In March of this year, midway through the Indian Wells Masters, the then-world-number-three Jannik Sinner tested positive for Clostebol, a banned anabolic steroid. Eight days later, the Italian tested positive again. Having been immediately handed a suspension from tennis for both offences, Sinner was able to appeal them and have them overturned.
Sinner and his legal team managed to argue that the substance, equal to less than a billionth of a gram, that had been found in his system was unintentional, and that the steroid had entered Sinner’s system through the hands of his fitness trainer Giacomo Naldi. Naldi had purchased an over-the-counter spray commonly used in Italy to treat a cut on his finger, before treating an unaware Sinner without gloves on.
After the argument was deemed plausible, and Sinner was found not to have any responsibility himself, he was cleared and allowed to continue playing.
The problem? This was all carried out without anybody knowing.
Over on the Women’s tour, then-world No 1 Iga Swiatek tested positive for banned substance trimetazidine in August. The Pole was immediately suspended for a period of three weeks, preventing Swiatek from competing in the Korea Open, China Open and Wuhan Open, all three of which she had entered into.
The International Tennis Integrity Agency, which governs tennis’ anti-doping programme and dealt with both Sinner and Swiatek cases, accepted Swiatek’s justification that her positive test was a result of the medication that she was taking to issues with jet lag had been contaminated.
Again, the problem? Nobody knew a thing. Swiatek’s withdrawals from the Asian swing of the season were cited as for ‘personal reasons’ while she served her provisional suspension.
To claim tennis has a systemic doping problem based on these cases might be premature. The ITIA concluded that Swiatek’s fault in the situation was at the ‘lower end of the scale.’ And while the World Anti-Doping Agency has lodged an appeal against the ITIA’s decision that Sinner bore no ‘fault or negligence’ in his positive tests, it is not looking to overturn any of his results during the year, including his two Grand Slams.
Yet two of the top players testing positive for banned substances remains a bad look for the sport and raises questions about its processes when it comes to doping and integrity. Sinner’s standout 2024 included two Grand Slam wins, a Davis Cup win with Italy and finally ascending to World No 1 for the first time. Swiatek added her third straight and fourth overall French Open title, four WTA1000 titles, and an Olympic Bronze medal. For these two stars of the sport to be embroiled in this type of controversy is somewhat of a stain of the effectiveness of tennis’ processes.
For these two stars of the sport to be embroiled in this type of controversy is somewhat of a stain of the effectiveness of tennis’ processes.
There’s also the problem of transparency. ITIA protocol allows for provisional bans to not be publicly disclosed if appeals are lodged within ten days, both of which Swiatek’s and Sinner’s respective appeals were. But Sinner’s positive tests came midway through tournaments, which allowed for him to play (and beat) opponents that had no idea that the Italian had been found to have a banned substance in his body.
As a result, the response from around the tennis world has been mixed. The Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) issued a statement assuring that they ‘fully support Iga during this difficult time’ and that the incident purely highlights the ‘challenges athletes face in navigating the use of medications and supplements.’
Others have been less supportive. Nick Kyrgios, ever the voice of reason, took to social media numerous times to infer he doesn’t believe Sinner should be absolved from blame as much as the ITIA judged, and noted the leniency in these two cases compared to past doping cases.
British player Tara Moore was banned in April 2022 for testing positive for banned substances, however managed to get her suspension overturned after an independent tribunal deemed Moore bore no fault or negligence, and that the banned substances came from contaminated meat. However the ITIA lodged an appeal against the tribunal’s judgement at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, with a hearing date still yet to be set. Moore’s case is by far the longest standing of any recent controversies, and Moore has used the Swiatek debacle to accuse governing bodies of corruption and double standards.
Neither Iga Swiatek nor Tara Moore intentionally tried to enhance their performances through the use of banned substances. So where is the equality in Swiatek being handed a one month ban during the offseason while Moore loses almost two years of her career and hundreds of thousands of pounds in attempting to simply be allowed to try and prove her innocence?
Sinner and Swiatek were allowed to control their own narratives, get their statements ready, and know the exact minute the story would be made public, which is a liberty non-grand-slam-winners have rarely been afforded.
The cases of Sinner and Swiatek have highlighted the problem right at the epicentre of how tennis deals with anti-doping violations. Sinner and Swiatek were allowed to control their own narratives, get their statements ready, and know the exact minute the story would be made public, which is a liberty non-grand-slam-winners have rarely been afforded.
While the ITIA may insist that their doping policy is equal, the nature of their disclosure policy being dependent on whether a player has enough financial and legal might to submit an appeal within ten days creates anything but a level playing field.
