You seem not to have understood the dynamic of what happened. Sinner was contaminated by his physiotherapist who used a product containing clostebol to treat a wound. No TUE whatsoever…Sinner is not at fault or negligence because he cannot control what other people do for themselves (while he is responsible for what other people give to him). Moreover, he was able to explain immediately the chain of events to the anti doping bodies who accepted the explanation and lifted the ban (he said that he was indeed banned for a few days but that was off-tournaments)
Hi Riccardo, thanks for your feedback! I probably didn't explain myself properly in the video, I realise that Jannik didn't apply for a TUE, simply that he could've applied for an exemption for clostebol under the TUE rule. That appears to be a grey area as a lot of players use TUEs for normally prohibited substances as long as it's for therapeutic use. I also stated in the video that I'm a Sinner defender (I'm on his side)! I totally understand that he's not at fault or negligent, both because the ITIA accepted his explanation and lifted his ban (both times) and because he put his faith and trust in his physiotherapist so he couldn't have been aware of what was in his massage cream or spray.
@@LifeandTennis thanks for your explanation. However, I still don’t understand the TUE argument. He did not use the product on purpose, so why could’ve he applied to TUE? You usually do that when you must take a drug that is on a banned list for a medical priority, this was not the case. I think it was clearly a contamination case, so there’s not much he could have done
@@riccardoguareschi193 Ah, I see what you're saying now. Yes, I agree he did not use the product on purpose. I was merely stating that he would've been allowed to use it legally if his physiotherapist told him what was in the massage spray and he had applied for a TUE (as so many athletes do). The fact that he wasn't aware, proves he wasn't at fault or negligent. For me, the biggest issue is the transparency surrounding the case by the anti-doping bodies, with other players copping bans for similar substances to what Sinner tested positive for. It's quite a complicated case though, would you agree?
@@LifeandTennis ok, I think we understand each other now. I do not think that the case is complicated, on the contrary! It is very clear what happened and the fact that a timely explanation was provided avoided a long ban. Other players got banned because 1) Were not able to provide a reasonable explanation imediately 2) they were negligent not checking products given to them directly. This case was handled as all other cases, but presented different circumstances which resulted in different actions. The nuances of this episode are not understood by the people (included other active players) that just stick to headlines, but it is all about those. You could speculate that extra care was given keeping the news unpublished until the end given the status of the player, and that can be understood. However, had he been banned, things would have gone public imediately.
@@riccardoguareschi193When you put it that way, the case is very clear! However, I do agree that a lot of players just focus on the headlines and don't do their own research. There's always more to the story than a simple headline, as you said.
Brilliant article in the Guardian from Tumaini Carayol (who's covering the whole story) worth checking out - www.theguardian.com/sport/article/2024/aug/21/jannik-sinner-failed-anti-doping-tests-lack-of-transparency-tennis
You seem not to have understood the dynamic of what happened. Sinner was contaminated by his physiotherapist who used a product containing clostebol to treat a wound. No TUE whatsoever…Sinner is not at fault or negligence because he cannot control what other people do for themselves (while he is responsible for what other people give to him). Moreover, he was able to explain immediately the chain of events to the anti doping bodies who accepted the explanation and lifted the ban (he said that he was indeed banned for a few days but that was off-tournaments)
Hi Riccardo, thanks for your feedback! I probably didn't explain myself properly in the video, I realise that Jannik didn't apply for a TUE, simply that he could've applied for an exemption for clostebol under the TUE rule. That appears to be a grey area as a lot of players use TUEs for normally prohibited substances as long as it's for therapeutic use. I also stated in the video that I'm a Sinner defender (I'm on his side)! I totally understand that he's not at fault or negligent, both because the ITIA accepted his explanation and lifted his ban (both times) and because he put his faith and trust in his physiotherapist so he couldn't have been aware of what was in his massage cream or spray.
@@LifeandTennis thanks for your explanation. However, I still don’t understand the TUE argument. He did not use the product on purpose, so why could’ve he applied to TUE? You usually do that when you must take a drug that is on a banned list for a medical priority, this was not the case. I think it was clearly a contamination case, so there’s not much he could have done
@@riccardoguareschi193 Ah, I see what you're saying now. Yes, I agree he did not use the product on purpose. I was merely stating that he would've been allowed to use it legally if his physiotherapist told him what was in the massage spray and he had applied for a TUE (as so many athletes do). The fact that he wasn't aware, proves he wasn't at fault or negligent. For me, the biggest issue is the transparency surrounding the case by the anti-doping bodies, with other players copping bans for similar substances to what Sinner tested positive for. It's quite a complicated case though, would you agree?
@@LifeandTennis ok, I think we understand each other now. I do not think that the case is complicated, on the contrary! It is very clear what happened and the fact that a timely explanation was provided avoided a long ban. Other players got banned because 1) Were not able to provide a reasonable explanation imediately 2) they were negligent not checking products given to them directly. This case was handled as all other cases, but presented different circumstances which resulted in different actions. The nuances of this episode are not understood by the people (included other active players) that just stick to headlines, but it is all about those. You could speculate that extra care was given keeping the news unpublished until the end given the status of the player, and that can be understood. However, had he been banned, things would have gone public imediately.
@@riccardoguareschi193When you put it that way, the case is very clear! However, I do agree that a lot of players just focus on the headlines and don't do their own research. There's always more to the story than a simple headline, as you said.
Brilliant article in the Guardian from Tumaini Carayol (who's covering the whole story) worth checking out - www.theguardian.com/sport/article/2024/aug/21/jannik-sinner-failed-anti-doping-tests-lack-of-transparency-tennis