As soon as the news of Sinner's three-month ban came out, the outside world became noisy, although many players thought that Sinner's three-month ban was unfair, but there were also many players who publicly supported this approach, and for a while, it was really difficult to determine who was right and who was wrong. However, just yesterday, the head of WADA came forward to explain some of the points of contention in the Sinner case.

Referring to Sinner's three-month suspension, WADA chief lawyer Ross Wenzel stressed that this case is a 108,000-mile difference from other doping cases, because scientific feedback received suggests that Sinner could not have been doping intentionally, including in trace amounts. This is also the fundamental reason why the quantitative standards of Sinner are different from those of other cases, so there is no "differential treatment" in Sinner's case.

"This is a completely different case from other drug ban cases," he said. This is because the scientific feedback we have received has confirmed that there is no evidence that players intentionally use banned drugs, even in trace amounts. When we analyze these kinds of cases, we evaluate them from a technical and operational level, without fear of public opinion or the opinion of politicians. ”

So is WADA any special "favoritism" or "privilege" for Sinner? For example, taking the schedule into account during the ban date to make sure Sinner doesn't miss a single Grand Slam event? Or in terms of the ban date, the needs and attitudes of the Sinners were fully taken into account?

"Once there's a settlement, you can't say, 'Oh, but we're going to impose this ban in two months, for three months.'" Because, the ban has to be effective immediately, and of course, once settled, it's important to release the news for transparency reasons. The bans we impose are of course not fixture-dependent, appropriate bans must be imposed and should be in effect as soon as possible, and should not be modified or considered based on important events occurring. ”

In addition, he explained why WADA insisted on rehearing Sinner's case on appeal last year, and now it has made a sudden decision to settle with Sinner, "I looked at the data and there have been 67 similar cases since the start of the agreed settlement in January 2021. Some cases were first heard in agreement with WADA, while others had to await the conclusion of proceedings before the Court of Arbitration for Sport. ”

However, for such an explanation full of "fake", "big", "empty" and full of hypocritical weaving, many netizens once again expressed their dissatisfaction.

Some netizens said, "First of all, the key to the retrial of Sinner's case is not whether he intentionally used doping, but even if he did not know, he still needs to bear the consequences of team behavior according to the 'negligence' stipulated in the doping regulations." Therefore, it is really ridiculous to prevaricate everything with the so-called "unintentional"! You know, whether it's Halep or Sharapova, they are all unintentional, but they have all been banned for more than a year at the shortest! Second, if according to the lawyer, the suspension date was unilaterally requested by WADA, and Sinner only passively accepted the punishment, then why did he accept it? After all, he had been acquitted before, and even if he passed the international tribunal, he could still be found not guilty, so did he take the initiative to accept that he didn't admit that the innocent person he set up before was to deceive everyone? ”

Another netizen said, "Therefore, the gold content of Pegula's previous interviews is still rising, because relevant institutions will always find all kinds of reasons to explain what they do, and players are just tools under this system, let them pinch and pinch around!" Some netizens said, "Use coincidences to perfectly avoid all problems, so, well, the ban date has nothing to do with the schedule, it's all a coincidence, just like the process of the banned substance entering his body, it's all a coincidence!" It's really ridiculous! ”

The Sinner case has been controversial since its inception, but the fundamental issue is not whether he deliberately used doping, but the opacity of the entire case and the unfairness of the trial procedure, which ultimately made the outcome of the case lose credibility.

But just yesterday, Sinner's lawyer, Jamie Singer, made an interesting remark about the case, saying: "When one player is in a similar situation, the other players are like eagles. And when they themselves fall into it, they will try to hide. It took us some time to convince Sinner that accepting WADA's offer was the right choice rather than going to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Sinner was subjected to a textbook trial from the start, with no partiality. ”(Source: Tennis Home Author: Lu Xiaotian)