World tennis number one Jannik Sinner is after a fresh start heading into the final grand slam of the season.
The Italian has fired his physio and fitness trainer on the eve of the US Open, which starts at Flushing Meadow this week, after he tested positive for a banned substance through accidental contamination.
Former WADA director general David Howman outlined the controversy with Piney.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Weekend Sport podcast with Jason Vine
from Newstalk ZB.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Interesting stories of this week centered around the world's number
one ranked men's tennis player.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
Janick Center. Is the Cincinnati.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Champion thinks Thanks Too.
Speaker 3 (00:26):
It is a third Master's trophy perfo's career.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
It was revealed this week that Janick Sinner tested positive
twice in March for low levels of the banned anabolic
steroid coster bowl, which can be used to build muscle mass. Now,
Sinner was stripped of his prize money and the points
he earned at the Masters tournament in Indian Wells, California,
That's where the positive test took place, but he hasn't
(00:52):
been suspended after an independent tribunal found it wasn't intentional. Now,
Janicksoner's defense was that his fitness trainer purchased an over
the counter spray that contained closter, gave it to the
physio to treat a cut on the physio's finger, and
(01:12):
then the physio gave Sinner a massage and in the
process of that cost a Bowl found its way into
Yarick Sentner's bloodstream. Now Youllick Center has since fired his
physio and his fitness trainer and is free to play
at the US Open starting next week in New York.
David Helman was directed General of the World Anti Doping
Agency WADA between August two thousand and three and July
(01:36):
twenty sixteen, and he joins us that's the explanation, David,
that it was a spray on the finger of the physio.
The physio then gave Jaricksoner a massage and that's how
this coster bowl found his way into Yaricksenter's system. Does
that sound like a feasible explanation.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
Well, it held up in front of a independent tribunal, Jason,
and I think that's the important component. There's no decision
taken by the tennis authorities. It's ready that which has
been handed down by an arbitration panel, and I think
that puts it a little bit to one side. What
I think people don't understand is that the procedure followed
(02:15):
in his case was one in relation to a provisional suspension.
So when an athlete test positive for a substance like
cost the World, which are referred to as non specified
substances in the World Code, they are told immediately of
the result and informed that they are going to be
provisionally suspended unless they protest that. And he obviously protested it,
(02:39):
not just once but twice and went to a tribunial
immediately and asked for Obviously he got suppression of name
as well, Jason. So that's the process that was followed
and then led to a further investigation of whether what
he was alleging was what's feasible. There was evidence given
to the tribunal I think, said again later in the
(03:02):
year and delivered a decision in August that indicated the
explanation he offered was well feasible.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Yeah, I think what you've just outlined there that there's
been quite a bit of criticism of that from other
pies actually, that you know, when your test positive, you
should be banned until the hearing is held. In fact,
he went on to win a couple of tournaments, he
became world number one for the first time. Should he
have been suspended until the verdict was rich.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
Well, he would normally have been suspended, and he protested that, Jason,
and so they had more than one hearing. They would
have had a hearing in the first week of March
after his first positive test, where he protested the provisional
suspension which would have been automatically applied, and he won that,
and then he had another one I think it was
(03:50):
on the tenth of March, which he also protested immediately
because the notice that you get about your positive tests
says we're going to suspend you provisionally unless we hear
from you to indicate that you protest that suspension and
it's related to contamination. So that's what happened. I think
at the end he would have had three different hearings.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
There's been a suggestion too that the latest hearing which
has cleared him happened quite quickly, fewer than five months
between the positive test and this verdict which is found
him with no fault or negligence. Would it normally take
longer than that, David.
Speaker 3 (04:31):
Look, that depends on which tribunal you're using, And yes,
there are many cases that take far too long and therefore,
and a lot of those are dealt with by the
Court of Arbitration. For sport, you can wait for a year,
maybe even two years. That's not acceptable. So the body
that he went to, which is the Independent International Tennis Authority,
(04:56):
well it's an integrity agency. In fact, it's an independent
body from International Tennis itself, they would have provoked the
tribunal that they use to hear alligiency, and that would
have bought about that result quickly rather than any delay.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
Do reckan there's any validity in the claims that it's
been expediated because expedited rather because it's because he's number one.
Speaker 3 (05:20):
Well, you can look all these things, you can sort
of make up. I can say from my experience now
with the World Athletics Integrity Unit, we try to get
all our cases done as possible and within months, not years.
So the aim of bodies which are trying to do
these things in a proper way would be to get
these things organized in front of a tribunal as quickly
(05:41):
as possible, and four or five months is not sometimes
as quick as I would want.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
Let's assume that that this is he's telling the truth,
that this is indeed what has happened. Why would a
trainer put a player at risk like that?
Speaker 3 (05:55):
Well, that's a good question, and I haven't and I
don't think anybody has read the decision of the tribunal yet,
not a bit loaths to sort of start commenting about
whether I would believe it or not believe it. I
believe the process is correct, but we need to see
why they decided it. Apparently it was because he didn't
(06:16):
know that the spray he was using for his cut
finger contained the cost of all component. Apparently, and I'm
not saying this is true or not, Jason. In Italy,
you buy the substance, the spray across the counter, and
I guess the trainer didn't look and see what was
on it, and they didn't understand that if he sprayed
(06:38):
his finger and then he massages so that it would
be transferred into his body. So you know, there's all
those sort of factors that you've got to look at
how they reached the conclusion and whether you and I
and others might accept the conclusion that was reached by
the tribunal.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
So they're basically pleading ignorance. I didn't I didn't know
it had cost of al in it. I didn't know
that massaging center would bring about this result. In your
experience of these things, how often is ignorance real or
otherwise used as a defense.
Speaker 3 (07:09):
Well, it has been used a lot and not accepted
a lot. So you know, you've got some athletes who
have raised it who have been denied by tribunals, and
I think there's a bit of a trend now for
people to raise contamination as a possibility. Some of this
leads from the recent World decision in relation to the
Chinese swims, and so it's going to be something I
(07:33):
think we confront on a more regular basis. As to
as to number one player being receiving any preference, I don't.
I don't think that holds too much for her, But
I think the water is put into the substance of
it by the fact that he was able to get
pretty good information from lawyers and experts quickly, and that
(07:53):
requires money, and he probably got more money than some
of the lard great players.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Again, if we assume, you know, for the sake of argument,
that he's telling the truth, there has to be some
sort of structure in place that allows him to go free,
if you like, because if this really has happened, he's
not at fault. He might have been slightly negligent, as
may have been his trainer or messuse or whoever it was,
(08:18):
but there has to be some sort of logical process
here to say, Okay, you weren't trying to cheat the
system you're not trying to gain any advantage here. You're
free to go.
Speaker 3 (08:28):
Yeah, I think I think the process is there. My
concern is the course that when you publish the result,
sometimes the decision is not published alongside it. And I
really think if you had the decision with all the
information relating to the evidence that was given to the
tribunal and so forth, then the public will be in
a better place. And my real concern about what goes
(08:49):
on in antidoping nowadays is there's too much hidden behind
decisions and very few decisions that are actually published, and
that leads to distrust not only of the system by athletes,
but also by the public. And my view now, and
obviously I've been around for a while, Jason, but you
don't realize that the public doesn't have as much information
(09:09):
as they would need to form a view, and they
should be given it. Why don't it not just the
athletes that need it?
Speaker 2 (09:16):
Why don't why aren't those results automatically published?
Speaker 3 (09:20):
Then arbitration process that says you don't publish decisions reached
and arbitration decisions unless both parties agree. Right now, one
example of where it hasn't been put out there in
the public. Is the hell Up case also a tennis
matter where she went through quite a long process to
get to the stage of being exonerated, but the decision
(09:41):
of exonerating it still hasn't been published. It was made
in March.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
A billionth of a gram is what's being reported here?
That doesn't sound like a lot. That's a decimal point.
Then eight zero's before you reach the one. Should the
threshold be a bit higher.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
David, That's not even a pin there, is it. So
they've got to look and say is that warranted, and
look at the reporting levels that are required for certain substances.
The reason that they do go go to minute sort
of levels is because otherwise players can dope, you know,
(10:18):
three months ago, and it's still in their system when
they're tested three months after they've taken it. That doesn't
indicate they only had a little bit. It might indicate
that they had a heck of a lot. It's out
of their system. So you've got to draw a balance,
I suppose between minute results and the fact that this person,
the athlete, might have been doping for a while and
(10:39):
it's gone mostly out of their system.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Yeah, good point. And there is a right of appeal
here to why to buy the International Tennis Integrity Agency.
Do you think that'll be exercised.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
Well, I wouldn't want to guess, but they certainly indicated
in the case of a recent American one hundred meter
sprinter that they were going to appeal as soon as
they heard the initial decision, and that has now been
appealed by World Athletics. We haven't heard whether they're going
to do that yet or not. As well as this one,
I think what you have to remember is they need
(11:12):
to get the case file and read all the information
on it, including all the affidavits relating to the people
giving evidence and the decision before they say, Okay, this
is one we're going to have a crack at.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
And as far as Joannick Center is concerned, what reception
do you expect him to get? Both from this you know,
all the professionals on the tour who he mixes with
we can weak out, and I guess from crowds as
well at the upcoming US Open and beyond.
Speaker 3 (11:39):
Well, some of that will depend on the views that
people hold, and people have different views for different reasons,
and I'm sure he'll be confronted by those who support
him and those who probably think that he got a
pretty easy run. You can't. You can't tell people how
to receive things. You've got to wait and see how
they react to the information they've got, And my concern
(12:00):
is they don't have enough.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
Yeah, that seems to be the nub of this. If
we're all privy to everything we need to know to
make a fully formed decision, it might be slightly less problematic. David,
thanks for lending us your expertise this afternoon. Really interesting stuff.
Thank you, Yes, thanks David. David Hellman, the former director
general of WAA. Of course, I mean there wouldn't be
too many people who know more about this sort of
thing than David Helman. Perhaps predictably, this has led to
(12:28):
quite a bit of backlash, particularly, i have to say,
from Jnicksoner's fellow tennis professionals, both on the fact that
the process seemed to happen quite quickly by comparison to
others where some tennis players have had to wait over
a year for their hearings. And while you can obviously
protest your provisional suspension and be allowed to play on
(12:53):
while the evidence has gathered, and while that you know
before you you have the hearing, this has happened, by
comparison to a lot of other cases which are of
a similar nature, pretty quickly five months between the positive
test and the herring and the verdict. As I say,
it's taken more than twice as long for other similar cases.
(13:15):
Nick Kurrios, who's never short of a word, has come
out quite strongly here. He took to social media and
this was Nick Curios's tweet. If we can still call
it that ridiculous, whether it was accidental or planned, you
get tested twice with a band steroid, you should be
gone for two years. Your performance was enhanced mash a
(13:39):
massage cream. Yeah, nice, says Nick Curios. Which is I
guess the Australian version of year right, the two we billboard.
I don't know that there's any suggestion of performance enhancement here.
One billionth of a gram. And that's like, guess why
I asked David the question about that is it feels
(14:02):
to me as though this is what's happened A hover
above this, and I think it was okay. This sounds
like a feasible explanation, right, and if it can be
proved through Affi Dayviord's and through evidence and that sort
of thing that yes, this spray that the guy who
did the massage used on his the cut on his
(14:22):
finger and then massaged Yarnick Sinner and the banned substance
found its way into his system. That sounds feasible. But
then as I'm saying it, I think to myself, it's
the kind of thing you'd say if you were trying
to make an excuse. You know, it's not exactly the
dog ate my homework, but it's maybe it is far fetched.
(14:46):
I don't know. I don't know, Tim says Pinety. I
don't care what you say. Drugs and sport is cheating. No,
it's no, buts he should be banned rules or rules
what's good for everyone is good for him. Sounds like
favoritism to me. You've got to boot him out and
set an example. Drugs or no drugs. He's been found out.
He needs to be punished. Well, it is struck. I mean,
(15:08):
it's not beyond. It's not in dispute that it was
found in his system. It was found in a system.
This cost the bowl. But like I say, if, as
I said to David, if this is what's happened, if
he's unknowingly had this substance transferred into his bloodstream through
something which is no fault of his and with absolutely
(15:31):
no intent to enhance his performance, then there has to
be a method by which he is exonerated. He is,
you know, let off, because he hasn't done anything wrong,
has he He's just asked for a massage. He's fired
as mass house. By the way his trainer and his physio,
they've both been given the boot. Be interesting to see
(15:53):
the reception Yarnick Sinner gets at Flushing Meadows when the
US Open gets underway. He's got to be one of
the favorites. He's number one seed. Yeah, I think there's
a there's a bit of a bit of chat around
the professional tennis fraternity that there is definitely a double
standard at play here because he is who he is.
Speaker 1 (16:14):
For more from Weekend Sport with Jason Fine, listen live
to News Talk Set B weekends from midday, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Weekend Sport podcast with Jason Vine
from Newstalk ZB.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Interesting stories of this week centered around the world's number
one ranked men's tennis player.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
Janick Center. Is the Cincinnati.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Champion thinks Thanks Too.
Speaker 3 (00:26):
It is a third Master's trophy perfo's career.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
It was revealed this week that Janick Sinner tested positive
twice in March for low levels of the banned anabolic
steroid coster bowl, which can be used to build muscle mass. Now,
Sinner was stripped of his prize money and the points
he earned at the Masters tournament in Indian Wells, California,
That's where the positive test took place, but he hasn't
(00:52):
been suspended after an independent tribunal found it wasn't intentional. Now,
Janicksoner's defense was that his fitness trainer purchased an over
the counter spray that contained closter, gave it to the
physio to treat a cut on the physio's finger, and
(01:12):
then the physio gave Sinner a massage and in the
process of that cost a Bowl found its way into
Yarick Sentner's bloodstream. Now Youllick Center has since fired his
physio and his fitness trainer and is free to play
at the US Open starting next week in New York.
David Helman was directed General of the World Anti Doping
Agency WADA between August two thousand and three and July
(01:36):
twenty sixteen, and he joins us that's the explanation, David,
that it was a spray on the finger of the physio.
The physio then gave Jaricksoner a massage and that's how
this coster bowl found his way into Yaricksenter's system. Does
that sound like a feasible explanation.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
Well, it held up in front of a independent tribunal, Jason,
and I think that's the important component. There's no decision
taken by the tennis authorities. It's ready that which has
been handed down by an arbitration panel, and I think
that puts it a little bit to one side. What
I think people don't understand is that the procedure followed
(02:15):
in his case was one in relation to a provisional suspension.
So when an athlete test positive for a substance like
cost the World, which are referred to as non specified
substances in the World Code, they are told immediately of
the result and informed that they are going to be
provisionally suspended unless they protest that. And he obviously protested it,
(02:39):
not just once but twice and went to a tribunial
immediately and asked for Obviously he got suppression of name
as well, Jason. So that's the process that was followed
and then led to a further investigation of whether what
he was alleging was what's feasible. There was evidence given
to the tribunal I think, said again later in the
(03:02):
year and delivered a decision in August that indicated the
explanation he offered was well feasible.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Yeah, I think what you've just outlined there that there's
been quite a bit of criticism of that from other
pies actually, that you know, when your test positive, you
should be banned until the hearing is held. In fact,
he went on to win a couple of tournaments, he
became world number one for the first time. Should he
have been suspended until the verdict was rich.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
Well, he would normally have been suspended, and he protested that, Jason,
and so they had more than one hearing. They would
have had a hearing in the first week of March
after his first positive test, where he protested the provisional
suspension which would have been automatically applied, and he won that,
and then he had another one I think it was
(03:50):
on the tenth of March, which he also protested immediately
because the notice that you get about your positive tests
says we're going to suspend you provisionally unless we hear
from you to indicate that you protest that suspension and
it's related to contamination. So that's what happened. I think
at the end he would have had three different hearings.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
There's been a suggestion too that the latest hearing which
has cleared him happened quite quickly, fewer than five months
between the positive test and this verdict which is found
him with no fault or negligence. Would it normally take
longer than that, David.
Speaker 3 (04:31):
Look, that depends on which tribunal you're using, And yes,
there are many cases that take far too long and therefore,
and a lot of those are dealt with by the
Court of Arbitration. For sport, you can wait for a year,
maybe even two years. That's not acceptable. So the body
that he went to, which is the Independent International Tennis Authority,
(04:56):
well it's an integrity agency. In fact, it's an independent
body from International Tennis itself, they would have provoked the
tribunal that they use to hear alligiency, and that would
have bought about that result quickly rather than any delay.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
Do reckan there's any validity in the claims that it's
been expediated because expedited rather because it's because he's number one.
Speaker 3 (05:20):
Well, you can look all these things, you can sort
of make up. I can say from my experience now
with the World Athletics Integrity Unit, we try to get
all our cases done as possible and within months, not years.
So the aim of bodies which are trying to do
these things in a proper way would be to get
these things organized in front of a tribunal as quickly
(05:41):
as possible, and four or five months is not sometimes
as quick as I would want.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
Let's assume that that this is he's telling the truth,
that this is indeed what has happened. Why would a
trainer put a player at risk like that?
Speaker 3 (05:55):
Well, that's a good question, and I haven't and I
don't think anybody has read the decision of the tribunal yet,
not a bit loaths to sort of start commenting about
whether I would believe it or not believe it. I
believe the process is correct, but we need to see
why they decided it. Apparently it was because he didn't
(06:16):
know that the spray he was using for his cut
finger contained the cost of all component. Apparently, and I'm
not saying this is true or not, Jason. In Italy,
you buy the substance, the spray across the counter, and
I guess the trainer didn't look and see what was
on it, and they didn't understand that if he sprayed
(06:38):
his finger and then he massages so that it would
be transferred into his body. So you know, there's all
those sort of factors that you've got to look at
how they reached the conclusion and whether you and I
and others might accept the conclusion that was reached by
the tribunal.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
So they're basically pleading ignorance. I didn't I didn't know
it had cost of al in it. I didn't know
that massaging center would bring about this result. In your
experience of these things, how often is ignorance real or
otherwise used as a defense.
Speaker 3 (07:09):
Well, it has been used a lot and not accepted
a lot. So you know, you've got some athletes who
have raised it who have been denied by tribunals, and
I think there's a bit of a trend now for
people to raise contamination as a possibility. Some of this
leads from the recent World decision in relation to the
Chinese swims, and so it's going to be something I
(07:33):
think we confront on a more regular basis. As to
as to number one player being receiving any preference, I don't.
I don't think that holds too much for her, But
I think the water is put into the substance of
it by the fact that he was able to get
pretty good information from lawyers and experts quickly, and that
(07:53):
requires money, and he probably got more money than some
of the lard great players.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Again, if we assume, you know, for the sake of argument,
that he's telling the truth, there has to be some
sort of structure in place that allows him to go free,
if you like, because if this really has happened, he's
not at fault. He might have been slightly negligent, as
may have been his trainer or messuse or whoever it was,
(08:18):
but there has to be some sort of logical process
here to say, Okay, you weren't trying to cheat the
system you're not trying to gain any advantage here. You're
free to go.
Speaker 3 (08:28):
Yeah, I think I think the process is there. My
concern is the course that when you publish the result,
sometimes the decision is not published alongside it. And I
really think if you had the decision with all the
information relating to the evidence that was given to the
tribunal and so forth, then the public will be in
a better place. And my real concern about what goes
(08:49):
on in antidoping nowadays is there's too much hidden behind
decisions and very few decisions that are actually published, and
that leads to distrust not only of the system by athletes,
but also by the public. And my view now, and
obviously I've been around for a while, Jason, but you
don't realize that the public doesn't have as much information
(09:09):
as they would need to form a view, and they
should be given it. Why don't it not just the
athletes that need it?
Speaker 2 (09:16):
Why don't why aren't those results automatically published?
Speaker 3 (09:20):
Then arbitration process that says you don't publish decisions reached
and arbitration decisions unless both parties agree. Right now, one
example of where it hasn't been put out there in
the public. Is the hell Up case also a tennis
matter where she went through quite a long process to
get to the stage of being exonerated, but the decision
(09:41):
of exonerating it still hasn't been published. It was made
in March.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
A billionth of a gram is what's being reported here?
That doesn't sound like a lot. That's a decimal point.
Then eight zero's before you reach the one. Should the
threshold be a bit higher.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
David, That's not even a pin there, is it. So
they've got to look and say is that warranted, and
look at the reporting levels that are required for certain substances.
The reason that they do go go to minute sort
of levels is because otherwise players can dope, you know,
(10:18):
three months ago, and it's still in their system when
they're tested three months after they've taken it. That doesn't
indicate they only had a little bit. It might indicate
that they had a heck of a lot. It's out
of their system. So you've got to draw a balance,
I suppose between minute results and the fact that this person,
the athlete, might have been doping for a while and
(10:39):
it's gone mostly out of their system.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Yeah, good point. And there is a right of appeal
here to why to buy the International Tennis Integrity Agency.
Do you think that'll be exercised.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
Well, I wouldn't want to guess, but they certainly indicated
in the case of a recent American one hundred meter
sprinter that they were going to appeal as soon as
they heard the initial decision, and that has now been
appealed by World Athletics. We haven't heard whether they're going
to do that yet or not. As well as this one,
I think what you have to remember is they need
(11:12):
to get the case file and read all the information
on it, including all the affidavits relating to the people
giving evidence and the decision before they say, Okay, this
is one we're going to have a crack at.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
And as far as Joannick Center is concerned, what reception
do you expect him to get? Both from this you know,
all the professionals on the tour who he mixes with
we can weak out, and I guess from crowds as
well at the upcoming US Open and beyond.
Speaker 3 (11:39):
Well, some of that will depend on the views that
people hold, and people have different views for different reasons,
and I'm sure he'll be confronted by those who support
him and those who probably think that he got a
pretty easy run. You can't. You can't tell people how
to receive things. You've got to wait and see how
they react to the information they've got, And my concern
(12:00):
is they don't have enough.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
Yeah, that seems to be the nub of this. If
we're all privy to everything we need to know to
make a fully formed decision, it might be slightly less problematic. David,
thanks for lending us your expertise this afternoon. Really interesting stuff.
Thank you, Yes, thanks David. David Hellman, the former director
general of WAA. Of course, I mean there wouldn't be
too many people who know more about this sort of
thing than David Helman. Perhaps predictably, this has led to
(12:28):
quite a bit of backlash, particularly, i have to say,
from Jnicksoner's fellow tennis professionals, both on the fact that
the process seemed to happen quite quickly by comparison to
others where some tennis players have had to wait over
a year for their hearings. And while you can obviously
protest your provisional suspension and be allowed to play on
(12:53):
while the evidence has gathered, and while that you know
before you you have the hearing, this has happened, by
comparison to a lot of other cases which are of
a similar nature, pretty quickly five months between the positive
test and the herring and the verdict. As I say,
it's taken more than twice as long for other similar cases.
(13:15):
Nick Kurrios, who's never short of a word, has come
out quite strongly here. He took to social media and
this was Nick Curios's tweet. If we can still call
it that ridiculous, whether it was accidental or planned, you
get tested twice with a band steroid, you should be
gone for two years. Your performance was enhanced mash a
(13:39):
massage cream. Yeah, nice, says Nick Curios. Which is I
guess the Australian version of year right, the two we billboard.
I don't know that there's any suggestion of performance enhancement here.
One billionth of a gram. And that's like, guess why
I asked David the question about that is it feels
(14:02):
to me as though this is what's happened A hover
above this, and I think it was okay. This sounds
like a feasible explanation, right, and if it can be
proved through Affi Dayviord's and through evidence and that sort
of thing that yes, this spray that the guy who
did the massage used on his the cut on his
(14:22):
finger and then massaged Yarnick Sinner and the banned substance
found its way into his system. That sounds feasible. But
then as I'm saying it, I think to myself, it's
the kind of thing you'd say if you were trying
to make an excuse. You know, it's not exactly the
dog ate my homework, but it's maybe it is far fetched.
(14:46):
I don't know. I don't know, Tim says Pinety. I
don't care what you say. Drugs and sport is cheating. No,
it's no, buts he should be banned rules or rules
what's good for everyone is good for him. Sounds like
favoritism to me. You've got to boot him out and
set an example. Drugs or no drugs. He's been found out.
He needs to be punished. Well, it is struck. I mean,
(15:08):
it's not beyond. It's not in dispute that it was
found in his system. It was found in a system.
This cost the bowl. But like I say, if, as
I said to David, if this is what's happened, if
he's unknowingly had this substance transferred into his bloodstream through
something which is no fault of his and with absolutely
(15:31):
no intent to enhance his performance, then there has to
be a method by which he is exonerated. He is,
you know, let off, because he hasn't done anything wrong,
has he He's just asked for a massage. He's fired
as mass house. By the way his trainer and his physio,
they've both been given the boot. Be interesting to see
(15:53):
the reception Yarnick Sinner gets at Flushing Meadows when the
US Open gets underway. He's got to be one of
the favorites. He's number one seed. Yeah, I think there's
a there's a bit of a bit of chat around
the professional tennis fraternity that there is definitely a double
standard at play here because he is who he is.
Speaker 1 (16:14):
For more from Weekend Sport with Jason Fine, listen live
to News Talk Set B weekends from midday, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes present: Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial
Introducing… Aubrey O’Day Diddy’s former protege, television personality, platinum selling music artist, Danity Kane alum Aubrey O’Day joins veteran journalists Amy Robach and TJ Holmes to provide a unique perspective on the trial that has captivated the attention of the nation. Join them throughout the trial as they discuss, debate, and dissect every detail, every aspect of the proceedings. Aubrey will offer her opinions and expertise, as only she is qualified to do given her first-hand knowledge. From her days on Making the Band, as she emerged as the breakout star, the truth of the situation would be the opposite of the glitz and glamour. Listen throughout every minute of the trial, for this exclusive coverage. Amy Robach and TJ Holmes present Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial, an iHeartRadio podcast.
Betrayal: Season 4
Karoline Borega married a man of honor – a respected Colorado Springs Police officer. She knew there would be sacrifices to accommodate her husband’s career. But she had no idea that he was using his badge to fool everyone. This season, we expose a man who swore two sacred oaths—one to his badge, one to his bride—and broke them both. We follow Karoline as she questions everything she thought she knew about her partner of over 20 years. And make sure to check out Seasons 1-3 of Betrayal, along with Betrayal Weekly Season 1.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.