Latest

Chris Evert says Jannik Sinner ‘shouldn’t have been allowed’ to leave court during French Open controversy

Published

4 months ago

May 28, 2026

Tennis legend Chris Evert made the case for special treatment for the sport’s top players. But then she explained why Jannik Sinner shouldn’t have gotten it the way that he did.

That’s the uncomfortable middle ground in tennis’ latest medical-timeout controversy.

Stars drive the sport. They carry television windows, ticket sales, sponsorships, interest and two-week Grand Slam marathons. It’s not naive or corrupt to acknowledge that Sinner, Carlos Alcaraz, Novak Djokovic, Aryna Sabalenka and Coco Gauff are not treated like anonymous qualifiers. They aren’t anonymous qualifiers.

CHRIS EVERT DEFENDS MARTINA NAVRATILOVA ON TRANS ATHLETES: ‘SCIENCE DOESN’T LIE’

Evert, the 18-time Grand Slam singles champion, told OutKick in a text message that “the top players still drive the game,” and that if tennis wants its biggest stars to have longevity, “there should be a little more consideration of their schedule in a two-week event.”

“They’ve earned that,” Evert said.

She’s right.

But there’s a difference between scheduling consideration and in-match rule interpretation. It’s one thing to give stars the best courts, the best windows and the best recovery opportunities over the course of a tournament. It’s another thing entirely to give those players a more generous interpretation of the rules when the rulebook clearly says muscle cramping does not qualify for a medical timeout.

That’s where Evert drew the line with Sinner.

“It was clearly a cramping and dehydration situation,” Evert told OutKick. “The rules state cramping is not an injury. He shouldn’t have been allowed to go off the court.”

Sinner, the world No. 1, was stunned by Juan Manuel Cerundolo, the world No. 56, in the second round of the French Open on Thursday after arguably the most dramatic collapse of his career. Sinner won the first two sets, led 5-1 in the third, then unraveled physically before losing the final three sets.

That’s what makes this controversy more interesting than a simple accusation of favoritism.

Sinner lost.

This is not a case of a superstar being saved by an official and riding that advantage to victory. It’s not a case of tennis handing one of its biggest names a win. Cerundolo still pulled off the upset.

But the controversy matters anyway because the bigger issue is not one match result. It’s whether the same rules are being applied the same way when the player asking for help is one of the faces of the sport.

TNT commentator Jim Courier stated that problem in real time.

“That’s not fair. That’s not right,” Courier said on the broadcast. “We love the top players, they drive the sport, but you’ve gotta apply the rules fairly. The rules are being bent for the top players.”

That’s a strong accusation. It also hit on something every sports fan understands.

The rulebook is only half the story. The other half is how it gets enforced when the athlete involved is a superstar.

To be clear, Sinner should not be treated as the villain here. Evert made that point, too.

“That was the umpire’s call, and he should not be faulted,” Evert said. “He was given that choice by the umpire, and chose it.”

That exchange appears to be exactly what happened.

According to The Times, Sinner told chair umpire Aurélie Tourte that he thought he might vomit and asked what would happen if he took too much time between points. Tourte reportedly explained that he could receive a time violation and then a code violation, or they could call the physio to determine the issue.

Sinner then said he did not know if it was dehydration, and Tourte told him it was up to him.

That is why Evert’s distinction matters. Sinner was not trying to game the system. He told the chair umpire what was wrong, she gave him a choice, and he made a decision.

What was Sinner supposed to do? Turn down medical attention and voluntarily make his own path harder in the middle of a Grand Slam match?

No serious athlete is doing that.

ZERO BS. JUST DAKICH. TAKE THE DON’T @ ME PODCAST ON THE ROAD. DOWNLOAD NOW!

Patrick Mahomes isn’t going to tell an official to pick up a roughing-the-passer flag. Tom Brady wasn’t going to tell Jerome Boger that Grady Jarrett’s sack was actually clean. Carlos Alcaraz wasn’t going to wave off a medical timeout at the Australian Open once the physio granted it, despite protests by his opponent.

Stars accept favorable decisions. In fact, all athletes do. That’s sports.

The burden is on the officials, not the athlete benefiting from the call.

And that’s why tennis put itself in such an awkward position. The Grand Slam rulebook says players may receive treatment for muscle cramping only during normal changeovers or set breaks. It also says players may not receive a medical timeout for muscle cramping.

That sounds clear.

But tennis also leaves room for medical judgment. If there is doubt about whether a player is dealing with cramps, an acute medical condition or heat illness, the Sports Physiotherapist and Tournament Doctor have the final say. If cramps are considered part of a heat-illness situation, they can be treated as part of that broader condition.

That may be medically reasonable. It may even be necessary.

No one should want tennis players passing out on the court because officials are afraid of looking too lenient. If a player is dizzy, dehydrated, vomiting or in actual danger, the sport has an obligation to treat that seriously.

Evert acknowledged that possibility.

“I think, if there was dizziness or the feeling of passing out, then a doctor could’ve come out on the court and taken his pulse and blood pressure,” Evert said, “but that’s another situation.”

That feels like the right line.

Player safety? Absolutely.

A cramping timeout dressed up as something else? That’s where trust starts to erode.

Evert later told OutKick she rewatched the clip and believed the umpire “stopped the clock in his favor.” She also said Sinner “specifically said dehydration,” while again emphasizing that it was “no fault of his own.”

“It will be interesting to see how the umpire defends her position,” Evert said. “Jim Courier and all the commentators were very critical of this decision, and I would think the rules will have more boundaries now because it has happened in favor of the top players.”

There’s the real story.

Not that Sinner cheated. He didn’t.

Not that tennis is rigged. That’s a lazy conclusion.

The real issue is that tennis keeps finding itself in moments where the rulebook seems firm until a superstar enters the gray area. Then, suddenly, the sport looks like it has room to maneuver.

This isn’t the first time in 2026 that the sport has faced similar controversy.

At the Australian Open, Sinner struggled physically in the heat during a third-round match against American Eliot Spizzirri. Sinner started cramping. The match was paused when the roof was closed under the tournament’s heat policy. The Italian star did not receive treatment during the stoppage, so it was not the same situation as a medical timeout for cramps.

But the perception issue was similar.

Sinner admitted afterward that he “got lucky” with the timing of the heat rule and roof closure. Evert brought up that match, too, telling OutKick, “Do you remember that Australian Open that was basically the same thing? He was starting to cramp and then they close the roof, right?”

Again, the roof closure may have been completely within the rules. The Australian Open had a heat policy. Officials followed it. Sinner got a break within the structure of the tournament.

But it still looked familiar: a top player in physical trouble, a stoppage, a reset and a second life. In that case, Sinner looked like a new player after the break and defeated Spizzirri en route to a semifinal appearance.

Alcaraz was involved in another version of the same conversation at the Australian Open when Alexander Zverev complained about a medical timeout during their semifinal. Zverev believed Alcaraz was cramping and said afterward that players normally cannot take a medical timeout for cramps.

Alcaraz eventually defeated Zverev and followed with a win over Novak Djokovic to capture the Australian Open title and complete the career Grand Slam.

“What can I do?” Zverev said. “It’s not my decision. I didn’t like it, but it’s not my decision.”

That sounds a lot like Evert’s point about Sinner.

The player doesn’t make the ruling. The official makes the ruling.

This certainly isn’t unique to tennis. Football fans have been arguing about the same thing for years.

The NFL rulebook does not say Patrick Mahomes gets more protection than his backup. It did not say Brady deserved a softer landing than everyone else. But fans, players and commentators have long believed that star quarterbacks get the benefit of the doubt from officials.

Sometimes that perception is overblown. Sometimes it is fueled by frustration, gambling, team loyalty, social media outrage or a combination of all of them.

But then a call happens in a huge spot, and the perception comes roaring back. And sometimes, perception matters as much, if not more, than reality.

Mahomes benefited from controversial penalties in Kansas City’s 2025 playoff win over the Houston Texans. Troy Aikman criticized one of the calls in real time. Officiating expert Ben Austro of Football Zebras later wrote for SB Nation that two of the controversial penalties should not have been called, including one that he said “fans the flames of preferential treatment.”

Brady had his own version of this in 2022, when Grady Jarrett was flagged for roughing the passer after sacking him late in a Buccaneers-Falcons game. The call extended Tampa Bay’s drive and helped end Atlanta’s comeback attempt.

Brady’s response afterward was simple.

“I don’t throw the flags.”

Correct.

And Jannik Sinner doesn’t make the call on whether he gets a medical timeout.

Stars are always going to get advantages. They get the primetime window. They get center court. They get larger crowds. They get more media attention. They get more sponsor interest. They get more institutional attention because the sport is more valuable when they are healthy, present and advancing deep into tournaments.

Just like the NFL playoffs are better when Mahomes, Josh Allen, Lamar Jackson, Joe Burrow and other marquee quarterbacks are healthy and competing.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with pointing out the obvious.

Evert is right that tennis should consider its top players’ schedules and longevity, especially during two-week Grand Slam events. The best players have earned that level of consideration because they’re the ones who consistently carry the sport. They have earned those advantages through their on-court performance.

But that consideration should happen before the match.

That’s what makes these medical-timeout controversies so damaging. Even when the decision is medically defensible, even when no one did anything malicious, even when the star loses anyway, fans are left wondering where legitimate discretion ends and star treatment begins.

The answer is not to deny medical care to players in real danger. The answer is transparency and consistency.

If a player is dizzy, close to fainting or dealing with heat illness, say that. Bring the doctor out. Check the player. Make the medical reason clear. If cramps are part of a broader heat-illness diagnosis, explain that. If it’s simply cramping and dehydration, enforce the rule.

Tennis does not need a perfectly level playing field. No sport has one.

But it needs a credible one.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE OUTKICK SPORTS COVERAGE

Sinner does not deserve blame for taking the option he was given. But he also did not deserve a different version of the rules because he’s Jannik Sinner.

Both can be true.

And if tennis wants to avoid this conversation the next time Sinner, Alcaraz or another star starts struggling physically in a major match, it has to make the boundary clearer now.

Because stars should get the big courts, the big crowds and the big moments.

They’ve earned that.

What they haven’t earned, and what no athlete should ever earn, is a different interpretation of the rulebook because of their star power.

Economy

FINALLY! Americans Get Some MUCH Needed Good News

Published

21 hours ago

September 21, 2026

Addison Blake

FINALLY! Americans Get Some MUCH Needed Good News

Oil prices took a sharp turn Monday, tumbling to their lowest levels in 11 days as traders reacted to signs of possible diplomatic movement between the United States and Iran — while Saudi Arabia finds new ways to keep massive amounts of crude flowing despite mounting turmoil across the Middle East.

Brent crude for November plunged $2.69, or 2.6%, to $101.18 a barrel by 12:54 p.m. GMT after briefly touching its lowest level since September 10.

U.S. crude fell even harder.

West Texas Intermediate’s October contract, which expires Tuesday, dropped $2.69, or 2.7%, to $97.61 a barrel. The November WTI contract stood at $93.49.

The sudden retreat came despite continued fighting across the Middle East and another exchange of threats between Washington and Tehran over the weekend.

But markets received a potentially significant signal Sunday.

President Donald Trump said he would be open to meeting Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who is expected to travel to New York for this week’s United Nations General Assembly.

Iran has also reportedly conveyed conditions to mediators for potentially reopening negotiations, according to a report citing Iranian security chief Mohsen Rezaei.

Those signals raised the possibility of renewed talks between Washington and Tehran, reducing some of the immediate fears that further escalation could threaten global energy supplies.

But on the ground, the situation remains volatile.

Iran-backed Houthi forces in Yemen said they attacked Riyadh and a Saudi Aramco facility in the Red Sea city of Yanbu while continuing efforts to expand their control in Yemen.

China has also pressed Iran to help restrain the Houthis following an appeal from Saudi Arabia, according to sources familiar with the discussions.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is making major adjustments to keep its oil moving.

Attacks disrupted the kingdom’s East-West pipeline and complicated shipments through Yanbu, but Saudi Aramco has responded by increasing exports through the Strait of Hormuz this month and next.

That shift appears to be having a significant impact on global supply concerns.

“Middle East oil flows remain surprisingly strong despite the disruption to Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline,” JPMorgan analysts said in a September 18 note.

The numbers behind the shift are dramatic.

“The most notable pivot has come from Saudi Arabia,” the analysts said, as satellite data indicated Saudi oil moving through the Strait of Hormuz averaged 2.9 million barrels per day over the previous six days.

In August, that figure had been just 700,000 barrels per day.

That massive increase has helped ease immediate fears that the escalating conflict could trigger a much more serious supply crunch.

Oil producers are also increasingly turning to ship-to-ship transfers near Oman to keep crude moving through the region.

Those workarounds have helped prevent a more severe disruption in global supplies, but they aren’t coming cheaply.

Shipping costs have surged as tankers navigate increasingly complicated and potentially dangerous routes.

There are supply concerns elsewhere as well.

Libya’s National Oil Corporation said production at the country’s Sharara oilfield had been partially reduced, although officials did not provide a reason for the reduction.

Monday’s selloff leaves Brent hovering just above the closely watched $100-per-barrel threshold after prices surged above $108 last week.

That puts global oil markets at a critical point.

On one side, continued fighting, attacks on energy infrastructure and disrupted shipping routes are keeping geopolitical risk elevated.

On the other, Saudi Arabia’s ability to reroute enormous quantities of crude — combined with the possibility of renewed diplomacy between Washington and Tehran — is easing fears of an immediate supply shock.

Now traders are turning their attention to New York.

This week’s United Nations meetings could provide the next major signal about whether Washington and Tehran are moving toward negotiations or whether tensions will escalate again.

At the same time, Saudi Arabia is racing to keep crude flowing through one of the world’s most strategically important — and increasingly volatile — energy corridors.

With Brent sitting barely above $100, either development could quickly send oil markets moving again.

Culture

Trump Bans Lib Outlets – You Won’t Believe What Happened Right After!

Published

21 hours ago

September 21, 2026

Addison Blake

Trump Bans Lib Outlets – You Won’t Believe What Happened Right After!

President Donald Trump’s escalating battle with the national media has exploded into a full-blown legal showdown after his administration barred CNN, MS NOW and Politico reporters from the White House — a move prominent Republicans are now publicly defending.

Trump announced Friday that the three organizations would no longer be permitted inside the White House, accusing them of repeatedly publishing what he described as “fake news” and unfair coverage of his administration.

By Saturday, the threat had become reality.

Reporters from all three organizations were denied entry to the White House, with some saying their credentials had been deactivated or confiscated.

Now Republicans are lining up behind the president, arguing that news organizations do not have an automatic right to coveted access inside the White House complex.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., defended Trump during an appearance Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

“There are literally thousands of media outlets in America,” Scalise said.

Scalise pointed to the obvious physical limitations of the White House press operation, arguing that only a fraction of America’s news organizations can operate from inside the complex and that the administration has authority over who receives that access.

Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, also defended Trump’s decision, pointing to what he described as years of inaccurate and unfair coverage of the president.

Other Republicans have made a similar argument: barring reporters from physically entering the White House does not prevent CNN, MS NOW or Politico from continuing to report on the Trump administration.

And Trump has indicated the crackdown may not end with those three organizations.

“Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow,” Trump wrote.

Asked about other organizations that could potentially lose access, Trump criticized The New York Times and The Washington Post but stopped short of announcing additional bans.

The media organizations targeted by Trump aren’t backing down.

CNN, MS NOW and Politico filed a federal lawsuit Monday seeking restoration of their White House access, arguing that the administration retaliated against them because it objected to their journalism.

The organizations are seeking a temporary restraining order that could quickly force the constitutional fight before a federal judge.

“This morning, we notified the government that we are filing a lawsuit today to protect our First Amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports or publishes,” the organizations said in a joint statement.

The White House Correspondents’ Association has also pushed back.

WHCA President Jacqui Heinrich, a Fox News anchor, called on the administration to restore the organizations’ access, arguing that allowing the government to exclude journalists because officials object to their reporting could establish a precedent affecting other news organizations.

And the criticism isn’t coming exclusively from Trump’s political opponents.

Some prominent conservatives have openly broken with the president over the decision.

Former White House press secretary and Fox News contributor Ari Fleischer argued that conservatives should confront media organizations they believe are biased rather than remove their access.

“Argue and defeat them,” Fleischer said. “Don’t ban them. Or one day they’ll ban us.”

Fox News contributor and legal scholar Jonathan Turley similarly called excluding disfavored media organizations from the White House a “terrible precedent and practice.”

The showdown is the latest front in Trump’s continuing fight with the national press.

Early in Trump’s second term, the White House took control over decisions involving which journalists participate in the presidential press pool — a responsibility traditionally handled by the White House Correspondents’ Association.

The administration also previously restricted Associated Press access following a dispute over the organization’s decision to continue using the name Gulf of Mexico while acknowledging Trump’s executive order renaming it the Gulf of America.

That dispute also landed in federal court.

And there is significant history surrounding fights over White House press credentials.

During Trump’s first term in 2018, his administration revoked CNN correspondent Jim Acosta’s press pass following a contentious exchange with the president.

CNN sued.

A federal judge subsequently ordered the White House to temporarily restore Acosta’s credentials while citing due-process concerns.

An even older case could also loom large over the current fight.

In the 1977 case *Sherrill v. Knight*, a federal appeals court held that once the White House establishes press facilities, decisions involving credentials are subject to constitutional protections and cannot be made arbitrarily.

That precedent could become a major issue as CNN, MS NOW and Politico attempt to convince a federal court that Trump’s latest restrictions crossed a constitutional line.

For Trump and his Republican defenders, the argument centers on whether any particular media organization is entitled to special physical access to the White House.

For the three news organizations, the issue is fundamentally different: they contend the government cannot selectively revoke access in retaliation for reporting it dislikes.

Now that fight is moving from the White House briefing room to a federal courtroom — where a judge could determine just how far a president can go when deciding which journalists are allowed through the gates.

Latest

Joe Biden’s Daughter Just Dropped Massive Public Bombshell On Her Dad

Published

21 hours ago

September 21, 2026

Addison Blake

Joe Biden’s Daughter Just Dropped Massive Public Bombshell On Her Dad

The Biden family is facing another round of scrutiny — this time after a former Democratic insider revealed that Ashley Biden threatened her with legal action over allegations involving the 2024 presidential campaign.

Lindy Li, a former Democratic fundraiser with deep ties to the party’s donor network, says Ashley Biden threatened to sue her after Li began publicly alleging that Democratic officials and people close to former President Joe Biden concealed concerns about his condition while he was seeking reelection.

“They wanted to scare me. That was the goal,” Li told Fox News Digital.

Li, who previously raised money for Biden, former Vice President Kamala Harris and other Democrats, details the confrontation in her new book, “Unburdened.”

According to Li, the clash erupted in February 2025 after she began speaking publicly about what she described as serious internal concerns surrounding Biden’s age and his ability to continue campaigning for another term.

Li has since become one of the Democratic Party’s most outspoken former insiders, alleging that senior figures failed to adequately confront concerns surrounding Biden before he ultimately abandoned his reelection campaign.

Ashley Biden strongly disputed Li’s allegations and threatened legal action in a since-deleted Instagram post, according to screenshots Li provided to Fox News Digital.

Li described the tone of the message as so aggressive that it “bordered on parody.”

According to Li, Ashley Biden called her a liar and asked whether she was “ready for a lawsuit.”

But the threatened courtroom showdown never happened.

Li said the Instagram post disappeared roughly a day later, and no lawsuit was ultimately filed.

Li also challenged Ashley Biden’s apparent claim that she did not know her. She provided Fox News with photographs showing the two women together on multiple occasions.

“Doesn’t even pass the smell test,” Li said.

Li’s accusations carry added significance because she was not simply an outside observer of Democratic politics.

Before her break with the party, she operated inside influential Democratic fundraising circles, working with major donors and Democratic National Committee officials while helping raise money for both Biden and Harris.

According to Li, everything changed when she began publicly questioning whether Biden should remain the Democratic presidential nominee in 2024.

Li said she appeared on Fox News host Shannon Bream’s program on the same day Biden ultimately announced that he was ending his reelection campaign. During the appearance, Li argued that Biden needed to step aside.

“When I went on Shannon’s show to say Biden needs to step aside — and three hours later he did — my access immediately vanished and all my fears about speaking up were justified,” Li told Fox News.

Before that, Li said, she had been invited to White House events as frequently as every few weeks.

After she spoke out, she said those invitations stopped.

Li has characterized the abrupt loss of access as retaliation for her criticism. Fox News reported her account but did not independently establish that she was deliberately punished for speaking out.

The legal threat from Ashley Biden also prompted Li to consult attorneys.

According to Li, her lawyers did not believe a lawsuit was likely to move forward. She said one attorney suggested litigation could potentially open the door to discovery involving internal discussions about the former president.

Li maintains that her public statements about Biden and the Democratic Party were truthful and says she still does not know what specific statement Ashley Biden believed could form the basis of a legal case against her.

The episode adds another chapter to the continuing dispute over what Democratic officials and Biden’s inner circle knew about concerns surrounding the former president during the 2024 campaign — and how those concerns were handled publicly.

Biden ended his reelection campaign on July 21, 2024, following weeks of mounting pressure from fellow Democrats after his June debate against Donald Trump. He endorsed Harris shortly afterward, and she became the Democratic nominee before losing the November election to Trump.

But Biden’s withdrawal did not end the controversy.

Former aides, journalists and Democratic officials have since offered differing accounts of what senior figures knew, when they knew it, and whether concerns surrounding Biden were adequately disclosed to voters.

Li’s account now puts a deeply personal dimension on that broader dispute: a former Democratic fundraiser says that after she began speaking publicly about what she witnessed, the president’s own daughter threatened to take her to court.

The lawsuit never came.