The lawyer who cleared a swimmer of doping predicted a ban for up to 2 years for Sinner
- Thread starter vokazu
- Start date
wait, so now you _want_ Sinner to be treated differently?? I'm confused.....
RSJfan
Legend
Allow me to formally introduce you to Dr. Raul. He’s very mischievous; he makes stuff up. Regularly. It’s part of his charm.
Last edited:
Enceladus
Legend
If you haven't noticed, he's already being treated differently, with gloves.
Better_Call_Raul
Legend
The Cilic case has been consistently used by CAS for last 10 years in sentencing guidelines.
WADA is seeking a one-to-two-year suspension for Sinner which suggests that it considers his case to involve a mid-to-high-range level of fault or negligence.
The World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) recognizes different levels of negligence in doping cases, which affect the length of suspension an athlete may face.
Based on the Cilic v. ITF case, there are three main categories of fault
- Significant degree of fault: 16-24 months suspension
- Applies when athletes show clear disregard for anti-doping rules
- Standard significant fault leads to a 20-month suspension
- Normal degree of fault: 8-16 months suspension
- Involves situations where athletes made some effort to comply but fell short due to negligence
- Standard normal fault results in a 12-month suspension
- Light degree of fault: 0-8 months suspension
- Applies when athletes exercised considerable caution but still violated rules inadvertently
- Standard light fault leads to a 4-month suspension
Still need proof sugar is bad for you? Cilic, glucose, "light" fault, and four months out
Download the Cilic Blog Post HERE CAS Award: Marin Cilic v. International Tennis Federation (ITF), CAS 2013/A/3335, April 11, 2014. Keywords: Degree of fault, Specified Substances, Inadvertent ingestion, Period of Ineligibility In this blog post, we analyze the recent CAS award in the Marin...wadc-commentary.com
Last edited:
Its beyond laughable to hear about corrupted players on twitter or here....if you have played any sport at a professional level you know that E.V.E.R.E.Y.O.N.E at high level is doping including Federer, Djokovic, Nadal and every single player you know. Its the double standards thats the problem.
Last edited:
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
So why doesn't everyone get caught? And if some get caught and others don't is that a double standard or is it down either to good luck or good doping management?
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
Triple standard
My close friend is a pro player and he's struggling so much to make it to even top 500 and I know for sure he's not doping and he's injured so often.
If you look at some ATP players who get injured so much or get tired so easily in matches, who retire in a lot of matches, these are the type of players who don't do doping. Otherwise they'll be running around the court like rabbit all two weeks.
Its good doping management, Sinner's doctors obviously failed to estimate how long it takes to get out of his system.
You 'd be suprised to hear that even low level pros dope.
Even low level footballer players who play at ****ty divisions in my country dope, not even the first 3 rofl. They told me that they were taking some huge green pills during the summer training and they didnt even tell them what those pills are lol.
That's correct but these are such a small minority and you always see that they injure themselves many times per year and also they get so tired(thats where injuries come) easily.
Better_Call_Raul
Legend
Every player gets tested so there is no double standard, so you've got that all wrong.
We have the two #1 players Sinner and Iga testing positive.
If we go with the intentional doping theory, it could mean that Sinner & Iga have the resources for good doping management.
They dope consistently and therefore more likely to get caught occasionally.
The lower players do not have the resources for doping management and do not risk doping. Thus explaining why they don't get caught.
But it is still odd that only top two have tested positive. Which is why many lean towards the accidental contamination theory rather than the intentional doping theory.
Last edited:
Better_Call_Raul
Legend
You are claiming the vast majority of tennis players dope. You have no proof of that. It is just your cynical speculation.
You are talking out of your hat!
Casey 1988
Semi-Pro
Right on or having the money to be paying to switch the testing vials too before sending them off.
Valencia Spain almost lost its big 1/2 marathon and its Marathon being downgraded to not allow pro/elite level runners at the event by the Governing Track and Field body, World Athletics, Valencia already lost its 5k/10k near new year's done in December as official distance status in World Athletics, becuse the event when Pro/Elite runners went to the events the 1/2 marathon and later in year Marathon the vials got messed up and only now with the W A D A doing Genetic sequence testing can the people working the W A D A tell people screwed up on purpose of the runners who were African descent who run outside of their country only a few times a year during these events or those who later got popped were on EPO when they tested outside of race with those Japanese runners who were later tested by the Japanese for proof using the proper equipment as good or better then W A D A.
Spencer Gore
Legend
Sinner's team got the timing of his doping wrong. He should drop the fairytale excuses and take his punishment like a man. He should be banned for the next two slams. Minimum.
No sh1t Sherlock. It is not just a cynical speculation, you are just clueless regarding professional sports, a casual watching pros playing from his sofa but I am not so no reason to keep going.
The Sinner situation (if you take at face value the testimony given during the investigation) is really the ultimate test case for how much responsibility a player bears for their team's actions. To be analogous to the Cilic situation, he'd have to have intentionally applied the steroid spray to himself under the mistaken assumption that it did not contain a banned steroid. To be analogous to the recent Swiatek situation, he'd have to have intentionally applied a contaminated spray that he reasonably assumed was not contaminated. But he didn't intentionally apply anything.
Further, his physio Nardi did not intentionally apply the spray to Sinner. I would assume the authorities would come down pretty hard on a team member intentionally administering a banned substance to a player, despite the player's ignorance – otherwise athletes could just remain conveniently ignorant of what their team is doing and claim innocence of any malfeasance. But this (again, if you take everything at face value) is not what happened. Nardi applied the spray to himself, apparently not thinking anything in it would be transferred to Sinner's bloodstream during their frequent full-body massages. That's negligence on his part, but it's complicated further by his insistence he didn't know it was a steroid spray. That is the act that's most analogous to the Cilic situation. Nardi pulled a Cilic and used a medicine he shouldn't have, assuming incorrectly that it did not contain a banned substance. But Nardi's not the player. Is Sinner equally responsible for Nardi's negligence as he would be for his own? I don't know enough about doping trials to have any idea where the authorities typically fall on this kind of decision, and my gut is the Sinner situation specifically is such an edge case there may not be a lot of clear precedence. But if that's the case, then the Sinner decision itself will set a pretty important precedence regarding athlete responsibility for their team's actions.
Further, his physio Nardi did not intentionally apply the spray to Sinner. I would assume the authorities would come down pretty hard on a team member intentionally administering a banned substance to a player, despite the player's ignorance – otherwise athletes could just remain conveniently ignorant of what their team is doing and claim innocence of any malfeasance. But this (again, if you take everything at face value) is not what happened. Nardi applied the spray to himself, apparently not thinking anything in it would be transferred to Sinner's bloodstream during their frequent full-body massages. That's negligence on his part, but it's complicated further by his insistence he didn't know it was a steroid spray. That is the act that's most analogous to the Cilic situation. Nardi pulled a Cilic and used a medicine he shouldn't have, assuming incorrectly that it did not contain a banned substance. But Nardi's not the player. Is Sinner equally responsible for Nardi's negligence as he would be for his own? I don't know enough about doping trials to have any idea where the authorities typically fall on this kind of decision, and my gut is the Sinner situation specifically is such an edge case there may not be a lot of clear precedence. But if that's the case, then the Sinner decision itself will set a pretty important precedence regarding athlete responsibility for their team's actions.
Casey 1988
Semi-Pro
I also wonder if his trainer was doping him unknowingly like the cases for super micro dosing of EPO in pill form and topping off adrenaline slipped in the dinner drinks for the Runners who only ever lived and ate at Alburto Salzar's Nike distance Project done in Beaverton, after he took over the old project in 2007--2008 that was in the California mountains. This was found out later during all the lawsuits against him where Alburto died in court or right after of a similar heart event like the one he had in 2010's becuse he was in rough shape having overtrained in the 1980's developing a Runners Arrhythmia when on the Nike team with the claim as a tester/running shoe designer but actually just living in the Nike headquarters for the old 1980's Nike Distance Team with pay so he could be in the Olympics as an "non sponsored' runner pre 1991.
Last edited:
It's the complete lack of remorse and self-victimization that is terribly off-putting with Sinner.
Fabresque
Legend
And where exactly is your proof that everyone at the high level is doping?
And you’re implying you have played a sport at a professional level. So which sport were you professional in to know everyone is drugged up?
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
He won’t be banned, he’s not at fault for medical professionals making mistakes with medications.
Also, he fired those responsible and has made the necessary corrections.
On top of all that he hasn’t tested positive again and has continued increased performance and results.
Also, he fired those responsible and has made the necessary corrections.
On top of all that he hasn’t tested positive again and has continued increased performance and results.
It's not as if some random pharmacist in a random city where he was touring happened to make a mistake. It was his own team. A player does bear a certain level of responsibility for the actions of their team. The question is just how much, and CAS will help clarify in a couple of months or so.
Fabresque
Legend
They are part of his team and what WADA claims is that Sinner bears responsibility for his own team.
WADA seeks a 1-2 year ban which indicates they believe he bears a significant brunt of responsibility. It’s up to the court to decide. They can agree with WADA or disagree. If they think he bears no responsibility, he won’t be banned. If he bears slight responsibility, it’ll be a few months.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Sharapova got 15 months for a mistake, which was the norm back then.
You are required to take responsibility by monitoring your employees.
Increasing performance is irrelevant to doping regulations.
You are required to take responsibility by monitoring your employees.
Increasing performance is irrelevant to doping regulations.
thank you for the reference.The Cilic case has been consistently used by CAS for last 10 years in sentencing guidelines.
WADA is seeking a one-to-two-year suspension for Sinner which suggests that it considers his case to involve a mid-to-high-range level of fault or negligence.
The World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) recognizes different levels of negligence in doping cases, which affect the length of suspension an athlete may face.
Based on the Cilic v. ITF case, there are three main categories of fault
- Significant degree of fault: 16-24 months suspension
- Applies when athletes show clear disregard for anti-doping rules
- Standard significant fault leads to a 20-month suspension
- Normal degree of fault: 8-16 months suspension
- Involves situations where athletes made some effort to comply but fell short due to negligence
- Standard normal fault results in a 12-month suspension
- Light degree of fault: 0-8 months suspension
- Applies when athletes exercised considerable caution but still violated rules inadvertently
- Standard light fault leads to a 4-month suspension
Still need proof sugar is bad for you? Cilic, glucose, "light" fault, and four months out
Download the Cilic Blog Post HERE CAS Award: Marin Cilic v. International Tennis Federation (ITF), CAS 2013/A/3335, April 11, 2014. Keywords: Degree of fault, Specified Substances, Inadvertent ingestion, Period of Ineligibility In this blog post, we analyze the recent CAS award in the Marin...wadc-commentary.com
Unfortunately that is _not_ a WADA authored document. This is an _interpretation_ of WADA rules by some group of lawyers. It is pretty good - but there's absolutely nothing in WADA or ITIA rules that there's anything remotely called 'standard normal fault results in 12-month suspension'. That is the whole point - there's no such thing as 'standard normal fault'. Every case is judged individually, and the penalty is applied appropriately. I've listed some past penalties given here https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...fe-ban-on-sinner-swiatek.778568/post-18496906 and only _one_ penalty was actually exactly 12 months. Some were more, some less, as expected.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
If this analysis is based on the Cilic case then the punishment guidelines in the Sinner one should follow them.
The cases are judged individually, but the punishment falls into categories so there is consistency over time.
CAS decided the Cilic case so it's likely to cite these guidelines in its determination.
The cases are judged individually, but the punishment falls into categories so there is consistency over time.
CAS decided the Cilic case so it's likely to cite these guidelines in its determination.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Do you honestly believe the top ten ATP players--with the demands of the tour and current-day sports medicine--are not consciously using any form of PEDs?
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
So you are saying that the pro-Western WADA/ITIA is running a "turn-a-blind-eye to doping" policy that makes the Russians look like amateurs?
two points.
- I'm not sure why @Better_Call_Raul cited some analysis based on Cilic case. That analysis is from 2014, obviously there was no 'Sinner doping story' then. ITIA verdict in Sinner's case does not cite Cilic case at all - nor should it since these cases are not that similar.
- Even if you do want to draw some connection between Cilic and Sinner. Cilic got 4 months. I'm not sure how that supports the thesis that
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
You have to separate a finding from a punishment.
Criminal courts operate with highly defined criteria for punishment to ensure consistency.
If there is a finding of fault or negligence, then you classify it and then you plug in the appropriate sentence more or less.
Sinner wasn't punished at all so there would be no need to consider the Cilic case, so I'd presume if CAS finds fault they will look at Cilic's judgement.
Criminal courts operate with highly defined criteria for punishment to ensure consistency.
If there is a finding of fault or negligence, then you classify it and then you plug in the appropriate sentence more or less.
Sinner wasn't punished at all so there would be no need to consider the Cilic case, so I'd presume if CAS finds fault they will look at Cilic's judgement.
Better_Call_Raul
Legend
| Player | Suspension | Year of Decision | Deciding Body | Substance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marin Čilić | 4 months (reduced from 9) | 2013 | ITF, then CAS | Nikethamide |
| Viktor Troicki | 12 months (reduced from 18) | 2013 | ITF, then CAS | Failed to provide a sample |
| Barbora Záhlavová-Strýcová | 6 months | 2013 | ITF | Sibutramine |
| Wayne Odesnik | 15 years | 2015 | ITF | Human Growth Hormone (HGH) |
| Maria Sharapova | 15 months (reduced from 2 years) | 2016 | ITF, then CAS | Meldonium |
| Sara Errani | 10 months (increased from 2) | 2018 | CAS | Letrozole |
| Nicolas Jarry | 11 months | 2020 | ITF | Ligandrol and Stanozolol |
| Robert Farah | Provisional suspension | 2020 | ITF | Boldenone |
| Dayana Yastremska | Provisional suspension | 2021 | ITF | Unspecified substance |
| Simona Halep | 9 months (reduced from 4 years) | 2022-2024 | ITIA, then CAS | Roxadustat |
| Kamil Majchrzak | 13 months | 2023 | ITIA Tribunal | Unspecified substance |
| Jenson Brooksby | 18 months | 2023 | ITIA Tribunal | Unspecified substance |
| Beatriz Haddad Maia | 10 months | 2023 | ITIA Tribunal | Unspecified substance |
| Marcelo Demoliner | 3 months | 2023 | ITIA Tribunal | Unspecified substance |
| Thomaz Bellucci | 5 months | 2023 | ITIA Tribunal | Unspecified substance |
| Igor Marcondes | 9 months | 2023 | ITIA Tribunal | Unspecified substance |
| João Klier Júnior | 12 months | 2023 | ITIA Tribunal | Unspecified substance |
| Nikola Bartunkova | 6 months (accepted in May) | 2023 | ITIA Tribunal | Unspecified substance |
| Sydney Dorcil | 4 years | 2023 | ITIA Tribunal | Unspecified substance |
| Mikael Ymer | 18 months (after initial clearance by Independent Tribunal) | 2023 | CAS | Unspecified substance (initially cleared for whereabouts failures) |
| Mariano Tammaro | 15 months | 2023 | ITIA Tribunal | Clostebol |
| Tamara Zidansek | Pending decision | 2023 | ITIA Tribunal | Unspecified substance |
| Iga Świątek | 1 month | 2024 | ITIA Tribunal | Trimetazidine |
| Jannik Sinner | Pending decision (not yet finalized) | 2024 | ITIA Tribunal, then CAS | Clostebol |
Gentle readers should kindly note that it is extremely rare for WADA to appeal an ITIA appointed Tribunal tennis decision to CAS.
WADA typically appeals decisions in other sports: cycling, swimming, track, etc. But very rarely are tennis penalties appealed by WADA
The Cilic case has been referenced in several subsequent doping cases handled by both the ITIA and CAS.
- Sydney Dorcil case (2023): The ITIA tribunal cited the Cilic case when discussing how to reduce a suspension based on No (Significant) Fault or Negligence.
- Mariano Tammaro v. International Tennis Federation (CAS 2022/A/9141): The CAS panel referenced the Cilic case regarding the subjective elements for determining an athlete's degree of fault.
- Jannik Sinner case (2024): While not directly citing Cilic, the ITIA applied similar principles in evaluating the athlete's degree of fault.
Cilic Case Guidance:
- Cilic Case Overview: The Cilic case (CAS 2013/A/3335) involved an appeal against a nine-month suspension imposed by the ITF for testing positive for a banned substance. The CAS panel reduced the suspension to four months, emphasizing the importance of evaluating the athlete's degree of fault in doping violations.
- Guidance on Fault Levels: The CAS decision in the Cilic case established general principles for assessing the degree of fault, particularly concerning specified substances that are prohibited in competition but may be ingested out of competition. This guidance is relevant to both CAS and ITIA as they evaluate cases involving doping violations.
- Application by ITIA and CAS: The principles derived from the Cilic case have been referenced in later decisions by both ITIA and CAS. While each case is judged individually, the framework provided by the Cilic decision helps ensure a more consistent approach to determining sanctions based on degrees of fault.
- Influence on Future Cases: The Cilic case has been cited in subsequent doping cases to illustrate how fault levels can influence penalties, thereby contributing to a harmonized application of anti-doping regulations across different cases and sports.
Last edited:
I honestly do not understand your fixation on the relevance of Cilic's case. If ITIA or CAS thought it was somehow comparable to a given case, they would cite that. And they did not in Sinner's case.
Cilic case is nowhere similar to Sinner's. The circumstances are different, the method of how the prohibited substance entered the body is different, the substance itself is different - there are literally no similarities.
Sure, some other case could have been similar to Cilic's - so then that case is being referenced.
Sinner's case is similar to Marco Bortolotti’s one, and to Yastremska's - since in those cases it was a contact with another person that led to the prohibited substance entering the player's body.
Cilic case is nowhere similar to Sinner's. The circumstances are different, the method of how the prohibited substance entered the body is different, the substance itself is different - there are literally no similarities.
Sure, some other case could have been similar to Cilic's - so then that case is being referenced.
Sinner's case is similar to Marco Bortolotti’s one, and to Yastremska's - since in those cases it was a contact with another person that led to the prohibited substance entering the player's body.
Better_Call_Raul
Legend
To believe in something requires some evidence; anything else is merely conjecture and speculation.
There is no free lunch. These PEDs have side effects. Some of these PEDs do not necessarily work on every player.
Absolutely do not believe that Djoker has ever doped. And there is zero evidence that he has ever doped.
He has literally passed a thousand random WADA doping tests over the last 20 years. Sad to see that the world has become so cynical.
Last edited:
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Not just referring to Djokovic.
RSJfan
Legend
“If this sense of literally is bothersome, you needn’t use it. If you dislike hearing other people use it, you may continue to be upset.”
Did we change the definition of 'literally'?
Literally every modern dictionary includes this definition
Better_Call_Raul
Legend
Don't really know what other players are doing but you seem to agree that the GOAT Djoker is not doping.
Your theory is that most players in the top 10 are doping and fooling WADA. Your theory is that players cannot compete without doping.
But if the Djoker can compete at the top in his advanced age without doping these younger players are also capable of doing it. Doping is not necessary to compete at the highest level.
Quite to the contrary, an elite Top 10 player has natural talent and is less likely to need doping assistance than a lower ranked player.
Last edited:
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
They came up with guidelines for punishment in case of unintentional use in the Cilic case. It's this that makes it relevant. There are otherwise no similarities between the cases.
Better_Call_Raul
Legend
“If this sense of literally is bothersome, you needn’t use it. If you dislike hearing other people use it, you may continue to be upset.”
Did we change the definition of 'literally'?
Literally every modern dictionary includes this definitionwww.merriam-webster.com
"Djoker has passed a thousand doping tests" vs "Djoker has literally passed a thousand doping tests".
The use of "literally" serves a legitimate purpose as it emphasizes that the number is not hyperbole, but an actual count of WADA tests.
I think I'm going to question your understanding of that very word 'literally'. Djokovic turned pro in 2003. For the sake of simplicity let's assume he has been tested even while a junior - so let's say 25 years. 'thousand' would imply that he has taken at least 1000 tests. That would mean he has been tested on average 1000/25 ~= 40 times per year, every year, for 25 years. I do not think there has ever been a tennis player that was tested 40 times a year even once.
in short - Djokovic literally has _not_ passed a thousand of WADA tests.
big ted
Legend
like bortolotti?
Similar threads
