Yes, and the exhaustive noninvestigation is followed up by a nonhearing at which nonwitnesses do not testify, nondocumentary evidence is not introduced, and the nonpanel of three nonjurists does not write an elaborate nonopinion detailing its nonfindings. I think you've got it sized up about right.
TAS – Sinner: WADA appeal hearing to be examined on April 16 and 17
- Thread starter Winner Sinner
- Start date
They don't? Are you drunk, by any chance?
Kralingen
Bionic Poster
If you're asking me to provide hard evidence that Sinner intentionally doped that's just a completely spurious argumentation tactic. I see no reason to continue a conversation if that is the standard you're holding me to.
Let's hope that when the time comes when someone accuses you pubically of malfeasance, they have the courtesy to back it up, right?
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
So we're going from 'no investigation', to 'police-style' investigation? Exactly what is a 'police style investigation'?
Read the ITIA pdf to see all the stages and steps of investigation that were undertaken by various parties.
The only "spurious argumentation tactic" here is evasion, and it's not on my side. I am not asking you to point to alleged evidence of Sinner's intentional doping that you yourself have gathered via some kind of personal investigation. That would be absurd. I'm asking you to point to such evidence that exists in the case, as gathered by the ITIA or WADA, or any other reputable actor, or as reported by reputable media sources, etc. The reason you can't point to this kind of evidence is that none exists. Period. Let's not pretend otherwise.
"How dare you ask me to cite the evidence in support of the aggressive claim I am making?!" is a very weird complaint, even for TTW.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
I said they don't investigate beyond what is necessary. If you can't read English then don't comment!
This is what you wrote:
Somehow I don't think my grasp of the English language is in question.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
You wrote "no investigation' whereas I wrote that "they don't investigate beyond what is necessary".
So you substitute my words for your words and then proceed to criticise your confected proposition.
So you substitute my words for your words and then proceed to criticise your confected proposition.
WTactualF?
I am literally quoting your post,.... no 150 in this thread. It's your quote! I don't substitute anything. Here is a screenshot:
This dispute within a dispute is nutty, but the fact is that you did originally write, "They don't investigate beyond that ["that" meaning the positive test result] as it's unnecessary." Not, "beyond what is necessary." Perhaps you "misspoke" (mistyped?) the first time around, and didn't mean to claim that no investigation took place. But that's what you wrote, so please don't accuse other people of mischaracterizing your utterances.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
What is your point?
WTactualF?
I am literally quoting your post,.... no 150 in this thread. It's your quote! I don't substitute anything. Here is a screenshot:
Again as I mentioned before. The follow up in terms of outcomes will be -
1) 1-6 month ban = Slap on the wrist
2) a hefty fine = €1-5 million
3) Lengthy ban of 1-2 years
Regardless if its the ATP, ITIA. He will most likely face a hefty fine or a 1-6 month ban. But outcome 3 will not occur at all. It would harm the reputation of everything he has won and puts the ATPs reputation in the bin. The World Number 1 is as dominant as Fed and Djokovic, no way the tennis authorities will allow CAS or WADA destroy Sinners career post Big three era. It just ain't gonna happen. Sinners lawyers will appeal any decision by CAS but nonetheless expect something light.
1) 1-6 month ban = Slap on the wrist
2) a hefty fine = €1-5 million
3) Lengthy ban of 1-2 years
Regardless if its the ATP, ITIA. He will most likely face a hefty fine or a 1-6 month ban. But outcome 3 will not occur at all. It would harm the reputation of everything he has won and puts the ATPs reputation in the bin. The World Number 1 is as dominant as Fed and Djokovic, no way the tennis authorities will allow CAS or WADA destroy Sinners career post Big three era. It just ain't gonna happen. Sinners lawyers will appeal any decision by CAS but nonetheless expect something light.
Of course everyone is allowed to have an opinion. Despite the facts, the investigation results, the established circumstances. But once you go there, where your opinion contradicts the opinion of experts, where does it end?
Should Yastremska be considered a doper? (she was found'no fault')
Should Jarry be considered a doper? (found no significant fault)
Should Serena be considered a doper (got TUE after she took the banned substance as a medicine)
Should Serena be considered a doper since she avoided a test claiming "unknown people are invading my home"?
Should US swimmers be considered dopers since, despite being superhuman like specimen, a lot of them apparently suffer from asthma and they have TUE for banned substance that is in asthma medication (and which coincidentally helps with breathing, not that it is important in swimming or anything /s) ?
Should Verdasco be considered a doper since he took banned substance as part of adhd medication and forgot to get TUE?
Where is the line?
Should Yastremska be considered a doper? (she was found'no fault')
Should Jarry be considered a doper? (found no significant fault)
Should Serena be considered a doper (got TUE after she took the banned substance as a medicine)
Should Serena be considered a doper since she avoided a test claiming "unknown people are invading my home"?
Should US swimmers be considered dopers since, despite being superhuman like specimen, a lot of them apparently suffer from asthma and they have TUE for banned substance that is in asthma medication (and which coincidentally helps with breathing, not that it is important in swimming or anything /s) ?
Should Verdasco be considered a doper since he took banned substance as part of adhd medication and forgot to get TUE?
Where is the line?
Last edited:
Well, the 'no fault' or 'no significant fault' both are on the 'non-intentional' side of things. "Intent" is explicitly defined. Another thing to keep in mind is that the Tennis Anti Doping is an evolving process. The ITIA exists since 2021. THe TADP rules were also standardized during that time. So I would be careful in comparing cases from before 2021 to these. It's a lengthy document, but https://www.itia.tennis/media/l0ojihy2/tadp-2024.pdf
I think it provides more clarity and they do seem to cover all angles.
I think it provides more clarity and they do seem to cover all angles.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
The fact that the Tribunal came up with no suspension had a whiff of Armstrong about it. If CAS does not give him a meaty suspension, then the whiff will be a stench.
CAS is the ultimate tribunal of experts so it ends with them ... and not before.
CAS is the ultimate tribunal of experts so it ends with them ... and not before.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
From the PDF:
10.5 Elimination of the period of Ineligibility where there is No Fault or Negligence
If a Player or other Person establishes in an individual case that they
bear No Fault or Negligence for the Anti-Doping Rule Violation, the
otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility will be eliminated.
Sure, that's fair. But even this hearing before CAS is about the level of responsibility. _no party_ argues/suggests that Sinner was intentionally doping. I think it is fair to assume that no mstter what the final verdict is CAS will not 'convict' Sinner of intentional doping.
Yet some posters here do claim he was doping, because he was caught using illegal substance. And you think that CAS verdict will change someone's opinion? Not a chance. Even you yourself are saying that if CAS does not give a 'meaty suspension' then the whole case will stink. How does that align with your argument that CAS is the 'ultimate tribunal of experts'? It seems you will only think so if CAS does give him a suspension.
Edit: Sorry, I misinterpreted your post. I somehow read it as if you were arguing that even if Sinner was found to be 'at some fault' he could have gotten something less than a year. Kind of like what happened with Swiatek - she was found to be at 'no significant fault', at the very lowest level of fault, so she got 1 month. But with Sinner that is not possible, at least not per book, since his case is not of 'contamination' nature - if he is found to be at _any_ fault at all he would be subject to a minimum of 1 year. On the other hand you are absolutely correct that Sinner may get no suspension at all (i.e. what the current verdict by ITIA was) - but for that to happen he must be found "at no fault at all'
Last edited:
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
And this is where WADA thinks that they made a legal error. Or, perhaps, they'll follow the reasoning just above. I still think a suspension was and is warranted.
Of course Jarry was given an 11 month ban despite no fault finding -
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
The difference is being made between "No fault or negligence" or "No significant fault or negligence". Sinner got the first. WADA argues it should be the second. The second can have a period of ineligibility (can also be just a reprimand).
Kralingen
Bionic Poster
My view is the following:
He tested positive for a banned substance.
His team then prepared a hilarious sketchy explanation.
The ITIA's investigation determined that it was not implausible. That is the reason there is no evidence to the contrary. That is the extent of the rigour required. You just have to give them a story that does not immediately get disproven.
Now it goes to WADA. If Sinner is truly found no fault, then we are setting a very, very dangerous precedent. Said precedent is that as long as you blame a team member, you can get away with using banned substances. I don't like that. It shouldn't be this easy to get away with testing positive.
RSJfan
Legend
Jarry was a Contaminated Products case involving supplements:
Starts at 4 years
+ No Intent = 2 years
+ No Significant Fault or Negligence = 0 - 2 years for Contaminated Products
“The ITF is mindful of the bans imposed in other recent cases involving bespoke supplements: Mr Demoliner (three months), Mr Bellucci (five months), Mr Marcondes (nine months), Mr Agamenone (ten months), Ms Bossi (a minor, six months) and Ms Haddad Maia (ten months). The Player is more at fault than each of those players, because he was on greater notice particularly with respect to the dangers of bespoke supplements made in a compound pharmacy. In addition, it appears that the previous sanctions have not been sufficient to deter players from using utmost caution to avoid ingesting prohibited substances even inadvertently. Therefore, the ITF has proposed, and the Player has acceded to, a period of ineligibility of 11 months.”
No, it can’t in the second in Sinner‘s case by a plain reading of the Code sanctions scheme. It’s 1 - 2 years. If you don’t believe my prior posts are reliable the applicable WADA Code section he falls into is Section 10.6.2.
I explained a legal theory for CAS agreeing with WADA and finding No Significant Fault or Negligence but going beyond the plain sanctions scheme to decide a more proportionate penalty but it’s just a theory. But CAS should tell WADA to get lost on the finding of No Significant Fault.
Last edited:
At least one person here actually read the ITIA documents and WADA doping code.
RSJfan
Legend
Two persons.At least one person here actually read the ITIA documents and WADA doping code.
Note that the draft 2027 WADA Code amends Article 10.6.1.2 such that even if CAS agrees with WADA that Carrot bears “No Significant Fault or Negligence” the sanction would be from 0 to 2 years and not the 1 to 2 years WADA wants.
The amendment changes 10.6.1.2 from picking up cases of Contaminated Products to picking up cases of Contaminated Sources which is broader and would include Carrot’s case. A “Contaminated Source” is defined as: [bold added by me]
“An unforeseeable source of a Prohibited Substance, such as: ingestion of a medication that contains a Prohibited Substance that is not disclosed on the product label or in information available at a reasonable Internet search; consumption of a food or drink, such as contaminated meat or water, that contains Prohibited Substance with no advance warning, disclosure or other basis to be aware of the possibility that it may contain a Prohibited Substance; exposure to a Prohibited Substance that was Used or possessed by a third person, either through the Athlete's direct physical contact with the third person or physical contact with objects touched or handled by the third person; or environmental contamination.”
WADA accepts Carrot did not intend to cheat, their Director General I believe recently acknowledged the anti-doping scheme has a problem because it picks up minute amounts that aren’t performance enhancing, a scientific expert opined that Carrot’s amount could not be performance enhancing, the 2027 draft Code would provide for a 0 to 2 year suspension even if CAS agrees with WADA that it’s “No Significant Fault”. And still WADA not only appeals but wants a minimum of 1 year suspension.
PS, re the 2005 case I mentioned previously in which the CAS panel mused about the possibility of a future case in which a panel went beyond the WADA Code sanctions and I said I wasn’t going to go looking. I guess the Mariana Puerta case the next year was such a case. According to the WADA Code rules in effect at the time he was subject to 8 years for his second ADRV. The panel decided that given his age that would de facto be life ban and because both his ADRVs involved a lack of intent and No Significant Fault or Negligence that such a penalty would not be proportional. They gave him 2 years. Though they went out of their way to emphasize they were not exercising a general discretion but only filling in a gap in the Code for a very rare case.
Last edited:
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Despite the author's obfuscation of the issues, he does manage to come up with the correct analysis ... however buried it might be.
It's one to two years suspension for Sinner. That's a career and reputation-damaging punishment. Like Sharapova, however, all will be forgiven.
It's one to two years suspension for Sinner. That's a career and reputation-damaging punishment. Like Sharapova, however, all will be forgiven.
Last edited:
Its because they practise "Strict liability", you are responsible for whats inside your body, no matter how it got there. Its problematic, but if it wasnt this way, it would be very easy for athletes to cover up doping.
Strict liablity is probably the way to go, but i think some of the bans are way too tough, considering the evidence. Imo it would be madness if Sinner got 18 monts or more. Those lengths are possibly career ending, which would be tragic if he actually is clean.
I wonder, has a tennis player ever admitted intentional drug use to enhance performance? In many sports (for example cycling) many athletes admitted intentional drug use.
I'm not sure if I understand your second line correctly. You believe he falls in section 10.6.2 if the WADA is succesful in going from "No fault" to "No significant fault", by reason that 'contamination' is not applicable?
I think that would be a matter of interpretation - you may be right - that might actually be their argument, but then in the ITIA document, there's a lot of speak of 'contamination' and 'cross contamination', including in each of the 3 experts conclusion and some of the cases referenced.
Besides that, it seems to me that they can rely on 10.6.1.1 too.
No. Strict liability in the anti-doping context means you can suffer a significant punishment for a violation (i.e., a positive test) even without a showing of intent. Strict liability does not mean that if you test positive, you are presumed to be an intentional PED user. The purpose of the investigation and hearing after the positive test is to determine how and why the exposure to the banned substance occurred. That is how the question of intent is addressed.
In short, Sinner can still be suspended even though there is zero evidence that he used a banned substance intentionally. Many people here seem to think the purpose of WADA's appeal is to figure out whether Sinner is "guilty" or "innocent" of deliberate doping. That is wrong. The question whether he doped intentionally is no longer part of the case, because there is no evidence to support that conclusion, and even WADA can see that. The question in the appeal is whether Sinner should be suspended for unintentional but possibly negligent (bad staff supervision) exposure to a prohibited substance.
RSJfan
Legend
I suggest you read this post.
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
I get this argument, but I don't agree with it for various reasons:
First and foremost, it assumes that they didn't look beyond what was said. I don't agree and in fact, Professor David Cowan said as much 'Further, he can find “no evidence to support any other scenario"' indicates to me they looked beyond.
Secondly is the holistic view of the evidence. Intentional doping with Clostebol would present a completely different set of evidence. (and que all the hypotheticals about masking agents etc etc
I suggest you read this post.
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...
Interesting, I did not see that.
I'm trying to make sense of this:
It should be clear that all substances or methods on the Prohibited List are prohibited. The sub-classification into “Specified” or “Non-Specified” are important only in the sanctioning process.
A “Specified Substance or Method” is that which potentially allows, under defined conditions, for a greater reduction of a sanction when an athlete tests positive for that particular substance.
The purpose of the sub-classifications of “Specified” or “Non-Specified” on the Prohibited List is to recognize that it is possible for a substance to enter an athlete’s body inadvertently, and therefore allow a tribunal more flexibility when making a sanctioning decision.
If I read this correctly, and with the studies done on Clostebol accidental contamination in italian athletes etc, it seems to me that there is a good argument for Clostebol to be 'specified'. I wonder if they can argue that angle.
But based on this, you're absolutely right.
I don't think it's going to help WADA's case though. Given the circumstances of this case, the fact that the WADA themselves are aiming to make chances for these kind of situations, it seems somewhat unlikely to me that they would sanction sinner for a long period. They would still need to argue why it's 'no significant' fault rather than 'no fault' and that is pretty subjective.
RSJfan
Legend
I’m all in for The Carrot in this case but neither party will get anywhere arguing what should or should not be on the Prohibited List or what should be characterized as a Specified Substance and what should be a non-Specified Substance. The Prohibited List for any particular year is a done deal.
“On an ongoing basis, WADA’s Prohibited List Expert Group reviews scientific and medical research, while also consulting with others in the anti-doping community, to provide recommendations and guidance on updates to the Prohibited List. Advice is then provided to and considered by the Health, Medical, and Research Committee before WADA finalizes and releases the Prohibited List by October 1 each year.”
They don’t take suggestions from litigants.
The Prohibited List
PS, just to clarify something from my previous reply to you. Carrot‘s is a case of so-called cross-contamination hence the contamination talk you referenced in the ITIA decision but it is not a case of Contaminated Products (Art. 10.6.1.2).
WADA Code 2021: “Contaminated Product: A product that contains a Prohibited Substance that is not disclosed on the product label or in information available in a reasonable Internet search.”
Last edited:
Thanks, i wasnt aware!
Knowing this, I find the 18m ban after the Johaug-case (if you are familiar with that) even more surprising.
Even more so the Sinner case. I find it strange if Sinner should get a long ban because his physio used a cream containing Clostebol for a wound on his hand.
I’m all in for The Carrot in this case but neither party will get anywhere arguing what should or should not be on the Prohibited List or what should be characterized as a Specified Substance and what should be a non-Specified Substance. The Prohibited List for any particular year is a done deal.
“On an ongoing basis, WADA’s Prohibited List Expert Group reviews scientific and medical research, while also consulting with others in the anti-doping community, to provide recommendations and guidance on updates to the Prohibited List. Advice is then provided to and considered by the Health, Medical, and Research Committee before WADA finalizes and releases the Prohibited List by October 1 each year.”
They don’t take suggestions from litigants.
The Prohibited List
www.wada-ama.org
PS, just to clarify something from my previous reply to you. Carrot‘s is a case of so-called cross-contamination hence the contamination talk you referenced in the ITIA decision but it is not a case of Contaminated Products (Art. 10.6.1.2).
WADA Code 2021: “Contaminated Product: A product that contains a Prohibited Substance that is not disclosed on the product label or in information available in a reasonable Internet search.”
Got it, makes sense. I wouldn't expect them to change the list right now based on a case, but I would assume (ok - big IF), that the CAS has the authority to take it into consideration as argument. They could set precedent, if it turns to that angle.
Don't know the finer details of arguing before CAS, but I would assume you'd throw in any and all argument in your defense anyway and hope it will stick as at least a weighing factor, of which Sinner has many... and the more the better.
You're not the only one who finds it strange. But the TADP (and the WADA-based code generally) is irrationally harsh in some respects. And as has been discussed here and elsewhere at great length, it seems premised on a testing system that was not nearly as sensitive as current technology permits. Today it is possible to earn whopping penalties due to accidental trace exposures that would not even have been detected formerly. This is a major flaw in the anti-doping regime. ITIA tribunals have commented on it. Other sports have recognized this problem as well. https://www.chemistryworld.com/news...stions-over-testing-precision/4019821.article (another case in which WADA jumped in with an aggressive appeal seeking a long ban).
RSJfan
Legend
NaDjoFed
Professional
even WADA is realising that the current 2021 rules are just obsolete. In fact in the updated 2027 Draft Code they are changing the "contaminated product" definition with a broader "contaminated source". But today Sinner case would not fall in the "contaminated product", hence the minimum ban of 1 year if negligence will be found.
NEW CODE
ARTICLE 10.6.1.2: CONTAMINATED SOURCE
The previous Code Article (2021) with this number addressed a potential reduction in the period of Ineligibility for antidoping rule violations involving “Contaminated Products.” The new “Contaminated Source” definition is broader and includes sources of contamination such as food or drink, environmental contamination, or exposure through contact with a third person or object touched by a third person.
Last edited:
Kralingen
Bionic Poster
We’ll see. Again, I’m not a legal expert never claimed to be and as a result can’t speak to the level of depth existent in this thread. The general legal precedent I’ve noted above is a real concern though.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
That didn't stop "three strikes and you're out" and that rule affects the liberty of the subject.
yes agreed, I misinterpreted your original post. I edited my response. My bad.
Similar threads
