I find the variation in what is believed, what is understood, and what happened to be gigantic. That BBC piece makes clear what I thought was obvious from the fact of the settlement: WADA approached Sinner's team, not vice-versa, because WADA actually had more to lose. If WADA had been confident of getting a 1-2year suspension, no number of approaches from the Sinner side would have persuaded it to settle. But WADA feared a loss at CAS,and if *that* happened then the whole structure of "strict liability" - the player is responsible not only for themself, but their team too - collapses. And if *that* happens, cycling teams can start doping riders, and the tested-positive riders can say "but look at this precedent!" when they (well, their team) complain to CAS.
This way, WADA doesn't put "strict liability" in peril, gets a suspension, everyone's happy.
Except of course zillions of people on social media, who don't understand the principles, or are working hard not to. What I find astonishing is that every single account calling this a fix, or corrupt, or pointing out that someone else got a different ban (or all three) is, without exception, a Djokovic fan. Alcaraz fans, fans of Zverev, Rubley, Medvedev (I assume they exist), whatever rump of Federer and Nadal fans exist, Murray fans - none of them seems troubled. But the Djokovic fans are absolutely incensed - you can probably think of at least one account - and waste no time in trying to understand the niceties and nuance, or being accurate about what happened.
What I don't get is: why? Why is it only the Djokovic fans?
isn’t the 1-2 years just the current rules? Sounds like there’s an announced change starting 2027, but the current code doesn’t really allow <1y for Sinner’s case if they find any fault or negligence.
This is mostly coming from Served last week, though she did seem to imply that the tribunal could in practice do whatever it wanted, but it sounded like anything more than 0 and <1y would be off book for the current rules they were supposed to imply
I find the variation in what is believed, what is understood, and what happened to be gigantic. That BBC piece makes clear what I thought was obvious from the fact of the settlement: WADA approached Sinner's team, not vice-versa, because WADA actually had more to lose. If WADA had been confident of getting a 1-2year suspension, no number of approaches from the Sinner side would have persuaded it to settle. But WADA feared a loss at CAS,and if *that* happened then the whole structure of "strict liability" - the player is responsible not only for themself, but their team too - collapses. And if *that* happens, cycling teams can start doping riders, and the tested-positive riders can say "but look at this precedent!" when they (well, their team) complain to CAS.
This way, WADA doesn't put "strict liability" in peril, gets a suspension, everyone's happy.
Except of course zillions of people on social media, who don't understand the principles, or are working hard not to. What I find astonishing is that every single account calling this a fix, or corrupt, or pointing out that someone else got a different ban (or all three) is, without exception, a Djokovic fan. Alcaraz fans, fans of Zverev, Rubley, Medvedev (I assume they exist), whatever rump of Federer and Nadal fans exist, Murray fans - none of them seems troubled. But the Djokovic fans are absolutely incensed - you can probably think of at least one account - and waste no time in trying to understand the niceties and nuance, or being accurate about what happened.
What I don't get is: why? Why is it only the Djokovic fans?
isn’t the 1-2 years just the current rules? Sounds like there’s an announced change starting 2027, but the current code doesn’t really allow <1y for Sinner’s case if they find any fault or negligence.
This is mostly coming from Served last week, though she did seem to imply that the tribunal could in practice do whatever it wanted, but it sounded like anything more than 0 and <1y would be off book for the current rules they were supposed to imply
That said, WADA could have pushed a settlement sooner if they thought the rules didn’t make sense in this case