Sinner accepts settlement with WADA for 3 month ban

What an idiot. Everybody with a brain would accept these 3 months in Sinner's position, guilty or not.
Kafelnikov is indeed a meathead. But since he's more than 10 years old, I assume he understands that settlements are a matter of prudent risk management, not declarations of "guilt" or "innocence." Therefore, his post is just pure, malicious muckraking, with a stupid veneer of "just asking questions" deniability.
 
Last edited:
Sharapova was banished for more than a year for her negligence / incompetence of her team. Why Sinner is different?
She wasn't banned for that. She chose to delegate the responsibility of reviewing banned substances to her team. An athlete and an athlete alone are responsible for knowing what is or isn't banned and she absolutely ingested the banned substance of her own accord. She had been using it for years. Frankly, we are creatures of habit and I think she'd been taking the substance for so long that it never crossed anyone's mind that it would ever be put on the ban list. I actually think she did a great job in how she handled everything.
 
Kafelnikov is indeed a meathead. But since he's more than 10 years of old, I assume he understands that settlements are a matter of prudent risk management, not declarations of "guilt" or "innocence." Therefore, his post is just pure, malicious muckraking, with a stupid veneer of "just asking questions" deniability.
Wellllllll, look that is a viewpoint. But history is replete with people who have stood up for themselves regardless of their " career" or risk to themselves. I can actually see both sides to an argument like that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ
He should hire either Boris or Goran. Goran would love to work with Sinner IMO. Boris and Jannik both communicate in German and that would help.
It’s going to be such a detailed and involved process filtering through all the options. Every coach in the world is going to be wanting a chance at this. He will have his pick of the best coaches in the game, even those who are currently contracted elsewhere. It would be good if Cahill is heavily involved in the selection process imo.
 
Sinner for two positive steroid tests: -
- Will lose zero points.
- Will miss 0 grand slams.
- Will not be stripped of ATP No. 1 ranking
- Will not be stripped of titles won with clostebol in his system
- Portrayed as a victim


Surely 'random testing' no longer applied to Sinner after testing positive. He's been required to be thoroughly tested, and won Halle, Cincinnati, US Open, Shanghai, ATP Finals, Davis Cup, and the Australian Open without clostebol in his system.

That highly suggests clostebol played no role in Sinner winning titles.
 
It’s going to be such a detailed and involved process filtering through all the options. Every coach in the world is going to be wanting a chance at this. He will have his pick of the best coaches in the game, even those who are currently contracted elsewhere. It would be good if Cahill is heavily involved in the selection process imo.
I don’t like McEnroe for him. Don’t see them meshing well together. Two completely different personalities. It’s either Boris or Goran, I’m actually leaning Boris. Even Magnus Norman would be good, If Stan retires
 
Wellllllll, look that is a viewpoint. But history is replete with people who have stood up for themselves regardless of their " career" or risk to themselves. I can actually see both sides to an argument like that.
There aren't two legitimate sides here. The problem with the position of Kafelnikov and his smarmy ilk is that Sinner's "innocence," if we want to call it that, already had been decided. There's nothing meaningful left for Sinner to "stand up for." The ITIA agreed that Sinner did not dope intentionally. The Independent Tribunal found that Sinner did not dope intentionally. WADA accepted the fact that Sinner had not doped intentionally. That question was out of the case. The only remaining issue was whether Sinner deserved to be suspended for a potentially long period of time for negligently supervising his staff. Thus, Sinner absolutely did not sacrifice anything regarding his "innocence" by agreeing to a three-month suspension rather than forcing the CAS to decide. Why would anyone risk a one- or two-year suspension merely for the sake of fighting over whether he was an acceptable supervisor or a sloppy supervisor of his team members? It was a perfectly reasonable compromise on his part, with nothing crucial to his reputation at stake.
 
I don’t like McEnroe for him. Don’t see them meshing well together. Two completely different personalities. It’s either Boris or Goran, I’m actually leaning Boris.
I agree McEnroe would be a horrible choice. He is burnt out totally, very low energy and grumpy nowadays. He has clearly lost the passion for the sport and is not involved enough now to be a day-in, day-out coach and co-ordinate all the logistical things that coaches have to do. It would be a disaster in a similar way to what happened when Jimmy Connors coached Sharapova.

Boris is an amazing mental motivator and he would provide a similar calming influence during matches that Cahill can. The thing that concerns me with Boris is how would it work lifestyle-wise. Im not sure the he can embed and travel with Sinner the same way Cahill can. I would be slightly worried about whether there would be disruptions. But that is me speculating.
 
I agree McEnroe would be a horrible choice. He is burnt out totally, very low energy and grumpy nowadays. He has clearly lost the passion for the sport and is not involved enough now to be a day-in, day-out coach and co-ordinate all the logistical things that coaches have to do. It would be a disaster in a similar way to what happened when Jimmy Connors coached Sharapova.

Boris is an amazing mental motivator and he would provide a similar calming influence during matches that Cahill can. The thing that concerns me with Boris is how would it work lifestyle-wise. Im not sure the he can embed and travel with Sinner the same way Cahill can. I would be slightly worried about whether there would be disruptions. But that is me speculating.
Boris can surely help on grass and any additional adjustments on serve and variety. Goran can help with the serve and also the return of serve. Those 2 are his best options.
 
Boris can surely help on grass and any additional adjustments on serve and variety. Goran can help with the serve and also the return of serve. Those 2 are his best options.
Do you know if there are still any issues with Boris travel restrictions with attending Wimbledon? I agree he would be great but to have the full effect I would want him embedded with Sinner at all the majors and most m1000 in the first years.
 
There aren't two legitimate sides here. The problem with the position of Kafelnikov and his smarmy ilk is that Sinner's "innocence," if we want to call it that, already had been decided. There's nothing meaningful left for Sinner to "stand up for." The ITIA agreed that Sinner did not dope intentionally. The Independent Tribunal found that Sinner did not dope intentionally. WADA accepted the fact that Sinner had not doped intentionally. That question was out of the case. The only remaining issue was whether Sinner deserved to be suspended for a potentially long period of time for negligently supervising his staff. Thus, Sinner absolutely did not sacrifice anything regarding his "innocence" by agreeing to a three-month suspension rather than forcing the CAS to decide. Why would anyone risk a one- or two-year suspension merely for the sake of fighting over whether he was an acceptable supervisor or a sloppy supervisor of his team members? It was a perfectly reasonable compromise on his part, with nothing crucial to his reputation at stake.
See your coming from a technocratic point of view here.

What most of the public sees is Sinner banned for 3 months for doping. You can have these detailed debates on message boards but most people aint never gonna see them.

What they see, is he got caught doping and was banned for three months. He could have kept fighting it and attempted to clear his name totally. But he didnt. So he took the hit and the vast majority of the public is just gonna look at him like a doper who pled guilty. Period. You guys may win an argument using common sense and practicality on boards like this but we all know that these type of debates dont happen with most fans or the press. So it is what it is.
 
I stand with Sinner until I know more details or if he did it intentionally like Puerta. He wasn't doping when he beat Djokovic, Med, Zev, Carlos etc. Speculations and hate won't change anything. Gotta move on.
 
Last edited:
WADA said that Sinner had also chosen wrongly to delegate, so you need to get your facts right.

She wasn't banned for that. She chose to delegate the responsibility of reviewing banned substances to her team. An athlete and an athlete alone are responsible for knowing what is or isn't banned and she absolutely ingested the banned substance of her own accord. She had been using it for years. Frankly, we are creatures of habit and I think she'd been taking the substance for so long that it never crossed anyone's mind that it would ever be put on the ban list. I actually think she did a great job in how she handled everything.
 
Do you know if there are still any issues with Boris travel restrictions with attending Wimbledon? I agree he would be great but to have the full effect I would want him embedded with Sinner at all the majors and most m1000 in the first years.
I think he won’t be able to be there with him at Wimbledon, sadly. But for everything else (Halle, the other majors and masters) he should be fine. He should keep Vagnozzi (he’s the Vajda to Sinner’s camp). Goran, as great of a coach he is, I don’t think he’s a great person to share a box with, he looks mentally at edge sometimes and tense (when observing him in Djokovic’s box) and doesn’t provide a calming presence. So that’s why I’d prefer Boris.
 
There aren't two legitimate sides here. The problem with the position of Kafelnikov and his smarmy ilk is that Sinner's "innocence," if we want to call it that, already had been decided. There's nothing meaningful left for Sinner to "stand up for." The ITIA agreed that Sinner did not dope intentionally. The Independent Tribunal found that Sinner did not dope intentionally. WADA accepted the fact that Sinner had not doped intentionally. That question was out of the case. The only remaining issue was whether Sinner deserved to be suspended for a potentially long period of time for negligently supervising his staff. Thus, Sinner absolutely did not sacrifice anything regarding his "innocence" by agreeing to a three-month suspension rather than forcing the CAS to decide. Why would anyone risk a one- or two-year suspension merely for the sake of fighting over whether he was an acceptable supervisor or a sloppy supervisor of his team members? It was a perfectly reasonable compromise on his part, with nothing crucial to his reputation at stake.
Perfectly said man. One would think it should be clear for everyone by now, but we can only hope...
 
I think he won’t be able to be there with him at Wimbledon, sadly. But for everything else (Halle, the other majors and masters) he should be fine. He should keep Vagnozzi (he’s the Vajda to Sinner’s camp). Goran, as great of a coach he is, I don’t think he’s a great person to share a box with, he looks mentally at edge sometimes and tense (when observing him in Djokovic’s box) and doesn’t provide a calming presence. So that’s why I’d prefer Boris.
Boris would be a real addition to the team
 
See your coming from a technocratic point of view here.

What most of the public sees is Sinner banned for 3 months for doping. You can have these detailed debates on message boards but most people aint never gonna see them.
No one should make career decisions or choose litigation strategies based on what ignorant or stupid people think. There's no reason to shoot yourself in the foot just so some doofus on YouTube, Instagram, Tiktok, or this forum can proclaim himself satisfied that you went down swinging.
 
No one should make career decisions or choose litigation strategies based on what ignorant or stupid people think. There's no reason to shoot yourself in the foot just so some doofus on YouTube, Instagram, Tiktok, or this forum can proclaim himself satisfied that you went down swinging.
I mean again thats a fine way to look at it. But I guarantee that most of the public isnt gonna think like that.

They see- Athlete banned for doping. They aren't gonna read 50 pages of WADA material and make up their minds.
 
I stand with Sinner until I know more details or if he did it intentionally like Puerta. He wasn't doping when he beat Djokovic, Med, Zev, Carlos etc. Speculations and hate won't change anything. Gotta move on.

common denominator is Cahill: Halep and now Sinner. and Cahill quits coaching end of this yr.
Halep was coached by Mouratoglou at the time of her doping ban, not by Cahill.
 
I mean again thats a fine way to look at it. But I guarantee that most of the public isnt gonna think like that.

They see- Athlete banned for doping. They aren't gonna read 50 pages of WADA material and make up their minds.
Extensive research isn't always necessary. Anyone who reads just the first few paragraphs of this article will see that even WADA says that Sinner is not an intentional doper but is being sanctioned for the screw-ups of his "entourage": https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6138169/2025/02/15/jannik-sinner-doping-ban-wada-how-long/
 
I mean again thats a fine way to look at it. But I guarantee that most of the public isnt gonna think like that.

They see- Athlete banned for doping. They aren't gonna read 50 pages of WADA material and make up their minds.
I think you are right, but it is the media's responsibility to write headlines that are not misleading. At this point they could get into legal trouble for implying actual doping.
 
Surely 'random testing' no longer applied to Sinner after testing positive. He's been required to be thoroughly tested, and won Halle, Cincinnati, US Open, Shanghai, ATP Finals, Davis Cup, and the Australian Open without clostebol in his system.

That highly suggests clostebol played no role in Sinner winning titles.
One that's not how steroids work. Just because you're no longer using them doesn't mean they aren't still benefitting you. And two who says he stopped. He may have just gotten better at hiding it. There are lots of known cheaters who went their entire careers without popping.
 
She wasn't banned for that. She chose to delegate the responsibility of reviewing banned substances to her team. An athlete and an athlete alone are responsible for knowing what is or isn't banned and she absolutely ingested the banned substance of her own accord. She had been using it for years. Frankly, we are creatures of habit and I think she'd been taking the substance for so long that it never crossed anyone's mind that it would ever be put on the ban list. I actually think she did a great job in how she handled everything.
...and, from the day it was banned, to the day she quit using it, was three weeks!
 
Is this @ me? Cause my fav is Alcaraz and hasn't he won 4 slams while Sinner was active on tour and Carlos even smoked him twice to win slams while Sinner was likely doping as we've seen here? Lmao.

Keep crying.
Yawn, yet Sinner is no. 1 and has won the last two slams while Alcaraz is third and is not consistent. Also did I hit a nerve?
 
I think you are right, but it is the media's responsibility to write headlines that are not misleading. At this point they could get into legal trouble for implying actual doping.
Sure I suppose so if we lived in an age where everyone was still getting their news from some magazine or newspaper. Im not even sure what constitutes the " real" media anymore. People are just receiving **** on their computer watches. Even if the " media" printed out the entire case and whomever you consider the media did this most people aint gonna read that. People are getting their news off of freaking tik Tok now. Sinner honestly probably knows this and was like well I could fight to totally clear my name but really what is even the point.
 
@tudwell do you think this will help or hurt Sinner?
I mean, he’s been so dominant lately it’s a little hard to see what “helping him” might look like in this instance lol. With or without the ban, I think he’d be one of the top favorites for Roland Garros. I suppose there’s an argument to be made that he’ll come in fresh for the French where in a full season he’d come in a little depleted, and there probably is some truth to that, but is that advantage offset by the lack of match-play on his weakest surface? There’s also the lost ranking points. He earned more than 2,000 points last year across the tournaments he’ll now have to miss. Even with a strong rest of the season, that does open the door for someone else to push for the year-end number one if they also have a strong year. So in that sense it hurts him. But my hunch is the ban will actually make little difference on Sinner’s form and results for the rest of the year. He’s just a tennis machine. So focused and imperturbable.
 
I mean, he’s been so dominant lately it’s a little hard to see what “helping him” might look like in this instance lol. With or without the ban, I think he’d be one of the top favorites for Roland Garros. I suppose there’s an argument to be made that he’ll come in fresh for the French where in a full season he’d come in a little depleted, and there probably is some truth to that, but is that advantage offset by the lack of match-play on his weakest surface? There’s also the lost ranking points. He earned more than 2,000 points last year across the tournaments he’ll now have to miss. Even with a strong rest of the season, that does open the door for someone else to push for the year-end number one if they also have a strong year. So in that sense it hurts him. But my hunch is the ban will actually make little difference on Sinner’s form and results for the rest of the year. He’s just a tennis machine. So focused and imperturbable.
He will drop 1600 points between now and the end of his ban (they already took 400 from IW). He didn’t play Rome last year, which he can make up points for, and he can make the RG F this year, Imo. He will be fine.
 
He will drop 1600 points between now and the end of his ban (they already took 400 from IW). He didn’t play Rome last year, which he can make up points for, and he can make the RG F this year, Imo. He will be fine.
Ah, I was including Rotterdam, which technically already happened, of course, but he was defending those points in Doha, which now he has to miss. So that’s potentially 500 more lost.

It’s not a death knell for his number one hopes by any means, and if he replicates last year’s results this year he should still be fine, but there is now a slightly larger window for someone else to slip through instead. (Slamless Zverev ending the year number one? :sick:)
 
Ah, I was including Rotterdam, which technically already happened, of course, but he was defending those points in Doha, which now he has to miss. So that’s potentially 500 more lost.

It’s not a death knell for his number one hopes by any means, and if he replicates last year’s results this year he should still be fine, but there is now a slightly larger window for someone else to slip through instead. (Slamless Zverev ending the year number one? :sick:)
He’s not good enough on hardcourt and I feel Sinner just will defeat him every time they encounter on hardcourt, the very least. I think Sinner retains the number 1, probably loses his first major final this year and does a 3 slam season.
 
Can Wimbledon organisers give us a juicy first round match between the sinner vs the punk?
:happydevil:
Sinner has shown an incredible mental strength/focus/stability during the entire doping affair, so I don't think the potential encounter with the punk would disrupt him, even if Nicolas comes up with his usual tantrums. Sinner is like a machine.
The final "resolution" of this scandal is alarmingly bad, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH
The taps of opinions have opened. They flow copiously. On a divisive topic like Jannik Sinner's positivity, however, many (too many?) considerations are conditioned by the degree of sympathy-closeness-antipathy-convenience towards the player. It is almost funny to read those who speak of a "glaring injustice" and those of a "sad day for tennis" starting from diametrically opposed positions.
The Sinner-WADA agreement, which will block him for three months (in a period without Grand Slam tournaments and which will hardly take away his ATP leadership), is considered unfair both by those who pushed for a full acquittal and by the new Torquemadas who wanted an exemplary punishment. The truth is that this epilogue is the fairest (not fair: fair), as well as the one that the writer had hypothesized in unsuspecting times, both when the news came out and when WADA announced the appeal.
Spoiler of our current opinion, which we will argue in the following lines: the verdict is fair, but it came in the wrong way. Simply because an agreement between the parties leaves room for doubts about what would have happened with a sentence. In one sense or another.

THE FACTS
With a press release issued on the morning of Saturday 15 February, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) announced that it had reached a conciliation agreement with Sinner, a possibility provided for by Article 10.8.2 of the World Anti-Doping Code. If an agreement is reached, the player accepts the suspension and, in exchange, WADA waives its appeal.
“The circumstances of this specific case have led WADA to be willing to enter into a settlement agreement in order to ensure a fair and appropriate outcome,” the statement reads, reiterating that Sinner “did not intend to cheat and that his exposure to clostebol did not provide any performance-enhancing benefits and occurred without his knowledge, as a result of the negligence of members of his entourage.”
However, the same code provides that the player is responsible for any negligence of others. Based on the evidence gathered, a three-month suspension was deemed “appropriate.”
Just as we wrote. In short, WADA lawyers contacted Sinner’s entourage, proposing this sanction to avoid the trial and the consequent risks, both in terms of possible disqualification and timing (the hearing would have been held on April 16-17, but it was not possible to predict the date of the sentence). The player accepted, commenting as follows: “This case has been weighing on me for almost a year and the process could have taken a long time to conclude, with a decision perhaps not coming until the end of the year. I have always accepted that I am responsible for my team and I understand that the strict WADA rules are an important protection for the sport I love. On this basis I accepted WADA’s offer to resolve the proceedings on the basis of a three-month sanction.”
There is also a quote from the player’s lawyer, Jamie Singer: “It is clear that Jannik had no intention, no knowledge of the facts and did not gain any competitive advantage. Unfortunately, the mistakes made by members of his team led to this situation.”
The ban began on February 9 and will end at midnight on May 4. From the following day, Sinner will return to having the same rights and obligations as the others. Just in time to participate in the Internazionali BNL d’Italia.


9,730
The ATP points that Jannik Sinner will have when he returns to the court, at the Internazionali BNL d’Italia. In all likelihood, he will still be number 1 in the world.

THE CONSEQUENCES
Sinner will have to miss six tournaments: Doha (where he had already arrived), Indian Wells, Miami, Monte-Carlo, Munich and Madrid. Since the points for Indian Wells 2024 had already been taken away from him at the time, he will lose 1,600 and will show up in Rome with a haul of 9,730 points. In all likelihood, he will maintain the leadership in the ATP ranking.
On a competitive level, the consequences are limited: he will not miss a single Slam and will not lose points and dollars earned in recent months.
On this last point, however, WADA had already specified that it would not contest them. The question of training is more complex: the agreement provides that the player can return to training “officially” on April 13.
It means that until then he will not be able to access courts and facilities affiliated with federations or associations. This does not mean that he will not be able to play tennis: he simply has to find private facilities, or ones that have no affiliation with official bodies.
For him, it will certainly not be a problem. Sara Errani had already been through this: during her suspension, the player from Romagna had found hospitality at the Circolo Villa Bolis in Barbiano di Cotignola, near Lugo di Romagna. Since it was not an affiliated club, she was able to carry out any type of activity there without any problems. Jannik Sinner will have to find a similar solution, in Italy or abroad.
Detail: in Italy there are several clubs that do not affiliate all their courts to FITP (understandable: 60 euros are spent annually for each individual affiliated court). One might therefore ask whether Sinner can train in an affiliated club, but which hosts non-affiliated courts. Negative: he cannot do so, because he will not be able to set foot inside the facility beforehand.
Again quoting Sara Errani, at one time she needed to go to the secretariat of a tournament, but she couldn’t do so because she didn’t have the right to enter the facility. In Sinner’s case, these barriers will fall on Sunday, April 13 (curiously, the day the Monte-Carlo Masters 1000, hosted by the club that is his usual training location, will end).
The “training” issue is regulated by Article 10.14.2 of the World Anti-Doping Code. In short, an athlete subject to suspension can return to training in official places in the last two months of the disqualification, or in the last quarter of the suspension period.
This is the case of Sinner: With a 90-day sanction, he will be able to return to training without limitations in the last 22...

 
...
THREE MONTHS OF STOP
Aside from the philosophical, almost ideological, division between those who believe in innocence and those who believe in guilt, which in recent months has reached “ultras” levels, we believe that – in this case – a three-month suspension is correct.
Let’s start from a premise that is worth clarifying: Sinner is not a cheat, he did not want to cheat, and he did not obtain competitive advantages from the accidental intake of clostebol. However, the concept of objective responsibility towards his staff has been written (for some time) in the anti-doping regulations and – in our opinion – in the first instance ruling it had been addressed with a hint of superficiality.
The 33 pages that exonerated Sinner dwelt a lot on the reconstruction of the facts, a little less on this regulatory aspect. From the beginning, point 89 had left us perplexed. Sinner's defense argued this: "The player recognizes that he has an obligation to be responsible for the actions of his team, but he discharged that responsibility with all the measures he took in carefully selecting members, imposing professional obligations on them, stressing the importance of respecting the TADP and ensuring that they had all the relevant information to carry out their role.
Having taken such precautions, the player should not be held responsible for the error of Mr. Ferrara and/or Mr. Naldi". The judges gave credence to this view, completely exonerating Sinner.
They had reasoned on the basis of common sense: it is clear that it is almost impossible for a player to control the actions of his staff in every way, even more so if they are highly qualified professionals. Hence the principle of utmost caution, or the commitment to do everything possible to avoid incurring a positive test.
The Independent Tribunal considered that Sinner had complied with it, while WADA focused on another principle inherent in its own regulation: “If a staff member commits negligence, the responsibility lies with the player”. It goes a bit beyond common sense, but it is a correct axiom: it prevents the athlete from passing the responsibility for a violation onto third parties. Otherwise, it would be very easy to avoid sanctions by “proving” that the fault was someone else’s.
By virtue of this, we immediately assumed that there was room for a small suspension, obviously of a low degree, taking into account the (many) mitigating circumstances and the fact that the negligence had been committed by Giacomo Naldi and Umberto Ferrara. This was certainly the reasoning of WADA, which in its appeal had even asked CAS for a disqualification of one to two years. An enormity, but in line with the World Anti-Doping Code. In this case, Article 10.6.2 was the enemy of Sinner. If the CAS had identified any degree of fault / negligence, a two-year suspension would have been foreseen (the amount for an involuntary positive other than contamination), with the possibility of a 50% discount. Hence, the WADA request "from one to two years".
It is another of the many paradoxes of this story: if the first instance court had immediately imposed a 3-month suspension, WADA would hardly have appealed and Jannik would not have run the risk of a much longer suspension. From rumors that have emerged in recent days, among other things, the feelings did not seem to be the best.
And then - surprise - a proposal centered on common sense came from WADA. Aware that 12-24 months would have been an enormity (or rather, a serious injustice), they proposed a three-month suspension. The CAS could have expressed itself in conscience, without slavishly respecting the anti-doping code, imposing a suspension of less than a year. However, going to trial would have entailed a double risk for Sinner. 1) There was no certainty about the extent of the disqualification.
2) The timing: Jannik would have been subjected to a nerve-wracking wait, as he himself recalled in today's press release. He even spoke of a ruling at the end of the year: we don't believe it would have gone that far (Sara Errani's seven-month wait remains unique), but there was the theoretical risk of a possible ruling during a Slam. Imagine the uproar if the CAS had ruled during Roland Garros or Wimbledon, perhaps before an important match...

CONCLUSIONS
The fringe of pro-Sinner extremists may not appreciate it, but we believe that – overall – Jannik was fine.
Accepting the idea that the specific case justified a small suspension (for regulatory reasons only, explained in the previous paragraph), if the three months had arrived with the first-instance ruling, dated August 15, Jannik would have had to skip the US Open and the ATP Finals (and in all likelihood he would have had his points and prize money taken away from Cincinnati), being able to return just in time for the Davis Cup Finals.
The consequences would have been much worse.
On the contrary, it was not possible to hypothesize CAS orientations and timing (even with the hope of acquittal, of course). And Jannik knew this well. For this reason he accepted the WADA proposal that allowed him to take control, both of the duration and the timing.
The latter, in particular, are perfect for him. With all due respect to the ATP, skipping four Masters 1000s is less impactful than giving up just one Slam.
This way, Jannik will be able to prepare himself better on clay to be competitive in Rome and Roland Garros.
He will have some competitive rust, but it will always be less serious than those who return after an injury. For this reason, net of the damage to his image (the only real problem) and the buzz on social media (which Jannik is very good at ignoring), this epilogue is the best possible. Given the premises, there is one aspect that may hurt to remember, but it is honest to do so: in this whole story, the main anomaly was the full acquittal of the first-instance court. Doubts remain about how the anti-doping system is structured, not only in tennis, but in its entirety. The PTPA has already expressed itself, arguing that the current "system" is actually a "club", hypothesizing disparities and advantages for the usual suspects.
There is no doubt that WADA has made a bad impression in recent years, from the Schwazer case to the affair with the Chinese swimmers, but in this case our opinion is neutral. Even if in a somewhat cumbersome way, the Sinner affair took place in compliance with the rules, without any injustice.
The first-instance sentence was not an injustice (even if debatable), this extra-judicial agreement is not an injustice which – with all due respect to Liam Broady – is foreseen and codified by the rules. When there are different rules (from 2027, a similar case will probably be downgraded to “negativity”) we will be able to discuss differently. Today, things are like this. Even if it does not please the screamers, both those who hold institutional roles and those on social media.
 
A prosecution usually settles when it doesn't have a winning-enough hand.

WADA settled in order to give up a winning hand that would have brought a far longer ban.
 
She wasn't banned for that. She chose to delegate the responsibility of reviewing banned substances to her team. An athlete and an athlete alone are responsible for knowing what is or isn't banned and she absolutely ingested the banned substance of her own accord. She had been using it for years. Frankly, we are creatures of habit and I think she'd been taking the substance for so long that it never crossed anyone's mind that it would ever be put on the ban list. I actually think she did a great job in how she handled everything.
Well, I mean, do you think Sinner consult these lists himself? :D
 
Yawn, yet Sinner is no. 1 and has won the last two slams while Alcaraz is third and is not consistent. Also did I hit a nerve?
It’s embarrassing for you because Alcaraz won 4 slams while Sinner wasn’t banned so your post was wrong like most of yours are. And he won 2 of them by spanking Sinner too ;) live with that.
 
A prosecution usually settles when it doesn't have a winning-enough hand.

WADA settled in order to give up a winning hand that would have brought a far longer ban.
That's very speculative on the outcome and frankly, a waste of time.
I think you'd agree none of the anonymous people here have any of the evidence nor can say what the decision will be with 100% accuracy unless of course WADA reads TTW forums
 
Every tennis player knows this case was mishandled. Very few will publicly speak up...


Another one not known for his stellar brightness, the few of the ATP 100 which posted something about something didn't bother to attend ITIA's information course.

Extensive research isn't always necessary. Anyone who reads just the first few paragraphs of this article will see that even WADA says that Sinner is not an intentional doper but is being sanctioned for the screw-ups of his "entourage": https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6138169/2025/02/15/jannik-sinner-doping-ban-wada-how-long/

Often more 'research' just does increase conviction but not accuracy. Seems to happen a lot in betting and clearly here.
 
Back
Top