In August 2024, less than 24 hours after lifting the Cincinnati Open title, tennis star Jannik Sinner was cleared of any wrongdoing after testing positive for the banned substance clostebol, not once but twice.
The ruling from the independent tribunal convened by Sport Resolutions concluded that the contamination was inadvertent, stemming from a treatment his physiotherapist provided without Sinner’s knowledge.
While Sinner and his team have expressed relief at this outcome, it raises critical questions about the consistency and transparency of anti-doping rulings across the sport.
A Tale of Two Cases: Jannik Sinner vs Tara Moore
Sinner’s case was resolved remarkably swiftly. After testing positive in March, the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) conducted a thorough investigation, which led to Sinner’s exoneration by August. During this period, Sinner continued to compete, maintaining his position as the world’s top-ranked player.
Contrast this with the case of British tennis player Tara Moore. In 2022, Moore tested positive for Boldenone and Nandrolone, both anabolic steroids, after competing in a WTA tournament in Colombia. Moore claimed that the substances entered her system through contaminated meat—a defence that the tribunal eventually accepted.
However, unlike Sinner, Moore faced an extended provisional suspension, which sidelined her from competition and caused significant disruption to her career.
So, why the disparity? While Moore’s explanation was ultimately accepted, the process was drawn out, and she was suspended for a significant period, unlike Sinner, who played on while his case was under review. The different substances involved (Boldenone and Nandrolone for Moore vs. Clostebol for Sinner) and the context (meat contamination in Colombia vs. accidental transfer from a physiotherapist) might have contributed to the different timelines.
Possible Counterarguments:
- Complexity of the Substances: Moore’s case involved two substances, requiring more extensive scientific analysis. This complexity could have contributed to the longer resolution time.
- Multiple Positive Tests at the Same Event: Moore was not the only player at the Colombian tournament to test positive for Boldenone, which might have necessitated a more thorough investigation.
- Moore’s Status: As a lower-ranked player, Moore may have received less priority in the resolution process than a top-ranked player like Sinner. However, it’s also possible that her case required more time due to its complexity.
- Quantities Detected: In Jannik Sinner’s case, the quantity of Clostebol detected in his samples was described as “trace amounts” and specifically noted to be less than a billionth of a gram. This extremely low amount could be why the cases were treated differently. The quantities found in Moore’s sample are not widely disclosed.
Why do you think Tara Moore’s case took 19 months with a provisional suspension, yet Sinner’s was fast-tracked under the radar?
Simona Halep: Preferential Treatment and Unanswered Questions
Simona Halep, a former world number one and two-time Grand Slam champion, also found herself embroiled in an anti-doping controversy.
After testing positive for the banned substance Roxadustat following her first-round loss at the 2022 US Open, Halep faced a four-year ban from tennis imposed by an independent disciplinary panel. The panel, chaired by Nicholas Stewart KC, was convinced Halep had intentionally cheated.
However, Halep appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which reduced her ban to nine months and allowed her to resume her career immediately.
The CAS concluded that while Halep had been negligent in not rigorously checking her supplements, hers was a contamination case, and she had not intentionally cheated. This ruling directly contradicted the independent panel’s earlier conclusion.
The controversy deepens as CAS has yet to publish the reasoning behind its decision, which raises serious concerns about preferential treatment.
The ITIA’s investigation had found no trace of Roxadustat in the supplements Halep claimed were contaminated, and the mathematical analysis by the ITIA’s expert suggested that the levels found in her system could not be explained by contamination alone.
To overturn the ITIA’s findings, CAS would most likely have to disregard the pharmacokinetic evidence.
This delay in transparency and the apparent contradictions between the ITIA and CAS findings fuel suspicions that Halep’s status and influence may have contributed to her more lenient treatment. The lack of published reasoning leaves the public and the tennis community questioning the integrity of the ruling and whether all athletes are truly held to the same standards.
The Role of Anti-Doping Organizations: ITIA, CAS, and WADA Under Scrutiny
The ITIA’s handling of Sinner’s case, which involved accepting his explanation and swiftly resolving the matter, contrasts sharply with the more protracted and opaque processes seen in other cases. While this might suggest efficiency in Sinner’s case, it raises concerns about consistency. Are all athletes receiving the same level of attention and urgency, or does an athlete’s status influence the process?
CAS’s role in Halep’s case is particularly troubling. The delay in publishing the full reasoning behind Halep’s reduced ban, coupled with the apparent contradictions in the scientific evidence, undermines trust in the transparency and fairness of anti-doping rulings.
Marketability and the Inner Circle: Does Status Influence Outcomes?
Jannik Sinner is not just any tennis player—he’s currently ranked world number one and has quickly become one of the sport’s most marketable stars. This raises a critical question: does an athlete’s marketability and status influence how their doping case is handled?
Sinner’s swift exoneration contrasts sharply with the experiences of lower-profile athletes like Tara Moore. It’s hard to ignore the possibility that being in the “inner circle” of the elite, marketable athletes could lead to more favourable treatment.
The delay in publishing CAS’s decision in Halep’s case further adds to the perception that high-status athletes might receive preferential treatment.
While Sinner’s case facts may indeed exonerate him, the broader issue is whether every athlete receives the same level of fairness and consideration regardless of status.
The Clostebol Crisis in Italy: A Wider Context
The case of Jannik Sinner is part of a more significant and troubling trend involving the anabolic steroid Clostebol, particularly within Italian sports. Historically used in the East and West German doping programs, Clostebol has resurfaced in Italian athletics, with numerous athletes testing positive over the past decade.
For example, footballer Fabio Lucioni tested positive in 2017. He was suspended for one year, while two Italian junior tennis players, Matilde Paoletti and Mariano Tammaro, also tested positive within three months of each other in 2021. Additionally, Olympic athletes like Orsi Toth and Roberto Caputo missed the 2016 Rio Olympics due to Clostebol-related doping violations.
Clostebol is still legally available in Italian pharmacies, most commonly in the form of Trofodermin cream. Despite its legitimate medical uses for treating skin conditions, the drug is marked with a doping warning on its packaging. Nevertheless, the prevalence of Clostebol cases in Italy suggests either widespread negligence or a more insidious use of the substance to gain an illicit advantage in sports.
The high number of Clostebol cases in Italy raises serious questions. Are these instances of genuine accidental contamination, or is there a darker side to this trend, with the drug being used similarly to testosterone creams for performance enhancement? The fact that Clostebol creams are less potent but still have anabolic effects adds to the complexity of these cases.
Similar Cases
Marco Bortolotti
Marco Bortolotti’s case, like Jannik Sinner’s, ended with the player being exonerated due to a finding of “No Fault or Negligence.” However, while both athletes tested positive for Clostebol, the circumstances and the process leading to their exoneration present notable differences.
Key Similarities:
- Substance Involved: Both Sinner and Bortolotti tested positive for Clostebol, an anabolic agent that is prohibited at all times under WADA regulations.
- No Fault or Negligence: In both cases, the players successfully argued that they did not knowingly ingest the substance and provided credible evidence that the contamination was accidental. This led to findings of “No Fault or Negligence,” which meant neither player faced a period of ineligibility.
Key Differences:
- Source of Contamination: Bortolotti’s positive test came from an in-competition sample at the ATP Challenger event in Lisbon. Scientific analysis determined the source of Clostebol, validating Bortolotti’s claim of involuntary contamination. In Sinner’s case, the contamination was traced to a cream applied by his physiotherapist, a source similarly validated by the tribunal.
- Scientific Validation: In Bortolotti’s case, the ITIA sought scientific advice from the WADA-accredited laboratory in Montreal, which performed calculations and confirmed the plausibility of Bortolotti’s explanation based on the concentration detected in his sample. This reliance on scientific validation played a critical role in exonerating him. Sinner’s defence also involved a scientific explanation, but his case centred more on the clear documentation of the chain of contamination involving his physiotherapist.
- Outcome and Sanctions: Although both players were cleared of fault, Bortolotti’s results, prize money, and ranking points from the Lisbon Challenger were disqualified. This disqualification was due to the principle of strict liability, which holds that any positive test automatically disqualifies results from the event in which the test was conducted. However, no subsequent results were disqualified for either player, allowing them to continue their careers without further penalty.
Stefano Battaglino
The case of Stefano Battaglino, in contrast to that of Jannik Sinner, ended with a significantly different outcome despite both athletes testing positive for Clostebol. Battaglino, unlike Sinner, was unable to establish that his positive test result was due to accidental contamination, leading to a harsh penalty.
Key Similarities:
- Substance Involved: Both Sinner and Battaglino tested positive for Clostebol, an anabolic steroid banned under WADA regulations at all times.
- Anti-Doping Violations: Both cases involved charges under articles 2.1 and/or 2.2 of the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (TADP), which relate to the presence of a prohibited substance in an athlete’s sample and the use of such a substance, respectively.
Key Differences:
- Source of Contamination: Sinner’s defence successfully traced the source of contamination to a cream applied by his physiotherapist, with clear documentation and credible evidence supporting this claim. In contrast, Battaglino claimed the contamination occurred through a massage received during a match in Morocco, but he could not definitively link the Clostebol in his system to this source.
- Burden of Proof: The tribunal found that Battaglino could not provide sufficient evidence to support his claim of accidental contamination. The lack of concrete proof and the inability to rebut the presumption of intentionality led to a severe penalty. In contrast, Sinner’s detailed and well-supported defence enabled him to meet the burden of proof, resulting in his exoneration.
- Outcome and Sanctions: While Sinner was cleared of significant fault and faced no suspension, Battaglino received a four-year ban.
Mariano Tammaro
The case of Mariano Tammaro also involved a positive test for Clostebol.
Key Similarities:
- Substance Involved: Both Sinner and Tammaro tested positive for Clostebol, which is banned at all times under WADA regulations.
- Defence Strategy: Both athletes claimed that the presence of Clostebol in their systems was due to accidental contamination rather than intentional doping.
Key Differences:
- Source of Contamination: Sinner’s case involved contamination through a cream applied by his physiotherapist, which was scientifically corroborated. Tammaro, on the other hand, claimed that his positive test resulted from a single application of Trofodermin spray by his father to treat a wound. While Sinner’s defence was accepted with significant evidence, Tammaro’s account was viewed with scepticism by the tribunal due to inconsistencies in the narrative.
- Burden of Proof: Sinner successfully demonstrated the source of contamination with detailed evidence, leading to a finding of no fault or negligence. In contrast, Tammaro’s defence did not satisfy the tribunal, which found that the evidence provided did not fully explain the presence of Clostebol in his system, resulting in a two-year suspension.
- Outcome and Sanctions: While Sinner was cleared of fault or negligence and faced no suspension, Tammaro was handed a two-year ban from competition.
A Call for Transparency and Equality in Anti-Doping Rulings
Jannik Sinner’s statement after his exoneration emphasised his relief and commitment to adhering to the ITIA’s strict anti-doping rules. He acknowledged the importance of these rules in protecting the integrity of the sport, a sentiment echoed by his legal team.
However, the disparities in how doping cases are resolved—illustrated by the experiences of Tara Moore, Simona Halep, and others—suggest that not all athletes are treated equally.
The inconsistency in the speed and manner of these rulings and the lack of transparency sometimes call into question the organisations’ credibility.
As fans, athletes, and stakeholders in the sport, we must demand greater transparency and accountability from anti-doping bodies. The rules should be applied consistently, regardless of an athlete’s status, marketability, or connections. Only then can we ensure that the sport remains fair and that all athletes compete on a level playing field.
References and Further Reading:
Winner, winner, clostebol Sinner? What is your take on this latest doping case in tennis? As a fan, are you suspicious because the ATP kept this secret for months while promoting Sinner as the new face of tennis? Let me know in the comments.