Let’s distill some more of the key facets of the tribunal’s 33-page “Decision” document.

Does it seem plausible that the difference between the first and second samples (adjusted by applying a normal specific gravity) of 86pg/mL and 76pg/mL could indicate that no clostebol entered Sinner’s system between the failed March 10 test and the failed March 18 test?

Yes. That would be a reasonable finding given the lower level in the second sample. However, the story provided by Sinner’s team is that Naldi treated Sinner in the same manner — gloveless and with or without washing his hands after using a topical substance containing an anabolic steroid — throughout the period of March 5-13, suggesting that contamination should have continued for part of the timeframe between the two tests. Though there were five days between the final alleged use of Trofodermin and the second test, whereas the first test took place after five days of continued use of the product.

How else could the levels in the samples be lower in the second test than in the first?

Anyone who used clostebol, whether intentionally or not, would have a lower concentration of the M1 metabolite (the marker for detection of the steroid) days after stopping use. Anyone who is randomly drug tested would be likely to stop using any banned substance they were knowingly taking, with the expectation of further action forthcoming.

Does it seem convenient that Naldi — who claimed to be unaware that Trofodermin contained clostebol — stopped using it before massaging Sinner after the first test and prior to the second?

Cuts heal and it’s possible Naldi no longer had a need for it. Again, the “Decision” document does not explain why he discontinued his use of the product at that specific time.

Does it seem absolvitory or lend credibility to the story that Naldi is seen with a bandage on his finger?

It probably does the opposite. It’s certainly germane, but it isn’t exactly supportive of the full explanation. It is worthy of note that Naldi can be seen on camera, immediately prior to the first failed test, with a bandage on his left little finger. The first sample was said to have been collected on the evening of March 10, after Sinner’s match against Jan-Lennard Struff. Naldi is seen during that match with his finger bandaged.

It’s also noteworthy that the “Summary of Facts” in the tribunal’s “Decision” document states that the cut to Naldi’s finger occurred March 3, and that he kept it bandaged for precisely two days until March 5. Once the bandage had been removed, Ferrara recommended the use of Trofodermin. Naldi then used Trofodermin from March 5-13, which would allow for a potential contamination window leading up to the first positive test, if in fact all of the following conditions were met: Naldi provided treatment to Sinner, on his bare skin, which had open sores, after using Trofodermin, without washing his hands, wearing no gloves, and with no bandage on his finger — which is contradicted by the video.

Naldi states that on March 10 he cannot remember washing his hands after having applied two sprays of Trofodermin to his finger — which is seen bandaged that day — before treating Sinner’s feet.

Then why would it be exculpatory that Naldi does have his finger bandaged on March 10? And if he had indeed been bandaging it regularly throughout the timeframe of the supposed accidental introduction of an anabolic steroid into Sinner’s body, how did that occur if Naldi was bandaged? And if he was bandaging his finger still as of March 10 as the film shows, why would he unbandage it only when he was touching Sinner’s open wounds without gloves on, as the story is presented to the tribunal?

None of those questions were evidently asked by the ITIA or the tribunal. Or if they were, the answers thereto — which would figure to be pertinent in making any determination — weren’t published in the official findings, nor was there any attempt to address or explain the above anywhere within the document’s numerous sections, e.g. (C) Summary of Facts, (D) The Player’s Explanation, (F) Expert Evidence, (G) The Parties’ Submissions, (H) The Hearing, (I) Discussion, (J) Conclusions.

Does it seem oddly inapposite and immaterial that Professor David Cowan, one of three independent experts at the disposal of the tribunal, stated: “Even if the administration had been intentional, the minute amounts likely to have been administered would not have had […] any relevant doping, or performance enhancing, effect upon the Player”?

Yes, it’s both inapposite and thoroughly immaterial. First, one would need to accept Sinner’s explanation as an unassailable accounting of facts to find that the “amounts likely to have been administered” were “minute.” The amounts in the samples were definitely minute. And if they entered his system in the timeframe and manner given in Sinner’s explanation, and if those amounts were indeed the amounts administered in the hypothetical intentional administration from Cowan’s quote, then there would probably be no “relevant doping, or performance enhancing, effect.” Obviously nothing in the quote itself is relevant at all without assuming the amount of the steroid was never any higher than it was found to be in the first test, which cannot possibly be known by Cowan.

And because Cowan is posing multiple hypotheticals bearing no relevance to the matter, if a person were hypothetically using clostebol deliberately for performance enhancing effects throughout the entire month of January and urine samples were collected on the 10th and 18th of March, the trace amounts remaining in that person’s system would be consistent with Sinner’s tests. But whether that happened or not also couldn’t possibly be known by Cowan.

It’s also not relevant whether or not a perceptible advantage was gained at any point throughout the uncertain period of time the illicit substance was in Sinner’s body, another whole set of factors that, without supposition, can’t possibly be known by Cowan. And how minute the amount was is also not relevant to whether or not it was there intentionally, and no, Cowan couldn’t know that either.

Does the phrasing seem suspiciously vacant that was given by Cowan, who concluded that the story was “entirely plausible based on … the concentrations identified by the Laboratory,” and further said he could find “no evidence to support any other scenario”?

Yes. That makes it sound as if no other evidence was provided to him at all, because the most common way to have clostebol in one’s system is to use clostebol. And if a failed doping test on its own wouldn’t be considered “evidence to support any other scenario,” it would need to be presumed that there was no evidence presented at all other than the byzantine explanation from Sinner’s team.

So does Sinner deserve a suspension?

That’s beyond the scope of the article. It’s up to the reader to land on either side of that debate. But it’s nice when opinions are that of the informed variety resulting from educating oneself on the circumstances.

—@PoisonPill4