Andrea Calvo
@andreacalwo.bsky.social
Content Editor, AI specialist & Pattern Seeker.
Correlation isn’t causation. Both cases involved trace amounts with zero performance impact, and contamination is a documented reality in anti-doping. If you prefer conspiracies over facts, that’s on you. This is the last time I reply—debating with people who ignore facts gets tiring.
February 16, 2025 at 8:26 AM
Correlation isn’t causation. Both cases involved trace amounts with zero performance impact, and contamination is a documented reality in anti-doping. If you prefer conspiracies over facts, that’s on you. This is the last time I reply—debating with people who ignore facts gets tiring.
Just replying where I see misinformation. If that bothers you, maybe question why.
February 16, 2025 at 8:12 AM
Just replying where I see misinformation. If that bothers you, maybe question why.
Fair point, but the key fact remains: the detected amount was so tiny it had zero impact on performance. A harsh lesson in strict liability, not cheating.
February 15, 2025 at 10:42 PM
Fair point, but the key fact remains: the detected amount was so tiny it had zero impact on performance. A harsh lesson in strict liability, not cheating.
He was banned for negligence regarding his team, not for doping or gaining any advantage. Facts over fiction. That’s my support against trolls like you for tonight—goodbye.
February 15, 2025 at 9:38 PM
He was banned for negligence regarding his team, not for doping or gaining any advantage. Facts over fiction. That’s my support against trolls like you for tonight—goodbye.
He was caught with drugs in his system" is a misleading statement. The detected amount (1 billionth of a gram) was proven to have zero performance-enhancing effect. That’s not cheating, that’s science. If you ignore facts to push an agenda, that’s on you.
February 15, 2025 at 9:35 PM
He was caught with drugs in his system" is a misleading statement. The detected amount (1 billionth of a gram) was proven to have zero performance-enhancing effect. That’s not cheating, that’s science. If you ignore facts to push an agenda, that’s on you.
Throwing random cases together doesn’t make an argument, just lazy rhetoric. Facts matter: 1 billionth of a proven substance can’t possibly have any effect—those are the facts. I’m Italian, but I support Fonseca and stand against social media ignorance like your shallow claims.
February 15, 2025 at 9:31 PM
Throwing random cases together doesn’t make an argument, just lazy rhetoric. Facts matter: 1 billionth of a proven substance can’t possibly have any effect—those are the facts. I’m Italian, but I support Fonseca and stand against social media ignorance like your shallow claims.
Generalizations, insinuations, and zero evidence. Each case is different and should be judged on facts, not bias. If the sanction is "ridiculous," prove it. "Nobody believes Sinner" is just wishful thinking. And "Wawrinka is one of us" isn't an argument—it's just fan talk.
February 15, 2025 at 9:20 PM
Generalizations, insinuations, and zero evidence. Each case is different and should be judged on facts, not bias. If the sanction is "ridiculous," prove it. "Nobody believes Sinner" is just wishful thinking. And "Wawrinka is one of us" isn't an argument—it's just fan talk.
There you go, you’re the kind of person (or troll) with whom it’s impossible to have a discussion. The facts have been established by courts and science. If you want to keep adding more, go ahead, but I won’t respond.
February 15, 2025 at 6:32 PM
There you go, you’re the kind of person (or troll) with whom it’s impossible to have a discussion. The facts have been established by courts and science. If you want to keep adding more, go ahead, but I won’t respond.
An even simpler approach would be to set doping thresholds that align with reality. If, based on scientific evidence, one billionth of a banned substance cannot affect performance, then an athlete should only be accused when the substance is present at levels that can actually enhance performance.
February 15, 2025 at 5:58 PM
An even simpler approach would be to set doping thresholds that align with reality. If, based on scientific evidence, one billionth of a banned substance cannot affect performance, then an athlete should only be accused when the substance is present at levels that can actually enhance performance.
You can’t acknowledge contamination as a valid explanation and at the same time have such strict rule.
February 15, 2025 at 5:53 PM
You can’t acknowledge contamination as a valid explanation and at the same time have such strict rule.
In a case like this, where, I repeat, the athlete was deemed not guilty of doping, they shouldn’t risk two years (!!) because of a collaborator. And the three-month compromise is much more reasonable. But this should become the standard.
February 15, 2025 at 5:53 PM
In a case like this, where, I repeat, the athlete was deemed not guilty of doping, they shouldn’t risk two years (!!) because of a collaborator. And the three-month compromise is much more reasonable. But this should become the standard.
Ok, I have nothing against you. My issue is with those who don’t even read and call someone a fraud on principle. That said, I’m very far from your opinion: it’s the WADA rules that are absurd. (Contnue)
February 15, 2025 at 5:52 PM
Ok, I have nothing against you. My issue is with those who don’t even read and call someone a fraud on principle. That said, I’m very far from your opinion: it’s the WADA rules that are absurd. (Contnue)
Ok, you have read and understand. So you agree that refering sinner as a cheater it's not correct.
February 15, 2025 at 5:03 PM
Ok, you have read and understand. So you agree that refering sinner as a cheater it's not correct.
Vast majority are you and a bunch of people in the commentaries? Read WADA and stop to says non sense
February 15, 2025 at 4:38 PM
Vast majority are you and a bunch of people in the commentaries? Read WADA and stop to says non sense
Mark, don't waste time on someone who struggles to understand reality. It's completely pointless.
February 15, 2025 at 4:37 PM
Mark, don't waste time on someone who struggles to understand reality. It's completely pointless.
The understanding of reality is dead. And you are the proof of it.
February 15, 2025 at 4:35 PM
The understanding of reality is dead. And you are the proof of it.
The answer is NO 😔
February 15, 2025 at 4:32 PM
The answer is NO 😔
It's a joke the system. Because he found not GUILTY and also WADA admit that.
February 15, 2025 at 4:31 PM
It's a joke the system. Because he found not GUILTY and also WADA admit that.
He's clean. Read before comment..
February 15, 2025 at 4:29 PM
He's clean. Read before comment..
He's not cheating. Read what WADA says.
February 15, 2025 at 4:17 PM
He's not cheating. Read what WADA says.
The people who commented have read what the WADA is saying? Is there really no longer any critical ability to read and understand in this world?
February 15, 2025 at 4:17 PM
The people who commented have read what the WADA is saying? Is there really no longer any critical ability to read and understand in this world?