Playing favourites, inconsistency or a fair decision? Unpacking Jannik Sinner’s doping case

The tennis world is still reeling after news the number one ranked men’s player, Jannik Sinner, agreed to a three-month suspension issued by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) to be served between the Australian and French Opens.

Sinner, a three-time Grand Slam winner, received the ban after twice testing positive for clostebol, a steroid banned by the World-Anti Doping Code, in March 2024.

Read more: Tennis is facing an existential crisis over doping. How will it respond?

The fallout

“Unintentional doping offences” – as in Sinner’s case – can attract a maximum two-year ban even if the athlete shows no fault or negligence.

Sinner’s three-month ban was immediately criticised by many in the media and within tennis circles due to its leniency and convenient timing. It also did not result from a hearing before an anti-doping tribunal or the Court of Arbitration for Sport, as has been the case with other tennis players who have received bans in the past.

The suspension was the product of a “case resolution agreement” (a negotiated settlement) between WADA and Sinner.

WADA initially appealed the International Tennis Integrity Agency’s decision not to suspend Sinner on the basis of demonstrating no significant fault or negligence, but withdrew its case before the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Sinner argued the banned substance entered his system after a massage by a physiotherapist in his entourage who had used a cream with clostebol to treat a cut on his finger.

Both WADA and the International Tennis Integrity Agency accepted this version of events.

In the eyes of most, WADA’s actions failed to pass the “pub test” and many high-profile tennis players voiced their concerns.

Novak Djokovic flagged issues over the treatment of high-ranked athletes such as Sinner compared to lower-ranked players.

For example, Chilean Nicolas Jarry was suspended for 11 months in 2020 after testing positive to ligandrol and stanozolol that he alleged were in a supplement he took.

In 2023 Sweden’s Mikael Ymer was suspended for 18 months by the Court of Arbitration for Sport for failing to submit to three out-of-competition tests in a 12-month period.

Great Britain’s Tara Moore took nearly two years to clear her name before an anti-doping tribunal in 2023 revealed contaminated meat had led to her positive tests for nandrolone and boldenone. Despite this decision, Moore served a 19-month ban.

Djokovic’s view suggested favouritism for higher-ranked players, who can access top lawyers. He also criticised a lack of transparency in the Sinner agreement with WADA.

However, high-ranked players such as Simona Halep and Maria Sharapova have received lengthy suspensions for doping violations.

Nick Kyrgios was similarly critical, stating it was a sad day for the sport and that fairness in tennis did not exist.

Former Spanish player Feliciano Lopez was among those who supported Sinner. He said he believed in clean sport and that Sinner had not enhanced his performance and took responsibility for the actions of his physiotherapist.

Intentional and unintentional doping

The criticisms appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the anti-doping provisions in the World Anti-Doping Code and the failure by WADA to clearly communicate its rationale for Sinner’s suspension.

Rather than favouritism for a high-ranked player, WADA’s decision to suspend Sinner for three months was based on the distinction in the World Anti-Doping Code between intentional and unintentional doping. It found that Sinner:

• had not intended to cheat using clostebol
• received no performance-enhancing benefit from the substance
• had no knowledge of the administration of the substance.

But WADA argued that under the code, Sinner was responsible for the negligence of his entourage and issued the suspension.

WADA confirmed its rationale for the three-month suspension after Spanish media pointed out that figure skater Laura Barquero had received a six-year ban for a positive test of clostebol.

WADA differentiated the two cases based on intention. It was not convinced by Barquero’s explanation of how clostebol entered her system, while it said the evidence supported Sinner’s version of events.

Lessons from the Sinner case

So what can be learned from Sinner’s case?

One of the most important legal issues arising from the Sinner case is the distinction in the anti-doping rules between intentional and unintentional doping.

This distinction explains the difference in penalties between Sinner and other athletes.

Also, the facts of a doping case are relevant in determining circumstances that may reduce the severity of a penalty in matters resolved by negotiated case resolution agreements.

An important lesson for WADA is ensuring transparency in proceedings and the clear communication of the rationale used to arrive at a penalty.

Finally, a Court of Arbitration for Sport hearing may not have been needed for Sinner as the parties agreed on the facts leading to the doping rule violation.