I have to say that it's disappointing that after having multiple people here explain some of the basic principles to you and refer you to relevant and helpful sources of information, you've reverted to the, "Yeah, well, I don't understand it so it must be rotten" perspective that has so infected this forum. I guess it's hard not to join in when other posters say, "Imagine this!" and "Just imagine that!" and "That's crazy!" and "He's no. 1, so there must be a cover-up," and similar statements that have no basis in fact but that get people excited enough to bestow "Likes" on them.
For the record, there was never any finding that Sinner was "doping." That's a key point that I've explained many times and that all the conspiracy theorists just refuse to understand. A positive test for a banned substance does not automatically equal "doping." Feel free to read that statement twice if one time is insufficient. The whole point of the ITIA investigation and hearing process was to determine how and why Sinner did test positive. I.e., was Sinner's explanation of inadvertent exposure supported by evidence, or should that claim be rejected, and Sinner subjected to significant discipline? "Doping" refers to a systematic, intentional use of performance-enhancing drugs with the purpose of obtaining an athletic advantage. There is absolutely no evidence of anything of the kind in this case. There never was any such evidence.
