Of the three independent experts, only one knew the identity of the subject: Jannik Sinner. Two stuck to commenting on the nature of whether or not a situation as outlined in Sinner’s story could theoretically occur as described. The third went much further.

Does it seem oddly inapposite and immaterial that Professor David Cowan, one of three 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 the explanation provided by Sinner’s team of attorneys 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 story, and if those amounts were indeed the amounts administered in the hypothetical intentional administration from Cowan’s quote, then one might consider there to have been no “relevant doping, or performance enhancing, effect.”

It’s also important to note, though it should seem obvious, that it’s a violation of ITIA rules to use clostebol in any manner. So even if Sinner wasn’t doping with it, but rather was using it intentionally for healing wounds faster on his feet (or elsewhere) — which is in fact the purpose for which Trofodermin is sold in Italy — the definition of “performance enhancing” from Cowan’s preposterous quote would need to be called into question as well.

If a player gains an advantage they would not otherwise enjoy — for instance, not having to play through the discomfort of open sores on their feet during matches because they’ve healed unnaturally rapidly, that would be considered a performance enhancement to any person other than Cowan. But whether or not that advantage occurred or if the steroid was used in that fashion or for that purpose are all factors that Cowan (or an objective, independent expert) couldn’t possibly know.

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 also cannot possibly be known by Cowan (or an objective, independent expert). And because Cowan is posing multiple hypotheticals bearing no relevance to the matter, if a person were hypothetically doping with 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 could be consistent with Sinner’s tests. But whether that happened or not is something else that couldn’t possibly be known by Cowan (or an objective, independent expert).

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 (or an objective, independent expert). And how minute the amount was is also not relevant to whether or not it was there intentionally, and no, Cowan (or an objective, independent expert) 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 whatsoever 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