how much is this helping him
I like this observation from the comments, Lorenzo D:
”I feel like in Eccleshare’s articles about Sinner’s case, he often fails to mention that WADA has said that they do not believe that Sinner intentionally doped nor that the quantity was performance enhancing. They are trying to get a sentencing based purely on negligence, based on strict liability.
It’s, funnily enough, the only topic where USADA and WADA agree: they have both declared they believe Sinner not to have doped.
This is not a detail, this is a fundamental fact, which is never mentioned here.
If Sinner is banned, it will not be because he had intentionally doped or because he had enhancements in his performance.
How many of the Athletic’s readers know about this based on Eccleshare’s articles?
Additionally, Eccleshare keeps, constantly, just mentioning the players who have expressed doubts on Sinner, all of whom, for anyone who follows the Tour, have questionable opinions on a number of other topics.
Eubanks, the only player who attended an ITIA workshop session for players at the AO on the Sinner case, is never mentioned, just like Ruud, who’s the only other player who we know has read the 33-page report. Nor is de Minaur.
I don’t feel this is standard journalistic practice?”
This topic was automatically closed 180 days after the last reply. If you’d like to reply, please flag the thread for moderator attention.