Taylor Fritz comes down hard on the haters

[jeroenn]

Huh.....
You haven't read the studies you mentioned, right? The conclusion of the diuretics study:

On diuretics:

In the 1990s the analysis of diuretics in
doping (by LC-UV or GC/MS) was a challenge for anti-doping
laboratories due to the heterogeneity of the substances
included. Since the advent of robust and reliable LC/MS
instruments their detection in urine samples is no longer a
problem.

Written in part, btw, by one of the experts consulted in the Sinner case.

And lastly, diuretics themselves are prohibited.

I'll come back shortly with the others.

 

[jeroenn]

On microdosing:

The study deals with microdosing LSD. In no way is PED's mentioned, or in any way related to microdosing PED's and it's detection. How in the world is this relevant to any of this?

The conclusion of your study is basically that microdosing LSD in healthy individuals has mild effects on mood, sleep, reward response, and pain perception, with potential relevance for treating psychiatric disorders. However, evidence supporting claims of enhanced cognition and creativity is limited by the sensitivity of current measures. Further clinical trials are needed to validate anecdotal benefits, explore therapeutic applications, and better understand the mechanisms and variability of LSD's effects.

Cool to know. Totally not relevant. Moving on.

 

[jeroenn]

On 'designer drugs' as PEDS, the only known modified version of Clostebol is methylclostebol (4-chloro-17α-methyltestosterone). Anti-doping laboratories utilize methods such as gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) to identify methylclostebol and its metabolites in urine samples.

Oral Turinabol long-term metabolites after methylclostebol administration: Generation and elimination profiles

www.wada-ama.org

Steroid metabolism & the chimeric mouse model

www.wada-ama.org

In summary, the current detectability of methylclostebol in doping tests is robust, with anti-doping laboratories employing sophisticated analytical techniques and continually updating their methodologies to identify both known substances and emerging designer variants effectively.

There is no other known alteration of Clostebol which makes sens, because Clostebol isn't particularly potent.

 

[Tennis Devolution]

Ok, I've downloaded all the studies you cited and I will read them carefully.

The fact that the word 'clostebol' doesn't appear in any of them doesn't give me a lot of confidence that these will answer the questions, because as you, as someone who clearly expressed expertise in research, obviously knows well, you can't compare apples and oranges, but let's see how this pans out. I will return to you shortly.

LOl once again NO, the research scientific studies deal with PEDs which is what clostebol is as well as other regulated medications like psychotropic medications which are also regulated like PEDs. At the end of the day, DRUGS are DRUGS!

 

[Tennis Devolution]

On microdosing:

The study deals with microdosing LSD. In no way is PED's mentioned, or in any way related to microdosing PED's and it's detection. How in the world is this relevant to any of this?

The conclusion of your study is basically that microdosing LSD in healthy individuals has mild effects on mood, sleep, reward response, and pain perception, with potential relevance for treating psychiatric disorders. However, evidence supporting claims of enhanced cognition and creativity is limited by the sensitivity of current measures. Further clinical trials are needed to validate anecdotal benefits, explore therapeutic applications, and better understand the mechanisms and variability of LSD's effects.

Cool to know. Totally not relevant. Moving on.

LOL again, LSD is a drug that leads to biological effects on the human body just like clostebol is a drug that leads to biological effects on the human body but again your only stance is "irrelevant" which does not counter anything that I have said. Anabolic effects from microdosing clostebol is scientifically feasible and not "irrelevant".

 

[jeroenn]

-LOL once again, anyone who has true experience in research and medicine completely understands that there are no "experts" because scientific knowledge is always constantly changing and evolving. It is always better to objectively analyze things on your own instead of blindly accepting the analysis of "experts". I have provided you with multiple peer-reviewed articles from the scientific literature that completely scientifically and objectively verify everything that I have said so now I fully look forward to expecting you to provide ample peer-reviewed articles from the scientific literature that can actually counter anything that I have said.

Anyone who has true experience in scientific research would cite studies that are on point and actually deal with the questions at hand. They will not employ in:

- Circular reasoning
- Assumption without evidence
- Overgeneralize (DRUGS ARE DRUGS)
- False equivalence
- 'discussion' with adversarial hyperbole
- Burden of proof fallacy.
- Selective responses.

 

[Tennis Devolution]

On 'designer drugs' as PEDS, the only known modified version of Clostebol is methylclostebol (4-chloro-17α-methyltestosterone). Anti-doping laboratories utilize methods such as gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) to identify methylclostebol and its metabolites in urine samples.

Oral Turinabol long-term metabolites after methylclostebol administration: Generation and elimination profiles

www.wada-ama.org

Steroid metabolism & the chimeric mouse model

www.wada-ama.org

In summary, the current detectability of methylclostebol in doping tests is robust, with anti-doping laboratories employing sophisticated analytical techniques and continually updating their methodologies to identify both known substances and emerging designer variants effectively.

There is no other known alteration of Clostebol which makes sens, because Clostebol isn't particularly potent.

LOL once again NO, the purpose of "designer drugs" is to not be detected in the first place due to their novel chemical structures so thus there would not be a profound amount of scientific literature on them DUH since designer drugs are kept as confidential as possible from the public and anti-doping agencies because if anti-doping agencies know the exact structure of specific "designer drugs" then those "designer drugs" would lose all of their undetectable efficacy. No one knows all of the various forms of clostebol that exist so stating that are not many forms of clostebol that are completely known counters absolutely nothing that I have said. It is a scientific objective fact that the chemical structure of clostebol can be manipulated like any other chemical molecule which is something that you cannot counter.

 

[jeroenn]

So, we still don't know how:

- One uses dosage cycling to avoid randomized unannounced doping tests in a practical way.
- Which exact chemicals were used to mask Clostebol
- What the risk/reward idea is behind it all
- How Jannik Sinner actually improved in such a way that couldn't be done in a normal way
- Why the 3 independent experts didn't conclude anything other than accidental exposure.

Though thanks to the study posted we can now be pretty sure that diuretics weren't used as these are apparently detectable these days and the metabolites are now better detectable due to the use of things like mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS).

 

[Tennis Devolution]

Anyone who has true experience in scientific research would cite studies that are on point and actually deal with the questions at hand. They will not employ in:

- Circular reasoning
- Assumption without evidence
- Overgeneralize (DRUGS ARE DRUGS)
- False equivalence
- 'discussion' with adversarial hyperbole
- Burden of proof fallacy.
- Selective responses.

LOl, the only irrational denial along with your mischaracterizations that is occurring is your own. Clostebol is a drug that is a PED so thus scientific principles that apply in general to other drugs apply to clostebol as well. You cannot disprove the scientific objective fact of the existence "designer drugs" that can completely evade detection from standard drug testing and methodologies that allow rapid elimination of PEDs in order to faciliate their undetectability which allows athletes to completely evade random drug testing. You have also not provided a single scientific study disproving anything that I have said.

 

[jeroenn]

LOL once again NO, the purpose of "designer drugs" is to not be detected in the first place due to their novel chemical structures so thus there would not be a profound amount of scientific literature on them DUH since designer drugs are kept as confidential as possible from the public and anti-doping agencies because if anti-doping agencies know the exact structure of specific "designer drugs" then those "designer drugs" would lose all of their undetectable efficacy. No one knows all of the various forms of clostebol that exist so stating that are not many forms of clostebol that are completely known counters absolutely nothing that I have said. It is a scientific objective fact that the chemical structure of clostebol can be manipulated like any other chemical molecule which is something that you cannot counter.

Not only do I not counter it, I cited a specific example. (I will add a LOL here to confirm to your scientific format).
The specific metabolites found in Sinner's urine were from Clostebol, not from a deretive or alteration. He could have ingested fairy **** and that too isn't tested. There is no indication, no reasonable expectation or even a hint or suggestion that Sinner employed in subversive PED abuse, so while I focus on the facts as presented in the case, you go ahead and 'scientifically' assume until you're blue in the face, you have nothing.

LOl, the only irrational denial along with your mischaracterizations that is occurring is your own. Clostebol is a drug that is a PED so thus scientific principles that apply in general to other drugs apply to clostebol as well. You cannot disprove the scientific objective fact of the existence "designer drugs" that can completely evade detection from standard drug testing and methodologies that allow rapid elimination of PEDs in order to faciliate their undetectability which allows athletes to completely evade random drug testing. You have also not provided a single scientific study disproving anything that I have said.

I don't disprove anything, because it is not relevant.

None of your rambling answers has answerd these:


- One uses dosage cycling to avoid randomized unannounced doping tests in a practical way.
- Which exact chemicals were used to mask Clostebol
- What the risk/reward idea is behind it all
- How Jannik Sinner actually improved in such a way that couldn't be done in a normal way
- Why the 3 independent experts didn't conclude anything other than accidental exposure.

Until you do, I'll refrain from posting

 

[Tennis Devolution]

So, we still don't know how:

- One uses dosage cycling to avoid randomized unannounced doping tests in a practical way.
- Which exact chemicals were used to mask Clostebol
- What the risk/reward idea is behind it all
- How Jannik Sinner actually improved in such a way that couldn't be done in a normal way
- Why the 3 independent experts didn't conclude anything other than accidental exposure.

Though thanks to the study posted we can now be pretty sure that diuretics weren't used as these are apparently detectable these days and the metabolites are now better detectable due to the use of things like mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS).

LOL once again NO, the chemical structure of any drug including diuretics can be altered in order to prevent detectability from standard random drug testing. The doping industry is always one step ahead of the anti-doping industry because the anti-doping industry has to always react to finding and detecting the new designer drugs being produced by the doping industry. Again, I see absolutely no scientific studies from you disproving anything that I have said as always expected.

 

[jeroenn]

LOL once again NO, the chemical structure of any drug including diuretics can be altered in order to prevent detectability from standard random drug testing. The doping industry is always one step ahead of the anti-doping industry because the anti-doping industry has to always react to finding and detecting the new designer drugs being produced by the doping industry. Again, I see absolutely no scientific studies from you disproving anything that I have said as always expected.

You do realize you're now barking against the actual study you provided, right? So it was a helpful study until...it wasn't?

 

[Tennis Devolution]

Not only do I not counter it, I cited a specific example. (I will add a LOL here to confirm to your scientific format).
The specific metabolites found in Sinner's urine were from Clostebol, not from a deretive or alteration. He could have ingested fairy **** and that too isn't tested. There is no indication, no reasonable expectation or even a hint or suggestion that Sinner employed in subversive PED abuse, so while I focus on the facts as presented in the case, you go ahead and 'scientifically' assume until you're blue in the face, you have nothing.




I don't disprove anything, because it is not relevant.

None of your rambling answers has answerd these:


- One uses dosage cycling to avoid randomized unannounced doping tests in a practical way.
- Which exact chemicals were used to mask Clostebol
- What the risk/reward idea is behind it all
- How Jannik Sinner actually improved in such a way that couldn't be done in a normal way
- Why the 3 independent experts didn't conclude anything other than accidental exposure.

Until you do, I'll refrain from posting

LOL once again, I have already completely countered all of your points. If the chemical structure of the "designer drug" form of clostebol is close enough to the chemical form of clostebol that the drug test will detect, then the "designer drug" form of clostebol will be simply detected as "normal" clostebol. Abolutely none of your rambling responses of irrational denial have disproved the scientific objective fact that there are plenty of methodologies to rapidly eliminate PEDs and that there are "designer drugs" that are completely unknown and completely undetectable to anti-doping agencies and the rest of the scientific establishment. Yes, completely refrain from responding until you actually provide peer-reviewed scientific research articles that can counter anything that I have said.

 

[jeroenn]

LOL once again, I have already completely countered all of your points.

Nope:
- How does one uses dosage cycling to avoid randomized unannounced doping tests in a practical way.
- Which exact chemicals were used to mask Clostebol
- What the risk/reward idea is behind it all
- How Jannik Sinner actually improved in such a way that couldn't be done in a normal way
- Why the 3 independent experts didn't conclude anything other than accidental exposure.

 

[Tennis Devolution]

You do realize you're now barking against the actual study you provided, right? So it was a helpful study until...it wasn't?

LOL once again NO, the actual study proves that elimination techniques of PEDs through diuretics cannot be always detected since testing is not continuous at all and also because of the fact that "designer drug" forms of any drug can exist. I am still waiting for you to provide any peer-reviewed scientific research article that can counter anything that I have said.

 

[Tennis Devolution]

Nope:
- How does one uses dosage cycling to avoid randomized unannounced doping tests in a practical way.
- Which exact chemicals were used to mask Clostebol
- What the risk/reward idea is behind it all
- How Jannik Sinner actually improved in such a way that couldn't be done in a normal way
- Why the 3 independent experts didn't conclude anything other than accidental exposure.

Repetitively repeating points that I have completely countered does not demonstrate anything. I am still waiting for you to provide any peer-reviewed scientific research article that can counter anything that I have said.

 

[RSJfan]

For all you "the scientists exonerated him" people here's an excerpt from one of the studies on Jannik's case:
"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?

What is a “contimination”.

I think anyone who has ever met or even witnessed the Carrot for a few minutes in person will conclude that he did not intentionally ingest a banned substance. He’s a straight up Boy Scout. WADA is way out of line and someone needs to reign in this vindictive, out of control organization and its gang of doping inspector thugs.

 

[Tennis Devolution]

Huh.....
You haven't read the studies you mentioned, right? The conclusion of the diuretics study:

On diuretics:

In the 1990s the analysis of diuretics in
doping (by LC-UV or GC/MS) was a challenge for anti-doping
laboratories due to the heterogeneity of the substances
included. Since the advent of robust and reliable LC/MS
instruments their detection in urine samples is no longer a
problem.

Written in part, btw, by one of the experts consulted in the Sinner case.

And lastly, diuretics themselves are prohibited.

I'll come back shortly with the others.

LOL once again NO, detection is scientifically and objectively always a problem for "designer drugs" especially unknown ones including diuretics. "Heterogeneity of the substances included" does NOT mean at all that novel forms of designer drugs including diuretics can all be detected so READ again LOL.

 

[jeroenn]

LOL once again NO, the actual study proves that elimination techniques of PEDs through diurects cannot be always detected since testing is not continuous at all and also because of the fact that "designer drug" forms of any drug can exist. I am still waiting for you to provide any peer-reviewed scientific research article that can counter anything that I have said.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯. .... I posted the actual conclusion from that study, and that study doesn't even mention "designer drugs" or continuous testing. Oh well..

Dear 'New User', I'm sorry - it seems you can't answer any of the questions I had based on your unsupported assertions and your attempts to provide 'scientific' support for them through your self-proclaimed 'expertise' has provided a master class in logical fallacies.

So far I'm still siding with Sinner / ITIA and mostly the independent experts in their conclusion and so far still no one has been able to provide anything to the contrary that wasn't mere speculation.

If there is anyone else who actually can discuss the questions in a more respectful and factual manner, I'm all ears.

 

[Tennis Devolution]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯. .... I posted the actual conclusion from that study, and that study doesn't even mention "designer drugs" or continuous testing. Oh well..

Dear 'New User', I'm sorry - it seems you can't answer any of the questions I had based on your unsupported assertions and your attempts to provide 'scientific' support for them through your self-proclaimed 'expertise' has provided a master class in logical fallacies.

So far I'm still siding with Sinner / ITIA and mostly the independent experts in their conclusion and so far still no one has been able to provide anything to the contrary that wasn't mere speculation.

If there is anyone else who actually can discuss the questions in a more respectful and factual manner, I'm all ears.

LOL once yet again NO, the conclusion of that study does NOT state that all designer drugs including those of diuretics can be consistently reliably detectable and only states that the current known different forms of diuretics can be detected so keep on with your complete lack of counters. You have scientifically and objectively demonstrated a complete master class in complete irrational denial with complete mischaracterizations since I have completely countered all of your points with ample support from the scientific literature to which you have absolutely no scientific objective counter to and simply repetitively repeating completely debunked points along with "irrelevant" is not an "argument". It is absolutely clear as day that you blindly refuse to do your own analysis and blindly accept the statements of the "experts" even though it is scientifically and objectively impossible to prove "intention" in anyone through measured drug concentrations because you simply want to completely argumentlessly push and assert at all costs the completely speculative unsupported erroneous agenda that jannik sinner is an "unintentional doper". I am all ears for when you actually provide peer-reviewed scientific research studies that can actually disprove anything that I have said including the scientific objective fact that there are "designer drug" forms of PEDs including diuretics that exist that are completely undetectable and completely unknown to anti-doping agencies that can be utilized by doping athletes in order to completely evade and pass standard random drug testing.

 

[jmnk]

Not only do I not counter it, I cited a specific example. (I will add a LOL here to confirm to your scientific format).
[..]

this is Gold. I like your style.

seriously though. It is clear from all the various threads on the recent doping that there's absolutely nothing that can be said to sway one's opinion. There seem to be two camps:
camp 1 - I'm convinced such-and-such is a doper. I mean not all, the ones I do not like - they are definitely doping. The system is corrupt (if the outcome is not to my liking). I do not believe any explanations. Or scientific experiments. or other possibilities. And if _you_ do you are a fool.
camp 2 - there's certainly a possibility that such-and-such is a doper. But the testimony, the evidence, the science, the historical precedence, and statistics do (sometimes strongly) suggest there was no intentional doping - so until new facts come to light the verdict of not guilty seems _more_ appropriate and fair. Moreover _every case_ is literally different.

 

[jeroenn]

because you simply want to argumentlessly push and assert at all costs the completely speculative unsupported erroneous agenda that jannik sinner is an "unintentional doper".

Ok, of all the wild nonsensical BS you have posted so far (and I'm not even including the posts of another user that has a very similar style to yours), this takes the cake.

There is a conclusion written by the ITIA, which are the authorities in this case, based on the results of an investigation by an independent panel that ultimately concluded 'No fault or neglience' in part based on the conclusions of actual doping experts.

How in the world is that speculative or unsupported???????

So far this is the ONLY side that has been established and tried. NO ONE has brought ANYTHING, not even close to the same level, that shows Sinner INTENTIONALLY doped.

And your 'science' is grabbing a few headlines from a few peripherally related studies, ignoring most of it that doesn't suit you and throw it against the wall to see what sticks, generalizing to the max. And when confronted, you deflect to something else.
Again, very similar to what another user recently did here. It's a complete joke.

 

[jeroenn]

this is Gold. I like your style.

seriously though. It is clear from all the various threads on the recent doping that there's absolutely nothing that can be said to sway one's opinion. There seem to be two camps:
camp 1 - I'm convinced such-and-such is a doper. I mean not all, the ones I do not like - they are definitely doping. The system is corrupt (if the outcome is not to my liking). I do not believe any explanations. Or scientific experiments. or other possibilities. And if _you_ do you are a fool.
camp 2 - there's certainly a possibility that such-and-such is a doper. But the testimony, the evidence, the science, the historical precedence, and statistics do (sometimes strongly) suggest there was no intentional doping - so until new facts come to light the verdict of not guilty seems _more_ appropriate and fair. Moreover _every case_ is literally different.

Thank you.

And I think you're pretty spot on.

 

[Tennis Devolution]

this is Gold. I like your style.

seriously though. It is clear from all the various threads on the recent doping that there's absolutely nothing that can be said to sway one's opinion. There seem to be two camps:
camp 1 - I'm convinced such-and-such is a doper. I mean not all, the ones I do not like - they are definitely doping. The system is corrupt (if the outcome is not to my liking). I do not believe any explanations. Or scientific experiments. or other possibilities. And if _you_ do you are a fool.
camp 2 - there's certainly a possibility that such-and-such is a doper. But the testimony, the evidence, the science, the historical precedence, and statistics do (sometimes strongly) suggest there was no intentional doping - so until new facts come to light the verdict of not guilty seems _more_ appropriate and fair. Moreover _every case_ is literally different.

There is no such thing as proving "unintentional doping" or "intentional doping".

 

[Tennis Devolution]

Ok, of all the wild nonsensical BS you have posted so far (and I'm not even including the posts of another user that has a very similar style to yours), this takes the cake.

There is a conclusion written by the ITIA, which are the authorities in this case, based on the results of an investigation by an independent panel that ultimately concluded 'No fault or neglience' in part based on the conclusions of actual doping experts.

How in the world is that speculative or unsupported???????

So far this is the ONLY side that has been established and tried. NO ONE has brought ANYTHING, not even close to the same level, that shows Sinner INTENTIONALLY doped.

And your 'science' is grabbing a few headlines from a few peripherally related studies, ignoring most of it that doesn't suit you and throw it against the wall to see what sticks, generalizing to the max. And when confronted, you deflect to something else.
Again, very similar to what another user recently did here. It's a complete joke.

LOL once yet again NO, and I am completely amused that you still have not provided any shred of any scientific objective evidence with peer-reviewed scientific research articles that counters anything that I have said and are still continuing with spewing completely argumentless irrational deflecting comedic utter BS nonsense. I have completely countered all of your points with completely peer-reviewed scientific research articles and you have not countered absolutely anything that I have said with any shred of scientific objective evidence from peer-reviewed scientific research articles and the "ITIA document" does not count as a peer-reviewed scientific research article LOL. Moreover, completely argumentlessly irrationally blindly asserting that "because the doping experts said so it must be right" is a completely nonsensical fallacious appeal to authority because what the "doping experts" say has absolutely NOTHING to do with scientific objective causal reality. I also never stated that jannik sinner must have "intentionally doped" just because of the measured drug concentrations of clostebol and there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that jannik sinner "unintentionally doped" either because completely subjective eyewitness testimonies from the entourage of jannik sinner do NOT count at all as scientific objective evidence and it is scientifically and objectively IMPOSSIBLE to prove the "intentions" of anyone with measured drug concentrations since jannik sinner could have an entire kilogram of clostebol detected in his body and one can still form a "it was just a contamination" alibi.

 

[jeroenn]

 

[Hulger]

So, we still don't know how:
- Which exact chemicals were used to mask Clostebol

Possibly diuretics, but I think they are screened as well (as you mentioned) at least indirectly by examining the osmolality of urine. But if they were used earlier to increase the elimination of a larger dose of clostebolol they might go under the radar.

- What the risk/reward idea is behind it all
- How Jannik Sinner actually improved in such a way that couldn't be done in a normal way

This has nothing to do with the potential doping issue we are dealing with here.
Still, microdosing would most likely be very stupid considering the risk-reward ratio.

- Why the 3 independent experts didn't conclude anything other than accidental exposure.

That’s because they were only asked to evaluate if the defensive’s narrative could be plausible.

Your duel is getting ridiculous. @Tennis Devolution provided some great insights here, and bypassing them just by referring to official general statements about the matter isn’t very productive.

The most obvious thing for anyone with bright mind would be to recognize that this case was not properly examined, or at least, that misuse of clostebolol hasn’t been ruled out. Moreover, everything around this case including reporting and timetable of happenings etc has some gloominess in it.

 

[jeroenn]

That’s because they were only asked to evaluate if the defensive’s narrative could be plausible.

I don't agree with that statement:

Professor Cowan:
"No evidence to support any other scenario" [1]

Tribunal:
"The Tribunal concludes that non of them has suggested that the Player's explanation is not consistent with the scientific analysis" [2]

Possibly diuretics, but I think they are screened as well (as you mentioned) at least indirectly by examining the osmolality of urine. But if they were used earlier to increase the elimination of a larger dose of clostebolol they might go under the radar.

Diuretics are indeed prohibited as well and as the study showed, they are fully deteceted. Due to the high sensitivy of the current day methods, even Diuretics are not enough as conlcuded by that other research "is no longer a problem". This from a study he himself posted here.

Your duel is getting ridiculous. @Tennis Devolution provided some great insights here, and bypassing them just by referring to official general statements about the matter isn’t very productive.

I agree that it's rediciolous. But here are two points to consider:
- The 'other' side is claiming intentional or explicit PED or at the very least arguing that Sinner story is BS - or more BS than the conclusions drawn by the Tribunal, etc etc yet cannot bring anything to the table to support such a conclusion in this case. Ultimately, the report is all we have now, but I do value the statements by the experts, as they are some of the world leading doping experts, so all arguments on microdosing, or masking or whatnot has been considered (as evident by statements as posted above - especially [2] shows that they were asked to consider all options).

- As far as insights, he's skating around the issues. He maintains for example that by smart cycling, detection can be evaded. I asked how that cycling works. His response was diuretics (which has nothing to do with timing). Or other chemicals to hide. My question was which chemicals, to which he came up with 'designer drugs' and studies on LSD. Because 'drugs are drugs' <= his litteral quote). He screams 'science' and in the same breath asks us to apply the conclusions made on LSD on Clostebol and as any scientist will tell you, can can't draw such conclusions in the detail required. Yes, drugs are drugs, but each have their own property, interactions etc etc, so drawing any conclusion from one to another without actual research is not only stupid, non scientific practice, if it was actually done that way it would be dangerous. Same goes for something like microdosing, clenbuterol microdosing is possible for example, but that doesn't mean that you can 1 on 1 apply it to Clostebol. My question was specific on microdosing, hiding or cycling Clostebol and he has not answered that. I maintain that you cannot compare Clostebol to LSD or Clenbuterol or ... or any other and if you want to prove methodology on each type of PED, you'll need AT LEAST be in the same family of drug. In this case, Clostebol being weak, there may be no performance enhancing properties left when microdosing compared to for example Dimethyltrienolone. Also, different variations leave different metabolites, so the metabolites found in this case confirm a specific form of Clostebol.

There is no doubt that there are theoretical, actual and practical cases in the past of
- Microdosing
- PED masking
- Cycling on evading drug testing.
- 'designer' drugs relating to PEDs.
They are well documented. They dealt with quite a range of different PEDs.
And he is right on the generics of these things - however, he can't apply them to this particular case in any meaningful way other than a generic statement that 'the doping industry is always ahead of the anti doping" or something to that effect, or that "Drugs are Drugs".

My whole point is that due to high level testing, unannounced testing protocols that can happen every day, the involvement requirered forcreating new designer drugs, the quality of testing, the likelyhood of any of this applying to Sinner right now is extremely small.

And maybe the doping industry is ahead of the antidoping community, but that difference will always be marginal. As you can see, for example, the diuretics argument was already put to bed years ago.
Add to this the possible reputational and monetary damage of intentional doping, the substance in question (clostebol - a weak AAS), the studies that have been done on accidental exposure on Clostebol, the arguments for Sinner are so far A LOT ahead of the arugments against him.



[1] https://www.itia.tennis/media/yzgd3xoz/240819-itia-v-sinner.pdf [65]
[2] https://www.itia.tennis/media/yzgd3xoz/240819-itia-v-sinner.pdf [110]

 

[Watching]

LOL once yet again NO, the conclusion of that study does NOT state that all designer drugs including those of diuretics can be consistently reliably detectable and only states that the current known different forms of diuretics can be detected so keep on with your complete lack of counters. You have scientifically and objectively demonstrated a complete master class in complete irrational denial with complete mischaracterizations since I have completely countered all of your points with ample support from the scientific literature to which you have absolutely no scientific objective counter to and simply repetitively repeating completely debunked points along with "irrelevant" is not an "argument". It is absolutely clear as day that you blindly refuse to do your own analysis and blindly accept the statements of the "experts" even though it is scientifically and objectively impossible to prove "intention" in anyone through measured drug concentrations because you simply want to completely argumentlessly push and assert at all costs the completely speculative unsupported erroneous agenda that jannik sinner is an "unintentional doper". I am all ears for when you actually provide peer-reviewed scientific research studies that can actually disprove anything that I have said including the scientific objective fact that there are "designer drug" forms of PEDs including diuretics that exist that are completely undetectable and completely unknown to anti-doping agencies that can be utilized by doping athletes in order to completely evade and pass standard random drug testing.

are you one of those guys arguing nobody ever scientifically proved god doesn't exist? (I'm not atheist)

 

[Tennis Devolution]

are you one of those guys arguing nobody ever scientifically proved god doesn't exist? (I'm not atheist)

You cannot ever scientifically and objectively prove that a completely unlimited entity like God does not exist since a completely unlimited entity like God is not limited by any form of scientific objective causal reality in any way. Also, no one can counter the scientific objective fact that "designer drug" forms of PEDs including diuretics cannot ever be detected by any form of standard random drug testing which allows any doping athlete to use PEDS and at the exact same time pass any form of standard random drug testing.

 

[CHillTennis]

There are also those who, however, cannot tolerate superficial judgements. This is the case of the American Taylor Fritz, world number 4 who has just been beaten by Sinner in the final of the ATP Finals and in September in the final of the US Open. “What drives me crazy about these situations aren't the cases themselves,” Fritz says.

"It's hard to know exactly what happened/all the details in all these specific cases, so small talk isn't really my favorite thing. It's fine to have your honest opinions, but what I can't understand and what upsets me as a player it's the crazy prejudice of tennis fans who support whatever version is in line with their position If a rival of the player they support is positive, then they are part of the 'let's call him a dope/cheat/disgrace him as much as possible' team the story concerns their favorite player, then he is 'innocent without asking questions'", says the American.

“How do you not remove personal bias and form an educated and honest opinion? Even if as a player you can prove your innocence (I'm not saying anyone is or isn't) people who support opposing players are prejudiced towards you and will always continue to blindly claim that you are a cheater. This fact makes me truly sad for all the real innocent players who have to go through this," he concludes.

He's not coming down hard on the haters.

And in reality, you don't have to be a hater to believe that he might have been doping.

Sinner put himself in this position.

 

[Aabye5]

You cannot ever scientifically and objectively prove that a completely unlimited entity like God does not exist since a completely unlimited entity like God is not limited by any form of scientific objective causal reality in any way. Also, no one can counter the scientific objective fact that "designer drug" forms of PEDs including diuretics cannot ever be detected by any form of standard random drug testing which allows any doping athlete to use PEDS and at the exact same time pass any form of standard random drug testing.

So, they're just sloppy now?

 

[Watching]

You cannot ever scientifically and objectively prove that a completely unlimited entity like God does not exist since a completely unlimited entity like God is not limited by any form of scientific objective causal reality in any way. Also, no one can counter the scientific objective fact that "designer drug" forms of PEDs including diuretics cannot ever be detected by any form of standard random drug testing which allows any doping athlete to use PEDS and at the exact same time pass any form of standard random drug testing.

you can't just add blindly call for "designer drugs" and phantomatic invisible diuretics and expect us to just believe you out of pure faith, this is no different than trying to (dis)prove God in my eyes.
You believe in what you claim, I do not. You can call me blasphemous, but that's all there is. fortunately this will be taken care by the CAS rather than me or you.

 

[Tennis Devolution]

So, they're just sloppy now?

I am thinking that both jannik sinner and iga swiatek made a BIG MISTAKE in their planning of their PED doping routines which made them get caught by standard drug testing.

 

[Hulger]

Professor Cowan:
"No evidence to support any other scenario" [1]

Yeah, because no other evidence has even been attempted to be gathered. There are only two urinary samples with low concentrations of clostebol derivatives.
While it doesn't seem to have been validated yet how to differentiate intradermal from other dosage forms (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33119965/),
there is absolutely zero evidence to exclude the possibility of a former larger dosage. Even the timing of the last negative sample before the positive one has not been disclosed here. It is only demonstrated that it could have 'plausibly' entered the samples theoretically via intradermal penetration. What also remains a bit questionable is whether a single mild exposure to Trofodermin could lead to a positive result in the second test taken a week later. Yet, the ITIA doesn't seem to require any further scientific proof:
"66. The Expert evidence is generally in alignment and the Parties have agreed that the reports
can be entered into evidence and considered by the Tribunal without formal proof by the
authors."

you can't just add blindly call for "designer drugs" and phantomatic invisible diuretics and expect us to just believe you out of pure faith, this is no different than trying to (dis)prove God in my eyes.
You believe in what you claim, I do not. You can call me blasphemous, but that's all there is. fortunately this will be taken care by the CAS rather than me or you.

Everybody knows and acknowledges (including anti-doping agencies themselves) that doping technology is years ahead of the validated anti-doping testing methods.
@jeroenn should also be aware, while playing the role of a little scientist here by citing the article about diuretics, that diuretics are detectable in urinary tests for only a couple of days at most. And even if diuretics do not accelerate the liver metabolism of clostebol, they could theoretically be used to accelerate the elimination of metabolites and thus mask earlier use.

 

[Bride of Alcaraz]

Yeah, I like Fritz, but he is wrong here.

He loves talking, on and off the court he's a real chatterbox!
Not sure he has enough IQ to match

 

[jeroenn]

Yeah, because no other evidence has even been attempted to be gathered. There are only two urinary samples with low concentrations of clostebol derivatives.

From sinners' pdf, read point 57: The ITIA also sought scientific advice from two well-recognized experts prior to the notice of charge being issued.
Three experts were asked to Test the plausibility. The Tribunal concludes that none of them has suggested that the players explanation is not consistent with the scientific analysis.

While it doesn't seem to have been validated yet how to differentiate intradermal from other dosage forms (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33119965/),
there is absolutely zero evidence to exclude the possibility of a former larger dosage. Even the timing of the last negative sample before the positive one has not been disclosed here.

There is also absolutely zero evidence to include the possibility of a former larger dose.

The timing wasn't publicly disclosed, but that doesn't mean it was unknown to the tribunal and not weighed accordingly. He is, according to either side, subject to regular in-competition and out-of-competition anti-doping tests.
And indeed point 84 states that the player has been tested on average once a month over the past 12 month period between April 2023 and March 2024 - all negative for Clostebol or any other prohibited substance.

It is only demonstrated that it could have 'plausibly' entered the samples theoretically via intradermal penetration. What also remains a bit questionable is whether a single mild exposure to Trofodermin could lead to a positive result in the second test taken a week later. Yet, the ITIA doesn't seem to require any further scientific proof:
"66. The Expert evidence is generally in alignment and the Parties have agreed that the reports
can be entered into evidence and considered by the Tribunal without formal proof by the
authors."

You may want to try this quote from Professor Naud in point 63:
It is possible that the second AAF result comes from the same administration/contamination as the first AAF reported.

Everybody knows and acknowledges (including anti-doping agencies themselves) that doping technology is years ahead of the validated anti-doping testing methods.

"Everybody knows" - that is an argument that doesn't fly well, either in science or legal circles. (ad populum fallacy)

@jeroenn should also be aware, while playing the role of a little scientist here by citing the article about diuretics, that diuretics are detectable in urinary tests for only a couple of days at most. And even if diuretics do not accelerate the liver metabolism of clostebol, they could theoretically be used to accelerate the elimination of metabolites and thus mask earlier use.

Two issues with this:
- Diuretics are on the prohibited list, so you are royally screwed if you take them and you get the call for a test in a few hours. That risk is no different than taking a full therapeutic dose of any PED or a good sniff of coke.
- The argument of those scientists is that with modern technologies, masking using diuretics is no longer problematic, because of the sensitive methods in use (that also pick up diuretics themselves).

 

[Tennis Devolution]

you can't just add blindly call for "designer drugs" and phantomatic invisible diuretics and expect us to just believe you out of pure faith, this is no different than trying to (dis)prove God in my eyes.
You believe in what you claim, I do not. You can call me blasphemous, but that's all there is. fortunately this will be taken care by the CAS rather than me or you.

I believe @Hulger addressed your completely argumentless assertions earlier but I will completely address your completely argumentless assertions as well. As stated earlier in the multiple peer-reviewed scientific research articles that I posted earlier, both the anti-doping agencies and scientific establishment know and have admitted that it is not "blind pure faith" but a scientific objective fact that "designer drug" forms of PEDs that are altered chemical forms of PEDs exist and cannot be detected at all by standard random drug testing. The doping industry and anti-doping industry are in a constant arms race where the doping industry attempts to make as many new chemical versions of "designer drug" forms of PEDs that cannot be detected at all by standard random drug testing and the anti-doping industry has to always play "catch-up" in an attempt to create new drug tests that can detect the newly made chemical versions of "designer drug" forms of PEDs and thus, doping techniques scientifically and objectively will ALWAYS be ahead of anti-doping techniques. CAS scientifically and objectively cannot distinguish between "unintentional doping" and "intentional doping" so CAS will "solve" absolutely NOTHING.

 

[Tennis Devolution]

Yeah, because no other evidence has even been attempted to be gathered. There are only two urinary samples with low concentrations of clostebol derivatives.
While it doesn't seem to have been validated yet how to differentiate intradermal from other dosage forms (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33119965/),
there is absolutely zero evidence to exclude the possibility of a former larger dosage. Even the timing of the last negative sample before the positive one has not been disclosed here. It is only demonstrated that it could have 'plausibly' entered the samples theoretically via intradermal penetration. What also remains a bit questionable is whether a single mild exposure to Trofodermin could lead to a positive result in the second test taken a week later. Yet, the ITIA doesn't seem to require any further scientific proof:
"66. The Expert evidence is generally in alignment and the Parties have agreed that the reports
can be entered into evidence and considered by the Tribunal without formal proof by the
authors."

Everybody knows and acknowledges (including anti-doping agencies themselves) that doping technology is years ahead of the validated anti-doping testing methods.
@jeroenn should also be aware, while playing the role of a little scientist here by citing the article about diuretics, that diuretics are detectable in urinary tests for only a couple of days at most. And even if diuretics do not accelerate the liver metabolism of clostebol, they could theoretically be used to accelerate the elimination of metabolites and thus mask earlier use.

Well it looks like our little friend "jeroenn" is still completely delusionally hell-bent on completely repetitively misinforming the public with the same already completely debunked stances that I have already completely debunked and with absolutely no counters to anything that we have said and with still absolutely no citations of peer-reviewed scientific research articles as always expected completely unlike the peer-reviewed scientific research articles that I have provided since citing the "ITIA document" is not a peer-reviewed scientific research article LOL instead of just accepting that he or she is COMPLETELY WRONG which is fine because I don't have a problem at all with continuing to completely debunk him or her to infinity and beyond so let's make a list of all the scientific objective counters to his or her completely debunked delusional irrational argumentless repetitively misinforming comedic points.

1. Subjective unscientific eyewitness testimonies that the "ITIA document" of jannik sinner utilizes are NOT examples of measurable scientific objective evidence which means that scientifically and objectively there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO scientific objective evidence that jannik sinner "unintentionally" doped. The fact that the "doping experts" and ITIA blindly accepted the subjective contradicting eyewitness testimonies of jannik sinner without question DOES NOT MEAN at all that subjective eyewitness testimonies are "examples" of measurable scientific objective evidence. Making constant completely fallacious appeals to authority consisting of "it's right because the doping experts said so" in order to completely irrationally argumentlessly push the "jannik sinner the unintentional doper" agenda means that you are COMPLETELY WRONG "jeroenn" and you are NOT FOOLING anyone.

2. As scientifically and objectively proven through scientific research, "designer drug" forms of PEDs that cannot be detected at all by standard random drug testing DO EXIST and DO ALLOW doping athletes to pass any standard random drug test without fail so stating that jannik sinner did not fail a drug test prior to testing positive TWICE for clostebol scientifically and objectively DOES NOT MEAN at all that jannik sinner was not doping prior to his TWO failed drug tests. Also, testing positive for the PED clostebol does not mean that one was not using a "designer drug" form of the PED clostebol because if the "designer drug" form of the PED clostebol is close enough to the chemical form of the PED clostebol that the standard drug test detects, then that specific "designer drug" form of the PED clostebol will show up on the standard drug test as just the normal chemical form of the PED clostebol which is what we also exactly see even in complete blood counts where sickle-celled red blood cells can be misidentified by blood tests as white blood cells due to the similar shape and structure between sickle-celled red blood cells and white blood cells.

3. As scientifically and objectively proven through scientific research, drugs like LSD can be microdosed for therapeutic effect despite having to cross over the highly selective blood-brain barrier which obviously makes it scientifically very feasible that a drug like clostebol which does not even have to cross over the highly selective blood-brain barrier can be microdosed for therapeutic effect since ALL DRUGS are chemicals that interact with biological living systems and ALL DRUGS follow the same basic pharmacological scientific principles of drug intake and drug elimination.

4. As scientifically and objectively proven through scientific research, diuretics also allow for rapid drug elimination and prevent standard random drug tests from detecting PEDs. The scientific research article that I cited that was completely argumentlessly irrationally misinterpreted by "jeroenn" in order to completely irrationally argumentlessly push the "jannik sinner the unintentional doper" agenda simply states that modern standard random drug testing can detect a "heterogeneity" of diuretic substances which only refers to the different classes of diuretics and only means that modern standard random drug testing can only detect the general forms of the different classes of diuretics which all have different modes of action and DOES NOT MEAN that all "designer drug" forms of diuretics can be detected by modern standard random drug testing since the scientific research article that I cited NEVER STATES that the "designer drug" forms of diuretics can be detected by modern standard random drug testing.

IN A NUTSHELL, if you believe that there is any scientific objective evidence for the completely delusional irrational argumentless assertion that jannik sinner "unintentionally" doped, then you scientifically and objectively are COMPLETELY UTTERLY WRONG!

 

[jeroenn]

Ok

 

[Hulger]

You may want to try this quote from Professor Naud in point 63:
It is possible that the second AAF result comes from the same administration/contamination as the first AAF reported.

This is your only noteworthy reply for the sidenote of my previous analysis. I read that statement earlier as well. Naud commented on the possibility of a single administration, and Sinner’s story goes like this: “A support team member applied the spray between 5 and 13 March, during which time they also provided daily massages and sports therapy to Sinner.”

However, to shed some new light on the questionability, scientists have measured that:
“M1 (probably the tested metabolite) showed long traceability of up to 13 consecutive days, and clostebol for up to 7 consecutive days.” Sometimes traceability is longer or shorter, as shown in the study.

https://analyticalsciencejournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/dta.3355

So, the professor is correct in stating that intradermal use is plausible to be detected twice within an 8-day interval.

This still doesn’t change the overall picture. They haven’t provided, nor required the inclusion of, any accurate data about the case, and it’s clear that they didn’t try to prove anything beyond the plausibility of the defensive narrative. Even if the testing had required experimental measures like blood or hair samples, which are not routinely used and, therefore, weren’t employed here, the possibility of larger-scale doping remains far from ruled out. This justifies maintaining some healthy doubt about the official story.

 

[Rovesciarete]

1. Subjective unscientific eyewitness testimonies that the "ITIA document" of jannik sinner utilizes are NOT examples of measurable scientific objective evidence which means that scientifically and objectively there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO scientific objective evidence that jannik sinner "unintentionally" doped. The fact that the "doping experts" and ITIA blindly accepted the subjective contradicting eyewitness testimonies of jannik sinner without question DOES NOT MEAN at all that subjective eyewitness testimonies are "examples" of measurable scientific objective evidence. Making constant completely fallacious appeals to authority consisting of "it's right because the doping experts said so" in order to completely irrationally argumentlessly push the "jannik sinner the unintentional doper" agenda means that you are COMPLETELY WRONG "jeroenn" and you are NOT FOOLING anyone.

2. As scientifically and objectively proven through scientific research, "designer drug" forms of PEDs that cannot be detected at all by standard random drug testing DO EXIST and DO ALLOW doping athletes to pass any standard random drug test without fail so stating that jannik sinner did not fail a drug test prior to testing positive TWICE for clostebol scientifically and objectively DOES NOT MEAN at all that jannik sinner was not doping prior to his TWO failed drug tests. Also, testing positive for the PED clostebol does not mean that one was not using a "designer drug" form of the PED clostebol because if the "designer drug" form of the PED clostebol is close enough to the chemical form of the PED clostebol that the standard drug test detects, then that specific "designer drug" form of the PED clostebol will show up on the standard drug test as just the normal chemical form of the PED clostebol which is what we also exactly see even in complete blood counts where sickle-celled red blood cells can be misidentified by blood tests as white blood cells due to the similar shape and structure between sickle-celled red blood cells and white blood cells.

3. As scientifically and objectively proven through scientific research, drugs like LSD can be microdosed for therapeutic effect despite having to cross over the highly selective blood-brain barrier which obviously makes it scientifically very feasible that a drug like clostebol which does not even have to cross over the highly selective blood-brain barrier can be microdosed for therapeutic effect since ALL DRUGS are chemicals that interact with biological living systems and ALL DRUGS follow the same basic pharmacological scientific principles of drug intake and drug elimination.

4. As scientifically and objectively proven through scientific research, diuretics also allow for rapid drug elimination and prevent standard random drug tests from detecting PEDs. The scientific research article that I cited that was completely argumentlessly irrationally misinterpreted by "jeroenn" in order to completely irrationally argumentlessly push the "jannik sinner the unintentional doper" agenda simply states that modern standard random drug testing can detect a "heterogeneity" of diuretic substances which only refers to the different classes of diuretics and only means that modern standard random drug testing can only detect the general forms of the different classes of diuretics which all have different modes of action and DOES NOT MEAN that all "designer drug" forms of diuretics can be detected by modern standard random drug testing since the scientific research article that I cited NEVER STATES that the "designer drug" forms of diuretics can be detected by modern standard random drug testing.

IN A NUTSHELL, if you believe that there is any scientific objective evidence for the completely delusional irrational argumentless assertion that jannik sinner "unintentionally" doped, then you scientifically and objectively are COMPLETELY UTTERLY WRONG!

Thanks for giving us with a torrent of words, which tells us a lot about the author, but nothing about the subject. Have you even read the studies you have linked? Sorry, @jeroenn asked that one before, with an obvious answer...

Raving about the microdosing of psychedelics in the context of clostebol? With meta studies coming to conclusions like:

Introduction: .... While research on microdosing is still lagging behind the shift in public opinion, several papers have been published in the last five years which attempted to assess the effects of microdosing.
Methods: This review paper aimed to critically analyze the research practices used in the recent wave of microdosing research: We reviewed 15 papers published before the closing date of this review in March 2022.
Results: Our review concludes that it is premature to draw any conclusions about the efficacy or safety of microdosing since the research quality cannot be considered confirmatory.
Discussion: We propose some potential causes for the current state of the literature and some suggestions for how these causes may be ameliorated.

Glorious. Instead of throwing in a link about something which didn't matter and which efficacy is doubtful anyway, you could research and write something about the potential microdosing of clostebol. A more worthwhile target for your esteemed research skills and you will, do doubt, find something to express in caps.

P.S: If you would have actually read the studies, you would have noted among the authors the expert de la Torre, which found the explanation of a contamination in this specific case plausible. Thanks for including that paper!

P.P.S: In case you find it difficult to find the already posted citation, point 64 of the ITIA report, I will help you again:

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.

 

[Tennis Devolution]

Thanks for giving us with a torrent of words, which tells us a lot about the author, but nothing about the subject. Have you even read the studies you have linked? Sorry, @jeroenn asked that one before, with an obvious answer...

Raving about the microdosing of psychedelics in the context of clostebol? With meta studies coming to conclusions like:



Glorious. Instead of throwing in a link about something which didn't matter and which efficacy is doubtful anyway, you could research and write something about the potential microdosing of clostebol. A more worthwhile target for your esteemed research skills and you will, do doubt, find something to express in caps.

P.S: If you would have actually read the studies, you would have noted among the authors the expert de la Torre, which found the explanation of a contamination in this specific case plausible. Thanks for including that paper!

P.P.S: In case you find it difficult to find the already posted citation, point 64 of the ITIA report, I will help you again:

LOL DANG as always expected, you completely argumentless delusional irrational nonsensical misinforming "jannik sinner the unintentional doper" agenda pushing trolls are completely incapable of reading or learning about actual scientific objective reality and never understand when to GIVE UP and COMPLETELY ACCEPT that YOU ALL are COMPLETELY WRONG. I am not surprised at all that you and your fellow cronies have not provided ANY peer-reviewed scientific research articles that can counter anything that I have said because there are NONE LOL and because simply stating that microdosing has not been completely "confirmed" by meta-analysis DOES NOT COUNTER at all the many numerous studies demonstrating the possible efficiacy of microdosing of various therapeutic drugs which scientifically and objectively demonstrate that it is very well FEASIBLE and POSSIBLE to microdose drugs that even require a BLOOD-BRAIN BARRIER to selectively pass through making it even MORE FEASIBLE and POSSIBLE that a drug like clostebol which has no extremely selective barrier to pass through at all can be microdosed DUH! Once again your little completely ridiculous nonsensical BS "ITIA document" that you keep completely futilely erroneously "citing" AIN'T FOOLING ANYONE and is absolutely NOT a peer-reviewed scientific research article and scientists simply stating that "contamination with clostebol" is "plausible" scientifically and objectively DOES NOT AND CANNOT EVER PROVE that "contamination with clostebol" ever ACTUALLY OCCURRED since the completely subjective immeasurable unscientific contradicting eyewitness testimonies given by jannik sinner's entourage are ABSOLUTELY NOT a form of scientific objective measurable evidence in any way whatsoever no matter what any "scientist" claims which is a SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVE FACT that you and your fellow cronies have ABSOLUTELY NO CHOICE but to COMPLETELY ACCEPT which scientifically and objectively means that there scientifically and objectively is ABSOLUTELY NO REAL SCIENTIFIC MEASURABLE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that demonstrates that jannik sinner actually "unintentionally doped" and that you and your fellow completely delusional argumentless irrational nonsensical misinforming "jannik sinner the unintentional doper" agenda pushing trolls are ALWAYS COMPLETELY UTTERLY WRONG!

 

[Donkus_Reborn]

No one hates taylor fritz, but no one thinks anything of fritz, he's like something you put up with, like eating breakfast in the morning, he's never gonna win anything