–
The anti-doping infrastructure across sport has been taking a major hits to its gravitas in recent months.
It’s hardly just tennis; the case of WADA and the Chinese swimmers before the Paris Summer Olympics had national swimming associations and anti-doping lobbyists around the world up in arms.
But in tennis, in particular, the Jannik Sinner case has sucked up a ton of bandwidth on social media. There’s a disconnect in that the fans actually on site at tournaments seem to place very little importance on it. Just as they seem to not care much about the off-court domestic abuse accusations involving Alexander Zverev.
That disconnect is par for the course.
But the case of Sinner, who was able to mount a sufficiently convincing explanation for the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) of his lack of fault in a pair of expedited hearings after two positive tests for Clostebol in March and was spared having to serve a provisional suspension, has raised eyebrows.
And then – and this can’t be a surprise – the ITIA-convened independant tribunal found Sinner bore “no fault” for his anti-doping violation. So there would be no suspension at all, even if the base level for a transgression with “no significant fault” is two years.
The World Anti-Doping Association has announced, in a rare development for WADA, that it will appeal the decision of the independant tribunal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
–
It’s a rare move; in most CAS cases involving WADA, it’s an athlete appealing THEIR decision, not the reverse. And when WADA does appeal an anti-doping body’s decision, it has nearly always been a national or national Olympic anti-doping body, which it judged gave far too favorable a ruling on one of its own athletes – especially, conveniently, just ahead of an Olympics. It has rarely – if ever – been an appeal of a sport’s overarching anti-doping agency’s decision, as is the case here.
This was seen as some sort of “Hallelujah!” moment by those who want Sinner banned from tennis for those positive tests.
As if WADA, somehow, was straight where ITIA is crooked.
It’s not.
And as if the CAS’s opinions, when it’s relatively less familiar with the ins and outs of anti-doping than the officials who make up the tribunals convented by WADA, are somehow a superior source of decision-making in these matters.
They’re not.
It’s just that the CAS is the final arbiter.
The overarching problem here is that all of these organizations, you would think, are working towards the same goal. Or should be.
And yet, in most cases where the accused athlete has the financial means to go all the way to the CAS, that body tends to come to a different conclusion than ITIA and its independent tribunals do.
It defies logic that the CAS is right every time; they arguably are inferior subject matter experts to the officials who manage tennis cases on a regular basis. And yet, there’s no consistency. And that’s a problem for credibility.
That said, the questions about the Sinner case don’t only come from the online conspiracy theorists on a mission to sink the world No. 1.
We also HAVE QUESTIONS.
Answerable questions
Social media is full of “what-if’s and how-come”s. Many of those questions are specious, selective and convenient to whatever agenda those asking them want to push.
Why did Sinner not immediately fire his staff members, if it was their fault? That’s an easy, obvious one. The situation did not come out in public, and Sinner clearly was confident that he’d be found at “no fault” and never have to serve a suspension. If he fired physical trainer Ferrara and physiotherapist Naldi right when it all went down, that would have led to a ton of questions. It might well have come out, when it didn’t need to. Do you blame him?
These guys probably cost him a million between lost prize money at Indian Wells and lawyers’ fees. Not to mention the incalculable cost to his reputation. You or I would have fired them ON THE SPOT. Right? But it was a smart move to wait, even if it had to be awkward within the team all those months. But everything was done by the book; there’s no conspiracy there.
How come Sinner got the suspension lifted so fast? SPECIAL TREATMENT!! That one also isn’t hard. They were able, per their testimony, to immediately determine the source of the Clostebol. And everyone involved was right there, available to be questioned. There was no scientific laboratory work needed. If you can afford a top lawyer, he’s going to be available on the weekend for you. But mostly, the judge who heard the application clearly – and quickly – felt as though the explanation was more than plausible and that almost all the ducks were in a row. Having read through dozens of cases over the last few days, we can’t emphasize enough how exceptional this combination of circumstances is.
But the speed isn’t that off the charts. Check out the Robert Farah case to see how much the now-retired Colombian doubles specialist managed to get done in just THREE WEEKS.
Sinner must be guilty. Otherwise WHY WOULD WADA APPEAL? That one also isn’t tough. As exceptional as the circumstances were with the case, the no-fault finding, given the number of variables to be interpreted, is also exceptional. That, in addition to the fame of the player and notoriety of the case, make it a no-brainer. Exceptional situations should, and often do, raise red flags even if in the end there’s no there there.
OTHER questions
But there are other questions we have that don’t have answers in the 33-page decision document. Not all are pertinent to the finding of “no fault”, but they’re questions all the same. The tribunal may have gotten satisfactory answers to some of these; but if they did, they’re not contained in an already lengthy decision document.
1) Why did physical trainer Ferrara even HAVE in his possession a product with a notorious banned substance in it with him, even it was for personal use? That’s just asking for trouble. The tribunal concluded that Ferrara seemed more concerned about literal contact with Sinner than cross-contamination, which is why he insisted Naldi use the spray for his finger cut only in Ferrara’s personal bathroom at the team’s villa at Indian Wells and believed that would make it safe. But … yeah.
As well, while they were able to get a receipt for the alleged purchase of of the Clostebol, that receipt wasn’t itemized.
2) Why was physio Giacomo Naldi still employed when, as Sinner testified during the hearing, there had already been a situation in which it was clear Naldi was sloppy? It involved water bottles and lack of supervision. The anecdote buttressed Sinner’s argument that he had always been careful to a fanatical degree about anti-doping. But it mostly shows that there were priors with Naldi. So in a sense, it doesn’t help Sinner’s argument in that regard.
3) The little-discussed case of fellow Italian Mariano Tammaro, detailed here, involved the applying of the Clostebol spray on Tammaro’s knee by his father Marco. It is fairly well laid out in the original case with the independant tribunal that the player was not to be let off the hook by the actions of his parents. If you translate that to staff – who are in a position where they SHOULD know better, given their expertise – how does the tribunal let Sinner completely off the hook for his people, but young Tammaro has to bear responsibility for his parents?
4) Again on the Tammaro case, the spray was applied directly on a big cut on his knee. And yet, the inadvertent transdermal transmission in the Sinner case produced a finding of Clostebol metabolites that was THREE TIMES the amount as in the Tammaro case. In two separate tests, eight days apart. That should, it seems, have raised some red flags5) The story from Team Sinner is pat – perhaps too pat? If you read the Tammaro case, there are certain inconsistencies in the stories told by the two parents. That’s put down to the fact that the situation had happened months prior. But the original tribunal came down very hard on those inconsistencies. While in the Sinner case they were recent events, there were inconsistencies – notably, Naldi’s recollection of the warning from Ferrara. And a version from a friend of Sinner’s along on the trip that disputed certain facts. And yet, in contrast to the Tammaro case, those inconstencies were almost completely excused. In Naldi’s case, with weak-sauce arguments like jet lag, late arrival and … personal life stress. Why the double-standard?
6) Why was the Trofodermin spray applied for EIGHT DAYS on the (seemingly) far less significant cut on Naldi’s finger, as compared to the big and infected gash on Tammaro’s knee? The spray had been used by Tammari’s father the previous year, and the recommended usage was to spray it twice a day for 2-3 days. And Tammari’s father still has a scar from that. Young Tammari’s wound had crusted over the next day, and he never used it again. There seems to definitely be a big gap between the two cases.
7) The notion that there were two tests, eight days apart, and the results came up with essentially the same quantity of banned substance is an area that isn’t explored nearly enough in the decision. Especially because that amount, despite no direct spraying, was – as mentioned above – three times the amount in the Tammari case.
7) The pattern with ITIA-covened independant tribunals being appealed to the CAS has been, in most cases, that the CAS found the tribunals’ interpretations of the testimony too harsh. In other words, they erred on the side of suspicion and guilt and not giving nearly enough benefit of the doubt when the standard is “on balance of probabilities”. And that’s why they reduce the suspensions in many cases.
This one was just the opposite – if there’s an argument to be made, it’s that the tribunal gave Sinner TOO much benefit of the doubt. Since that doesn’t seem in character, it’s legitimate to question if they were too lenient in buying his explanation.
In short, it feels as though there are enough questions that WADA is well within its purview to want to take a look at it.
Mitigation and deterrent, more than anything
You won’t find many people who believe that any anti-doping organization is going to catch all the bad guys. Or even most of them. The dopers and maskers and scientists who populate too many areas of sport, where there is so much at stake on results, have been two of three steps ahead of the doping authorities since time immemorial. And the budgets for these organizations are never big enough.
They catch a few, sure. But the best they can hope to be is a deterrent to some of those who want to cheat. And that, in large part, is why the penalties for those who do get caught are generally so high.
They’re even high for those who miss surprise tests – i.e., fail the “whereabouts” requirements. That’s not because the athletes aren’t human, especially those who have constant, unpredictable travel schedules and can’t always be where they say they’ll be. It’s because if there were not serious penalties for evading anti-doping tests, the dopers would use that loophole to … evade them. With alacrity.
But at core, they’re generally willing to believe the athletes, unless there is a compelling reason not to. And they’re also set up to operate under the assumption that everyone who testifies and offers evidence is telling the truth.
We know, in life, that not everyone tells the truth. In these cases, there is a LOT at stake.
Different tribunals, different interpretations
The other element that lands a hit on the credibility of the anti-doping infrastructure is that there are so many subjective elements to any anti-doping case.
The situation involving Simona Halep is a case in point; both her experts and the Tribunal’s experts performed tests to determine the whys and wherefores of the Roxadustat found in her system – which led to several years of stress and expense for the former No. 1, who is trying once again to resume her career this week in Hong Kong after just one match back in Miami in March.
Halep’s side interpreted the science as favorable to Halep; the tribunal’s side found … the complete opposite.
As well, any decisions as to fault – no fault, no significant fault, and significant fault – often hinge on the believability of the testimony from the athlete and other concerned persons. And they hinge on whether the adjudicating body in question thinks certain facts and issues are relevant, or material – or not. And the decisions are ultimately subjective in a lot of ways and are made by human beings.
If there’s been a pattern, it’s been that the CAS is … less strict? Gives more benefit of the doubt? There is definitely a gap between how the ITIA tribunals digest testimony, and the way the CAS does.
And that, more often than not, results in a reduction of suspension time on appeal.
It doesn’t help the shaky gravitas of the entire anti-doping machine if two of its highest tribunals repeatedly see the same set of circumstances SO differently.
And when there is doubt, enter the conspiracy theories and suspicions. Because that’s how we roll these days.
Rare exceptions all around for Sinner
How does a good conspiracy start? Well, it starts with rare occurrences, and then people put together one and one and get to three.
In Sinner’s case, he was a rare instance of a successful “emergency appeal” of a provisional suspension.
Most don’t even try. And those who do (Halep is one such case) are typically unsuccessful. It’s not as though they might not (eventually) have a case; it’s just that they aren’t able to immediately establish the source of a contaminated supplement, or an inadvertent use of a product that contains a banned substance.
The only other recent case we could come up with was before the formation of the ITIA, when the ITF adjudicated these matters through another body (TIU), was the case of Varvara Lepchenko.
Time is of the essence in those expedited hearings. Putting aside his former staff’s now well-dissected and abysmal failures in the Sinner case, the world No. 1 hired physical trainer Ferrara because of his pharmacological background and experience. It’s no leap of logic that, when faced with the positive test(s) for Clostebol, Ferrara would instantly look to the Trofodermin spray he (inexplicably) carried with him, and had given to the physiotherapist to use.
Thus, with a plausible reason for the exposure established (and let’s not forget, it’s a “balance of probabilities” thing. They need only show that it’s more likely than not – i.e., a 51 per cent chance – that this was the cause, which makes the argument much easier to make), the decision was to accept his reasons and withdraw the provisional suspension.
When a second test came up positive eight days later – before the announcement or processing of the first – the same reasons seemed to apply.
Sinner would also have the means to immediately get a top lawyer on the case to coordinate everything. So in that sense, it’s not an equitable world. But that’s a separate issue. It’s also not his fault he can afford the best representation.
But that’s why the situation didn’t come to light back in March. When a provisional suspension is successfully argued, the ITIA isn’t bound to publish an announcement of a failed doping test. So it’s not a secret conspiracy to “keep this” from Twitter.
See Lepchenko, Varvara.
But it’s rare.
What will the outcome be?
It appears that the main focus of WADA’s appeal – and, remember, they are usually the respondants, not the appellants, in these cases – is procedural.
What WADA seems to be looking at here is not whether Sinner is “guilty”. Their contention is that the conclusion that Sinner was at “no fault” instead of “not significant fault” was inaccurately arrived at.
Again, we’ll note, that the trend in cases appealed in the opposite direction to the CAS (for a reduction of sentence, not an increase)
As we outlined above, the CAS tends to be more generous in its interpretation of the testimony than the independant tribunals are. If that holds in this case, they’ll only uphold the original decision.
The only wrinkle in that ointment was that, in this particular case, the tribunal was extremely, and unusually, generous in giving Sinner the benefit of the doubt.
What else do we know? It’s going to take awhile. And Sinner will continue to play, and the fans at the tournaments will continue to cheer him. And he’ll be under a lot of pressure off the court.
And if nothing happens before the ATP Finals next month, he’ll be hailed as a conquering hero in Turin, Italy.
Regardless of any conspiracy theories.
But in most quarters, he’ll likely not be thought of in the same way again.
*****************************************************************
Sources
Jannik Sinner decision: Tribunal
About Post Author
More Stories
Canadian Aussie Summer Report: Gabriel Diallo
AO Junior Stories: Dominick Mosejczuk
Canucks This Week – Week ending Jan. 26, 2025 (Tuesday results)