Yeah I see your point, and I think it's vital to keep the issues of doping and negligence separated, because the general public is not appreciating this difference at the moment. You can see all the people calling Sinner a doper etc, that's misleading and intolerable and some of them seem to live on this board, they should know better. Then, I totally agree, the level of his negligence and the appropriate penalty for that can and should be discussed amongst reasonable people and tennis fans.
Sinner accepts settlement with WADA for 3 month ban
- Thread starter geromino
- Start date
flyneurologist
New User
I actually am so curious what exactly is Sinner’s defense case to have an even stronger case against strict liability. The legal team apparently worked until 2:30 am lol. This is how you get paid 6 figures.
x.com
x.com
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
WADA threw in a winning hand. Sinners lawyers just sat back and watched.
I actually am so curious what exactly is Sinner’s defense case to have an even stronger case against strict liability. The legal team apparently worked until 2:30 am lol. This is how you get paid 6 figures.
https://x.com/onsidelaw/status/1892165153933738143?s=46x.com
flyneurologist
New User
Bartelby, are you a parrot?
Norwegian here.
Imo the Johaug case is a lot more unexplainable, because there really isnt any excuse for the fact that neither the doctor or Johaug didnt see the enormous red sign labeled "doping" on the package (and im saying this as a big Johaug fan who is 100% certain she was clean). I still think about if her doctor was paid off to get her banned, thats how unexplainable this is. She is pretty naive, so im not suprised she didnt double check the cream.
Also - Johaug used the cream on herself, while this is contamination from the phyiotherapist. So different codes in WADAs rules i guess.
Last edited:
RSJfan
Hall of Fame
I gathered that.
Yes both tested positive for a non-specified Prohibited Substance. The one beloved in Italy.
Which is the critical part.
All these cases are very fact specific. Let’s not rehash Sinner’s case. You know his facts. They will always remain in dispute at TTW but they were not in dispute in his actual case. And you know how it played out. Tennis Tribunal found No Fault = no ban. WADA felt No Fault was not established and so appealed. Settlement. 3 months vacation.
She’s a first time “doper” like Carrot. Congrats to her. She starts at 4 years. She established lack of intent so she’s down to 2 years. For possible further reductions they analyze fault.
You really should read the case yourself. They go into great and mind-numbing detail. Many thrilling arguments are made and discussed including my fav proportionality. Even delightful procedural issues are tackled to keep the reader in an excited state. But sadly I can’t summarize them all. I will cut to the chase.
Her doctor hands her one of those little boxes containing Trofodermin and tells her it’s cool. The remedy of choice of Sinner’s man (except here it contains a cream not a spray). It has the anti-doping symbol on it. Apparently that didn’t ring a bell for him or her. It’s a new product for her. She can’t rely on her doctor she must check what she uses. It would take her a few minutes to check the ingredient list against the Prohibited List of substances. She had the tube for 12 days before being tested. Just type into a search engine something like WADA Prohibited List and Clostobol. She doesn’t. This is very upsetting for the reader. She doesn’t satisfy a finding of No Fault.
They do go for No Significant Fault. They’re operating under the 2015 version of the Code but they get to the same place as the 2021 Code version, 1 - 2 years. The specific penalty within that range is not an exact science.
Two out of three arbitrators works though. She picked Jeffery Benz. Athletes seem to love this guy (Halep picked him. Sinner picked him.) He was probably in the minority and wanted to buy her flowers instead of banning her.
It’s not WADA’s reasoning. WADA wasn’t involved. She initially received 13 months from the first instance decision from some entity called The Adjudication Committee of Anti-Doping Norway which presumably is an independent tribunal set up by the Norwegian ADO. This decision was appealed to CAS not by her but by the International Ski Federation. It was the CAS panel that bumped her up to 18 months.
Thank you for playing Carrot got a better deal.
Last edited:
RSJfan
Hall of Fame
Legal cases? Meaning the anti-doping cases? What a silly idea. However, I am impressed that while people have been studying, working with and developing the WADA Code over a 20+ year period with contributions from a plethora of stakeholders Egg has considered it all in 10 minutes. He should have the ITF submit these ideas to WADA so they are on the public record and can be officially ignored.
I think it was fair although i believe Johaugs story.I gathered that.
Yes both tested positive for a non-specified Prohibited Substance. The one beloved in Italy.
Which is the critical part.
All these cases are very fact specific. Let’s not rehash Sinner’s case. You know his facts. They will always remain in dispute at TTW but they were not in dispute in his actual case. And you know how it played out. Tennis Tribunal found No Fault = no ban. WADA felt No Fault was not established and so appealed. Settlement. 3 months vacation.
She’s a first time “doper” like Carrot. Congrats to her. She starts at 4 years. She established lack of intent so she’s down to 2 years. For possible further reductions they analyze fault.
You really should read the case yourself. They go into great and mind-numbing detail. Many thrilling arguments are made and discussed including my fav proportionality. Even delightful procedural issues are tackled to keep the reader in an excited state. But sadly I can’t summarize them all. I will cut to the chase.
Her doctor hands her one of those little boxes containing Trofodermin and tells her it’s cool. The remedy of choice of Sinner’s man (except here it contains a cream not a spray). It has the anti-doping symbol on it. Apparently that didn’t ring a bell. It’s a new product for her. She can’t rely on her doctor she must check what she uses. It would take her a few minutes to check the ingredient list against the Prohibited List of substances. She had the tube for 12 days before being tested. Just type into a search engine something like WADA Prohibited List and Clostobol. She doesn’t. This is very upsetting for the reader. She doesn’t satisfy a finding of No Fault.
They do go for No Significant Fault. They’re operating under the 2015 version of the Code but they get to the same place as the 2021 Code version, 1 - 2 years. The specific penalty within that range is not an exact science.They throw darts. They go into a long analysis and refer to the approach used in another case under an even earlier version of the Code, But I don’t bother to find it because they have dazzled me long enough and need to eat. A majority of the panel decided on 18 months so I guess the sanction wasn’t unanimous.
Two out of three arbitrators works though. She picked Jeffery Benz. Athletes seem to love this guy (Halep picked him. Sinner picked him.) He was probably in the minority and wanted to buy her flowers instead of banning her.
It’s not WADA’s reasoning. WADA wasn’t involved. She initially received 13 months from the first instant decision from some entity called The Adjudication Committee of Anti-Doping Norway which presumably is an independent tribunal set up by the Norwegian ADO. This decision was appealed to CAS not by her but by the International Ski Federation. It was the CAS panel that bumped her up to 18 months.
Thank you for playing Carrot got a better deal.
First of all, there is no excuse for both her and her doctor not seing the enormous doping label on the Trofodermin package. Im actually wondering if her doctor was paid off by her competitors lol. Its just completely unexplainable how a doctor specialised in athletes can do a mistake like this. Its almost like serving red wine to someone before driving, and then say you forgot to check if it contained alcohol. She is a lovely, but naive young woman
Second, it wasnt contamination, she used the cream on herself.
Last edited:
RSJfan
Hall of Fame
.
Egg has a vague understanding of the anti-doping process. But he‘s cranking out proposed reforms. Egg may be confusing the deadline with the fact that maybe Carrot was able to put together a case to lift a provisional suspension in 6 hours!
In any case, it seems most (none?) of the players have not read any ITIA educational material. The rules aren’t vague. But there is discretion in some areas granted to ADOs. WADA Code says that Provisional Suspensions may be publicly disclosed unlike ADRVs which must be publicly disclosed within the applicable time frame. So ITIA has a policy of disclosing. When? “no earlier than 10 days“ after notification of the provisional suspension. So you have time to try to have it lifted before it‘s disclosed.
But because ITIA doesn’t have to disclose and they don’t want to burn players they’ll work with a player if a player needs some more time. How much I don‘t know. I guess it depends if you‘re cooperating and how close you really are to making your uncontested case to the Chair of the Independent Tribunal. If you don‘t take their calls they’ll probably let it rip in 10 days.
This was also explained previously at TTW demonstrating that anti-Sinnerers can‘t be reasoned with.
Egg has a vague understanding of the anti-doping process. But he‘s cranking out proposed reforms. Egg may be confusing the deadline with the fact that maybe Carrot was able to put together a case to lift a provisional suspension in 6 hours!
In any case, it seems most (none?) of the players have not read any ITIA educational material. The rules aren’t vague. But there is discretion in some areas granted to ADOs. WADA Code says that Provisional Suspensions may be publicly disclosed unlike ADRVs which must be publicly disclosed within the applicable time frame. So ITIA has a policy of disclosing. When? “no earlier than 10 days“ after notification of the provisional suspension. So you have time to try to have it lifted before it‘s disclosed.
But because ITIA doesn’t have to disclose and they don’t want to burn players they’ll work with a player if a player needs some more time. How much I don‘t know. I guess it depends if you‘re cooperating and how close you really are to making your uncontested case to the Chair of the Independent Tribunal. If you don‘t take their calls they’ll probably let it rip in 10 days.
Last edited:
RSJfan
Hall of Fame
I know she used the cream. That wasn’t obvious from the story? It was an exciting story, right?!
Yeh, ridiculous the anti-doping symbol doesn’t ring a bell, doc or her. The doc was under enormous stress. But he was also something of a doping expert. Her I can‘t explain either.
Yes it was obvious right from the start. She was completely honest. She got severly burned on her lips while training with the norwegian team in the Italian mountains. The team doctor bought the cream for her.
Yeah it was exciting, especially because of Norways "good" history with doping. Cheating is culturally very unacceptable in Norway, and not many Norwegians have been caught. During the epo scandals in cycling and cross country skiing no norwegians tested positive. She is the biggest star ever testing positive. When norwegian cyclist Steffen Kjaergaard was busted (and admitted), norwegians turned their back on him. Most norwegians believe Johaug was clean.
RSJfan
Hall of Fame
Yeh I saw the posted photos. It looked bad. But the International Ski Federation takes no prisoners. They couldn’t let it rest with 13 months.
It’s also culturally very unacceptable to dope in Italy — without using Clostobol.
flyneurologist
New User
.
This was also explained previously at TTW demonstrating that anti-Sinnerers can‘t be reasoned with.
Egg has a vague understanding of the anti-doping process. But he‘s cranking out proposed reforms. Egg may be confusing the deadline with the fact that maybe Carrot was able to put together a case to lift a provisional suspension in 6 hours!
In any case, it seems most (none?) of the players have not read any ITIA educational material. The rules aren’t vague. But there is discretion in some areas granted to ADOs. WADA Code says that Provisional Suspensions may be publicly disclosed unlike ADRVs which must be publicly disclosed within the applicable time frame. So ITIA has a policy of disclosing. When? “no earlier than 10 days“ after notification of the provisional suspension. So you have time to try to have it lifted before it‘s disclosed.
But because ITIA doesn’t have to disclose and they don’t want to burn players they’ll work with a player if a player needs some more time. How much I don‘t know. I guess it depends if you‘re cooperating and how close you really are to making your uncontested case to the Chair of the Independent Tribunal. If you don‘t take their calls they’ll probably let it rip in 10 days.
Oh I totally agree with you. Novak doesn’t read anything and said lots of thing. Lots of loopholes in his statement. The only thing I agree is that all investigation should be private or public (which I think should all be private, literally no non-criminal trials deserve to be public). Literally, none of these tennis players have higher than an eight grade education. You all expect them to understand all of this while playing high level tennis is a lot
Last edited:
RSJfan
Hall of Fame
Do you mean no disclosure of provisional suspensions. Or no disclosure of the case even after a case settlement or a tribunal decision. I’m not clear.
They are changing some of the disclosure rules to favor more athlete privacy with the 2027 Code.
flyneurologist
New User
Should be private until final verdict. What is this scarlet A while being investigated? Everyone pretending to understand law makes me sick. Does anyone want all your workplace to know your mistake if you made one? Make me sick that they torture Jannik Sinner for a year. Mental
Yeah but there are certainly cultural differences. Some countries have a very bad history compared to others. I remember for example when cyclist Vinokourov went home after testing positive on epo. It was like "too bad you got caught, everybody dope".Yeh I saw the posted photos. It looked bad. But the International Ski Federation takes no prisoners. They couldn’t let it rest with 13 months.
It’s also culturally very unacceptable to dope in Italy — without using Clostobol.
RSJfan
Hall of Fame
If a player is provisionally suspended and they never announce how to explain the absence? The player can decide what they want to do, I guess. There are always issues.
They are changing the rules so even if there is a decision by the first instance tribunal that you committed ADRVs if you are found at No Fault then the decision won’t be disclosed. Stakeholders wanted this. I like it; I think it’s fair to athletes. Of course, issues arise if WADA appeals but there aren’t perfect answers just trade-offs. Some anti-Carrot fanatics at TTW are whining that the ITIA didn’t (in accordance with the same rules applied to all players) disclose Carrot‘s positive tests until months later when the tennis tribunal announced its decision. Imagine if they never learn about the positive tests.
Last edited:
RSJfan
Hall of Fame
Absolutely there are. I was just joking about the seeming prevalence of Clostobol in Italy.
Last edited:
flyneurologist
New User
Sorry to all the Italian people here but you all need to stop selling clobetasol OTC like it is some H-Hemorrhoid.
Last edited:
flyneurologist
New User
Yeah that would be great. Literally closed door for everything until the end. No unqualified people should participate in judging. I am pretty sure they get assigned lawyers if they can’t afford in arbitration court but initially probably not… (some law people can chyme in ) I mean this is not an uncommon law injustice but honestly don’t know how to solve this unless ITIA finance lawyers for players. (Which I don’t think will happen)
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Clostebol is a pizza topping in Italy. Just don't confuse it with Anusol.
flyneurologist
New User
You are not interested in the facts and you don’t respect the law. When Jannik wins grand slams, parrots like you are not invited to my clobetasol themed party. Cheers.
.
This was also explained previously at TTW demonstrating that anti-Sinnerers can‘t be reasoned with.
Egg has a vague understanding of the anti-doping process. But he‘s cranking out proposed reforms. Egg may be confusing the deadline with the fact that maybe Carrot was able to put together a case to lift a provisional suspension in 6 hours!
In any case, it seems most (none?) of the players have not read any ITIA educational material. The rules aren’t vague. But there is discretion in some areas granted to ADOs. WADA Code says that Provisional Suspensions may be publicly disclosed unlike ADRVs which must be publicly disclosed within the applicable time frame. So ITIA has a policy of disclosing. When? “no earlier than 10 days“ after notification of the provisional suspension. So you have time to try to have it lifted before it‘s disclosed.
But because ITIA doesn’t have to disclose and they don’t want to burn players they’ll work with a player if a player needs some more time. How much I don‘t know. I guess it depends if you‘re cooperating and how close you really are to making your uncontested case to the Chair of the Independent Tribunal. If you don‘t take their calls they’ll probably let it rip in 10 days.
You make some keen observations and raise some important points here.
Djokovic certainly needs to gain a better understanding of not only the rules, but also the reasons why they are the way they are, before proposing significant reforms. I’m not saying his proposals are necessarily bad, but they require justification, and that justification cannot be based on a misunderstanding of the rules.
I don’t know where the 6 hours thing comes from. The Decision of the Independent Panel only states that Sinner submitted an urgent appeal on the same day he was served each Notice, and that the Provisional Suspensions were both lifted within 10 days of Notice.
I did not see in the WADA Code a rule about (optional) public disclosure of Provisional Suspensions. If you could cite the rule, that would be helpful. In any case, Provisional Suspension is an automatic consequence for ADRVs for Non-Specified Substances (includes steroids), so I think what matters / comes first here is the WADA rule for disclosure of ADRVs (which as far as I can tell is embodied in the TADP rule for disclosure of Provisional Suspensions). As you say, there is a WADA rule (14.3.2) that ADRVs must be disclosed within the applicable time frame. In this rule it says, among other things, that ADRVs must be disclosed “no later than 20 days after…the assertion of an ADRV has not otherwise been timely challenged”. And since the TADP rules state that disclosure will not occur earlier than 10 days after Notice has been sent, this means that disclosure must occur (unless Provisional Suspension has been lifted) after 10 days, but from that point on there seems to be some wiggle room.
This could be where Djokovic is getting confused, and I can understand the confusion. However, Djokovic was still very wrong in his statement because, in the case of Sinner, no discretion was needed to determine whether or not to disclose his Provisional Suspensions. His Provisional Suspensions were lifted within 10 days and therefore not disclosed. If Djokovic knew what he was talking about, he would have emphasised or at least mentioned this.
Last edited:
Good snippet there. Yeah me too, but u think little by little well keep learning more. All parties seem to be trying to share what they can in order to counter the criticsI actually am so curious what exactly is Sinner’s defense case to have an even stronger case against strict liability. The legal team apparently worked until 2:30 am lol. This is how you get paid 6 figures.
https://x.com/onsidelaw/status/1892165153933738143?s=46x.com
I love RSJfan sublime untangling of the topic but I think the story is very simple to understand. You need to read it once or maybe two.
The question I have is: 1) he did not bother reading it since too busy at home playing violin with his daughter 2) he read it but he still does not understand it 3) he is just playing dirty to hit sinner (his worst rival) or atp president ( his new job)
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
That is quite true.
You'll find a number of that "S-s-siner iss k-killing tennis!!" group are bitter because players they falsely imagined were innocent (e.g., Halep, Swiatek, et al.) were not, so every accused players is guilty in their teary eyes.
Yes the process and outcome for Sinner is very easy to understand, that’s for sure.
As for Djokovic, it seems like he maybe read a small amount, doesn’t really understand whatever it is that he read, and is inclined to go along with what he hears from other players in the locker room, who know just as little as he does.
up to the agreement - yes, indeed nothing extraordinary really if one is familiar with the process. But there's no good explanation why WADA did not let CAS have the hearing and have the process run its course to the very end. It's not that agreement is somehow not allowed per rules - it is. It's just _why_ they did it. Sinner was not suspended, WADA can't lose in the sense that CAS cannot levy _less_ punishment. Why make any agreement?
Another thing. If Sinner now agrees that he was somewhat at fault - why didn't he try to make the same agreement _before_ WADA decided to challenge ITIA ruling to CAS? It's like WADA called his bluff ("I'm completely not at fault, ITIA said so - WADA - what are you going to do about _that_?"), and only then he got a bit worried that maybe, just maybe CAS will not exonerate him completely?
I have to correct a mistake that I made in the above post.
Provisional suspension is an automatic consequence for AAFs (not ADRVs) for Non-Specified Substances. Furthermore, if the player is then formally charged with an ADRV and the player doesn’t challenge it, then it will be publicly announced 20 days after the charge letter is sent.
ITIA - What happens when a player tests positive for a prohibited substance?
ITIA - What happens when a player tests positive for a prohibited substance?
www.itia.tennis
I was just taking about it being easy to understand based on the rules. I get what you are saying about the ‘why’. I think a number of reasonable explanations have been put forward. We can’t really know for sure what was going on inside the head of WADA and Sinner camp leading up to the settlement agreement, unless they tell us.
flyneurologist
New User
If anything it points toward the legal competency of Sinner’s camp. Do you have LinkedIn? Check Jamie Singer’s professional profile. He is partner at Onside law, lead lawyer for Sinner. He recently wrote:
“ Back in August I, perhaps naively, posted “the end of a stressful period for an exceptional young talent”. Well hopefully “it is now”. WADA approached us following the filing of Jannik’s defence at the end of January and at 2.30am this morning the Case Resolution Agreement was finalised, WADA withdrew their appeal to CAS soon after.
Particular thanks to Ross Brown and Kendrah Potts whose work was instrumental in securing this outcome.
#JannikSinner
#Tennis”
Jannik Sinner’s case is very strong. Probably strong enough to counteract strict liability. Such good lawyers honestly. It is like slaying Goliath. I have some hypothetical frameworks that I thought Sinner’s lawyers can operate on but obv can’t know for sure. Anyone here sport law JD?
Jamie Singer on LinkedIn: Jannik Sinner Press Release
Back in August I, perhaps naively, posted “the end of a stressful period for an exceptional young talent”. Well hopefully “it is now”. WADA approached us…
www.linkedin.com
I mean no matter how strong Sinner's case is there's no reason not to try it before the CAS. And it cannot be _that_ strong if Sinner agreed to go from 'no suspension' to '3 months suspension', can it? The verdict on 'how liable Sinner is' is always going to be a judgment call since it is not 0 or 1 type of proof. Like in a traffic accident - no matter how careful you are, and how your car is in good condition - someone somewhere can always try 'but what if you were driving 5 mph slower' or 'but you should have anticipated that the other driver is not going to follow the rules 100%' - and it is up to the judge/whoever to evaluate the shades of grey so to speak.If anything it points toward the legal competency of Sinner’s camp. Do you have LinkedIn? Check Jamie Singer’s professional profile. He is partner at Onside law, lead lawyer for Sinner. He recently wrote:
“ Back in August I, perhaps naively, posted “the end of a stressful period for an exceptional young talent”. Well hopefully “it is now”. WADA approached us following the filing of Jannik’s defence at the end of January and at 2.30am this morning the Case Resolution Agreement was finalised, WADA withdrew their appeal to CAS soon after.
Particular thanks to Ross Brown and Kendrah Potts whose work was instrumental in securing this outcome.
#JannikSinner
#Tennis”
Jannik Sinner’s case is very strong. Probably strong enough to counteract strict liability. Such good lawyers honestly. It is like slaying Goliath. I have some hypothetical frameworks that I thought Sinner’s lawyers can operate on but obv can’t know for sure. Anyone here sport law JD?
Jamie Singer on LinkedIn: Jannik Sinner Press Release
Back in August I, perhaps naively, posted “the end of a stressful period for an exceptional young talent”. Well hopefully “it is now”. WADA approached us…
flyneurologist
New User
So if you were Sinner you would wait for CAS in April knowing there is still small chance of risk of suspension for 1-2 years? CAS does not dictate the length of the ban so either 0 or 1-2 years. That is such a high risk stake. Any sound lawyers would try to get the best early outcomes for their clients. And WADA eventually realize there is more to lose.
There must be a legal angle that WADA didn’t think of initially when they appeal. Also I am pretty convinced that Sinner’s story is very very plausible which might contradict many people of this forum here. His testing evd is so solid. All the tests before the failed two were negative. Tests were 8 days apart. Explain early. Recipient of hands that were contaminated with steroid for a week. Victim of a medical sentinel event. There exists no sound scientific explanation that he would get competitive edge. Question is he liable for his team or not ?
If Sinner goes to court, Onside definitely can help him win. So CAS needs to do something, and therefore a so-called “convenient” sentence. Outcome might appear surprising but honestly very logical.
flyneurologist
New User
Better to lose and force 3 months ban than lose and get no ban against someone they been target for a year. They really did think they would get a nice power demonstration by litigating a high profile athlete. Eating back every word now.
Oh, I 100% agree that _Sinner_ was very wise to take the deal. I'm saying I do not understand why WADA offered it. You say:
What was there to lose for WADA?
And it is not about whether he was 'doping' anymore. Everyone with a say agree he was not. The CAS hearing would be only about whether he bears any responsibility for the fact that the member of his team accidentally exposed him to a banned substance.
WADA wasn't 'targeting' anybody here. WADA let the process run its course, and they appealed when the ITIA verdict did not seem to reflect (in WADA eyes) the violation (i.e. level of responsibility of Sinner for his employees)
that they do. Which is why that is so bizarre they agreed to a deal. If CAS still ruled 'no suspension' then WADA could have at least say 'well, we tried, we thought Sinner was somewhat responsible - we do not necessarily agree with CAS but respect the verdict'. There would be nothing wrong with that, the higher and final instance would have issued the verdict.
flyneurologist
New User
If WADA lose the case, they can’t exercise the strict liability clause anymore. (Losing with 3 months is better than losing with no ban. That is fact). They release scathing press 2 days before they release final resolution statement. Very dodgy move from WADA.
The million question is if I were to put it bluntly is what onside firm argument against strict liability? I think Singer (being in the sport law for 25 years and partner/founder of a prestigious boutique law firm) must have construct a legal framework that contest against strict liability. I am not a JD and certainly not a world renowned one. I am just saying from my point of view, Jannik Sinner is a recipient of a medical malpractice so to speak. This distinguished him from lots of cases where the athletes directly consume contaminated products (though unknowingly)
Very nuanced. I tried my best to explain.
flyneurologist
New User
No I don’t think so… WADA and also Sinner would suffer from an image POV even more so if there is no suspension. You would get people saying “x gets banned but Sinner gets no ban. Corruption. Dirty sport” now you get “sinner gets preferential treatment. Dirty sport”. No ban when they have been blasting 1-2 is awful outcome.
Also as you see in these past 21 pages, the heat was thrown at Jannik Sinner not WADA. Also not a good look for WADA being the highest governing body for sport integrity to lose against ITIA. They made law for all sports. “Trying” is not enough. If the person who made the law lose to the person who follows the law. It is kinda ridiculous. A settlement is better for WADA.
these are all good points. But the gist of it is that it was _Sinner's employee_ that exposed him to a banned substance. I do not recall such case ever before. It's not only strict liability in the sense 'you failed the test - you are liable'. It is also in the sense that 'we accept it was an accident - but you are liable because _the member of your team caused that accident_"
I really do not think WADA cares too much if the suspension is 1, 3 or 9 months. At least they should not. They should however make sure that the process runs its course. And if they believed Sinner is somewhat liable (and they did since they filed an appeal) then they should not settle.
we will have to disagree on that.......
flyneurologist
New User
Fair but if I were to take a shot at anytime someone said “preferential treatment” and “doper” here… we are all creatures of fast thinking and having a face to pin with a controversy is so much easier. I bet 90% public doesn’t even know who is WADA. WADA gets to BAN someone. That is all they want to defend their “strict liability” clause or else as they explain “anyone can take drug and get away with it .”
But yeah, there is really nothing much to say. Legal processes are followed here. Nothing to be contested. If athletes want to unionize to change the process that is a different story.
RSJfan
Hall of Fame
Let’s talk about provisional suspensions! When they are disclosed and when a player can try to have them lifted and the interplay between the two. Much excite!
I did talk about some of this in earlier posts including the bizarre exchange with Raul:
Max Purcell suspended for doping rule violation
If you are doing me if I care, my answer is yes. I want to do everything we can to clean up the sport. That means I believe in being tough on dopers. I have more to gain personally by Purcell’s suspension than anyone, but I honestly hope that Max isn’t doping and that his story is true. I...
tt.tennis-warehouse.com
Disclosure of a provisional suspension
First to answer your question, WADA drafted 14.3 so that disclosure matters are addressed in the order they would naturally arise during the case process (i.e., provisional suspensions, first instance hearings, appeals). So the one you’re interested in comes first, 14.3.1.
“May” being the operative word as opposed to the “must” used in other disclosure rules. Note 14.1.2 is notice to the athlete and other parties entitled of the ADRV (usually it’s positive test results):
WADA Code 14.3.1: “After notice has been provided to the Athlete or other Person in accordance with the International Standard for Results Management, and to the applicable Anti-Doping Organizations in accordance with Article 14.1.2, the identity of any Athlete or other Person who is notified of a potential anti-doping rule violation, the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method and nature of the violation involved, and whether the Athlete or other Person is subject to a Provisional Suspension may be Publicly Disclosed by the Anti-Doping Organization with Results Management responsibility.”
ADOs don’t have to disclose them. The tennis policy with respect to the WADA rule is to disclose and the rules implementing the policy are encompassed in TADP 7.12.10 but the specific rule we’re interested in is (c):
TADP 7.12.10 (c) “In each case where a Provisional Suspension is publicly announced, it will be made public no earlier than ten days after the Notice (or subsequent correspondence, if applicable) confirming the imposition of a Provisional Suspension is sent.”
Ten days is minimum, it’s not a hard limit. ITIA will work with you.
Now let’s talk about when a player may try to have a provisional suspension lifted.
Timing of lifting of provisional suspensions
The TADP timing rule on lifting provisional suspensions below encompasses two time frames, before and after a provisional suspension but the time limit for lifting a provisional suspension is essentially none. It’s anytime prior to a first instance decision on your case at which point it’s moot. There are practical limits depending on what stage your case is at but the ten days relates only to disclosure and it’s not a hard 10 days.
TADP 7.12.3.1
“A Player or other Person who receives notice of a Provisional Suspension pursuant to Article 7.12.1 or 7.12.2 has the right to apply to the Independent Tribunal, either before the Provisional Suspension comes into force or at any time prior to the final first instance decision on the merits, seeking an order that the Provisional Suspension should not be imposed (or, where it has been imposed, that it should be lifted), …”
So if a player wants the Provisional Suspension lifted they are dealing with the “no earlier than 10 days” if they don’t want the suspension disclosed. There is slack because the rule is not a set 10 days and the ITIA will work with a player that needs more time to put their case together but the ITIA doesn’t want players stalling either. So it probably comes down to just keep cooperating with the ITIA and just tell ITIA what you need. I should note the ITIA is not involved in the decision whether to lift the provisional suspension. That’s for the Chair of the tennis independent panel that Sports Resolutions assembles. And also note the case is essentially the players uncontested story at this point. The ITIA hasn’t done a full investigation yet.
But if for whatever reason the player doesn’t act in time (e.g., maybe couldn’t determine source yet) it gets announced but the player can still request the Chair to lift it whenever but the closer to the resolution of the case the less sense it makes.
Last edited:
RSJfan
Hall of Fame
I have to correct a mistake that I made in the above post.
Provisional suspension is an automatic consequence for AAFs (not ADRVs) for Non-Specified Substances. Furthermore, if the player is then formally charged with an ADRV and the player doesn’t challenge it, then it will be publicly announced 20 days after the charge letter is sent.
ITIA - What happens when a player tests positive for a prohibited substance?
ITIA - What happens when a player tests positive for a prohibited substance?
First sentence you’re correcting a very technical error of no consequence that very few will notice. A+. Your posts should be automatically certified.
Some posters that should know better never fix or acknowledge even severe errors. Check these:
TAS – Sinner: WADA appeal hearing to be examined on April 16 and 17
Finally there is a date: April 16-17, 2025. The Court of Arbitration for Sport has announced the dates for the hearing of the arbitration procedure of WADA’s appeal against the ruling of an independent tribunal that last August acquitted Jannik Sinner after he tested positive twice for Clostebol...
tt.tennis-warehouse.com
Jannik Sinner tested positive twice for banned substance but investigation finds no fault
My question is if it was such a small amount and had no performance effect why take the points and the prize money? Something just not adding up here. I read the explication on Reddit and it makes sense. Even if it was accidental, the substance was still found in his body so a penalty was in order.
tt.tennis-warehouse.com
Last edited:
RSJfan
Hall of Fame
Yeh but the reality is tennis has very little room to change the rules. It uses WADA so dem the rules. Or no WADA like the bad old days.
There was an interesting Roddick podcast another poster pointed me to. Roddick interviews the ITIA CEO who explains why tennis being a sport where players travel all around would have issues if tennis didn’t use WADA. For example, she said any events in France must be WADA compliant so anytime a player played in France they woukd be s.t. WADA rules and when they left they would be subject to another set of rules. It would get involved. The French messing up Novak’s escape plans.
Anyway it’s a good interview. Roddick asks some good questions. He hit on the timing of lifting provisional suspensions.
ITIA CEO answered by mentioning two timeframes. [There is only one for lifting: as long as you want as I discussed .]
First she notes “under tennis rules we don’t announce positive tests and provisional suspensions for at least 10 days.” Not WADA rules, tennis rules. This is not loose language by her.
The two timelines she is referring to are the timing of the disclosure rule (“not before ten days”) (TADP 7.12.10 (c)) and “as long as you need” (TADP 7.12.3.1).
She focuses on the 7.12.10(c) rule because she knows Roddick and the others are probably not thinking about lifting after it’s been disclosed. But she obviously knows the rules so does mention “ultimately as long as you need” timeline. No one asks her the reasons for the tennis policy and who decides. The third guy asked much earlier in the video who makes the rules exactly but she just says “a large amount of the rules are the WADA rules.”
At 39 minutes in:
Last edited:
Similar threads
