Reigning Australian Open champion and world number one, Jannik Sinner, has accepted a three-month ban for doping following a settlement with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).

Sinner tested positive for clostebol, a prohibited substance, in March 2024 but was cleared of wrongdoing by an independent tribunal. Clostebol is a steroid that can be used to build muscle mass.

The Italian said that the substance entered his system unintentionally after a massage from a member of his support team. WADA accepted the player's explanation and said that Clostebol did not provide him with any performance enhancements. However, the agency stated that Sinner had to bear the responsibility of the incident and should serve a period of ineligibility. 

Sinner is the second high-ranked player to receive a doping ban in recent months. Iga Swiatek, Polish top seed and current World No. 2, got a one-month suspension in November after testing positive for Trimetazidine (TMZ), a drug primarily used as a heart medication. 

Poland's Iga Swiatek celebrates winning her final match against Italy's Jasmine Paolini. Photo: Reuters/Yves Herman
Poland's Iga Swiatek. File photo: Reuters/Yves Herman

What happened in Swiatek's case?
Swiatek tested positive for TMZ on September 12, 2024. In a case similar to that of Sinner, an independent agency ruled that the drug entered her system unintentionally. She tested positive as a result of contamination of another medication she had been taking to address jet lag and sleep issues. Investigations found that her medicine was contaminated with TMZ, but she was still held responsible for her 'unintentional actions' and had to serve a ban. 

Why banned if unintentional?
In both incidents, the players did not intentionally consume the banned substance. However, according to the World Anti-Doping Code, a set of rules followed by WADA, an athlete bears responsibility for the entourage's negligence, whether intentional or not. 
Swiatek's negligence was her fault, while in the case of Sinner, his support staff were to blame. 

Both the players received a provisional suspension when notified about anti-doping violation, but were able to successfully appeal once the cause of contamination was successfully established. 

These incidents point to the complexity of WADA rules on players' intentions. Should the rules allow the players to compete even if it is clear that they are not at fault? WADA must address these issues to ensure that athletes do not lose their playing time for something that is out of their hands.

TAGS

The comments posted here/below/in the given space are not on behalf of Onmanorama. The person posting the comment will be in sole ownership of its responsibility. According to the central government's IT rules, obscene or offensive statement made against a person, religion, community or nation is a punishable offense, and legal action would be taken against people who indulge in such activities.