International Tennis Integrity Agency v Jannik Sinner: Tennis anti-doping and integrity issues in the spotlight as the Australian Open 2025 kicks off
Published on January 15, 2025 by Charles Harrison
January each year is a time for summer-vibes, sunshine, the (dreaded) return to work, and the Australian Open Tennis taking place at Melbourne Park. The lead up to the 2025 Australian Open has seen various headlines – both on and off the Court.
Relevant to this year’s tournament is the ongoing ‘doping saga’ which is ensuring that integrity standards in professional tennis – and professional sports generally – is filling many inches of the back pages.
Background
In March 2024, the ATP’s number one ranked male tennis player, Jannik Sinner, who hails from Italy, twice tested positive to Closbetol, a banned anabolic steroid.
ITIA and charges brought
As of 1 January 2022, ITIA (Professional Tennis’ governing integrity body, the International Tennis Integrity Agency) is responsible for the implementation and management of the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (TADP).
Sinner was charged with two ‘Anti-Doping Rule Violations’ of the TAPD (Article 2.1 and Article 2.2) as a result of Closbetol being found in his system [1]. Closbetol is regarded as a ‘Prohibited Substance’ and ‘strict liability’ (ie. responsibility being attached to the offending player regardless of intent) is intended to apply to such circumstances [2].
Sinner was issued with two pre-charge notice letters by ITIA on 4 April 2024 and 17 April 2024. He was provisionally suspended for short periods of time and successfully had these suspensions lifted [3].
To assess the charges against Sinner, an independent Tribunal from Sport Resolutions was constituted before Dr David Sharpe KC, Tamara Gaw and Benoit Girardin. On 19 August 2024, the Tribunal handed down its Ruling in ITIA and Jannik Sinner (SR/250/2024) (The Ruling) – available here.
As noted in the Ruling, “The Player does not dispute that Closbetol metabolites were in his urine and thus does not dispute that he committed the ADRVs. However, he has provided an explanation for the presence of the Closbetol metabolites in his system, for which he contends there ‘No Fault or Negligence’ on his part [4].” Sinner therefore sought at the hearing that there be no period of ineligibility for him or alternatively that there was a reduction in his period of ineligibility [5].
In effectively mounting a defence of ‘No Fault or Negligence’, Sinner had to provide that he “did not know or suspect, and could not reasonably have known or suspected even with the exercise of utmost caution, that he or she had Used or been administered the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Meth or otherwise violated an anti-doping rule [6].”
The circumstances of Sinner coming into contact with Closbetol, agreed between the parties, are outlined at paragraph 33 – 48 of the Ruling. In effect, Sinner came into contact through the inadvertent actions (via use of a spray and a massage) of his fitness coach, Mr Ferrara, and his physiotherapist, Mr Naldi.
At paragraph 50, the Tribunal accepted on the balance of probabilities the veracity of Sinner’s account regarding his exposure to Closbetol, based upon:
- Documentary and testamentary evidence provided by Sinner;
- Transcripts of ten interviews carried out by ITIA investigators with Sinner and his team; and
- The opinions of three anti-doping experts.
The Tribunal held that there were four legal questions requiring answering [7]:
In making its finding of “No Fault or Negligence” on the part of Sinner, the Tribunal found that any period of ineligibility for Sinner shall be eliminated (ie. no suspension).
On 26 September 2024, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the Ruling to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) [8].The basis of this appeal is to effectively seek a new judgment/ruling in place of the Ruling and for Sinner to be banned from professional tennis for a period of between 1 – 2 years.
On 10 January 2025 (two days prior to the commencement of the Australian Open), CAS confirmed that the hearing of the appeal would take place in a ‘closed door’ hearing on 16 – 17 April 2025 in Lausanne, Switzerland [9].
The findings of the CAS hearing will be final and binding, with the exception of the parties’ right to file an appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal within 30 days on limited grounds [10].
Sinner is not the only star player subject to a recent doping scandal, with the current female world number two and former world number one, Iga Swiatek, suspended for one month following a positive test for the banned substance, Trimetazidine, in August 2024. ITIA accepted the test outcome was caused by a contamination to her sleeping medication. On 28 November 2024, Swiatek accepted a one-month suspension from the sport under the TAPD [11].
Ongoing consideration
It is in this context that the new tennis year, and the first Grand Slam of the year, kicks off shrouded in a level of murkiness and uncertainty over the world’s top ranked male player. Both Nick Kyrgios and Novak Djokovic have raised (legitimate) questions, particularly around the transparency to do with Sinner’s case and whether ‘lesser’ players are afforded the same response from tennis’ governing bodies. “I’m not questioning whether [Sinner] took the banned substance intentionally or not,” Djokovic said at a news conference in Brisbane. “We’ve had plenty of players in the past and currently under suspension for not even testing positive to banned substances…Some players with lower rankings waiting for their case to be resolved for over a year. I’ve been really frustrated … to see we’ve been kept in the dark for at least five months [on the Sinner case][12].”
ITIA v Sinner raises a number of interesting questions and considerations in the anti-doping/integrity space in professional tennis and professional sport generally:
- How to fairly deal with a player’s inadvertent (or otherwise) exposure to a prohibited substance?
- Has Sinner’s exposure to Closbetol resulted in or is likely to result in any material improvement to his athletic/tennis performance?
- What responsibility should a player bear for the negligent/careless conduct of his or her coaching group?
- Will Sinner be stripped of his Australian Open male singles title if he manages to win again in 2025 (as he did in 2024)?
- What is the flow on effect for other players who have versed Sinner, including in the Australian Open, if he is ultimately banned?
- Are higher ranked players afforded preferential treatment by Tennis’ governing authorities?
- Why is the CAS hearing in April 2025 to take place behind ‘closed doors’?
- Are anti-doping cases dealt with consistently across professional sports? And what about at the non-professional level?
The Sinner case is not the first time that anti-doping/integrity issues in tennis have been in the spotlight – prior cases involving Maria Sharapova, Simona Halep, Andre Agassi, Richard Gasquet and Marin Cilic spring to mind – nor will it be the last. For the moment, let us all watch and enjoy some Tennis.
If you have any sports law questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact Charles Harrison, Partner, of Carroll & O’Dea’s Melbourne Office.
[1] The Ruling, [3].
[2] The Ruling, [6].
[3] The Ruling, [7].
[4] The Ruling, [52] – [56].
[5] The Ruling, [7].
[6] TAPD definition of ‘No Fault or Negligence’.
[7] https://www.itia.tennis/media/yzgd3xoz/240819-itia-v-sinner.pdf, [111].
[8] https://www.wada-ama.org/en/news/wada-appeals-case-tennis-player-jannik-sinner.
[9] https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Media_Release_10908.pdf.
[10] https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Media_Release_10908__Opening_.pdf.
