How many times was Sinner tested in 2024?

Kygios said Sinner failed TWO doping tests. My understanding was the tests were a few weeks apart? Then it makes sense because the steroid could not have left his system in time.

When did Sinner pass a clean test before those positive tests? If it was a few weeks earlier, then there is no chance to cycle the steroid from a useful level to a negligible level in a few weeks time.

If the clean test was months earlier, then he could have been doping with enough time to flush the steroid out of his system.

Does anyone know the details behind the scenes?
 

Subway Tennis

G.O.A.T.
If you need proof of what Sinner’s level is without Clostebol, the best proof is how he played in the second half of the year AFTER the Clostebol sting, not before it.

You better believe no one got tested more in the back half of the year than Sinner. Completely Clostebol free and the guy got even better lol.
 

The Guru

Legend
If you need proof of what Sinner’s level is without Clostebol, the best proof is how he played in the second half of the year AFTER the Clostebol sting, not before it.

You better believe no one got tested more in the back half of the year than Sinner. Completely Clostebol free and the guy got even better lol.
I'm not saying anything about Sinner's guilt here but anyone who knows anything about juicing and how it works would know that's not evidence.
 

Subway Tennis

G.O.A.T.
I'm not saying anything about Sinner's guilt here but anyone who knows anything about juicing and how it works would know that's not evidence.
It is with Clostebol. Its not some high potency PED you use to build a longterm base. It’s a topical product. Wax on, wax off, with a short half life and period of effictiveness.

Its certainly a great and effective product but nothing like serious tissue regenerating or joint recovery PEDs. The whole thing is a storm in a teacup.
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
Does anyone know the details behind the scenes?
If you ask for hearsay, you will get at best hearsay. It is more likely that you will get BS.

The decision of the Independent Tribunal in Sinner's ITIA case states, at paragraph 84, that Sinner was "tested, on average, once a month over the 12-month period between April 2023 and March 2024, and none of the previous tests gave rise to any AAF [Adverse Analytical Finding, i.e., a positive test result] for Clostebol (or any other Prohibited Substance)."

I believe this is the best publicly available information. It does not cover all of 2024, but it does cover a full year, and it includes the 2024 AO.
 

The Guru

Legend
It is with Clostebol. Its not some high potency PED you use to build a longterm base. It’s a topical product. Wax on, wax off, with a short half life and period of effictiveness.

Its certainly a great and effective product but nothing like serious tissue regenerating or joint recovery PEDs. The whole thing is a storm in a teacup.
Again even this is based on a whole lot of assumptions that cannot be founded. Still not saying other than this is not evidence which its not.
 

Subway Tennis

G.O.A.T.
Again even this is based on a whole lot of assumptions that cannot be founded. Still not saying other than this is not evidence which its not.
Okay, well outline exactly what you want me to disprove and I will do that instead :p

We’ve seen what Sinner plays like without Clostebol, and we’ve seen what he plays like with clostebol. There is no difference, because it is a very mild topical balm.

And no, he is not microdosing this very mild compound, although that might be an effective beauty routine. :giggle:

I’m not sure how seriously you are being about this Clostebol thing, and he might be on some REALLY good other cookies (wouldn’t suprise me at all), but WADA made no findings there, so it’s best not to assume.
 

Subway Tennis

G.O.A.T.
Correction - if you need proof of what Sinner's level is without Clostebol, the best proof is how he played in the first half of 2023 before the US swing, nothing whatsoever after it.
I can understand what you are saying, but there is no longterm fitness base to be built from Clostebol. You dont take it and then benefit for years to come. its an over the counter topical balm. The most serious thing it can do is help with some superficial tissue repair.
 

rigged

Semi-Pro
Guess we'll never have an undeniable GOAT. Sampras didn't won FO, Federer is a weak era champ, Nadal is a clay one-trick pony, Djokovic is a vulture, Sinner (if he'll end up in GOAT conversations) is a doper, Alcaraz... well, people will certainly find something. This universe sucks.
 

Subway Tennis

G.O.A.T.
Guess we'll never have an undeniable GOAT. Sampras didn't won FO, Federer is a weak era champ, Nadal is a clay one-trick pony, Djokovic is a vulture, Sinner (if he'll end up in GOAT conversations) is a doper, Alcaraz... well, people will certainly find something. This universe sucks.
If youre a Sinner fan, enjoy the moment mate. Clostebol means nothing. It would be like Pete Sampras getting pinged for Betadine :-D
 

Better_Call_Raul

Hall of Fame
The decision of the Independent Tribunal in Sinner's ITIA case states, at paragraph 84, that Sinner was "tested, on average, once a month over the 12-month period between April 2023 and March 2024

Suspect that the young Sinner was tested far more frequently and this was a miscommunication between Sinner and Tribunal.
The fact that Sinner failed 2 doping tests 8 days apart in March 2024 suggests that testing is far more frequent.
It is difficult to believe that Sinner was tested, on average, only about once a month.

If it is true, that is a big problem; players need to be tested more frequently. Especially highly ranked players.

How the hell can any anti-doping program be taken seriously with once-a-month testing?

PlayerNumber of Tests in 2021
Ricardas Berankis27
Andrey Rublev26
Stefanos Tsitsipas22
Novak Djokovic21
Alexander Zverev21
Daniil Medvedev20

 
Last edited:

Rafa4LifeEver

G.O.A.T.
I can understand what you are saying, but there is no longterm fitness base to be built from Clostebol. You dont take it and then benefit for years to come. its an over the counter topical balm. The most serious thing it can do is help with some superficial tissue repair.
Imo, Clostebol may not be the only thing that he took; its probably the only one that's been found (yet).
You just don't go on to improve quite literally every single aspect of your game, including (but not limited to) serve, forehand, backhand, movement, stamina; all within a short span of mere weeks.

Sinner from Wimbledon 2023 & Sinner from Beijing 2023 are two totally different players, and that sort of transition can't happen in such a short timeframe.
 

Wurm

Professional

The doping advantage of injectable clostebol is that, while less potent, it mimics the muscle-building properties of testosterone without the estrogen buildup that counteracts them.

One of the reasons why Clostebol is used by athletes is that it keep stestosterone levels high, estrogen low, and leaves little trace. This is a good combination for anyone trying to build more muscle.

Once the muscle is there it's easier to keep on than putting it on in the first place, as anyone who's naturally quite skinny will know all too well.
 

Subway Tennis

G.O.A.T.
Imo, Clostebol may not be the only thing that he took; its probably the only one that's been found (yet).
You just don't go on to improve quite literally every single aspect of your game, including (but not limited to) serve, forehand, backhand, movement, stamina; all within a short span of mere weeks.

Sinner from Wimbledon 2023 & Sinner from Beijing 2023 are two totally different players, and that sort of transition can't happen in such a short timeframe.
Fair
 

Rovesciarete

Hall of Fame
Imo, Clostebol may not be the only thing that he took; its probably the only one that's been found (yet).
You just don't go on to improve quite literally every single aspect of your game, including (but not limited to) serve, forehand, backhand, movement, stamina; all within a short span of mere weeks.

Sinner from Wimbledon 2023 & Sinner from Beijing 2023 are two totally different players, and that sort of transition can't happen in such a short timeframe.

Shows again how little you know about that particular case. Many have been oblivious how much progress he has been making for most of 2023, ignoring the data and focusing on some outcomes. Ironically Wimbledon 2023 was arguably the best straight set loss of his career at a major with a dominance ratio of 0.97 - extremely rare to see.

Oft ignorance begets ignorance.
 
Last edited:

Subway Tennis

G.O.A.T.



Once the muscle is there it's easier to keep on than putting it on in the first place, as anyone who's naturally quite skinny will know all too well.
Absolutely, but the muscle building and maintenance properties of Clostebol should be considered nowhere near as potent as the naturally occurring testosterone which any male pro level athlete already has absurd existing reserves of.

If you’re insulin-resistant or you’ve got a hormone inbalance it might make a difference but that would be pretty rare for a pro tennis player and in those cases they would probably have a TUE anyway similar to what Serena had.
 

Subway Tennis

G.O.A.T.
Shows again how little you know about that particular case. Many have been oblivious how much progress he has been making for most of 2023, ignoring the data and focusing on some outcomes. Ironically Wimbledon 2023 was arguably the best straight set loss of his career at a major with a dominance ratio of 0.97 - extremely rare to see.

Oft ignorance begets ignorance.
He was just special to begin with really.

Not many people able to stand and bang with prime Nadal on clay but Sinner did it for a set back in 2019 (longer than anyone else normally can) when he was basically still a baby in pro tennis terms.

The thing that changed for Sinner in recent times was the mental aspect but the physicality and game have always been there from the start I think.
 

Rovesciarete

Hall of Fame
He was just special to begin with really.

Not many people able to stand and bang with prime Nadal on clay but Sinner did it for a set back in 2019 (longer than anyone else normally can) when he was basically still a baby in pro tennis terms.

The thing that changed for Sinner in recent times was the mental aspect but the physicality and game have always been there from the start I think.

I think it was in 2020, but his ballstriking stood really out and his backhand's ability to handle the Rafa forehand. How boyish and frail he looked - quite typical for lads with a very late growth spurt. His athleticism has been improving steadily over the years and his big serve change in mid-2023 closed some of the gap to the elite.

In life and sport good work often doesn't get rewarded at once, but it will improve your chances more and more.

Fonseca's face for example looks even younger but his body is much more mature. Alcaraz was almost the opposite to Sinner, ripping muscles with 18 and a boyish face. Very much like Nadal back in those days.
 
Last edited:

Terenigma

G.O.A.T.
Imo, Clostebol may not be the only thing that he took; its probably the only one that's been found (yet).
You just don't go on to improve quite literally every single aspect of your game, including (but not limited to) serve, forehand, backhand, movement, stamina; all within a short span of mere weeks.

Sinner from Wimbledon 2023 & Sinner from Beijing 2023 are two totally different players, and that sort of transition can't happen in such a short timeframe.

This is pretty much how I feel about Sinner's improvement, It came way too quick and suddenly like he wen't from a Berdych level player to a Djokovic level player in the space of a few months and then his 2024 it was like he was entirely different player with unlimited stamina, easily being able to contend with the best players and he had one hell of a year, QF or better at every big event he played. The fact It ties in with 2 failed doping tests is just... too much of coincidence for me.
 

kangaroo1973

Semi-Pro
Imo, Clostebol may not be the only thing that he took; its probably the only one that's been found (yet).
You just don't go on to improve quite literally every single aspect of your game, including (but not limited to) serve, forehand, backhand, movement, stamina; all within a short span of mere weeks.

Sinner from Wimbledon 2023 & Sinner from Beijing 2023 are two totally different players, and that sort of transition can't happen in such a short timeframe.
Hmm Djokovic WTF 2010 and AO 2011? RING A BELL?
 

reaper

Legend
This is pretty much how I feel about Sinner's improvement, It came way too quick and suddenly like he wen't from a Berdych level player to a Djokovic level player in the space of a few months and then his 2024 it was like he was entirely different player with unlimited stamina, easily being able to contend with the best players and he had one hell of a year, QF or better at every big event he played. The fact It ties in with 2 failed doping tests is just... too much of coincidence for me.
Djokovic himself went from a Berdych level player to a Djokovic level player between 2010 and 2011, about the same age as Sinner did it so it's not unprecedented. Federer appears to have been a vastly improved player from the 2nd half of 2003 as opposed to early 2003 and before. High level players make quantum improvement.
 
Last edited:

JMR

Hall of Fame
Suspect that the young Sinner was tested far more frequently and this was a miscommunication between Sinner and Tribunal.
The fact that Sinner failed 2 doping tests 8 days apart in March 2024 suggests that testing is far more frequent.
It is difficult to believe that Sinner was tested, on average, only about once a month.
The ITIA was a party to the case (indeed, was the "prosecutor"), so any evidence presented to the Tribunal about the frequency of Sinner's testing either (a) would have been subject to an ITIA objection if it was presented by Sinner's team and the ITIA believed it was inaccurate or incomplete, or (b) would have come from the ITIA itself. In any event, the decision in the case does not specifically state the source of the evidence leading to the "once a month" finding, but there is no indication that the finding about the frequency of testing was controverted.

Whether the number cited seems implausibly low for external reasons is something I cannot address.
 
Last edited:

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
Correction - if you need proof of what Sinner's level is without Clostebol, the best proof is how he played in the first half of 2023 before the US swing, nothing whatsoever after it.
And instead between Rotterdam and Monte Carlo 2023 he played at a very high level.
Even at the Australian Open he went out against Tsitsipas, future finalist of the tournament in the round of 16 after recovering two sets of disadvantage and wasting a disproportionate amount of break points.

But above all in Miami he had a crazy tournament before the final with Medvedev.
Everyone remembers his victory in the semifinal with Alcaraz, but the performance against Rublev was even more brutal;


And in Indian Wells he eliminated the defending champion Fritz in the quarterfinals.
People have short memories.
 
And instead between Rotterdam and Monte Carlo 2023 he played at a very high level.
Even at the Australian Open he went out against Tsitsipas, future finalist of the tournament in the round of 16 after recovering two sets of disadvantage and wasting a disproportionate amount of break points.

But above all in Miami he had a crazy tournament before the final with Medvedev.
Everyone remembers his victory in the semifinal with Alcaraz, but the performance against Rublev was even more brutal;


And in Indian Wells he eliminated the defending champion Fritz in the quarterfinals.
People have short memories.
If he starts winning after using PED then wouldn't that likely be the thing that got him over the hump. And could the fact it got him past the mental block he had be the difference in all future performances?
 

The Guru

Legend
Okay, well outline exactly what you want me to disprove and I will do that instead :p

We’ve seen what Sinner plays like without Clostebol, and we’ve seen what he plays like with clostebol. There is no difference, because it is a very mild topical balm.

And no, he is not microdosing this very mild compound, although that might be an effective beauty routine. :giggle:

I’m not sure how seriously you are being about this Clostebol thing, and he might be on some REALLY good other cookies (wouldn’t suprise me at all), but WADA made no findings there, so it’s best not to assume.
The long term effects it may or may not have had are very much dependent on how it was being used which we do not know. It also assumes that he stopped taking it after he got caught instead of just being smarter about how he was taking and lastly as you said at the end it's very possible it was being used as a masking agent.

The point is we have no idea based on his results what happened. He couldve been juicing for years or he couldve just been juicing in that period or he could have never juiced. No amount of looking at how he's played is going to tell us that.

Plenty of people get worse after popping for steroids because of when they popped. Results have literally nothing to do with it. You should make your conclusions based on the other available evidence.
 
Suspect that the young Sinner was tested far more frequently and this was a miscommunication between Sinner and Tribunal.
The fact that Sinner failed 2 doping tests 8 days apart in March 2024 suggests that testing is far more frequent.
It is difficult to believe that Sinner was tested, on average, only about once a month.

If it is true, that is a big problem; players need to be tested more frequently. Especially highly ranked players.

How the hell can any anti-doping program be taken seriously with once-a-month testing?

PlayerNumber of Tests in 2021
Ricardas Berankis27
Andrey Rublev26
Stefanos Tsitsipas22
Novak Djokovic21
Alexander Zverev21
Daniil Medvedev20

Any way to find the date of the previous doping test prior to the 2 positive ones which were 8 days apart?

If the previous negative test was just a few weeks before, then that fact would corroborate Sinner's explanation that the trainer massaged the over the counter (in Italy) Trofodermin spray.




 

JMR

Hall of Fame
Plenty of people get worse after popping for steroids because of when they popped. Results have literally nothing to do with it. You should make your conclusions based on the other available evidence.
Which is what, exactly? Please spell it out. We have the positive test results. What in your view is the other "evidence" regarding Sinner's alleged PED use?
 
Guess we'll never have an undeniable GOAT. Sampras didn't won FO, Federer is a weak era champ, Nadal is a clay one-trick pony, Djokovic is a vulture, Sinner (if he'll end up in GOAT conversations) is a doper, Alcaraz... well, people will certainly find something. This universe sucks.

Pete was the only clean one IMO . Since he had lousy conditioning (Mainly due to thalassemia) and never became a cyborg like these others guys. These other guys could go forever and it took 20 years for them to finally hit a physical decline LOL


If I had to guess. The only one with legit titles was Pete
 

johnmccabe

Hall of Fame
If you need proof of what Sinner’s level is without Clostebol, the best proof is how he played in the second half of the year AFTER the Clostebol sting, not before it.

You better believe no one got tested more in the back half of the year than Sinner. Completely Clostebol free and the guy got even better lol.
I'm convinced he is just good after US Open
 

Better_Call_Raul

Hall of Fame
The ITIA was a party to the case (indeed, was the "prosecutor"), so any evidence presented to the Tribunal about the frequency of Sinner's testing either (a) would have been subject to an ITIA objection if it was presented by Sinner's team and the ITIA believed it was inaccurate or incomplete, or (b) would have come from the ITIA itself. In any event, the decision in the case does not specifically state the source of the evidence leading to the "once a month" finding, but there is no indication that the finding about the frequency of testing was controverted.

Whether the number cited seems implausibly low for external reasons is something I cannot address.

It is possible that the ITIA, for whatever reason, failed to object to the Sinner "tested once a month on average" claim.

Perhaps it was ITIA incompetence. Or perhaps ITIA thought it was not particularly relevant as the issue at hand was the two failed tests, eight days apart in March.

It is also possible that the once a month testing for Sinner is true. If so, it is very concerning that the Sinner testing was so infrequent.
Barbora Krejcikova was tested 36 times in 2021. That is reasonable for a serious anti-doping program.
Three times a month for Krejcikova and only once a month for Sinner?
:unsure:

The frequency of doping tests for tennis players has been a topic of discussion, especially in light of recent events and concerns about the effectiveness of current testing protocols. Here are some points to consider regarding the adequacy of monthly testing:

Current Testing Frequency​

In 2021, a total of 6,636 doping tests were conducted in tennis, with 3,621 tests performed in-competition and 3,015 out-of-competition. However, the testing frequency can vary significantly among players; for instance, some top players like Novak Djokovic were tested 21 times, while others like Rafael Nadal were tested only 14 times.

Concerns About Monthly Testing​

  1. Insufficient Coverage: A frequency of once a month may not adequately deter doping.
  2. Variability Among Players: The number of tests each player undergoes can vary widely. For example, Barbora Krejcikova was tested 36 times in 2021, while other top players had much fewer tests. This inconsistency raises concerns about whether all athletes are held to the same standards.
  3. Intelligence-Led Testing: The ITIA employs an intelligence-led approach to testing, which means that some players may be targeted for more frequent testing based on performance indicators or other intelligence. This approach suggests that simply having a set frequency may not be sufficient if it does not adapt to individual risk factors.
  4. Historical Context: Previous discussions by players like Roger Federer have highlighted inconsistencies in testing frequency and the need for more comprehensive and consistent testing protocols across different regions and events.
While a monthly testing schedule might seem reasonable at first glance, the complexities of doping in sports suggest that more frequent and targeted testing could be necessary to ensure fairness and integrity in tennis. Enhanced funding and resources dedicated to anti-doping efforts could also help improve the current situation.
 
Last edited:

The Guru

Legend
Which is what, exactly? Please spell it out. We have the positive test results. What in your view is the other "evidence" regarding Sinner's alleged PED use?
Everything outside of the test results is circumstantial. There's "evidence" that supports Jannik like testimonials from his team and what not and there's "evidence" against like some of the suspicious aspects of his story and other weird things like skipping the olympics and what not. You seem to be coming at me pretty hard when I'm making a very soft claim that Sinner's on court performance is not evidence of his innocence.
 

Rafa4LifeEver

G.O.A.T.
Come on man. Take a look at Fed. Pre 03 Wimbledon and post 03 Wimbledon. Different players. It just so happens with immensely gifted people
Not a Fed fan here, but his rise wasn't such a sudden one, he didn't go on to become an absolute machine from one specific point in time. In fact, despite being the #1, he didn't become a top contender on all the surfaces until 2005.

I don't think he had shown sudden physical improvements either.
It was more about organizing the tools which existed, unlike Sinner.
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
Everything outside of the test results is circumstantial. There's "evidence" that supports Jannik like testimonials from his team and what not and there's "evidence" against like some of the suspicious aspects of his story and other weird things like skipping the olympics and what not. You seem to be coming at me pretty hard when I'm making a very soft claim that Sinner's on court performance is not evidence of his innocence.
People here delight in arguing that this or that doesn't qualify as evidence of Sinner's "innocence," while ignoring the elephant in the room: the fact that there is literally zero direct evidence that Sinner is or was a regular PED abuser. I would love to see just one Sinner accuser or "Sinner skeptic" honestly acknowledge that obvious gap.

I put together this list a while back; of course everyone just pretends not to see it:

"I think we have to dispense with the apparent premise that sports doping is so far underground and so well-concealed that we can never have any direct evidence of it, and thus are free to believe it's occurring even without evidence (convenient, right?). If we look at the Lance Armstrong case, the many U.S. baseball player cases, and other notorious examples of doping, it's clear that many different kinds of evidence can be available if intensive doping is really going on (remember that all of these are absent in Sinner's case):
  • Evidence of deliberate evasions of drug tests
  • Evidence of being tipped off to the time and place of "random" drug tests
  • Evidence of the use of substitute urine samples
  • Evidence of the use of substitute blood samples
  • Evidence of the regular use of masking agents
  • Evidence of the regular purchase of PEDs by or on behalf of the player
  • Evidence of the regular purchase of masking agents by or on behalf of the player
  • Evidence of the regular purchase of ancillary equipment by or on behalf of the player
  • 'Evidence of the regular administration of PEDs by or to the player (this can include 'I saw it' eyewitness testimony)
  • Evidence of the planning and coordination of a doping scheme by a coach, physician, or athletic trainer connected with the player
  • Evidence of rapid, manifest physical changes in the player that do not occur in the absence of regular PEDs use."
 
People here delight in arguing that this or that doesn't qualify as evidence of Sinner's "innocence," while ignoring the elephant in the room: the fact that there is literally zero direct evidence that Sinner is or was a regular PED abuser. I would love to see just one Sinner accuser or "Sinner skeptic" honestly acknowledge that obvious gap.

I put together this list a while back; of course everyone just pretends not to see it:

"I think we have to dispense with the apparent premise that sports doping is so far underground and so well-concealed that we can never have any direct evidence of it, and thus are free to believe it's occurring even without evidence (convenient, right?). If we look at the Lance Armstrong case, the many U.S. baseball player cases, and other notorious examples of doping, it's clear that many different kinds of evidence can be available if intensive doping is really going on (remember that all of these are absent in Sinner's case):
  • Evidence of deliberate evasions of drug tests
  • Evidence of being tipped off to the time and place of "random" drug tests
  • Evidence of the use of substitute urine samples
  • Evidence of the use of substitute blood samples
  • Evidence of the regular use of masking agents
  • Evidence of the regular purchase of PEDs by or on behalf of the player
  • Evidence of the regular purchase of masking agents by or on behalf of the player
  • Evidence of the regular purchase of ancillary equipment by or on behalf of the player
  • 'Evidence of the regular administration of PEDs by or to the player (this can include 'I saw it' eyewitness testimony)
  • Evidence of the planning and coordination of a doping scheme by a coach, physician, or athletic trainer connected with the player
  • Evidence of rapid, manifest physical changes in the player that do not occur in the absence of regular PEDs use."
When was the previous test prior to the 2 positive ones? That is the most useful fact to clear this up.
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
When was the previous test prior to the 2 positive ones? That is the most useful fact to clear this up.
That information does not appear to be publicly available. Asking for it repeatedly probably won't help.

Beyond that, I think your response to what I posted illustrates the problematic mindset at work in this case. Instead of saying, "Wow, considering how many different ways it might be possible to demonstrate that an athlete is a deliberate, regular PED user, it's quite revealing that none of that kind of evidence exists against Sinner," you just jumped to, "Well, what about this other question?" No one seems to want to look at the evidence in the case as it exists and base a reasonable conclusion on that alone.
 

The Guru

Legend
People here delight in arguing that this or that doesn't qualify as evidence of Sinner's "innocence," while ignoring the elephant in the room: the fact that there is literally zero direct evidence that Sinner is or was a regular PED abuser. I would love to see just one Sinner accuser or "Sinner skeptic" honestly acknowledge that obvious gap.

I put together this list a while back; of course everyone just pretends not to see it:

"I think we have to dispense with the apparent premise that sports doping is so far underground and so well-concealed that we can never have any direct evidence of it, and thus are free to believe it's occurring even without evidence (convenient, right?). If we look at the Lance Armstrong case, the many U.S. baseball player cases, and other notorious examples of doping, it's clear that many different kinds of evidence can be available if intensive doping is really going on (remember that all of these are absent in Sinner's case):
  • Evidence of deliberate evasions of drug tests
  • Evidence of being tipped off to the time and place of "random" drug tests
  • Evidence of the use of substitute urine samples
  • Evidence of the use of substitute blood samples
  • Evidence of the regular use of masking agents
  • Evidence of the regular purchase of PEDs by or on behalf of the player
  • Evidence of the regular purchase of masking agents by or on behalf of the player
  • Evidence of the regular purchase of ancillary equipment by or on behalf of the player
  • 'Evidence of the regular administration of PEDs by or to the player (this can include 'I saw it' eyewitness testimony)
  • Evidence of the planning and coordination of a doping scheme by a coach, physician, or athletic trainer connected with the player
  • Evidence of rapid, manifest physical changes in the player that do not occur in the absence of regular PEDs use."
This is simply not true. I would love for you to provide a single one of these for Sammy Sosa, a player who is nearly universally recognized as an almost certain doper. Also a lot of these things came out well after the fact in the most famous cases. Plus the nature of how this happens in team sports is very different by nature.

As for 0 evidence ummm you do know he failed two drug tests right?
 

Rovesciarete

Hall of Fame
That information does not appear to be publicly available. Asking for it repeatedly probably won't help.

Beyond that, I think your response to what I posted illustrates the problematic mindset at work in this case. Instead of saying, "Wow, considering how many different ways it might be possible to demonstrate that an athlete is a deliberate, regular PED user, it's quite revealing that none of that kind of evidence exists against Sinner," you just jumped to, "Well, what about this other question?" No one seems to want to look at the evidence in the case as it exists and base a reasonable conclusion on that alone.

The 'system Armstrong' was monumental in scale. Mountains and mountains of evidence supporting this almost incredible level of cheating from multiple angles. Now we have smallest traces of well-documented contamination and some baseless insinuation born on the wings of fantasy.

 
Last edited:

JMR

Hall of Fame
This is simply not true. I would love for you to provide a single one of these for Sammy Sosa, a player who is nearly universally recognized as an almost certain doper. Also a lot of these things came out well after the fact in the most famous cases. Plus the nature of how this happens in team sports is very different by nature.
In other words, excuses. "We don't have any evidence of deliberate drug use because of x, y, and z, but we'll continue to draw our conclusions as if we had a mountain of evidence."

And what happened to this, by the way:
"I'm making a very soft claim that Sinner's on court performance is not evidence of his innocence."
As for 0 evidence ummm you do know he failed two drug tests right?
Positive drug tests are evidence of exposure. They are not evidence of intentional PED use, let alone of systematic "juicing" as alleged by the "Doper!" crowd. The ITIA and even WADA both understand and recognize that distinction. The holdouts are a cluster of fanatics online -- and dumb Nick Kyrgios.
 

The Guru

Legend
In other words, excuses. "We don't have any evidence of deliberate drug use because of x, y, and z, but we'll continue to draw our conclusions as if we had a mountain of evidence."

And what happened to this, by the way:
"I'm making a very soft claim that Sinner's on court performance is not evidence of his innocence."

Positive drug tests are evidence of exposure. They are not evidence of intentional PED use, let alone of systematic "juicing" as alleged by the "Doper!" crowd. The ITIA and even WADA both understand and recognize that distinction. The holdouts are a cluster of fanatics online -- and dumb Nick Kyrgios.
I still have not made any positive arguments that Sinner is a doper. I think they exist I've outlined some of them in other threads but here my only goal was to say that Sinner's on court performance is not positive evidence of his innocence.

They are evidence of PED use. You can never scientifically determine someone's intentions. I never made such a claim and it would be ridiculous to do so. Ultimately, when it comes to that we will always be guessing so you go off your best guess on the circumstantial evidence.

Also I'd like to point out you completely punted on your initial argument because I was completely right and you just goal post shifted. Again I invite you to offer some evidence on Sosa or really any of the Mitchell report guys who never admitted it later.
 
Last edited:

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
And the cover-up of "system Armstrong" was monumental.

The 'system Armstrong' was monumental in scale. Mountains and mountains of evidence supporting this almost incredible level of cheating from multiple angles. Now we have smallest traces of well-documented contamination and some baseless insinuation born on the wings of fantasy.

 

vokazu

Legend
Kygios said Sinner failed TWO doping tests. My understanding was the tests were a few weeks apart? Then it makes sense because the steroid could not have left his system in time.

When did Sinner pass a clean test before those positive tests? If it was a few weeks earlier, then there is no chance to cycle the steroid from a useful level to a negligible level in a few weeks time.

If the clean test was months earlier, then he could have been doping with enough time to flush the steroid out of his system.

Does anyone know the details behind the scenes?

Athletes can mask anabolic steroids to get negative doping test results.



The abuse of androgenic-anabolic steroids is a major public health problem.

Athletes use masking agents and other drugs to avoid detection of anabolic steroids.

Serial monitoring of individual athlete's steroid profile allow detection of doping.

Use of epitestosterone, hCG and diuretics obscure detection of anabolic steroid use.
 
Last edited:

Better_Call_Raul

Hall of Fame
Actually, repeatedly asking for the date of the previous test will help. There probably is a way to find out, so someone will figure it out.

There should be full transparency from the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA), i.e., "Sinner was administered 25 doping tests in 2024. On these dates...".

There is no privacy issue involved by simply disclosing how many doping tests a player has PASSED.

As for FAILED doping tests, those would also inevitably be disclosed when a penalty is handed down. Once again, no privacy issue.
Nobody has cited a valid reason why these doping results should not be disclosed. It will give the public more confidence in the integrity of the game.
Not disclosing this basic info only promotes speculation about the integrity of the sport.

If the ITIA is actually serious about its anti-doping program these results must be disclosed. There must be full transparency.
 
Last edited:
Top