By Richard Pagliaro | @Tennis_Now | Thursday, October 17, 2024
Photo credit: Hector Retamal/AFP/Getty
Jannik Sinner did not receive special treatment in his doping case, International Tennis Integrity Agency CEO Karen Moorhouse said in a statement.
The ITIA CEO defended the process that adjudicated world No. 1 Sinner’s case after he twice tested positive for the banned steroid clostebol.
More: Rafael Nadal Announces Retirement from Tennis
Last March, Sinner twice tested positive for the banned steroid clostebol in “low levels” the International Tennis Integrity Agency announced in August days before the start of the US Open.
Sinner was not suspended and permitted to play because an independent tribunal ruled he was at “no fault” for the steroid contamination in his system.
“The International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) confirms that an independent tribunal convened by Sport Resolutions has ruled that Italian tennis player Jannik Sinner bears No Fault or Negligence for two Anti-Doping Rule Violations under the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (TADP), having twice tested positive for the prohibited substance clostebol in March 2024,” the ITIA announced in a statement on August 20th.
Two-time Grand Slam champion Sinner adamantly denies doping or cheating.
Sinner’s case was thrust back into the spotlight earlier this month after the Court of Arbitration for Sport dismissed an appeal from Italian Stefano Battaglino against a ban imposed on him back in October 2023.
On September 12, 2024, the CAS tribunal upheld the four-year TADP suspension issued by the first-instance independent tribunal against Battaglino, who, like Sinner, tested positive for clostebol.
Critics question why was Sinner permitted to play while his appeal was heard whereas other players, including former world No. 1 Simona Halep and Battaglino, were not?
ITIA CEO Moorhouse said the process is clearly defined by the code and insisted there is no star system at play.
“The case management process for anti-doping cases is complex, and we appreciate that it can be confusing to understand the differences in outcome, or perceived inconsistencies in the process,” Moorhouse said. “To be absolutely clear, the process is defined by the World Anti-Doping Code, set out by the World Anti-Doping Agency, and the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme.
“The way we manage cases does not change, irrespective of the profile of the player involved. The way a case unfolds is determined by its unique circumstances, facts and science.
“In the case of Sinner, we understand that the appeal’s focus is on the independent tribunal’s interpretation and application of the rules when determining what, if any, level of fault is applicable to the player, rather than the ITIA’s investigation into the facts and science.”
WADA is appealing Sinner’s steroid case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport—and seeking a ban of one to two years for the world No. 1.
The World Anti-Doping Agency has appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport the result of Sinner’s doping case.
“It is WADA’s view that the finding of “no fault or negligence” was not correct under the applicable rules,” WADA said in a statement last month. “WADA is seeking a period of ineligibility of between one and two years.
“WADA is not seeking a disqualification of any results, save that which has already been imposed by the tribunal of first instance.”
