Studies regarding Sinner Doping Scandal

[RF-18]

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.

This is the latest I've read when WADA appealed against the decision 2 months ago.

“It is WADA’s view that the finding of ‘no fault or negligence’ was not correct under the applicable rules.

Have they said something lately that I've missed?

 

[Winner Sinner]

We all understood that in order to avoid the possibility that Sinner did not commit intentional doping, OP wants to have a 100% guarantee that it will be proven.
I'm sorry to disappoint him, but the 100% guarantee that a given player has not intentionally used doping does not exist even when a given player tests negative in anti-doping tests, given that testing negative in an anti-doping test does not mean not having done doping but not being tested positive for doping, which are two different things.

Rest of my line, surreal OP theories= rubbish thread.

 

[The Guru]

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)



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.

You are again deflecting and shamelessly avoiding the thrust of my argument.

I can't prove you wrong because it's literally impossible without having direct access to Sinner's mind which is obviously not possible but sure take that as a win shows how much good faith you have in this argument. And no I'm not in opposition with the expert findings I'm in opposition to how they've decided to rule on those findings.

Here's the study the quote is from:

Clostebol and sport: about controversies involving contamination vs. doping offence

Clostebol, the 4-chloro derivative of testosterone, available as Over The Counter product in pharmacies and drugstores in several countries, is mostly commercialized as a cream or spray in the form of acetate ester. As other anabolic steroids, clostebol is listed as a prohibited substance by the...

www.degruyter.com

 

[The Guru]

We all understood that in order to avoid the possibility that Sinner did not commit intentional doping, OP wants to have a 100% guarantee that it will be proven.
I'm sorry to disappoint him, but the 100% guarantee that a given player has not intentionally used doping does not exist even when a given player tests negative in anti-doping tests, given that testing negative in an anti-doping test does not mean not having done doping but not being tested positive for doping, which are two different things.

Rest of my line, surreal OP theories= rubbish thread.

Sinner could shoot up on live tv and you'd still say he was innocent

 

[Watching]

This is the latest I've read when WADA appealed against the decision 2 months ago.

“It is WADA’s view that the finding of ‘no fault or negligence’ was not correct under the applicable rules.

Have they said something lately that I've missed?

Quoting a random google search (NYT):
"It is contesting the dismissal of any blame attributable to Sinner, which, it says, “was not correct under the applicable rules”.

WADA therefore accepts the final ruling that Sinner did not intentionally dope, but is still making a point about its own credibility by seeking to change the terms of that ruling."

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5802120/2024/10/01/jannik-sinner-wada-appeal-anti-doping-tennis/

basically: "It's true. It's unintentional, but he should have known better"

 

[Watching]

Sinner could shoot up on live tv and you'd still say he was innocent

It's funny because it's true

 

[jeroenn]

You are again deflecting and shamelessly avoiding the thrust of my argument

Ok.

 

[jeroenn]

Litterally the next line in that study after the quote (in the _abstract_)

"The increased number of adverse analytical findings (AAFs) involving clostebol reported in the last years should lead to highlight the need for athletes to be warned against personal and /or accidental use/exposure of dermal preparation containing this doping agent."

I'm sorry if you feel I'm avoiding the 'thrust of your argument". In my defense though, your 'argument' is all over the place and not very well documented. I'm going to assume I'll never understand your argument and your reasoning, so here you go.

 

[Arak]

 

[The Guru]

Plenty of people are following my argument just fine so it seems the issue is you

 

[jeroenn]

Plenty of people are following my argument just fine so it seems the issue is you

Oh no doubt.

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

The Director General of WADA says Sinner and Iga are victims of technology. Testing is becoming too sensitive.
WADA is preparing to apply common sense and raise the testing threshold. Changes are coming to the world of doping.

WADA chief throws spanner in Sinner and Swiatek drugs scandals with new theory

Jannik Sinner and Iga Swiatek have both tested positive for banned substances.

www.express.co.uk

He suggested the increased number of high-profile cases may be down to improvements in testing, as opposed to a major doping problem within the sport.

"Today, there is a problem of contamination," said Niggli. "There are no more [doping cases] than before, but laboratories are more efficient in detecting infinitesimal quantities of doping substances.

"We will have to open a working table to understand how to manage this situation. The quantities found are so small that it is possible to become contaminated by doing even trivial things.

 

[The Guru]

Lol not that long ago WADA was saying their tests were too weak to detect Russian microdosing now all the sudden it's too strong. I can't believe people don't see through the narratives being sold to them.

 

[jeroenn]

The Director General of WADA says Sinner and Iga are victims of technology. Testing is becoming too sensitive.
WADA is preparing to apply common sense and raise the testing threshold. Change is coming to the doping world.

WADA chief throws spanner in Sinner and Swiatek drugs scandals with new theory

Jannik Sinner and Iga Swiatek have both tested positive for banned substances.

www.express.co.uk

Sounds reasonable. Especially for Clostebol, since microdosing Clostebol is not effective at all and still detectable.

 

[Winner Sinner]

Sinner could shoot up on live tv and you'd still say he was innocent

Coming from the user of conspiracies and conspiracy theories, I take it as a compliment.

We're all curious to see how far your witch hunt will go.

 

[Watching]

The Director General of WADA says Sinner and Iga are victims of technology. Testing is becoming too sensitive.
WADA is preparing to apply common sense and raise the testing threshold. Changes are coming to the world of doping.

WADA chief throws spanner in Sinner and Swiatek drugs scandals with new theory

Jannik Sinner and Iga Swiatek have both tested positive for banned substances.

www.express.co.uk

He suggested the increased number of high-profile cases may be down to improvements in testing, as opposed to a major doping problem within the sport.

"Today, there is a problem of contamination," said Niggli. "There are no more [doping cases] than before, but laboratories are more efficient in detecting infinitesimal quantities of doping substances.

"We will have to open a working table to understand how to manage this situation. The quantities found are so small that it is possible to become contaminated by doing even trivial things.

Have I ever told you I'm pretty dure Sinner spiked Iga's drink?
(I swear this is the last time I'm saying it, no one is picking it up it's becoming kinda sad)

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

Have I ever told you I'm pretty dure Sinner spiked Iga's drink?
(I swear this is the last time I'm saying it, no one is picking it up it's becoming kinda sad)

 

[mike danny]

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.

You don’t even need a bachelor’s degree to read that it says DOPING on the container

 

[tudwell]

"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.

I assume one thing that would help establish this is the date of his last clean test prior to the first positive one. Is there enough time in between that he could have taken an actually efficacious amount of clostebol that, by the time of testing, appeared minuscule?

There's also the fact that the two positive tests had a very similar amount of clostebol in them (I don't recall the exact numbers, but I know they were pretty close). That would seem to support Sinner's contention that it was a small and steady exposure over time, rather than the remnants of a large exposure earlier. But I suppose that's not definitive, either.

 

[Slapper]

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

Their story is evidence, although not the only evidence in this case. The other evidence is detailed in the ITIA decision. Maybe you missed it because you didn’t think it was evidence.