Why do people say LP's should be banned?

[Loop Lob Smash]

The point is sometimes I see TTD members arguing merely for semantics purpose to no end.

@Gozo Aruna was that a generalization or a prediction?

 

[Gozo Aruna]

@Gozo Aruna was that a generalization or a prediction?

I am am a part-time TT player and seer too.

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

No it is not, Chemical is a universal term applying to just about anything. Even sweat is a chemical treatment. Things considered and not considered chemical treatments need to be specified. I clean my racket with my breath all the time. That is not a chemical treatment? Or using plastic sheets to cover the rubber which can enhance or reduce playing properties? Drying or freezing rubbers?

wait till you chew gum, then clean your rubbers
illegal too

(cricket had this issue)

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

Rule 2.4.7 states "The racket covering shall be used without any physical, chemical or other treatment". To successfully navigate rule 2.4.7 you would therefore have to be able to argue that you applying booster doesn't constitute any sort of treatment to the rubber at all. Good luck with that!

@Der_Echte said he left his lp in the car.
he didn't do anything physically, chemically or treatment it
he just left it in his car

🤣🤣

talking about it, I know people who use baby powder, as that takes away the humidity which is not good for LP control.
some even store rackets (inverted too) with silica gel packets in the racket case for humidity prevention too.

All these are deemed illegal under 2.4.7, one way or another.
Even when I play and that drop of sweat lands on my rubber, wow - that is so chemically treated now....

 

[longrange]

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.

Sure, mate. I have three pips-in rubbers with the ITTF code 24-108 on my desk, can you conclude that they have the same sponge based on this information?
Note, if you can't then your justifications of "the line" is invalid, as LARC does not define rubbers uniquely: boosted or unboosted or whatever sponge is underneath the top sheet. But you still can't comprehend this.

 

[ViperTableTennis]

*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....

For me, this really gets to the heart of why I think your thinking on this is a bit muddled. The legality of something is not predicated upon whether there exists a means of demonstrating a violation. If a written rule prohibits a certain action, then that action is prohibited even if there is no way of uncovering instances where the action takes place and the law is therefore broken. This is why we've talked about "personal moral reasons" and "integrity" in the context of booster use by players...because if the rule is broken the only ones that really know about the violation are the ones committing it due to the lack of testing that could reveal the violation to the wider community. But the fact that we can't test for violations of the law only means that we are unable to make visible (and therefore prosecute) people who break that law, it doesn't mean that the law prohibiting the action doesn't exist. So for you to say "boosting is legal until there is a test that can be used to show violation", I think that is flawed thinking because it's confusing the issue of what is codified as law with the practical issue of law enforcement.

 

[ViperTableTennis]

@Der_Echte said he left his lp in the car.
he didn't do anything physically, chemically or treatment it
he just left it in his car

🤣🤣

talking about it, I know people who use baby powder, as that takes away the humidity which is not good for LP control.
some even store rackets (inverted too) with silica gel packets in the racket case for humidity prevention too.

All these are deemed illegal under 2.4.7, one way or another.
Even when I play and that drop of sweat lands on my rubber, wow - that is so chemically treated now....

If think the act of leaving it in the car exposed to sunlight could be considered to be the 'treatment'. He left it in the car, and the sunlight interacted with the rubber in some way in order to change the playing characteristics of the rubber. I'm no scientist so I'm not sure what the action of the sunlight actually was on the rubber; lets just say for arguments sake that it was a combination of increased temperature and exposure to UV light that caused the changes. Well in that case the 'treatment' was exposure to high temperature and UV light. Of course, none of this implies that the owner of the rubber deliberately and knowingly applied this treatment to their rubber...maybe they just forgot to take their bat out of the car after a match.

 

[ViperTableTennis]

Sure, mate. I have three pips-in rubbers with the ITTF code 24-108 on my desk, can you conclude that they have the same sponge based on this information?
Note, if you can't then your justifications of "the line" is invalid, as LARC does not define rubbers uniquely: boosted or unboosted or whatever sponge is underneath the top sheet. But you still can't comprehend this.

Why do you keep going on about 'the line' as if its some sort of fatal flaw in my position? You introduced this concept of 'the line' as a way of trying to get me to justify why it's should be acceptable for manufacturers to boost but not acceptable for players to boost....but my position has never been that I wanted to justify that situation...my only position is to point out that that is in fact the reality of the situation we're in! I've already told you this before in post number 289 and then again in post number 294, so I don't know why you keep misrepresenting me on it.

If you want to argue that what I wrote in post number 250 is incorrect, then that's fine. Little of what I wrote in post number 250 is fundamental to what I'm arguing here, and what I wrote in post 250 only exists because you challenged me to come up with a story (a 'line') that could explain why we find ourselves in a situation where manufacturers can boost but players can't. To repeat my actual position just for the sake of clarity; what I'm arguing is simply that rule 2.4.7 prohibits post-manufacture treatment of racket coverings, and that boosting by players (which is necessarily post-manufacture) of the racket covering would be considered to be a type of treatment that this rule prohibits.

Here's an extract from an ITTF article which I think supports my position (the link to the article is below so you can read the whole thing):

“Boostering is an after treatment of approved racket rubbers. By applying boosters to them, the thickness of the rubber expands, which in turn increases the spin and speed of the rubber. It’s a big topic because a lot of top players are using boosters and we need to be able to detect these after treatments for a whole variety of reasons that I’ll list below....at present, after treatments are strictly prohibited in table tennis".

So, what we have here is a quote from the governing body which defines boosting as an after treatment to an approved racket covering, and then goes on to state that after treatments are strictly prohibited. I'm at a loss as to how anyone could read that statement (in conjunction with what is codified in rule 2.4.7) and then arrive at the conclusion that post-manufacture boosting by players isn't illegal.

@longrange this is the ITTF confirming that post-manufacture boosting by players is "strictly prohibited". Do you now accept that my interpretation of rule 2.4.7 is correct, and that boosting by players is against the rules, and that therefore a player that boosts their rubbers is cheating?

ITTF steps up measures against boostering - International Table Tennis Federation

What is boostering and why is it such a big topic right now? “Boostering is an after treatment of approved racket rubbers. By applying boosters to them, the thickness of the rubber expands, which in turn increases the spin and speed of the rubber. It’s a big topic because a lot of top players...

www.ittf.com

.

 

[longrange]

Why do you keep going on about 'the line' as if its some sort of fatal flaw in my position?

Because you're defending a rule with no justification whatsoever, isn't it obvious? You're pushing a rule (and call those who violate it cheaters), just because it's in the book with now explanation why it is there and what for. You see, there are fair and just rules and laws and unfair, unjust, tyrannical ones. There are examples from TT: hidden serves and same color rubbers are forbidden, because the sport turns into gambling otherwise. You'd have to guess what's flying at you with no way to know. These are good rules. VOC are indeed toxic in some environments, with enough care they cause no harm, but there's at least something to justify their ban.

There's nothing against boosters: nontoxic, nonvolatile, very viscous, or just mineral oils used everyday in cosmetics. And on top of that rubber cartel uses them routinely in production.

You introduced this concept of 'the line' as a way of trying to get me to justify why it's should be acceptable for manufacturers to boost but not acceptable for players to boost....by my position has never been that I wanted to justify that situation...my only position is to point out that that is in fact the reality of the situation we're in! I've already told you this before in post number 289 and then again in post number 294, so I don't know why you keep misrepresenting me on it.

No, I told you there no reason for this line that you wanted "to draw somewhere" and you volunteered to come up with one. When what you came up with—very contrived per se— didn't stand up against scrutiny, you're trying to weasel out from this, instead of just admitting that there's no reason against boosters and you're advocating a hypocritical, unjust and unfair rule, which allows rubber cartel to do exactly the same, what it forbids for players.

There can be such asymmetry in, say, how states treat drugs, but the harm for individuals and societies is pretty well-known and well described. These laws are well justified, but this 2.4.7 cannot possibly be.

 

[Oliverpool]

Oh no! I have been playing illegally all this time! Trying playing in humid Singapore without perspiring. I know I have sunblock on my face and oh moisturiser as well. I just check the ingredients list and there are a bunch of chemicals!!!! So sweat that gets on my hands or rubber when I rush my backhand loops resulting in sweat from my shirt getting on the rubber or when I wipe any sweat beads on the rubber. All chemicals!!!! I guess I not only need to bring 3 shirts, I need like 10 new blades every time I play to ensure I stay within the rules……

 

[ViperTableTennis]

Because you're defending a rule with no justification whatsoever, isn't it obvious? You're pushing a rule (and call those who violate it cheaters), just because it's in the book with now explanation why it is there and what for. You see, there are fair and just rules and laws and unfair, unjust, tyrannical ones. There are examples from TT: hidden serves and same color rubbers are forbidden, because the sport turns into gambling otherwise. You'd have to guess what's flying at you with no way to know. These are good rules. VOC are indeed toxic in some environments, with enough care they cause no harm, but there's at least something to justify their ban.

There's nothing against boosters: nontoxic, nonvolatile, very viscous, or just mineral oils used everyday in cosmetics. And on top of that rubber cartel uses them routinely in production.

No, I told you there no reason for this line that you wanted "to draw somewhere" and you volunteered to come up with one. When what you came up with—very contrived per se— didn't stand up against scrutiny, you're trying to weasel out from this, instead of just admitting that there's no reason against boosters and you're advocating a hypocritical, unjust and unfair rule, which allows rubber cartel to do exactly the same, what it forbids for players.

There can be such asymmetry in, say, how states treat drugs, but the harm for individuals and societies is pretty well-known and well described. These laws are well justified, but this 2.4.7 cannot possibly be.

I'm not trying to defend or justify the rule, though. All I'm saying is that the rule actually exists...and all I'm asking of you is that you acknowledge the existence of this rule and accept the fact that this rule prohibits the use of boosters by players. I'm not asking you to like the rule...I'm not even asking you to abide by the rule; all I'm asking is that you acknowledge that it actually exists and that contravening it amounts to cheating.

It seems to me that the whole reason that you and I have clashed in this thread is that you have misunderstood my position; you are angry with me because you think my intention has been to "defend a rule with no justification"...but my position has never been about trying to defend or justify the rule.; all I'm doing is pointing at the rule and saying "look, this rule exists and this is what it means". Yes I volunteered a justification of the rule when you specifically asked for one, but that was only ever meant to be me saying something along the lines of "well I suppose a justification might look something like this if someone wanted to formulate a justification"; it was never a part of my argument and I think this is at the heart of your misunderstanding of my position. Perhaps I should have made that clearer when I made the post. And I never said that I wanted to draw a line somewhere, what I said what that having rules always results in a line being drawn somewhere!!

For what it's worth, I agree with a lot of the points that you have raised as to why this rule shouldn't be defended!

 

[Metaxa]

wait till you chew gum, then clean your rubbers
illegal too

(cricket had this issue)

chewing gum with chlorophyll right?

 

[ViperTableTennis]

Oh no! I have been playing illegally all this time! Trying playing in humid Singapore without perspiring. I know I have sunblock on my face and oh moisturiser as well. I just check the ingredients list and there are a bunch of chemicals!!!! So sweat that gets on my hands or rubber when I rush my backhand loops resulting in sweat from my shirt getting on the rubber or when I wipe any sweat beads on the rubber. All chemicals!!!! I guess I not only need to bring 3 shirts, I need like 10 new blades every time I play to ensure I stay within the rules……

Do you apply booster to your rubbers? If you do then I'm afraid to say you have been playing illegally.

 

[Metaxa]

@Der_Echte said he left his lp in the car.
he didn't do anything physically, chemically or treatment it
he just left it in his car

🤣🤣

 

[NextLevel]

I have indulged my worst instincts a bit too much on this thread, in the absence of anything new and substantive, I point back to my original post to Viper, which was all I really needed to say:

https://www.tabletennisdaily.com/forum/topics/why-do-people-say-lps-should-be-banned.33514/post-452317

Cheers everyone.

 

[NextLevel]

For me, this really gets to the heart of why I think your thinking on this is a bit muddled. The legality of something is not predicated upon whether there exists a means of demonstrating a violation. If a written rule prohibits a certain action, then that action is prohibited even if there is no way of uncovering instances where the action takes place and the law is therefore broken. This is why we've talked about "personal moral reasons" and "integrity" in the context of booster use by players...because if the rule is broken the only ones that really know about the violation are the ones committing it due to the lack of testing that could reveal the violation to the wider community. But the fact that we can't test for violations of the law only means that we are unable to make visible (and therefore prosecute) people who break that law, it doesn't mean that the law prohibiting the action doesn't exist. So for you to say "boosting is legal until there is a test that can be used to show violation", I think that is flawed thinking because it's confusing the issue of what is codified as law with the practical issue of law enforcement.

Thanks, I see that now. Hopefully, your line of thinking will improve the current situation. Cheers!

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

This is so funny
ITTF should hire Viper to sort out the players dispute haha

 

[ViperTableTennis]

Thanks, I see that now. Hopefully, your line of thinking will improve the current situation. Cheers!

I doubt it will. It's not really about improving the situation, more about just recognising the current situation for what it is. Cheers!

 

[ViperTableTennis]

This is so funny
ITTF should hire Viper to sort out the players dispute haha

ITTF wouldn't like my price...but I'd work pro bono for the players.

 

[piligrim]

Why are you always asking people different questions and not asking yourself?
As I have written before, I have not known anyone who comes into a club with a wood with pimples on the outside, under his arm, never
A coach who notices after some time that his player is having a hard time with a certain stroke (technical deficiency) doesn't have to say: kid, your stroke is not going to be anything, you are never going to be able to do it but we have a solution for you, we are going to let you play with LP/SP or Anti, whatever you like or you can play fastest with.
I had no talent (this versus others who started in the same period) I trained a lot, very much, but I had various limitations. Not a hair on my head would have thought of upgrading my limitations with technical equipment. I would have trained until we could do it.
But it has been good. For me, after the special LPs, they could have banned all the other crap too. It might have caused me less frustration at the time and who knows, maybe an even better career. We're never going to know that.

What if I don't have technical deficiency but like to use pips?