The BBC has also approached Stripchat for comment.

Wada felt the independent tribunal should have punished Sinner for strict liability - that he was ultimately responsible for failing the two drugs tests.Its officials felt pursuing a suspension was key in defending the "important principle that athletes do in fact bear responsibility for the actions of their entourage".

So why was Wada happy to offer Sinner a three-month ban?Wada's general counsel Ross Wenzel said there wasn't a "fundamental change" in how the agency viewed the case, but it came down to what it considered fair."This was a case that was a million miles away from doping," Wenzel told BBC Sport.

"The scientific feedback that we received was that this could not be a case of intentional doping, including micro-dosing."Had the case gone to Cas, the outcome would have either been a ban of at least a year or Sinner being cleared.

"I'm not sure that a sanction of 12 months in this case - if we'd have forced the tribunal into that position - or a case of 'no fault' would have been a good outcome," said Wenzel.

"One would have compromised an important principle under the code. The other one, in our view, would have been an unduly harsh sanction."She added they should also be wary of unexpected phone calls, emails or social media messages purporting to relate to the hack as these could be from scammers trying to take further advantage of the cyber attack

It comes as retailers including Marks & Spencer and Co-op have been targeted in major cyber attacks.In their cases, the hacks severely compromised business operations - there is no indication anything similar has happened with Adidas.

"Adidas recently became aware that an unauthorized external party obtained certain consumer data through a third-party customer service provider," the firm said."We immediately took steps to contain the incident and launched a comprehensive investigation, collaborating with leading information security experts.