Well, Darren Cahill was both of their coach when the doping happened. Not suggesting anything, but just an observation.
This is totally incorrect. Darren Cahill's coaching relationship ended a
year before Halep failed her drug test. Simona was being coached by Patrick Mouratoglou when she was busted. In fact, it was Mouratoglou that suggested she start taking the new supplement and the trainer on his team that provided the container that allegedly had the tainted substance.
Halep's case was also complicated by the fact that she didn't have an explanation for where the drug she tested positive for came from or how it got into her system for several weeks, so her provisional suspension became activated. By rule, when the provisional suspension wasn't contested and became active, that is when the case became publicly disclosed. It took her quite some time to find the contaminated supplement container and run tests to show that it was the likely source. (There is an ongoing lawsuit with the supplement maker.) Further complicating the situation, there were anomalies detected in her biological passport from earlier in the Summer that some of the scientists in the Independent Tribunal believed were indicative of doping starting before the French Open. This was disputed in the CAS appeal, which ultimately reduced her suspension.
This is quite different than the Sinner case, where the source of the failed tests was known almost immediately and the explanation for the ingestion was considered plausible enough by the Independent Tribunal to stay the provisional suspension until the full investigation could be completed. In the end, the three scientists (who all have decades of experience in anti-doping cases and run WADA-accredited labs in their respective countries) that adjudication the case unanimously agreed that the evidence was consistent with Sinner's story. Based on that, the Independent Tribunal issued a final ruling that Sinner bore no fault in the case and would only forfiet the points and money from Indian Wells where he tested positive (which follows the ITIA rules). When the final judgment was issued, that also was when the case was made public (again per the disclosure rules).
Both cases have completely different circumstances and there was no double standard between the two.
