Italian tennis star Jannik Sinner, winner of the past two Grand Slams, has been banned for three months after agreeing a controversial deal following his positive drugs tests last year.
The deal means world number one Sinner will be able to compete in the next major at Roland Garos, and may be back in time for the Italian open in Rome as early as May. While the 23 year old has always maintained his innocence, the timing of the ban affords the World Anti Doping Agency (Wada) the opportunity to be seen to be enforcing the rules, while giving Sinner the lightest of slaps on the wrist in acknowledgement that he personally did nothing wrong.
However, in a backlash against the deal critics say it undermines the zero-tolerance approach to doping, that the process favours the elite players, and that the timing is suspiciously convenient as it allows Sinner to be back in training privately well ahead of the French Open.
The ban is the outcome of a case resolution agreement (a special mechanism that allows deals to be agreed to conclude doping cases) entered into between Sinner and Wada over two failed drugs tests last March.
Speaking of the deal, Sinner’s lawyer, Jamie Singer, said: “Wada has confirmed the facts determined by the Independent Tribunal. It is clear that Jannik had no intent, no knowledge, and gained no competitive advantage. Regrettably, errors made by members of his team led to this situation.”
Sinner had always maintained he was innocent and was indeed cleared of any wrongdoing by the International Tennis Integrity Agency’s independent tribunal in August. His explanation was that traces of the banned anabolic steroid, clostebol had entered his system during a massage by his physio, and faced no ban from the sport.
So why has Sinner now accepted a deal that sees him banned from tennis just months ahead of the summer tournament season and could see him slip down the world ranking while he is unable to pick up points on the Tour?
Following the ITIA’s ruling that Sinner was innocent and “bore no fault or negligence”, Wada appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas), initially seeking a ban of up to two years. Although accepting that Sinner “did not intend to cheat” and did not receive “any performance-enhancing benefit”, and that he was inadvertently contaminated “without his knowledge as the result of negligence of members of his entourage”, Wada nevertheless felt pursuing a suspension was key in defending the “important principle that athletes do in fact bear responsibility for the actions of their entourage”.
Sinner’s lawyer said it was “quite tricky” to convince Sinner to take the offer. However, ultimately the negotiation was a process of crunching the numbers. A ruling against Sinner at Cas would have carried a ban of “one to two years”, while the deal that has been announced sees Sinner serve a short three-month suspension and accept no direct responsibility.
Sinner said: “I have always accepted that I am responsible for my team and realise Wada’s strict rules are an important protection for the sport I love. On that basis I have accepted Wada’s offer to resolve these proceedings on the basis of a three-month sanction.”
A three-month ban is a good outcome for Sinner, who must surely have been aware that the timing of the ban was as generous as it could possibly be – in effect a demonstration of the rules being imposed with the most limited impact on the player’s professional career and prospects as possible.
The outcome of the case has been criticised by current and former players, some of whom believe Sinner has been given preferential treatment because of his status as one of the sport’s biggest stars. The Professional Tennis Players’ Association (PTPA) – an organisation co-founded by Novak Djokovic which aims to increase player power – believes there is a lack of “transparency”, “process” and “consistency” in the system.
Whether or not he has benefitted from institutional bias or preferential treatment at the hearings is difficult to say, but Sinner has certainly been able to afford the very best legal defence possible, and that investment has paid dividends with a very favourable agreement the outcome.
But the fact that Sinner, the world number one with all the wealth and status that accompany his position, seems to have got away with a light sentence for doping has left a smell an awful lot like elitism wafting off the sport. The question being asked is, would all players on the tour (or indeed in the wider sport) benefit from such leniency, or is it reserved just for the top players who have the deepest pockets and bring the biggest crowds to the most prestigious tournaments?
In truth, it was a very difficult situation which boiled down to whether to punish a player harshly for a crime they had already been found not to have committed, or to treat them leniently and face the wrath of others who say they wouldn’t have been treated as fairly in the same situation. Justice is rarely easy to administer, and often not universally accepted. Either way, the outcome has further chipped away at athletes’ confidence in the integrity of Wada, not to mention the sport’s commitment to the entire anti-doping process.
Sinner is allowed to train privately and return to ‘official training’ from 13 April, and competitive action on 5 May, which may come too soon for the Italian Open but should give plenty of time to be ready for the start of the French Open on 19 May. Whether he comes back well rested or rusty remains to be seen, but Sinner will be confident of his chances to secure three grand slams on the bounce – leaving others to decide whether he is a man more sinned against than sinning.
Contact our Sports Law and Corporate & Commercial expert:
David Little is a Partner at Bishop & Sewell in our expert Sports Law and Corporate & Commercial teams. If you would like to contact him, please call on either 07968 027343 or 020 7631 4141 or email: company@bishopandsewell.co.uk.
The above is accurate as at 04 March 2025. The information above may be subject to change.
The content of this note should not be considered legal advice and each matter should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
