By Richard Pagliaro | @Tennis_Now | Thursday, October 17, 2024
Photo: Hector Retamal/AFP/Getty
Jannik the Sinner received no special treatment in his doping case, CEO of International Tennis Integrity Agency Karen Moorhouse said in a statement.
The ITIA CEO defended the process that tried world No.1 Sinner’s case after he twice tested positive for the banned steroid clostebol.
More: Rafael Nadal announces his retirement from tennis
Last March, Sinner twice tested positive for the banned steroid clostebol at “low levels,” the International Tennis Integrity Agency announced in August, days before the start of the US Open.
Sinner was not suspended or allowed to play because an independent tribunal ruled he was “not at 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 Program ( TADP) tested positive twice for the banned substance clostebol in March 2024,” ITIA announced in a statement on August 20.
Two-time Grand Slam champion Sinner vehemently denies doping or cheating.
Sinner’s case returned to the spotlight earlier this month after the Court of Arbitration for Sport rejected an appeal by Italian Stefano Battaglino against a ban imposed on him in October 2023.
On September 12, 2024, the CAS court upheld the four-year TADP suspension issued by the independent court of first instance against Battaglino, who, like Sinner, tested positive for clostebol.
Critics ask why Sinner was allowed to play while his appeal was heard, while other players, including former world No. 1 Simona Halep and Battaglino, were not?
ITIA chief executive Moorhouse said the process was clearly defined by the code and insisted there was no star system in play.
“The case management process for anti-doping cases is complex and we appreciate that it can be confusing to understand differences in outcome, or perceived inconsistencies in the process,” Moorhouse said. “To be absolutely clear, the process is set out 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, regardless of the profile of the player involved. How a case develops is determined by the unique circumstances, facts and science.
“In Sinner’s case, we understand that the focus of the appeal is on the independent tribunal’s interpretation and application of the rules when determining what, if any, level of culpability is applicable to the player, rather than the ITIA’s inquiry into the facts and science.”
WADA is appealing Sinner’s steroid case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and is seeking a one- to two-year ban for the world No.1.
The World Anti-Doping Agency has appealed the outcome of Sinner’s doping case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
“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 an ineligibility period of one to two years.
“WADA is not seeking disqualification of any result other than that already established by the court of first instance.”
