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 utilizing, 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 evidently were 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.

Was it somewhat curious that statements made by the panel of three experts assembled for the benefit of the tribunal were bizarrely assumptive?

We’ll discuss that presently in the conclusion: Part 5.

—@PoisonPill4