Sinner accepts settlement with WADA for 3 month ban
- Thread starter geromino
- Start date
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.
Thank you very much for this detailed post, and especially the part about 14.3.1, which fully answers my question. All makes sense now.
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:
Well one of the things Djokovic proposed was that all cases either be announced or not announced. So in relation to provisional suspensions, that’s a rule that could change.
Thanks, yeah I had seen that podcast episode. It was very good with a lot of good questions although some questions that I wish had been asked were not asked.
No problem. For anyone interested, here's is a 10 minute interview to the CEO of ITIA. It's pretty interesting.
RSJfan
Hall of Fame
I hope you have moved on and are not still upset and annoyed at WADA
. I wouldn’t mention it again that you’ve rejected explanations as to why it was reasonable for WADA to settle if another poster hadn’t recently linked to an article in which you can read it from the horses mouth.WADA GC offers the reasons I previously explained except I had a third that WADA doesn‘t like to acknowledge can happen: CAS panel dealing with two bad options by going around the WADA Code sanctions.
WADA GC: [bracketed language added by me]
‘“I'm not sure that a sanction of 12 months in this case - if we'd have forced the tribunal into that position - or a case of 'no fault' would have been a good outcome," said Wenzel.
"One would have compromised an important principle under the code [you can’t pin it on your teams negligence and have No Fault]. The other one, in our view, would have been an unduly harsh sanction. [1 - 2 years which is being changed under the draft 2027 Code to 0 - 2 years]"’
As I mentioned at the link and WADA GC notes losing would not have meant ”well we tried’ it would mean CAS rejecting a very important Code principle as WADA understands the Code.
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
Last edited:
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
As you yourself stated before the WADA capitulation, a year ban was the minimum that CAS would award. WADA wanted to let Sinner off lightly so it settled.
CAS is a responsible quasi-judicial body of great reputation and objectivity. It had to be stopped from issuing its judgement at all cost.
CAS is a responsible quasi-judicial body of great reputation and objectivity. It had to be stopped from issuing its judgement at all cost.
I hope you have moved on and are not still upset and annoyed at WADA
WADA GC offers the reasons I previously explained except I had a third that WADA doesn‘t like to acknowledge can happen: dealing with two bad options by CAS going around the WADA Code sanctions.
WADA GC: [bracketed language added by me]
‘“I'm not sure that a sanction of 12 months in this case - if we'd have forced the tribunal into that position - or a case of 'no fault' would have been a good outcome," said Wenzel.
"One would have compromised an important principle under the code [you can’t pin it on your teams negligence and have No Fault]. The other one, in our view, would have been an unduly harsh sanction. [1 - 2 years which is being changed under the draft 2027 Code to 0 - 2 years]"’
As I mentioned at the link and WADA GC notes losing would not have meant ”well we tried’ it would mean CAS rejecting a very important Code principle as WADA understands the Code.
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...
anarosevoli
Semi-Pro
Winning probability for WADA at CAS was like 20 %. 20 % one year or more vs 80 % no punishment at all. Best strategy: take small win instead of big loss and agree with a few months.
Winning probability for Sinner at CAS around 80%. 80 % no punishment at all vs 20 % huge damage to career including losing slams. Best strategy: avoid negative outcome at all cost, agree with 3 slamless months.
Everybody acted just completely rational. The defect is in your brain.
big ted
Legend
kyrgios’ own lawyer said he used alcohol AND DRUGS & had mental health issues during that time.
So why didn’t HE fail a doping test?!?!
www.dw.com
So why didn’t HE fail a doping test?!?!
Nick Kyrgios admits to assulting ex-girlfriend – DW – 02/03/2023
Although Nick Kyrgios pleaded guilty, a magistrate has dismissed the charge against the 2022 Wimbledon finalist, calling the assault a "single act of stupidity."
www.dw.com
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
Many self-confessed dopers in many sports never ran afoul of drug tests throughout their careers or for many years before they got busted. That tells you everything you need to know about how effective these tests are in case someone tries hard to beat them while doping. In tennis it has been rumored for decades that the tests are not random at least for top players and no one wants stars to be busted.
I don’t think the tennis authorities care if players are doping or partying too much as long as they play entertaining tennis and attract fans. They want to do just enough testing to prevent being accused of encouraging drugs in the sport while they don’t want any scandals for big stars that could give the sport a stigma. Many sports are like that as they are more of an entertainment business than sporting contests.
This is probably pretty close to how the parties sized it up. In fact, if you adjust the outcome probability from 80-20 to 75-25, it matches up exactly with the negotiated result. If there's a .25 probability of getting one year, then the expected value is three months.
lurker2025
New User
Something i have a doubt on or perhaps i have misunderstood the code is that in cases of no significant fault or negligence there is a already the possibility of reducing the suspension to below a year so couldn't Cas have issued a suspension that was below a year in lenght? Have i misread the code?[ on QUOTE="Bartelby, post: 18620430, member: 7835"]
As you yourself stated before the WADA capitulation, a year ban was the minimum that CAS would award. WADA wanted to let Sinner off lightly so it settled.
CAS is a responsible quasi-judicial body of great reputation and objectivity. It had to be stopped from issuing its judgement at all cost.
[/QUOTE]
QUOTE="socallefty, post: 18620842, member: 290059"]
Many self-confessed dopers in many sports never ran afoul of drug tests throughout their careers or for many years before they got busted. That tells you everything you need to know about how effective these tests are in case someone tries hard to beat them while doping. In tennis it has been rumored for decades that the tests are not random at least for top players and no one wants stars to be busted.
I don’t think the tennis authorities care if players are doping or partying too much as long as they play entertaining tennis and attract fans. They want to do just enough testing to prevent being accused of encouraging drugs in the sport while they don’t want any scandals for big stars that could give the sport a stigma. Many sports are like that as they are more of an entertainment business than sporting contests.
[/QUOTE]
As you yourself stated before the WADA capitulation, a year ban was the minimum that CAS would award. WADA wanted to let Sinner off lightly so it settled.
CAS is a responsible quasi-judicial body of great reputation and objectivity. It had to be stopped from issuing its judgement at all cost.
[/QUOTE]
QUOTE="socallefty, post: 18620842, member: 290059"]
Many self-confessed dopers in many sports never ran afoul of drug tests throughout their careers or for many years before they got busted. That tells you everything you need to know about how effective these tests are in case someone tries hard to beat them while doping. In tennis it has been rumored for decades that the tests are not random at least for top players and no one wants stars to be busted.
I don’t think the tennis authorities care if players are doping or partying too much as long as they play entertaining tennis and attract fans. They want to do just enough testing to prevent being accused of encouraging drugs in the sport while they don’t want any scandals for big stars that could give the sport a stigma. Many sports are like that as they are more of an entertainment business than sporting contests.
[/QUOTE]
Not really, there exists no "excuse" that acts as a jail free card as many want to believe. There needs to be a reconstruction of events that is detailed, supported by witnesses and explains all the existing evidence in a way that convinces the independent tribunal. There is a high burden of proof needed to reverse the presumption of guilt that automatically befalls a player after a positive test into a presumption of innocence that leads to a lift of the provisional suspension and, hence, to play while confidential doping proceedings take place. The fact that this high bar is met very rarely is a clear signal of how strong Sinner case has always been from the start and not of favoritism, as some people want to allege
Sorry, but what is the relevance of that if not as a proof that the players do not even take the time to read important rules that can deeply affect their career? When I read such declaration by player x, the first thing that comes to mind is the hope that player x has a team of smart people around him because if tomorrow he becomes victim of a contamination, he'd have no idea of where to start.
There is only a way to claim inconsistency or favoritism when comparing two cases: identify which rules were violated or bent. In the absence of that, if the rules were respected in both cases, the conclusion is that the outcomes were exactly those intended by the rules. This is not to say that the rules are perfect. Outcomes that respect the rules and show inconsistency can be useful feedback to modify the rules, but they should not be used to undermine the result of their correct application.
Unfortunately it has become a prevalent habit of our times to claim that something unexpected or that we cannot explain must be the result of some nefarious behavior by some vaguely defined corrupted power rather than simply the obvious consequence of our limited knowledge. Running to Twitter to denounce a giant conspiracy is much easier (let alone way more fun) than taking the time to download the TADP, find the relevant sections and understand them. While a fan might not pay any price for such behavior, a player might end up paying a big one
Last edited:
RSJfan
Hall of Fame
Et tu, Norway?
Cheating scandal shocks ski jumping, topples Olympic champions and shakes Norway's lofty reputation
Two Norwegian ski jumpers are now suspended and under formal suspicion in an unfolding cheating scandal.
apnews.com
RSJfan
Hall of Fame
Yes, you misunderstood the Code. But you are hardly alone so don’t feel at all badly. The potential sanction depends on the nature of the circumstances surrounding the ADRV not simply the level of fault. Here Sinner didn’t fall within any of the Code provisions which would allow for a reduction below one year if CAS found “No Significant Fault”.
The 2027 Code is being amended so that future cases of “No Significant Fault” involving “Contaminated Sources” (like Sinner’s case) will be eligible for the same potential reduction down to zero as “Contaminated Products” cases ( such as Iga’s) are now.
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
WADA ANNOUNCES SWEEPING CHANGES TO CONTAMINATED PRODUCT, ACCIDENTAL DOPING RULES
Following recent professional tennis doping controversies, on 5 December the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Executive Committee voted to change rules concerning “product contamination” and “accide…
granfondodailynews.com
Last edited:
I knowEt tu, Norway?
Cheating scandal shocks ski jumping, topples Olympic champions and shakes Norway's lofty reputation
Two Norwegian ski jumpers are now suspended and under formal suspicion in an unfolding cheating scandal.
.We are all a little shocked here in little Norway.
That said, its all a bit exaggerated. They all push boundries to the maximum, and when it comes to equipment, its a very thin line which separate the illegal from the legal. They all try to find gaps in the rules to get an advantage, it could be a new binding, something with the ski, or adjustments of the suit. From what i hear its quite common to make adjustments to the suit after the approval, because there has never been inspections before. And never before has nations "snitched" on another nation. This will certainly have major consequences, and i certainly think they have crossed a line when it comes to making protests vs other countries.
But this was clearly illegal, and lets hope something good comes out of it! Not defending what they did here.
Last edited:
RSJfan
Hall of Fame
I know
We are all a little shocked here in little Norway.
That said, its all a bit exaggerated. They all push boundries to the maximum, and when it comes to equipment, its a very thin line which separate the illegal from the legal. They all try to find gaps in the rules to get an advantage, it could be a new binding, something with the ski, or adjustments of the suit. From what i hear its quite common to make adjustments to the suit after the approval, because there has never been inspections before. And never before has nations "snitched" on another nation. This will certainly have major consequences, and i certainly think they have crossed a line when it comes to making protests vs other countries.
But this was clearly illegal, and lets hope something good comes out of it! Not defending what they did here.
You ain't tested positive if you just drink red wine and have drugs like aspirin or ibuprofen.kyrgios’ own lawyer said he used alcohol AND DRUGS & had mental health issues during that time.
So why didn’t HE fail a doping test?!?!
Nick Kyrgios admits to assulting ex-girlfriend – DW – 02/03/2023
Although Nick Kyrgios pleaded guilty, a magistrate has dismissed the charge against the 2022 Wimbledon finalist, calling the assault a "single act of stupidity."
It's a circular argument though, because Sinner did not fall either within any of the Code provisions which would justify a finding of "no Significant", which is the main difference with Iga' s situation because the case of contaminated supplements is explicitly considered in the TADP. Hence, not having provisions that force a case be catalogued as "no Significant Fault or Negligence" rather than "no Fault or Negligence" obviously explains why there is no need for provisions for that case to be eligible for a reduction of the minimum suspension.Yes, you misunderstood the Code. But you are hardly alone so don’t feel at all badly. The potential sanction depends on the nature of the circumstances surrounding the ADRV not simply the level of fault. Here Sinner didn’t fall within any of the Code provisions which would allow for a reduction below one year if CAS found “No Significant Fault”.
The 2027 Code is being amended so that future cases of “No Significant Fault” involving “Contaminated Sources” (like Sinner’s case) will be eligible for the same potential reduction down to zero as “Contaminated Products” cases ( such as Iga’s) are now.
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...
WADA ANNOUNCES SWEEPING CHANGES TO CONTAMINATED PRODUCT, ACCIDENTAL DOPING RULES
Following recent professional tennis doping controversies, on 5 December the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Executive Committee voted to change rules concerning “product contamination” and “accide…
In my view, the way CAS has been handing suspensions shows that it does not rigidly make a distinction between these two cases, because, given the very large variety of potential situations, it is not possible to define a priori a demarcation between the two, so it seems that it considers potential suspensions as a continuum, not inside the strict boundaries of the two cases. To quote the sentence of the Independent Tribunal in the Bortolotti case
“The difference between the two […] is one of degree: to establish No Fault or Negligence, the athlete must show that he took every step available to him to avoid the violation, and could not have done any more; whereas to establish No Significant Fault or Negligence, he must show that, to the extent he failed to take certain steps that were available to him to avoid the violation, the circumstances were exceptional and therefore that failure was not significant”
Essentially, the difference between the two depends on the subjective view of the judges, because there is no clear boundary. My reading of what happened is that the Independent Tribunal opted to view it one way, WADA disagreed and gambled that a different set of eyes might have a different look at the same situation. I call it a gamble because it's hard to justify the request of at least a year of suspension purely based on such hope and not on any solid point of law.
RSJfan
Hall of Fame
No, it’s an explanation of how you misread the Code. No more, no less. If you want a different Code you need to discuss it with WADA not TTW.
You don’t say. Kinda like every time WADA appeals.
Similar threads
