@Winner Sinner - i really admire your efforts here. Honestly. I too think that there's absolutely nothing out of ordinary in how Sinner case had been handled.
Or to be exact - I _thought_ that everything was going by the book until that agreement was announced. But that's where it stopped making sense.
WADA correctly appealed the Itia verdict. Because Sinner does have some responsibility. He even admitted that now. There was no reason to not let CAS make the final verdict. Even if CAS sided with Sinner it would not be a bad look for WADA - it would not be the first time WADA lost at CAS hearing. It was not the first time where WADA appealed initial ruling.
It is also not the first time where WADA reached an agreement with the player before the hearing at CAS.
It is however the first time (I think) where the agreement was reached such that initial _no suspension_ verdict was turned into (with the player's ok) _some suspension_
That makes me think few things.
Sinner was not at all confident that CAS would upheld no suspension verdict. So instead of risking up to 12months ban he agreed to 3 months.
Someone realized that CAS in fact can rule like maybe 6 to 12 months suspension. And put wheels in motion to avoid that via having that agreement done. I can't see any reason why WADA didn't just let CAS handle it. There could only be positives: WADA can say they tried, and whatever CAS we to rule would be a precedence for future liked cases.
Then what's the story with having the suspension start on the 9th, but have it announced few days later. Which led to that bizarre story of sinner practicing at the tournament while he was suspended. So even he found out only on the 14th? Like how is it possible to have a player suspended and he doesn't even know?
The Article of the code they cited as the basis of the agreement reducing penalty states that such agreement is possible when a player promptly admits to a violation. Well, he never did, not until the agreement was reached.
This agreement also means that both WADA and Sinner now agree that ITIA tribunal doesn't know what they are doing because clearly their decision of no fault at all was incorrect. _that_ is actually a really bad look.
To me everything starting with that agreement does look like preferential treatment. Not before. But now it does seem so.