Jannik Sinner’s three-month ban may seem like a fair compromise on the surface, but in reality, it’s a weak resolution that undermines the integrity of tennis. The scheduled World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) hearing in April, which could have resulted in a one-year suspension, should have gone forward. Instead, we are left with a settlement that sends mixed messages about the sport’s commitment to fair play and the accountability of its top athletes.
The biggest issue with this outcome is that it reinforces the idea that star players get preferential treatment. Sinner, the world No. 1, tested positive for Clostebol not once but twice within an eight-day span during Indian Wells in March 2024. While the levels detected were low, the fundamental principle of anti-doping regulations is that athletes are strictly liable for what enters their bodies. That’s the standard for everyone, from lower-ranked players to the sport’s biggest stars. Yet, instead of following the established process and allowing an independent tribunal to fully adjudicate the matter, a behind-the-scenes deal has been struck. If this had happened to a lower-ranked player, would there have been the same opportunity for a negotiated settlement? Doubtful.
What makes this case even more troubling is the justification given for the positive tests. Sinner’s explanation—that his physiotherapist was using an over-the-counter spray containing Clostebol on themselves and that he somehow ended up contaminated—raises serious questions. If this is accepted as a valid excuse, then what’s stopping any athlete from pointing to an entourage member’s mistake as a way to avoid full responsibility? WADA’s statement acknowledges that the presence of Clostebol was not intentional and did not provide a performance-enhancing benefit, yet it also admits that an athlete is responsible for the negligence of their team. If that’s the case, then why is the penalty so light? The logic is inconsistent. Either strict liability applies, or it doesn’t. This half-measure of a three-month ban feels like an attempt to appease both sides rather than uphold the integrity of anti-doping enforcement.
Another major issue is the timing of this settlement. The ban conveniently allows Sinner to return in time for the French Open, meaning that he only misses lower-profile events while preserving his ability to compete for another Grand Slam title. If the case had proceeded as scheduled in April, there was a real possibility of a one-year suspension, which would have meant missing Roland Garros, Wimbledon, and potentially the US Open. That kind of ruling would have sent a strong message that anti-doping rules apply equally to all players, regardless of ranking or stature. Instead, the message here is that high-profile players can negotiate their way to a favorable outcome, ensuring they don’t miss the most important tournaments. It’s hard not to be cynical about the optics of this deal.
Moreover, this decision sets a troubling precedent for future doping cases. If an athlete can avoid a full hearing by reaching a settlement with WADA, what incentive is there for transparency and due process? The proper course of action should have been to let the case be heard in April, allowing the evidence to be presented and a ruling to be made based on the merits of the case, not through behind-the-scenes negotiations. The fact that WADA originally appealed the ITIA’s decision to clear Sinner shows that there were real concerns about how this case was handled. Yet, instead of seeing that appeal through, WADA backed down and struck a deal. Why? The public deserves a clear answer, and so far, we haven’t gotten one.
Some might argue that this was a fair compromise because Sinner didn’t intentionally dope and didn’t gain a competitive advantage. But anti-doping rules don’t exist only to catch cheaters—they exist to ensure that all athletes compete on a level playing field, regardless of intent. Strict liability is the backbone of anti-doping enforcement because allowing intent to be a major factor in determining penalties opens the door to endless excuses. If players can blame their team members for contamination and get reduced sanctions, it weakens the entire system. This isn’t just about Sinner; it’s about how the sport handles doping violations going forward.
For a sport that has had its fair share of doping controversies, tennis should have handled this differently. This was an opportunity to demonstrate that no one is above the rules. Instead, the resolution of this case creates a perception problem. It tells fans, players, and future offenders that if you’re a big enough star, there’s room to negotiate your punishment. That’s bad for the credibility of the sport and bad for WADA’s role as the global anti-doping watchdog.
What’s worse is that it’s terrible for the credibility of the game. I’ll let this one image be worth another thousand words of my opinion here:
A Pulitzer Prize-nominated writer, Aron Solomon, JD, is the Chief Strategy Officer for AMPLIFY. He has taught entrepreneurship at McGill University and the University of Pennsylvania, and was elected to Fastcase 50, recognizing the top 50 legal innovators in the world. Aron has been featured in Newsweek, The Hill, Fast Company, Fortune, Forbes, CBS News, CNBC, USA Today, ESPN, TechCrunch, BuzzFeed, Venture Beat, The Independent, Fortune China, Abogados, Today’s Esquire, Yahoo!, ABA Journal, Law.com, The Boston Globe, and many other leading publications across the globe.
Discover more from Today's Esquire
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
