Studies regarding Sinner Doping Scandal

[The Guru]

Another quote from the study:
"The low urine concentration can be interpreted in two different ways: 1. it can be the tail end of a drug voluntarily used to enhance performance; or 2. it is the direct consequence of a contimination."

They then went on to suggest different ways of testing to confirm which it was. Why were these types of tests not issued? And again I ask given the two possibilities and the absurdity of Sinner's story which is more likely?

There you go Sinner apologists. Expert studies that say Sinner's results support the possibility of intentional doping. So is it still conspiracy theories?

Once you test positive the assumption is you are guilty and you have to prove you're innocent. Sinner's story that states his innocence is highly implausible and most rational informed people do not believe it. It might be the truth. But I'm gonna believe he and/or his team wanted a competitive advantage and didn't think they'd get caught, just like countless other athletes do all the time. To me that's far more likely, although again, nobody can really be 100% certain.

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

They then went on to suggest different ways of testing to confirm which it was. Why were these types of tests not issued? And again I ask given the two possibilities and the absurdity of Sinner's story which is more likely?

Exactly what tests need to be administered to differentiate between massage contamination and intentional doping? Do these tests have to be administered immediately? Note that it took over a month for the results to come back which is another problem in and of itself. Would be ideal to have much quicker 48 hour turnaround time.

 

[Watching]

Well, I’d be interested in finding out when was his last clean test, was it days prior? Weeks? Months? That’d make one hell of a difference

 

[RSJfan]

Exactly what tests need to be administered to differentiate between massage contamination and intentional doping? Do these tests have to be administered immediately? Note that it took over a month for the results to come back which is another problem in and of itself. Would be ideal to have much quicker 48 hour turnaround time.

You sound hysterical. Calm down. Two weeks to flatten the curve.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

 

[tennis3]

I was accidentally contaminated one time after enjoying Cream of Sum Yung Guy at a local Chinese restaurant / massage parlor

 

[The Guru]

Exactly what tests need to be administered to differentiate between massage contamination and intentional doping? Do these tests have to be administered immediately? Note that it took over a month for the results to come back which is another problem in and of itself. Would be ideal to have much quicker 48 hour turnaround time.

I think the big one is a hair test. I'm certainly no expert on this you're welcome to read the study but they proposed a few things pharmacologists could do to help inform what truly happened.

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

I think the big one is a hair test. I'm certainly no expert on this you're welcome to read the study but they proposed a few things pharmacologists could do to help inform what truly happened.

Sinner tested positive the first time and tested positive again eight days later. Sinner says the massages continued for days after the first test. Those continued massages would explain the second positive.

Nobody is going to bet their life that his story is not true and that he is micro-dosing. There is just too much reasonable doubt here. The presumption of innocence must be respected.

We do not want to be living in Stalinist Russia here.

 

[Bartelby]

Athletes are Roman gladiators living in a hi-tech version of a Gladiator school. It's only going to get worse, but they are not slaves and the pay is better.

Sinner tested positive the first time and tested positive again eight days later. Sinner says the massages continued for days after the first test. Those continued massages would explain the second positive.

Nobody is going to bet their life that his story is not true and that he is micro-dosing. There is just too much reasonable doubt here. The presumption of innocence must be respected.

We do not want to be living in Stalinist Russia here.

 

[The Guru]

Sinner tested positive the first time and tested positive again eight days later. Sinner says the massages continued for days after the first test. Those continued massages would explain the second positive.

Nobody is going to bet their life that his story is not true and that he is micro-dosing. There is just too much reasonable doubt here. The presumption of innocence must be respected.

We do not want to be living in Stalinist Russia here.

First of all this is not a criminal case and the only thing at stake is how many millions Sinner ends up with. When you get caught with steroids in your system the assumption should be that you did that intentionally as more often than not that is the case? There will always be some doubt but if we follow your policy the innocent will continuously suffer at the hands of the guilty. Why should we prioritize not punishing likely cheaters over innocents?

Also I'm pretty sure Sinner claims to have only been contaminated once which makes the consistent levels across the test very suspicious.

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

A CLEAN Sinner has rolled over everybody and dominated at the U.S. Open, Shanghai and ATP Finals.

Proving that the young Sinner can win without allegedly doping.

Or are the Sinner bashers claiming that he is still doping?

If so, the doping system is useless and nobody will ever be convinced that a player is clean. It is a sad situation.

 

[vokazu]

Can we at least agree that a CLEAN Sinner has absolutely rolled over everybody at the U.S. Open and ATP Finals.

Pr

Or he has mastered the art of beating the doping test.

 

[Bartelby]

Sinner is a great tennis player, but these players need to be "held together" medically-speaking, and I have no clue if and when they're clean.

I feel that Sinner and Swiatek are the "tip of the iceberg" and that here there may be only "some fault or negligence", not "no fault or negligence".

Can we at least agree that a CLEAN Sinner has absolutely rolled over everybody at the U.S. Open and ATP Finals.

Pr

 

[TennisBro]

So is it still conspiracy theories?

It is, without the theories but with conflicts of interests.

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

Also I'm pretty sure Sinner claims to have only been contaminated once which makes the consistent levels across the test very suspicious

Daily contaminated massages which continued for days past the first positive test. The daily massages would explain the second positive eight days later.

The ITIA said in a statement that the positive test was a “result of contamination from a support team member, who had been applying an over-the-counter spray containing clostebol to their own skin to treat a small wound.” This was then passed onto Sinner through “daily massages and sports therapy.”

 

[Winner Sinner]

This thread is garbage.

The theory continues that in this specific case the contamination appears unlikely, how did professionals commit such negligence and cause the contamination?
How did professionals manage to commit such carelessness in messing with the timing of microdoses?

Since the OP likes the case factor so much.
How many tennis players in history have tested positive on a doping test?
I think barely even 1%, a percentage which drops further if we only take into consideration the players who entered the top 10. Is it possible that the Sinner staff, who in the theory of contamination are considered too professional to commit such an act of negligence, could have committed one of the same gravity but in the opposite way?

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

Is it possible that the Sinner staff, who in the theory of contamination are considered too professional to commit such an act of negligence, could have committed one of the same gravity but in the opposite way?

Yes. A physio could have contaminated your favourite Sinner through massage. It is very possible.
Never underestimate stupidity and incompetence. Not all support teams are professional and competent.

 

[Sudacafan]

Exactly what tests need to be administered to differentiate between massage contamination and intentional doping? Do these tests have to be administered immediately? Note that it took over a month for the results to come back which is another problem in and of itself. Would be ideal to have much quicker 48 hour turnaround time.

So what do you think? Is your favorite Italian player really innocent or not? Please stop beating around the bush, and express an informed opinion, as always.
Many people are expectant here. Thank you.

 

[Rovesciarete]

Pretty bad form @The Guru to not even include a link to the study. Even worse to highlight a single phrase out of a sentence which reads:

We have investigated, through the application of the well-known and currently used gas chromatographic mass spectrometric procedures, the likelihood of these allegations and have demonstrated that after a single transdermal administration of 5 mg of clostebol acetate and a transient contact with the application area, it is possible to generate adverse analytical findings in antidoping controls.

So basically, you forgot to mark the rest of the same sentence in which the study shows that the reconstruction in the ITIA report, which resulted in the 'no fault, no negligence', is scientifically feasible.

I hope for your sake, that you have at least the judgment to avoid further embarrassment and read first the stuff you are posting about.

 

[travlerajm]

We have to consider that the attraction of doping with clostebol versus other anabolic steroids is that the alibi of having massages from a masseuse with finger wounds is always readily available.

 

[weakera]

"The low urine concentration can be interpreted in two different ways: 1. it can be the tail end of a drug voluntarily used to enhance performance; or 2. it is the direct consequence of a contimination."

Sorry I only skimmed, but has #1 been debunked? If not I presume the most likely explanation is intentional doping.

 

[travlerajm]

"The low urine concentration can be interpreted in two different ways: 1. it can be the tail end of a drug voluntarily used to enhance performance; or 2. it is the direct consequence of a contimination."

Sorry I only skimmed, but has #1 been debunked? If not I presume the most likely explanation is intentional doping.

My problem with the massage story defense is that even if true, the player should be banned anyway for negligence in enabling such stupidity into his inner circle.

We need to clean up the sport with some common sense judgments.

 

[anarosevoli]

"The low urine concentration can be interpreted in two different ways: 1. it can be the tail end of a drug voluntarily used to enhance performance; or 2. it is the direct consequence of a contimination."

Sorry I only skimmed, but has #1 been debunked? If not I presume the most likely explanation is intentional doping.

If you use logic the most likely explanation is number 2: Why would everybody be caught at the tail end with random testing? Far too many cases with such micro-concentrations in recent years.

My problem with the massage story defense is that even if true, the player should be banned anyway for negligence in enabling such stupidity into his inner circle.

We need to clean up the sport with some common sense judgments.

Which stupidity? Every normal non-paranoid brain should think that this drug warning on the cream means the person who uses the cream and not the one whose hand they will shake later.


Tests are far too sensitive. To catch the real dopers sensitivity must be lowered and frequency increased.

 

[travlerajm]

If you use logic the most likely explanation is number 2: Why would everybody be caught at the tail end with random testing? Far too many cases with such micro-concentrations in recent years.


Which stupidity? Every normal non-paranoid brain should think that this drug warning on the cream means the person who uses the cream and not the one whose hand they will shake later.


Tests are far too sensitive. To catch the real dopers sensitivity must be lowered and frequency increased.

Did the physio who was fired for stupidly transferring clostebol to his $16M-per-year boss who depends on clean drug tests get rehired yet?

And why did Sinner say “we already knew what it was” as the reason they could file the legal paperwork so fast to contest the violation within 24h in order to continue playing?

 

[jeroenn]

What a beautiful interesting scientific study.

You do know that one of the writers of that study is one of the experts that cleared Sinner, right?

 

[weakera]

If you use logic the most likely explanation is number 2: Why would everybody be caught at the tail end with random testing? Far too many cases with such micro-concentrations in recent years.

You are completely incorrect, of course. Intentional dilution due to performance-enhancing drug use is often the more common cause when low urine concentration is detected in drug testing. Athletes or individuals trying to evade detection often employ methods like drinking large quantities of water or using masking agents, making this scenario more frequent in a performance-enhancing drug context.

Contamination is possible, but less common. It would typically be considered less likely unless there is a clear indication that the urine collection process was compromised.

 

[Rovesciarete]

What a beautiful interesting scientific study.

You do know that one of the writers of that study is one of the experts that cleared Sinner, right?

No brother, I was waiting for his reply. He didn't even read the ITIA report nor the study he posted in grand fashion, thus he could not notice that. Point 64. of the ITIA report!

Dr Xavier de la Torre, based on the data reported in the literature and on the data obtained in experiments conducted in his laboratory, considers it is plausible that the findings in the First Sample and Second Sample of the Player are "the result of a contamination provoked by the activities of the physiotherapist", who was treating the Player at the time the Samples were collected.

.... ....

Actually you did well to point that out, could help to avoid more of the a bit embarrassing stuff. Glad to see that more did actually study the facts.

 

[jeroenn]

No brother, I was waiting for his reply. He didn't even read the ITIA report nor the study he posted in grand fashion, thus he could not notice that.

Right.... now let's all sit back and enjoy these TTW experts analyze this study in the same eh. detailed and knowledgeable way.

 

[Watching]

What a beautiful interesting scientific study.

You do know that one of the writers of that study is one of the experts that cleared Sinner, right?

it's available for peer review though

 

[Rovesciarete]

it's available for peer review though

It ought to be, but it is even interesting for lay people who are keen to understand more of a complicated issue. I even cited it before to make it more accessible!

Posting the key article explaining how easily contaminations can happen with clostebol and thinking it does harm the defence is quite … unexpected. This ought to be fairly easy to grasp with a glance at the abstract.

In any case @The Guru we are all humans and even professionals, for example a physio at the highest levels, can make mistakes; the sky is still blue and the sun shining.

 

[kangaroo1973]

I dunno. I like the kid, but his story is a bit shaky. On the other hand, Ivanisevic, Rafa and other big names have backed him, And I believe in innocent until proven guilty.
Lets wait for the trial and sentence.

 

[Arak]

I have to say that it’s very interesting that all contaminations we have seen are with performance enhancing drugs. Not talking about Sinner case of course, but Swiatek, Halep, or that English lady who ate beef in South America and it gave her wings. Just wondering.

 

[Watching]

I have to say that it’s very interesting that all contaminations we have seen are with performance enhancing drugs. Not talking about Sinner case of course, but Swiatek, Halep, or that English lady who ate beef in South America and it gave her wings. Just wondering.

Well, any contamination has to regard a performance enhancing drug otherwise it wouldn't show up in the exams or create any rumor, i don't even know what other kind of contamination they could find with these exams, they're looking at some very specific stuff in the samples it's not like they're trying to figure out the menu of their last dinner

 

[The Guru]

What a beautiful interesting scientific study.

You do know that one of the writers of that study is one of the experts that cleared Sinner, right?

If you read what it says it doesn't even come close to clearing him. It says his story is a plausible explanation of what happened. Another plausible explanation is that he cheated.

 

[jeroenn]

If you read what it says it doesn't even come close to clearing him. It says his story is a plausible explanation of what happened. Another plausible explanation is that he cheated.

I'll just post the text here for you to point out where he says that there is "another plausible explanation that he cheated":

63. Professor Naud concluded that based on the First Sample, the likelihood that the Player's
explanation is plausible is “really high. The roughly estimated concentration of 100 pg/mL
is a small concentration and could be obtained by cross-contamination as published in the
scientific literature.” Considering, also, the Second Sample and specifically its specific
gravity (1.032) and the low Clostebol concentration detected that is similar to the previous
AAF, Professor Naud stated that “it is possible that the second AAF result comes from the
same administration/contamination as the first AAF reported.”

64. Dr Xavier de la Torre, based on the data reported in the literature and on the data obtained
in experiments conducted in his laboratory, considers it is plausible that the findings in the
First Sample and Second Sample of the Player are “the result of a contamination provoked
by the activities of the physiotherapist”, who was treating the Player at the time the
Samples were collected.

65. Professor David Cowan concludes that the Player’s explanation for the finding of
Clostebol metabolites in the First Sample and the Second Sample as having arisen from
him unknowingly being contaminated by his physiotherapist who was using Trofodermin
Spray containing 5mg/mL Clostebol Acetate to be “entirely plausible based on the
explanation given and the concentrations identified by the Laboratory. Even if the
administration had been intentional, the minute amounts likely to have been administered
would not have had […] any relevant doping, or performance enhancing, effect upon the
Player.” Further, he can find “no evidence to support any other scenario.”

 

[The Guru]

I'll just post the text here for you to point out where he says that there is "another plausible explanation that he cheated":

63. Professor Naud concluded that based on the First Sample, the likelihood that the Player's
explanation is plausible is “really high. The roughly estimated concentration of 100 pg/mL
is a small concentration and could be obtained by cross-contamination as published in the
scientific literature.” Considering, also, the Second Sample and specifically its specific
gravity (1.032) and the low Clostebol concentration detected that is similar to the previous
AAF, Professor Naud stated that “it is possible that the second AAF result comes from the
same administration/contamination as the first AAF reported.”

64. Dr Xavier de la Torre, based on the data reported in the literature and on the data obtained
in experiments conducted in his laboratory, considers it is plausible that the findings in the
First Sample and Second Sample of the Player are “the result of a contamination provoked
by the activities of the physiotherapist”, who was treating the Player at the time the
Samples were collected.

65. Professor David Cowan concludes that the Player’s explanation for the finding of
Clostebol metabolites in the First Sample and the Second Sample as having arisen from
him unknowingly being contaminated by his physiotherapist who was using Trofodermin
Spray containing 5mg/mL Clostebol Acetate to be “entirely plausible based on the
explanation given and the concentrations identified by the Laboratory. Even if the
administration had been intentional, the minute amounts likely to have been administered
would not have had […] any relevant doping, or performance enhancing, effect upon the
Player.” Further, he can find “no evidence to support any other scenario.”

So you have picked out manicured words from the study and here again they are using the word plausible not this is what happened. You're claiming a guy who in his study says it is impossible to differentiate between cheating and contamination cleared someone based on urine tests. That's not clearing it's saying his version events is possible which I never denied.

 

[jeroenn]

So you have picked out manicured words from the study and here again they are using the word plausible not this is what happened. You're claiming a guy who in his study says it is impossible to differentiate between cheating and contamination cleared someone based on urine tests. That's not clearing it's saying his version events is possible which I never denied.

So you didn't read the study and you didn't read the ITIA report on Sinner, from which my quotes came, which are the actual conclusions from the experts consulted.

Please provide the page number where they say: "another plausible explanation that he cheated"

 

[The Guru]

So you didn't read the study and you didn't read the ITIA report on Sinner, from which my quotes came, which are the actual conclusions from the experts consulted.

Please provide the page number where they say: "another plausible explanation that he cheated"

I put multiple quotes from the study that support that in the OP you're welcome to read for yourself. Notice how you're not even dealing with my counterargument in this post because you don't have one so you're deflecting onto something else.

The data does not exonerate Sinner. This is objectively true. It supports the possibility of his story not the truth of it. Any other interpretation of the experts is simply incorrect.

 

[Rovesciarete]

So you have picked out manicured words from the study and here again they are using the word plausible not this is what happened. You're claiming a guy who in his study says it is impossible to differentiate between cheating and contamination cleared someone based on urine tests. That's not clearing it's saying his version events is possible which I never denied.

'Manicured words' by somebody unable to quote the full sentence from abstract. For three long arguments. Brightens my day.

This is getting better and better, thank you very much for bringing up the study used to support the accepted contamination reconstruction!

 

[jeroenn]

I put multiple quotes from the study that support that in the OP you're welcome to read for yourself. Notice how you're not even dealing with my counterargument in this post because you don't have one so you're deflecting on to something else.

The data does not exonerate Sinner. This is objectively true. It supports the possibility of his story not the truth of it. Any other interpretation of the experts is simply incorrect.

Three experts conclude that the contamination was accidental. One says 'Really high', one says 'plausible', one says "entirely plausible" and added that he "can't find no evidence for any other scenario".
Nowhere do we see "But another explanation is he cheated", just as we don't see "but another explanation is he was framed by his physio who intentionally doped him without him knowing so" or "another explanation is he was contaminated on purpose by an unknown 3rd party" or "another explanation is Santa did it".

It's simply not there. The experts concluded (in large on an anonymous case - they didn't know the player involved). The ITIA accepted it. The WADA accepted it.

One of the writers of your study was one of the experts. They obviously know their stuff. I see no reason to doubt them.

But please continue to educate us with your wisdom, it's highly entertaining!

 

[Rovesciarete]

It's simply not there. The experts concluded (in large on an anonymous case - they didn't know the player involved). The ITIA accepted it. The WADA accepted it.

One of the writers of your study was one of the experts. They obviously know their stuff. I see no reason to doubt them.

But please continue to educate us with your wisdom, it's highly entertaining!

Highly entertaining is correct, but study itself is really fascinating, especially the experiments!

If one reads the abstract one can see a logical link between the study and the recent words of the director of WADA.

 

[The Guru]

Three experts conclude that the contamination was accidental. One says 'Really high', one says 'plausible', one says "entirely plausible" and added that he "can't find no evidence for any other scenario".
Nowhere do we see "But another explanation is he cheated", just as we don't see "but another explanation is he was framed by his physio who intentionally doped him without him knowing so" or "another explanation is he was contaminated on purpose by an unknown 3rd party" or "another explanation is Santa did it".

It's simply not there. The experts concluded (in large on an anonymous case - they didn't know the player involved). The ITIA accepted it. The WADA accepted it.

One of the writers of your study was one of the experts. They obviously know their stuff. I see no reason to doubt them.

But please continue to educate us with your wisdom, it's highly entertaining!

You're not even being honest about what is being said in the quotes you've picked out the first one is saying that the likelihood his explanation is plausible is really high. Meaning it's very likely that what he's saying is possible. Not true. Which also implies there's the chance that it's not even possible which is far from a ringing endorsement. The second person is quoted as saying it's impossible to determine contamination from cheating from urine samples so he clearly is not exonerating sinner either. And the last guy also says plausible and you include a clearly cut from context quote about no other scenario having evidence to support by which he likely means no other scenario has positive evidence for it occurring not that he's eliminating all other possibilities. They're obviously leaving room for the possibility that contamination is not what happened here as they should because it would be impossible according to the expert you're citing to rule out cheating.

 

[jeroenn]

You're not even being honest about what is being said in the quotes you've picked out the first one is saying that the likelihood his explanation is plausible is really high. Meaning it's very likely that what he's saying is possible. Not true. Which also implies there's the chance that it's not even possible which is far from a ringing endorsement. The second person is quoted as saying it's impossible to determine contamination from cheating from urine samples so he clearly is not exonerating sinner either. And the last guy also says plausible and you include a clearly cut from context quote about no other scenario having evidence to support by which he likely means no other scenario has positive evidence for it occurring not that he's eliminating all other possibilities. They're obviously leaving room for the possibility that contamination is not what happened here as they should because it would be impossible according to the expert you're citing to rule out cheating.

You're free to interpret their conclusions as you wish.

The authorities in this case did as well and their opinion is the only one that mattered here.
Well, it's no surprise to me that they obviously didn't side with you. [1]

Have a good evening.

[1]

110. The Tribunal notes that three independent experts have been consulted to test the
plausibility of the Player’s explanation. Two were instructed by the ITIA and one by the
Player. The Tribunal concludes that none of them has suggested that the Player’s
explanation is not consistent with the scientific analysis. Similarly, there is no suggestion
that the tiny concentration in his system would have had any performance enhancing
effect.

 

[The Guru]

You're free to interpret their conclusions as you wish.

The authorities in this case did as well and their opinion is the only one that mattered here.
Well, it's no surprise to me that they obviously didn't side with you. [1]

Have a good evening.

[1]

110. The Tribunal notes that three independent experts have been consulted to test the
plausibility of the Player’s explanation. Two were instructed by the ITIA and one by the
Player. The Tribunal concludes that none of them has suggested that the Player’s
explanation is not consistent with the scientific analysis. Similarly, there is no suggestion
that the tiny concentration in his system would have had any performance enhancing
effect.

Again not dealing with the argument because you have no answer to it and deflecting onto something else. I never disagreed with the bolded. For some reason you seem to be having trouble with the meaning of the word possible and conflating it with actual occurrence. There are many ways for something to occur scientifically. If you see a baseball flying over a fence at a certain speed and angle you can make many determinations about how it happened. You can conclude it was struck with a bat, it was thrown, a machine shot it out, it was sent out by an explosive those are all consistent with scientific analysis. I'm gonna look at that occurrence and say hey most likely it was hit by a bat. Go ahead and keep thinking it was launched by an explosive. I can't prove you wrong but I question your common sense reasoning.

 

[Slapper]

As I’ve said before, Sinner is clearly innocent based on the evidence, but the ITIA still should have disclosed the date of his last negative test before testing positive. If it was not long before, that would further confirm the positive result was not a tail-end. But this info was only needed for completeness and transparency; the lack of it doesn’t diminish the strength of Sinners case in any way.

 

[jeroenn]

I can't prove you wrong

That should be a clue. (Btw you're not attempting to prove me wrong, but the ITIA, WADA and the experts et all. I bring nothing to the table other than what they publish)

but I question your common sense reasoning.

That's comforting to know, coming from you. Thank you.

For the record, I'll repost what you wrote in your first post:

"There you go Sinner apologists. Expert studies that say Sinner's results support the possibility of intentional doping. So is it still conspiracy theories?"

Answer:

The study you posted does not contain the text you mentioned. No where is the line "The low urine concentration can be interpreted in two different ways: 1. it can be the tail end of a drug voluntarily used to enhance performance; or 2. it is the direct consequence of a contimination (sic)" - to be found. Your second screenshot "Playing the system" is also not from the study. The study itself details the possibility of detecting Clostebol and its metabolites after application on the skin.

Kindly provide the link to the full document that sources your quote.
Kindly provide the link to the full document that sources your screenshot.

 

[RF-18]

I've been indifferent in this case since it happened simply cause nobody seems to know what actually happened, all we have is a story compiled by Sinner and his team, and the positive tests. It's very possible it was unintentional, but there is also room for doubt in this whole story wich I still find to be very dodgy. I'll never understand how someone with a bachelor degree in pharmaceutical chemistry can make such a mistake of rubbing himself with a banned substance during a tournament and also being the said players physiotherapist, and then proceed to touch him. All for a little cut on his finger wich he wanted to heal faster. Wich professional can be this stupid to take these risks? The explanation isn't plausible enough. The more you think about this story the more dodgy it gets, and there is no one to confirm this story other than them. All we have essentially are the tests, and a story, and the governing body simply accepting their story. That's what we have here. Yet Sinner hasn't faced any sort of real punishment except his prize money and points being docked in Miami. I think this is why WADA overruled the decision, cause the story isn't plausible enough for him not to recieve some time off the tour. I do think in the end he will get this punishment, question is for how long.

 

[Watching]

I've been indifferent in this case since it happened simply cause nobody seems to know what actually happened, all we have is a story compiled by Sinner and his team, and the positive tests. It's very possible it was unintentional, but there is also room for doubt in this whole story wich I still find to be very dodgy. I'll never understand how someone with a bachelor degree in pharmaceutical chemistry can make such a mistake of rubbing himself with a banned substance during a tournament and also being the said players physiotherapist, and then proceed to touch him. All for a little cut on his finger wich he wanted to heal faster. Wich professional can be this stupid to take these risks? The explanation isn't plausible enough. The more you think about this story the more dodgy it gets, and there is no one to confirm this story other than them. All we have essentially are the tests, and a story, and the governing body simply accepting their story. That's what we have here. Yet Sinner hasn't faced any sort of real punishment except his prize money and points being docked in Miami. I think this is why WADA overruled the decision, cause the story isn't plausible enough for him not to recieve some time off the tour. I do think in the end he will get this punishment, question is for how long.

As it has already been stated more than once, WADA actually agrees with the findings, it's just that they feel that any positive drug test, no matter the reason, should be followed by at least a 12 months ban.

 

[RF-18]

As I’ve said before, Sinner is clearly innocent based on the evidence, but the ITIA still should have disclosed the date of his last negative test before testing positive. If it was not long before, that would further confirm the positive result was not a tail-end. But this info was only needed for completeness and transparency; the lack of it doesn’t diminish the strength of Sinners case in any way.

Must have missed this evidence then. What is the evidence here that shows he is innocent? Their story isn't evidence.

 

[jeroenn]

I've been indifferent in this case since it happened simply cause nobody seems to know what actually happened, all we have is a story compiled by Sinner and his team, and the positive tests. It's very possible it was unintentional, but there is also room for doubt in this whole story wich I still find to be very dodgy. I'll never understand how someone with a bachelor degree in pharmaceutical chemistry can make such a mistake of rubbing himself with a banned substance during a tournament and also being the said players physiotherapist, and then proceed to touch him. All for a little cut on his finger wich he wanted to heal faster. Wich professional can be this stupid to take these risks? The explanation isn't plausible enough. The more you think about this story the more dodgy it gets, and there is no one to confirm this story other than them. All we have essentially are the tests, and a story, and the governing body simply accepting their story. That's what we have here. Yet Sinner hasn't faced any sort of real punishment except his prize money and points being docked in Miami. I think this is why WADA overruled the decision, cause the story isn't plausible enough for him not to recieve some time off the tour. I do think in the end he will get this punishment, question is for how long.

This has been rehashed to the point of nausea. A full blown investigation submitted to an independent tribunal and research done by 3 independent experts is hardly a governing body 'simply accepting their story".