So, when I say the entire anti-doping system is unfair, here’s what I mean. Warning - this is a long list :) 1. The anti-doping system should be concerned with catching dopers. Dopers are those who are trying to improve their performance via illegal substances. 2. Players care more than anyone else about catching dopers. Players want and need a clean sport and need to be confident that their opponents are playing by the same rules. 3. The illegal substances and testing thresholds for positive tests should be designed with #1 in mind. 4. #3 is not currently the case. It is more about foot-faulting (sorry for the pun) athletes. Trivial amounts, things that don’t actually enhance performances, etc. This is the beginning of the unfairness for everyone. 5. To compound things, the anti-doping testing process is impractical and onerous on athletes who travel the globe. It is irrationally burdensome and again seemingly more concerned about foot-faulting athletes than actually catching dopers. This is also unfair to everyone. 6. Then we get into what happens if someone has a positive test. The appeals system must work for everyone and be consistent and provide all athletes with due process and the ability to defend themselves. This is NOT about enabling dopers - it is about a system that properly functions and is legal. 7. In furtherance of #6, we have to note that @ptpaplayers works for all players. Our job is NOT to opine on the guilt or innocence of any specific case or athlete. Our job is to make sure the system is fair and works for everyone. A rigorous system with full due process and accessible defense resources makes #1 above more achievable. It also avoids more unfortunate situations where players have their reputations and careers tarnished (too many examples to cite). 7. Access to resources to mount a proper defense has been an issue for years. Some of that is natural and echoes everyday society (i.e., richer people can afford lawyers). But this is also unfair to all players: those who cannot afford it lose out on mounting a proper defense, while those who can afford it must spend their own money to do so. 8. The ITIA and WADA appeals systems are built upon these (and other) flawed premises. Any player caught in their system - even those with resources - is affected by this unfairness. Especially considering the months/years these cases often take to be resolved. 9. In Jannik’s specific case, he was put in an unfair situation. The ITIA claims it followed its process and rules. WADA disagrees and feels the need to push back on the ITIA. Unfortunately, this was not a surprising result to people like @TaraMoore92 and myself. That doesn’t mean we agree with the substance of WADA’s appeal, or the ITIA’s original decision (see #7 above). Neither the ITIA nor WADA are really disputing the underlying facts in Jannik’s case. That’s important - and also unfair. He is, in effect, caught up in a political/legal dispute between the ITIA and WADA. And he is still waiting nearly a year later to have his case fully resolved. Again, that is unfair. 10. As I hope is clear now, this entire system is terrible for the athletes (as a group and as individuals), the fans, and the sport overall. It needs to change.

So, when I say the entire anti-doping system is unfair, here’s what I mean. Warning - this is a long list :) 1. The anti-doping system should be concerned with catching dopers. Dopers are those who are trying to improve their performance via illegal substances. 2. Players care more than anyone else about catching dopers. Players want and need a clean sport and need to be confident that their opponents are playing by the same rules. 3. The illegal substances and testing thresholds for positive tests should be designed with #1 in mind. 4. #3 is not currently the case. It is more about foot-faulting (sorry for the pun) athletes. Trivial amounts, things that don’t actually enhance performances, etc. This is the beginning of the unfairness for everyone. 5. To compound things, the anti-doping testing process is impractical and onerous on athletes who travel the globe. It is irrationally burdensome and again seemingly more concerned about foot-faulting athletes than actually catching dopers. This is also unfair to everyone. 6. Then we get into what happens if someone has a positive test. The appeals system must work for everyone and be consistent and provide all athletes with due process and the ability to defend themselves. This is NOT about enabling dopers - it is about a system that properly functions and is legal. 7. In furtherance of #6, we have to note that @ptpaplayers works for all players. Our job is NOT to opine on the guilt or innocence of any specific case or athlete. Our job is to make sure the system is fair and works for everyone. A rigorous system with full due process and accessible defense resources makes #1 above more achievable. It also avoids more unfortunate situations where players have their reputations and careers tarnished (too many examples to cite). 7. Access to resources to mount a proper defense has been an issue for years. Some of that is natural and echoes everyday society (i.e., richer people can afford lawyers). But this is also unfair to all players: those who cannot afford it lose out on mounting a proper defense, while those who can afford it must spend their own money to do so. 8. The ITIA and WADA appeals systems are built upon these (and other) flawed premises. Any player caught in their system - even those with resources - is affected by this unfairness. Especially considering the months/years these cases often take to be resolved. 9. In Jannik’s specific case, he was put in an unfair situation. The ITIA claims it followed its process and rules. WADA disagrees and feels the need to push back on the ITIA. Unfortunately, this was not a surprising result to people like @TaraMoore92 and myself. That doesn’t mean we agree with the substance of WADA’s appeal, or the ITIA’s original decision (see #7 above). Neither the ITIA nor WADA are really disputing the underlying facts in Jannik’s case. That’s important - and also unfair. He is, in effect, caught up in a political/legal dispute between the ITIA and WADA. And he is still waiting nearly a year later to have his case fully resolved. Again, that is unfair. 10. As I hope is clear now, this entire system is terrible for the athletes (as a group and as individuals), the fans, and the sport overall. It needs to change.