As the Australian Open begins next week, reigning champion Jannik Sinner has been tipped to win again as he chases a historic three‑peat.
Whilst Sinner’s ability is not in question, it is debatable as to whether he should even be allowed to compete in the first place.
One of the major sporting stories in 2025 was the Italian’s doping ban for inadvertent use of clostebol, a substance under the World Anti‑Doping Agency’s prohibited list, in breach of articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the Tennis Anti‑Doping Program (TADP).
Sinner argued that the clostebol entered his system inadvertently after his physiotherapist applied a spray containing the substance to treat his own finger wound. In 2024, the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) initially declined to suspend Sinner, finding that there was “no fault or negligence” on his part, and therefore no basis for a ban.
However, this decision was controversial from the outset. Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the TADP are strict liability offences – meaning that intent, fault, or negligence are irrelevant to establishing a violation. The ITIA’s finding of “no fault or negligence” appeared to contradict the strict liability principle entirely, prompting WADA to appeal the decision in September 2024.
They initially sought a one- or two-year ban for Sinner; under its own framework, this would arguably fall under “no significant fault,” not “no fault.” Yet they ultimately accepted a negotiated settlement – a mechanism permitted under the code, but one that is rarely used to reduce sanctions below the standard ranges.
WADA justified the settlement on the basis that the circumstances warranted a more proportional response, but nevertheless still necessary since athletes are required to bear responsibility for their entourage.
This justification was widely criticised, with the Professional Tennis Players Association stating that case‑by‑case discretion “is a cover for tailored deals, unfair treatment, and inconsistent rulings”.
The issue is not simply that Sinner received a reduced sanction. It is that the mechanism used to achieve that outcome – a negotiated settlement – is effectively only available to athletes with the resources to mobilise legal teams quickly and negotiate with WADA.
Lower‑ranked players rarely have this option. Their cases proceed through the standard hearing process, where the Code is applied rigidly and where “no significant fault” routinely results in suspensions of 10 to 18 months.
For example, Nicolás Jarry and Simona Halep received 11‑month and 18‑month suspensions respectively for inadvertent doping under the same “no significant fault” provision that Sinner avoided. Since Sinner’s case, the ITIA has continued to impose lengthy bans for inadvertent violations. Only two of the last nine cases since the Italian that are publically announced on the ITIA’s website resulted in suspensions shorter than three months — both involved circumstances where the athlete had less control over the doping than Sinner’s entourage‑related contamination.
The WADA Code is built on strict liability and uniformity, yet its application increasingly depends on an athlete’s ability to negotiate, litigate, and marshal expert evidence. The code’s rigidity applies most forcefully to athletes without resources; its flexibility appears reserved for those who can afford it.
This is not a conspiracy – it is a systemic imbalance.
Negotiated settlements are a legitimate tool under the code. But when they are used in ways that contradict WADA’s own stated principles, and when only certain athletes are realistically able to pursue them, the result is a two‑tiered anti‑doping system. One tier for those with the means to challenge WADA, and another for those who must simply accept the consequences of strict liability.
If tennis – and sport more broadly – is to maintain public confidence in anti‑doping, it must confront this disparity. A system that punishes inadvertent doping harshly for some athletes while offering bespoke outcomes to others cannot credibly claim to be fair, consistent, or principled. Reform is needed not only to clarify the Code, but to ensure that justice in anti‑doping is determined by facts, not by financial capacity.
Luke Karapetsashttps://https://ift.tt/gKTmMBk two-tiered system: Jannik Sinner, WADA, and the unequal reality of anti-doping law
إرسال تعليق