such that the rule is causing more damage than helping.

What implications on the lives of individuals and players, though? You've already pointed out that 2.4.7 in relation to boosting by players is unenforceable, meaning that no one is actually getting into trouble or being punished for breaking this rule. From what I can see, there are no implications other than the fact that it forces players that boost to admit to themselves that they are breaking the rule and are therefore cheating.

 

[Johnniedarko]

Again, semantics over substance. Based on a rule that would prevent us from even breathing on our racket or cleaning it, we have deemed boosting illegal. When we look at it in practice, the result is that if you are a top player with manufacturer support, you can legally do things to your equipment that most players cannot. In fact, there is no requirement that a treated/boosted sponge and rubber combination be commercially available before it can be used in a competition. But you are far more concerned with the fact that boosting is illegal than you are with the implications of bad law and bad enforcement.

Yeah but sponsored athletes always get the best gear before everyone else, to build the hype and boost sales etc.

In football sponsored players for example got shoes with build in spring soles (Adidas Predator) to shoot much harder. And when the shoes finally end up in the store, it's not the same high quality shoe.

Legal or not, unsponsored players can never replicate factory sponsorship regardless. Removing this rule wouldn't change that.

 

[NextLevel]

What implications on the lives of individuals and players, though? You've already pointed out that 2.4.7 in relation to boosting by players is unenforceable, meaning that no one is actually getting into trouble or being punished for breaking this rule. From what I can see, there are no implications other than the fact that it forces players that boost to admit to themselves that they are breaking the rule and are therefore cheating.

There are players who follow the rules for personal moral reasons. Or who do not have enough sophistication to know the nuances. People are being forced into moral conflicts where it isn't clear these conflicts should exist.

 

[NextLevel]

Yeah but sponsored athletes always get the best gear before everyone else, to build the hype and boost sales etc.

In football sponsored players for example got shoes with build in spring soles (Adidas Predator) to shoot much harder. And when the shoes finally end up in the store, it's not the same high quality shoe.

Legal or not, unsponsored players can never replicate factory sponsorship regardless. Removing this rule wouldn't change that.

Yes, this is true. But if you believe that one of the goals of rules and of regulatory bodies is to promote fairness/transparency while balancing other considerations, this rule and its lax enforcement promotes some of the things that encourage the gap between the game we enjoy and the game the pros do. It is like a guy who wants to build his body naively assuming yhay if he goes to the gym and lift weights, he will end up looking like a professional body builder without know what kinds of drugs the body builder is using.

 

[ViperTableTennis]

Again, semantics over substance. Based on a rule that would prevent us from even breathing on our racket or cleaning it, we have deemed boosting illegal. When we look at it in practice, the result is that if you are a top player with manufacturer support, you can legally do things to your equipment that most players cannot. In fact, there is no requirement that a treated/boosted sponge and rubber combination be commercially available before it can be used in a competition. But you are far more concerned with the fact that boosting is illegal than you are with the implications of bad law and bad enforcement.

But deeming boosting by players as illegal based on the wording of 2.4.7 is logically sound, because as you correctly point out, the rule as written is so all-encompassing as to deem any sort of treatment as illegal...and the treatment of boosting clearly and necessarily falls within that larger set of 'any form of treatment'. This brings me back to what I said in post number 238 where I stated that any instance of actual enforcement would inevitably go beyond the wording of the rule to add further context and nuance. My belief is that this additional context and nuance would allow for rubber cleaner and "breathing on your racket", but it would not allow for the boosting of rubbers by players. However, since I don't know this for a fact, I'm happy to acknowledge that there is the potential that that additional nuance and context wouldn't allow for rubber cleaner and breath...but I don't believe there is any scenario where that additional context and nuance would allow for booster use by players.

You are correct to point out that specifically in this debate I have been more concerned with the fact that boosting by players is illegal than I have been with the implications of bad law and bad enforcement. But that's only really because it took you so long to actually acknowledge that 2.4.7 does prohibit the use of boosters by players. If you had acknowledged that from the get-go, then we could have moved onto discussing the merits of the law and its enforceability much sooner.

 

[ViperTableTennis]

There are players who follow the rules for personal moral reasons. Or who do not have enough sophistication to know the nuances. People are being forced into moral conflicts where it isn't clear these conflicts should exist.

If people are trying to follow the rules for personal moral reasons - I used the term 'integrity' to describe these sorts of players in an earlier post - then their moral compass will mean that they will stop applying booster to their rubbers the moment that they realise it is contrary to 2.4.7. If, however, a player with "personal moral reasons" is of the opinion that applying booster doesn't contravene 2.4.7, then they have no moral dilemma in continuing to use booster. So in neither scenario is there an internal moral conflict playing out. You only get an internal conflict when a player that thought they were moral comes up short when that morality gets tested.

 

[NextLevel]

But deeming boosting by players as illegal based on the wording of 2.4.7 is logically sound, because as you correctly point out, the rule as written is so all-encompassing as to deem any sort of treatment as illegal...and the treatment of boosting clearly and necessarily falls within that larger set of 'any form of treatment'. This brings me back to what I said in post number 238 where I stated that any instance of actual enforcement would inevitably go beyond the wording of the rule to add further context and nuance. My belief is that this additional context and nuance would allow for rubber cleaner and "breathing on your racket", but it would not allow for the boosting of rubbers by players. However, since I don't know this for a fact, I'm happy to acknowledge that there is the potential that that additional nuance and context wouldn't allow for rubber cleaner and breath...but I don't believe there is any scenario where that additional context and nuance would allow for booster use by players.

You are correct to point out that specifically in this debate I have been more concerned with the fact that boosting by players is illegal than I have been with the implications of bad law and bad enforcement. But that's only really because it took you so long to actually acknowledge that 2.4.7 does prohibit the use of boosters by players. If you had acknowledged that from the get-go, then we could have moved onto discussing the merits of the law and its enforceability much sooner.

There is lots of additional context that would also permit boosting in addition to the other chemical treatments like using sweat or breath once you expand your imagination. Usually, when someone says "I do not see how..", it is less a fact of reality than just limited imagination, whether they are right or wrong about reality. In fact, once you define chemical treatment by the manners of enforcement, to give one example, their methods of enforcement, just like today, will permit and exclude some methods or chemical treatment. Today, VOCs are explicitly excluded by testing, at least beyond a certain level as is boosting that results in excessivelg thick rubber and sponge and glue combinations. So again, let's try to avoid writing our biases into what can be done or not done by the ITTF, even if we all accept they have done a somewhat lousy job.

Again, if a law as written would make it dubious to clean rackets with sweat or breath, and practical enforcement of the law to date has allowed for repeated violation by players, it is a bit much for you to claim that my delay in admitting that the rule makes boosting illegal is of material importance and that I was delaying things by focusing on real world import. But I will not dwell on the issue. You are free to get practical whenever you want to. But since the rule also clearly prevents a lot of things that are considered legal by common sense, *I will state without any reservation when asked about boosting that boosting is legal until there is a test that can be used to show violation*. That is my complete appraisal of the issue, which you can take for what it's worth and we can now see whether you are really serious that my delay in saying that the rule you cite makes boosting illegal justifies your inability to discuss the issue holistically.

 

[NextLevel]

If people are trying to follow the rules for personal moral reasons - I used the term 'integrity' to describe these sorts of players in an earlier post - then their moral compass will mean that they will stop applying booster to their rubbers the moment that they realise it is contrary to 2.4.7. If, however, a player with "personal moral reasons" is of the opinion that applying booster doesn't contravene 2.4.7, then they have no moral dilemma in continuing to use booster. So in neither scenario is there an internal moral conflict playing out. You only get an internal conflict when a player that thought they were moral comes up short when that morality gets tested.

Yes I am talking about those with what you call "integrity", especially those who admit they might play better with boosted rubbers, but don't do so for reasons of "integrity". I get that in your view of morality, people who have families to feed and might be able to feed them better by violating their moral codes though
1) such codes are not enforced ny ITTF
2) the competition have no problrm violating such rules
3) money and accolades and sometimes health benefits are flowing to those who violate the rules

have no moral conflicts but in my world they do. And even those who are violating these rules might be tormented doing so but just accept it as part of what is required to feed their family under the ridiculous ITTF system. To borrow an analogy from another ITTF problem, you can go and read when Timo Boll confessed to being so frustrated by facing another player's hidden serves that he prepared some to deploy against the opponent in a rematch but decided against using the serves in the end. Does that kind of integrity mean there was no moral conflict?

We probably are further apart on world view than we realize.

 

[igorponger]

WHICH GLANTI's STAND TO EXIT THE LARC FOREMOST.

Truth to say, not all glanti rubbers deserve blacklisting. Those with enough amount of traction > 0,25 are going to continue in use.

Mandatory re-test for topsheet surface traction are made on all rubbers marked as ANTI type by a manufacturer. No need for you to re-submit rubber for lab tests, ITTF depositary is assigned to keep rubbers/topsheets samples for 10 years at least.


You can surely say some prospective abortions just by looking into the Catalogue article attached below.

Be happy.

 

[Johnniedarko]

[...] You only get an internal conflict when a player that thought they were moral comes up short when that morality gets tested.

Oh abstract human physchology, I'm in.
Imo this (quote) is a too narrow iew.

"You only get..."

To get definitions out of the way: moral conflict comes before the decision/choice/moment of truth, not afterwards. Afterwards there's pride or regret and such.

So in extention, everyone experiences moral conflict, all the time, as there are always choices to be made.


"...comes up short"

All humans think they are moral. No matter which direction their compass points, and what you/I/anyone else thinks of that direction, or the consistency of it.

Often it is even impossible to satisy all your morals. NextLevels example of Timo is great. It is moral to feed your family and do justice to all the people who invested in you, but it is also moral to follow rules and promote fairness. It is also moral to equal the playing field as a form of rebellious protest, to draw attention to the matter.
Either choice is "coming up short"*, there is no action that leads to satisfying all your morals.

*(imo any choice you made with love for yourself and others is the best you can do, so I don't think any of the options I mentioned are actually coming up short, as long as the sincerity is there.)