[thaumasiotes]

> It is the (supposed) repeated violations which carry the possibility of a forced default.

"Possibility of a forced default" isn't really indicated by the rulebook for repeated violations of the MEDIA CONFERENCE rule. That's specified on the Point Penalty Schedule, which MEDIA CONFERENCE offences don't use.

It could be AGGRAVATED BEHAVIOUR under the third defining clause ("A series of two (2) or more violations of this Code within a twelve (12) month period which singularly do not constitute 'Aggravated Behaviour', but when viewed together establish a pattern of conduct that is collectively egregious and is detrimental or injurious to the Grand Slam Tournaments.")

But the penalties for Aggravated Behaviour are much more severe than that: "Violation of this Section [...] shall subject a player to a fine of up to $250,000 or the amount of prize money won at the tournament, whichever is greater, and a maximum penalty of permanent suspension from play in all Grand Slam Tournaments."

It would be interesting if she chose to appear in just one tournament a year specifically to invalidate the potential charge of Aggravated Behaviour.

[SiempreViernes]

Yes, my reading is that the Aggravated Behaviour clause clearly grants them the power to be harsher, and they simply chose to place a more moderate upper bound for now.