A tale of three Italians and the source of Clostebol: Battaglino, Bortolotti and Sinner - one got four years, two 'no fault, no negligence'!

[Sandokan]

So what cases are you referring to where unintentional doping led to acquittal?

The Bortolotti case mentioned in this thread is one in which there was no suspension at all.
Dayana Yamstrenka's is a case of a provisional suspension that was lifted after the independent tribunal found that she "bore no fault or negligence for the violation".

So, can you show us the rule that, apparently unknown to ITIA and to the independent tribunal and discovered by WADA only now, you are saying is responsible for all these errors in law?

 

[Bartelby]

Sharapova was found to have bore "no fault or negligence" and still got 15 months.

As I added to the above post, there seems a new jurisprudence under the ITIA.

I actually prefer this new leniency, but maybe WADA doesn't.

The Bortolotti case mentioned in this thread is one in which there was no suspension at all.
Dayana Yamstrenka's is a case of a provisional suspension that was lifted after the independent tribunal found that she "bore no fault or negligence for the violation".

So, can you show us the rule that, apparently unknown to ITIA and to the independent tribunal and discovered by WADA only now, you are saying is responsible for all these errors in law?

 

[Sandokan]

Reflects most of my thoughts and it reminds me of the old Latin saying: Summum ius summa iniuria est - “The greatest right is the greatest injury.”

A maxim meaning that granting a party the maximum extent of its rights may do an extreme injustice to the party against whom the right is asserted. ... ...

The Romans knew a thing or two about jurisprudence. Not by accident the Roman Law examination is one of the biggest challenges first year law students have to face in Italy

 

[Bartelby]

The rule used to divide doping into intentional and unintentional, so bearing no fault or negligence reduced your sentence ... but reduced it to under two years.

This is why WADA is saying that Sinner's case is one where one to two years is indicated.

I haven't followed the new ITIA but they are "innovating".

The Bortolotti case mentioned in this thread is one in which there was no suspension at all.
Dayana Yamstrenka's is a case of a provisional suspension that was lifted after the independent tribunal found that she "bore no fault or negligence for the violation".

So, can you show us the rule that, apparently unknown to ITIA and to the independent tribunal and discovered by WADA only now, you are saying is responsible for all these errors in law?

 

[Sandokan]

Sharapova was found to have bore "no fault or negligence" and still got 15 months.

As I added to the above post, there seems a new jurisprudence under the ITIA.

I actually prefer this new leniency, but maybe WADA doesn't.

WADA is the one who makes the rules. ITIA just investigates the case and the independent tribunal renders the verdict on the findings of the investigation based on WADA's rules.
Actually, the final paragraph of the Battaglino sentence makes for a very interesting reading (Battaglino is the the only Italian of the three who got suspended because he could not provide evidence of the source of contamination as apparently the massage therapist who treated him at a tournament ghosted him, probably in fear of losing his accreditation). It shows how reluctantly the tribunal was forced to apply the existing WADA rules, fully knowing that the absurd 4-year suspension they were forced by them to impose was completely unjustified, but had their hands tied.

"In so finding, and for completeness, the Tribunal does not (and need not) conclude that intentional doping has occurred. Instead, (i) on application of the strict set of rules which the Tribunal must apply, including the presumptions contained in such rules, (ii) on the basis of a challenging burden of proof not easily overcome, and (iii) in the light of a large body of diverse jurisprudence which the Tribunal must take into account, we find only that the presumption of intentionality has not been rebutted on the balance of probabilities.

58.Finally, the Tribunal notes, and is not unsympathetic to, the conundrum created for the nondoping athlete by the combination of these strict rules and the ever-increasing capacity for scientific detection of increasingly irrelevant trace elements of contaminating Prohibited Substances. "

 

[Sandokan]

Cocaine is something that I'm not against being illegal. It is far less damaging than alcohol.

BTW, i found some substantiation of your position, which is mine as well Alcohol is more harmful than cocaine when considering harm to self AND to others

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-drugs-alcohol/drug-experts-say-alcohol-worse-than-crack-or-heroin-idUSTRE6A000O20101101/

 

[Bartelby]

This is true but irrelevant. WADA always made the rules and the TIU Tennis Integrity Unit sent the cases off to London for adjudication.

The point is that those decisions were extremely tough, whereas Battaglioni and Skinner seem to indicate that those days are over for good.

But how did this happen given the simple change from a TIU to a ITIA?

WADA is the one who makes the rules. ITIA just investigates the case and the independent tribunal renders the verdict on the findings of the investigation based on WADA's rules.
Actually, the final paragraph of the Battaglino sentence makes for a very interesting reading (Battaglino is the the only Italian of the three who got suspended because he could not provide evidence of the source of contamination as apparently the massage therapist who treated him at a tournament ghosted him, probably in fear of losing his accreditation). It shows how reluctantly the tribunal was forced to apply the existing WADA rules, fully knowing that the absurd 4-year suspension they were forced by them to impose was completely unjustified, but had their hands tied.

"In so finding, and for completeness, the Tribunal does not (and need not) conclude that intentional doping has occurred. Instead, (i) on application of the strict set of rules which the Tribunal must apply, including the presumptions contained in such rules, (ii) on the basis of a challenging burden of proof not easily overcome, and (iii) in the light of a large body of diverse jurisprudence which the Tribunal must take into account, we find only that the presumption of intentionality has not been rebutted on the balance of probabilities.

58.Finally, the Tribunal notes, and is not unsympathetic to, the conundrum created for the nondoping athlete by the combination of these strict rules and the ever-increasing capacity for scientific detection of increasingly irrelevant trace elements of contaminating Prohibited Substances. "

 

[Bartelby]

Thanks for that confirmation. I'm into Sherlock Holmes at the moment!

BTW, i found some substantiation of your position, which is mine as well Alcohol is more harmful than cocaine when considering harm to self AND to others

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-drugs-alcohol/drug-experts-say-alcohol-worse-than-crack-or-heroin-idUSTRE6A000O20101101/

 

[Bartelby]

I read the Battaglioni case a while ago. His case revolved around him saying the tournament physio was the source, and the latter saying that as a professional he would never have used this particular cream.

As he had no other explanation, they found he intentionally doped,

Being found to have unintentionally doped used to get you a shortish ban, but you were still banned, unlike Bortolotti and Sinner. I think that this matter needs to be resolved so WADA's appeal to CAS is a good one ...

whether they win or lose.

 

[JMR]

The rule used to divide doping into intentional and unintentional, so bearing no fault or negligence reduced your sentence ... but reduced it to under two years.

Please read TADP sec. 10.5:

"10.5 Elimination of the period of Ineligibility where there is No Fault or Negligence
"If a Player or other Person establishes in an individual case that they bear No Fault or Negligence for the Anti-Doping Rule Violation, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility will be eliminated."

Do you see the word, "eliminated"? There was no "error of law" here. WADA will need to argue that the evidence at the hearing did not adequately support the Independent Tribunal's finding of "No Fault or Negligence" as to Sinner. That kind of argument is never clear-cut. It will be messy. It reflects a mostly subjective disagreement about assigning blame.

Since WADA wants a ban of one to two years to be imposed, we can infer that WADA probably will argue that TADP sec. 10.6, "Reduction of the period of Ineligibility based on No Significant Fault or Negligence," should be applied here. If that's what this case is now about -- the difference between no negligence and no "significant" negligence -- ask whether this appeal was really worth bringing. As I discussed in another thread, nothing is being done here to "clean up" tennis. There was never any doper on the loose. WADA is simply trying to ensure that the testing and sanctioning regime is applied as severely as possible to buttress its own institutional credibility.

 

[vokazu]

BTW, i found some substantiation of your position, which is mine as well Alcohol is more harmful than cocaine when considering harm to self AND to others

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-drugs-alcohol/drug-experts-say-alcohol-worse-than-crack-or-heroin-idUSTRE6A000O20101101/

Alcohol is not performance enhancing, while cocaine is.

Cocaine does have a performance enhancing effect when used In-Competition and is a Prohibited Substance under the World Anti-Doping Code for In-Competition use. As a stimulant, cocaine can produce an intense 'rush' with users feeling a sense of alertness, arousal, and increased confidence.

I drink red wine with my dinner before sleep, as a curative drink. I certainly don't drink red wine before playing tennis in the morning lol.

 

[Bartelby]

There was dope in Sinner's system and it was due to an agent under his direct control and there are past cases where bans were imposed ...

whereas now we have this soft interpretation in the two Italian cases resulting in no bans and WADA is most displeased.

Please read TADP sec. 10.5:

"10.5 Elimination of the period of Ineligibility where there is No Fault or Negligence
"If a Player or other Person establishes in an individual case that they bear No Fault or Negligence for the Anti-Doping Rule Violation, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility will be eliminated."

Do you see the word, "eliminated"? There was no "error of law" here. WADA will need to argue that the evidence at the hearing did not adequately support the Independent Tribunal's finding of "No Fault or Negligence" as to Sinner. That kind of argument is never clear-cut. It will be messy. It reflects a mostly subjective disagreement about assigning blame.

Since WADA wants a ban of one to two years to be imposed, we can infer that WADA probably will argue that TADP sec. 10.6, "Reduction of the period of Ineligibility based on No Significant Fault or Negligence," should be applied here. If that's what this case is now about -- the difference between no negligence and no "significant" negligence -- ask whether this appeal was really worth bringing. As I discussed in another thread, nothing is being done here to "clean up" tennis. There was never any doper on the loose. WADA is simply trying to ensure that the testing and sanctioning regime is applied as severely as possible to buttress its own institutional credibility.

 

[Bartelby]

We were comparing the two in general use, not in sporting contexts.

Alcohol is not performance enhancing, while cocaine is.

Cocaine does have a performance enhancing effect when used In-Competition and is a Prohibited Substance under the World Anti-Doping Code for In-Competition use. As a stimulant, cocaine can produce an intense 'rush' with users feeling a sense of alertness, arousal, and increased confidence.

I drink red wine with my dinner before sleep, as a curative drink. I certainly don't drink red wine before playing tennis in the morning lol.

 

[Sandokan]

Alcohol is not performance enhancing, while cocaine is.

Cocaine does have a performance enhancing effect when used In-Competition and is a Prohibited Substance under the World Anti-Doping Code for In-Competition use. As a stimulant, cocaine can produce an intense 'rush' with users feeling a sense of alertness, arousal, and increased confidence.

I drink red wine with my dinner before sleep, as a curative drink. I certainly don't drink red wine before playing tennis in the morning lol.

Sure, and being Italian, I am also a big fan of good wine and the occasional Aperol Spritz. It was a tongue in cheek way to say that for me the line of separation between "drugs" does not follow the legal/illegal divide that, a cynical like me, sees as driven by economic interest rather than public health concerns. After all there is a big difference between enjoying a bottle of Brunello at dinner and the drunkard who comes back home and is violent to his family. I am not sure how prone someone doing cocaine would be to do that, but I can exclude it for other stuff I am more familiar with lol

 

[gfwp]

It is verly clear that this is not only doping but state sponsored doping.

The very fact that clostebol is available over the counter with no doctor ordered prescription is proof of that. Basically the Italian cycling lobby led to it being legal so that the athletes would individually buy it (and circumvent having to go thru a distributor).

The active ingredient was invented by East Germans to scam the Olympics and other events. Not to apply it in the country's first aid system. Nowadays no other country sells this product except Italy (and at times Brazil and that too is a doping program as far as I'm concerned — Brazilians copying Italians who copied East Germans.

Italy has a long tradition with doping. The whole EPO movement came from there, too.

 

[Sandokan]

Since WADA wants a ban of one to two years to be imposed, we can infer that WADA probably will argue that TADP sec. 10.6, "Reduction of the period of Ineligibility based on No Significant Fault or Negligence," should be applied here. If that's what this case is now about -- the difference between no negligence and no "significant" negligence -- ask whether this appeal was really worth bringing. As I discussed in another thread, nothing is being done here to "clean up" tennis. There was never any doper on the loose. WADA is simply trying to ensure that the testing and sanctioning regime is applied as severely as possible to buttress its own institutional credibility.

Perfectly said. What really disgusts me is that in its decision to make a show of rectitude, WADA did not hesitate to cast a cloud that will alter the results on the court for we don't know how long, and to put through the grinder a 23 yo kid who has worked hard to get there, is playing great tennis, and does not deserve anything of what is happening to him. He surely must be growing cynical quickly and losing any delusion he might still have had about the world of professional sports. Tennis should not offer such an easy playground that can be hijacked at will by organizations that have some credibility problem in the attempt to restore their public image

 

[beartorun]

Very happy for Bortolotti but I wonder how WADA can justify its appeal against Sinner after not doing so in the in his case. Most likely because the source of contamination was an employee. Still this highly unusual appeal creates the impression of an unequal treatment of the Nr.1 player due to his ranking and status:




Sadly this impression in conjunction with the poor handling of the well known cases of the Chinese swimmers and Halep will likely further damage its reputation

Perfectly said. What really disgusts me is that in its decision to make a show of rectitude, WADA did not hesitate to cast a cloud that will alter the results on the court for we don't know how long, and to put through the grinder a 23 yo kid who has worked hard to get there, is playing great tennis, and does not deserve anything of what is happening to him. He surely must be growing cynical quickly and losing any delusion he might still have had about the world of professional sports. Tennis should not offer such an easy playground that can be hijacked at will by organizations that have some credibility problem in the attempt to restore their public image

I believe WADA’s appeal regarding Sinner will focus on a very delicate topic concerning the quality of the supervisory process that was in place. Battaglino’s case and Palomino’s are different matter since there were not a team member involved. Doping is not the only field where different authorities weigh the level/quality of control that specific individuals exercise on sensitive processes (e.g., safety processes are another well-known example in corporations).
The three judges will have to determine if Sinner’s behavior was appropriate in order to apply a zero-day ineligibility period. As already reported in the IATA decision (see 90), CAS has already stated in the Sharapova case:
“If, however, an anti-doping rule violation is committed, the objective fact of the third party’s misdeed is imputed to the athlete, but the sanction remains commensurate with the athlete’s personal fault or negligence in his/her selection and oversight of such third party or, alternatively, for his/her own negligence in not having checked or controlled the ingestion of the prohibited substance. In other words, the fault to be assessed is not that which is made by the delegate, but the fault made by the athlete in his/her choice. As a result, as the Respondent put it, a player who delegates his/her anti-doping responsibilities to another is at fault if he/she chooses an unqualified person as her delegate, if he/she fails to instruct him properly or set out clear procedures he/she must follow in carrying out his task, and/or if he/she fails to exercise supervision and control over him/her in the carrying out of the task. The Panel also concurs with such an approach.”
I think the entire debate will focus on those last lines, where WADA will have to convince at least two of the three judges that Sinner was reckless in his behavior. Much can be said, but I think the key elements will be Ferrara and Naldi’s testimonies. We will see.
Two more comments: 1) This is a very strong blow to ATP. 2) Top players’ very uninformed reactions showed they have not understood what is at stake here.
In the future, doping testing will become more and more stringent, and if WADA wins, players will need to comply with the utmost strict control procedures since they will be deemed responsible.

 

[Bartelby]

Sharapova delegated to her agent the reading of WADA correspondence and the agent failed to read the Meldonium ban information and could not pass the information on to her.

A better agent would have done so, but the finding from memory was that Sharapova was entitled to rely on his professional competence and no fault attached to her not attending to emails herself.

The upshot is that she got a 24-month penalty down to a 15-day one. There was no possibility of a zero-day ineligibility period. Indeed, the WADA prosecutorial team tried to fit her up with a four year ban initially.

 

[Sandokan]

whereas now we have this soft interpretation in the two Italian cases resulting in no bans and WADA is most displeased.

It's a bit strange labeling as a soft interpretation the literal one, and since WADA wrote the rules, its displeasure would be the poster child for the need of a "psychologist specialized in mental care for companies", a profession that I am surprised does not yet exist, considering their status as juridic persons.

Most of us around the world have the fortune to live in societies that recognize a fundamental civil right: presumption of innocence. If we are accused of a crime, the burden of proof is on the accuser side. In doping cases the situation is much less favorable: after a failed test there is a presumption of culpability, which sets the bar much higher for the defendant, who has to convince the judges of his/her innocence several times: to avoid provisional suspensions at different junctures and at the final trial. The bar is so high that we have seen many fail with most high profile cases unable to escape at least a provisional suspension.
Paradoxically, the fact that Sinner was able to pass the test of such a high bar at every step of the way, which should have left no doubt whatsoever about his innocence, generated instead so much incredulity in those used to hear about year-long suspensions being routinely handled, many of whom appear to believe that something unheard is not an easily fixable gap in their knowledge but the sign of a rotten world, that a belief arose that he had received a preferential treatment. A belief amplified by fans tribalism that transformed a tough legal victory into an absurd presumption of culpability after a judgment of acquittal.
This ended up generating so much ado about nothing that WADA saw it as a great chance to show to the world its "cojones".

These are, of course, just my two cents, ready to confront them with differing opinions.

 

[Sandokan]

I believe WADA’s appeal regarding Sinner will focus on a very delicate topic concerning the quality of the supervisory process that was in place. Battaglino’s case and Palomino’s are different matter since there were not a team member involved. Doping is not the only field where different authorities weigh the level/quality of control that specific individuals exercise on sensitive processes (e.g., safety processes are another well-known example in corporations).
The three judges will have to determine if Sinner’s behavior was appropriate in order to apply a zero-day ineligibility period. As already reported in the IATA decision (see 90), CAS has already stated in the Sharapova case:
“If, however, an anti-doping rule violation is committed, the objective fact of the third party’s misdeed is imputed to the athlete, but the sanction remains commensurate with the athlete’s personal fault or negligence in his/her selection and oversight of such third party or, alternatively, for his/her own negligence in not having checked or controlled the ingestion of the prohibited substance. In other words, the fault to be assessed is not that which is made by the delegate, but the fault made by the athlete in his/her choice. As a result, as the Respondent put it, a player who delegates his/her anti-doping responsibilities to another is at fault if he/she chooses an unqualified person as her delegate, if he/she fails to instruct him properly or set out clear procedures he/she must follow in carrying out his task, and/or if he/she fails to exercise supervision and control over him/her in the carrying out of the task. The Panel also concurs with such an approach.”
I think the entire debate will focus on those last lines, where WADA will have to convince at least two of the three judges that Sinner was reckless in his behavior. Much can be said, but I think the key elements will be Ferrara and Naldi’s testimonies. We will see.
Two more comments: 1) This is a very strong blow to ATP. 2) Top players’ very uninformed reactions showed they have not understood what is at stake here.
In the future, doping testing will become more and more stringent, and if WADA wins, players will need to comply with the utmost strict control procedures since they will be deemed responsible.

You see, I read all of this and I wonder, is it a good idea to use a case that had already been very divisive for the tennis world, surely affected the year results and looked finally over to resolve such questions of procedure that are left unclear in the rules? Especially after WADA decided not to do so in previous occasions when similar verdicts were issued and which would not have offered all this limelight. Why doesn't WADA spells exactly in its rules what a player exactly needs to do to completely fulfill his due diligence duties? It probably has no idea itself, yet it is asking judges to determine it, not caring for the consequences of its actions

 

[Bartelby]

1. I think the Tribunal erred

2. The doctrine is strict liability.

3. Sinner's ingestion was unintentional.

4, The usual punishment is one to two years.

5. Judicial processes sometimes get it wrong.

6. WADA thinks they're wrong so CAS will decide.

It's a bit strange labeling as a soft interpretation the literal one, and since WADA wrote the rules, its displeasure would be the poster child for the need of a "psychologist specialized in mental care for companies", a profession that I am surprised does not yet exist, considering their status as juridic persons.

Most of us around the world have the fortune to live in societies that recognize a fundamental civil right: presumption of innocence. If we are accused of a crime, the burden of proof is on the accuser side. In doping cases the situation is much less favorable: after a failed test there is a presumption of culpability, which sets the bar much higher for the defendant, who has to convince the judges of his/her innocence several times: to avoid provisional suspensions at different junctures and at the final trial. The bar is so high that we have seen many fail with most high profile cases unable to escape at least a provisional suspension.
Paradoxically, the fact that Sinner was able to pass the test of such a high bar at every step of the way, which should have left no doubt whatsoever about his innocence, generated instead so much incredulity in those used to hear about year-long suspensions being routinely handled, many of whom appear to believe that something unheard is not an easily fixable gap in their knowledge but the sign of a rotten world, that a belief arose that he had received a preferential treatment. A belief amplified by fans tribalism that transformed a tough legal victory into an absurd presumption of culpability after a judgment of acquittal.
This ended up generating so much ado about nothing that WADA saw it as a great chance to show to the world its "cojones".

These are, of course, just my two cents, ready to confront them with differing opinions.

 

[messiahrobins]

Cocaine is something that I'm not against being illegal. It is far less damaging than alcohol.

Yes it is. Cocaine gives a short high, then long low and its designed to make one more and more dependent on it to get over the lows.

 

[Bartelby]

Gambing is addictive and so is social media.

Yes it is. Cocaine gives a short high, then long low and its designed to make one more and more dependent on it to get over the lows.

 

[Sandokan]

1. I think the Tribunal erred

2. The doctrine is strict liability.
d
3. Sinner's ingestion was unintentional.

4, The usual punishment is one to two years.

5. Judicial processes sometimes get it wrong.

6. WADA thinks they're wrong so CAS will decide.

This is where we have to agree to disagree as I believe a doctrine of strict liability would not have resulted in this situation and does not explain the precedents. It's when there are some degrees of latitude that this sort of disagreements arise and I have difficulty believing that a tribunal does not know the law it operates under.

 

[Bartelby]

Latitude extending to no ban of however short a length seems to me an error.

This is where we have to agree to disagree as I believe a doctrine of strict liability would not have resulted in this situation and does not explain the precedents. It's when there are some degrees of latitude that this sort of disagreements arise and I have difficulty believing that a tribunal does not know the law it operates under.

 

[Sandokan]

Latitude extending to no ban of however short a length seems to me an error.

Yet there is uncontested precedent and, as @Rovesciarete rightly pointed out, WADA will have to explain why it did not contest that

 

[JMR]

There was dope in Sinner's system and it was due to an agent under his direct control and there are past cases where bans were imposed ...

This kind of general argument is unhelpful in the present context. I just cited you the specific TADP provisions involved, yet you avoid attempting to parse and apply them. Too much discussion here uses ban-first language and thinking, as in, "I feel Sinner should be banned; now someone else will have to work backward and figure out how to make that happen under the rules." Some other players and media sources apparently share that perspective.

 

[Rovesciarete]

Yet there is uncontested precedent and, as @Rovesciarete rightly pointed out, WADA will have to explain why it did not contest that

It gets even stranger as Bortolotti was tested the October 4th but was not only January 30th they sent him the notice that they found something.

He accepted and responded February 1st, got formally informed the 2nd and he provided the full explanation the 5th.

So a huge initial delay by the ITIA. Very short report with blackened out passages for good privacy reasons.

No doubt that Sinner was scrutinised much more than Bortolotti….

 

[Bartelby]

I'm on record as stating that doping regulations are far too stringent and that I'd be glad if players in Sinner's situation did not get a ban.

They are, however, stringent so WADA is right to appeal what on the surface seems an unusually light penalty. I would prefer clarification from CAS as to the correct interpretation.

My parsing and applying them is beside the point.

This kind of general argument is unhelpful in the present context. I just cited you the specific TADP provisions involved, yet you avoid attempting to parse and apply them. Too much discussion here uses ban-first language and thinking, as in, "I feel Sinner should be banned; now someone else will have to work backward and figure out how to make that happen under the rules." Some other players and media sources apparently share that perspective.

 

[Sandokan]

This kind of general argument is unhelpful in the present context. I just cited you the specific TADP provisions involved, yet you avoid attempting to parse and apply them. Too much discussion here uses ban-first language and thinking, as in, "I feel Sinner should be banned; now someone else will have to work backward and figure out how to make that happen under the rules." Some other players and media sources apparently share that perspective.

Indeed, it seems a dogmatic view ingrained in many. I am not knowledgeable enough to know whether it was ever the criterion, but it makes no sense to me. I cannot think of any legal (or pseudo-legal) context in which there is no difference between voluntary and involuntary.

 

[Sandokan]

I'm on record as stating that doping regulations are far too stringent and that I'd be glad if players in Sinner's situation did not get a ban.

They are, however, stringent so WADA is right to appeal what on the surface seems an unusually light penalty. I would prefer clarification from CAS as to the correct interpretation.

My parsing and applying them is beside the point.

Is it just me or does anyone else consider strange the fact that the author of the rules, WADA, is looking for the correct interpretation from another party, CAS? Normally the judiciary tries to reconstruct the intent of the legislator to correctly apply the law. If that were the case, this appeal does not bode well for Sinner. Although WADA still has to explain why it did not appeal Bortolotti and the reasonable level of responsibility that can be attributed to Sinner in unclear. Unclear, but the result of this appeal can be extremely significant for tennis, as @beartorun very clearly pointed out in his analysis.

 

[Bartelby]

A Tribunal can get a decision wrong and it's probable that is what WADA thinks. Asking the Appeal Court to clarify matters is completely normal in this circumstance.

They should have appealed the Bortolotti decision, but WADA is a body that operates on little money. (I researched their funding). The Sinner case is too high profile to ignore and so they appealed.

It's quite clear what Sinner's responsibility is. Although he did not make the error, he is liable for the consequences. His punishment may be reduced, however, as he was entitled to rely on his team's professionalism.

Is it just me or does anyone else consider strange the fact that the author of the rules, WADA, is looking for the correct interpretation from another party, CAS? Normally the judiciary tries to reconstruct the intent of the legislator to correctly apply the law. If that were the case, this appeal does not bode well for Sinner. Although WADA still has to explain why it did not appeal Bortolotti and the reasonable level of responsibility that can be attributed to Sinner in unclear. Unclear, but the result of this appeal can be extremely significant for tennis, as @beartorun very clearly pointed out in his analysis.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Sounds like banning meldonium did these Russians and east Europeans a favour then.

What do you mean it was being used for no documentable benefit? It was primarily being used to treat heart conditions.

According to the drugmaker’s website, meldonium is primarily used to treat heart-related conditions — like angina pectoris and heart failure — that block blood and oxygen to the heart muscle. The drugmaker also says meldonium can also improve “physical capacity and mental function” in healthy people.

Oh, come on. By now, you should know the member you responded to has a long history of posting anything to protect the country with the most corrupt, PED-abusing sports program in history, with guilty cheats like Sharapova at the top of the list. She was obviously using Meldonium for the performance enhancer it was designed to be, and rushed to get ahead of her obvious guilt with that lie-a-thon press conference. Thankfully, it failed to convince anyone.

 

[Bartelby]

Sharapova came out of the Meldonium hoax with her reputation increased. People who hated her before continued afterward.

Sinner tested positive for dope and bizarrely copped no ban and yet his reputation is untarnished. People who hated him before continued afterward.

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

Oh, come on. By now, you should know the member you responded to has a long history of posting anything to protect the country with the most corrupt, PED-abusing sports program in history, with guilty cheats like Sharapova at the top of the list. She was obviously using Meldonium for the performance enhancer it was designed to be, and rushed to get ahead of her obvious guilt with that lie-a-thon press conference. Thankfully, it failed to convince anyone.

Our point was that meldonium was commonly prescribed by doctors in Eastern Europe/Russia for medical conditions. That fact would actually support Sharapova's case.
Yet our favourite Bart went off on an angry rant that meldonium had never been scientifically tested.
That is irrelevant. Eastern European doctors often prescribe drugs that have not undergone clinical trials.

 

[canta_Brian]

Oh, come on. By now, you should know the member you responded to has a long history of posting anything to protect the country with the most corrupt, PED-abusing sports program in history, with guilty cheats like Sharapova at the top of the list. She was obviously using Meldonium for the performance enhancer it was designed to be, and rushed to get ahead of her obvious guilt with that lie-a-thon press conference. Thankfully, it failed to convince anyone.

TT needs a sarcasm emoji

 

[Bartelby]

Meldoniuum was sold on the street legally for a dollar a pop. And it did not have a DOPING warning to alert anyone who can read.

Our point was that meldonium was commonly prescribed by doctors in Eastern Europe/Russia for medical conditions. That fact would actually support Sharapova's case.
Yet our favourite Bart went off on an angry rant that meldonium had never been scientifically tested.
That is irrelevant. Eastern European doctors often prescribe drugs that have not undergone clinical trials.

 

[JJGUY]

The reason that Meldonium was added to the banned substance is the direct lobbying from USADA, they wanted it to be banned because the drug was not available in USA. An european pharm holds the patent for this drug, American big pharms are naturally against it since they have no financial benefits here if the drug is approved by FDA, even without the opposition lobby from American pharms, it would take a decade or more to complete clinical trials for FDA to consider the approval etc. Meldonium has no proven benefits but many european athletes take it regardless, USADA feel american athletes are at a disadvantage, for years they have lobbied really hard to get it banned and they finally succeeded, it was officially banned in 2016

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

The reason that Meldonium was added to the banned substance is the direct lobbying from USADA, they wanted it to be banned because the drug was not available in USA

"Not available in America" does not necessarily mean it was illegal here.

If Meldonium was legally and freely available OTC in Europe, there is no inherent disadvantage to American athletes simply because meldonium wasn't sold in America. Americans will find a way to get it

Indeed, before its ban, meldonium was used by athletes worldwide, not just those from countries where it was sold OTC.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

 

[JJGUY]

"Not available in America" does not necessarily mean it was illegal here.

If Meldonium was legally and freely available OTC in Europe, American athletes could also easily find a way to get it.

No you cannot import to USA, for American citizens, the drug could be confiscated in the border entry. For foreign travellers, they might be able to bring some unapproved drugs but no more than 90 day supply.

 

[Bartelby]

The Head of USADA was not motivated by economic reasons but by that which we cannot speak of here.

The reason that Meldonium was added to the banned substance is the direct lobbying from USADA, they wanted it to be banned because the drug was not available in USA. An european pharm holds the patent for this drug, American big pharms are naturally against it since they have no financial benefits here if the drug is approved by FDA, even without the opposition lobby from American pharms, it would take a decade or more to complete clinical trials for FDA to consider the approval etc. Meldonium has no proven benefits but many european athletes take it regardless, USADA feel american athletes are at a disadvantage, for years they have lobbied really hard to get it banned and they finally succeeded, it was officially banned in 2016

 

[Sandokan]

A Tribunal can get a decision wrong and it's probable that is what WADA thinks. Asking the Appeal Court to clarify matters is completely normal in this circumstance.

What I meant is that in general it is the enforcer of the rule (in this case CAS) that asks the maker of the rule (WADA) how it should be interpreted, not the other way around.
I think the reason is that WADA is basing its appeal on a general concept of jurisprudence, what is the reasonable level of responsibility that someone can bear for the behavior of others, that cannot be codified in WADA rules but has to rely on more general established legal principles.
Maybe someone with a better legal background could clarify this

EDIT: on a second thought, maybe the general concept of the enforcer trying to reconstruct the will of the legislator holds only at the high level of the laws of the state, but of course not on arbitrations, which otherwise would always favor the party who wrote the contract. The arbitrator goal is also to assess if the contract itself is reasonable/legally enforceable.
Just something more to speculate about as we wait for developments lol

 

[Bartelby]

ITIA seems the chosen vehicle for dealing with doping cases, and this organisation is composed of key tournament owners within the tennis world.

So you can see the conflicts that may arise when the absence of a star threatens the game that these bodies profit from.

The Tribunal is the court of first instance, and if one of the parties is unhappy, then they can take it to the appeal court and that is what WADA did.

 

[Sandokan]

The Head of USADA was not motivated by economic reasons but by that which we cannot speak of here.

Now you got me curious