Sinner accepts settlement with WADA for 3 month ban

[RSJfan]

The violation in question isn't the fact he tested positive. It is whether he bears any responsibility for the actions of his team. He argued he does not, ITIA agreed, which is why he got no suspension. Because he was found 'no fault or negligence'
And he did change his position now. Now he agreed that he was somewhat responsible, and because he was he agreed to suspension.
The loss of prize money and points is automatic any time you fail the test, there's nothing to argue about here. That happens even if you are at no fault at all.

He did acknowledge “his partial responsibility for the errors made by his team.” But it’s just a carefully crafted PR statement forced at virtual gunpoint by WADA Code enforcers so everyone knows you must carefully monitor your team. I don’t think it has any legal effect for purposes of the Code provisions related to multiple violations. Only the actual Case Resolution Agreement governs the deal. I bet that doesn‘t say diddly about fault. They’ll probably bury the agreement where no one can ever find it.

 

[RSJfan]

@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.

I realize you are still annoyed that CAS fooled you by entering into a Case Resolution Agreement. But there is a lot wrong in your post. It’s very disappointing.

I can’t go through every wrong thing at the moment but read the ITIA decision again. I’ve mentioned it before so I recall you only have to get to paragraph 7 maybe until you will realize the portion I bolded is incorrect. It’s rare for a player to not promptly acknowledge they tested positive. They may routinely first ask for the B sample to be tested but once that comes back positive it’s generally in their interest to not fight a losing battle. They want to battle on how and why they tested positive not argue they didn’t test positive against some WADA scientist testifying about the lab results.

 

[RSJfan]

in 2017 (iirc) Therese Johaug, a Norwegian cross country skier got an 18 months ban from all competition and organized training. She tested positive for the exact same substance as Sinner, Clostebol. Her story is remarkably similar to Sinners, as her doctor bought her a lip balm (in Italy) for her damaged lips, that contained Clostebol (but didn't require a prescription). The doctor in question admitted it was his fault. The big difference though is that they found she had 13* nanogram per mL of Clostebol in her body, whereas Sinner had 121** (and 122) picogram per mL, i.e. 0,121 nanogram per mL.

* https://www.dn.no/skisport/therese-...haug-i-kroppen/2-1-33379?zephr_sso_ott=GZU4kS
**https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...-case-explained-timeline-tennis-b2698792.html

The Tennis Independent Tribunal was not impressed with your precedent (para. 114.a.):

“The current case can be distinguished from Johaug given that the substance entered the Player's system not by a medication prescribed or provided by a doctor but by way of cross-contamination during a physiotherapy session.”

 

[Bartelby]

The ITIA Tribunal came to such an erroneous conclusion that none of its reasoning can or should be followed.

The intervention of WADA has re-established the pertinence of the "jurisprudence" concerning agents that the Tribunal simply overrode.

 

[Drighiz]

@Aussie Darcy regarding what we were discussing yesterday, if you get a chance have a look at this, particularly what JW points out.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

@Aussie Darcy regarding what we were discussing yesterday, if you get a chance have a look at this, particularly what JW points out.

I hope this doesn't come off as rude but I don't have an hour and 12 minutes + ads to sit and watch a youtube video, feel free to tell me what points are made in the video but i'm not going to stay up for near 2 hours and watch that video. No disrespect to you but I don't have that time or patience right now.

 

[RSJfan]

An innocent man doesn't settle for a sentence except when he knows not settling will give him a worse outcome.

How The Criminal Legal System Coerces People into Pleading Guilty

“They often tell you that you're innocent until proven guilty, but in Hays County, it felt like the opposite,” Myles Martin wrote for Vera . Martin spent 30 months in jail while awaiting trial in Texas, all because he couldn’t afford to pay $115,000 in bail . During those years, Martin was…

www.vera.org

 

[ChrisJR3264]

Because in these cases the objective responsibility falls entirely on the athlete as he is responsible for the actions of his staff.

That's why both his physiotherapist and his athletic trainer did not receive any disqualification.
Because this is the law.

Regulation that I myself am the first to contest, given that by doing so a member of their staff could intentionally sabotage their employer while remaining unpunished.

Players should be protected in such situations.

I think sinner paid a pretty handsome amount of cash for his physio to take the fall considering that lame story.

But that’s just me

 

[Slapper]

I really don’t care who or how many people have slammed it. Being a pro tennis player doesn’t automatically make you knowledgeable on these matters, and tour players have demonstrated that over and over. And even if every single pro player slammed it, that wouldn’t change the facts.

Here is a perfect example of what I was saying above…

DJOKOVIC SAYS

"Some cases are transparent and some are not. We know that there is a kind of vague rule that I read that within a reasonable time you have to provide information where you've got [the] contaminated substance. And he [Sinner] provided it in this, as I understand, six-hour window. But it doesn't say in the rules it's a six-hour [window]. It's ‘a reasonable time’. So what's the reasonable time?”

This is false.

As clearly stated in 7.12.10 c) of the TADP rules (https://www.itia.tennis/media/ypiiv4dg/tennis-anti-doping-programme-2025.pdf), a provisional suspension is announced no earlier than ten days after the Notice confirming the imposition of a Provisional Suspension is sent.

This is further confirmed on the ITIA website, on their Case Process page (https://www.itia.tennis/anti-doping/case-process/)…

“A player may appeal a provisional suspension to an independent tribunal chair (appointed by Sport Resolutions). If the appeal is successful, the provisional suspension will be lifted, and the player can continue to compete whilst an investigation takes place. If the appeal is dismissed (or the provisional suspension is not appealed), then it will be announced publicly after a minimum of 10 days have passed after the pre-charge letter was sent.”

Sinner was provisionally suspended twice (once for each positive test result), and both times he appealed (on the same day he was served Notice) for the Provision Suspension to be lifted. His appeals were successful, and both provisional suspensions were lifted in less than 10 days from the time he was served Notice. This is why the Provisional Suspensions were not announced at the time and Sinner was allowed to keep playing. There was no lack of transparency; the rules were followed.

So here you have Djokovic of all players demonstrating very clearly that he doesn’t know what he is talking about. And this is the case with most of the other pro players who are speaking on this issue (Eubanks and Ruud are notable exceptions up to this point).

 

[jeroenn]

Indeed. Just saw a post by Patrick Moratoglu with similar misstatements. You would expect that he would know the rules, as he points out due to his Halep thing.

 

[nolefam_2024]

@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.

Exactly

 

[a10best]

we're winners too because:
- we get more of Killer Cahill commenting.
- Jannik gets to rest as he'd probably lose IW and M1000 clay events anyway
- He'll be more motivated to prove his anti-fans wrong (again) by winning USO again.

 

[McGradey]

Talk Lawyer Warehouse

 

[jmnk]

He did acknowledge “his partial responsibility for the errors made by his team.” But it’s just a carefully crafted PR statement forced at virtual gunpoint by WADA Code enforcers so everyone knows you must carefully monitor your team. I don’t think it has any legal effect for purposes of the Code provisions related to multiple violations. Only the actual Case Resolution Agreement governs the deal. I bet that doesn‘t say diddly about fault. They’ll probably bury the agreement where no one can ever find it.

sure it is a PR crafted statement - but it reads what it reads. That Sinner _now_ acknowledges he was somewhat at fault for essentially failing to properly pick/train/supervise his employees. If he acknowledged it at the start of the process he would have been found "at fault" but not at "significant fault", he would have got maybe a month or so, just like Swiatek did, and it would have been resolved months ago. Instead, he mounted his defense claiming he bears no responsibility. As you yourself so succinctly summarized here:

he claimed his team are highly trained professionals, and he did all he could have to avoid any issues. Which clearly looks like it does not hold water.

There's this great scene in "A few Good Men" movie. Where Cruise character asks "if you gave an order that Santiago wasn't to be touched, and your orders are always followed, then why would Santiago be in danger (so he needed to be transferred)"

By the same token if Sinners people were so well trained, perform their duties with utmost care, and kept on top of any doping related guidance - how that exposure to a doping agent could have happened? It cannot _all_ be true - either they failed to perform their duties - and that makes Sinner partially at fault as their employer, or something else happened.

 

[jmnk]

I realize you are still annoyed that CAS fooled you by entering into a Case Resolution Agreement.

true indeed

But there is a lot wrong in your post. It’s very disappointing.

I can’t go through every wrong thing at the moment but read the ITIA decision again.

If you could take some time out of your busy schedule and point out where I'm wrong so I can fix my error ways - that would be greatly appreciated.

I’ve mentioned it before so I recall you only have to get to paragraph 7 maybe until you will realize the portion I bolded is incorrect. It’s rare for a player to not promptly acknowledge they tested positive. They may routinely first ask for the B sample to be tested but once that comes back positive it’s generally in their interest to not fight a losing battle. They want to battle on how and why they tested positive not argue they didn’t test positive against some WADA scientist testifying about the lab results.

when I said

"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."

I'm referring to a violation in the sense "I, Sinner, acknowledge that my team was not properly trained/did not follow proper procedures, or perhaps our established procedures were not good enough. I'm now going to amend those training materials to make sure the trainer washes his hands before giving me the massage. And any substances with 'DOPING' warning on the package will be under lock, and have a ledger on who/when/why used it. And as such, as I'm the employer, I accept responsibility and kindly ask to be found "at [some] fault" but not at "significant fault" for that transgression".

Of course he admitted that drugs were found in his samples - there's nothing to argue about here.

 

[Bartelby]

Until WADA threw Sinner a life line even you acknowledged that CAS would most likely hand down a one year ban.

How is WADA holding Sinner at gun point when they threw away a winning hand and gave him the deal of a life time?

He did acknowledge “his partial responsibility for the errors made by his team.” But it’s just a carefully crafted PR statement forced at virtual gunpoint by WADA Code enforcers so everyone knows you must carefully monitor your team. I don’t think it has any legal effect for purposes of the Code provisions related to multiple violations. Only the actual Case Resolution Agreement governs the deal. I bet that doesn‘t say diddly about fault. They’ll probably bury the agreement where no one can ever find it.

 

[jm1972]

Starting to think that Cahill's "retirement" is part of the "settlement."

 

[jmnk]

After listening to Roddick's podcast when they posted an interview with ITIA rep. Apparently ITIA was _not_ aware of WADA agreement with Sinner. Well, how is that possible given the Article 10.8.2 of WADA code (emphasis mine):
"
Where the Athlete or other Person admits an antidoping rule violation after being confronted with the anti-doping rule violation by an Anti-Doping Organization and agrees to Consequences acceptable to the Anti-Doping Organization and WADA, at their sole discretion, then: (a) the Athlete or other Person may receive a reduction in the period of Ineligibility based on an assessment by the Anti-Doping Organization and WADA of the application of Articles 10.1 through 10.7 to the asserted anti-doping ule violation, the seriousness of the violation, the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault and how promptly the Athlete or other Person admitted the violation;
"

I would think the Anti-Doping Organization here is the ITIA, no? How is it possible ITIA had no say in the agreement? That is making less and less sense....

 

[flyneurologist]

After listening to Roddick's podcast when they posted an interview with ITIA rep. Apparently ITIA was _not_ aware of WADA agreement with Sinner. Well, how is that possible given the Article 10.8.2 of WADA code (emphasis mine):
"
Where the Athlete or other Person admits an antidoping rule violation after being confronted with the anti-doping rule violation by an Anti-Doping Organization and agrees to Consequences acceptable to the Anti-Doping Organization and WADA, at their sole discretion, then: (a) the Athlete or other Person may receive a reduction in the period of Ineligibility based on an assessment by the Anti-Doping Organization and WADA of the application of Articles 10.1 through 10.7 to the asserted anti-doping ule violation, the seriousness of the violation, the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault and how promptly the Athlete or other Person admitted the violation;
"

I would think the Anti-Doping Organization here is the ITIA, no? How is it possible ITIA had no say in the agreement? That is making less and less sense....

they/WADA reach out to sinner lawyer team directly after Sinner’s team submitting their defense case at the end of January. I can’t find the original post but run across it. On the bulletin board from CAS, it is ITIA vs WADA and sinner vs WADA.
I don’t know where is the original’s post from cause I came across from this X user. Hope it is safe to reveal the lawyers names since they are hashtag sinner in their orginal post.

x.com

x.com

 

[JMR]

The intervention of WADA has re-established the pertinence of the "jurisprudence" concerning agents that the Tribunal simply overrode.

Probably not. Settlements generally have no precedential status (except in the informal sense that someone negotiating his/her own settlement might ask for a deal like Sinner's or Swiatek's). And mere arguments made by an appealing party (WADA) have no status either. If the CAS had rendered a decision in the case, it would be a different story, but that road was not taken.

An interesting question is the current status of the decision of the Independent Tribunal. The portion of the opinion that absolved Sinner of any intentional PED use can fairly be regarded as a final decision, because no party appealed from that result. The handling of the penalty is a trickier question. As a practical matter, the outcome has been overridden, because Sinner agreed to a three-month suspension in place of the nonban from the IT. But because the decision itself was not formally reversed by an appellate tribunal, its reasoning on this point may still be "good law." What really happened is that the case became moot on appeal due to the settlement. Sophisticated juridical systems have rules for handling that scenario, but I would be surprised if this included ITIA/WADA.

 

[RSJfan]

After listening to Roddick's podcast when they posted an interview with ITIA rep. Apparently ITIA was _not_ aware of WADA agreement with Sinner. Well, how is that possible given the Article 10.8.2 of WADA code (emphasis mine):
"
Where the Athlete or other Person admits an antidoping rule violation after being confronted with the anti-doping rule violation by an Anti-Doping Organization and agrees to Consequences acceptable to the Anti-Doping Organization and WADA, at their sole discretion, then: (a) the Athlete or other Person may receive a reduction in the period of Ineligibility based on an assessment by the Anti-Doping Organization and WADA of the application of Articles 10.1 through 10.7 to the asserted anti-doping ule violation, the seriousness of the violation, the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault and how promptly the Athlete or other Person admitted the violation;
"

I would think the Anti-Doping Organization here is the ITIA, no? How is it possible ITIA had no say in the agreement? That is making less and less sense....

Would you please link me to (preferably the spot in) this podcast where the ITIA claims it wasn’t aware of the WADA CRA. In return I’ll be obligated to reply to your other error ridden post.

 

[jmnk]

Would you please link me to (preferably the spot in) this podcast where the ITIA claims it wasn’t aware of the WADA CRA. In return I’ll be obligated to reply to your other error ridden post.

At the very beginning Andy says they recorded the interview with ITIA CEO few days before the agreement was announced. And she was describing the process and what will happen at CAS hearing. She gave zero indication about any settlement negotiation ongoing, and Andy is clearly implying it was not because she was hiding anything, she just apparently did not know.

 

[RSJfan]

At the very beginning Andy says they recorded the interview with ITIA CEO few days before the agreement was announced. And she was describing the process and what will happen at CAS hearing. She gave zero indication about any settlement negotiation ongoing, and Andy is clearly implying it was not because she was hiding anything, she just apparently did not know.

OK, so she never said the ITIA didn’t know which makes sense. Because I’m reading it like you. Each OKs the others CRA. I don’t know if she wasn’t informed until after the interview, or ITIA indicated earlier that it had no objection or within certain parameters, or she knew. Zero chance she’s telling such a delicate thing to Roddick beforehand.

 

[Bartelby]

This is indeed what is on the podcast. If she is from the ITIA then she is not privy to WADA's negotiations, but it's odd she didn't see it as a possibility.

At the very beginning Andy says they recorded the interview with ITIA CEO few days before the agreement was announced. And she was describing the process and what will happen at CAS hearing. She gave zero indication about any settlement negotiation ongoing, and Andy is clearly implying it was not because she was hiding anything, she just apparently did not know.

 

[RSJfan]

Probably not. Settlements generally have no precedential status (except in the informal sense that someone negotiating his/her own settlement might ask for a deal like Sinner's or Swiatek's). And mere arguments made by an appealing party (WADA) have no status either. If the CAS had rendered a decision in the case, it would be a different story, but that road was not taken.

An interesting question is the current status of the decision of the Independent Tribunal. The portion of the opinion that absolved Sinner of any intentional PED use can fairly be regarded as a final decision, because no party appealed from that result. The handling of the penalty is a trickier question. As a practical matter, the outcome has been overridden, because Sinner agreed to a three-month suspension in place of the nonban from the IT. But because the decision itself was not formally reversed by an appellate tribunal, its reasoning on this point may still be "good law." What really happened is that the case became moot on appeal due to the settlement. Sophisticated juridical systems have rules for handling that scenario, but I would be surprised if this included ITIA/WADA.

Yeh I went into this in response to a mild troll thread asking if Sinner can be banned for life if he “dopes a third time” or something like that but I guess the thread was deleted, for no good reason. Because it did raise an interesting issue.

The interesting issue isn‘t whether it’s “reasoning on this point may still be ‘good law‘.” WADA thinks it stinks so I don’t think anyone will be relying on the decision that doesn’t want to buy a WADA appeal.

It’s whether establishing No Fault with the Tennis Tribunal as Carrot did is given effect under Code article 10.9 Multiple Violations in any future case against the player or if the Case Resolution Agreement means the benefit is lost and the case counts as a prior violation. I said the PR statements made by Carrot and WADA about the CRA don’t have any effect and my guess would be the CRA doesn‘t impact the No Fault finding either. It would be helpful to see the actual CRA. I think they may but do not have to release it. I did guess again it wouldn’t say anything much more substantively than start date and term — nothing about fault. The suspension and press release did the crucial part to scare players into being vigilant.

 

[vokazu]

I think it's WADA who accepted the settlement, not Sinner.

 

[Bartelby]

WADA held all the cards, but settled due to external pressure.

 

[RSJfan]

I think it's WADA who accepted the settlement, not Sinner.

 

[jmnk]

OK, so she never said the ITIA didn’t know which makes sense. Because I’m reading it like you. Each OKs the others CRA. I don’t know if she wasn’t informed until after the interview, or ITIA indicated earlier that it had no objection or within certain parameters, or she knew. Zero chance she’s telling such a delicate thing to Roddick beforehand.

She is the CEO of ITIA. There's no way she would not be informed if ITIA knew. I suppose it is possible she knew but did not tell anything to Andy. That would make her a really good actor. I would think if she knew she would have postponed the interview. So I'm siding with "ITIA did not know'.

 

[jmnk]

I think it's WADA who accepted the settlement, not Sinner.

why would that be? There's zero downside for WADA to have a hearing before CAS. What's the worst that can happen? That Sinner will not get suspended? That's what the result was already. There's literally nothing WADA was risking. Many cases went to CAS, actually most of them ended up with lower suspension for the player, so in majority of cases WADA sort of 'loses'. In this case they literally can't lose in the sense that Sinner could not have gotten lesser suspension - he already was not suspended.

 

[jmnk]

WADA held all the cards, but settled due to external pressure.

I don't always agree with @Bartelby - but I do when he is correct......

 

[RSJfan]

She is the CEO of ITIA. There's no way she would not be informed if ITIA knew. I suppose it is possible she knew but did not tell anything to Andy. That would make her a really good actor. I would think if she knew she would have postponed the interview. So I'm siding with "ITIA did not know'.

There is zero chance she would tell anyone outside her organization of active negotiations prior to an actual deal. Can you imagine the ITIA potentially blowing up a deal. I have to think more about this one. ITIA handles the doping control process so it’s the ADO here. Would you mind contacting the ITIA for clarification. They are also in the anti-doping education business. They have a specific contact form for “education enquiry“ on their site.

 

[RSJfan]

why would that be? There's zero downside for WADA to have a hearing before CAS. What's the worst that can happen? That Sinner will not get suspended? That's what the result was already. There's literally nothing WADA was risking. Many cases went to CAS, actually most of them ended up with lower suspension for the player, so in majority of cases WADA sort of 'loses'. In this case they literally can't lose in the sense that Sinner could not have gotten lesser suspension - he already was not suspended.

Your back to square one on this one. One step forward, two steps back.

WADA appeal forces CAS to

(1) agree with ITIA on No Fault and consequently no suspension. WADAs obsession is you can’t have no fault by pinning it on your team. That’s the entire crux of the appeal.

(2) agree with WADA that this is a No Significant Fault case and go with the strict reading of the sanctions scheme and gives Carrot min of 1-year.

(3) decides that there is a “gap” in the Code because 1-year is not proportionate with the specific circumstances of the case so it fashions its own sanction like the Puerta case.

WADA can‘t handle 1 or 3. #1 is at odds with its interpretation of the Code on a principle that is very dear to its heart. #3 is ignoring its precious Code sanctions scheme, almost as horrible.

And #2 is not all that attractive including in light of the fact that the 2027 Code is changing the rules to reduce the sanctions with this type of case to a minimum of zero. One year. The blowback…There will be blood!

There is basically no good outcome for WADA from CAS.

 

[RSJfan]

@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.

Already mentioned how the book was last changed effective 2021. Initial drafts only allowed for reductions up to one-half. Final draft allows WADA to go wild.

WADA correctly appealed the Itia verdict. Because Sinner does have some responsibility. He even admitted that now.

Kinda like every criminal defendant in history that takes a plea admits they’re guilty because otherwise the judge won‘t approve the deal.

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.

Sinner accepts settlement with WADA for 3 month ban

The violation in question isn't the fact he tested positive. It is whether he bears any responsibility for the actions of his team. He argued he does not, ITIA agreed, which is why he got no suspension. Because he was found 'no fault or negligence' And he did change his position now. Now he...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

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_

The case is unusual.

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.

Conversely, see my link above. Hence, the basis for a deal. Neither party wanted to risk going to CAS.

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.

CAS can, in fact, do whatever it wants. The avenue for appealing a CAS decision is extremely narrow and mostly limited to due process concerns like a not independent arbitrator. But you know how the sanctions scheme works so 6-12 months would require disregarding the precious Code.

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?

Pass this one to conspiracy nuts. I thought it started when a deal was reached.

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.

He admitted violations of 2.1 and 2.2. Period. I don’t want to go down the rabbit hole on this one.

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.

They simply made a deal. It doesn’t mean anything more or less as far as the tennis tribunal is concerned. Sinner said what was needed to get a deal done. So did WADA for that matter.

To me everything starting with that agreement does look like preferential treatment. Not before. But now it does seem so.

 

[Bartelby]

CAS is not really an appeals court as they hear everything de novo. WADA risked a decision that contradicted everything that the Tribunal decided.

WADA was afraid of winning, not losing, and the Golden Boy going down for a year.

why would that be? There's zero downside for WADA to have a hearing before CAS. What's the worst that can happen? That Sinner will not get suspended? That's what the result was already. There's literally nothing WADA was risking. Many cases went to CAS, actually most of them ended up with lower suspension for the player, so in majority of cases WADA sort of 'loses'. In this case they literally can't lose in the sense that Sinner could not have gotten lesser suspension - he already was not suspended.

 

[jmnk]

Your back to square one on this one. One step forward, two steps back.

WADA appeal forces CAS to

(1) agree with ITIA on No Fault and consequently no suspension. WADAs obsession is you can’t have no fault by pinning it on your team. That’s the entire crux of the appeal.

(2) agree with WADA that this is a No Significant Fault case and go with the strict reading of the sanctions scheme and gives Carrot min of 1-year.

(3) decides that there is a “gap” in the Code because 1-year is not proportionate with the specific circumstances of the case so it fashions its own sanction like the Puerta case.

WADA can‘t handle 1 or 3. #1 is at odds with its interpretation of the Code on a principle that is very dear to its heart. #3 is ignoring its precious Code sanctions scheme, almost as horrible.

And #2 is not all that attractive in light of the fact that the 2027 Code is changing the rules to reduce the sanctions with this type of case to a minimum of zero. The blowback…There will be blood!

There is basically no good outcome for WADA from CAS.

I will have to 100% disagree.
#1 outcome is not great for WADA but nothing terrible. Plus from then on they could use it as precedent in case where part of the player's team f***d up.
#2 well, it would be CAS handing down such penalty. WADA would be like "don't look at me, complain to CAS. even we think it's too harsh which is why we are changing the code in 2027"
#3 it would be way way better for CAS to assess like 3 months of suspension then have WADA agree to it on its own. WADA would claim "see, we knew he was somewhat guilty" and claim complete victory. And say "CAS follows its own guidance on penalties and we respect their decision to give out less than our sanction scheme suggests"
I still would like to know why sinner found out only on the 14th that he had been suspended already for few days starting on the 9th....

 

[RSJfan]

I will have to 100% disagree.
#1 outcome is not great for WADA but nothing terrible. Plus from then on they could use it as precedent in case where part of the player's team f***d up.
#2 well, it would be CAS handing down such penalty. WADA would be like "don't look at me, complain to CAS. even we think it's too harsh which is why we are changing the code in 2027"
#3 it would be way way better for CAS to assess like 3 months of suspension then have WADA agree to it on its own. WADA would claim "see, we knew he was somewhat guilty" and claim complete victory. And say "CAS follows its own guidance on penalties and we respect their decision to give out less than our sanction scheme suggests"
I still would like to know why sinner found out only on the 14th that he had been suspended already for few days starting on the 9th....

Okay!

But you will never get on the approved CAS arbitrators list. Follow your own guidance is not a thing in arbitration.

 

[jmnk]

CAS is not really an appeals court as they hear everything de novo. WADA risked a decision that contradicted everything that the Tribunal decided.

WADA was afraid of winning, not losing, and the Golden Boy going down for a year.

That is what it looks like to me indeed

 

[PDJ]

At the very beginning Andy says they recorded the interview with ITIA CEO few days before the agreement was announced. And she was describing the process and what will happen at CAS hearing. She gave zero indication about any settlement negotiation ongoing, and Andy is clearly implying it was not because she was hiding anything, she just apparently did not know.

I think it's plausible the ITIA CEO didn't know at the time, or surely she would have:
Postponed the interview
Or
Followed the tired old line "I can't comment on an ongoing investigation".
On balance, if she had been informed by WADA, the first option would have been the most pragmatic solution.

 

[smalahove]

Hmmm yeah but you can see how there is a fundamental difference between the two in the fact that she used the product herself (hence the much larger dose detected). That's not contamination from someone else. It's a very unfortunate mistake.

You are probably right in assuming that this affected the verdict. Afaik, Wada emphasizes the athlete's personal responsibility, but as you point out, there is a distinction between applying a substance yourself (lip balm), and your physio applying a substance to himself. But from a historical doping perspective, there have been myriads of dubious or incredible explanations, often involving medical staff. The one thing that makes the doping accusations less credible, is that, afaik, clostebol has negligible effects (and is not a masking agent). But I can't say I see a clear explanation for how one case ended up with 18 months and the other 3.

 

[flyneurologist]

That is what it looks like to me indeed

I actually think they would probably lose. The only argument going for them is strict liability. Pretty much the moment Sinner sent over defense case on 01/2025, they offer the resolution

 

[enishi1357]

I'm sure everyone realized this but this settlement is essentially a plea deal.

Just like any plea deal, we will never find the truth to the matter.

So discussion on this should not be on whether Sinner is a doper but why did whoever is investigating this thinks the best course of action is to hide the truth and basically give Sinner a slap on the wrist.

I rather they investigate fully and let the judge or jury if there's one to decide whether he is innocent. Either not punish him or punish him to the fullest extent of the rule. Don't half ass it with a settlement.

 

[flyneurologist]

I'm sure everyone realized this but this settlement is essentially a plea deal.

Just like any plea deal, we will never find the truth to the matter.

So discussion on this should not be on whether Sinner is a doper but why did whoever is investigating this thinks the best course of action is to hide the truth and basically give Sinner a slap on the wrist.

What is “hiding the truth” in this context? The whole case is public in the 33 paged document. And if you say the truth is "whether he dopes or not" then it literally contradicted your prior statement "so discussion on this should not be on whether Sinner is a doper"

Like you meant to ask how Sinner's legal team able to defend him. Of course we are not going to be able to see the defense case. Only if they brought all the documents to CAS then CAS will public them. Like the Simona's case

 

[enishi1357]

What is “hiding the truth” in this context? The whole case is public.

The investigator is privy to details the public won't have. We need someone who specialize in this and getting paid for doing the work.

 

[smalahove]

The Tennis Independent Tribunal was not impressed with your precedent (para. 114.a.):

“The current case can be distinguished from Johaug given that the substance entered the Player's system not by a medication prescribed or provided by a doctor but by way of cross-contamination during a physiotherapy session.”

Tbc, I only pointed to this case because it shares a lot of the same elements, which other doping cases mentioned earlier have not. The facts of the matter is that they both tested (A&B test) positive for clostebol. The rest is just an explanation provided by the accused party. At which point, I would like to understand the reasoning and evolution criteria between the two verdicts: 18 months vs 3 months, where the former costed Johaug the participation in a world championship and the Olympics, where she was a favorite to win several gold medals, whereas the latter costs Sinner nothing in terms of slams.

Again to make sure I'm not misread: I'm not saying I think these cases are identical, but I would appreciate if Wada clearly explained their reasoning.

 

[flyneurologist]

The investigator is privy to details the public won't have. We need someone who specialize in this and getting paid for doing the work.

of course, the only way you can know all the details is to listen in public trials as a jury. They don't do that in sport law. this is a moot point. Most details are in the published proceedings.

 

[enishi1357]

of course, the only way you can know all the details is to listen in public trials as a jury. They don't do that in sport law. this is a moot point. Most details are in the published proceedings.

I'm sure you know more than I do. My point is why give Sinner a slap on the wrist given this case will be scrutinize. Now everyone is questioning whether whoever in handling this case is competent or he's been told to let Sinner walk.

 

[flyneurologist]

I'm sure you know more than I do. My point is why give Sinner a slap on the wrist given this case will be scrutinize. Now everyone is questioning whether whoever in handling this case is competent or he's been told to let Sinner walk.

Oh no i want to be respectful because some people on this forum are independent thinkers. I like to read them and also share my view.

Honestly, my view from medical standpoint is that he is absolutely having no medical advantage but he is somewhat responsible from sport strict liability standpoint (literally the only leverage WADA has. WADA blasted media every day on this point to make a big deal and in a way. Kyrios and co. Parroting these around media).

Jannik sinner’s lawyer posted on his SM that after WADA received sinner’s legal team defense doc, they send a resolution offer around end of 01/2025. Jannik’s lawyer team probably has a really strong case. And tbh from my experience, I suspect they argue on a basis of sentinel event and accident causation.

 

[enishi1357]

Oh no i want to be respectful because some people on this forum are independent thinkers. I like to read them and also share my view.

Honestly, my view from medical standpoint is that he is absolutely having no medical advantage but he is somewhat responsible from sport strict liability standpoint (literally the only leverage WADA has. WADA blasted media every day on this point to make a big deal and in a way. Kyrios and co. Parroting these around media).

Jannik sinner’s lawyer posted on his SM that after WADA received sinner’s legal team defense doc, they send a resolution offer around end of 01/2025. Jannik’s lawyer team probably has a really strong case. And tbh from my experience, I suspect they argue on a basis of sentinel event and accident causation.

Yeah I rather they fight it out in court. Not a good look for the organization because not everyone knows all the details especially tennis athletes.

 

[flyneurologist]

Yeah I rather they fight it out in court. Not a good look for the organization because not everyone knows all the details especially tennis athletes.

Yeah actually Novak made a good point that all legal cases should be either entirely private or public. These half revelation opens gates of conspiracies from non-credited so called “citizen journalist” who are like bearing no responsibilities for their words