• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Tennis

Page 162 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Of course he's ultimately responsible, hence the ban.

I don't know what 'gotten completely shitcanned non therapeutic amounts of PEDs' means.
But you’re assuming he’s not directly responsible, not only of doping but of scapegoating his trainer? It’s an outlandish excuse, not replicable scientifically, and honestly I wish penalties could be added if someone can’t show evidence that their excuse is based on. Like a yellow card for flopping.
 
But you’re assuming he’s not directly responsible, not only of doping but of scapegoating his trainer? It’s an outlandish excuse, not replicable scientifically, and honestly I wish penalties could be added if someone can’t show evidence that their excuse is based on. Like a yellow card for flopping.

I believe he has shown that evidence.
 
I believe he has shown that evidence.
Really? You mean to replicate the process, they sprayed (not rubbed) onto one spot on the hand (the approximate spot where the cut would be) of our test subject (trainer) a small amount of a substance containing a small amount of the steroid, and then had that person give a massage to our experimental subject #2,, and tested that second person to see whether they could test positive for that steroid? That is the burden of proof I would like to see, if he's done that, okay.

The keys being that he didn't even claim that the substance was sprayed on him. Nor was it a big glob of testosterone-like gel spread on both hands. And the spray (which I would assume it would have less absorption than a gel) was just to one spot on one hand. That's not a lot of the substance. But yeah, steroids are absorbed through our skin, so it's possible. But why not just say the trainer grabbed the wrong spray or tube and put a bunch on his hands, which would be much more likely to produce secondary absorption?
 
Haven’t paid a lot of attention to this but seems a bit like Contador’s Clenbuterol case ? Contador copped a two year retrospective ban and loss of titles for a substance with no minimum limit. Sinner gets three months?

World #1, too big to fall? And tennis is certainly a much bigger global sport than cycling which is also more accustomed to doping scandals then tennis.
 
Last edited:
Quite a bit different. Clenbutorol isn't licenced or prescribed for human use in Europe whereas Clostebol can be bought without prescription over the counter in various skin products and it's known contamination happens when used topically. The issue Contadors lawyer had was there was no established facts that supported eating steak reared with Clenbutorol raised levels in the way evident in Contadors samples. As the class is S1, it's really no different in sanction to any S1 substance and a 2 year ban back then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SHAD0W93
Haven’t paid a lot of attention to this but seems a bit like Contador’s Clenbuterol case ? Contador copped a two year retrospective ban and loss of titles for a substance with no minimum limit. Sinner gets three months?

World #1, too big to fall? And tennis is certainly a much bigger global sport than cycling which is also more accustomed to doping scandals then tennis.
Contador had a choice to be retroactive banned or get a full 2 year ban plus Tour results removed. He chose the former.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cookster15
Quite a bit different. Clenbutorol isn't licenced or prescribed for human use in Europe whereas Clostebol can be bought without prescription over the counter in various skin products and it's known contamination happens when used topically. The issue Contadors lawyer had was there was no established facts that supported eating steak reared with Clenbutorol raised levels in the way evident in Contadors samples. As the class is S1, it's really no different in sanction to any S1 substance and a 2 year ban back then.
Pretty sure that in the Contador case WADA still accepted the "no intent" line of thinking while going to CAS or something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TourOfSardinia
Haven’t paid a lot of attention to this but seems a bit like Contador’s Clenbuterol case ? Contador copped a two year retrospective ban and loss of titles for a substance with no minimum limit. Sinner gets three months?

World #1, too big to fall? And tennis is certainly a much bigger global sport than cycling which is also more accustomed to doping scandals then tennis.
Haven't you seen the media campaign for Sinner. When the talking heads come out saying "Sinner is a good boy who wouldn't dope" you just can't keep a straight face
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sciatic
Pretty sure that in the Contador case WADA still accepted the "no intent" line of thinking while going to CAS or something.
The evidence didn't get as far as supporting 'no intent' as none of the conditions for eliminating or reducing the period of ineligibility as provided by Contador were applicable – in particular because the exact contaminated supplement is unknown and the circumstances surrounding its ingestion were equally unknown – therefore the period of ineligibility had to be two years.
 
https://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/articles/cdxexxl936vo
"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.
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."
Who I wonder thought the sanction was too hard?
more at
https://www.si.com/tennis/did-jannik-sinner-get-away-with-doping
 
Me. Sinner went through the process to prove how the drug could be found in his system. Then when you consider the sophistication of the testing equipment which can pick up trace amounts of substances then more cases will happen in the future. I'll also add Swiatek got pinged for a similar offence and received a one month suspension.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kingjr
Amazing that science has gone so far now they can disprove intent.
It's not like " it happened by accident " is not a pretty common excuse given by offenders. And a cycling specific thing that goes sort of unmentioned, riders from Dominican Republic, Colombia, Venezuela just skip tests when asked, don't report addresses so out of competition tests are near impossible.
I am glad I only eat clean steak and go to reputable massage places!!
 
“. . . scientific feedback that we received was that this could not be a case of intentional doping, including micro-dosing.”
What an amazingly ridiculous statement (though perhaps a problem with translation). They cannot show it “could not” be intentional doping; did they have 24 hour video surveillance tape? Yes, they can demonstrate it “could” have been unintentional. But that’s very different.
But absurd, illogical statements are all the rage right now so I guess they figured why not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Unchained
"Theoretical physics can also prove that an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy! But use your eyes, your common sense."
But of course this analogy goes both ways. At the end of the day, WADA was foolish to appeal the ITIA decision and once they looked further into the case they then realised they could lose at CAS. In effect, Sinner has saved WADA's bacon.

This also is similar to the Stannard ABP case. The UCI were worried that Stannard would appeal the conviction, so they had a negotiated settlement which was a backdated 4 year suspension, resulting in Stannard in affect serving a ten month suspension.
 
The UCI like other governing bodies can do police work, can attempt to revise history, I am cool with that.. But if you catch someone, especially a winner, you need to go through the endless process of giving the result to a non cheating person who deserves the victory.. Not enough obviously to only catch the cheaters and give bizarre arbitrary punishments.. And how hard do they really chase people..
And Tiger and doctor left on separate private jets before investigation could begin.. And nothing came of it..treatment done in private residence to avoid detection and scrutiny by law enforcement or sports governing bodies.. Been going on for a long long time.. And different punishment for same or similar thing is a reality
 

Latest posts