...
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.
)
live with that.
