The WADA Director explains the appeal to the CAS. Decision likely around March
- Thread starter Winner Sinner
- Start date
this is a fascinating take on that doping case. Because and I'm sure you know that, Valieva, the skater, failed the doping test _that was mandated and required by Russia Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) during Russian Skating Championship_. So you are saying that Russia federation, i.e. 'they', were 'pumping her full of dope', and then that federation collected her sample, and showed that she failed the test. Which ultimately resulted in Russia team, you know, the same team that is under Russia Skating Federation wing and sponsorship, losing a medal at Olympics.
I mean this is some next level of state wide doping conspiracy. It is so complex that even Russians themselves do not understand why they are doping their athletes and _at the same time_ test them and publish failed tests results.
Wait. So the Russian anti doping agency caught her? So who gave her drugs? Im not clear what you are saying.
Yes, it was Russian anti doping agency that took her sample, and then provided that sample to the lab (in Sweden as Russian labs are apparently not WADA accredited), and then announced that she failed the test. It just happened that the results came back while she was at the Olympic - which led to immediate disqualification of hers and the Russian team results. Surely you were not thinking that she failed the test at the Olympics, right? It would be silly to comment on her case without at least making yourself somewhat familiar with what happened, right?
As to 'who have her drugs' - well, that I do not know. But _you_ are implying it was _them_ aka ' the country pumped her full of dope'- so I can only assume by 'them' you meant 'some Russian dude/trainer that is part of wide spread doping circle in Russia'. I'm simply saying that your take on the story makes zero sense.
WTF are you even talking about? My "question" if you read it was in regards to precedent in cases like this. You're on a tangent. Someone drugged her, she had her medal and her teams medal taken away. Because she failed the drug test. However, she was not accused of doping herself. The claim was and as far as I know she was doped unknowingly. It was not her fault correct? So again my question was do these types of rulings cross sports as how the punishments are decided.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
The guy running the Russian doping ring was Rodchenkov. The Americans decided to turn the criminal into a whistleblower. The Russian anti-doping agency is now corruption-free.
So this Russian guy Rodchenkov was doping her? Ok. So does this WADA investigation constitute any precedent toward punishment in tennis as far as someone being drugged against their will? Does WADA institute the punishment of these athletes or do they just hand over results to the various sports organizations? IOC/ATP ect ect
MasterSlice74
Semi-Pro
So basically Sinner and Swiatek get off scott-free while Purcell get suspended for taking too many f*cking vitamins? Treating someone as your scapegoat doesn't show you are enforcing any kind of rules, it just shows you are corrupt. By Sinner and Swiatek's logic, it isn't Purcell's' fault he took too many vitamins, it's the fault of the person who administered them, so he should get off scott-free as well. Pure logic fail from WADA. Lost a lot of respect for Sinner and the WADA from this case, and for me, any slams he wins will always have an asterisk.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
WADA creates and polices the regulatory framework. It's not a prosecutorial authority so you're blaming the wrong body.
anarosevoli
Professional
Firstly, WADA has exactly the position that Sinner is responsible for the actions of his team, that's why they appealed. So where is the logic fail you are talking about?
Secondly, no case is like the other. Getting vitamin infusions includes the risk that an error happens during this. One could argue that the grade of responsibility is higher here than in a case where you need to control your employees' private lives to an extent that is not justifiable (and not even allowed!) in order to prevent the risk of the contamination.
Rosstour
Talk Tennis Guru
Sometimes I wonder what you get out of being here this much yet never posting a single genuine comment. It's just absurdism 24/7. It's exhausting to read
Rovesciarete
Hall of Fame
Indeed, one must argue that. Going a clinic to get a needle into your body, to use a discouraged method to absorb vitamins is a world apart from the Sinner contamination.
Ten years ago this ill theatre would not have been set in motion. The WADA guidelines were shaped in a different world and they completely missed to reform them after they introduced ever more sensitive tests. Their concept of negligence was built upon finding ‘true‘ doping traces and not two grains of sugar in an olympic pool.
They admitted as much in part and will likely reform, but only after dragging even more athletes through the dirt for harmless contaminations.
and that is exactly the problem with your post. You are implying that Valieva's case is somehow similar to recent doping cases in tennis. It is not.
she very much was accused if doping - that is what by definition happens when you fail a drug test. Her explanation - which was a pretty wild one - was not accepted and she got a 4 year ban verdict by CAS. Whether she was drugged by someone, or whether she doped unknowingly - I have no idea. What I do know is that CAS did not believe her explanation.
You clearly have some insider information
yes, the penalties are based on precedents in other sports. But you are incorrectly implying that because Valieva got 4 year ban so should everybody else. She got 4 year ban because her story as to what caused her failed test was not believed by CAS. She was essentially found fully guilty of intentional doping. Here's a link to a final CAS verdict: https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Media_Release_9451_9455_9456_Decision.pdf to quote from there:
"Having carefully considered all the evidence put before it, the CAS Panel concluded that Ms Valieva was not able to establish, on the balance of probabilities and on the basis of the evidence before the Panel, that she had not committed the ADRV intentionally (within the meaning of the Russian ADR)."
it is certainly possible that CAS may rule similarly in Sinner's case, or in Swiatek's case (if WADA appeals to CAS) - but that is very unlikely as even WADA does not claim that either Sinner or Swiatek were doping intentionally.
Purcell is perfectly entitled to fight his case, just like Sinner or Swiatek did. To get his provisional suspension overruled. To prove unintentional violation of the rules. It seems he chose not to do that, at least for now.
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
I get out the attention of knowledgeable people like you, with vast trajectory in these forums, who keep on reading me, no matter how exhausted they are.
It's like reading Shakespeare.
Now let's discuss a bit of genuine contents. If Federer had a two handed backhand, how many more Roland Garroses he wins?
Dude you are hyper defensive. All I did was ask a question. I was not implying anything. I asked the question does one case set precedent on something like this.
Now thats amazing they found a 15 year old guilty of intentionally doping. Yes her explanation was stupid. But she was 15.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Easier for the rich, not just financially but having the "right contacts".
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
At this point I think Sinner would have to sniff cocaine on a live press conference for him to get real consequences. The whole thing is an utter farce.
OK, Merry Christmas to you.
Sure it is easier to fight the case if you are rich. On the other hand plenty of lower ranked tennis players (like way less known than Purcell) that failed the tests did contest, some successfully.
RSJfan
Legend
Happy Festivus!
May I butt in?
Unlike a court in a common law country, CAS arbitrators in theory are not obligated to follow any case law so one case does not set precedent for another. However, as a practical matter CAS arbitrators do follow case law like its binding precedent to try to further the CAS objective of the “global unification of sports law.”
That both cases involve an athlete pointing blame elsewhere doesn’t by itself make it useful precedent. Different cases and different facts. No new rule or principal applied in the skater’s case either.
Cutting through the decision, the Russian Skater received four years because CAS didn’t believe her story about how TMZ was present her system. Or to put it in WADA Code-speak she was unable to meet the burden of explaining the presence of TMZ “on the balance of probability.” Sinner on the other hand met his burden of explaining how Clostebol was present in his system.
Explaining how a (non-Specified) Prohibited Substance is present in your body is a threshold requirement for the athlete to demonstrate a lack of intent.
It doesn’t really matter why ITIA accepted Sinner’s explanation and CAS rejected the skater’s for determining the value of the skaters case as precedence. But FYI any such explanation can’t rest solely on the athlete’s word and the skater’s my grandpa gave me TMZ contaminated strawberry dessert and I took a train ride story was a doozy that had no corroboration.
Last edited:
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Even if Sinner met the threshold burden of explaining the non-intentional presence of Clostebol, the problem is that it was still due to agents under his control.
The more jaundiced view is that his agents are simply taking the blame in order to absolve him of intention. But the fall guy theory wasn't really entertained.
The more WADA-oriented view is that as they were his agents there can't be a finding of no fault or negligence. This is the legal error theory/agency problem.
The more jaundiced view is that his agents are simply taking the blame in order to absolve him of intention. But the fall guy theory wasn't really entertained.
The more WADA-oriented view is that as they were his agents there can't be a finding of no fault or negligence. This is the legal error theory/agency problem.
Happy Festivus!
May I butt in?
Unlike a court in a common law country, CAS arbitrators in theory are not obligated to follow any case law so one case does not set precedent for another. However, as a practical matter CAS arbitrators do follow case law like its binding precedent to try to further the CAS objective of the “global unification of sports law.”
That both cases involve an athlete pointing blame elsewhere doesn’t by itself make it useful precedent. Different cases and different facts. No new rule or principal applied in the skater’s case either.
Cutting through the decision, the Russian Skater received four years because CAS didn’t believe her story about how TMZ entered her system. Or to put it in WADA Code-speak she was unable to meet the burden of explaining the presence of TMZ “on the balance of probability.” Sinner on the other hand met his burden of explaining how Clostebol was present in his system.
Explaining how a (non-Specified) Prohibited Substance is present in your body is a threshold requirement for the athlete to demonstrate a lack of intent.
It doesn’t really matter why ITIA accepted Sinner’s explanation and CAS rejected the skater’s for determining the value of the skater’s case as precedence. But FYI any such explanation can’t rest solely on the athlete’s word and the skater’s grandpa gave me TMZ contaminated strawberry dessert and I took a train ride story was a doozy that had no corroboration.
Last edited:
Ok thanks that makes sense. Im still not really comfortable with a 15 year old or heck probably at least 14 when they were drugging her getting a 4 year ban which effectively ends her career. I got no problem taking the medal away. But man the rest is pretty brutal.Happy Festivus!
May I butt in?
Unlike a court in a common law country, CAS arbitrators in theory are not obligated to follow any case law so one case does not set precedent for another. However, as a practical matter CAS arbitrators do follow case law like its binding precedent to try to further the CAS objective of the “global unification of sports law.”
That both cases involve an athlete pointing blame elsewhere doesn’t by itself make it useful precedent. Different cases and different facts. No new rule or principal applied in the skater’s case either.
Cutting through the decision, the Russian Skater received four years because CAS didn’t believe her story about how TMZ was present her system. Or to put it in WADA Code-speak she was unable to meet the burden of explaining the presence of TMZ “on the balance of probability.” Sinner on the other hand met his burden of explaining how Clostebol was present in his system.
Explaining how a (non-Specified) Prohibited Substance is present in your body is a threshold requirement for the athlete to demonstrate a lack of intent.
It doesn’t really matter why ITIA accepted Sinner’s explanation and CAS rejected the skater’s for determining the value of the skaters case as precedence. But FYI any such explanation can’t rest solely on the athlete’s word and the skater’s grandpa gave me TMZ contaminated strawberry dessert and I took a train ride story was a doozy that had no corroboration.
Subway Tennis
G.O.A.T.
I think we might finally see the end of the line with WADA holding professional sport to ransom.
It’s still going to take a loooong time to dismantle WADA, though. A lot of money in this, and some powerful people who won’t want to lose the power and revenue. Some of the top Big $$ sporting properties in the world are all paying WADA Big $$ to avoid the overheads and legal liability of drug testing.
But the positive is that the end is in sight, something which I didn’t see coming.
The issue is going to be how we create a new dialogue around drugs in sport that takes into account how much more the average person knows about PEDs these days. Otherwise a new version of WADA will just pop up in its place.
RSJfan
Legend
While you’re at it would you please dismantle the IOC and its “movement” as well.
As far as a new “dialogue around drugs” please include my fav Dr Raul who I think you will find to be a helpful and knowledgable participant when he‘a not off on a complete and irrelevant tangent about the tennis anti-corruption program.
RSJfan
Legend
It is harsh. You do get certain protections under the WADA Code as a minor. But her explanation for how TMZ was present didn’t pass the laugh test and really didn’t leave the CAS panel any wiggle room.
The ad hoc panel that ruled during the 2022 Olympics on the narrow issue of whether to impose a provisional suspension on her and declined to do so based their decision in large part on the fact that she was a minor. Interestingly one of the arbitrators on that panel – Jeffrey Benz — was also on the CAS panel that reduced the length of Halep‘s suspension from four years to nine months. Carrot is reported to have picked him to be on the CAS panel hearing the WADA-Carrot appeal.
Last edited:
Subway Tennis
G.O.A.T.
Getting rid of WADA, IOC, FIFA and F1 would be a good start. That’s a lot of strippers and cocaine with nowhere to go if those fine institutions were disbandedWhile you’re at it would you please dismantle the IOC and its “movement” as well.
As far as a new “dialogue around drugs” please include my fav Dr Raul who I think you will find to be a helpful and knowledgable participant when he‘a not off on a complete and irrelevant tangent about the tennis anti-corruption program.
RSJfan
Legend
On the positive side it will free up a lot of bribe money that can be deployed elsewhere.Getting rid of WADA, IOC, FIFA and F1 would be a good start. That’s a lot of strippers and cocaine with nowhere to go if those fine institutions were disbanded
Subway Tennis
G.O.A.T.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
That makes sense.
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
This looks like a very interesting thread to participate, but there are 83 posts before mine, (many of them lengthy) which I should read before opining anything without running the risk of saying something stupid.
Sorry, I don't have time.
The only thing I can say, is that I don't want to wait until March.
Sorry, I don't have time.
The only thing I can say, is that I don't want to wait until March.
RSJfan
Legend
I’m afraid it is out of TTW hands. CAS must have outsourced the outsourcing of its arbitration tribunals. Now you know how it feels.
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
Sad. I may have finished with all of my pending posts certifications before CAS comes up with something.
Just great info. I appreciate the answers. Sometimes on this place you ask a question and like 9 people go after you for being anti-russian for literally asking a question.It is harsh. You do get certain protections under the WADA Code as a minor. But her explanation for how TMZ was present when the story was tested didn’t pass the laugh test and really didm’t leave the CAS panel any wiggle room.
The ad hoc panel that ruled during the 2022 Olympics on the narrow issue of whether to impose a provisional suspension on her and declined to do so based their decision in large part on the fact that she was a minor. Interestingly one of the arbitrators on that panel – Jeffrey Benz — was also on the CAS panel that reduced the length of Halep‘s detention from four years to nine months. Carrot is reported to have picked him to be on the CAS panel hearing the WADA-Carrot appeal.
Sorry to all Tankies. She was Russian. She got busted. Americans get busted. Australians get busted. Everyone gets busted. My question was about precedent and rulings not about the Cold War. Thank you.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
When you resort to political abuse by using the word "tankies", it's hard to take your remark that you are not obsessed with the Cold War seriously.
RSJfan
Legend
I hope you will use your best efforts to move certification work forward as quick as you possibly can while maintaining the high quality posters rely on when seeing that a post has been certified and to do so without regard to the timing of the The Carrot Case. And while I’m not trying to skip the line please remember my post involved FEDRs physical security at AA stadium which we need comfort on if he decides to return to the tour which I expect he will do if Fritz is still in the top 5 at W 2025.
Last edited:
RSJfan
Legend
I had a couple of typos in my post. Halep wasn’t a detention obviously but a suspension. Peng Shuai is a detention.
Yea thats ok. Just so I have this clear in my head, who is the entity that actually hands out the suspensions in these cases. Like what agency says guilty and delivers the sentence?
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Nope. You guys can't help yourself with your beery nostalgia for the Cold War. It's been over for decades, so move on!
lol. Oh here we go. The red guardian himself has appeared to defend the honor of the eastern world. I swear to god you must have key words set on your computer anytime someone on here mentions Russia or China
RSJfan
Legend
Depending on how a particular case plays out either (1) the ITIA, (2) a Tennis Independent Tribunal or (3) a CAS tribunal.
In tennis it works as follows:
The ITIA administers the tennis anti-doping code (TADP) Including, among other things, charging players with anti-doping rule violations, imposing provisional suspensions and conducting investigations. If the player admits to the charge then the ITIA delivers the sanction. Admitting to the charge can get you a better deal.
If the player disputes the charge then there is a hearing before a neutral panel of arbitrators (the “Tennis Independent Tribunal”). The entity in charge of assembling these panels is Sports Resolutions.
After the Tennis Independent Tribunal issues it‘s decision including the sanction, if any, each of the ITIA, the player and WADA have a right to appeal the decision to CAS.
If an appeal is taken — as it was by WADA in The Carrot Case— CAS will help assemble a neutral panel of arbitrators to hear the appeal. This panel may review all the facts and all the legal issues like it’s a brand new case. It doesn’t have to defer to any findings made by the Tennis Independent Tribunal. After the hearing the CAS panel issues its decision including the sanction, if any.
In the vast majority of cases that’s the end of the road. However, in very limited circumstances a party to the CAS arbitration may have grounds to appeal the CAS Tribunal decision to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court but I believe these appeals are limited to procedural due process issues; the Swiss Court will not review substantive issues. Which makes sense because these sport disputes are civil arbitrations and one of the goals is to avoid the courts
and I think the Swiss Court is very arbitration friendly. But I haven’t really looked into the Swiss Court CAS appeals.
Sports Dispute Resolution Service
Sport Resolutions is a global independent, not-for-profit, dispute resolution service for sports, offering arbitration, mediation, tribunal and expert opinion.
www.sportresolutions.com
Raising the game for clean sport
WADA’s primary role is to develop, harmonize and coordinate anti-doping rules and policies across all sports and countries. Our key activities include scientific and social science research; education; intelligence & investigations; development of anti-doping capacity; and monitoring of...
TAS / CAS
The CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) is an independent institution, based in Lausanne, involved in resolving legal disputes in the field of sport through arbitration and mediation. The CAS jurisdiction is recognized by all Olympic sports federations and many non-Olympic federations. The CAS...
www.tas-cas.org
Last edited:
Subway Tennis
G.O.A.T.
Are you looking forward to AO? Do you think anyone can stop Sinner or will he be too strong?
Agggg. Ok so the ITIA hands down the punishment normally. Got it.Depending on how a particular case plays out either (1) the ITIA, (2) a Tennis Independent Tribunal or (3) a CAS tribunal.
In tennis it works as follows:
The ITIA administers the tennis anti-doping code (TADP) Including, among other things, charging players with anti-doping rule violations, imposing provisional suspensions and conducting investigations. If the player admits to the charge then the ITIA delivers the sanction. Admitting to the charge can get you a better deal.
If the player disputes the charge then there is a hearing before a neutral panel of arbitrators (the “Tennis Independent Tribunal”). The entity in charge of assembling these panels is Sports Resolutions.
After a Tennis Independent Tribunal issues it‘s decision each of the ITIA, the player and WADA have a right to appeal the decision to CAS.
If an appeal is taken — as it was by WADA in The Carrot Case— CAS will help assemble a neutral panel of arbitrators to hear the appeal. This panel may review all the facts and all the legal issues like it’s a brand new case. It doesn’t have to defer to any findings made by the Tennis Independent Tribunal. After the hearing the CAS panel issues its decision including the sanction, if any.
In the vast majority of cases that’s the end of the road. However, in very limited circumstances a party to the CAS arbitration may have grounds to appeal the CAS Tribunal decision to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court but I believe these appeals are limited to procedural due process issues; they don’t review substantive issues. Which makes sense because these are civil arbitrations and one of the goals is to avoid the courts
Sports Dispute Resolution Service
Sport Resolutions is a global independent, not-for-profit, dispute resolution service for sports, offering arbitration, mediation, tribunal and expert opinion.
Raising the game for clean sport
WADA’s primary role is to develop, harmonize and coordinate anti-doping rules and policies across all sports and countries. Our key activities include scientific and social science research; education; intelligence & investigations; development of anti-doping capacity; and monitoring of...www.wada-ama.org
TAS / CAS
The CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) is an independent institution, based in Lausanne, involved in resolving legal disputes in the field of sport through arbitration and mediation. The CAS jurisdiction is recognized by all Olympic sports federations and many non-Olympic federations. The CAS...
Soooooo, why did WADA appeal the Sinner case again? If WADA is an investigator in this ( maybe im still not understanding) but why does WADA appeal? What is their stake in what tennis decides to do or not do?
RSJfan
Legend
ITIA is an investigator. WADA is not an investigator. WADA must rely on the case files of the ITIA in order to evaluate an anti-doping case and decide whether to exercise its right to appeal.
WADA (ostensibly with input from its various stakeholders) develops the WADA doping code. WADA also puts together the Prohibited List of substances and methods.
Most doping cases are resolved without WADA getting involved but WADA retains a right to appeal. Presumably as a check on the initial arbitration panel (in tennis it would be the Tennis Independent Tribunal) when it thinks such tribunal is not ruling in accordance with the WADA Code and related CAS case law. WADA’s stake is making sure code signatories adhere to its precious WADA Code (as WADA interprets it). WADA protects adherence to the code much like that hobbit guy must protect his ring.
People will have their own theories on why WADA appealed The Carrot Case but WADA’s explanation I believe from their public statements is not a dispute with the ITIA on Carrot’s story but a dispute on what level of fault he bears.
The Tennis Independent Tribunal found Carrot’s story legit and that Carrot bore “No Fault or Negligence” and no ban (TADP 10.5). WADA thinks this finding is inconsistent with CAS case law and that the Carrot story should result in a finding one step up from 10.5 no fault to “No Significant Fault or Negligence“ and a ban of 1 - 2 years. (TADP 10.6.2).
Last edited:
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
WADA considers that the Independent Tribunal did not adjudicate the case correctly. As a result, the integrity of the doping control system is in question.
Last edited:
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
Yes I am
I have not lost hope on Djokovic on AO honestly, considering him co favorite for the title.
That explanation is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Every appeal theoretically is brought because the appellant believes the court or tribunal committed an error.
Similar threads
