Wada says Sinner case 'million miles away from doping'

JMR said:
"Let's confine the evidence to the bare minimum of facts that are not incompatible with my position, and exclude everything else because I don't like it," is not a logical argument, not a good-faith argument, and certainly not a persuasive argument. And sophistry in defense of sophistry is a particularly poor expenditure of anyone's online time.
Click to expand...

Literally these people. No facts. No proofs. Just vibes.

And no respect for people you are trying to convince.
 
I agree, the fact that his performances shot up around the same time as he tested positive and the circumstance that they already knew the spray was to blame despite them cluelessly - if we go by their story-using it before-lends credibility to the the idea he has been intentionally doping which i also believe.
Pauamy said:
Yeah, this is what I thought too, Sinner last year performance improvement on his footwork caught my attention, especially with this doping scandal, all defenders kept saying that the amount found was so little and had no effect on Sinner, I am very skeptical on this argument.
Click to expand...
 
JMR said:
It was WADA as an organization that (a) chose not to appeal the finding of the Independent Tribunal that Sinner had not intentionally used a PED, and (b) released an official statement to accompany the settlement agreeing that "Mr. Sinner did not intend to cheat, and ... his exposure to clostebol did not provide any performance-enhancing benefit and took place without his knowledge as the result of negligence of members of his entourage." Nothing more than that is needed. The "million miles" hyperbole is just colorful rhetoric intended to drive the point home to the slow-witted. It is not inconsistent with WADA's official position.
Click to expand...
Once again for someone who obviously can't read. WADA didn't say that Sinner's case 'million miles away from doping'. These are words of a private person. But you're welcome to show me the official paper where it is written. Without your own interpretation of what is written there.
 
AM75 said:
Once again for someone who obviously can't read. WADA didn't say that Sinner's case 'million miles away from doping'. These are words of a private person.
Click to expand...
Speaking of "can't read" ... I will repost what I posted before. Please point out to me the exact place in which I claimed that the "million miles" phrase occurred in an official WADA pronouncement. (Of course, I said just the opposite, but I understand that the straw-man-building urge among your ilk is irresistible.) Anyway, here it is again:

"It was WADA as an organization that (a) chose not to appeal the finding of the Independent Tribunal that Sinner had not intentionally used a PED, and (b) released an official statement to accompany the settlement agreeing that "Mr. Sinner did not intend to cheat, and ... his exposure to clostebol did not provide any performance-enhancing benefit and took place without his knowledge as the result of negligence of members of his entourage." Nothing more than that is needed. The "million miles" hyperbole is just colorful rhetoric intended to drive the point home to the slow-witted. It is not inconsistent with WADA's official position."

Did you read it? Did you understand it? Did you notice that the phrase "not inconsistent with WADA's official position" means that the "million miles" comment and WADA's official position must be two different things?
 
Kralingen said:
And ended with our #1 banned.

He will forever be associated with doping.

This is a horrible outcome for the sport. He embarrassed us on the world stage.
Click to expand...
You can try to convince yourself in any way possible that this is a permanent stain on Sinner's career and consequently on the credibility of tennis by citing the example of your friends (as if anyone really cares).

But the facts you should force yourself to accept are unequivocal.
Since the news of Sinner's positivity became public knowledge, the player himself has participated in various tournaments in every corner of the globe, therefore from North America to Europe, passing through Asia and Oceania, and in each of them, although there was always a proceeding against him, there was no manifestation of hostility towards him, indeed people continue to cheer him as much and more than before.
Even during the post-final celebrations in Melbourne, the only manifestation of hostility that occurred did not concern Sinner but Zverev, with a woman who started shouting that Australia was on the side of his two exes who accused him of domestic violence.
And as if this wasn't enough, in his spare time Sinner was also awarded the recognition as the favorite player of fans around the world for the second consecutive year.

Agassi confessed in one of his famous books that he had used amphetamines during his career.
As already mentioned, Merckx tested positive twice in his career in anti-doping tests.
For Carl Lewis himself, at the end of his career, the positive tests covered by the United States Olympic Committee during the 1988 trials came out to allow him to participate in the subsequent Olympics in Seoul.
Let's not talk about a certain Maradona, probably the most controversial sportsman in history.
Yet these athletes' status as legends in their respective sports has not been tarnished in the slightest in the collective imagination.
Imagine for someone like Sinner who doesn't even come out of this story as someone who would have intentionally tried to cheat.

Then it is clear that there is also a host of denialist haters who will try to tarnish his reputation.
It's the price to pay for any very overexposed public figure, i.e. having their own set of underdeveloped haters.
Like those who continue to call Djokovic by the nickname ***** in a derogatory tone.
Djokovic has continued to win ever since, making their livers explode.

If Sinner continues to win, you can be sure that people will continue to praise him, and you will simply have to deal with it.
 
Check British’s lawyer Jamie Singer (partner at Onside law) LinkedIn post. Bro has 25 years of practicing law and a partner of a boutique firm. Sinner’s side nominating judge is Lord John Dyson (each side nominated one).

Keep in mind WADA has been blasting for 1-2 years ban for many months to the media (pavvy, Kyrgios and co parroting everywhere). And then immediately ask for compromise the moment Sinner’s defence paper was served. Now WADA is eating back every words. You don’t get “privilege” if you don’t situate yourself in a very well-founded legal position. The troll will say it is all money and corruption but smart people would want to think what is the argument onside law use to win the case to leverage and counter strict liability? It would be helpful to know so WADA can make structural change to cover these contaminant cases.

www.linkedin.com

Jannik Sinner Press Release | Jamie Singer

Back in August I, perhaps naively, posted “the end of a stressful period for an exceptional young talent”. Well hopefully “it is now”. WADA approached us…
www.linkedin.com www.linkedin.com
 
lurker2025 said:
I agree, the fact that his performances shot up around the same time as he tested positive and the circumstance that they already knew the spray was to blame despite them cluelessly - if we go by their story-using it before-lends credibility to the the idea he has been intentionally doping which i also believe.
Click to expand...
It's also parroting today's politicians. In the past, they used to cover up their corrupt actions, whereas now they barely even try to cover it up and their excuses are just laughable. The Trump syndrome.

Sharapova called a press conference in March 2016 and basically said "I tested positive for a now banned substance a couple of months ago, just after it was put on the banned list, after taking it while it was legal for over a decade" before the tennis authorities had publicly revealed this information, and the authorities' first action was to issue a 2-year ban. It was later reduced to 15 months on appeal. With Sinner, he tests positive twice for a banned substance at the same event, and it was like "carry on, buddy!", and Sinner goes on to win two more majors. And when the authorities did eventually appeal, they manage to ban Sinner for 3 months at the most convenient time possible for Sinner! They are not even trying to hide the corruption.
 
Turning Pro said:
Jannik Sinner's case was "a million miles away from doping", a senior figure at the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) has said.

The men's tennis world number one was handed an immediate three-month ban by Wada on Saturday after reaching a settlement over his two positive drug tests last year.

Sinner, 23, was cleared of any wrongdoing by an independent panel after testing positive for banned substance clostebol in March 2024.

Wada had been seeking a ban of up to two years after launching an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas) following the initial decision by the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) not to suspend Sinner.

However, a deal was reached when Wada accepted Sinner was inadvertently contaminated and "did not intend to cheat".

Sinner has stated that he was inadvertently contaminated by his physiotherapist, who was treating a cut on his hand with an over-the-counter spray, which was later found to contain the banned substance.

The case has divided the tennis world, with some questioning the timing and length of the ban, how the Italian was able to agree a deal and inconsistencies between recent doping cases.

It led to Switzerland's three-time Grand Slam champion Stan Wawrinka posting on X: "I don't believe in a clean sport any more."

Novak Djokovic, the 24-time Slam winner, questioned the fairness of the process and said there is "favouritism" towards high-profile players.

This was a case that was a million miles away from doping," Wada general counsel Ross Wenzel told BBC Sport.

"The scientific feedback that we received was that this could not be a case of intentional doping, including micro-dosing."

Wenzel rejected any suggestion of special treatment and said the terms of the ban - that some have claimed will have little effect on Sinner - were appropriate for the case and not taken with the tennis calendar in mind.

Sinner's suspension began on 9 February and runs until 4 May, making him eligible to play at the French Open - the next Grand Slam - which begins on 25 May.

He has not featured competitively since beating Alexander Zverev in the final of the Australian Open on 26 January and could still be ranked number one when he returns to action.

Wenzel said: "Wada has received messages from those that consider that the sanction was too high and, in some respects, if you have some saying this is unfair on the athlete, and others saying it's not enough, maybe it's an indication that although it's not going to be popular with everyone, maybe it's an indication that it was in the right place.

"When we look at these cases we try to look at them technically, operationally and we don't do it with fear of what the public and the politicians or anyone is going to say."

Wenzel insisted that sanctions are "blind to the calendar" and that the ban was executed as swiftly as possible after a resolution had been agreed upon by all parties.

"Once you've reached an agreement, what you can't do is then say 'oh, but we're going to have this apply from two months in the future for a period of three months'," Wenzel said.

"It must come into effect quickly. Of course, once the deal is done, it's important that it is executed and that it is made public for reasons of transparency.

"So it happened, because of the timing of the CAS proceedings, it happened to be decided last Friday, it was a very late night, and it came into effect immediately, so that is the reason for the timing.

"The sanctions that we impose and the code even says this, they're blind to the calendar. The correct sanction should be imposed and it comes into effect when it comes into effect and it shouldn't be modulated or modified to take into account whether the events that are coming up are significant or not significant."

Wada only introduced the possibility of a case resolution agreement in 2021, allowing it to strike a deal with athletes.

Since adding that provision to Wada's rules, Wenzel believes about 67 resolution agreements have come into effect.

"I checked this this morning and and it might be one or two out, but I counted 67 since the provision came into force in January 2021," Wenzel said.

"That's just over four years and there's been 67 of them and they've been applied at different stages, almost all stages of the results management process.

"Some of them have been applied at the beginning, at first instance with Wada's agreement; others have been applied right at the end of the Cas process, as was the case here."
Click to expand...
Yeah, this makes sense. This was pretty clearly A) not an intentional attempt at doping, and B) still against the rules.

Still agree with Djokovic though, if some #500 ranked jabroni were in the same situation they're much more likely to get the book thrown at them.

Not sure if Wawrinka is fully in on the facts though. If the #1 player still gets a very public case and a ban over something this inconsequential, then it's a stretch to say there's worse happening behind the scenes. Tennis is pretty unique in how strict the sport is with doping.
 
In the Sharapova case, the authorities' first move was to demand a 4 year ban for intentional doping. She got 2 years reduced to 15 months on appeal.

Mustard said:
It's also parroting today's politicians. In the past, they used to cover up their corrupt actions, whereas now they barely even try to cover it up and their excuses are just laughable. The Trump syndrome.

Sharapova called a press conference in March 2016 and basically said "I tested positive for a now banned substance a couple of months ago, just after it was put on the banned list, after taking it while it was legal for over a decade" before the tennis authorities had publicly revealed this information, and the authorities' first action was to issue a 2-year ban. It was later reduced to 15 months on appeal. With Sinner, he tests positive twice for a banned substance at the same event, and it was like "carry on, buddy!", and Sinner goes on to win two more majors. And when the authorities did eventually appeal, they manage to ban Sinner for 3 months at the most convenient time possible for Sinner! They are not even trying to hide the corruption.
Click to expand...
 
Cabeza del Demonio said:
Still agree with Djokovic though, if some #500 ranked jabroni were in the same situation they're much more likely to get the book thrown at them.
Click to expand...
Introduction: it is good that Marco Bortolotti was fully exonerated and did not serve a single day of disqualification. In the urine of the Emilian doubles player (n.106 in the ATP specialty ranking) traces of clostebol were found, an anabolic sadly known for the State Doping of the GDR in the 70s and 80s. However, the ITIA's lightning proceeding established that Bortolotti was not at fault nor committed any negligence. For this reason, the misadventure cost him just 440 euros and 16 ATP points, the loot he pocketed at the Challenger in Lisbon last October, during which the anti-doping control took place. But the story deserves to be told for at least two reasons. First of all, because the news was totally ignored by the Italian media (while it was reported by several foreign newspapers). Secondly, because the impressive speed with which it was resolved is surprising, in contrast to the lengthiness of many similar events. And then there are the whitewashing of the sentence, which hides the explanations provided by the player to justify the (evidently accidental) hiring. In short, there is enough for a story and a reflection.
Marco Bortolotti turned 33 on January 21st and played his first professional tournaments in 2008. In singles he won two ITF titles and was at most ATP number 355 (in 2016). For some time now he has dedicated himself exclusively to doubles, a discipline in which he has found himself decidedly competitive: he has won 48 titles, including seven ATP Challenger, the last two last year in blessed-cursed Portugal, in Braga and Maia. Based on his results, he has broken down the wall of the ATP top-100 in specialties. He is therefore not that far from the possibility of playing major tournaments (even if the recent experimental rules approved by the ATP risk damaging those like him). Last autumn, after winning the Braga Challenger with Romanian Mircea Alexandru Jecan, he went to Lisbon to play the Del Monte Lisboa Belem Open. Bortolotti-Jecan lost in the quarterfinals against the Portuguese baby Faria-Rocha. On Wednesday 4 October he underwent an anti-doping test which highlighted the presence of clostebol, an anabolic agent derived from testosterone. The substance is contained in various ointments to treat wounds and abrasions to heal the skin tissue. DDR aside, his name recurs cyclically in cases of positive anti-doping tests.
Ok, but what happened? Nothing to do: everything is scientifically obscured. In any case, Bortolotti was granted the absolution formula of "no fault or negligence". It means that he was not at fault, and neither did he commit any negligence or carelessness. It would be interesting to know the details, but evidently they were deemed too personal. There are many sentences with blacked out points, so it's not that sensational. Those of Dayana Yastremska (which in fact contained rather intimate details) and – more recently – of Simona Halep had various passages to protect privacy, so it is legitimate that Bortolotti enjoyed the same treatment. What is striking is the speed with which the ITIA closed the case: the sentence is dated February 7, just eight days after Bortolotti became aware of the fact (the case was then made public on March 21). In summary, the ITIA was satisfied with the opinion of the laboratory, which defined Bortolotti's explanation as credible. Wanting to be picky, this statement (the plausibility of the explanation) would not seem sufficient to satisfy the requirements of article 10.5.1 of the Tennis Anti-Doping Program, which says that the athlete must prove what he claims (“If the Athlete establishes”).
From what emerges in the sentence, it would seem that the explanation has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but has only been found to be scientifically plausible. In short, (fortunately) there was no fury towards the player, as has happened in several cases in the past. Having said that the sentence can be appealed by both WADA and NADO Italia (and only in that case could Bortolotti file a counter-appeal), the outcome of this lightning procedure can only satisfy Bortolotti, whose schedule was not affected: a few days after the sentence he was already in Manama, Bahrain, where he reached the semi-final together with Alessandro Giannessi. A few weeks later (together with Sergio Martos Gornes) he reached the final in Tenerife: thanks to this result he entered the top-100 in the specialty for the first time, a lifelong dream for anyone who picks up a racket. And who knows - regulations aside - he might finally be able to play in a Grand Slam tournament. It would be a career award, much more rewarding than participation in the 2023 United Cup. In the hope that no one will bother him further for accidentally taking Clostebol, the details of which are known only to him and the ITIA inspectors. Maybe that's right.
 
I don’t disagree that this is likely not a case of doping and the 3 month suspension is also probably too much.

The problem is that other, lower profile players have received far worse punishments for way less egregious actions. If you apply the logic that was used to punish them as severely as they were to Sinner his 3 month suspension looks like a joke.
 
Why bother being a WADA signatory given that it has lost all credibility?

It politicised itself in the Sharapova case and now it has succumbed to commercial pressures.
 
nolefam_2024 said:
I have always said I will trust what authorities will say but now that wada screwed up colossally, I don't have any trust on authorities..

Change the processes.
Click to expand...
This is sad. This is the opposite of the spirit of anti-doping.

What could be done specifically to win back your trust? What if we did a field trip to ITIA headquarters to learn more about the processes and the people that help implement them? It might be better to wait for spring before a visit to London though.

IMG-0041.jpg
 
nolefam_2024 said:
Sinner did not man up for his errors. He was appealing his case as early as March. Then when WADA said he won't be let off without punishment, then he agreed to the deal.
This is not manning up.
Here
That would be what Maria Sharapova did, going in press conference and owning up to the mistake. I don't even like Sharapova but she handled the issue with far more grace.
…

If ITIA did not disclose, Sinner would likely not even even talk about the test.
Click to expand...
:-D Dopapova couldn’t get her provisional ban lifted because she had no case so she simply got ahead of the announcement by the TIU (precursor to the ITIA).

And if Pova wasn’t provisionally suspended she wouldn’t be talking either. No player would. Nor would there be any reason to.

By the way, Jeffrey Benz again — this time on the pova CAS panel. WADA must have been not thrilled when Sinner picked him. He seems like the players best arbitrator-friend.
 
Last edited:
Sinner is now a doper too even though everyone in authority worked hard to get him off the hook, unlike Sharapova.

RSJfan said:
:-D Dopapova couldn’t get her provisional ban lifted because she had no case so she simply got ahead of the announcement by the TIU (precursor to the ITIA).

And if Pova wasn’t provisionally suspended she wouldn’t be talking either. No player would. Nor would there be any reason to.
Click to expand...
 
They are going to rename Strawberries and Cream at Wimbledon "The Sinner".

RSJfan said:
This is sad. This is the opposite of the spirit of anti-doping.

What could be done specifically to win back your trust? What if we did a field trip to ITIA headquarters to learn more about the processes and the people that help implement them? It might be better to wait for spring before a visit to London though.

IMG-0041.jpg
Click to expand...
 
AM75 said:
It's funny how all those new users on the TTW, who registered within last months and weeks and go berserk defending Sinner refer others as "trolls".
Click to expand...
I noticed this the minute the scandal broke last year. A flurry of new accounts all with the same agenda and very similar manner of speech. It continues to this date.

SinPR for a reason.
 
For Sinner to be tarnishing the sport, more than three people outside of this forum would have to actually know who he is.

Long term, the only way this becomes a major issue is if Sinner puts up numbers to challenge the Big 3, which isn't happening. This episode will be largely forgotten. If he's fortunate enough to win more slams and ends tied with another all-time great, it might be brought up in a potentential Sinner/McEnroe or Sinner/Connors debate, but I doubt much time will be spent on it.
 
Sudacafan said:
I say it’s doping.
Click to expand...
You are correct. It’s spot on “doping” as far as the WADA Code uses the term.

But I assume the WADA rep is speaking casually and means to include lack of intent. Fair-minded posters like my fav Raul are not getting caught up in the WADA-speak. The salient point is not that it’s doping but that it’s entirely unwholesome to catch a boy scout tennis player who inadvertently has a no-no substance in his body just because you want to impress the sporting world with how sensitive your testing equipment is. And then to attach a hurtful term like “doping” to the activity is shameful.
 
RSJfan said:
You are correct. It’s spot on “doping” as far as the WADA Code uses the term.

But I assume the WADA rep is speaking casually and means to include lack of intent. Fair-minded posters like my fav Raul are not getting caught up in the WADA-speak. The salient point is not that it’s doping but that it’s entirely unwholesome to catch a boy scout tennis player who inadvertently has a no-no substance in his body just because you want to impress the sporting world with how sensitive your testing equipment is. And then to attach a hurtful term like “doping” to the activity is shameful.
Click to expand...
Raúl shows us how mean is WADA.
 
RSJfan said:
You are correct. It’s spot on “doping” as far as the WADA Code uses the term.

But I assume the WADA rep is speaking casually and means to include lack of intent. Fair-minded posters like my fav Raul are not getting caught up in the WADA-speak. The salient point is not that it’s doping but that it’s entirely unwholesome to catch a boy scout tennis player who inadvertently has a no-no substance in his body just because you want to impress the sporting world with how sensitive your testing equipment is. And then to attach a hurtful term like “doping” to the activity is shameful.
Click to expand...
Isnt it pretty stupid to dope without a performance enhancing effect, or am i missing something?
 
Bartelby said:
That's not WADA's definition except when it comes to Sinner.
Click to expand...
Main def of doping is that it is use to enhance performance.

I agree that you should be responsible for a positive test i.e "strict liablity", but it makes no sense to call someone who isnt aware he/she is using, nor has any performance enhancing effect, a doper.
 
It may not make sense to you, but these are the rules unless you're Sinner.

Jonas78 said:
Main def of doping is that it is use to enhance performance.

I agree that you should be responsible for a positive test i.e "strict liablity", but it makes no sense to call someone who isnt aware he/she is using, nor has any performance enhancing effect, a doper.
Click to expand...
 
Jonas78 said:
Main def of doping is that it is use to enhance performance.

I agree that you should be responsible for a positive test i.e "strict liablity", but it makes no sense to call someone who isnt aware he/she is using, nor has any performance enhancing effect, a doper.
Click to expand...
I am fair to most players unless their surname ends in dal.

So we should say how wada is telling us to say. Sinner is at no significant fault for doping. He is at fault but very minor. That is for negligence.
 
nolefam_2024 said:
I am fair to most players unless their surname ends in dal.

So we should say how wada is telling us to say. Sinner is at no significant fault for doping. He is at fault but very minor. That is for negligence.
Click to expand...
My main point is that there is a difference on being responsible for a positive test and being a doper.

Makes no sense to put someone exposed for contamination in the same category as Lance Armstrong.
 
Bartelby said:
It may not make sense to you, but these are the rules unless you're Sinner.
Click to expand...
Yes i am aware WADA (unfortunately) uses another definition of doping than the common understanding. Its unfortunate that you will be put in the same category as Lance Armstrong for the rest of your life, if you are unknowingly being exposed for a prohibited substance with no performance enhancing effect.
 
thrust said:
Indeed, IF what he says is true then why suspend Sinner at all?
Click to expand...
There must be some reason the substance or ingredient was banned. It can either give any tennis player a competitive edge or not. I’d like to think the overseeing chemical experts who revise and update the banned list for tennis, Olympics, and other competitions have expertise, and agree among their peer group. I doubt it’s a pile of people who have a vote on whether they should make any substance banned arbitrarily, or with external interference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rovesciarete
WADA offered Sinner a deal, most likely to avoid getting their system blown up by CAS
2
Replies
82
Views
2K
jmnk
J
Frenchy-Player
Jannik Sinner, now Wada plays a new card
2
Replies
97
Views
3K
Frenchy-Player
Frenchy-Player
weakera
WADA announces new doping rules which will benefit Sinner
2
Replies
51
Views
1K
1H-Backhand
1H-Backhand
Rovesciarete
WADA provides update on the work of its Taskforce on Unintentional Doping
Replies
8
Views
373
Arak
A
Zardoz7/12
Djokovic urges tennis authorities to rethink current anti-doping system
2
Replies
50
Views
914
Bartelby
Bartelby
Back
Top