What are your questions about this? 
So, to clarify, the case has caused many ADOs to shake their heads and express incomprehension, myself included…but, as the case was handled by WADA, I have no insights into it.
First question would be how the bank statement was considered proof. It is not. It is a proxy at most. But given that we all buy stuff at a pharmacy it would be very unlikely that someone from the team did not have a bank statement from a pharmacy close to a credible date. Related to this, why would wada trust it’s on this subject.
Second question would be how itia and wada remain silent about Sinner hiring back the doctor just after he had been cleared.
With respect, there is zero point relitigating whether the bank/card transaction is sufficient proof of purchase of the key item: WADA judged it so.
Anyway, this is scarcely the “first question”.
WADA has no oversight or jurisdiction of who an athlete employs, unless the individual is a suspended Athlete Support Person (ASP), which this guy isn’t. Don’t think he’s a “doctor of medicine” btw (“Mr Umberto Ferrara, the Player’s fitness coach”).
So you mean that I should shut-up because WADA judged it sufficient? I’ve been working in payment systems over 30 years and there is no way you can proof a purchase with just a bank statement. Period. He could have bought condoms, anti-cough syrup or anything at that pharmacy.
Relative to the second question, the question is not related to WADA, but his personal opinion (just like the first one, by the way). Said doctor is an expert in anti-doping so the fact he claimed to provide a doping substance to the physio therapist that doesn’t recall having been warned is dodgy. Firing just to hire him back after everything is done and dusted even more dodgy. Of course, people that are all for a clean sport, like you, will not want this kind of questions being asked I guess.
Shout all you want. I appreciate the evidential weakness but you are shouting into an abyss.
He’s not a doctor. Link to his “anti-doping expertise” please (idk). He was an ASP but was not culpable, WADA judged, of an ADRV, so was not suspended. His rustication for a year was presentational, afaics.
I’m appalled by the Sinner debacle and the truly absurd 3 month ban neatly fitted in between two majors.
Your not asking questions really, are you? At least not ones which will move the world anti-doping effort forward. The OP has indicated they have no answers or insights on this for you.
I agree nothing I say here will have an impact, just like 99,999% of the posts in the forum I guess. But now I see that you are in agreement that both ITIA and WADA took as proof something it wasn’t.
Relative to the doctor, I could not find the source with a quick search. But this is from his own IG profile: “Umberto Ferrara Fitness coach . FMS 1,2 ; FRC; DNS 1,2,3 ; Barefoot specialist 1,2 ; Trainer Kinesis Technogym. Chemist Pharmaceutical . Neurorevolution.”
And this Italian newsclip Il tennis ha un problema di credibilità con il doping: anche se Jannik Sinner è innocente | Che cosa non va in questa storia | Lo Slalom says “Bonarrigo also adds that Ferrara has a degree in pharmaceutical techniques.” (google translate).
Even if I am wrong, he has more than sufficient knowledge not to buy a spray that has the word “doping” in bold letters in the packaging, and give it to Sinner’s physio therapist.
Furthermore on this case, in the above mentioned article, it says there are, at least, three precedents similar to Sinner, where the penalty was a one year ban. All relating to the aforementioned spray, and all considered accidental.
To me, the bottom line is anti doping is a farce. Or an iceberg if you prefer. Only 1/8 raises above the surface.
I hear you but the OP says he has no insights ,so maybe start a separate Sinner doping thread.
I just wanted an opinion, and my reading is that he agreed it was odd, albeit in a diplomatic way.
1 Like
Think we’re almost there.
Most agree that WADA’s agreement to accept Sinner’s plea bargain undermined its credibility.
But your deduction that, therefore, “anti doping is a farce” is unreasonable.
While I’m here, fraction of an iceberg visible above surface is 1/10, btw.
For the OP: where is the contamination versus microdosing risk/issue now and what developments do you expect in the next year. Are there any markers we should look out for? Has the “working table [panel/committee?]” Niggli refers to below been set up and published anything?
WADA’s Director General Olivier Niggli made a strong public statement about the issues of contamination in sport:
“Today there is a contamination problem. This does not mean that there are more cases of this kind than in the past, the fact is that laboratories are more efficient in detecting even infinitesimal quantities of substances. The quantities are so small that you can get contaminated by doing harmless things. The truth is that we hear a lot of stories and I understand the public opinion that can end up thinking that we take everything. With thresholds we would not have seen all these cases. What we need to understand is whether we are ready to accept microdosing and where it is right to stop. A working table will be created precisely for this type of reflection.”
As I said, I don’t know much more than you do in this case, but yes I don’t agree with everything that goes on in anti-doping work in general. If you look behind the scenes, there’s even more to question. But the fact is that WADA sets the guidelines that must be followed. But then WADA itself should do so to 
However, I don’t want to speculate about things here, but rather clarify your questions/uncertainties about doping in sport.
I will try to explain the difference between microdosing and contamination.
Diuretics (masking agents) serve as a good example. There is a threshold value for certain diuretics. If the value is below this threshold, the probability of contamination is high, as diuretics below this value cannot perform their function as masking agents and other prohibited substances would be detected.
The situation is different with microdosing, as prohibited substances have performance-enhancing effects even in small quantities. And then there is always the question of the timing of the test. So perhaps the detected amount would have been much higher three weeks earlier and not in the microdose range.
I don’t know if this working group exists. But I do know, that our director had to comment on it and it is and it is an important and much-discussed issue.
1 Like
Ftaod I said: “I’m appalled by the Sinner debacle and the truly absurd 3 month ban neatly fitted in between two majors.”
Here’s another case of an ADRV where a female fencer had an AAF for Ostarine (a SARM like Ligandrol), deemed ‘no fault or negligence’ by the FIE (world fencing fed), appealed to CAS by WADA and appeal rejected (any suspension lifted) - my edits to keep it short(er).
Does this case have you and your peers in other ADOs “shaking their heads”?
THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT DISMISSES WADA APPEAL IN THE CASE OF YSAORA THIBUS (FRANCE)
Lausanne, 07 July 2025 - CAS has dismissed an appeal by WADA against FIE and Ms
Ysaora Thibus, a French fencer, in relation to a potential ADRV from testing in-competition by ITA on 14 January 2024 which revealed the presence of ostarine (a WADA Prohibited Substance). Case was referred to the FIE Doping Disciplinary Tribunal (DDT) and on 4 June 2024, the DDT determined that Ms Thibus was found to bear no fault or negligence and did not impose any period of ineligibility.
WADA appealed to CAS against the DDT decision, rejecting the Athlete’s explanations that the most probable cause for the ADRV was a contamination through kissing with her then partner [American fencer, Race Imboden retired after Tokyo Olympics], who had been using a product containing ostarine without her knowledge. WADA requested that CAS set aside the DDT decision and sanction athlete with four years ineligibility. CAS heard appeal on 6 March 2025,
CAS judged that:
- it is scientifically established that the ostarine dose ingested by Ms Thibus’ then partner would have left sufficient amounts of ostarine in their saliva to contaminate a person through kissing.
- that Ms Thibus’ then partner was taking ostarine from 5 January 2024 (AAF was 9 days later), and that there was contamination over 9 days with a cumulative effect.
- CAS ruled that the ADRV for the presence of ostarine was not intentional, and that it is not questionable that Ms Thibus bears no fault or negligence.
- The DDT decision is upheld and the WADA appeal dismissed.
This is an unofficial summary for media use. Unless Parties request confidentiality, a full CAS Award will be published on the CAS jurisprudence database in due course.
Does this case have you and your peers in other ADOs “shaking their heads”?
Reading this across to Simmonds’ potential ADRV the similarities are stark. I wonder if the “kissing” in the detail above is a euphemism. The Daily Fail, early after the AAF. reported her lawyer as saying: “He took a product containing ostarine, which infected Ysaora: the transmission that led to this infection occurred via bodily fluids.“
I assume the delay in resolution of the Simmonds case is that the ITA (or Simmonds) don’t want to have a ‘determination’ that, either way, will be appealed to CAS by either WADA (if ITA judge it ‘no fault or negligence’) or by Simmonds if the ITA determination includes an ineligibility sanction. There is a clear mechanism in the WADA code that the case can go straight to CAS.
8.5 Single Hearing Before CAS
Anti-doping rule violations asserted against International Level Athletes, National-Level Athletes or other Persons may, with the consent of the Athlete or other Person, the Anti-Doping Organization with Results Management responsibility, and WADA, be heard in a single hearing directly at CAS. [Note 54]
54 [In some cases, the combined cost of holding a hearing in the first instance at the international or national level, then rehearing the case de novo before CAS can be very substantial. Where all of the parties identified in this Article are satisfied that their interests will be adequately protected in a single hearing, there is no need for the Athlete or Anti-Doping Organizations to incur the extra expense of two hearings. An Anti-Doping Organization may participate in the CAS hearing as an observer.]
Edit to add: Have found another ‘kissing’ one from 2017: Roberts, an American sprinter who ‘does a lot of kissing’:
Yesterday’s post.
See other thread.
@Aerothing Can you help @talbotcox
Aiui this is dealt with in detail in Section 14 (esp 14.3) of the WADA Code. I assume all ADO (think ITA is one) have rules which directly reflect that.
2 Likes
Yes, it may be that this case will never be made public and no one will ever find out about it.
No ADO or WADA shall publicly disclose the identity of any Person who is asserted to have committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation until after it has been determined that an Anti-Doping Rule Violation has occurred.
2 Likes
@talbotcox for info
Also see:
Why was Tomas’ case made public prior to the ruling, then? Is that more of an Ironman thing?
An AAF always leads to a provisional suspension. This suspension is communicated to the athlete and the federation. An ADO will never publish a provisional suspension on its own initiative.
No ADO or WADA shall publicly disclose the identity of any Person who is asserted to have committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation until after it has been determined that an Anti-Doping Rule Violation has occurred.
Reasons why a provisional suspension may be published:
The athlete communicates it on their own initiative.
The federation “forces” publication in order to create transparency.
The suspension is leaked, e.g. by the press.
Only in these cases is an official press release issued by the ADO.
Provisional suspensions are usually made public, especially in the case of high-level athletes (because questions are more likely to arise there, including from sponsors, organisers, etc.). But in principle, it is possible not to communicate the provisional suspension and for no one to find out about it. This is especially true in the case of lesser-known athletes.
If the provisional suspension has not been communicated publicly and the athlete is acquitted, the ADO will not communicate this publicly either. It is therefore possible that the public will never find out about it (see also above).
In the event of a conviction, the WADA Code stipulates that the name of the athlete, the sport, the violation and the prohibited substance must be made public.
However, this does not always happen everywhere. In Germany, for example, sanctions are not made public because higher law (data protection law) takes precedence. There are currently around 80 sanctioned athletes in Germany who have not been made public. Only the athlete and the association were informed.
Even in the case of semi-professionals who have a job in addition to their sport, their names are often not disclosed because the damage to their reputation outside of sport would be too great.
1 Like
Might I just tease this out, turning on your use of “acquitted”.
Aiui, once the AAF is notified, the athlete can accept a provisional suspension and get the B sample tested. If that comes back negative then it’s all dropped - and no public communication.
But if there is an ADRV which the athlete admits then it’s down to results management. And if, as in Simmonds’ case, the determination is ‘No Fault or Negligence’ the admitted ADRV (this is not “acquittal” per se) and the finding is publicly announced. But unless both parties (in her case ITA/IRONMAN and the Athlete) agree to more detail, that announcement will be bare, with no further detail eg how the AAF came about. So in Simmonds’ case, which occurred with zero fault or negligence on her part, she would have been spared the public washing of dirty linen.
Except she was ‘encouraged’ (being super generous here) by super-sleuth ‘journalist’/podcaster who had a communication channel with a gobshite in her team to spill the beans, only 20 days after she’d been notified of the AAF.
Compare that with Ruth Chepngetich who was notified by the AIU of her AAF on 16th April and three months later (after diligent, thorough investigation of possible causes etc) that was made public, not by a journo but by the AIU.
More he wasn’t a blonde female type thing..
1 Like