There is no peace for Jannik Sinner. Yet another reversal has only complicated the situation: it’s tough as hell.
More than a controversy it has now turned into a full-blown crusade. And he doesn’t seem to have any intention of dropping the bone, Nick Kyrgios, the first tennis player to question Jannik Sinner’s moral integrity and the content of the ruling that shed light on the alleged doping case in which the Italian was, despite himself, a protagonist.
It all started on the same day that the South Tyrolean’s team issued a press release telling, in full detail, what had happened in Indian Wells and what consequences had resulted. The Australian had not hesitated and had immediately pointed the finger at his Italian colleague, calling the sentence ridiculous and alluding to the fact that a two-year disqualification would be needed. For him, there is no doubt about it, Sinner is guilty, whatever Itia and the medical board that analyzed the facts and examined the version provided by Jannik’s team.
The vitriolic tweet was but the beginning of his personal battle against the world No. 1, at any rate. Kyrgios has not limited himself to that post, although his words have been widely criticized. In the past few hours he has returned to the fray and has done so by using the words a former tennis player had spent defending the San Candido champion.
Kyrgios does not give up, the controversy continues
The former tennis player in question is Andy Roddick, who in the midst of all this chaos has seen fit to point out once again, because few understood it, that the amount of Clostebol present in Sinner’s urine was negligible and incapable, as such, of altering the tennis player’s performance.
Detail that in the eyes of the bad boy from Canberra is irrelevant, so much so that Nick lashed out once again at Sinner by commenting, precisely, on Roddick’s words. “Do you understand how fast this stuff gets out of your system?” “Ridiculous statement,” he added immediately afterward. Not giving the benefit of the doubt, Kyrgios. Convinced as he is of his thesis, he cares little about the outcome of the investigation that was conducted to ascertain whether or not there was malice on Jannik’s part.
That is why we said at the outset that the Australian’s has now become a crusade. He is accusing and sentencing without any evidence or scientific basis on which to base his theses, but so be it: knowing him, he will not rest until he has identified something new to “shoot off” about.
