My Zeynep stocks are stonking rn 📈

Your guys and gals are suffering rn 😭

Let's see, but yeah shitty timing

😭

apparently he's a doubt for roland garros... ooof i hate this

Vondrousova Sources DoppioFallo used these links to create the Bluesky thread you've just read SOURCE - Site - LINK World Anti-Doping Code – WADA -...

I've shared a link to a notepad site, since there is so many sources I grabbed in making this, it'd break Bluesky but its safe don't worry 😆

anotepad.com/notes/dhe4ig92

If there's anything significant I've missed lmk. this case has its quirks already, despite knowing little atp

Below is a list of my sources, but I must state that this is not legal advice, just analysis 😁

Right now, I hope Marky takes care of herself 💔

(Yes, it was a repost but I found errors)

Screenshot of a part of Markéta Vondroušová's statement on Instagram about her case written up separately by myself, which reads: for a long time, i've been dealing with injury, constant pressure, and ongoing sleep issues that left me feeling exhausted and fragile. it slowly wore me down more than i probably realised at the time. on top of that, years of hateful messages and threats have affected how safe i feel in my own space. When someone rang my door late at night without properly identifying themselves or following protocol - i reacted as a person who felt scared. in that moment, it was about feeling safe, not about avoiding anything. experts confirmed i suffered an Acute Stress Reaction (F43.0) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (F41.1). in that moment, fear clouded my judgment and i just couldn't process the situation rationally. after what happened to Petra, we don't take strangers at our door lightly.

Marketa's defense will be made easier if she can prove to the Tribunal that her Acute Stress Reaction and Generalized Anxiety Disorder lead to the missed test

Much like Troicki's case, health at the time will likely be a strong mitigating factor whatever the outcome, given the precedent

9️⃣/9️⃣

Screenshot of the following text from a collaged version of page 29 of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)'s World Anti-Doping Code: 3.2.3 Departures from any other International Standard or other anti-doping rule or policy set forth in the Code or in an Anti-Doping Organization’s rules shall not invalidate analytical results or other evidence of an anti-doping rule violation, and shall not constitute a defense to an anti-doping rule violation;(22) provided, however, if the Athlete or other Person establishes that a departure from one of the specific International Standard provisions listed below could reasonably have caused an anti-doping rule violation based on an Adverse Analytical Finding or whereabouts failure, then the Anti-Doping Organization shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding or whereabouts failure: “could reasonably have caused.” If the Athlete or other Person satisfies this standard, the burden shifts to the Anti-Doping Organization to prove to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel that the departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding.] 22 [Comment to Article 3.2.3: Departures from an International Standard or other rule unrelated to Sample collection or handling, Adverse Passport Finding, or Athlete notification relating to whereabouts failure or B Sample opening – e.g., the International Standard for Education, International Standard for the Protection of Privacy and Personal Information or International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions – may result in compliance proceedings by WADA but are not a defense in an anti-doping rule violation proceeding and are not relevant on the issue of whether the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation. Similarly, an Anti-Doping Organization’s violation of the document referenced in Article 20.7.7 shall not constitute a defense to an anti-doping rule violation.

However, WADA's Code prevents departures from WADA's International Standard for Testing and Investigations (ISTI) or other ADO policy to be used as a defense against an ADRV of Evading

Art 3.2.3 can only be applied for potential ADRVs based on Adverse Analytical Finding or whereabouts failure

8️⃣/9️⃣

Screenshot of the following text from page 43 of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)'s The International Standard for Testing and Investigations (ISTI): 5.3.2 To conduct or assist with the Sample Collection Sessions, the Sample Collection Authority shall appoint and authorize Sample Collection Personnel who have been trained for their assigned responsibilities, who do not have a conflict of interest in the outcome of the Sample collection, and who are not Minors. 5.3.3 Sample Collection Personnel shall have official documentation provided by the Sample Collection Authority, evidencing their authority to collect a Sample from the Athlete, such as an authorization letter from the Testing Authority. DCOs shall also carry complementary identification which includes their name and photograph (i.e., identification card from the Sample Collection Authority, driver’s license, health card, passport or similar valid identification) and the expiry date of the identification. 5.3.4 The Testing Authority or otherwise the Sample Collection Authority shall establish criteria to validate the identity of an Athlete selected to provide a Sample. This ensures the selected Athlete is the Athlete who is notified. If the Athlete is not readily identifiable, a third party may be asked to identify them and the details of such identification documented. 5.3.5 The Sample Collection Authority, DCO or Chaperone, as applicable, shall establish the location of the selected Athlete and plan the approach and timing of notification, taking into consideration the specific circumstances of the sport/Competition/training session/etc. and the situation in question. 5.3.6 The Sample Collection Authority, DCO or Chaperone, as applicable, shall document Athlete notification attempt(s) and outcome(s)

Screenshot of the following text from page 45 of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)'s The International Standard for Testing and Investigations (ISTI): 5.4.2 When contact is made, the DCO/Chaperone shall: a) From the time of such contact until the Athlete leaves the Doping Control Station at the end of their Sample Collection Session, keep the Athlete under observation at all times; b) Identify themselves to the Athlete using the documentation referred to in Article 5.3.3; and c) Confirm the Athlete’s identity as per the criteria established in Article 5.3.4. Confirmation of the Athlete’s identity by any other method, or failure to confirm the identity of the Athlete, shall be documented and reported to the Testing Authority. In cases where the Athlete’s identity cannot be confirmed as per the criteria established in Article 5.3.4, the Testing Authority shall decide whether it is appropriate to follow up in accordance with Annex A - Review of a Possible Failure to Comply of the International Standard for Results Management

Another potential avenue in the Vondrousova defense could be in WADA's policies on Notification of Athletes.

Art 5.3.3 ISTI states that DCOs must carry official documentation that authorises the sample collection, and complimentary identification to verify themselves to the athlete

7️⃣/9️⃣

Screenshot of the following text from page 32 of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)'s The International Standard for Testing and Investigations (ISTI): 4.8.8.3 Subject to Article 4.8.8.4, the Whereabouts Filing must also include, for each day during the following quarter, one specific 60-minute time slot between 5 a.m. and 11 p.m. each day where the Athlete will be available and accessible for Testing at a specific location. [Comment to 4.8.8.3: The Athlete can choose which 60-minute time slot between 5 a.m. and 11 p.m. to use for this purpose, provided that during the time slot in question they are somewhere accessible by the DCO. It could be the Athlete’s place of residence, training or Competition, or it could be another location (e.g., work or school). An Athlete is entitled to specify a 60-minute time slot during which they will be at a hotel, apartment building, gated community or other location where access to the Athlete is obtained via a front desk, or security guard. It is up to the Athlete to ensure accessibility to their selected 60-minute location with no advance warning to the Athlete. In addition, an Athlete may specify a time slot when they are taking part in a Team Activity. In either case, however, any failure to be accessible and available for Testing at the specified location during the specified time slot shall be pursued as a Missed Test.]

A screenshot of a Instagram story post by Markéta Vondroušová's profile showing a photo of a doping control officer at her front door with text as follows "Every day, we are required to be home for one specific hour for doping control. I respect that rule – every single day. Tonight, however, a tester arrived at 8.15pm and told me that my declared time doesn’t matter and that I must be tested right now. When I pointed out that its outside my testing window and a serious intrusion into my privacy, I was told: 'This is the life of a professional athlete.' Is it normal for doping officers to sit in our living rooms at night waiting for us to pee? This is not about avoiding testing - it's about respect. Respect for the rules we follow, and for the personal life we're entitled to after a long day of training and competition. Rules should apply to everyone. Even to those enforcing them. @wta @itftennis @wada_ama"

Screenshot of the following text from page 35 of the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA)'s Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (TADP): 5.4 Out-of-Competition Testing and Player whereabouts requirements 5.4.1 Any period that is not an In-Competition Period is an 'Out-of-Competition' period for purposes of this Programme and the Code. 5.4.1.1 Any Sample collected pursuant to a notification given to a Player outside of an In-Competition Period will be considered to have been collected Out-of- Competition. 5.4.1.2 The ITIA may select any Player for Out-of-Competition Testing, whether or not they have been included in the International Registered Testing Pool. The timing of such Out-of-Competition Testing will be at the discretion of the ITIA. Decisions relating to timing and selection of Players for Out-of- Competition Testing will remain confidential except to those with a reasonable need to know of them in order to facilitate such Testing.

Now, let's assess evidence to support application of the above

Firstly, WADA's ISTI specifies that athletes can select a 60 minute window for sample collection every day

It must be noted, there is discretion for officials to test outside the 60 minute window, at any time of the day. No go!

6️⃣/9️⃣

Screenshot of the following collaged version of text from page 69 of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)'s World Anti-Doping Code: 10.5 Elimination of the Period of Ineligibility where there is No Fault or Negligence If an Athlete or other Person establishes in an individual case that he or she bears No Fault or Negligence, then the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be eliminated. (65)

Screenshot of the following collaged version of text from page 72 of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)'s World Anti-Doping Code: 10.6.2 Application of No Significant Fault or Negligence beyond the Application of Article 10.6.1 (67) If an Athlete or other Person establishes in an individual case where Article 10.6.1 is not applicable, that he or she bears No Significant Fault or Negligence, then, subject to further reduction or elimination as provided in Article 10.7, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be reduced based on the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault, but the reduced period of Ineligibility may not be less than one-half of the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable. If the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is a lifetime, the reduced period under this Article may be no less than eight (8) years. 67 [Comment to Article 10.6.2: Article 10.6.2 may be applied to any anti-doping rule violation, except those Articles where intent is an element of the anti-doping rule violation (e.g., Article 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9 or 2.11) or an element of a particular sanction (e.g., Article 10.2.1) or a range of Ineligibility is already provided in an Article based on the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault.]

Screenshot of the following collaged version of text from page 76-77 of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)'s World Anti-Doping Code: 10.7.3 Application of Multiple Grounds for Reduction of a Sanction Where an Athlete or other Person establishes entitlement to reduction in sanction under more than one provision of Article 10.5, 10.6 or 10.7, before applying any reduction or suspension under Article 10.7, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be determined in accordance with Articles 10.2, 10.3, 10.5, and 10.6. If the Athlete or other Person establishes entitlement to a reduction or suspension of the period of Ineligibility under Article 10.7, then the period of Ineligibility may be reduced or suspended, but not below one-fourth of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility.

How can Vondroušová mitigate suspension?

Inside WADA's Code, she can claim:
- No Fault or Negligence (Art 10.5)
- No Significant Fault or Negligence (10.6.2)
- Multiple Grounds for Reduction of a Sanction (10.7.3)

If ruled to have committed an ADRV, a ban can be 1 year with all the above

5️⃣/9️⃣

Screenshot of Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Press Release from Lausanne, 5 November 2013 titled: Viktor Troicki's suspension reduced to one year by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)"

However, despite the Tribunal ruling that Troicki was not guilty of Significant Fault or Negligence, they believed he did commit the ADRV. They cited his illness and stress at the time as mitigating factors

After appeal, CAS reduced his suspension to 12 months, the lowest for a such violation

4️⃣/9️⃣

Picture of former World Number 12, Serbian tennis player Viktor Troicki with his arms raised and screaming

Is there precedent like this? Yes.

In 2013, Viktor Troicki was banned for 18 months after refusing to submit a blood sample at Monte Carlo. He said that he was not well enough to submit a blood & urine sample & he had been reassured by an official (DCO) that writing to the ITF would resolve it

3️⃣/9️⃣

Screenshot of the following text from page 26 of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)'s World Anti-Doping Code: 3.1 Burdens and Standards of Proof The Anti-Doping Organization shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the Anti-Doping Organization has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.18 18 [Comment to Article 3.1: This standard of proof required to be met by the Anti-Doping Organization is comparable to the standard which is applied in most countries to cases involving personal conduct.]

First, I must talk about burden of proof. As with Anti-Doping cases, the onus is on the Anti-Doping Organisation (ADO) to establish that there is an anti-doping violation.

In these instances, the standard of proof is between a mere balance of probability and proof beyond a reasonable doubt

2️⃣/9️⃣

The lawyer in me was whizzing by WADA documentation to get info about the Vondroušová case 🧵

The ITIA are assessing if she committed an Anti-Doping Rules Violation (ADRV) of Evading, Refusing or Failing to Submit to Sample, a potential 4 year ban

If you enjoy this, like & share plz 🫶

1️⃣/9️⃣

#tennis

The 128 player names of the 2026 Madrid Open men's singles' draw from 1st quarter to 4th quarter displayed in this screenshot

ATP Madrid Open draw since I've not seen anyone post it 😃

#MM26

Just saw who she's playing and lol Stearns or Boisson... She's not losing 💀

Fun fact: Sabalenka in all her appearances has either made the Final or lost her opening match 😆

Grazie!! 💛

#evahive no qualis for us babyyyy 🥳

Yeah I heard that too, but I think thats just because its his preferred events to win :)

Zeynep Sönmez's WTA profile which shows a picture of her portrait picture in tennis gear, and the following information ZEYNEP SONMEZ 🇹🇷 TUR - 23 yrs - 5'7" (1.70m) CAREER Highest Singles Rank: 67 (20 Apr 2026) Singles Titles - 1

Happy new career high day for Zeynep 🫶

Hahaha thank you, Auntie! 🙏

Wasn't mad, more so I recognised I did wrong 🤕 You are not insufferable, in fact I love my moots, both of ya particularly 🫶

I can be the annoying one when I'm mad, like who would think Alcaraz is boring? 😆🤦‍♂️

(Tbc im a he, unfortunately 🙂)

I don't know why anyone assumed he wouldn't play. His preliminary schedule had Madrid included, and nothing he said implied he wouldn't show up.

And its not like he's skipped Madrid before either

Flavio Cobolli chanting Vamos 😆

HE COOKED SOME RAT TODAY. VAMOS 🇮🇹

Big Vondroušová legal thread incoming 👀

You have your internet, use it and you'll see I'm right... Jesus christ man

WADA, ITIA released their own statements on Sinner and Swiatek. Do your goddamn research before spewing such nonsense

WADA appealed Sinner's case only because they believed he beared some responsibility for his entourage's negligence, but recognised CAS wasn't going to award a 1-2 year suspension so proposed a Case Resolution for 3 months to Sinner

Pointless to compare, completely different cases, but what are you disagreeing with? The truth? 😆

In both instances, the ITIA believed No Significant Fault or Negligence due to the ADRVs being unintentional, low level trace, and caused by contamination

...