Written by Richard Pagliaro | @Itenisi_Manje | Thursday, October 17, 2024
Photo credit: Hector Retamal/AFP/Getty
Jannik Sinner did not receive special treatment in his doping case, the International Tennis Integrity Agency CEO Karen Moorhouse said in a statement.
ITIA’s CEO defended the process that judged the world’s No. 1 Sinner after he twice tested positive for the banned steroid clostebol.
More: Rafael Nadal Announces Retirement From Tennis
Last March, Sinner was twice tested positive for the banned steroid clostebol at “low levels” which the International Tennis Integrity Agency announced in August days before the start of the US Open.
The offender was not suspended and allowed to play because an independent court ruled that he was “not guilty” of the contamination of steroids in his system.
“The International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) confirms that an independent panel called by Sport Resolutions has determined that Italian tennis player Jannik Sinner is not guilty or negligent of two anti-doping violations under the Tennis Anti-Doping Program (TADP) ), twice tested positive for banned clostebol in March 2024,” ITIA announced in an August 20 statement.
Two-time Grand Slam champion Sinner has publicly denied using drugs or cheating.
Sinner’s case was re-litigated earlier this month after the Court of Arbitration for Sport dismissed Italy’s Stefano Battaglino’s appeal against his October 2023 ban.
On September 12, 2024, the CAS court upheld the four-year TADP suspension issued by an independent court for the first time against Battaglino, who, like Sinner, was found to be in possession of clostebol.
Critics question why Sinner was allowed to play during his appeal hearing while other players, including No. 1 of the world Simona Halep and Battaglino, disapproved?
ITIA CEO Moorhouse said the scheme was clearly defined by the code and insisted there was no star scheme at play.
“The case management process in drug abuse cases is complex, and we appreciate that it can be confusing to understand differences in outcomes, or perceived irregularities in the process,” Moorhouse said. “To be absolutely clear, the process is defined by the World Anti-Doping Code, set by the World Anti-Doping Agency, and the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme.
“The way we handle cases doesn’t change, regardless of the player involved. The way a case happens is determined by its unique circumstances, facts and science.
“In Sinner’s case, we understand that the focus of the appeal is on the interpretation and application of the rules of the independent body when determining what level, if any, of wrongdoing applies to the player, rather than the ITIA’s inquiry into the facts and science. .”
WADA is appealing Sinner’s case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport—and is seeking a one- to two-year ban from the world No. 1.
The World Anti-Doping Agency has referred 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 incorrect under the applicable rules,” WADA said in a statement last month. “WADA wants a period of ineligibility between one and two years.
“WADA does not want any results to be revoked, other than those already imposed by the original body.”
