Saint or Sinner? Why a Recent Tennis Doping Scandal Has Signalled Desperate Need for Reform

At just 23 years old, Italian tennis player Jannik Sinner has quickly risen to the illustrious position of men’s singles world number one,[1] though the young star’s most recent Australian Open and Wimbledon titles were left tainted against the backdrop of a doping scandal many consider symptomatic of misguided regulations. In March 2024, Sinner tested positive twice for low levels of clostebol, an anabolic agent banned under section 1 of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List.[2] By August the athlete faced an independent tribunal, with proceedings brought by the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA), alleging Sinner committed anti-doping violations under articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (TADP).[3] If proven, the violations attract the penalty of either a two or four-year competition suspension.[4]

Sinner’s defence – an assertion that clostebol entered his system inadvertently following a massage from a physiotherapist, who applied Trofodermin spray containing the prohibited substance to his own skin to treat a finger wound.[5] Known as ‘strict liability’ offences, both TADP articles provide that, ‘it is not necessary to demonstrate intent, fault, negligence or knowing use on the player’s part in order to establish an anti-doping violation; nor is the player’s lack of intent, fault, negligence or knowledge a defence to an assertion that an anti-doping violation has been committed’.[6] Sinner was spared sanction, however, by a ruling of ‘No Fault or Negligence’ under article 10.5 of the TADP that appeared in direct contradiction of this strict liability principle.[7]  

WADA Aims Higher Only to Settle for Less

 In September 2024, WADA, not challenging the tribunal’s interpretation of fact but rather its apparent ignorance of the strict liability doctrine, appealed the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).[8] WADA argued that to strengthen equity and deterrence athlete liability must extend in scope to what it dubbed ‘entourage negligence’, seeking reclassification to a more serious ruling of ‘No Significant Fault or Negligence’, which carries a maximum two-year suspension.[9] WADA ultimately withdrew this appeal in February 2025, following Sinner’s acceptance of a ‘case resolution agreement’ authorised under article 10.8.2 of the WADA Code.[10] Pursuant to the agreement, the athlete served a three-month suspension from February 9th of this year to the 4th of May, with training allowed from the 13th of April.[11] This narrowly enabled Sinner’s participation in The French Open, which began on the 19th of May.[12]

 Does Negotiation Spell Quick Win-Wins or Favouritism and Secrecy?

 While the settlement avoided a protracted CAS battle, clearing Sinner’s timely return to competition, critics of the process were quick to weigh-in. Chief among them were tennis icons Novak Djokovic, and Nick Kyrgios, who suggested that top athletes with superior legal resources receive more favourable outcomes than lower-ranked peers.[13] In what appeared to many as evidencing this, fellow 2025 Wimbledon winner Iga Świątek too tested positive for a prohibited substance in 2024, blaming her trimetazidine exposure on contaminated over-the-counter melatonin and accepting a similarly brief one-month ban in November 2024.[14] Critics have contrasted these ‘slaps on the wrist’ against a slew of harsher punishments seemingly incommensurate with the violations of lower-profile players. Russian player Ivan Mikhaylyuk was handed a four-year suspension for refusing to provide a urine sample in 2021, despite suffering from urinary tract infections which limited his ability to urinate more than once a day.[15] In April 2025, two-time Grand Slam doubles champion Max Purcell accepted an 18-month suspension for using a "prohibited method" after unknowingly receiving an IV infusion of vitamins above the allowed limit of 100 millilitres in a 12-hour period.[16] Many also criticised the use of a behind-closed doors settlement in lieu of full public hearings, arguing this approach undermines legal certainty and perceived fairness, especially pertaining to high-profile cases.[17]

Figure 1: Nick Kyrgios took to X to condemn the tribunal decision. Source: ABC News. ‘Jannik Sinner's doping ban sparks reaction from Nick Kyrgios, Stan Wawrinka and others in tennis world’. (February 16, 2025).

How Strict is too Strict for ‘Strict Liability’?

 On the other side of the public criticism coin, some condemned WADA’s insistence on preserving strict liability as excessively harsh given the unique circumstances of Sinner’s case.[18] WADA was accused of making an example of the player through its appeal, to admonish other athletes and retain an authoritative image. A cause for yet more criticism of the regulatory framework, many cite a lack of clarity surrounding the requirements to establish ‘No Fault or Negligence’ under the TADP as affording tribunals’ complete discretion to favour some respondents over others.[19] So, the challenge remains for regulators in striking a balance between no-nonsense precedent setting centred on strict liability and ‘no fault’ outcomes recognising that athletes may ingest, or in Sinner’s case, have transdermal exposure to substances unknowingly.

Where to from Here?

WADA has released a proposal to reform its Code by 2027, aiming to rectify inconsistencies in case law relating to instances where athletes can demonstrate a lack of intent but fail to evidence how the prohibited substance entered their bodies.[20] The WADA Code is the principle set of world anti-doping regulations, with which the tennis specific TADP regulations must align. The new proposed Code makes a distinction between ‘intentional’ and ‘reckless’ violations and allows more tailored ineligibility rulings ranging from zero to four-year suspensions (where current rules permit either a two or four-year sanction).[21] Of special significance is the proposed addition to the Code of Article 10.2.2, which clarifies that where athletes cannot establish how the prohibited substance entered their system, ‘reduction of sanction is not available based on No Significant Fault or Negligence or No Fault or Negligence’.[22] Both defences will however be available to athletes who can establish how they became exposed.[23] While in theory this increased specificity will produce more consistent outcomes, it remains to be seen whether the proposal will be implemented at all, and if so, how it will modify outcomes in practice. While regulatory updates signal progress towards clarification of the strict liability principle, broader reforms, namely, greater transparency in decision making and enhanced training and oversight of entourages will also be crucial for restoring trust in a system fraught with controversy.

References:

[1] ATP Rankings, ‘Men’s Singles’. (Webpage, July 28, 2025). https://www.atptour.com/en/rankings/singles.

[2] WADA, ‘WADA agrees to a case resolution agreement in the case of Jannik Sinner’. (Webpage, February 15, 2025) https://www.wada-ama.org/en/news/wada-agrees-case-resolution-agreement-case-jannik-sinner#:~:text=The%20World%20Anti%2DDoping%20Agency,for%20clostebol%2C%20a%20prohibited%20substance%2C

[3] ITIA v Sinner (2024). https://www.itia.tennis/media/yzgd3xoz/240819-itia-v-sinner.pdf

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid B.14.

[7] Ibid J.117.

[8] Reuters, ‘Jannik Sinner accepts three-month doping ban’. (Webpage, February 26, 2025). https://www.reuters.com/sports/tennis/sinner-accepts-three-month-doping-ban-after-settlement-with-wada-2025-02-15/.

[9] The Guardian, ‘A sad day for tennis’: critics round on Sinner after three-month ban agreed’. (Webpage, February 16, 2025). https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/feb/15/jannik-sinner-banned-from-tennis-for-three-months-in-doping-case-settlement-wada

[10] WADA, ‘WADA agrees to a case resolution agreement in the case of Jannik Sinner’. (Webpage, February 15, 2025) https://www.wada-ama.org/en/news/wada-agrees-case-resolution-agreement-case-jannik-sinner#:~:text=The%20World%20Anti%2DDoping%20Agency,for%20clostebol%2C%20a%20prohibited%20substance%2C

[11] Ibid.

[12] The Guardian, ‘A sad day for tennis’: critics round on Sinner after three-month ban agreed’. (Webpage, February 16, 2025). https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/feb/15/jannik-sinner-banned-from-tennis-for-three-months-in-doping-case-settlement-wada

[13] ABC News. ‘Novak Djokovic weighs in on Jannik Sinner, Iga Świątek doping cases, bemoaning apparent 'favouritism'’. (Webpage, February 18, 2025). https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-18/novak-djokovic-jannik-sinner-doping-tennis-favouritism/104949068

[14] Forbes. ‘Why Doping Is Still Persistent In Tennis’. (Webpage, July 19, 2025). https://www.forbes.com/sites/merlisalawrencecorbett/2025/07/15/why-doping-is-still-persistent-in-tennis/

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] ABC News. ‘Novak Djokovic weighs in on Jannik Sinner, Iga Świątek doping cases, bemoaning apparent 'favouritism'’. (Webpage, February 18, 2025). https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-18/novak-djokovic-jannik-sinner-doping-tennis-favouritism/104949068

[18] BBC Sport. ‘Inside the doping deal for tennis' world number one’. (Webpage, February 23, 2025). https://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/articles/cy5ny6lx5dqo

[19] Ibid.

[20] WADA. 2027 Code and IS Update Process. https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/2024-08/2027%20wadc-%20summary%20of%20major%20changes%20-%20final.pdf

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.