The globe’s leading tennis player, Jannik Sinner, has expressed his shock and frustration at the possibility of a suspension being reinstated, following the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (Wada) initiation of an appeal against a verdict of “no fault or negligence” for his two positive tests in March. In the US Open earlier this month, Sinner emerged victorious, even though he twice tested positive for an anabolic steroid in March. But it was on the 20th of August that an independent tribunal cleared him of any fault, deciding not to enforce any sanctions.
The verdict was influenced by Sinner’s explanation that his physio inadvertently introduced the prohibited substance into his body during a massage session, citing the use of a spray to treat a cut on their finger which contained the steroid. However, Wada has lodged an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport, seeking to enforce a suspension of up to two years on the 23-year-old Italian. Despite being filed on Thursday, the appeal was only revealed on Saturday morning.
Post his triumphant match against Roman Safiullin at the China Open quarter-finals with a score of 3-6 6-2 6-3, Sinner stated his dismay and astonishment at the appeal, disclosing that he hadn’t expected it. He speculated that perhaps the goal was to ensure everything was correctly positioned.
Wada has released a statement expressing their belief that the decision of “no fault or negligence” was not in line with the applicable regulations. The agency is pushing for a ban period ranging from one to two years, yet they are not pursuing any disqualification of existing results, save for what the initial tribunal has already proposed.
The International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) has acknowledged Wada’s decision to challenge the ruling of no fault or negligence in Jannik Sinner’s case, which was initially issued by an independent tribunal appointed by Sport Resolutions on 19th August 2024. As per the World Anti-Doping Code, Wada possesses the ultimate right to contest all such decisions. After conducting a comprehensive investigation process that led to an agreed upon set of facts, the case was referred to an independent tribunal from the ITIA to determine the level and type of sanctions, due to the unique circumstance and the absence of a comparable precedent.
The procedure was conducted in compliance with global anti-doping regulations. Still, the ITIA recognises and upholds Wada’s prerogative to contest the independent tribunal’s conclusion at the Court of Arbitration for Sport.