Djokovic on Sinner: "It must be very tough for him and his family"

[islappadaface]

Novak's comments in full:

I think it's quite obvious that we have a system that is not working well. So, I guess that's probably something that even the people who are not following our sport are realizing. There are way too many inconsistencies, way too many governing bodies involved and this whole case is not helping our sport at all.” The whole case around him is not helping our sport at all. He has won all three appeals so far, it must be really tough for him, his team, and his family. I hope we can get back to tennis. It is impressive what Jannik is doing throughout this process. He is playing at a very high level, winning a Slam title and most of the matches he plays. This whole situation is not positive for our sport, I hope this case is resolved as soon as possible. Whatever happens, I hope it is decided in the shortest time possible.

I agree with him. WADA's appeal is just a face-saving strategy to make it look like a precedent is being set for this subjective 'negligence' clause in their rulebook which is already flawed and inconsistently applied. It's obvious to literally anyone except hair-brained Sinner haters that Jannik is clearly innocent and being used to set a new example under WADA rules due to his high profile. The fact that anybody would think Sinner, in the breakout season of his career after having just won his first grand slam, would suddenly decide to dope in the dumbest way possible....this can only be a theory peddled by the silliest of stans.

 

[Hitman]

Djokovic is right, it is time to get back to tennis.

 

[Federer and Del Potro]

 

[islappadaface]

Weren't you people crying for almost a month because you thought Sinner "got away with it"?

 

[Federer and Del Potro]

Weren't you people crying for almost a month because you thought Sinner "got away with it"?

Who is "you people"

 

[uscwang]

Novak's comments in full:



I agree with him. WADA's appeal is just a face-saving strategy to make it look like a precedent is being set for this subjective 'negligence' clause in their rulebook which is already flawed and inconsistently applied. It's obvious to literally anyone except hair-brained Sinner haters that Jannik is clearly innocent and being used to set a new example under WADA rules due to his high profile. The fact that anybody would think Sinner, in the breakout season of his career after having just won his first grand slam, would suddenly decide to dope in the dumbest way possible....this can only be a theory peddled by the silliest of stans.

WADA anti-doping code
Article 2. Anti-doping rule violations
2.6.2 Possession of a substance that is prohibited in Out-of-Competition Testing or a Prohibited Method by Athlete Support Personnel in connection with an Athlete, Competition or training, unless the Athlete Support Personnel establishes that the Possession is pursuant to a therapeutic use exemption granted to an Athlete in accordance with Article 4.4 (Therapeutic Use) or other acceptable justification.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Who is "you people"

Munson, Roy E.

 

[Gary Duane]

Djokovic is right, it is time to get back to tennis.

A thousand times yes!

 

[Martin J]

Who is "you people"

 

[islappadaface]

WADA anti-doping code
Article 2. Anti-doping rule violations
2.6.2 Possession of a substance that is prohibited in Out-of-Competition Testing or a Prohibited Method by Athlete Support Personnel in connection with an Athlete, Competition or training, unless the Athlete Support Personnel establishes that the Possession is pursuant to a therapeutic use exemption granted to an Athlete in accordance with Article 4.4 (Therapeutic Use) or other acceptable justification.

I said this was subjective, and it is. WADA thinks Sinner should have done more to control his personnel, ITIA thinks he did everything he could.

What is not subjective is this forum's inability to understand legalese.

 

[norcal]

I bought this protein powder at Costco the other day.

The 'banned substance tested' warning immediately caught my eye.

But Sinner's elite professional trainer is running around with a product with a giant red X warning and he either doesn't notice (impossible), is completely incompetent (unlikely given his top level position) or knows his boss (Sinner) doesn't care/knows about it/is totally clueless, so the trainer does it anyways.

Even if Sinner didn't intentionally dope (story itself is so implausible) he should face SOME penalty for traveling around with a crew of Homer Simpson level physio's.

3 months? 6 months? Is there even a equivalent type situation?

 

[islappadaface]

I bought this protein powder at Costco the other day.

The 'banned substance tested' warning immediately caught my eye.

But Sinner's elite professional trainer is running around with a product with a giant red X warning and he either doesn't notice (impossible), is completely incompetent (unlikely given his top level position) or knows his boss (Sinner) doesn't care/knows about it/is totally clueless, so the trainer does it anyways.

Even if Sinner didn't intentionally dope (story itself is so implausible) he should face SOME penalty for traveling around with a crew of Homer Simpson level physio's.

3 months? 6 months? Is there even a equivalent type situation?

Why assume it is impossible he wouldn't notice? His trainer had Trofodermin which treats cuts, so there would be no situation where Sinner would see this since it was purchased in February 2024, and Sinner tested positive in March. The only way he could have noticed is if he was snooping around in their bags while they're not looking. This is an insane "what if" scenario you just created.

A fair system would punish the physios. And if you come back with "that would give players an easy excuse" - that would only work one time before everybody realises it's clearly part of a scheme. Sinner is obviously innocent and this is just to set a new precedent that all players will now have to adopt totalitarian levels of control over their teams, which is also ridiculous.

 

[tudwell]

WADA anti-doping code
Article 2. Anti-doping rule violations
2.6.2 Possession of a substance that is prohibited in Out-of-Competition Testing or a Prohibited Method by Athlete Support Personnel in connection with an Athlete, Competition or training, unless the Athlete Support Personnel establishes that the Possession is pursuant to a therapeutic use exemption granted to an Athlete in accordance with Article 4.4 (Therapeutic Use) or other acceptable justification.

Yeah, have his two team members who had the clostebol been punished? Seems like a pretty cut-and-dried violation on their part.

 

[uscwang]

Why assume it is impossible he wouldn't notice? His trainer had Trofodermin which treats cuts, so there would be no situation where Sinner would see this since it was purchased in February 2024, and Sinner tested positive in March. The only way he could have noticed is if he was snooping around in their bags while they're not looking. This is an insane "what if" scenario you just created.

A fair system would punish the physios. And if you come back with "that would give players an easy excuse" - that would only work one time before everybody realises it's clearly part of a scheme. Sinner is obviously innocent and this is just to set a new precedent that all players will now have to adopt totalitarian levels of control over their teams, which is also ridiculous.

Right, except there have been nearly 40 Italian athletes busted for the same what-hit-the-fan before Sinner. And Sinner would lose a leg if he asks his crew to stay away from that what-hit-the-fan and sign on a piece of paper.

 

[AgassiSuperSlam11]

Yes, it's very tough having a $158 million contract with Nike. I don't think he is losing that contract anytime soon as his team technically was at fault and not him.

 

[uscwang]

Yeah, have his two team members who had the clostebol been punished? Seems like a pretty cut-and-dried violation on their part.

Nope. This is on the athlete. Nobody cares if a physio is on steroid. It is not like they can search the crew's stuff. This is just there some that athletes cannot use their crew as scapegoat and get away with it. Oh well.

 

[jayvee]

I just need to know what was OPs previous username

 

[tudwell]

Nope. This is on the athlete. Nobody cares if a physio is on steroid. It is not like they can search the crew's stuff. This is just there some that athletes cannot use their crew as scapegoat and get away with it. Oh well.

I think the Athlete Support Personnel can be suspended as well – though I’m no expert on these matters. That’s just the way the wording sounded to me when I was reading through some of the WADA and ITIA rules. (That doesn’t mean Sinner can’t also be punished, of course.)

 

[jayvee]

Nope. This is on the athlete. Nobody cares if a physio is on steroid. It is not like they can search the crew's stuff. This is just there some that athletes cannot use their crew as scapegoat and get away with it. Oh well.

You're wrong. Support personnel can't have doping products in their possession and they can be suspended as well.

 

[AgassiSuperSlam11]

Nope. This is on the athlete. Nobody cares if a physio is on steroid. It is not like they can search the crew's stuff. This is just there some that athletes cannot use their crew as scapegoat and get away with it. Oh well.

This is why if you are a nightclub owner and if your bouncer beats up a patron you are held liable and part of the caption. There is a vetting process involved when you do background checks and are responsible for the training and supervision of your employees.

Even a hospital gets sued for the actions of their physicians and medical staff. We'll never stop hearing the end of accidental contamination or transfer.

 

[uscwang]

This is why if you are a nightclub owner and if your bouncer beats up a patron you are held liable and part of the caption. There is a vetting process involved when you do background checks and are responsible for the training and supervision of your employees.

Even a hospital gets sued for the actions of their physicians and medical staff. We'll never stop hearing the end of accidental contamination or transfer.

Exactly.

 

[uscwang]

I think the Athlete Support Personnel can be suspended as well – though I’m no expert on these matters. That’s just the way the wording sounded to me when I was reading through some of the WADA and ITIA rules. (That doesn’t mean Sinner can’t also be punished, of course.)

I agree. They should be banned for some time from working with any pro athletes.
I guess WADA is not happy with the "Italians have got to do what Italians have got to do" theme of this coverup.

 

[mtommer]

...and this is just to set a new precedent that all players will now have to adopt totalitarian levels of control over their teams, which is also ridiculous.

I'm not sure this is some "new" precedent but let's assume so for the moment. How is it ridiculous when not doing so, obsiously, can lead to a banned substance in one's testing?

 

[norcal]

Why assume it is impossible he wouldn't notice?

Sorry I was referring to it being impossible for the TRAINER not to notice. The trainer is paid to notice so Sinner doesn't have to worry about it. So why would the trainer potentially sabotage Sinner's career by carrying around banned substances? It makes zero sense.

Sinner is obviously innocent

Obviously? Are you aware of the fact pattern they claim occurred? If it were an athlete in a different sport and not your hero Sinner, you would believe this story with no scepticism?

If Alcaraz were in a similar position I would have the same level of scepticism. Or any other player. The excuses are dubious at best which is why it is this case is still going on.

 

[Rosstour]

You're just mad that Nadal didn't get access to the pyramid juice.

You got me, huge Nadal fan

 

[islappadaface]

Sorry I was referring to it being impossible for the TRAINER not to notice. The trainer is paid to notice so Sinner doesn't have to worry about it. So why would the trainer potentially sabotage Sinner's career by carrying around banned substances? It makes zero sense.


Obviously? Are you aware of the fact pattern they claim occurred? If it were an athlete in a different sport and not your hero Sinner, you would believe this story with no scepticism?

If Alcaraz were in a similar position I would have the same level of scepticism. Or any other player. The excuses are dubious at best which is why it is this case is still going on.

If this were Alcaraz I would believe him just as any other player with the story. These things can and do happen. The simplest explanation is that it was unintentional contamination based on the panel’s findings.

 

[mtommer]

[The fact that anybody would think Sinner, in the breakout season of his career after having just won his first grand slam, would suddenly decide to dope in the dumbest way possible....this can only be a theory peddled by the silliest of stans.

Not really. For starters, "suddenly"....? Perhaps, having doped previously, not getting caught, directly led to his current level of play. Second, he's currently been cleared for all intensive purposes....so if he had suddenly decided to dope, as you think, it wasn't the dumbest way possible but rather it was pretty smart. Afterall, he got away with it.

I'm not saying he did or didn't but think through your comment a little better.

 

[JMR]

Even a hospital gets sued for the actions of their physicians and medical staff. We'll never stop hearing the end of accidental contamination or transfer.

There is a very large gap between "gets sued" and "is held liable." Let's not pretend that mere allegations of responsibility are sufficient in any context. Moreover, the doctrine of respondeat superior in Anglo-American law is based on literally centuries of precedent, augmented by statutes and administrative regulations. It's a mature, complex, richly annotated system. The TADP is a skimpy resource by comparison. The rules do establish a strict liability regime that covers a player's employees, but that is balanced by the "No Fault or Negligence" and "No Significant Fault or Negligence" exceptions in secs. 10.5 and 10.6. These provisions are laid out with no attempt to illustrate their application through an exhaustive list of possible factual scenarios in which they might be invoked. Decisions of past independent tribunals are available, but this is not a giant body of case law. It's inevitable that in the face of such relatively limited guidance, there will be debates about proper outcomes. But note that even 10.5, which provides for the complete elimination of a suspension, does not erase the underlying technical violation of the code.

 

[Bartelby]

The time to get back to tennis is in February 2025 when we find out whether the Tribunal decision in the Sinner case was right or wrong.

Until then this matter is unresolved.

 

[AgassiSuperSlam11]

There is a very large gap between "gets sued" and "is held liable." Let's not pretend that mere allegations of responsibility are sufficient in any context. Moreover, the doctrine of respondeat superior in Anglo-American law is based on literally centuries of precedent, augmented by statutes and administrative regulations. It's a mature, complex, richly annotated system. The TADP is a skimpy resource by comparison. The rules do establish a strict liability regime that covers a player's employees, but that is balanced by the "No Fault or Negligence" and "No Significant Fault or Negligence" exceptions in secs. 10.5 and 10.6. These provisions are laid out with no attempt to illustrate their application through an exhaustive list of possible factual scenarios in which they might be invoked. Decisions of past independent tribunals are available, but this is not a giant body of case law. It's inevitable that in the face of such relatively limited guidance, there will be debates about proper outcomes. But note that even 10.5, which provides for the complete elimination of a suspension, does not erase the underlying technical violation of the code.

WTF??? Where did I say anything about liability in the specific Sinner matter. I actually never questioned the decision but did question some of Sinner's actions.
If Sinner does have an indemnification clause in his contract with his team, he himself can hold them responsible without seeking any relief from TADP or any other agency. He has a $158 million contract with Nike and would certainly have indemnification clause if his team screws up and if he faces suspension and monetary damages. WADA appealed to CAS and yes there is further possibility for an additional appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal In my state we do an Article 78 Review for Judicial Intervention if no further appellate remedies exist

Overall, it would be ideal to have some liability when it comes to agents/workers of athletes. However, my cited examples include Premises Liability and Medical Malpractice in which Owners and Hospitals can be held liable for the actions of their employees. Of course, there are obstacles in establishing liability. I commented on this in a previous post with Novak's injury in the French Open.

"There is a very large gap between "gets sued" and "is held liable." Let's not pretend that mere allegations of responsibility are sufficient in any context."

WOW, I thought filing complaints, answers, doing bills of particular, notice for discovery and inspection, deposition of witnesses, compliance conferences, motions for summary judgment, note of issue, and eventually trials weren't necessary, and liability can be simply established without NO litigation process.

 

[vokazu]

Novak's comments in full:



I agree with him. WADA's appeal is just a face-saving strategy to make it look like a precedent is being set for this subjective 'negligence' clause in their rulebook which is already flawed and inconsistently applied. It's obvious to literally anyone except hair-brained Sinner haters that Jannik is clearly innocent and being used to set a new example under WADA rules due to his high profile. The fact that anybody would think Sinner, in the breakout season of his career after having just won his first grand slam, would suddenly decide to dope in the dumbest way possible....this can only be a theory peddled by the silliest of stans.

It's ITIA who is inconsistent, not WADA.

Sinner won his first 2 Slams in his career in the same year he is tested positive twice. This makes people wonder.

 

[SonnyT]

Djokovic doesn't come out and says that Sinner was unjustly prosecuted!

 

[CHillTennis]

Novak's comments in full:



I agree with him. WADA's appeal is just a face-saving strategy to make it look like a precedent is being set for this subjective 'negligence' clause in their rulebook which is already flawed and inconsistently applied. It's obvious to literally anyone except hair-brained Sinner haters that Jannik is clearly innocent and being used to set a new example under WADA rules due to his high profile. The fact that anybody would think Sinner, in the breakout season of his career after having just won his first grand slam, would suddenly decide to dope in the dumbest way possible....this can only be a theory peddled by the silliest of stans.

Is it just me or is Novak trying to look like Nick Kyrgios?

 

[Biotic]

The time to get back to tennis is in February 2025 when we find out whether the Tribunal decision in the Sinner case was right or wrong.

Unfortunately, whatever WADA decides, it won't give us what we need - the truth. As Fritz said, only Sinner and his team know what really happened.

 

[Tennfan123]

Lol. Sinner has a family? He’s single. No kids.
When you’re a grown up, mom and pop don’t really get impacted in quite the same way.

 

[islappadaface]

It's ITIA who is inconsistent, not WADA.

Sinner won his first 2 Slams in his career in the same year he is tested positive twice. This makes people wonder.

It makes some people wonder.

 

[islappadaface]

Lol. Sinner has a family? He’s single. No kids.
When you’re a grown up, mom and pop don’t really get impacted in quite the same way.

Wait, you’re saying his relatives don’t care about him? What kind of sociopaths does this forum cater to? He was hugged by his parents, perhaps you are simply envious.

I think a lot of the people on here don’t care about rules as long as the player they dislike is no longer playing, playing to the best of his abilities. That much is evident.

 

[vokazu]

Is it just me or is Novak trying to look like Nick Kyrgios?

It's different hairstyle. Kyrgios' is punk mohawk. Djokovic's is soldier haircut. Djokovic and Alcaraz have been having this soldier haircut since European indoor season last year.

 

[Raiden]

I agree with him. WADA's appeal is just a face-saving strategy to make it look like a precedent is being set for this subjective 'negligence' clause in their rulebook which is already flawed and inconsistently applied. It's obvious to literally anyone except hair-brained Sinner haters that Jannik is clearly innocent and being used to set a new example under WADA rules due to his high profile. The fact that anybody would think Sinner, in the breakout season of his career after having just won his first grand slam, would suddenly decide to dope in the dumbest way possible....this can only be a theory peddled by the silliest of stans.

That supposition is without meaning. Doping is not a direction that is taken depending on whether you are in your breakout season or not, never mind that that doesn't even prove whether he specifically started to do it for the first time in 2024. For all we know '24 was merely an escalation of a practice started in 2023 but was more sparsely applied. Because whenever you do something illicit, you start out carefully and dip your toes in, see if that gets you caught, then if you feel like you got away with it you increase the dose or the frequency and so on and so forth...

 

[islappadaface]

That's a meaningless supposition. Doping is not a "descition" that is taken depending on whether you are in your breakout season or not, never mind that that doesn't even prove whether (1) he specifically started to do what he did right there and in Indian Wells for the first time. For all we know what happened in March of this year is merely an escalation of a previous practice that in the past was more sparsely applied. Because whenever you do something illicit, you start out carefully and dip your toes in it, see if that gets you caught, then if you feel like you got away with it you increase the dose or the frequency and so on and so forth...

The only meaningless supposition is carried by the people who constantly (and falsey, without dvidence) claim he was part of some intricate doping program.

 

[Raiden]

The only meaningless supposition is carried by the people who constantly (and falsey, without dvidence) claim he was part of some intricate doping program.

There are infinite possibilities — maybe Sinner may not have been sure it was doping, Maybe he was misled, told that this was safe. You never know what happened and the only thing we can conclusively say is that at the very minimum the doctor that had that Clostebol containing medecine in his bag and traveled around with it, was definitely up to no good. I mean not the masseuse who put it on Sinner but the fitness trainer. He was aware of his actions due to having access to steroids, in addition to being a doctor as a secondary profession. This combination raises suspicion, as where there is doping, medical professionals are often involved. It is possible that the individual could be the one more regularly administering the substance to Sinner during their training sessions. It is conceivable that the physiotherapist or masseuse, lacking the expertise of the fitness trainer, may have accidentally applied an excessive amount of the substance during a massage, leading to the positive test result.

 

[Bartelby]

A person who tests positive for a banned substance ...

is only a doper if the act or acts were intentional ...

but he or she still gets banned even for the negligence of others ...'

so neither Sharapova nor Sinner were dopers ...

and neither was Cilic who got 4 months while Sinner 0 months

 

[CHillTennis]

It's different hairstyle. Kyrgios' is punk mohawk. Djokovic's is soldier haircut. Djokovic and Alcaraz have been having this soldier haircut since European indoor season last year.

Thanks for explaining. I couldn't figure out what was going on with his hair...

 

[mtommer]

so neither Sharapova....

On a side note, I don't remember if she actually said this or not but I came away with the sense that she didn't deny taking the substance but rather it was missed by her team when it was added to the banned substance list.

 

[Gazelle]

I bought this protein powder at Costco the other day.

The 'banned substance tested' warning immediately caught my eye.

But Sinner's elite professional trainer is running around with a product with a giant red X warning and he either doesn't notice (impossible), is completely incompetent (unlikely given his top level position) or knows his boss (Sinner) doesn't care/knows about it/is totally clueless, so the trainer does it anyways.

Even if Sinner didn't intentionally dope (story itself is so implausible) he should face SOME penalty for traveling around with a crew of Homer Simpson level physio's.

3 months? 6 months? Is there even a equivalent type situation?

Wait, why is that banned? Some simple protein.

 

[Bride of Alcaraz]

Novak's comments in full:



I agree with him. WADA's appeal is just a face-saving strategy to make it look like a precedent is being set for this subjective 'negligence' clause in their rulebook which is already flawed and inconsistently applied. It's obvious to literally anyone except hair-brained Sinner haters that Jannik is clearly innocent and being used to set a new example under WADA rules due to his high profile. The fact that anybody would think Sinner, in the breakout season of his career after having just won his first grand slam, would suddenly decide to dope in the dumbest way possible....this can only be a theory peddled by the silliest of stans.

The silliness is believing Sinner's story, because even if his physio really did have the potential to infect him, there is still no proof that the positive reading is linked to the physio's spray...
WADA needs to ban Sinner for 2 years, or risk a terrible precedent!
Drug cheats will start bringing that spray into their routines, so when they're caught they can use the spray story...

 

[TheGoldenEra1990’s]

 

[optic yellow]

I said this was subjective, and it is. WADA thinks Sinner should have done more to control his personnel, ITIA thinks he did everything he could.

What is not subjective is this forum's inability to understand legalese.

tbf legalese is not a real language

Wait, why is that banned? Some simple protein.

It's not banned it's certified free of substances that would trigger a positive doping test.

 

[Bartelby]

The CAS determines bans and Sinner should have been banned already but for the ITIA, not WADA.

Anywhere between 4 and 15 months is a reasonable ban starting in August.

The silliness is believing Sinner's story, because even if his physio really did have the potential to infect him, there is still no proof that the positive reading is linked to the physio's spray...
WADA needs to ban Sinner for 2 years, or risk a terrible precedent!
Drug cheats will start bringing that spray into their routines, so when they're caught they can use the spray story...

 

[jackson vile]

At this point I feel 100% confident Sinner did not benefit from any PED use.

He’s performing even better with constant testing and scrutiny than when he had when testing positive.

An ignorant mistake was made by his physio, once it was realized Sinner made the needed changes immediately and his play has continued to increase unaffected by those changes.