Coup Droit wrote:

---

the Jannick Sinner two positive drug tests, but no nelgigence, no fault, one day turn around, story is obviously buzzing everywhere on social media

Tara Moore is obviously livid, along with a large number of other players etc - it's not that people disblieve the story, it's the timeframe, the fact he could carry on playing, that it wasn't public, that he had his appeal heard basically within one day

We're all equal but some are more equal than others

---

 Hell's bells 

BBC Article in some depth here

Stuart Fraser in The Times is here

I think this will run and run - others have been provisionally banned and had to wait months - Sinner gets a (limp) slap on the wrist.

christ wrote:

---

emmsie69 wrote:

---

I think the difference may be that his test results were such that his reason was plausible whereas in Tara's case she clearly ate a lot of meat (possibly more than can be reasonably expected) to get the results she did.

---

 In Ms Moore's case she was exonerated. That - by definition - makes her reason plausible, too.

Mr Sinner is losing prize money and ranking points, as I understand it, so he presumably wasn't deemed "innocent".

---

 Yes but it seems quite reasonable that it should take longer to establish just how plausible Tara's explanation was. The real trouble I have is the enormous difference in how different players are treated.

Coup Droit wrote:

---

christ wrote:

---

emmsie69 wrote:

---

I think the difference may be that his test results were such that his reason was plausible whereas in Tara's case she clearly ate a lot of meat (possibly more than can be reasonably expected) to get the results she did.

---

 In Ms Moore's case she was exonerated. That - by definition - makes her reason plausible, too.

Mr Sinner is losing prize money and ranking points, as I understand it, so he presumably wasn't deemed "innocent".

---

 I think, to be fair, he was deemed innocent - he's losing the prize money and ranking points that he got when he was playing while (secretly) suspended (in the same way that Tara 'lost' her prize money/points during her suspension period - but, of course, why she lost her stuff was because Tara wasn't allowed to play at all, and we all knew why !)

The amount of the drugs seem tiny, there can't be any real performance benefit, I'm perfectly happy, on what we've been told, to accept the version of events that's been signed off on (although supposedly these creams are known for this and I do find it slightly hard to believe that a trainer/masseur for someone like Sinner would be so stupid as to use them or that Sinner would employ someone without laying down strict rules)  

However, the main problem - as Liam Broady, Lucas Pouille, Shapavolov, Kyrgios, and the world and his wife point out - is simply the different treatment and the lack of transparency

  

---

 "playing while (secretly) suspended"? How does this work?

I think that "innocent" is probably the wrong word: he (and the others) were guilty, but the excuse/ reason was considered sufficient mitigation to render punishment unnecessary.

And my point was (I think) that his "suspension" was private and short, others have had very public and long suspensions.

Coup Droit wrote:

---

""playing while (secretly) suspended"? How does this work?"

You're absolutely right

Great if your swanky lawyer files an instant appeal, AND it gets heard, so the powers that be allow you to play while they're deliberating more generally, which also is done pretty quickly

---

 Agree - regardless of eventual guilt or not, there shouldnt be different processes for WR 1 or WR 1001. 

Sorry, you're right - what I'd been meaning was that he played during the period that any other player would have been suspended. And played while secretly under investigation. But that's not the same, my bad, apologies

The opaqueness of the whole issue is worrying - why were the positive results, and the instant appeal, not on record? And why do other players say that the instant emergency appeal is not open to them? Purely a question of finances? Well, that doesn't seem right either