Navratilova on the Sinner case: “The system must be blown up”

Winner Sinner

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
Martina Navratilova intervenes harshly on the case involving Jannik Sinner. The tennis legend, commenting on the story of the world number 1 – who is awaiting the judgment of the TAS in Lausanne after the appeal of WADA against his acquittal in the first instance for the positive test for Clostebol – used very strong words: “The system must be blown up, we must start from scratch.”

The champion drew parallels between the cases of Sinner and Swiatek, the latter suspended for a month for a positive test due to a contaminated blister of melatonin: “They have nothing to do with doping. Instead of trying to find who is cheating, we focus on massage creams or a sleeping pill, taken for five years and which has now been found to be contaminated.”

“Now the concept is that athletes are guilty until they prove their innocence. Sinner thought his case was over and now he is facing an appeal. But why?”, concluded Navratilova.

The stance comes at a time of strong tension between USADA and WADA. The United States has in fact blocked the payment of the annual fee of 3.6 million dollars to the World Anti-Doping Agency. The bone of contention dates back to 2021, when WADA authorized 23 Chinese swimmers to participate in the Tokyo Olympics despite a positive test found six months before the Games, justified as “accidental contamination”.

Despite an external investigation in July certifying WADA’s good work in the case of the Chinese swimmers, USADA is not convinced. CEO Travis Tygart said: “The current WADA leadership has left the United States with no other option, having failed to meet several reasonable requests, such as an independent audit.”

The situation could further escalate with the possible return of Donald Trump to the White House and his announced hostile policy towards China. Since 2020, a law passed during the first Trump presidency allows the US agency not to pay its dues to WADA.

Perfect Martina.
The Wada appeal is all a political question.
 
Navratilova has been on point recently. She has basically called UK Government ministers pedophile enablers recently, and on this farcial investigation Sinner is being subjected to she is again right.
 
The stance comes at a time of strong tension between USADA and WADA. The United States has in fact blocked the payment of the annual fee of 3.6 million dollars to the World Anti-Doping Agency. The bone of contention dates back to 2021, when WADA authorized 23 Chinese swimmers to participate in the Tokyo Olympics despite a positive test found six months before the Games, justified as “accidental contamination”.

So this is what I started a post the other day about. I asked how and why did WADA find 23 swimmers positive 6 months before the Olympics and not bother to tell anyone. My question was is this standard? No one apparently knows. And if it is standard how many other investigation on positive tests out there are they not telling anyone?

How and the heck is this even possible? So they are finding positives, and clearing people without informing anyone? Of course this whole thing should be blown up.


And did they actually think after they did this that there would not be backlash? I mean come on.
 
norcal said:
I see zero in common with Sinner and Swiatek - except that wealth helped in each case.

Swiatek produced unopened bottles from the same batch that were contaminated.
Sinner came up with a convoluted and unbelievable story confirmed by his own employees.
Click to expand...
You yourself provided the commonality: both teams "self confirmed" their own case (the two medicine bottles that confirmed each other's contamination are nevertheless from the same source: Iga Swiatek. So the claim that one of the bottles was never opened is something that can only be taken at faith value. The ITIA never found an actual contaminated batch from a source other than the player. Meaning they never actually proved a batch was contaminated. Only items in possession of the doped player were found to have been contaminated. In other words that's similar to how Sinner's defense is proven internally only (by his team members). In both cases you have to do the exact same thing: believe the story of the player plus the "proof" backing up the player, i.e. the team. This is sorta like the police asking you where you were and you providing only your mom as an alibi.

 
Last edited:
The real question is whether the White House or WADA controls doping regulation.

insideguy said:
The stance comes at a time of strong tension between USADA and WADA. The United States has in fact blocked the payment of the annual fee of 3.6 million dollars to the World Anti-Doping Agency. The bone of contention dates back to 2021, when WADA authorized 23 Chinese swimmers to participate in the Tokyo Olympics despite a positive test found six months before the Games, justified as “accidental contamination”.

So this is what I started a post the other day about. I asked how and why did WADA find 23 swimmers positive 6 months before the Olympics and not bother to tell anyone. My question was is this standard? No one apparently knows. And if it is standard how many other investigation on positive tests out there are they not telling anyone?

How and the heck is this even possible? So they are finding positives, and clearing people without informing anyone? Of course this whole thing should be blown up.


And did they actually think after they did this that there would not be backlash? I mean come on.
Click to expand...
 
Winner Sinner said:
: “They have nothing to do with doping. Instead of trying to find who is cheating, we focus on massage creams or a sleeping pill, taken for five years and which has now been found to be contaminated.”
Click to expand...

Is Martina this dumb? The Trofodermin spray is not contaminated. It does contain Clostebol as it is written on the box with doping warning, it is not contaminated with Clostebol, it contains it.

Because it is not a contamination case, the suspension punishment can be 1 to 2 years.

If it's a contamination case like the Melatonin pills, the suspension punishment is usually shorter.
 
Raiden said:
You yourself provided the commonality: both teams "self confirmed" their own case (the two medicine bottles that confirmed each other's contamination are nevertheless from the same source: Iga Swiatek. So the claim that one of the bottles was never opened is something that can only be taken at faith value. The ITIA never found an actual contaminated batch from a source other than the player. Meaning they never actually proved a batch was contaminated. Only items in possession of the doped player were found to have been contaminated. In other words that's similar to how Sinner's defense is proven internally only (by his team members). In both cases you have to do the exact same thing: believe the story of the player plus the "proof" backing up the player, i.e. the team. This is sorta like the police asking you where you were and you providing only your mom as an alibi.

Click to expand...
It was my understanding (from podcast maybe?) that her team spent a bunch of money to track down bottles from the same batch and sent them to 2 separate labs (1 in Europe, 1 in USA) to be analyzed.

If that ^^ was incorrect info and the source for the unopened bottles was Iga's team alone, then yeah she's full of bs and her story his very little credibility.
 
It was another contamination case and Swiatek got only one month so is this unusual?

This case doesn't involve tennis so I don't know what the rules would be in this instance.

The story became public through the NYT to advance the White House's political agenda.

insideguy said:
My question is how can 23 swimmers test positive and no one is informed. Is this standard policy?
Click to expand...
 
She is right, WADA is a big joke. Instead of chasing dopers, it is spending money and resources to chase a player for indirect contamination and some sort of negligence (Wada accepted that there was no intentional doping, he is chasing Sinner for negligence), after an independent Tribuanl found him not guilty and three (WADA) experts certified that there was no enhancement of performance with those small contaminations.
 
You don't understand the doping system at any level.

NaDjoFed said:
She is right, WADA is a big joke. Instead of chasing dopers, it is spending money and resources to chase a player for indirect contamination and some sort of negligence (Wada accepted that there was no intentional doping, he is chasing Sinner for negligence), after an independent Tribuanl found him not guilty and three (WADA) experts certified that there was no enhancement of performance with those small contaminations.
Click to expand...
 
Navratilova makes a fair point about starting from scratch. The anti-doping regime in tennis clearly has devolved to the point where a major function is no longer keeping the sport "clean," but rather protecting the strict liability structure for its own sake, maximizing in terrorem deterrence (look at Raducanu and her antiseptic spray phobia), and punishing players for bad staff management and other non-competition-related miscues. I've made the point here many times that WADA's appeal in the Sinner case is primarily designed to serve these ends, and to protect WADA more than to protect tennis.

Step back for a second from our immersion in the tennis context, especially the miscellaneous grievances about how other players were treated in the past, and ask whether a rational, straightforward drug-testing system, focused just on ensuring fair competition, would threaten to hand out huge suspensions for offenses in which no intentional PED use occurred and the accidental PED exposure that happened did not result in any impact to competition.

In another post, I cited the summary of the Sinner case in the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5806315/2025/01/10/jannik-sinner-doping-case-tennis-explained/), in which it was noted that both WADA and the ITIA accepted that Sinner did not dope intentionally. Some anonymous person added a comment that could represent the way this case looks to outside observers who may not be steeped in tennis lore or the various maniacal online doping conspiracy theories that have come to seem "normal" to this forum:

The very idea is preposterous: that a player can be suspended for the presence in their system of a minute amount of a banned substance, so small that it could not possibly effect their performance in any way, when coupled with an explanation everyone accepts about how it happened, and most especially with a perfect history of clean tests before & after. Such a suspension is obviously unfair and unreasonable on its face.
Click to expand...
Maybe this commenter is a Sinner fan; maybe not. Maybe he or she is just a puzzled "neutral" wondering why tennis is so screwed up.
 
norcal said:
I see zero in common with Sinner and Swiatek - except that wealth helped in each case.

Swiatek produced unopened bottles from the same batch that were contaminated.
Sinner came up with a convoluted and unbelievable story confirmed by his own employees.
Click to expand...
She also forgot she was taking melatonin.

Was she even?
 
Bartelby said:
You don't understand the doping system at any level.
Click to expand...

what exactly I do not understand? this is the first time ever in history that WADA chase a player found not guilty by an Independet International Tribunal. And not even for doping, but for negligence. Never happen before, there are hundred of players every year found not guilty, and WADA has never ever chase one player
 
NaDjoFed said:
She is right, WADA is a big joke. Instead of chasing dopers, it is spending money and resources to chase a player for indirect contamination and some sort of negligence (Wada accepted that there was no intentional doping, he is chasing Sinner for negligence), after an independent Tribuanl found him not guilty and three (WADA) experts certified that there was no enhancement of performance with those small contaminations.
Click to expand...
IF that IS the truth then, case closed and let Sinner play in peace!
 
WADA not only has the right but the duty to appeal if they believe that the decision was wrong. What are you worried about if not the fact that Sinner will get banned?

NaDjoFed said:
what exactly I do not understand? this is the first time ever in history that WADA chase a player found not guilty by an Independet International Tribunal. And not even for doping, but for negligence. Never happen before, there are hundred of players every year found not guilty, and WADA has never ever chase one player
Click to expand...
 
Bartelby said:
WADA not only has the right but the duty to appeal if they believe that the decision was wrong. What are you worried about if not the fact that Sinner will get banned?
Click to expand...

ah, do you think it is normal that the World Anti Doping Agency, whose mission is to prevent doping and chase dopers, appeals for the first time ever against the ruling of an Independet International Tribunal and not for dopinig, but for negligence? @JMR above explain this even better. WADA is just trying to save its face after the recent scandals, they saw the big fish in Sinner with a probabality to win a case for negligence so they can scream loudly hat they exist for something useful. Do you think this is helping tennis and sport in any way, chasing players for negligence?
 
The Sinner decision is probably wrong and that is unusual. WADA usually doesn't have to appeal.

You still don't grasp strict liability and how it and not "intention" is the cornerstone of the system.

NaDjoFed said:
ah, do you think it is normal that the World Anti Doping Agency, whose mission is to prevent doping and chase dopers, appeals for the first time ever against the ruling of an Independet International Tribunal and not for dopinig, but for negligence? @JMR above explain this even better. WADA is just trying to save its face after the recent scandals, they saw the big fish in Sinner with a probabality to win a case for negligence so they can scream loudly hat they exist for something useful. Do you think this is helping tennis and sport in any way, chasing players for negligence?
Click to expand...
 
Bartelby said:
You still don't grasp strict liability and how it and not "intention" is the cornerstone of the system.
Click to expand...
1. If there were an entry for "protecting strict liability for its own sake" (see my comment #18 above) in the anti-doping dictionary, it would be accompanied by your avatar. Strict liability in this system has become a counterproductive shibboleth.

2. Prosecutorial/enforcement discretion is a part of every regulatory regime. Sensible regulators recognize that sometimes pushing cases just because the rules are on the books can be unwise and/or unfair.
 
1. The rules in place can't be changed easily and certainly not to let Sinner off the hook.

2. This is the first time WADA has exercised its right to appeal so it has been discreet.

JMR said:
1. If there were an entry for "protecting strict liability for its own sake" (see my comment #18 above) in the anti-doping dictionary, it would be accompanied by your avatar. Strict liability in this system has become a counterproductive shibboleth.

2. Prosecutorial/enforcement discretion is a part of every regulatory regime. Sensible regulators recognize that sometimes pushing cases just because the rules are on the books can be unwise and/or unfair.
Click to expand...
 
The doping stench is going to follow Sinner until the day he either retires (and beyond) or until he gets a proper ban which is 1 full year in my eyes.

He basically made a mockery out of tennis and got away with it.
 
I find it hard to disagree with your first statement.

But who exactly engineered this very generous decision?

It will be put down to error, but there needs to be an inquiry.

tennis_pro said:
The doping stench is going to follow Sinner until the day he either retires (and beyond) or until he gets a proper ban which is 1 full year in my eyes.

He basically made a mockery out of tennis and got away with it.
Click to expand...
 
Bartelby said:
It was another contamination case and Swiatek got only one month so is this unusual?

This case doesn't involve tennis so I don't know what the rules would be in this instance.

The story became public through the NYT to advance the White House's political agenda.
Click to expand...
It was a contamination case that they literally told no one about till freaking 4 years later. So no it's not Swiatek. They tested positive 6 months before the games. WADA informed no one.

Then years later if comes out that these athletes tested positive. And WADA ran into a hole to hide. They have no standards. They literally make things up as they go along.
 
No one was informed about Sinner before he was exonerated. And maybe the Olympics were responsible for what you think is a cover-up.

The White House knows everything about WADA so if they didn't make an issue of it then it was because they prioritized Russia, that's all.

insideguy said:
It was a contamination case that they literally told no one about till freaking 4 years later. So no it's not Swiatek. They tested positive 6 months before the games. WADA informed no one.

Then years later if comes out that these athletes tested positive. And WADA ran into a hole to hide. They have no standards. They literally make things up as they go along.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Martina may or may not be correct when saying "“The system must be blown up, we must start from scratch". The problem with her statement however is that she provides no ideas as to _how the improved process should work_. That is almost always the case, in engineering, law, whatever - it is easy to say 'what we have is bad'. Only once you start thinking how to make it better it turns out not so simple.
The process as is seems actually fair. There's established process, timelines, burden of proof, penalties defines, appeals allowed, etc, etc. It is a very fine line between trying to prevent doping and being just, especially given that sometimes some things _are_ outside one's control.

Like in traffic cases. It would be easy - but terribly unjust - to have a rule 'your car hit a person on a crosswalk - you as a driver are liable. Because that would mean the same penalty for:
you hit a pedestrian because you were speeding while texting,
you hit a pedestrian because it was raining and you were going too fast and did not manage to stop on time even though you tried,
you hit a pedestrian because the car behind you did not stop on time and pushed your car into the crosswalk, because you stopped at the last moment,
you hit a pedestrian because even though you were driving carefully, stopped properly, there was a maniac speeding behind you that was drunk and his car slammed into yours and pushed your car into the crosswalk.
 
Raiden said:
You yourself provided the commonality: both teams "self confirmed" their own case (the two medicine bottles that confirmed each other's contamination are nevertheless from the same source: Iga Swiatek. So the claim that one of the bottles was never opened is something that can only be taken at faith value. The ITIA never found an actual contaminated batch from a source other than the player. Meaning they never actually proved a batch was contaminated. Only items in possession of the doped player were found to have been contaminated. In other words that's similar to how Sinner's defense is proven internally only (by his team members). In both cases you have to do the exact same thing: believe the story of the player plus the "proof" backing up the player, i.e. the team. This is sorta like the police asking you where you were and you providing only your mom as an alibi.

Click to expand...
that is not exactly the case. There's more to it. The labs actually found that the tablets were contaminated _more_ on the inside rather than on the surface. Which implies the contamination did happen in production. So if one makes an argument that the sealed bottles were provided by Swiatek and that makes it less legit, he would also have to assume that Swiatek's team were somehow able to masterfully contaminate the tablets. Possible - of course.

But all those cases are judged on the basis of 'what's more probable'. There's hardly any other contamination like case where the player was able to provide better evidence than Swiatek. Again - that does not mean 'for sure', but it does mean 'Swiatek contamination is way more probable than virtually any other case in the past'.
 
NaDjoFed said:
what exactly I do not understand? this is the first time ever in history that WADA chase a player found not guilty by an Independet International Tribunal. And not even for doping, but for negligence. Never happen before, there are hundred of players every year found not guilty, and WADA has never ever chase one player
Click to expand...

Not in tennis but in AFL in Australia the national doping regulator gave a team the green light to systematically dope their players as the players weren’t aware of the substances they were given. WADA appealed and the players were banned for negligence as they have a personal responsibility to ensure that they are not violating the anti doping laws.

It’s more of an issue with Sinner because the physio was personally employed by him and not part of a club. He should be aware of what is being used on him in such a tight knit group of people. The cream had a doping warning on it so there really is no excuse in his case.

The issue is that if you allow these kinds of cases to go unpunished, which is how ITIA has dealt with some of them, then you will see more top players pushing the boundaries and engaging in behaviour that is in clear violation of the rules.
 
Who can forgive them for bringing down the Bombers!

stephenclown said:
Not in tennis but in AFL in Australia the national doping regulator gave a team the green light to systematically dope their players as the players weren’t aware of the substances they were given. WADA appealed and the players were banned for negligence as they have a personal responsibility to ensure that they are not violating the anti doping laws.

It’s more of an issue with Sinner because the physio was personally employed by him and not part of a club. He should be aware of what is being used on him in such a tight knit group of people. The cream had a doping warning on it so there really is no excuse in his case.

The issue is that if you allow these kinds of cases to go unpunished, which is how ITIA has dealt with some of them, then you will see more top players pushing the boundaries and engaging in behaviour that is in clear violation of the rules.
Click to expand...
 
insideguy said:
The stance comes at a time of strong tension between USADA and WADA. The United States has in fact blocked the payment of the annual fee of 3.6 million dollars to the World Anti-Doping Agency. The bone of contention dates back to 2021, when WADA authorized 23 Chinese swimmers to participate in the Tokyo Olympics despite a positive test found six months before the Games, justified as “accidental contamination”.

So this is what I started a post the other day about. I asked how and why did WADA find 23 swimmers positive 6 months before the Olympics and not bother to tell anyone. My question was is this standard? No one apparently knows. And if it is standard how many other investigation on positive tests out there are they not telling anyone?

How and the heck is this even possible? So they are finding positives, and clearing people without informing anyone? Of course this whole thing should be blown up.


And did they actually think after they did this that there would not be backlash? I mean come on.
Click to expand...
insideguy said:
It was a contamination case that they literally told no one about till freaking 4 years later. So no it's not Swiatek. They tested positive 6 months before the games. WADA informed no one.

Then years later if comes out that these athletes tested positive. And WADA ran into a hole to hide. They have no standards. They literally make things up as they go along.
Click to expand...
Please make yourself familiar with this https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/2024-04/2024-04_fact_sheet_faq_chinese_swimming.pdf . Few important points:
  1. It's not WADA that " find 23 swimmers positive 6 months before the Olympics ". It was CHINADA, Chinese Anti-Doping Agency.
  2. Following the investigation CHINADA, which has the authority to impose penalties, decided that it was the case of 'kitchen contamination in a particular hotel'.
  3. As a result the 'adverse analytical findings' were converted to 'no ADVR'. I do not know the rules governing swimming, I can only assume that is possible in swimming while it is not an option in tennis.
  4. Since the verdict was 'no ADVR' at all WADA does not have authority to make the case public. Because it is as if no failed tests happened. This is like in tennis tests would find sample A as 'doping' but sample B as 'no doping' - there would be no ADVR, and there would never be an announcement.
  5. WADA could have appealed to CAS the 'no ADVR' decision to make it 'ADVR with no fault or negligence' (there was really no basis for anything more serious) - but at most that would result in making the case public. There would still be no suspension even if CAS agreed to make it 'ADVR with no fault or negligence'.

in short, as it is always the case, the rules were followed.
 
Last edited:
Bartelby said:
Who can forgive them for bringing down the Bombers!
Click to expand...
Was a complete joke what ASADA tried to do. The other teams undoubtedly dope their players as well, but Essendon decided to push it too far. The change in their players over the period was throwing up red flags that couldn’t be ignored haha
 
NaDjoFed said:
ah, do you think it is normal that the World Anti Doping Agency, whose mission is to prevent doping and chase dopers, appeals for the first time ever against the ruling of an Independet International Tribunal and not for dopinig, but for negligence? @JMR above explain this even better. WADA is just trying to save its face after the recent scandals, they saw the big fish in Sinner with a probabality to win a case for negligence so they can scream loudly hat they exist for something useful. Do you think this is helping tennis and sport in any way, chasing players for negligence?
Click to expand...
That is not exactly true. WADA appealed to CAS the decision of the Tribunal in Gasquet case. It was actually a fairly similar case in some sense - an established contamination, the appeal was about the level of guilt and therefore the scope of the penalty.
 
insideguy said:
The stance comes at a time of strong tension between USADA and WADA. The United States has in fact blocked the payment of the annual fee of 3.6 million dollars to the World Anti-Doping Agency. The bone of contention dates back to 2021, when WADA authorized 23 Chinese swimmers to participate in the Tokyo Olympics despite a positive test found six months before the Games, justified as “accidental contamination”.

So this is what I started a post the other day about. I asked how and why did WADA find 23 swimmers positive 6 months before the Olympics and not bother to tell anyone. My question was is this standard? No one apparently knows. And if it is standard how many other investigation on positive tests out there are they not telling anyone?

How and the heck is this even possible? So they are finding positives, and clearing people without informing anyone? Of course this whole thing should be blown up.

And did they actually think after they did this that there would not be backlash? I mean come on.
Click to expand...

I can only speak for me but I’ve gone into the disclosure rules, in some detail, before you asked me about the same exact topic. I assumed you didn’t like my answers. :( Some threads on the topic do get nixed. So I’ll go once again but abbreviated so as not to distract Dr Raul with boring WADA Code talk.

Though you seem aghast at the policy and rules which implement it, yes it’s “standard” that if an athlete is not provisionally suspended nor ultimately found (or agreed) to having committed ADRV then there is no disclosure. Conversely, a provisional suspension MAY be disclosed and a finding of ADRV MUST be disclosed. From the athletes side they can disclose what they want. And WADA doesn‘t find athletes “positive” nor does it do the disclosing (it’s for the organization in charge of anti-doping with “results management authority”: ITIA for tennis and CHINADA for those swimmers.) WADA speaks publicly on specific cases through its appeals or by not appealing. There are circumstances WADA will respond to public comments by or on behalf of athletes so as to clear up what it believes to be misinformation. It’s all in the rules. :D

A positive test triggers an investigation. It doesn’t mean you committed a ADRV. Depending on whether the substance found is Specified or non-Specified it may trigger a provisional suspension and disclosure. An athlete may petition to have a provisional suspension lifted.

I didn’t follow the Chinese Swimmer case closely but as far as the disclosure issue, criticism was made that the Chinese doping agency broke with precedent insofar as the swimmers could not explain how the Prohibited non-Specified Substance was present and that alone should have resulted in a provisional ban and policy of disclosing it. Further criticism that WADA did not appeal the Chinese doping agency final decision which would have resulted in disclosure.
 
Last edited:
The substance was present in the restaurant food, according to CHINADA, so that's the explanation for what it's worth.
 
tennis_pro said:
The doping stench is going to follow Sinner until the day he either retires (and beyond) or until he gets a proper ban which is 1 full year in my eyes.

He basically made a mockery out of tennis and got away with it.
Click to expand...
Perfect example of why the disclosure rules are what they are. :giggle:
 
jmnk said:
Please make yourself familiar with this https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/2024-04/2024-04_fact_sheet_faq_chinese_swimming.pdf . Few important points:
  1. It's not WADA that " find 23 swimmers positive 6 months before the Olympics ". It was CHINADA, Chinese Anti-Doping Agency.
  2. Following the investigation CHINADA, which has the authority to impose penalties, decided that it was the case of 'kitchen contamination in a particular hotel'.
  3. As a result the 'adverse analytical findings' were converted to 'no ADVR'. I do not know the rules governing swimming, I can only assume that is possible in swimming while it is not an option in tennis.
  4. Since the verdict was 'no ADVR' at all WADA does not have authority to make the case public. Because it is as if no failed tests happened. This is like in tennis tests would find sample A as 'doping' but sample B as 'no doping' - there would be no ADVR, and there would never be an announcement.
  5. WADA could have appealed to CAS the 'no ADVR' decision to make it 'ADVR with no fault or negligence' (there was really no basis for anything more serious) - but at most that would result in making the case public. There would still be no suspension even if CAS agreed to make it 'ADVR with no fault or negligence'.

in short, as it is always the case, the rules were followed.
Click to expand...
Those that whine most about the rules have never gone beyond the WADA Code title page, if that. So they never speak about specific rules, what should be changed and why.
 
Last edited:
jmnk said:
Martina may or may not be correct when saying "“The system must be blown up, we must start from scratch". The problem with her statement however is that she provides no ideas as to _how the improved process should work_. That is almost always the case, in engineering, law, whatever - it is easy to say 'what we have is bad'. Only once you start thinking how to make it better it turns out not so simple.
The process as is seems actually fair. There's established process, timelines, burden of proof, penalties defines, appeals allowed, etc, etc. It is a very fine line between trying to prevent doping and being just, especially given that sometimes some things _are_ outside one's control.

Like in traffic cases. It would be easy - but terribly unjust - to have a rule 'your car hit a person on a crosswalk - you as a driver are liable. Because that would mean the same penalty for:
you hit a pedestrian because you were speeding while texting,
you hit a pedestrian because it was raining and you were going too fast and did not manage to stop on time even though you tried,
you hit a pedestrian because the car behind you did not stop on time and pushed your car into the crosswalk, because you stopped at the last moment,
you hit a pedestrian because even though you were driving carefully, stopped properly, there was a maniac speeding behind you that was drunk and his car slammed into yours and pushed your car into the crosswalk.
Click to expand...
Maybe she has “concepts of a plan.” :D Egg wants “more transparency.” :rolleyes:

I’ll blow it up because it was birthed by the IOC :sick: so it’s presumed guilty. And because they attacked my boy Brooksby with their crazy chase you around the globe day and night inspectors and their precious Code. :mad: Secondarily, they came for Raul’s fav Carrot. This aggression will not stand.

 
Last edited:
RSJfan said:
I can only speak for me but I’ve gone into the disclosure rules, in some detail, before you asked me about the same exact topic. I assumed you didn’t like my answers. :( Some threads on the topic do get nixed. So I’ll go once again but abbreviated so as not to distract Dr Raul with boring WADA Code talk.

Though you seem aghast at the policy and rules which implement it, yes it’s “standard” that if an athlete is not provisionally suspended nor ultimately found (or agreed) to having committed ADRV then there is no disclosure. Conversely, a provisional suspension MAY be disclosed and a finding of ADRV MUST be disclosed. From the athletes side they can disclose what they want. And WADA doesn‘t find athletes “positive” nor does it do the disclosing (it’s for the organization in charge of anti-doping with “results management authority”: ITIA for tennis and CHINADA for those swimmers.) WADA speaks publicly on specific cases through its appeals or by not appealing. There are circumstances WADA will respond to public comments by or on behalf of athletes so as to clear up what it believes to be misinformation. It’s all in the rules. :D

A positive test triggers an investigation. It doesn’t mean you committed a ADRV. Depending on whether the substance found is Specified or non-Specified it may trigger a provisional suspension and disclosure. An athlete may petition to have a provisional suspension lifted.

I didn’t follow the Chinese Swimmer case closely but as far as the disclosure issue, criticism was made that the Chinese doping agency broke with precedent insofar as the swimmers could not explain how the Prohibited non-Specified Substance was present and that alone should have resulted in a provisional ban and policy of disclosing it. Further criticism that WADA did not appeal the Chinese doping agency final decision which would have resulted in disclosure.
Click to expand...
So since WADA never appealed the decision the positive tests were not released? Why were they then released at all after so much time?
 
Raiden said:
So the claim that one of the bottles was never opened is something that can only be taken at faith value. The ITIA never found an actual contaminated batch from a source other than the player.
Click to expand...

Although Iga is a shady character who waves her arms at opponents and is very well capable of doping, it is unthinkable that Iga would be so brazen as to contaminate her own bottles, reseal them and then submit them to ITIA as evidence of contamination.

IF that is true, she needs to be banned for life!!!

And why couldn't the hapless ITIA track down a contaminated batch of unopened bottles themselves instead of relying on the crooked Iga's word?

:unsure:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rovesciarete
"This is nuts": Martina Navratilova lambasts WADA for appealing Sinner’s ‘no negligence’
2 3 4
Replies
162
Views
8K
RSJfan
RSJfan
Frenchy-Player
Jannik Sinner, now Wada plays a new card
2
Replies
97
Views
6K
Frenchy-Player
Frenchy-Player
Winner Sinner
ITIA: “Communication problems around the Sinner case revealed perhaps a poor understanding of our rules”
Replies
2
Views
382
TennisBro
T
weakera
WADA announces new doping rules which will benefit Sinner
2
Replies
51
Views
2K
1H-Backhand
1H-Backhand
Winner Sinner
Wada explains some points on the Sinner case
Replies
4
Views
404
jm1972
J
Back
Top