Jannik Sinner and anti-doping bans in tennis: How players can mitigate risks
Jannik Sinner’s reappearance at the Italian Open guarantees attention, following his three-month suspension for failing two “in-competition” drug tests, during and eight days after Indian Wells last year, for the banned anabolic steroid clostebol.
Ranked world No1, the three-time Grand Slam winner’s return to competitive tennis at his home tournament this week is a reminder of the legal and reputational risks arising from anti-doping violations.
Sinner was charged with an anti-doping rule violation by the International Tennis Integrity Agency, which enforces the World Anti-Doping Code 2015 through the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (TAPD).
According to the TAPD, a first in-competition rule violation carries a four-year ban, reduced to two if proven unintentional. The ban could be eliminated if the player proves “no fault or negligence”, meaning that they couldn’t have reasonably known or suspected they had used a prohibited substance.
Sinner and his team never denied the substance was in his system. Their argument was that his fitness coach purchased an antiseptic spray which contained clostebol.
While Sinner was at Indian Wells, his physio accidentally cut his hand and used the fitness coach’s antiseptic spray daily to treat the cut. The physio massaged Sinner without wearing gloves or washing his hands, and the substance entered Sinner’s system through the cuts. They claimed Sinner bore no fault or negligence.
Initially, this version of events was accepted by the independent tribunal. The World Anti-Doping Agency appealed the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland and reached a case resolution agreement with Sinner for a three-month ban, which elapsed on Sunday.
This case, while resolved, highlighted numerous issues faced by professional athletes.
Sinner’s reputation and integrity have been called into question, including by fellow player Novak Djokovic, and future potential sponsors and partners may be wary.
Many commercial deals with brands contain anti-doping clauses which enable them to terminate the agreements when an athlete is alleged to have committed a doping violation, and Sinner may find some of these clauses triggered.
Stars like Jannik Sinner ‘must be proactive’
The ease of cross-contamination is clear. Sinner was contaminated by his physio, but the same could happen when sharing equipment with others who have used a prohibited substance, touching friends and family who have used a prohibited substance, or using untested supplements.
A recent study commissioned by Sport Integrity Australia showed that, of 200 supplements tested, 35 per cent contained Wada-prohibited substances. Athletes assume the ingredients listed in supplements are accurate, but this is not always true.
So, what can be done? Better education is needed about the risks associated with supplements, including via seminars, clubs, online resources, and support teams.
Athletes can further mitigate risks by using Informed-Sport Certified supplements, staying up-to-date with substances on the prohibited list, and ensuring their staff is fully trained. Instructing a sports lawyer with a specialism in doping is also a no-brainer.
In the event of an anti-doping rule violation notice or charge, athletes should talk to a legal specialist. Sinner and Wada reaching an agreement on a three-month ban came thanks to the specialist anti-doping knowledge of his lawyers, who will also be working hard to ensure as few commercial deals are impacted as possible.
Athletes and their teams need to proactively reduce risks. An apology unfortunately won’t get you out of trouble. Regardless, Sinner will hope that it is his tennis, rather than his lawyers, doing the talking at the Italian Open.
Angélique Richardson is an Associate at Lawrence Stephens.