Your question is central to the debate surrounding this case and the anti-doping system as a whole. Strict liability is one of the core principles of anti-doping regulations: athletes are held responsible for whatever enters their bodies, regardless of intent or awareness. However, in Sinner’s case, it seems WADA is attempting to extend this principle not just to personal control but also to the management of team members.

This raises important legal and ethical questions: to what extent can an athlete be held accountable for the actions of others? And what concrete tools should they have to monitor those around them without destroying the trust that is essential in any sports team? If strict liability is applied without distinguishing between intent, negligence, or misplaced trust, the anti-doping system risks becoming a witch hunt rather than a safeguard for fair play.

These are precisely the points where Sinner’s case could set an important precedent: both in defining the limits of strict liability and in understanding how to balance justice with respect for the human and professional dimensions of athletes.

#Sinner #WADA #StopHate