Did US Open winner Jannik Sinner get SPECIAL treatment? TWO positive tests, no ban and a grand slam!

Jannik Sinner is into the US Open Final having been cleared after testing positive twice for banned substance clostabol. WADA are still able to appeal the ruling by the ITIA and have asked additional questions regarding the decision making already.

We have all had time to unpack his doping case, giving rise to a number of questions around the way the case was handled and how the decision was reached. The biggest question being - did he get preferential treatment and why was no fault found when his professional physio used a product on Sinner widely known in Italy to be on the banned list.

In these cases 2 years bans are imposed due to the rules being your team are an extension of yourself and the player is held responsible for the actions of their team.

The story so far:
World Number One Jannik Sinner tested positive twice for the substance in March during his semi-final run in Indian Wells but has been cleared of any wrongdoing

The Italian tested positive for low levels of a metabolite of clostebol - a steroid that can be used to build muscle mass and a derivative of testosterone.

Another sample taken eight days later also tested positive for the same metabolite.

A provisional suspension was applied automatically but, as Sinner challenged it successfully, he was able to keep playing.

The International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) found Sinner was contaminated with the substance by his physiotherapist.

Naldi applied an over-the-counter spray available in Italy to a cut on his own hand and had then carried out treatments on Sinner.

Sinner was cleared of fault or negligence by an independent tribunal last week, but he will lose the ranking points and prize money from his semi-final run at Indian Wells.

“I will now put this challenging and deeply unfortunate period behind me," Sinner said in a statement"

#jannik #janniksinner #sinner #wada #itia #doping #atp #itia #simonahalep #clostebol #nickkyrgios #kyrgios #usopen #usopen2024 #carlosalcaraz #indianwells #atptour #usopenfinal #taylorfritz

[franz-re]

Reading the 33 pages of the ruling for me 2 thing really matter on Sinner case: A) 3 independent professionals, 2 of which appointed by ITIA and that didn't know that were examining Sinner, clearly said that there were no advantage in the performace and B) the process was not discretionary as one might thing (Sinner needed to prove his ignocence and the reason why it was not banned was explained). Then, as in all these kind of processes, you might have a different opinion and say that there's a room of discretionary but this actually has damaged Sinner has he had to play with an unbelievale pression beeing ignocent and n.1 of the world (for sure he didn't want to come out as Armstrong). As I wrote in other channels, to reduce discretionary above all in contamination cases you have to accept not to start a process when you know - and science helps - that a minimal quantity is not affecting for sure the performance and so, that you have detected not a doping but a contamination. This means that you have to control the players always and not randomly accepting a different model that might have imperfections too.

[seguso]

Sinner didn't receive any preferential treatment. He was treated like Bortolotti and like everyone else who could immediately say where the contamination came from. People believe he was treated differently because they only know the most high-profile cases, like Halep's, which are very different.

[joshuam]

It is most unfortunate given that more than two weeks have passed since the decision was announced and made publicly available that such a misinformed video is still being made. Sadly, it seems that you have not read, or perhaps not comprehended, the 33-page decision.

From my perspective, the biggest issue with your video is the assertion that the case is about whether Sinner's team bore no fault or negligence, and the incorrect statement that the tribunal found that the physiotherapist did not know about the Clostebol in the spray. This is simply wrong.

To clarify:
1. The trainer, Umberto Ferrara (who has does indeed have a background in pharmacy), definitely did know that the Trofodermin Spray contained Clostebol. It is an over-the-counter product in Italy and he was allowed to use it on himself, but it was obviously a terrible decision to purchase it and give it to Giacomo Naldi in the circumstances.
2. There is a dispute over whether the physiotherapist, Giacomo Naldi, knew that the spray contained Clostebol (Ferrara says he warned him, whereas Naldi said he did not recall any warning). The Tribunal found that the more compelling account was Ferrara's (i.e. Naldi was warned that the spray contained Clostebol).
3. Hence, Sinner did not win the case because the Tribunal concluded that his team members were unaware of the presence of Clostebol in the Trofodermin Spray.
4. Instead, what the case came down to is the question of how much a player can be held responsible for the mistakes of their staff. For this, the cases 'Sharapova v ITF' and 'Sheikh Hazza Bin Sultan Bin Zayed Al Nahyan v FEI' were used as precedents. They articulate the principle that athletes are not to be considered at fault for the mistakes of their team if the athlete has taken due care. Hence, the case then turned to an analysis of whether Sinner had taken such due care and the tribunal ultimately decided that Sinner did all he could be reasonably expected to do (summarised in Paragraph 115 of the decision).

Moreover, regarding the comment "the storyline attached to it is hard to believe, " you are of course entitled to your opinion, and I do not know your scientific credentials and/or how much reading you have done into the research on Clostebol contamination, so I don't know how well-founded your opinion is. I would point out, however, that the three scientific experts (all specialists in anti-doping) from three different countries all found the storyline to be plausible. Specifically, one of the experts, Professor David Cowan of Kings College London, concluded that the storyline was "entirely plausible based on the explanation given and the concentrations identified by the Laboratory" and that he could find "no evidence to support any other scenario" (Paragraph 85).

[joannemoore]

For about the umpteenth time, he didn't get preferential treatment..the ITIA have even commented on it. Medvedev is correct, it does depend on whether you can successfully challenge the suspension. But that is based on the circumstances NOT the ranking of the player..Also the trainer who purchased the spray DID know..the confusion is around whether he effectively communicated that to the Physio. As for Roger (who is my all time favourite player as it happens) what he suggests would punish innocent people. Of course other players get suspension and then later cleared and that is unfortunate but the ITIA did follow the process and the rules as they stand. Finally, the reason there was no sanction (other than losing the points at IW etc.) Is because it was judged that he had taken every reasonable precaution in his team recruitment and could not have known; he even asked the physio if he used anything on the cut. Of course he had good lawyers but the process was not different for him. And it came out when it did as you put it because the hearing took place on 15th August. The reason this isn't dying down is because the media are still whipping it up. I don't understand why people think he should have been suspended no matter what. It's like in a court of law, someone being found not guilty and the judge saying, .well you are not guilty but we are going to send you to prison for a bit anyway cos other people have been to prison before and to appease people who think you are.a bit privileged mate.

[effeelle]

Still these questions after all the documents and proofs? Omg. No, he did not get special treatment as all the evaluations have been made by judges who did not know who was the judged person. The process was the same of those that took place for the other players. Moreover, it was shown that the amount of substance was insignificant and would never cause a change in performances.

[marissssss]

Hmmm this video is made without preparation whatsoever. You didn’t go through the rules…why?!

[freefly]

Vero short answer that should not need any other discuss: no

[thomasoberhofer]

What are this to #experts talking about, nonsense all along and not informed at all this case is over, get on whit your life and talk about tennis man poor fellows…..

[marissssss]

How can you compare Halep and Sinner’s cases…😮

[ליהלי-צנ]

Are you looking for hedlines and rating over nothing?🤔Sinner can set an example of dignity and sportsmanship.The issue was cleared .

[LAdN]

Video che non aggiunge e non teglie niente all’orgomento “Doping Sinner”. Al momento è innocente, se lunedì 9 settembre sarà colpevole ci sarà davvero da raccontare un’altra storia. Nel frattempo vi state togliendo l’opportunità di parlare di Tennis giocato.

[massimogattari]

Disposti a spargere fango per qualche visualizzazione in più..Che poi il quantitativo della sostanza non era sufficiente nemmeno a far volare più in alto una farfalla è del tutto irrilevante secondo voi...

[alessiofavilli]

There was a judge an he is not you!! so...."special" are you

[marissssss]

So Halep didn’t receive VIP treatment despite having been number 1. I don’t know why i am still listening to this

[andreamarcovaldi]

I can undestand you are still a little yt channel and need this "sensational" title to gain some clicks, but, it is totally unfair full stop.you should get informed a "little" bit more.

[lolegw]

Of course he did get a vip treatment. He was pampered and protected for months. I like sinner but he just hides behind the backs of specialist lawyers who by the way have advocated for atp in the past. If you have the money to pay for lawyers with these kind of connections everything is solved on time and legally correctly...