Italian tennis star Jannik Sinner’s culpability in testing positive for the steroid clostebol is a topic of mass speculation, guessing, assumptions and conjecture. Let’s engage in some of our own, while attempting to consider human behavior in order to do so responsibly.

Should the violation seem less severe because clostebol is available over the counter in Italy?

Actually the opposite should be true. Anyone working in a professional athletic capacity should be hyperaware of the banned substance list. And especially due to the rash of positive tests supplied by Italian athletes, those who spend a lot of time in Italy one would rationally expect to certainly be aware of the particular product Trofodermin — and what’s in it — having been scapegoated over the years by those who fail tests because of clostebol.

Does it seem likely that Umberto Ferrara, Sinner’s fitness coach with supposed extensive familiarity with anti-doping protocols and who was employed by Sinner “because of his anti-doping experience” (from Sinner’s own testimony), would purchase a product containing a banned substance and travel with Sinner — and the clostebol — to a country where it’s illegal?

No. Even less so when the official “Decision of the Independent Tribunal,” a 33-page document describing the facts, testimony, discussion and findings in extensive detail, gives no account or explanation whatsoever as to the purpose for which Ferrara originally acquired the spray which he knew — according to his testimony — contained the banned substance clostebol.

Does it seem reasonable that Ferrara would suggest to Giacomo Naldi, Sinner’s physiotherapist, that Naldi use this illegal spray containing an anabolic steroid on a cut on his own finger, knowing that he’d be touching Sinner routinely and intensively?

Not if he were sober. It’s noteworthy though that Ferrara claims to have warned Naldi of the fact that Trofodermin contained clostebol, and cautioned him to keep it away from Sinner. Naldi’s statement conflicts with this, yet they agree that the spray was used only by Naldi in Ferrara’s ensuite bathroom at the villa the team stayed at during the Masters 1000 event at Indian Wells.

Does it seem believable that Naldi, a career physiotherapist, did not know clostebol was in Trofodermin — regardless of whether Ferrara told him so or not?

Not really. It’s stated in the evidence that the original packaging wasn’t on the spray when Naldi first used it, but the canister itself had a label clearly reading “Clostebol.” Even if he wasn’t told by Ferrara or didn’t remember or wasn’t already familiar with the product, through being from Italy or via his work in the industry or by virtue of the rampant, crisis-level number of positive clostebol doping tests of Italian athletes, he really just needs to be able to read the label. Anyone working in that capacity should be far more diligent than their story portrays him.

So if Naldi had no awareness of his charge to prevent Sinner coming into contact with Trofodermin (the crux of the entire argument), why would he have used it only in Ferrara’s bathroom if he wasn’t aware of its contents, rather than taking it with him, if he — not Ferrara — was the only one using it?

Because it wasn’t his to take? Because he wanted to use it only in a relatively sterile environment? Those could be indications of good manners and hygiene. As would be washing one’s hands before rubbing somebody down for an hour and a half who’s known to regularly have open sores on his back and feet due to a skin condition (psoriasiform dermatitis).

Does it seem like more questions should be asked in order to draw a knowledgeable conclusion?

Yes. And we’ll do that right now in Part 4.

—@PoisonPill4