Nationals Boycott: Decision Reached by Hearing Panel

Naturally enough, the decision has also sparked off a round of discussion in our own About.com Table Tennis forum, with members commenting on the decision and making a few points of their own, such as:

• What exactly were the various demands for hospitality?
• If Michael Landers was a signatory on the original demand document, but later changed his mind and agreed to play, should he be punished for being part of the original threat/extortion attempt against the USATT?
• If the demand document was an extortion attempt, should the USATT have negotiated with the players? (The USATT did agree to consider a proposal to double the prize money for the Men's and Women's Singles in 2010)
• Why didn't any of the other players involved bother to give testimony or a written response, other than Han Xiao?
• What exactly does the phrase "USATT activities or events" cover?

And a couple of thoughts of my own come to mind:

• Is the USATT still going to consider doubling the prize money for the Men's and Women's Singles in 2010? And if they do actually double it, would that be a tacit admission that the defaulters were correct, and that the prize money should have been higher?
• Who started the original rumor that prize money could be higher in the first place?
• How do the top USATT Women feel about being left out of the original demand document? I think there might be some strained friendships between the top men and women at the moment.
• Will we see an appeal from any of the six players involved?