Tennis

[Rob5091]

Did n't see this? Nooo.

"It appears that you can almost affect the outcome if you are a top player, if you have access to the top lawyers."

Froomey set the bar with that one with his "Salbutamol incident".

 

[BullsFan22]

Same thing like Therese Johaug in 2016…

 

[kingjr]

Did n't see this? Nooo.

Froomey set the bar with that one with his "Salbutamol incident".

Did you even bother to read their explanation?

 

[Rob5091]

Did you even bother to read their explanation?

Sure and there's a whole thread here with other great explainations.

 

[Tricycle Rider]

Same thing like Therese Johaug in 2016…

Similar in that Johaug claimed she had used a cream given to her by the team physician not knowing it had contained clostebol, but in retrospect she at least got an 18-month suspension instead of Sinner's laughable 3-month ban. 3 months off while no Grand Slam tournament is taking place won't hurt Sinner one bit.

From wiki: Johaug served an 18-month competition ban from October 2016 to April 2018 for an anti-doping rule violation after testing positive for unintentional use of clostebol.[14][15] An initial suspension of 13-months was overturned and extended by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) following an appeal by the International Ski Federation (FIS). The ruling accepted Johaug's explanation that the source of the clostebol was an ointment provided by the team physician, Fredrik Bendiksen [no], but it was deemed that Johaug to have "failed to conduct a basic check of [the treatment's] packaging".

 

[AmRacer]

Similar in that Johaug claimed she had used a cream given to her by the team physician not knowing it had contained clostebol, but in retrospect she at least got an 18-month suspension instead of Sinner's laughable 3-month ban. 3 months off while no Grand Slam tournament is taking place won't hurt Sinner one bit.

From wiki: Johaug served an 18-month competition ban from October 2016 to April 2018 for an anti-doping rule violation after testing positive for unintentional use of clostebol.[14][15] An initial suspension of 13-months was overturned and extended by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) following an appeal by the International Ski Federation (FIS). The ruling accepted Johaug's explanation that the source of the clostebol was an ointment provided by the team physician, Fredrik Bendiksen [no], but it was deemed that Johaug to have "failed to conduct a basic check of [the treatment's] packaging".

Martin Johnsrud Sundby​

In January 2015 Norwegian Ski Federation "was informed that Johnsrud Sundby had crossed the legal limit, the so called 'decision limit', in regard to the use of" [salbutamol trademarked as] Ventolin; the federation should have acted then, is the opinion of Fredrik Aukland, NRK's expert on crosscountry skiing.[5]

On 20 July 2016 Johnsrud Sundby was banned from competition for two months by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for an anti-doping rule violation.[6] His use of asthma medication salbutamol, resulted in test levels of urine sample, exceeding the very high 1000 ng/ml limits set in the anti-doping rules by 35% for two samples collected in competition, on 13 December 2014 and 8 January 2015.[6] The facts of the case were undisputed and the decision focused on the meaning of the term "inhaled salbutamol", specifically whether the 1600 μg per day limit referred to the "labelled dose" or the "delivered dose". The CAS panel decided that the intended meaning was the former, but criticised the drafting of the rule. For this and other reasons, including that Johnsrud Sundby declared salbutamol at the time of the test, the panel found his degree of fault light and opted for a short sanction.[6] As the tests were taken in competition, the two results were automatically stripped. This led to Johnsrud Sundby losing the 2015 Tour de Ski title and the overall world cup title for the 2014–15 season. Apart from the subsequent stages of the 2015 Tour de Ski, no other results were affected. His short suspension took place in summer months outside the competitive skiing season.[6][7][8]

At a 21 October 2016 national convention of Norwegian Ski Federation (NSF), some of the local representatives had a critical view on the federation having compensated Johnsrud Sundby for his loss of prize money due to his breaking the rules against doping

 

[kingjr]

Sure and there's a whole thread here with other great explainations.

Then I don't understand the point of the image you posted.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Then I don't understand the point of the image you posted.

AFAIK the image of the packet with the No Doping red circle logo was not the original used by Sinner's coach
but the same product later bought by a reporter in an italian pharmacy.
Their narrative goes ...
The coach should have seen the label and remembered not to use the stuff in Sinner's vicinity.
Believe a word of it?

 

[kingjr]

AFAIK the image of the packet with the No Doping red circle logo was not the original used by Sinner's coach
but the same product later bought by a reporter in an italian pharmacy.
Their narrative goes ...
The coach should have seen the label and remembered not to use the stuff in Sinner's vicinity.
Believe a word of it?

It was not his coach, but his physiotherapist, who used it to treat a cut on his finger, and he may not have been aware of how easily it is transmitted, such as during a massage. I don't find that implausible at all.

 

[Tricycle Rider]

It was not his coach, but his physiotherapist, who used it to treat a cut on his finger, and he may not have been aware of how easily it is transmitted, such as during a massage. I don't find that implausible at all.

There is a very public precedent though going back almost a decade (see Johaug case) that I'd have to question the physiotherapist's professionalism if he was truly unaware of OTC creams that could potentially contaminate an athlete. I'd think someone like Sinner could afford the best of healthcare professionals who do possess such a basic awareness?

 

[kingjr]

There is a very public precedent though going back almost a decade (see Johaug case) that I'd have to question the physiotherapist's professionalism if he was truly unaware of OTC creams that could potentially contaminate an athlete. I'd think someone like Sinner could afford the best of healthcare professionals who do possess such a basic awareness?

There are some differences here, a) it was a spray, not a cream in Sinner's case and b) more importantly, Johaug used the cream for herself, whereas in Sinner's case, the transmission was accidental.

Nonetheless, you are right to question his professionalism, which is likely why Sinner stopped working with him, as well as with the coach who bought the spray for the physio.

 

[AmRacer]

There are some differences here, a) it was a spray, not a cream in Sinner's case and b) more importantly, Johaug used the cream for herself, whereas in Sinner's case, the transmission was accidental.

Nonetheless, you are right to question his professionalism, which is likely why Sinner stopped working with him, as well as with the coach who bought the spray for the physio.

LA also got his stuff accidentally

 

[kingjr]

LA also got his stuff accidentally

That all you can offer?

 

[AmRacer]

That all you can offer?

Same same but not so different

 

[yaco]

There is a very public precedent though going back almost a decade (see Johaug case) that I'd have to question the physiotherapist's professionalism if he was truly unaware of OTC creams that could potentially contaminate an athlete. I'd think someone like Sinner could afford the best of healthcare professionals who do possess such a basic awareness?

The problem is that Johaugh was directly given the cream by her medical team, while in Sinner's case it was remnants of the cream left on the physiotherapists finger. There is a world of difference in the two cases. Sometimes you can ask for the impossible. There are so many topical creams that contain steroids its not funny, however, the ingredients on the pack, don't use the word steroid.

I am confused how Swiatek got one month for a contamination case and not a word about the suspension. And Swiatek was world number one when she received a suspension.

 

[Sciatic]

There are some differences here, a) it was a spray, not a cream in Sinner's case and b) more importantly, Johaug used the cream for herself, whereas in Sinner's case, the transmission was accidental.

Nonetheless, you are right to question his professionalism, which is likely why Sinner stopped working with him, as well as with the coach who bought the spray for the physio.

Still, noone has showed (or it has not been reported) that it is even possible to get a detectable level of the banned chemical from this scenario: a different person spraying a small amount of a product (which is absorbed less than application of a gel or cream) on one small spot on the non-athletes hand (if it was a big cut he wouldn’t leave it exposed) who then gave a massage to the athlete would result in a high enough level to show up in drug testing a day ( or days later). If this was a criminal case the defendant’s attorney would have to a minimum done a complete duplication of the specific sequence of events to show that it was even feasible. I’m not doubting the absorption could happen—I’m frustrated that a decision-making body could just accept an explanation without Sinner having to demonstrate a more robust proof. It’s almost as bad as the Chinese swimmers whose positive tests were annulled because the counters in the kitchen were (supposedly) found contaminated with a doping product. That’s irrelevant if you can’t demonstrate that all of the athletes (a dozen or so?) were even at the counter?

 

[kingjr]

Still, noone has showed (or it has not been reported) that it is even possible to get a detectable level of the banned chemical from this scenario: a different person spraying a small amount of a product (which is absorbed less than application of a gel or cream) on one small spot on the non-athletes hand (if it was a big cut he wouldn’t leave it exposed) who then gave a massage to the athlete would result in a high enough level to show up in drug testing a day ( or days later). If this was a criminal case the defendant’s attorney would have to a minimum done a complete duplication of the specific sequence of events to show that it was even feasible. I’m not doubting the absorption could happen—I’m frustrated that a decision-making body could just accept an explanation without Sinner having to demonstrate a more robust proof. It’s almost as bad as the Chinese swimmers whose positive tests were annulled because the counters in the kitchen were (supposedly) found contaminated with a doping product. That’s irrelevant if you can’t demonstrate that all of the athletes (a dozen or so?) were even at the counter?

Well, expert evidence was given by:

Professor Jean-François Naud, director of the WADA-accredited laboratory in Montreal
Dr Xavier de la Torre, Deputy Director and Laboratory Manager of the WADA accredited laboratory in Rome; Professor David Cowan, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Environmental, Analytical and Forensic Science at King’s College London (‘KCL’)

Naud concluded that based on the First Sample, the likelihood that the Player's explanation is plausible is “really high". [...] Considering, also, the Second Sample and specifically its specific
gravity (1.032) and the low Clostebol concentration detected that is similar to the previous
AAF, Professor Naud stated that “it is possible that the second AAF result comes from the
same administration/contamination as the first AAF reported.”

Xavier de la Torre, based on the data reported in the literature and on the data obtained
in experiments conducted in his laboratory, considers it is plausible that the findings in the
First Sample and Second Sample of the Player are “the result of a contamination provoked
by the activities of the physiotherapist”,

David Cowan concludes that the Player’s explanation for the finding of
Clostebol metabolites in the First Sample and the Second Sample as having arisen from
him unknowingly being contaminated by his physiotherapist who was using Trofodermin
Spray containing 5mg/mL Clostebol Acetate to be “entirely plausible based on the
explanation given and the concentrations identified by the Laboratory."

And, for the record: The Player’s identity was not known by two of the experts

https://www.itia.tennis/media/yzgd3xoz/240819-itia-v-sinner.pdf

 

[Sciatic]

Well, expert evidence was given by:

Professor Jean-François Naud, director of the WADA-accredited laboratory in Montreal
Dr Xavier de la Torre, Deputy Director and Laboratory Manager of the WADA accredited laboratory in Rome; Professor David Cowan, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Environmental, Analytical and Forensic Science at King’s College London (‘KCL’)

Naud concluded that based on the First Sample, the likelihood that the Player's explanation is plausible is “really high". [...] Considering, also, the Second Sample and specifically its specific
gravity (1.032) and the low Clostebol concentration detected that is similar to the previous
AAF, Professor Naud stated that “it is possible that the second AAF result comes from the
same administration/contamination as the first AAF reported.”

Xavier de la Torre, based on the data reported in the literature and on the data obtained
in experiments conducted in his laboratory, considers it is plausible that the findings in the
First Sample and Second Sample of the Player are “the result of a contamination provoked
by the activities of the physiotherapist”,

David Cowan concludes that the Player’s explanation for the finding of
Clostebol metabolites in the First Sample and the Second Sample as having arisen from
him unknowingly being contaminated by his physiotherapist who was using Trofodermin
Spray containing 5mg/mL Clostebol Acetate to be “entirely plausible based on the
explanation given and the concentrations identified by the Laboratory."

And, for the record: The Player’s identity was not known by two of the experts

https://www.itia.tennis/media/yzgd3xoz/240819-itia-v-sinner.pdf

So in other words, they didn’t show they had recapitulated the exact type of and sequence of events, which would be the minimum acceptable validation They just paid scientists who indicated it was scientifically plausible. Almost everything that happens is plausible, why is that sufficient? My point is there should be a higher burden of proof for the athlete to substantiate not that a contamination was plausible but that it was reasonable.
But I should also just recognize this is tennis, not cycling.

 

[kingjr]

So in other words, they didn’t show they had recapitulated the exact type of and sequence of events, which would be the minimum acceptable validation They just paid scientists who indicated it was scientifically plausible. Almost everything that happens is plausible, why is that sufficient? My point is there should be a higher burden of proof for the athlete to substantiate not that a contamination was plausible but that it was reasonable.
But I should also just recognize this is tennis, not cycling.

Sufficient for what? He did get a ban.

 

[Sciatic]

Sufficient for what? He did get a ban.

Oh, 3 months will surely derail his entire career.

 

[kingjr]

Oh, 3 months will surely derail his entire career.

How about you just answer the question

 

[AmRacer]

How about you just answer the question

3 month is a joke.

 

[Sciatic]

How about you just answer the question

Sure,you didn’t read my previous posts. Sufficient to establish the excuse is even replicable.

 

[SHAD0W93]

3 month is a joke.

View: https://youtube.com/shorts/iGRzaIi2CGA?si=LpUks7CffpifDFks

 

[kingjr]

3 month is a joke.

From what I've read about the case, the fairest outcome would probably have been no ban at all. The reason he did get one is that the rules are very strict.