WADA APEALS SINNER CASE

This whole thing is a great example of how popular people get away with crap

My Mom likes Sinner because he's a nice young man, so she thinks all kinds of wrong things, like that he and Alcaraz really like each other and that Sinner fired his team as soon as the positive test was known. It's crazy
 
Rosstour said:
This whole thing is a great example of how popular people get away with crap

My Mom likes Sinner because he's a nice young man, so she thinks all kinds of wrong things, like that he and Alcaraz really like each other and that Sinner fired his team as soon as the positive test was known. It's crazy
Click to expand...
I think it is more what value do you have?

To me, I do not care about Sinner, nor am I his fan. I think he is kind of bland off court and I kind of think he should be suspended.

That said, I do not want him to be. To me he has entertainment value to me. His worth is what he can do on a tennis court. Take him away and it lowers my entertainment value.

So, no, not due to popularity, but due to need/value.

Take the HR race in the 90s. Nobody is giving that up lol.
 
Lleytonstation said:
I think it is more what value do you have?

To me, I do not care about Sinner, nor am I his fan. I think he is kind of bland off court and I kind of think he should be suspended.

That said, I do not want him to be. To me he has entertainment value to me. His worth is what he can do on a tennis court. Take him away and it lowers my entertainment value.

So, no, not due to popularity, but due to need/value.

Take the HR race in the 90s. Nobody is giving that up lol.
Click to expand...

Take Sinner away and we still have the rest of the tour. Which is enough for me
 
gino said:
Additionally, id argue him being suspended at the US Open would have grown the game more. Potenitally an american or first time slam champ...
Click to expand...

Yes. I think there was a chill/pall over the event. Not only did he win the US after a positive test but he did it mechanically, outcome was NID after Alcaraz and Djoko lost.
 
Rosstour said:
This whole thing is a great example of how popular people get away with crap

My Mom likes Sinner because he's a nice young man, so she thinks all kinds of wrong things, like that he and Alcaraz really like each other and that Sinner fired his team as soon as the positive test was known. It's crazy
Click to expand...
Right or wrong, mums are #1!
 
Rosstour said:
Take Sinner away and we still have the rest of the tour. Which is enough for me
Click to expand...
Yeah I don't know, I wont value the winner as much. He is literally number one in the world and won 2 of the last 4 slams.

AO25 will not be nearly as valued with him gone. Anyone saying otherwise is simply choosing to ignore it.
 
Rosstour said:
If he'd gone out with an injury, I'd agree.

But this is different.
Click to expand...
It is literally the same. At least with injury it is part of the sport and I feel like one was able to stay healthy and one was not. I guess you could argue getting caught doping is part of the sport too lol.

I get both sides, I do.

I just want the best to be playing as they add entertainment value. We were so close to having a huge rivalry. Now we might lose the whole thing.
 
Lleytonstation said:
It is literally the same. At least with injury it is part of the sport and I feel like one was able to stay healthy and one was not. I guess you could argue getting caught doping is part of the sport too lol.

I get both sides, I do.

I just want the best to be playing as they add entertainment value. We were so close to having a huge rivalry. Now we might lose the whole thing.
Click to expand...

But if Sinner was aided by substances then it was always a mirage and was never real. That's my point.

I also don't think this was accidental doping. So I just can't view it the same as an injury--that's unfair to injured players. This was a choice he made. More similar to Djoko refusing to get vaxxed.

Until I see something really dispositive in his favor, I can't escape the conclusion that his AO win wasn't clean.
 
The amount was insignificant and did not improve performance, but he is still liable and deserving of a ban because it was in his system.

Lleytonstation said:
That is where we disagree. The amount was so insignificant and he also passed tests during AO and USO. So he was clean for those.
Click to expand...
 
Bartelby said:
The amount was insignificant and did not improve performance, but he is still liable and deserving of a ban because it was in his system.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I get it, just wish it did not happen. The quicker they figure it out the better. If they are banning him then he better not be at the AO or ATP finals.
 
The decision is due in February, so if Sinner is banned for six months ...

... and it starts on the date of the CAS Appeal then two slams are wiped out

... and it starts on the date of the Tribunal decision then he has lost millions.
 
Rosstour said:
But if Sinner was aided by substances then it was always a mirage and was never real. That's my point.

I also don't think this was accidental doping. So I just can't view it the same as an injury--that's unfair to injured players. This was a choice he made. More similar to Djoko refusing to get vaxxed.

Until I see something really dispositive in his favor, I can't escape the conclusion that his AO win wasn't clean.
Click to expand...
Proving a negative can be quite tough.
 
Vincent-C said:
Yes- that's why I went with #murky. Few things are just what they initially seem these days, imo..
Click to expand...

We all live in a mafia state now. Transnational organized crime has usurped the function of the state in most of the world and now up is down.
 
Lleytonstation said:
That is where we disagree. The amount was so insignificant and he also passed tests during AO and USO. So he was clean for those.
Click to expand...

Only because you're assuming that's all there was, and I'm assuming there was more, that the clostebol was there as the cover/masking agent

Sinner didn't get tested by methods that would reveal more extensive doping. I think this was just a urine test
 
Rosstour said:
Only because you're assuming that's all there was, and I'm assuming there was more, that the clostebol was there as the cover/masking agent

Sinner didn't get tested by methods that would reveal more extensive doping. I think this was just a urine test
Click to expand...
Shouldn't the presumption still be that one is innocent until proven guilty?
If not, all bets are off- and God Save Us All.

Imagine the possibilities: "prove you were not at this location, and did not do this thing- now!"
#should be fine
 
Rosstour said:
Only because you're assuming that's all there was, and I'm assuming there was more, that the clostebol was there as the cover/masking agent

Sinner didn't get tested by methods that would reveal more extensive doping. I think this was just a urine test
Click to expand...
That's some slippery-slope thinking, right there. Not sure I'd want it applied to anyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JMR
Rosstour said:
Only because you're assuming that's all there was, and I'm assuming there was more, that the clostebol was there as the cover/masking agent

Sinner didn't get tested by methods that would reveal more extensive doping. I think this was just a urine test
Click to expand...
Maybe, but if I got a speeding ticket for going 1 kmh over I would hope no one would assume I was also drunk and speeding earlier at 30 kmh over.

At the very least, they should do FULL testing for everything, or make insignificant amounts not matter. There is a reason there is a certain amount you are allowed to drink before getting DWI.
 
Lleytonstation said:
Maybe, but if I got a speeding ticket for going 1 kmh over I would hope no one would assume I was also drunk and speeding earlier at 30 kmh over.

At the very least, they should do FULL testing for everything, or make insignificant amounts not matter. There is a reason there is a certain amount you are allowed to drink before getting DWI.
Click to expand...

I think you're looking at this too much by the book and the stated public stances

If everyone is clean and Sinner got popped for an 'insignificant amount' then it may have helped him. And if everyone is doping then Sinner was doing something extra that got him targeted. For my part I think he was set up
 
Sinner and his staff stuffed up. And to save his bacon, the authorities engineered not a setup, but a "Get Out of Jail Free" card!

Rosstour said:
I think you're looking at this too much by the book and the stated public stances

If everyone is clean and Sinner got popped for an 'insignificant amount' then it may have helped him. And if everyone is doping then Sinner was doing something extra that got him targeted. For my part I think he was set up
Click to expand...
 
In doping law, you are "guilty" when you test positive, even if "guilty" is not the correct term. It's "strict liability".

Vincent-C said:
Shouldn't the presumption still be that one is innocent until proven guilty?
If not, all bets are off- and God Save Us All.

Imagine the possibilities: "prove you were not at this location, and did not do this thing- now!"
#should be fine
Click to expand...
 
Rosstour said:
But if Sinner was aided by substances then it was always a mirage and was never real. That's my point.

I also don't think this was accidental doping. So I just can't view it the same as an injury--that's unfair to injured players. This was a choice he made. More similar to Djoko refusing to get vaxxed.

Until I see something really dispositive in his favor, I can't escape the conclusion that his AO win wasn't clean.
Click to expand...
Blows my mind that we are willing to asterisk everyone else who isn't a caught doper, if said doper serves his time, and not the doper's achievements - both real and hypothetical.
 
Lleytonstation said:
That is where we disagree. The amount was so insignificant and he also passed tests during AO and USO. So he was clean for those.
Click to expand...
Insignificant amount during testing means significant amount long before testing.

Players can also mask their doping during testing using beer and other methods.

Athletes use masking agents and other drugs to avoid detection of anabolic steroids.
Use of epitestosterone, hCG and diuretics obscure detection of anabolic steroid use.
 
vokazu said:
Insignificant amount during testing means significant amount long before testing.

Players can also mask their doping during testing using beer and other methods.

Athletes use masking agents and other drugs to avoid detection of anabolic steroids.
Use of epitestosterone, hCG and diuretics obscure detection of anabolic steroid use.
Click to expand...
Wasnt he tested at AO?
 
It still comes down the the question, was it accidental, or was the whole story a cover-act to protect the finding of a rest of a greater doping dose? But that even wada doesn't believe, because they don't want the results of his successes annullated. They should clarify it by comparison of further tests before and after the 2 positive tests of minimal doses. I think, he played Melbourne and then Rotterdam, and i assume, there were further tests at the tournaments. If - a big IF - he would have doped intentionally he would have doped probably between Rotterdam and Indian Wells in a training phase. Was there a further test in training? If it was only negligence of the physio team and in a lighter way of Sinner himself, the punishment of 2 years is imo much too hard. It would ruin the prime of a great player and athlete. If at all, maybe 3 months or so could be adaequate, as a slap on the hand for a lighter negligence..
 
Last edited:
vokazu said:
Insignificant amount during testing means significant amount long before testing.
Click to expand...
False statement. A correct statement would be, "Insignificant amount during testing COULD MEAN significant amount long before testing." However, it also could mean that the exposure itself was insignificant, which is the conclusion that has been reached in Sinner's case (even WADA does not challenge that conclusion). You have no evidence that supports your interpretation rather than the official one.
 
vokazu said:
Insignificant amount during testing means significant amount long before testing.

Players can also mask their doping during testing using beer and other methods.

Athletes use masking agents and other drugs to avoid detection of anabolic steroids.
Use of epitestosterone, hCG and diuretics obscure detection of anabolic steroid use.
Click to expand...
I think you had too much beer. Doping stays for long time in the body. How is it that it wasn't detected when it was significant and only detected when insignificant??
 
Rosstour said:
As I understand it, the in-competition tests are only administered after a loss, to make it fair to the athletes and allow them to focus on the job at hand. So if that's still true, then he would not have been tested at AO or USO. Or any tournament he won.
Click to expand...
They should though.
 
JMR said:
False statement. A correct statement would be, "Insignificant amount during testing COULD MEAN significant amount long before testing." However, it also could mean that the exposure itself was insignificant, which is the conclusion that has been reached in Sinner's case (even WADA does not challenge that conclusion). You have no evidence that supports your interpretation rather than the official one.
Click to expand...
The so-called experts did nothing more than saying IF the story told by Sinner's team was true, the test result could be positive. They didn't cross-examine the story itself, which is based on the physio's words and a receipt of a spray, the possession of which was already against WADA's anti-doping code. And they didn't have a complete chain of evidence since the physio was never tested.

Even worse, the "experts" failed to address the more important alternative scenario, when Sinner doped using the current cheating protocol but still got caught with trace of banned substance.
 
Rosstour said:
As I understand it, the in-competition tests are only administered after a loss, to make it fair to the athletes and allow them to focus on the job at hand. So if that's still true, then he would not have been tested at AO or USO.
Click to expand...
Andy Roddick says just the opposite about testing at slams, and there was an entire thread here on that subject: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...y-slam-sinner-was-clean-at-australian.774135/. Moreover, you posted a couple of times in that very thread.

In addition, the Independent Tribunal made this finding in Sinner's case (at ¶ 84): "The administration of Clostebol must have happened around the time of the Event since the Player has been tested, on average, once a month over the 12-month period between April 2023 and March 2024, and none of the previous tests gave rise to any AAF for Clostebol (or any other Prohibited Substance)."

So Sinner had 12 negative tests in the year preceding Indian Wells 2024.
 
uscwang said:
The so-called experts did nothing more than saying IF the story told by Sinner's team was true, the test result could be positive. They didn't cross-examine the story itself,
Click to expand...
Nonsense. You evidently do not understand how adversarial legal or quasi-legal hearings work, so I'm not going to spend time providing a primer here. Suffice it to say that the Independent Tribunal made careful findings based on all the relevant evidence. I'm sorry that your paranoid speculations were not included in that process.
 
JMR said:
Andy Roddick says just the opposite about testing at slams, and there was an entire thread here on that subject: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...y-slam-sinner-was-clean-at-australian.774135/. Moreover, you posted a couple of times in that very thread.

In addition, the Independent Tribunal made this finding in Sinner's case (at ¶ 84): "The administration of Clostebol must have happened around the time of the Event since the Player has been tested, on average, once a month over the 12-month period between April 2023 and March 2024, and none of the previous tests gave rise to any AAF for Clostebol (or any other Prohibited Substance)."

So Sinner had 12 negative tests in the year preceding Indian Wells 2024.
Click to expand...
That is probably standard for the top players. It could be another "less than a billionth of gram" myth without addressing the shortest duration of a doping scheme.
 
Rosstour said:
As I understand it, the in-competition tests are only administered after a loss, to make it fair to the athletes and allow them to focus on the job at hand. So if that's still true, then he would not have been tested at AO or USO. Or any tournament he won.
Click to expand...
The winner is tested as well.

Everybody is tested at a slam.
 
jeroenn said:
The winner is tested as well.

Everybody is tested at a slam.
Click to expand...

Are we totally sure about this?

The last time I read a serious article on it, it was that players are only tested after a loss in-comp, but OOC tests can occur at random. But, when I tried to google this recently, I couldn't find anything definitive. So I'm just going off what I read a few years ago.
 
I just read, that Cas reduced the sentence of footballer Paul Pogba from 4 years to 18 months. I think, he was proven guilty of testosteron doping. In this case. Cas was obviously athlete-friendly.
 
uscwang said:
The so-called experts did nothing more than saying IF the story told by Sinner's team was true, the test result could be positive. They didn't cross-examine the story itself, which is based on the physio's words and a receipt of a spray, the possession of which was already against WADA's anti-doping code. And they didn't have a complete chain of evidence since the physio was never tested.

Even worse, the "experts" failed to address the more important alternative scenario, when Sinner doped using the current cheating protocol but still got caught with trace of banned substance.
Click to expand...
This is a point I have argued in many previous deleted threads on the subject. The panel determined that Sinner’s explanation is scientifically possible. Nowhere did they ever try to determine if his story is true or not. There is a huge difference between a plausible story and a scientifically possible story. Sinner’s explanation is extremely implausible.
 
Arak said:
This is a point I have argued in many previous deleted threads on the subject. The panel determined that Sinner’s explanation is scientifically possible. Nowhere did they ever try to determine if his story is true or not.
Click to expand...
You guys are both wrong about this. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that part of the problem here is your confusion between the three-member team of scientific experts, and the Independent Tribunal, also consisting of three people, that ultimately made the decision. (The term "panel" refers to the latter, by the way.) The scientific experts provided evidence on the scientific plausibility of Sinner's explanation. The Independent Tribunal made findings of fact based on its review of all the evidence, including the scientific evidence. The IT decided the case, not the scientists.

Please read at least paragraph 109 of the decision in Sinner's case (you should really read all of it, but this passage is crucial). The panel of adjudicators determined that Sinner's account was supported by evidence sufficient to satisfy the applicable burden of proof. "[T]he Tribunal finds as fact that that the Player was unaware that: (a) Mr Ferrara was in possession of the Trofodermin Spray; (b) Mr Naldi was using the Trofodermin Spray; (c) there was any anti-doping risk arising from the treatment ...." (emphasis in original). It continues in this vein. Note the "finds as fact" language. This is unambiguous.
 
Sinner's explanation, even if seen as plausible, does not mean he is not still liable to be banned. It merely goes to the length of the suspension.

The fact that Sinner was unaware means a small suspension most probably, but it can't be the legal basis for no ban without undermining the whole current doping framework.
 
its not like sinner took a contaminated supplement or something. sinner literally had nothing to do with this unlike even haleps case
 
big ted said:
its not like sinner took a contaminated supplement or something. sinner literally had nothing to do with this unlike even haleps case
Click to expand...

actually these two cases are exactly the same in nature - blaming others for their positive tests!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Aabye5
  • Poll Poll
Will Jannik Sinner be banned in 2025?
2
Replies
51
Views
3K
Jonas78
J
Rovesciarete
WADA provides update on the work of its Taskforce on Unintentional Doping
Replies
8
Views
676
Arak
A
roysid
Sinner s woes are not over. WADA is considering appeal
6 7 8
Replies
351
Views
20K
vokazu
V
Rovesciarete
WADA offered Sinner a deal, most likely to avoid getting their system blown up by CAS
2
Replies
82
Views
4K
jmnk
J
La Grande
Sharapova's drug Meldonium was announced as banned substance in SEPTEMBER 2015
Replies
46
Views
5K
jm1980
jm1980
Back
Top