This article originally appeared in The Field’s newsletter, Game Points, on August 28, 2024. Sign up here to get the newsletter directly delivered to your inbox every week.
In 1997, Andre Agassi had been summoned by the ATP, which governs men’s tennis, to explain a drug test that came positive for crystal methamphetamine. Agassi claimed he unknowingly consumed a spiked drink brought to him by an assistant. His explanation was accepted and the case was dismissed.
In 2009, Agassi admitted in his autobiography that he had lied.
That should have led to tennis tightening the screws on anti-doping protocol. But 15 years since Agassi’s admission, tennis authorities are still nowhere close to forming a consistent checklist on how to deal with positive dope tests.
On August 20, International Tennis Integrity Agency – a body formed to deal with doping violations in the sport – declared that world No 1 Jannik Sinner had been “cleared of any wrongdoing” despite testing positive twice for the performance-enhancing drug clostebol.
The announcement was made a day after Sinner won the Cincinnati Masters.
As expected, there has been a wave of criticism, with tennis players accusing the ITIA and other tennis authorities of favouritism in the way they handled Sinner’s case.
In March, Sinner tested positive for the first time and was handed a provisional suspension. The player appealed and the suspension was lifted a day later. Eight days later, he tested positive again, he appealed and the suspension was lifted after four days.
Sinner and his team said that his physiotherapist Glacomo Naldi had cut his finger, and was advised to use a medicinal spray by Sinner’s fitness coach Umberto Ferrara. The spray contained clostebol, which entered Sinner’s system when Naldi massaged the player without using gloves.
From March to August, the ITIA worked silently in the background before they decided that there was no wrongdoing. But it seems inconsistent that Sinner was allowed to compete professionally during the investigative period, rather than being suspended.
It was during this period that he also became the world No 1 player.
Another lapse is that the case was kept so secret that the fact that Sinner had tested positive came to light only when the ITIA cleared him of wrongdoing on August 20.
The inconsistencies also lie in how the ITIA and the tennis authorities have handled previous cases.
Sinner should have been disallowed from playing during the investigation period. That is standard protocol. Once the investigation was over, based on the results, the player could be allowed to get back on the tour.
That was the procedure followed in Simona Halep’s case.
Halep, a former world No 1 women’s singles player, had tested positive for banned substance roxadustat in August 2022 and had been suspended. She appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and her plea was successful after the court ruled that she bore “no significant fault.” She returned to the tour 17 months later, at the Miami Masters this year.
Sinner argued that his case was different because he and his team knew exactly how the substance had entered his body. But the mistrust between the governing body and players will remain because standard procedures were bent in favour of a player who won the Australian Open title a month before he tested positive.
As was the case with Halep, tennis bodies have often used scapegoats to show their seriousness towards anti-doping, which they follow to a tee when it comes to players competing at the lower levels. Those are the players who do not have the financial backing Sinner had nor the high profile that the Italian enjoys.
The stark inconsistencies have led to 24-time Grand Slam champion Novak Djokovic asserting that there is a “lack of standardised and clear protocols”.
One consistency though, is that the tennis bodies have worked to help players hide from doping controversies.
One news report claimed that tennis players had been allowed to book slots for their own drug tests at the 2019 French Open, 2021 US Open and 2022 Miami Masters. It defeated the purpose of having in-competition tests, allowing guilty players to try and flush the drugs out of their system before submitting samples.
There was also the case in 2013 when Marin Cilic was handed a “silent ban” for “high glucose”. As he sat out for nine months, the public was told that Cilic was nursing a knee injury.
The tennis bodies may argue that they look after the interests of all players. But the Sinner incident makes it clear that they are not fooling anyone.
Limited-time offer: Big stories, small price. Keep independent media alive. Become a Scroll member today!
Our journalism is for everyone. But you can get special privileges by buying an annual Scroll Membership. Sign up today!