The Americans published the reaction of the German Andreea Petkovic, who pounced on Simona Halep on Christmas Eve! “He doesn’t make rational decisions! And she would have done the same”

Andreea Petkovic, harsh attack on Simona Halep, right on Christmas Eve.

Former 2014 Roland Garros semifinalist Andreea Petkovic gives it to her a lesson to Simona Halepwhich he elaborates on Rennae Stubbs’ tennis podcast. Petkovic commented on the exits of the double Grand Slam winner against Iga Swiatek, which he categorized as “exaggerated”.

Andreea Petkovic, criticism of Simona Halep

Simona Halep specified that the situations of Jannik Sinner and Igă Swiatek were treated preferentially, while her case was made more difficult by ITIA officials and extended in terms. Petkovic analyzed the situation and said that Halep was not acting rationally.

She is angry. Act emotionally. She doesn’t make rational decisions and feels like public opinion is starting to turn against her. I think that the only thing that Simona had on her side all this time was sympathy.

People were really on her side, but things changed this year, precisely because she didn’t give up. If I had been in her situation, I don’t know if I could have given up either. If Simona had known immediately where the contamination came from, she would have done exactly the same thing as Iga or Jannik. She would have tried to minimize the impact on her career,” said Petkovic, quoted by tennisworldusa.org.

The head of ITIA explained the different punishments in the cases of Simona Halep and Iga Swiatek

Karen Moorhouse, CEO-ul ITIAoffered a series of explanations to justify the punishments in the cases of Simona Halep and Iga Swiatek. If Halep received a suspension of 4 years, which was later reduced to 9 months, Swiatek was “punished” with only one month by the international forum.

“It’s the same rules and the same processes for every player. Each case is different and based on individual facts. Cases can be quite complex so it’s not fair to look at two titles and compare cases, because the details always play a key role.

Let’s look at Swiatek and Halep. TAS discovered that her supplement was contaminated. So after this discovery, they gave him 9 months.

The court decided on the basis of the objective guilt he had and the subjective guilt he should have had. What should she have done about the product that was found to be contaminated?

In Swiatek’s case, the contaminated product was a drug. So it is not unreasonable for a player to assume that a regulated drug would contain what it says on the ingredient list.

Therefore, the level of blame she could accept was the lowest, as there was very little she could do to reduce the risk of that product being contaminated.

Halep’s contamination was not from a drug. It was from a collagen supplement and her level of guilt was considered higher.

The bottom line is that you rarely find two identical cases because they all have specific facts,” Moorhouse said, according to an interview with tennis365.com.