Doping Jannik Sinner case: Why is Wada settled and who wins? Answered key questions … | Tennis news
After the case of Doping Jannik Sinner ended with the world no. 1 accepted a three -month ban, Sky Sports News’ Geraint Hughes answered the key questions asked from the saga.
How is Jannik Sinner test positive for a forbidden substance?
Sinner tested twice in March 2024 for a banned anabolic steroid called Clostebol that was derived from testosterone.
In accordance with antidoping processes during professional sport, the Sincner provided an antidoping pattern to controllers. He did it first on March 10 during the Indian Wells tournament.
Eight days later, the test outside the competition before Miami Open also returned a positive result. Both sinner tests were less than billion grams, basically a trace.
Sinner was informed of the positive test results and was temporarily suspended from tennis 4 April. He successfully complained about this suspension a day later, and also another short suspension that lasted between 17 and 20 April. Temporary suspensions can be canceled if the athlete shows that it shows that the athlete shows that the athlete shows that an athlete shows that an athlete is probably included in a contaminated product.
What was his explanation and why did he initially spare the ban?
The International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) took the case to an independent court, which heard him in August 2024. Itia processes antidoping and corruption in tennis.
Sinner successfully claimed that two positive tests were the result of contamination. The Italian and his legal team said his fitness trainer bought a spray without a prescription called trophodermin, which is widely used in Italy to treat the cuts. Tofodermin contains clostebol.
Sonner’s Physio Giacomo Naldi cut his finger in early March 2024 and used a spray for wound treatment for several days. He also continued his work with the Syner, massaging him and wrapping sinners in the bandages. Sonner claimed that Naldi was inadvertently polluted him, who did not wear gloves while working on him, and he also claimed that he had no idea that his coach had bought trofodermin or used by Naldi while working on him.
At an independent hearing, three scientific experts said that Sinner’s explanation was convincing. Itia was accepted by the sonner – the explanation that he returned two positive antidoping tests with Clostebol present – the independent court agreed.
It has been revealed that a technical sinner “has no mistake or carelessness” for failed tests. Because of this finding and judgment of an independent court and Iti, the sinner was cleared of any injustice and avoided a doping prohibition.
What happened then?
In September 2024, he was complained of Wada, a world anti -doping agency – who technically launched his appeal against the verdict of a sinner who committed “no guilt or negligence.”
Wada believed that the verdict was not correct according to the valid rules. Itia, which originally investigated and conveyed an investigation into an independent court, acknowledged Wadino’s right to appeal to the Arbitral Court of Sport (CAS) according to the Wada Codex, which states that Wada has the final right to appeal to all anti-doping decisions.
Cas was supposed to listen to the case – Wada vs Janik Sinner/ITf/ITIA – at its headquarters 16th and 17th April. It was necessary to hear privately with the CAS decision, which he announced after the hearing.
Now, because of a compromise agreement far from CAS, that hearing will no longer happen.
Why did this agreement come and who wins?
The settlement is a surprise because Wada made it that way to the judgment of Iti, and also publicly stating that it was an opinion that the sinner had “guilt and negligence” and that the ban was appropriate between one and two years.
Among many, there is an acceptance of the sinner that he did not intentionally use Clostebol to improve his effect and that the trail is less than billions of grams – accepted by Trina of three independent scientific experts – does not represent cheating.
However, Wada’s appeal was based on the implementation of what they see as the rules for all athletes, sports people, their coaches and accompanying ones. Strict responsibility means that it is ultimately an athlete responsible for what enters their bodies or their bodies and that substances that have been clearly pointed out that it is forbidden to use any athlete on the banned Wada list.
Wada and Global Sport seriously take “austerity responsibility”, so he told Wada last September that he was looking for a ban for two years, and now settles for three months is a little surprising.
So who will be happier? Who can claim to have won? Indeed, no one, but maybe the sinner will be easier. It is forbidden and it remains forever in his record – although the ban between now and May does not affect the Italian schedule this year or attempts to win the Grand Slam event. After retaining the title of Australian Open in January, he is eligible to return to the action on the eve of the next major – French Open – in May.
Wada publicly stated that she agreed that the settlement of a quarterly ban is appropriate, but that is a public position. Some within the community antidoping will not be satisfied with this compromise. Wada is conceived as a global leadership, a strong agency, but critics will take it as a sign of weakness.
Its efficiency has already called into question the US Anti -Doping Agency and the US Government. Wada is funded by national governments, and now is the biggest contribution – its budget for 2025. It is just under £ 50m – but earlier this year the US Government seized a payment of £ 2.8m to Wada and because of the Agency’s decision not to take measures against 23 Chinese swimmers included in a highly published scandal with doping.
