Jannik Sinner Needs To Be Banned from The Game

[jeroenn]

Yeah... I understand that. Hopefully you're not confused in your first language.

Right. I'll try it like this then, not knowing what your first language is:


This is the quote:

"It is WADA’s view that the finding of “no fault or negligence” was not correct under the applicable rules."

in the TDAP rule book you have 2 (TWO - count with me, one ...two...) options:

1 "no fault or negligence"
2 "no significant fault or negligence"

1 goes free.
2 goes free or can have up to 2 years suspension.

Go look 'm up in the link I posted.
Note that there is no:

3 Sinner doped
4 Sinner and Alcaraz doped
5 Blueberries are flipping PURPLE.

They don't like option 1, they ask for option 2. (see the amount of suspension they aks for).

There is a rule 10.2.3 that deals with INTENTIONAL DOPING which is ALSO mentioned in Sinners conclusion.
Violation of 10.2.3 has a minimum suspension of 2 years, up to permanent.

But the WADA doesn't say: "It is WADA’s view that the finding of INTENTIONAL DOPING was not correct under the applicable rules."
It's also NOT seeking a minimum of 2 years or more suspension.

They ONLY mention the No Fault or Neglience part wich they appeal, so they want it to be option 2 in stead of option 1, which corresponds with the amount of suspension time they ask.

So for you to understand this, you ask yourself:
- Why is the WADA not challenging the conclusion 10.2.3?
- Why is the WADA seeking 1 to 2 years suspension because that is not possible if we were dealing with intentional doping.

In short, they don't agree with running a red light. They claim he saw it. You're arguing drunk driving, which is not part of any part of the WADA appeal, because they only find the red light part not correct.

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

Ok, so you are daft.

I've written and explained as best as I could, you obviously need some other help to understand.

Even though the WADA has chosen not to appeal accidental contamination defense it is not clear whether the CAS could still a fresh look at the case.
The CAS could review and conclude that it was intentional.
The rules of arbritation and point of appeal might preclude it from doing so but it is better that CAS takes a fresh look at the case.

 

[jeroenn]

Even if the WADA chooses not to appeal accidental contamination defense it is not clear if the CAS could still a fresh look at the case.
The CAS could review and conclude that it was intentional.

No, CAS will be reviewing what is litigated, which is the appeal on 10.5.

 

[jm1972]

Right. I'll try it like this then, not knowing what your first language is:


This is the quote:

"It is WADA’s view that the finding of “no fault or negligence” was not correct under the applicable rules."

in the TDAP rule book you have 2 (TWO - count with me, one ...two...) options:

1 "no fault or negligence"
2 "no significant fault or negligence"

1 goes free.
2 goes free or can have up to 2 years suspension.

Go look 'm up in the link I posted.
Note that there is no:

3 Sinner doped
4 Sinner and Alcaraz doped
5 Blueberries are flipping PURPLE.

They don't like option 1, they ask for option 2. (see the amount of suspension they aks for).

There is a rule 10.2.3 that deals with INTENTIONAL DOPING which is ALSO mentioned in Sinners conclusion.
Violation of 10.2.3 has a minimum suspension of 2 years, up to permanent.

But the WADA doesn't say: "It is WADA’s view that the finding of INTENTIONAL DOPING was not correct under the applicable rules."
It's also NOT seeking a minimum of 2 years or more suspension.

They ONLY mention the No Fault or Neglience part wich they appeal, so they want it to be option 2 in stead of option 1, which corresponds with the amount of suspension time they ask.

So for you to understand this, you ask yourself:
- Why is the WADA not challenging the conclusion 10.2.3?
- Why is the WADA seeking 1 to 2 years suspension because that is not possible if we were dealing with intentional doping.

In short, they don't agree with running a red light. They claim he saw it. You're arguing drunk driving, which is not part of any part of the WADA appeal, because they only find the red light part not correct.

This is your interpretation. Again you didn't answer my question.

 

[jeroenn]

This is your interpretation. Again you didn't answer my question.

Ok.

 

[JMR]

The narrative put forward by the Sinner camp is simply a plausible scenario that fits the facts. There is no way for you or anyone here to know if that corresponds to what actually happened, as the circumstances of this case also fit the scenario of very intentional ingestion.

Describing the factual findings supported by the evidence as a "scenario" does not alter the reality that they were the factual findings supported by the evidence. The Independent Tribunal did not simply throw up its hands and conclude, "Well, who knows?? Believe whatever you like, tennis fans!"

I'll remind you that there was no investigation and that all the "evidence" was provided by Sinner's lawyer (who's also WADA lawyer on another case but let's not get into that now).

What are you talking about? The ITIA conducted an investigation, interviewed witnesses, collected documentary evidence, appointed scientific experts to review the case and provide their opinions, and then presented all of this material to the Independent Tribunal at a hearing.

This thread, and many others like it, make it clear that the stance of Sinner critics is essentially, "We don't have to believe any official determinations that haven't been proved to 100 percent certainty [basically an impossibility in any legal proceeding]. This leaves us free to believe our own alternative scenario of rampant intentional PED use that has been proved to 0 percent certainty!"

 

[jm1972]

Describing the factual findings supported by the evidence as a "scenario" does not alter the reality that they were the factual findings supported by the evidence. The Independent Tribunal did not simply throw up its hands and conclude, "Well, who knows?? Believe whatever you like, tennis fans!"

What are you talking about? The ITIA conducted an investigation, interviewed witnesses, collected documentary evidence, appointed scientific experts to review the case and provide their opinions, and then presented all of this material to the Independent Tribunal at a hearing.

This thread, and many others like it, make it clear that the stance of Sinner critics is essentially, "We don't have to believe any official determinations that haven't been proved to 100 percent certainty [basically an impossibility in any legal proceeding]. This leaves us free to believe our own alternative scenario of rampant intentional PED use that has been proved to 0 percent certainty!"

Only. Sinner. Gave. Evidence.

What part of this don't you understand? You call this an investigation?

The physio and the pharmacist that works with Sinner gave conflicting testimony and not even that was clarified. There was no investigation.

 

[jeroenn]

Only. Sinner. Gave. Evidence.

Factually and demonstrably false statement.

https://www.itia.tennis/media/yzgd3xoz/240819-itia-v-sinner.pdf

Page 12 starting at article 62, aptly called "EXPERT EVIDENCE"

But you obviously haven't read any of that doc anyway, because hey, why bother when you can have your own fantasies, right?

.....at some point one just has to sit back and marvel at the willingly of some people to publicly display their ignorance. I think I'll just do that from now one, because this guy is beyond help.

 

[Gary Duane]

Sinner has now reached 2300 elo. Even Andre Agassi never reached it. Great Pete Sampras only ever peaked at 2310. So sinner is just below Pete's peak in 94.


Removing sinner we would have no played in elo 2200 range itself. Forget 2300. Djokovic and Alcaraz are both more than 100 pts below

I think it's too soon to evaluate how great Sinner is because he hasn't been on top long enough. I also want to wait to find out what's going to happen with the doping charges. I personally hope they will be dropped. I am disappointed in Carlos this year. I don't know if he got overhyped too soon. Something needs to change next year or I have to reevaluate how good I think he is. He has all time great defensive numbers but he should be winning more service games. Something is wrong there.

 

[jm1972]

Factually and demonstrably false statement.

https://www.itia.tennis/media/yzgd3xoz/240819-itia-v-sinner.pdf

Page 12 starting at article 62, aptly called "EXPERT EVIDENCE"

But you obviously haven't read any of that doc anyway, because hey, why bother when you can have your own fantasies, right?

.....at some point one just has to sit back and marvel at the willingly of some people to publicly display their ignorance. I think I'll just do that from now one, because this guy is beyond help.

Those experts were arranged by Sinner.

Only. Sinner. Gave. Evidence.

 

[jeroenn]

Those experts were arranged by Sinner.

Only. Sinner. Gave. Evidence.

Aaaaand swing and a miss....


Literally on the SAME FLIPPING PAGE I noted in my post: (Page 12, point 62)


"The Tribunal has the benefit of expert opinions from three independent experts –
Professor Jean-François Naud, the director of the WADA-accredited laboratory in
Montreal, Canada; Dr Xavier de la Torre, Deputy Director and Laboratory Manager
(Scientific Vice-Director) of the WADA accredited laboratory in Rome, Italy; and Professor
David Cowan, the Professor Emeritus in the Department of Environmental, Analytical and
Forensic Science at King’s College London (‘KCL’) and the former head of the WADA-
accredited Laboratory at KCL in London, United Kingdom. The Player’s identity was not known by two of the experts."

Dude, for real, give it up and go home....

 

[jm1972]

Aaaaand swing and a miss....


Literally on the SAME FLIPPING PAGE I noted in my post: (Page 12, point 62)


"The Tribunal has the benefit of expert opinions from three independent experts –
Professor Jean-François Naud, the director of the WADA-accredited laboratory in
Montreal, Canada; Dr Xavier de la Torre, Deputy Director and Laboratory Manager
(Scientific Vice-Director) of the WADA accredited laboratory in Rome, Italy; and Professor
David Cowan, the Professor Emeritus in the Department of Environmental, Analytical and
Forensic Science at King’s College London (‘KCL’) and the former head of the WADA-
accredited Laboratory at KCL in London, United Kingdom. The Player’s identity was not known by two of the experts."

Dude, for real, give it up and go home....

The experts were paid by Sinner. Sorry.

 

[Drighiz]

The experts were paid by Sinner. Sorry.

You're obviously a troll and don't care to contribute to discussions in any constructive or meaningful way. Easy ignore.

 

[jeroenn]

The experts were paid by Sinner. Sorry.

I can give you the source that two of them weren't, but lets see your proof that all three experts were paid for by Sinner first.

 

[GloW]

Those experts were arranged by Sinner.

Only. Sinner. Gave. Evidence.

wth do you mean is 2 positive doping tests not evidence?

 

[tudwell]

Describing the factual findings supported by the evidence as a "scenario" does not alter the reality that they were the factual findings supported by the evidence. The Independent Tribunal did not simply throw up its hands and conclude, "Well, who knows?? Believe whatever you like, tennis fans!"

What are you talking about? The ITIA conducted an investigation, interviewed witnesses, collected documentary evidence, appointed scientific experts to review the case and provide their opinions, and then presented all of this material to the Independent Tribunal at a hearing.

This thread, and many others like it, make it clear that the stance of Sinner critics is essentially, "We don't have to believe any official determinations that haven't been proved to 100 percent certainty [basically an impossibility in any legal proceeding]. This leaves us free to believe our own alternative scenario of rampant intentional PED use that has been proved to 0 percent certainty!"

I think degrees of certainty, which you allude to toward the end of this post, is an important bit. The report says "The ITIA accepts on a balance of probability the veracity of the Player's account", which I assume – with my legal background of precisely squat – means they find it likelier than not, i.e. a greater than 50% probability, that Sinner's team's account is true. Which I tend to accept and agree with. But is that 60-40? 80-20? 51-49? Those are very different kinds of beliefs to have, and even if something is likelier true than not, it's perfectly fair and reasonable to be skeptical of it, or elements of it. Especially when the bulk of the evidence in this case ultimately comes down to the testimony of two members of Sinner's team, Ferrara and Naldi, who, if they were actually facilitating illegal doping for Sinner, have every incentive to lie.

It still seems odd to me that Ferrara bought a spray with a banned substance and then just carried it around the world with him to professional tennis tournaments. Is that a common thing, for people around a player to have in their possession banned substances while touring? I would assume not, but I genuinely don't know.

Naldi's account is even more difficult to accept at face value. A trained physiotherapist uses an antiseptic spray without even checking what the active ingredient is? (He claims not to have known it was a steroid.) When his patient has psoriasis/dermatitis? Wouldn't he want to know if it's something that could potentially flare up Sinner's sores on his feet? That would seem pretty important, especially in the middle of a tournament. At one point in his testimony he even claims he used the spray and then, shortly after, that same morning, treated Sinner's ankles and feet – and he can't remember whether he washed his hands in between. What kind of physiotherapist would treat anybody without washing his hands first? It's a small thing, but it truly beggars belief.

Now, those little bits of the story that I personally find hard to believe are, well, just bits of the story. I think the whole thing does add up in a way that makes it easier to accept that, yes, it is likelier than not that Sinner was unknowingly contaminated in approximately the manner described by Ferrara and Naldi. But there are definitely some bits of it that smell a little fishy, and if that's enough to dissuade some people from accepting Sinner's team's account, that seems fair to me too.

 

[Drighiz]

I think degrees of certainty, which you allude to toward the end of this post, is an important bit. The report says "The ITIA accepts on a balance of probability the veracity of the Player's account", which I assume – with my legal background of precisely squat – means they find it likelier than not, i.e. a greater than 50% probability, that Sinner's team's account is true. Which I tend to accept and agree with. But is that 60-40? 80-20? 51-49? Those are very different kinds of beliefs to have, and even if something is likelier true than not, it's perfectly fair and reasonable to be skeptical of it, or elements of it. Especially when the bulk of the evidence in this case ultimately comes down to the testimony of two members of Sinner's team, Ferrara and Naldi, who, if they were actually facilitating illegal doping for Sinner, have every incentive to lie.

It still seems odd to me that Ferrara bought a spray with a banned substance and then just carried it around the world with him to professional tennis tournaments. Is that a common thing, for people around a player to have in their possession banned substances while touring? I would assume not, but I genuinely don't know.

Naldi's account is even more difficult to accept at face value. A trained physiotherapist uses an antiseptic spray without even checking what the active ingredient is? (He claims not to have known it was a steroid.) When his patient has psoriasis/dermatitis? Wouldn't he want to know if it's something that could potentially flare up Sinner's sores on his feet? That would seem pretty important, especially in the middle of a tournament. At one point in his testimony he even claims he used the spray and then, shortly after, that same morning, treated Sinner's ankles and feet – and he can't remember whether he washed his hands in between. What kind of physiotherapist would treat anybody without washing his hands first? It's a small thing, but it truly beggars belief.

Now, those little bits of the story that I personally find hard to believe are, well, just bits of the story. I think the whole thing does add up in a way that makes it easier to accept that, yes, it is likelier than not that Sinner was unknowingly contaminated in approximately the manner described by Ferrara and Naldi. But there are definitely some bits of it that smell a little fishy, and if that's enough to dissuade some people from accepting Sinner's team's account, that seems fair to me too.

In their negligence it could be they didn't even think the cream could contaminate Sinner to a detectable level. After all, it wasn't used on Sinner directly but on the physio. Also, I would add, the idea someone would use a detectable banned substance to aid their doping scheme at the risk of destroying a brilliant career is plain idiotic. To me there is no doubt it was a mistake, yet some (few) geniuses keep calling him a doper...

 

[jeroenn]

I think degrees of certainty, which you allude to toward the end of this post, is an important bit. The report says "The ITIA accepts on a balance of probability the veracity of the Player's account", which I assume – with my legal background of precisely squat – means they find it likelier than not, i.e. a greater than 50% probability, that Sinner's team's account is true. Which I tend to accept and agree with. But is that 60-40? 80-20? 51-49? Those are very different kinds of beliefs to have, and even if something is likelier true than not, it's perfectly fair and reasonable to be skeptical of it, or elements of it. Especially when the bulk of the evidence in this case ultimately comes down to the testimony of two members of Sinner's team, Ferrara and Naldi, who, if they were actually facilitating illegal doping for Sinner, have every incentive to lie.

This too is explained and clarified in the report:

Expert 1:he likelihood that the Player's explanation is plausible is “really high"
Expert 2: considers it is plausible
Expert 3: finds it entirely plausible and can find no evidence to support any other scenario.

 

[tudwell]

In their negligence it could be they didn't even think the cream could contaminate Sinner to a detectable level. After all, it wasn't used on Sinner directly but on the physio. Also, I would add, the idea someone would use a detectable banned substance to aid their doping scheme at the risk of destroying a brilliant career is plain idiotic. To me there is no doubt it was a mistake, yet some (few) geniuses keep calling him a doper...

I definitely agree with this. I mean, I know little about the ins and outs of doping and don't really care enough to learn, but I've yet to come across a remotely convincing explanation that Sinner was willfully using trace amounts of Clostebol as part of some larger doping regimen. That's the other side of the coin – a big part of why I accept Sinner's explanation is that I've yet to encounter a reasonable alternative. Then again, I haven't exactly gone looking, but no one on here has provided much detail as to what a Clostebol-aided doping regimen might actually look like.

 

[tudwell]

This too is explained and clarified in the report:

Expert 1:he likelihood that the Player's explanation is plausible is “really high"
Expert 2: considers it is plausible
Expert 3: finds it entirely plausible and can find no evidence to support any other scenario.

Those are the expert witnesses' determinations, but that's not quite the same thing as the ITIA Tribunal's own determination. The report even says later:

"The ITIA submits that for the Player to avoid the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility of four years, the Tribunal must be comfortably satisfied that the Player has established that the above route of administration of Clostebol is 'more likely than not.' The ITIA accept that to be the case." Emphasis theirs.

But really my larger point was that everyone is going to make their own determination about the degree of certainty that Sinner's team's explanation warrants, and I think reasonable people can disagree on just what that degree of certainty ought to be. (Zero certainty would be unreasonable, in my opinion, but I can imagine reasonable people being skeptical that what was told to the ITIA investigators was the full story.)

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

. The report says "The ITIA accepts on a balance of probability the veracity of the Player's account", which I assume – with my legal background of precisely squat – means they find it likelier than not, i.e. a greater than 50% probability, that Sinner's team's account is true. Which I tend to accept and agree with. But is that 60-40? 80-20? 51-49? Those are very different kinds of beliefs to have, and even if something is likelier true than not, it's perfectly fair and reasonable to be skeptical of it, or elements of it.

In civil trials the burden of the plaintiff is to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence. 51-49 or greater.
This is not a court trial but the same spirit of justice should apply in these doping proceedings.
And the standard of conviction for doping proceedings should be much higher than the 51-49 civil trial.
It is concerning that so many dunderheads are in support of these excessively harsh penalties when there are plausible alternate explanations..

Only in the doping world could a 22 year old kid be found guilty for the negligent actions of his physiotherapist.

We need to respect individual liberty and abolish these draconian strict liability Stalinist doping show trials.

Hopefully the Sinner case puts the WADA in its place and sets a sane reasonable standard for doping cases going forward.

 

[WNB93]

I'd rather that players get the same treatment Sinner gets even if they don't have all the lawyers and resources behind him.

Yep, that should be the norm. We should make changes to treat everybody like him, not want for him to be treated as bad as others were in the past.

 

[jeroenn]

Those are the expert witnesses' determinations, but that's not quite the same thing as the ITIA Tribunal's own determination. The report even says later:

"The ITIA submits that for the Player to avoid the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility of four years, the Tribunal must be comfortably satisfied that the Player has established that the above route of administration of Clostebol is 'more likely than not.' The ITIA accept that to be the case." Emphasis theirs.

But really my larger point was that everyone is going to make their own determination about the degree of certainty that Sinner's team's explanation warrants, and I think reasonable people can disagree on just what that degree of certainty ought to be. (Zero certainty would be unreasonable, in my opinion, but I can imagine reasonable people being skeptical that what was told to the ITIA investigators was the full story.)

Indeed, but the report also says it integrally takes over the conclusions from the experts without objection from both parties, thus clearing the 'more likely than not' bar to the level of what the experts has said. They offer nothing else in weighing statements. I read that as the ITIA going along with the experts, but either way, it was enough to clear the bar for them to conclude no ineligibility.
The standard of proof by the WADA is greater than a mere balance of probability, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Given that the only value judgements were done by the experts as I mentioned above (besides the 'more likely than not' general conclusion), it looks like he has cleared that bar royally.

I think the overal view of the whole sitaution in combination with a utter lack of any other explanation or evidence is strong enough. There will always be people who doubt or are skeptical and that's fine.

Yep, that should be the norm. We should make changes to treat everybody like him, not want for him to be treated as bad as others were in the past.

This is something I do agree with and I think Djokovic's PTPA said something about setting up a fund for this purpose.

 

[RSJfan]

Nonsense. The matter of whether or not the steroid enhanced Sinner's performance is very much relevant.
The draconian doping system has thrown common sense out the window. Do not be punishing players when there is reasonable doubt of intent and there is no PED effect.
Given that all the experts stated with certainty that there was no PED effect at those trace levels, that fact leans heavily in favour of giving Sinner the benefit of the doubt.

If the experts deemed it to have a PED effect then you could say Sinner needs to be punished in some manner, intentional or not.

My fav Raul is mixing up how he wants
the rules to work with how they work.

While there is obviously no decision to review yet based on public WADA pronouncements whether or not the banned substance enhanced Carrot’s performance is irrelevant to the appeal.

The only issue WADA is challenging on appeal is given the facts found by the independent tennis tribunal (which facts are not in dispute between the parties) its finding of “no fault or negligence” and thus no ban is incorrect. WADA believes that given the facts established the rules require a finding of some level of fault or negligence which means a ban of some period of time.

 

[jeroenn]

no one on here has provided much detail as to what a Clostebol-aided doping regimen might actually look like.

I've researched this a bit, and here's what I've learned:

Clostebol is a fairly weak AAS compared to some others and as such requires quite a bit for a prolonged time in order to have benefits. It could aid in muscle growth.
This makes it very impractical as a doping for tennis, given the frequent recurring testing in and out of competition.

It has also been noted that Clostebol could be used as a masking agent. Although I have not seen any scientific studies to that effect, it seems to me unlikely that the level of clostebol as found in Sinner would be sufficient to be a maskting agent.
Thus, if that were a use case for Clostebol, it would very likely require a dosage high enough to remain detectable for a long period.
After all, some of the metabolites can be detectable up to a month.

All in all, not a particular suitable PED for tennis, there are no doubt much better choises if one decides to go the PED route.

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

The only issue WADA is challenging on appeal is given the facts found by the independent tennis tribunal (which facts are not in dispute between the parties) its finding of “no fault or negligence” and thus no ban is incorrect. WADA believes that given the facts established the rules require a finding of some level of fault or negligence which means a ban of some period of time.

CAS has the jurisdiction to review the case comprehensively, regardless of what issues your WADA chooses to dispute in its filing of appeal.
The WADA accepts it was accidental and non-intentional but WADA disputes the finding of no negligence.
Only in the doping world can a 22 year old player be found guilty of a violation by the accidental actions of his physio.

Hopefully the CAS puts your favourite WADA in its place and makes a landmark ruling and establishes a new sane standard for all doping cases going forward.

 

[Bartelby]

It's his physio so it's Sinner's responsibility, whether twice accidental or not, so Sinner should have been suspended by the first Tribunal and this Appeal rendered unnecessary.

CAS has the jurisdiction to review the case comprehensively, regardless of what issues your WADA chooses to dispute in its filing of appeal.
The WADA accepts it was accidental and non-intentional but WADA disputes the finding of no negligence.
Only in the doping world can a 22 year old player be found guilty of a violation by the accidental actions of his physio.

Hopefully the CAS puts your favourite WADA in its place and makes a landmark ruling and establishes a new sane standard for all doping cases going forward.

 

[Bartelby]

No organisation, whether scientific or not, ever found Meldonium to be anything other than a placebo and Sharapova was suspended for fifteen months!

(except the drug company behind Meldonium).

I've researched this a bit, and here's what I've learned:

Clostebol is a fairly weak AAS compared to some others and as such requires quite a bit for a prolonged time in order to have benefits. It could aid in muscle growth.
This makes it very impractical as a doping for tennis, given the frequent recurring testing in and out of competition.

It has also been noted that Clostebol could be used as a masking agent. Although I have not seen any scientific studies to that effect, it seems to me unlikely that the level of clostebol as found in Sinner would be sufficient to be a maskting agent.
Thus, if that were a use case for Clostebol, it would very likely require a dosage high enough to remain detectable for a long period.
After all, some of the metabolites can be detectable up to a month.

All in all, not a particular suitable PED for tennis, there are no doubt much better choises if one decides to go the PED route.

 

[Roforot]

No organisation, whether scientific or not, ever found Meldonium to be anything other than a placebo and Sharapova was suspended for fifteen months!

(except the drug company behind Meldonium).

I didn't agree with that decision; nor the Halep either...
I also didn't agree w/ the decision not to suspend players who tested Cocaine+ or Meth+ using the excuse they got it from kissing someone or whatever. I think Agassi specifically got away with it...

 

[Bartelby]

I don't agree either but them's the rules!

If they list a drug and it's in your system then the normal course of events is that you're suspended.

If Sinner is not suspended, then doping controls are in complete chaos.

I didn't agree with that decision; nor the Halep either...
I also didn't agree w/ the decision not to suspend players who tested Cocaine+ or Meth+ using the excuse they got it from kissing someone or whatever. I think Agassi specifically got away with it...

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

It should be noted that Sinner submitted the positive urine sample on March 10. Yet the massage sessions continued for days afterwards.
That aligns with the explanation of accidental contamination through massage.

If Sinner was intentionally doping why would he have continued the massage sessions after being tested?



The investigation into Jannik Sinner's positive tests for clostebol revealed that the massages with the physiotherapist, who inadvertently caused the contamination, took place between March 5 and March 13.

During this period, the physiotherapist provided daily massages and treatments to Sinner after using an over-the-counter spray containing clostebol on a cut on their own skin. This led to contamination through skin lesions on Sinner’s body during the massages.The timeline indicates that the physiotherapist used the spray on themselves prior to providing treatment to Sinner, which was a crucial factor in the investigation's conclusion that the contamination was unintentional.

The independent tribunal ultimately ruled that Sinner bore "no fault or negligence" for the positive tests.

 

[nighthawkrr]

I think they were probably micro-dosing it and someone messed up and gave too much or forget to tell him to be at a different location.

They probably had a wash out protocol they gave a small window of impact.

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

No organisation, whether scientific or not, ever found Meldonium to be anything other than a placebo and Sharapova was suspended for fifteen months!

(except the drug company behind Meldonium).

And there we have it. Our favourite Bart wishes to crucify Sinner for past decisions.
Instead of rewriting the rules on doping cases going forward to protect individual liberty.

And Bart's favourite WADA would not have placed Meldonium on the banned list if "there was no scientific evidence whatsoever that found Meldonium to be anything other than a placebo."

 

[Bartelby]

You can't rewrite rules to get one individual, Sinner, off the hook. Or rig a dodgy decision somehow and not expect an appeal.

As I've said, the penalties for breaches should be immediately halved ahead of a possible wider review if necessary, but the current rules must be upheld.

And there we have it. Our favourite Bart wishes to crucify Sinner for past decisions.
Instead of rewriting the rules on doping cases going forward to protect individual liberty.

And Bart's favourite WADA would not have placed Meldonium on the banned list if "there was no scientific evidence whatsoever that found Meldonium to be anything other than a placebo."

 

[Bartelby]

I guess that they were using a banned substance deliberately because Sinner felt it added something to his massage.

The dunderheads just never expected that such a small dose could be detected and thought there was no risk of discovery.

I think they were probably micro-dosing it and someone messed up and gave too much or forget to tell him to be at a different location.

They probably had a wash out protocol they gave a small window of impact.

 

[landcookie]

Every doper must be banned.

Bye bye pro sports.

 

[JMR]

I think degrees of certainty, which you allude to toward the end of this post, is an important bit. The report says "The ITIA accepts on a balance of probability the veracity of the Player's account", which I assume – with my legal background of precisely squat – means they find it likelier than not, i.e. a greater than 50% probability, that Sinner's team's account is true. Which I tend to accept and agree with. But is that 60-40? 80-20? 51-49?

Yes, "a balance of probability" means more likely true than not true. This is the same as the "preponderance of the evidence" standard used in civil actions in Common Law jurisdictions. However, just because the standard can be explained in quantitative terms does not mean that the evidence in a typical case actually can be quantified with that degree of precision. Also, a common misunderstanding is that because 51-49 can qualify as a preponderance, most or all cases decided under this standard have a very narrow margin. In fact, decisive "wins" are common, although as I noted, this can't really be measured.

The rest of your comment indicates a need to examine a methodological question. What happens when we have two competing explanatory paradigms, one of which has a large volume of supporting evidence, and the other has no supporting evidence at all? The unsupported paradigm may still have partisans, defenders, apologists. How do they advocate for it?

By attacking the first paradigm, that's how. Quibbling. Nit-picking. Looking for any inconsistencies, flaws, or unanswered questions. And a single-minded, aggressive hunt for flaws will almost inevitably find a few, since no human information system is 100 percent comprehensive or self-consistent. Relentless cross-examination of even an honest witness will eventually yield some mistakes or gaps in the testimony.

A classic example of this approach occurs in the context of creationism-evolution "debates." Because evolution is supported by a gigantic amount of evidence from myriad fields, but creationism is bereft of any scientific evidence (only religious pronouncements), creationists spend essentially all their time trying to poke holes in various aspects of evolutionary theory. This question hasn't been fully answered yet! That issue is confusing! This issue draws some disagreement from biologists! That fossil is allegedly missing! And on and on. Sometimes these endless, niggling objections are trotted out in a rapid-fire sequence called a "Gish Gallop," after infamous creationist Duane Gish. The point is to rant and recite enough to distract from the problem that no evidence supports creationism.

All your comments about how this or that piece of testimony or evidence in Sinner's case seems "odd" or hard to accept overlook the elephant in the room: there is no evidence at all to support the notion that Sinner was/is a regular, intentional PEDs user, i.e., a "doper." That should be the key takeaway from the ITIA's investigation and hearing process, not whether some bit of a complicated testimonial account seems a little unusual. This is not a 51-49 case because the other side has 0, not 49.

Finally, 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.

 

[vokazu]

Bye bye pro sports.

There are many Pro athletes who are clean. The dopers must go.

 

[Bartelby]

The code divides doping into intentional and non-intentional and provides a possible hefty two-year ban for unintentional doping. That is the starting point for Sinner's case.

Yes, "a balance of probability" means more likely true than not true. This is the same as the "preponderance of the evidence" standard used in civil actions in Common Law jurisdictions. However, just because the standard can be explained in quantitative terms does not mean that the evidence in a typical case actually can be quantified with that degree of precision. Also, a common misunderstanding is that because 51-49 can qualify as a preponderance, most or all cases decided under this standard have a very narrow margin. In fact, decisive "wins" are common, although as I noted, this can't really be measured.

The rest of your comment indicates a need to examine a methodological question. What happens when we have two competing explanatory paradigms, one of which has a large volume of supporting evidence, and the other has no supporting evidence at all? The unsupported paradigm may still have partisans, defenders, apologists. How do they advocate for it?

By attacking the first paradigm, that's how. Quibbling. Nit-picking. Looking for any inconsistencies, flaws, or unanswered questions. And a single-minded, aggressive hunt for flaws will almost inevitably find a few, since no human information system is 100 percent comprehensive or self-consistent. Relentless cross-examination of even an honest witness will eventually yield some mistakes or gaps in the testimony.

A classic example of this approach occurs in the context of creationism-evolution "debates." Because evolution is supported by a gigantic amount of evidence from myriad fields, but creationism is bereft of any scientific evidence (only religious pronouncements), creationists spend essentially all their time trying to poke holes in various aspects of evolutionary theory. This question hasn't been fully answered yet! That issue is confusing! This issue draws some disagreement from biologists! That fossil is allegedly missing! And on and on. Sometimes these endless, niggling objections are trotted out in a rapid-fire sequence called a "Gish Gallop," after infamous creationist Duane Gish. The point is to rant and recite enough to distract from the problem that no evidence supports creationism.

All your comments about how this or that piece of testimony or evidence in Sinner's case seems "odd" or hard to accept overlook the elephant in the room: there is no evidence at all to support the notion that Sinner was/is a regular, intentional PEDs user, i.e., a "doper." That should be the key takeaway from the ITIA's investigation and hearing process, not whether some bit of a complicated testimonial account seems a little unusual. This is not a 51-49 case because the other side has 0, not 49.

Finally, 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.

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

I guess that they were using a banned substance deliberately because Sinner felt it added something to his massage.

The dunderheads just never expected that such a small dose could be detected and thought there was no risk of discovery.

Let's go with your theory that the trainers, with approval from their boss Sinner, applied to Sinner his favourite banned cream.
This is not a trial but let's also assume that this was a civil trial with a mere preponderance of evidence standard of proof. The minimal standard of proof.
Would Judge Bart find that the evidence tilts at least slightly to guilt of intentional doping?
Go ahead. Make your ruling.

 

[Bartelby]

Doping is either intentional or unintentional. WADA accepts that Sinner is an unintentional doper but that brings with it a suspension of up to two years.

As a result, WADA has appealed. My ruling on that appeal would be a suspension of nine to twelve months.

Let's go with your theory that the trainers, with approval from their boss Sinner, applied to Sinner his favourite banned cream.
This is not a trial but let's also assume that this was a civil trial with a mere preponderance of evidence standard of proof. The minimal standard of proof.
Would Judge Bart find that the evidence tilts at least slightly to guilt of intentional doping?
Go ahead. Make your ruling.

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

Doping is either intentional or unintentional. WADA accepts that Sinner is an unintentional doper but that brings with it a suspension of up to two years.

As a result, WADA has appealed. My ruling on that appeal would be a suspension of nine to twelve months.

That totally dodges the question. We'll try again:

If the matter was before a civil court and the plaintiff's claim was that Sinner intentionally doped what would your ruling be?
Also make the reasonable assumption that Sinner's trainers would never use a cream with a huge "doping warning" on its label, on their boss without his approval.
Keep in mind that the standard of proof in a civil trial is a preponderance of the evidence. 51-49.

 

[Bartelby]

I didn't dodge your question. I made it answerable.

WADA's doping regime does not follow civil court rules or procedures.

The civil standard doesn't rely on intention for a criminal matter in any event, so it wouldn't even be argued.

I made it clear that Sinner did not intentionally dope, but that does not mean he can't be suspended for unintentional use of a banned substance.

That totally dodges the question. We'll try again:

If the matter was before a civil court and the plaintiff's claim was that Sinner intentionally doped what would your ruling be?
Also make the reasonable assumption that Sinner's trainers would never use a banned substance on their boss without his approval.

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

I didn't dodge your question. I made it answerable.

WADA's doping regime does not follow civil court rules or procedures.

I made it clear that Sinner did not intentionally dope, but that does not mean he can't be suspended.

We know it's not a civil trial. And we know Sinner was exonerated by the Tribunal of intentional doping.

If it was a civil trial, with presumably a lower burden of proof for intentional doping than Tribunal, does the evidence tilt toward intentional doping?
Let's also reasonably assume his trainers would never apply a banned cream on their boss without his tacit approval.
You are suggesting here that evidence points to intentionally doping.

I guess that they were using a banned substance deliberately because Sinner felt it added something to his massage.

The dunderheads just never expected that such a small dose could be detected and thought there was no risk of discovery.

 

[Bartelby]

If a man rapes a woman then that finding of guilt comes after the elements are satisfied:

There are four elements of Rape. As outlined above, a person commits Rape if he or she: (1) sexually penetrated another person; (2) intentionally; (3) without that person's consent to the sexual penetration; and (4) the accused did not reasonably believe the other person consented to the penetration

If there is some sort of civil case afterwards as there is not enough evidence for a criminal conviction then intention is left aside:

The balance of probabilities is a standard of proof used in civil and criminal proceedings to determine if a party's version of events is more likely than not to be true:


The reality is that civil courts would work off balance of probabilities, not intention. Sinner would not be defending a charge of intentional doping in a court where this is not the relevant standard,

We know it's not a civil trial. And we know Sinner was exonerated by the Tribunal of intentional doping.

If it was a civil trial, with presumably a lower burden of proof for intentional doping than Tribunal, does the evidence tilt toward intentional doping?
Let's also reasonably assume his trainers would never apply a banned cream on their boss without his tacit approval.
You are suggesting here that evidence points to intentionally doping.

 

[Arak]

I am convinced it is not possible for any court or commission to guess or determine the intent of doping. They make an educated guess based on facts and numbers and players’ explanations. The same panel might come out with two different conclusions on two identical cases. In the Heard vs Depp case, we have two different courts making two opposite judgments. At the end, a player can be lucky or unlucky to get a favourable or unfavourable verdict. Sinner was very “lucky” perhaps due to his status and his importance to the sport. But the only certainty in his case is the uncertainty. No one could tell for sure his intent except him and his team, and they sure are not talking. Maybe a lie detector can be used?

 

[LOBALOT]

This why they need to take lame excuses off the table. You have the junk in your system you are fined, banned, lose match results. That is it.

No safe room stories.
No boyfriend stories.
No trainer stories.
No party kissing stories.

 

[Bartelby]

The Sinner tribunal just did determine intent on doping. They found Sinner had not intentionally doped due mainly to the evidence of his two support staff.

In the other case, the player had no one backing up his story and/or the tournament physio directly contradicting it, so they found that this was sufficient evidence of intent.

In many parts of the law, you need more direct proof of intent than required here so intent is indeed extremely difficult to show unless you have an admission or confession of intent.

I am convinced it is not possible for any court or commission to guess or determine the intent of doping. They make an educated guess based on facts and numbers and players’ explanations. The same panel might come out with two different conclusions on two identical cases. In the Heard vs Depp case, we have two different courts making two opposite judgments. At the end, a player can be lucky or unlucky to get a favourable or unfavourable verdict. Sinner was very “lucky” perhaps due to his status and his importance to the sport. But the only certainty in his case is the uncertainty. No one could tell for sure his intent except him and his team, and they sure are not talking. Maybe a lie detector can be used?

 

[GloW]

Forgiven. I'm going to pour myself a drink immediately to enhance my misery - my favourite poet used to say: die lewe is net draaglik as jy effens dronk is (life is only bearable if you are slightly drunk). Tjorts!

Where are you from? Are you from South Africa?

 

[LOBALOT]

The Sinner tribunal just did determine intent on doping. They found Sinner had not intentionally doped due mainly to the evidence of his two support staff.

In the other case, the player had no one backing up his story and/or the tournament physio directly contradicting it, so they found that this was sufficient evidence of intent.

In many parts of the law, you need more direct proof of intent than required here so intent is indeed extremely difficult to show unless you have an admission or confession of intent.

This isn't a court of law. This is a sport and a association of players. he doesn't have to go to prison.

He also doesn't have to play on the tour, make money doing so, have a record based on doped performance.

Let him go off and play on his own someplace in the doper league of tennis players if he wants to form one. This league has as a set of rules that say you cannot dope. He did he should be out.