Source : ABC NEWS
Three years ago it was the men’s world number one and allegedly lying on an entry visa, this year it’s the men’s world number one and a controversial doping case.
Welcome to AO 2025 where two questions and controversy look set to reign over the year’s opening grand slam.
Should men’s world number one Jannik Sinner have received a doping ban?
And has tennis once again done itself a disservice by promoting a double standard that favours the stars of the sport over lesser lights?
For years the sport has fought that battle over match fixing at lower levels and a lack of pay for those trying to make it conflicted with the millions of dollars made by the top stars.
Now it’s the same question, different topic: Do the top stars get preferential treatment and have better access to the means to fight doping cases?
The ATP doesn’t want you to think so.
ATP Chairman and former professional Italy’s Andrea Gaudenzi this week stated he doesn’t believe tennis has a double standard that saw Sinner get alleged preferential treatment, despite a host of comments from professionals suggesting the opposite, and potential evidence to the contrary.
Those comments, have in the past six months come from as high up as arguably the greatest of all time in Novak Djokovic, and are also being fed by an undercurrent of discontent, led by returning Australian star Nick Kyrgios.
Loading…
Never mind that Kyrgios — who is on the way back from a near career-ending wrist injury — has barely played in the past 18 months, he is still a lightning rod for controversy and continues to say what is on his mind.
Recently that included saying of Sinner: “If I played him in the Australian Open, I would just get every single person in the crowd to get on him. I would just turn it into an absolute riot.”
Sinner for his part doesn’t want to buy into a war of words with Kyrgios.
“I don’t think I have to answer this, to be honest … I don’t want to respond to what Nick says or what any other player says,” Sinner said on Friday.
It’s also unlikely Kyrgios will get to start that “riot”.
The pair are at opposite ends of the draw and the only way a match would happen is in a final that bookmakers would likely let punters write their own ticket on, given both Kyrgios’s injury issues and the external pressure on Sinner.
No fault or some fault?
But dripping in vitriol as Kyrgios’s points against Sinner may be, he could have one or two.
Nick Kyrgios has been relentless in his criticism of Sinner and world tennis over the doping saga. (Chris Hyde/Getty Images)
Sinner is adamant he did nothing wrong in his doping case and tennis’s own doping body, the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) — which adheres to the principles of world anti doping body WADA — cleared him of any wrongdoing in his case.
Sinner, who is both the reigning Australian and US Open champion, twice tested positive in March, and said it occurred because his physiotherapist cut his own finger and treated it with a spray containing the banned steroid Clostebol, which he got from Sinner’s fitness coach. It was then transdermally transferred to Sinner when his physio massaged him.
No one is suggesting Sinner deliberately doped.
And an independent tribunal convened by the ITIA found that Sinner had “no fault or negligence in the case, resulting in no period of ineligibility”.
The physiotherapist’s account of what transpired matched Sinner’s. Sinner parted ways with both his physio and his trainer ahead of the US Open.
Whether you believe Sinner or not, the reality is that trace amounts of Clostebol were found in his system and despite the ITIA finding that Sinner was not at fault WADA is challenging that at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, with the case to be heard on April 16-17 this year.
WADA’s contention seems to be that Sinner had some fault or negligence.
“It is WADA’s view that the finding of ‘no fault or negligence’ was not correct under the applicable rules,” a statement from the governing body read.
“WADA is seeking a period of ineligibility of between one and two years. WADA is not seeking a disqualification of any results, save that which has already been imposed by the tribunal of first instance.”
Loading…
A WADA spokesperson also told the ABC that this is the first time they are aware of an appeal from them against an ITIA ruling.
The usual sanction for Sinner’s violations, if it was proven that he intended to dope, would be a four-year ban. That drops to two years when a player can prove they did not intentionally dope.
“No fault or negligence” as part of tennis’s anti-doping code (TADP) governs the possibility of reducing that two-year ban further, or to nothing, under Article 10.5 of the TADP.
The TADP requires that a player “did not know or suspect, and could not reasonably have known or suspected even with the exercise of utmost caution, that they had used or been administered the prohibited substance”.
The rung above that which could lead to a two-year ban for Sinner after the CAS case happens is “no significant fault or negligence,” which requires the player “establishing that their fault or negligence, when viewed in totality of the circumstances and taking into account the criteria for no fault or negligence, was not significant in relation to the anti-doping rule violation.”
‘No chance’: The alleged double standard
Australia’s Max Purcell (left) received a ban for a procedure where he received an IV injection of vitamins above the allowable limit. (Getty Images: Al Bello)
Sinner now faces a difficult period and he knows it. The wait to April will be long and no matter where he goes a doping cloud will hang over him.
“You think about this, of course,” Sinner said.
“I would lie if I would tell you I forget. It’s something what I have with me now already for quite a long time, but it is what it is.”
The cloud will also hang over the sport. Sinner’s no case to answer and Polish star Iga Swiatek’s one-month ban for taking contaminated melatonin gave the sport a black eye in 2024.
Two current and former world number one’s in doping cases is not a good look.
But they both got favourable outcomes.
It is not so for everyone, nor are doping penalties consistent, as tennis faces the possibility of a fresh double standard, after years of claims the top players particularly on the men’s side got lenient treatment from umpires.
Australia’s own two-time grand slam doubles champion Max Purcell doesn’t know how long he will be out for after accepting a ban for being given vitamins exceeding the 100ml limit after receiving medical treatment.
His breach is not for a banned substance but rather as Tennis Australia said in a statement “a prohibited method”.
That though is just the tip of the iceberg. Players like Swiatek and Sinner can clearly afford to engage legal and scientific teams at the drop of a hat.
Iga Swiatek received a ban of one month and had her case heard in fast time. (Getty Images: Robert Prange)
Lower-ranked players cannot.
It’s something former ASADA boss Richard Ings thinks needs to change.
“Higher-ranked players with means have that ability to get a legal and scientific team to fight these cases,” Mr Ings told 7.30.
“Lower-ranked players facing this anti-doping juggernaut have absolutely no chance.
“Every athlete should be afforded the same level of representation in these cases.”
Same substance,different evidence, different outcome
While British doubles player Tara Moore, who is thousands of pounds in debt after fighting to clear her name over eating contaminated meat is the usual test case, when it comes to Sinner’s, one other case hits very close to home.
British doubles specialist Tara Moore spent thousands trying to clear her name over a positive test from tainted meat, she won but the cost was huge. (Lauren Bacho/Getty Images)
In 2023 the ITIA banned low-ranked Italian Stefano Battaglino, who tested positive in minute amounts for Clostebol at a 2022 ITF event in Morocco.
Battaglino made a similar argument to Sinner, massage cream transdermally transferred by a tournament physiotherapist.
He ultimately lost and was banned for four years after appealing to the ITIA and at the CAS.
Unlike Sinner he did not have access to the physiotherapist and indeed the tournament physio never returned his legal team’s request for correspondence.
The ITIA also found Clostebol was not available in Morocco and suggested it would be unlikely the physiotherapist would, as Battaglino suggested, treat another patient and then not wash their hands before treating a player.
The independent tribunal determined that Battaglino did not prove the source of the Clostebol and therefore found that the anti-doping rule violations were intentional and he received a four-year-ban, which was upheld by the CAS in September of 2024 when it found that Battaglino’s arguments did not meet the necessary standard to overturn or reduce the sanction.
Novak knows change is needed
The whole process ran from July 2022 to September 2024. Sinner’s will take less than half of that.
Novak Djokovic has suggested there may be a double standard at play when it comes to doping bans. (Daniel Pockett/Getty Images)
Mr Gaudenzi does not think Sinner being world number one played a part in that or the ITIA finding he was not at fault.
“I am 100 per cent sure that there has not been any preferential treatment. The process has been run by the book and according to the rules, by the ITIA,” he told AAP ahead of the Australian Open.
Not everyone feels that way and it’s not just lower-ranked players, several of whom voiced their views on social media over both Swiatek and Sinner’s cases.
Djokovic is one who has led the calls for the process to be fairer, because according to the Serbian star, the optics are bad.
In August he said: “As I understood, his case was cleared the moment basically it was announced, but I think five or six months passed since the news was brought to him and his team. So … I can understand the sentiments of a lot of players that are questioning whether they are treated the same.
“Many players, without naming any of them, have had pretty much the same cases, where they haven’t had the same outcome, and now the question is whether it is a case of the funds, whether a player can afford to pay a significant amount of money for a law firm that would then more efficiently represent his or her case,” Djokovic said.
In Brisbane in January he doubled down.
“Some players with lower rankings [are] waiting for their case to be resolved for over a year,” Djokovic said.
“I’m just questioning the way the system works and why certain players aren’t treated the same as others.
“Maybe some ranking reasons are behind it or some players have more financial backing and stronger legal teams to tackle these cases.”
They’re fair questions and ones tennis has to answer.
After all, if the statistical greatest of all time is concerned about the sport’s doping policy, maybe those in charge need to listen.
ABC Sport will be live blogging every day of the Australian Open from Melbourne Park.
