French Open Champion Calls for Life Ban on Sinner & Swiatek

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
You say you did your homework, but the dog must have eaten it as you haven't presented it.

But i did my homework, and, to me, the rulings are more-less consistent regardless of the name of the player. _You_ are claiming that those dishing the ruling are impartial so I'm asking you to provide an example.
 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
You say you did your homework, but the dog must have eaten it as you haven't presented it.
ok, here it is for your reading pleasure:

1) cases where a player explained the positive urine sample test via claiming _supplement_ contamination. ITIA/Tribunal/CAS ruled in these cases that a player was 'Not at Significant Fault' therefore allowing for a reduced penalty (full penalty is 24 months for non-intentional use):

Haddad Maia - 10 months suspension
Kamil Majchrzak - 13 months
Demoliner - 3 months
Bellucci - 5 months
Jarry - 11 months
Marcondes - 9 months
Halep - 9 months
Klier - 12 months
Bartunkova - 6 months
Sharapova - 15 months (this case is slightly different since it was not a case of contamination. Buit the penalty is still based on 'player did not intentionally used a prohibited substance, she was not at significant fault, but a fairly substantial fault nonetheless)

seems fairly consistent, anywhere between 3 and 13 months depending on 'how much a player was at fault not making sure that supplements are safe'

2) cases where a player explained the positive urine sample test via claiming _medicine_ contamination. ITIA/Tribunal/CAS ruled in these cases that a player was 'Not at Significant Fault' therefore allowing for a reduced penalty (full penalty is 24 months for non-intentional use):

Swiatek - 1 month (there has not really been a case of contaminated medicine within tennis players, at least not recently. There have been such case involving athletes outside tennis. The 1 month penalty is in line with the reasoning that a player is reasonably expected to assume that medicine is not tainted vs assuming a supplement is not tainted due to more strict regulations around medicine - thus lesser penalty. That has been an accepted 'standard' when doling out penalties. note that for example Verdasco got 2 months for failing the test when he claimed that he just forgot to renew/get his TUE in time. Different circumstances - but a short ban is not unheard of.

3) cases where a player explained the positive urine sample test via claiming _contamination via consuming tainted meal_. ITIA/Tribunal/CAS ruled in these cases that a player was 'Not at Fault' therefore not imposing any penalties:

Moore - no suspension
Gatica - no suspension

4) cases where a player explained the positive urine sample test via claiming _contamination via consuming tainted meal_. ITIA/Tribunal/CAS ruled in these cases that a player was 'at Fault' therefore imposing penalties:

Errani - initially 2 months, then 10 months on appeal.

5) cases where a player explained the positive urine sample test via claiming _contamination via contact with another human_. ITIA/Tribunal/CAS ruled in these cases that a player was 'Not at Fault' therefore not imposing any penalties:

Sinner - contact via a massage, - no suspension
Yastremska - contact via, ahem, you can read on your own, - no suspension
Gasquet - contact via a kiss, - no suspension
Bortolotti - the docs are redacted so it is hard to know what the explanation was. _Because_ it is redacted I would assume it involves another person. - no suspension


there does seem to be a pattern of contaminated supplement -> most at fault to contamination via a human contact -> not at fault, with penalties spread logically depending on the level of fault.

If you want to see a conspiracy, I'm sure you can find it. If you look at it without emotions - makes sense.
 
Last edited:

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The numbers are very small in your sub-categories to draw firm conclusions and, furthermore, the facts of the case are usually legally determinative so it's dangerous to classify disparate factual complexes.

For example, Gasquet was contaminated recreationally by a third party whereas Sinner was contaminated by his team of professionals for which he has direct responsibility.

WADA is appealing the Sinner case for good reason unless you are suggesting they are organising the conspiracy.

ok, here it is for your reading pleasure:

1) cases where a player explained the positive urine sample test via claiming _supplement_ contamination. ITIA/Tribunal/CAS ruled in these cases that a player was 'Not at Significant Fault' therefore allowing for a reduced penalty (full penalty is 24 months for non-intentional use):

Haddad Maia - 10 months suspension
Kamil Majchrzak - 13 months
Demoliner - 3 months
Bellucci - 5 months
Jarry - 11 months
Marcondes - 9 months
Halep - 9 months
Klier - 12 months
Bartunkova - 6 months
Sharapova - 15 months (this case is slightly different since it was not a case of contamination. Buit the penalty is still based on 'player did not intentionally used a prohibited substance, she was not at significant fault, but a fairly substantial fault nonetheless)

seems fairly consistent, anywhere between 3 and 13 months depending on 'how much a player was at fault not making sure that supplements are safe'

2) cases where a player explained the positive urine sample test via claiming _medicine_ contamination. ITIA/Tribunal/CAS ruled in these cases that a player was 'Not at Significant Fault' therefore allowing for a reduced penalty (full penalty is 24 months for non-intentional use):

Swiatek - 1 month (there has not really been a case of contaminated medicine within tennis players, at least not recently. There have been such case involving athletes outside tennis. The 1 month penalty is in line with the reasoning that a player is reasonably expected to assume that medicine is not tainted vs assuming a supplement is not tainted due to more strict regulations around medicine - thus lesser penalty. That has been an accepted 'standard' when doling out penalties. note that for example Verdasco got 2 months for failing the test when he claimed that he just forgot to renew/get his TUE in time. Different circumstances - but a short ban is not unheard of.

3) cases where a player explained the positive urine sample test via claiming _contamination via consuming tainted meal_. ITIA/Tribunal/CAS ruled in these cases that a player was 'Not at Fault' therefore not imposing any penalties:

Moore - no suspension
Gatica - no suspension

4) cases where a player explained the positive urine sample test via claiming _contamination via consuming tainted meal_. ITIA/Tribunal/CAS ruled in these cases that a player was 'at Fault' therefore imposing penalties:

Errani - initially 2 months, than 10 months on appeal.

5) cases where a player explained the positive urine sample test via claiming _contamination via contact with another human_. ITIA/Tribunal/CAS ruled in these cases that a player was 'Not at Fault' therefore not imposing any penalties:

Sinner - contact via a massage, - no suspension
Yastremska - contact via, ahem, you can read on your own, - no suspension
Gasquet - contact via a kiss, - no suspension
Bortolotti - the docs are redacted so it is hard to know what the explanation was. _Because_ it is redacted I would assume it involves another person. - no suspension


there does seem to be a pattern of contaminated supplement -> most at fault to contamination via a human contact -> not at fault, with penalties spread logically depending on the level of fault.

If you want to see a conspiracy, I'm sure you can find it. If you look at it without emotions - makes sense.
 
Last edited:

jmnk

Hall of Fame
The numbers are very small in your sub-categories to draw firm conclusions and, furthermore, the facts of the case are usually legally determinative so it's dangerous to classify disparate factual complexes.
almost every single case is ruled on the basis of 'the balance of probabilities [of what reasoning is most likely]' rather than being deterministic one way or another.
For example, Gasquet was contaminated recreationally by a third party whereas Sinner was contaminated by his team of professionals for which he has direct responsibility.
and Yastremska was 'contaminated' by her boyfriend - is that closer to 'his team of professionals for which he has direct responsibility' or to ' a third party'?
WADA is appealing the Sinner case for good reason unless you are suggesting they are organising the conspiracy.
I'm by no means arguing that WADA is incorrect in appealing. Or that Swiatek could have gotten let's say 3 or 5 months. Or that Sinner could have gotten some suspension already. I'm merely stating that the punishments doled out over the years is more-less consistent with circumstances of a given case __regardless of the name/ranking of the player involved_. Meaning there does not appear to be a strong indication of any preferential treatment.
 
Last edited:

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
1. I wrote "determinative" not "deterministic"

2. Yastemska's boyfriend is a third party.

3. There are too few cases to say preference is at work

4. I don't find the Tribunal system confidence-inspiring

5. The judgements of CAS seem far more thorough

6. The ITIA is a different/worse beast to the DIU

almost every single case is ruled on the basis of 'the balance of probabilities [of what reasoning is most likely]' rather than being deterministic one way or another.

and Yastremska was 'contaminated' by her boyfriend - is that closer to 'his team of professionals for which he has direct responsibility' or to ' a third party'?

I'm by no means arguing that WADA is incorrect in appealing. Or that Swiatek could have gotten let's say 3 or 5 months. Or that Sinner could have gotten some suspension already. I'm merely stating that the punishments doled out over the years is more-less consistent with circumstances of a given case __regardless of the name/ranking of the player involved_. Meaning there does not appear to be a strong indication of any preferential treatment.
 

NaDjoFed

Professional
This is turning into a witch hunting.

from innocent until proven guilty to guilty until proven innocent to the last stage: just guilty.
 
Top