Max Purcell suspended for doping rule violation

[Better_Call_Raul]

Don’t know where you got 10 days from (or when you think your 10 days starts ticking). A player may appeal a provisional suspension before it goes into effect or at anytime after it goes into effect until there is a decision on the merits of their case:

Wrong. The right to appeal a provincial suspension is strictly limited to the initial 10-day window after receiving notification.

In the Halep case, she was provincially suspended and she chose not to appeal. It took 9 months for ITIA to initially investigate and finally forward her case to The Tribunal.
You are claiming that Halep could have appealed her provincial suspension months later. Wrong.

The player will receive a notification letter from the ITIA:

The ITIA believes you have committed an Offense under the Tennis Anti-Corruption Program (TACP).​

​

The accompanying letter notifies you that the ITIA has provisionally​

suspended you and outlines the reasons that this has been imposed.​

​

Under section F.3 of the TACP, having been provisionally suspended you are​

now prohibited from competing in or attending any sanctioned tennis events​

organised by the governing bodies of the sport.​

​

You may appeal your Provisional Suspension​

within 10 business days of receiving this letter​

​

The Provisional Suspension is effective IMMEDIATELY.​

https://www.itia.tennis/media/sstjr3dc/itia_provisionalsuspension-non-legal-summary-eng-2023.pdf

 

[RSJfan]

and let's just say it's voluntary on Purcell's behalf, or any other party for that fact.. then why was it not volunteered for Sinner and Iga who chose the path of obfuscation

edit: I love Sinner's game and personality.. I just don't buy into the hypocrisy of a "fair game" and am calling out the BS

Sinner and Iga both had a positive test of a “non-Specified Substance.” This results in an automatic provisional suspension. Both appealed their automatic suspensions and were successful on appeal (Iga needed several tries) and consequently their cases were not disclosed until the decision of the Tennis Independent Tribunal was issued.

Purcell was charged with an anti-doping rule violation for a “specified Prohibited Method.” This charge does not result in a mandatory suspension so there would not have been disclosure of his case except he wanted a voluntary suspension which suspension triggered the disclosure.

The disclosure rules are the same in all cases and for all players (with the exception of minors who are entitled to certain additional protections). The ITIA won’t disclose a positive test or charges against a player for anti-doping rule violations (ADRV) unless and until the player is provisionally suspended or an independent tennis tribunal has determined that the player committed an ADRV or the player has admitted to an ADRV. The players can disclose whatever they want, whenever they want.

The disclosure rules are designed to protect all players against reputational and other harms that may occur from disclosure of mere charges. It’s a matter of basic fairness.

You are fortunate that my fav Raul has taken a shining to you. Raul is an esteemed member of TTW. In addition to providing his often disgruntled and disjointed opinions he delights TTW with a raft of misinformation on a wide variety of topics. He is a passionate proponent of so-called “clean energy” and is currently working on an important contribution to the literature on electric vehicles. His current favs are Egg, The Carrot, Michael Ymer, the thugs at WADA, Putin and the CCP.

 

[RSJfan]

Wrong. The right to appeal a provincial suspension is strictly limited to the initial 10-day window after receiving notification.

In the Halep case, she was provincially suspended and she chose not to appeal. It took 9 months for ITIA to initially investigate and finally forward her case to The Tribunal.
You are claiming that Halep could have appealed her provincial suspension months later. Wrong

The player will receive a notification letter from ITIA that he has been suspended:

The ITIA believes you have committed an Offense under the TACP.​

​

The accompanying letter notifies you that the ITIA has provisionally​

suspended you and outlines the reasons that this has been imposed.​

​

Under section F.3 of the TACP, having been provisionally suspended you are​

now prohibited from competing in or attending any sanctioned tennis events​

organised by the governing bodies of the sport.​

​

You may appeal your Provisional Suspension​

within 10 business days of receiving this letter​

​

The Provisional Suspension is effective IMMEDIATELY.​

https://www.itia.tennis/media/sstjr3dc/itia_provisionalsuspension-non-legal-summary-eng-2023.pdf

I quoted you the rule on when a player can appeal a provisional suspension, explained it and provided the rule number so you could look it up yourself. Your response was to announce it’s wrong and to cite rules of, and provide a flow chart relating to, the Tennis Anti-Corruption Program (TACP).

Sinner and Iga and all other doping cases involve matters relating to, and are subject to the rules of, the Tennis Anti-Doping Program (TADP) which is what I’m relying on and citing to and not the TACP.

Both programs are administered by the ITIA. I think if instead of relying on flow charts with kid friendly colors you went to the actual anti-doping rules you may have realized your gross error. Though it’s hard to imagine how you thought the letter or the flow chart were relevant. That the flow chart made reference to the TACP and had no references at all to anything doping related but made reference to an appeal process by AHO didn’t strike you as odd.

I hope none of these matters are distracting you from your EV research and advocacy.

 

[RSJfan]

I don't know if Purcell likes art, but there is a tennis player who genuinely likes art and is an art collector: Reilly Opelka.

For Tennis Star Reilly Opelka, Art Collecting Is a Sport

The Guston-collecting, Margiela-wearing, McEnroe-dialing 26-year-old explains why he shuns art advisors (“I don't respect the profession”) and shows no emotion during studio visits. “I love any opportunity to go against the grain,” he tells GQ columnist Chris Black.

www.gq.com

Reilly “Unapproved” Opelka took a $10,000 fine at the USO for art.

JMac used to own an art gallery in SoHo (Manhattan).

John McEnroe: The art-loving tennis player

Despite being renowned as one of the most iconic figures in American tennis history, John McEnroe may not strike many as an art enthusiast...

www.artmajeur.com

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

quoted you the rule on when a player can appeal a provisional suspension, explained it and provided the rule number so you could look it up yourself. Your response was to announce it’s wrong and to cite rules of, and provide a flow chart relating to, the Tennis Anti-Corruption Program (TACP).

Checked your post and do not see any rule number reference.

Put your thinking cap on and have a think about this. It is in the best interests of both parties to have a 10 day window in which to appeal an ITIA provisional suspension.

Why? Because if ITIA has been investigating for months and is about to reach a decision, it makes no sense for player to appeal the provisional suspension at that point; player has already missed months of tournaments due to the provisional suspension. The horse is out of the barn.

Cannot find the TADC rule number but see no reason why the 10 day window to appeal should be any different than the TACP rule.

 

[jmnk]

Checked your post and do not see any rule number reference.

it's right here:

[...]

TADP 7.12.3: “A player may appeal a provisional suspension either before the Provisional Suspension comes into force or at any time prior to the final first instance decision on the merits, seeking an order that the Provisional Suspension should not be imposed (or, where it has been imposed, that it should be lifted).”

[...]

Put your thinking cap on and have a think about this. It is in the best interests of both parties to have a 10 day window in which to appeal an ITIA provisional suspension.

Why? Because if ITIA has been investigating for months and is about to reach a decision, it makes no sense for player to appeal the provisional suspension at that point; player has already missed months of tournaments due to the provisional suspension. The horse is out of the barn.

So? The point is that a player may have been able to establish and present some sort of a reasonable explanation for the failed tests, perhaps based on findings/tests/etc that were not available earlier. And if those newly discovered facts are taken into consideration the suspension may be lifted so a player can immediately return to play while the process is taking its time to completion.

Cannot find the TADC rule number

What is TADC?

but see no reason why the 10 day window to appeal should be any different than the TACP rule.

Because Anti-Corruption rules and procedures are fairly different than Anti-Doping rules and procedures?

 

[langley]

18 months for vitamins?

 

[Bartelby]

... and 3 months for steroids!

 

[Rovesciarete]

18 months for vitamins?

... and 3 months for steroids!

If one doesn't understand that the repeated use of a prohibited method by an athlete combined with obfuscation of justice will get punished more than an unknowable contamination of an athlete one should try to read first. It could help...

8	During its investigation, the ITIA recovered data from the mobile phone of another professional tennis player (Player 2) that included a number of WhatsApp messages exchanged between the Player and Player 2, while both players were travelling internationally.
9	The messages relevant to this decision are as follows:
9.1	On 16 December 2023, the two players exchanged messages relating to a "hydration session" at a medical clinic (Clinic) and at approximately 15:45, the Player sent messages to Player 2 confirming that he had received an infusion.
9.2	The two players exchanged a number of further messages that day concerning the infusion. These messages indicate that: (i) the Player requested the Clinic staff not to keep receipts relating to his infusion; (ii) the Player discussed ways in which he could justify receiving infusions, including feigning illness; and (iii) the Player subsequently researched whether or not the infusion was prohibited under the WADA Code (specifically, whether it was the ingredient itself or the water that was relevant to the limit of 100 mL within 12 hours). The relevance of these messages is addressed below in Section IIl.A.
9.3	Later exchanges between the two players, as well as a picture sent by Player 2 to a member of staff at the Clinic, establish that the Player also received an infusion at the Clinic on 20 December 2023.

Looking at rules Purcell was propably lucky to get less than two years...

 

[Bartelby]

You just have to look at process to understand how the system was worked in Sinner's favour.

Purcell is an example of the usual toughness of both process and punishment.

The reality is that the doping control system is discredited.

If one doesn't understand that the repeated use of a prohibited method by an athlete combined with obfuscation of justice will get punished more than an unknowable contamination of an athlete one should try to read first. It could help...



Looking at rules Purcell was propably lucky to get less than two years...

 

[travlerajm]

Purcell can’t afford as good lawyers as Sinner. He’s so broke he had to move to a country from the former Soviet Union where it freezes in the winter.

 

[Bartelby]

Sinner didn't have good lawyers. He had good friends. Purcell has a fraction of Sinner's commercial value. He is relatively friendless as a result.

Purcell can’t afford as good lawyers as Sinner. He’s so broke he had to move to a country from the former Soviet Union where it freezes in the winter.

 

[Kafel69]

haven't looked too deeply into this, but, apparently, our "smart guy" in this case was dumb enough to exchange texts with a third party about said vitamins (how often he could get away with taking it by faking illness, etc.) and conspiring with the hospital staff to not have receipts for this work. stupid is as stupid does comes to mind here.

 

[jeroenn]

"The two players exchanged a number of further messages that day concerning the infusion. These messages indicate that: (i) the Player requested the Clinic staff not to keep receipts relating to his infusion; (ii) the Player discussed ways in which he could justify receiving infusions, including feigning illness; and (iii) the Player subsequently researched whether or not the infusion was prohibited under the WADA Code (specifically, whether it was the ingredient itself or the water that was relevant to the limit of 100 mL within 12 hours). "

My my. Interesting result.

Here's the pdf:

https://www.itia.tennis/media/q1hgr0kv/itia-decision-max-purcell-29425-redacted.pdf

Note that the ITIA concludes that the player's fault is 'substantial', but not 'intentional' because of the very high standard of proof needed for 'intentional'. I think Purcell got a very lucky break there, considering some of the evidence presented, including "discussing the ways to justfify the infusions, including 'feigning illness"

 

[ChrisJR3264]

So he knowingly told the professionals no more than X amount ML of vitamin drip. Those folks accidentally gave him more than what WADA prohibits. Purcell informs them without testing positive. 18 months.

Wow.

 

[jon70]

Should be nine months or a year for a violation. If there's evidence of intent or conspiracy, keep adding years.

Finding it hard to feel sorry for him as he tried to cover it up. That, along with some stuff on reddit, his cringey celebrations, his tank against Paul and now his playing of the mental health card...

 

[RSJfan]

Wrong. The right to appeal a provincial suspension is strictly limited to the initial 10-day window after receiving notification.

In the Halep case, she was provincially suspended and she chose not to appeal. It took 9 months for ITIA to initially investigate and finally forward her case to The Tribunal.
You are claiming that Halep could have appealed her provincial suspension months later. Wrong.

The player will receive a notification letter from the ITIA:

The ITIA believes you have committed an Offense under the Tennis Anti-Corruption Program (TACP).​

​

The accompanying letter notifies you that the ITIA has provisionally​

suspended you and outlines the reasons that this has been imposed.​

​

Under section F.3 of the TACP, having been provisionally suspended you are​

now prohibited from competing in or attending any sanctioned tennis events​

organised by the governing bodies of the sport.​

​

You may appeal your Provisional Suspension​

within 10 business days of receiving this letter​

​

The Provisional Suspension is effective IMMEDIATELY.​

https://www.itia.tennis/media/sstjr3dc/itia_provisionalsuspension-non-legal-summary-eng-2023.pdf

Delighted this thread was bumped. This Dr Raul reply post is classic.

 

[RSJfan]

"The two players exchanged a number of further messages that day concerning the infusion. These messages indicate that: (i) the Player requested the Clinic staff not to keep receipts relating to his infusion; (ii) the Player discussed ways in which he could justify receiving infusions, including feigning illness; and (iii) the Player subsequently researched whether or not the infusion was prohibited under the WADA Code (specifically, whether it was the ingredient itself or the water that was relevant to the limit of 100 mL within 12 hours). "

My my. Interesting result.

Here's the pdf:

https://www.itia.tennis/media/q1hgr0kv/itia-decision-max-purcell-29425-redacted.pdf

Note that the ITIA concludes that the player's fault is 'substantial', but not 'intentional' because of the very high standard of proof needed for 'intentional'. I think Purcell got a very lucky break there, considering some of the evidence presented, including "discussing the ways to justfify the infusions, including 'feigning illness"

Yup. He easily could have been staring at 4 years minus cooperation credit. He’s lucky he saw where it was heading and acted before they busted him.

 

[RSJfan]

Should be nine months or a year for a violation. If there's evidence of intent or conspiracy, keep adding years.

Finding it hard to feel sorry for him as he tried to cover it up. That, along with some stuff on reddit, his cringey celebrations, his tank against Paul and now his playing of the mental health card...

It works the other way around.

You start at four years (for a first time ADRV) and can get a reduction depending on whether you can establish lack of intent (two years) and, if so, the degree, if any, of fault (0 - two years).

 

[big ted]

Max purcell tried to destroy the IV records the clinic kept so he wouldn’t get caught!! Guilty!!

 

[Kralingen]

haven't looked too deeply into this, but, apparently, our "smart guy" in this case was dumb enough to exchange texts with a third party about said vitamins (how often he could get away with taking it by faking illness, etc.) and conspiring with the hospital staff to not have receipts for this work. stupid is as stupid does comes to mind here.

otoh when did ITIA become the goddamn NSA surveilling phones. I’m not sure how comfortable I’d be with this, the suits gleefully rifling through my phone and reading intimate personal conversations. Imagine a lady friend sent him some private photos in there and a creepy investigator decides he needs “extra time for discovery”. The whole case is weird.

 

[travlerajm]

All I want to know is Who Is Player 2?

 

[Aussie Darcy]

"The two players exchanged a number of further messages that day concerning the infusion. These messages indicate that: (i) the Player requested the Clinic staff not to keep receipts relating to his infusion; (ii) the Player discussed ways in which he could justify receiving infusions, including feigning illness; and (iii) the Player subsequently researched whether or not the infusion was prohibited under the WADA Code (specifically, whether it was the ingredient itself or the water that was relevant to the limit of 100 mL within 12 hours). "

My my. Interesting result.

Here's the pdf:

https://www.itia.tennis/media/q1hgr0kv/itia-decision-max-purcell-29425-redacted.pdf

Note that the ITIA concludes that the player's fault is 'substantial', but not 'intentional' because of the very high standard of proof needed for 'intentional'. I think Purcell got a very lucky break there, considering some of the evidence presented, including "discussing the ways to justfify the infusions, including 'feigning illness"

But there was nothing illegal or banned in the infusions, simply that it went above the 100 mL limit?

 

[RSJfan]

otoh when did ITIA become the goddamn NSA surveilling phones. I’m not sure how comfortable I’d be with this, the suits gleefully rifling through my phone and reading intimate personal conversations. Imagine a lady friend sent him some private photos in there and a creepy investigator decides he needs “extra time for discovery”. The whole case is weird.

ITIA acts as investigative entity once you commit an ADRV.

Do you not feel uncomfortable only for TADP violations or TACP as well? The anti-doping authorities are always a few steps behind the dopers. They need to be able to obtain evidence.

 

[norcal]

otoh when did ITIA become the goddamn NSA surveilling phones. I’m not sure how comfortable I’d be with this, the suits gleefully rifling through my phone and reading intimate personal conversations. Imagine a lady friend sent him some private photos in there and a creepy investigator decides he needs “extra time for discovery”. The whole case is weird.

Remember when Davydenko was being investigated for match fixing and he wouldn't turn over his phone? Probably saved himself from a lifetime ban.

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

But there was nothing illegal or banned in the infusions, simply that it went above the 100 mL limit?

Reading comprehension please my dear. "The Player discussed ways in which he could justify receiving infusions, including feigning illness;"
Nobody who is doing anything legal discusses feigning an illness for a blood transfusion.
Your favourite Purcell got off lightly. He should have had the book thrown at him.

 

[Kralingen]

It’s not the “goddamn NSA.” It’s acts as investigative entity once you commit an ADRV. If you wanna stonewall then take a four year ban.

Do you not feel uncomfortable only for TADP violations or TACP as well? The anti-doping authorities are always a few steps behind the dopers. They need to be able to obtain evidence.

Quasi-legal entities acting like real legal entities always gives me the heebie jeebies

I have no clue what the acronyms you threw at me were but will take some time to look them up.

 

[Bartelby]

In the case of Sinner, the authorities are a few steps behind gently guiding him to the door labelled "no fault or negligence".

It’s not the “goddamn NSA.” It’s acts as investigative entity once you commit an ADRV. If you wanna stonewall then take a four year ban.

Do you not feel uncomfortable only for TADP violations or TACP as well? The anti-doping authorities are always a few steps behind the dopers. They need to be able to obtain evidence.

 

[RSJfan]

Remember when Davydenko was being investigated for match fixing and he wouldn't turn over his phone? Probably saved himself from a lifetime ban.

Remember during the same period Davy couldn’t get his serve in. Major yips.

 

[jon70]

It works the other way around.

You start at four years (for a first time ADRV) and can get a reduction depending on whether you can establish lack of intent (two years) and, if so, the degree, if any, of fault (0 - two years).

Same result, as everyone claims lack of intent and never serves the full two years...except for Purcell! His penalty is actually a deterrent, as opposed to Sinner.

 

[RSJfan]

All I want to know is Who Is Player 2?

Carrot Boy.

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

In the case of Sinner, the authorities are a few steps behind gently guiding him to the door labelled "no fault or negligence".

Please leave your Sinner-bashing aside and understand that Purcell received a mere slap on the wrist. He should have been permanently banned.

The most incriminating aspect is that he returned for a second prohibited infusion just days after trying to cover his tracks by asking to destroy receipts and inquiring whether feigning illness could justify the first infusion. Returning for a second infusion shows mind-boggling recklessness and blatant disregard for the rules.

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

All I want to know is Who Is Player 2?

It is interesting to note that Player 2's phone data was obtained in another investigation, unrelated to Purcell.
This phone data broke the Purcell case wide open.


ITIA recovered data from the mobile phone of another professional tennis player (referred to as Player 2) during an investigation unrelated to Purcell.

This data included WhatsApp messages exchanged between Purcell and Player 2 while both were traveling internationally.

These messages revealed Purcell’s discussions about the infusions, including his requests to the clinic to destroy receipts and considerations of feigning illness to justify the infusions.

The ITIA’s findings indicate that this evidence was crucial to their probe into Purcell’s anti-doping violation.

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

Same result, as everyone claims lack of intent and never serves the full two years...except for Purcell! His penalty is actually a deterrent, as opposed to Sinner.

Purcell sentence will serve as a deterrent. A Grand Slam champion banned for 1.5 years.
Although Purcell should have received at least 4 years given that he clearly intended to break the rules by going for a second illegal transfusion after trying to cover up his tracks for the first illegal transfusion (destroying receipts, etc).

 

[RSJfan]

Reading comprehension please my dear. "The Player discussed ways in which he could justify receiving infusions, including feigning illness;"
Nobody who is doing anything legal discusses feigning an illness for a blood transfusion.
Your favourite Purcell got off lightly. He should have had the book thrown at him.

Pretty routine for players not doping to go to a shady clinic in Bali for IV infusions.

“The Clinic did not provide the relevant doctors' contact details as requested by the ITIA, nor responded to the ITIA's requests as to what was specifically discussed between the Player and the doctor(s).”

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

Pretty routine for players not doping to go to a shady clinic in Bali for IV infusions.

“The Clinic did not provide the relevant doctors' contact details as requested by the ITIA, nor responded to the ITIA's requests as to what was specifically discussed between the Player and the doctor

Do not understand how he evaded the minimum of 4 years given that there is zero doubt about his intent to skirt the rules by going in for a second transfusion after covering his tracks for the first.
The clinic, even a shady clinic in Bali, is likely bound by health privacy laws.
Player 2 could just be an innocent witness. Or Player 2 could be under investigation. Is Purcell cooperating to implicate others? We do not know.


These doping stories are simply riveting!

Another Tennis Anti-Doping Saga Drips Out

Max Purcell's intravenous infusion case injects more questions into the tennis anti-doping landscape—as does his punishment.

www.benrothenberg.com

 

[Bartelby]

The Sinner apologists have now turned hanging judges.

 

[TennisBro]

This Aussie guy is still suspended? That's outrageous!

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

This Aussie guy is still suspended? That's outrageous!

He went in for a second transfusion after trying to destroy the receipts for the first illegal transfusion from the shady Indonesian clinic. His intent was clear.
The guidelines call for a 4 year minimum. He got off lightly for cooperating and possibly implicating others.
Purcell is a very suspicious and shady character indeed.

 

[Bartelby]

Associating shadiness with Indonesia is just ridiculous when you take into account the activities of the Sinner team.

He went in for a second transfusion after trying to destroy the receipts for the first illegal transfusion from the shady Indonesian clinic. His intent was clear.
The guidelines call for a 4 year minimum. He got off lightly for cooperating and possibly implicating others.
Purcell is a very suspicious and shady character indeed.

 

[CrunchJann]

Not his first time

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

Not his first time

This Aussie dunderhead Purcell was so brazen and reckless as to go in for a second transfusion just days after getting his first transfusion and discussing how to destroy the records from the clinic.
Unbelievable mindboggling disregard for the doping rules. What is going on with him?

 

[zagor]

Pro tennis is so hilariously corrupt, seriously. Beneath all the veneer of being a clean, classy sport.

 

[ChrisJR3264]

But there was nothing illegal or banned in the infusions, simply that it went above the 100 mL limit?

Hopefully he made sure there was a clean needle for the infusions.

Some players on tour don’t care about medical safety when it comes to simply massaging open cuts on their feet

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

Associating shadiness with Indonesia is just ridiculous when you take into account the activities of the Sinner team.

My dear dunderhead, it was Purcell that described the Bali clinic as a "24/7 medical facility in a third-world location”.
That is Purcell's own characterization of the clinic. Purcell perceived the clinic as less regulated and less sophisticated and requested that records not be kept.
Why would a pro athlete risk his career by going to a third world clinic for a transfusion?

The norm for pro athletes is to go to a sports medicine clinic in Australia to minimize anti-doping risks.

 

[Bartelby]

Calling an Indonesian facility without evidence "shady" is morally reprehensible and it is not the term Purcell used.

Sinner couldn't even manage his physio properly so having something performed in the West does not mean dope-free.

My dear dunderhead, it was Purcell that described the Bali clinic as a "24/7 medical facility in a third-world location”.
Why would a pro athlete risk his career going to a third world clinic for a transfusion?
That is Purcell's own characterization of the clinic. Purcell perceived the clinic as less regulated and less sophisticated and requested that records not be kept.

The norm for pro athletes is to go to a sports medicine clinic in Australia to minimize anti-doping risks.

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

Calling an Indonesian facility without evidence "shady" is morally reprehensible and it is not the term Purcell used.

Purcell described the Bali clinic as a "24/7 medical facility in a third-world location”.
He perceived Bali clinic as less regulated, which is exactly why he chose it.
To avoid the stricter oversight and recordkeeping he would face in the well-regulated Australian sports clinics that are highly familiar with and adhere to WADA anti-doping regulations.

And indeed Purcell requested that records not be kept at the Bali clinic! Good luck trying that in an Australian clinic!

Australian clinics are subject to stringent regulations requiring detailed medical records for all treatments. A request to avoid record-keeping would likely be rejected, as it violates medical ethics, legal standards, and anti-doping compliance protocols enforced by Sport Integrity Australia. Attempting to bypass record-keeping in Australia would raise immediate red flags, particularly for a professional athlete subject to World Anti-Doping Agency testing.​

The norm for pro athletes is to go to a sports medicine clinic in Australia to minimize anti-doping risks.

Why is an elite athlete risking his career by going to a third world clinic that is less likely to be familiar with WADA’s strict anti-doping rules, less likely to keep records and increase the risk of non-compliant treatments (exceeding the 100ml limit).

 

[TennisBro]

Looks like this thread is well taken care of

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

Looks like this thread is well taken care of

You run in the pro circles and likely have had interactions with Max.
Tell us your story.

 

[Shaolin]

Should have gotten Sinner legal team. He'd be done with his sentence already.