Tennis is facing an existential crisis over doping. How will it respond?

As the Australian Open gets under way in Melbourne, the sport is facing a crisis over positive doping tests involving two of the biggest stars in tennis.

Last March, the top-ranked men’s player, Jannik Sinner, tested positive for clostebol, a banned anabolic agent, twice. The substance was quickly traced to a product that was used to treat a cut on the hand of Sinner’s physiotherapist.

The International Tennis Integrity Agency’s (ITIA) independent tribunal cleared^[1] Sinner of any fault or negligence. However, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has appealed that decision, putting Sinner’s future in the sport in doubt. He faces a potential two-year ban if the appeal is successful. It will be heard in April.

Then, in August, Iga Swiatek, a former women’s No. 1, tested positive for a banned substance, trimetazidine (also known as TMZ). She said a medicine she took to help her sleep, melatonin, had been contaminated. The ITIA also cleared^[2] her of any significant fault, giving her a one-month suspension.

Both players steadfastly maintain their innocence. Sinner points out the amount of clostebol found in his system was less than a billionth of a gram^[3].

Given the stature of the two players, the controversial positive tests have upended the tennis world. Many players fear they could similarly fall victim to inadvertent positive tests through contaminated supplements, medications or the actions of their support teams.

Others have criticised what they perceive as a light punishment for Sinner and Swiatek. Nick Kyrgios has gone so far as to say^[4] tennis is “cooked”. This succinctly captures the growing frustration within the sport.

It’s clear that tennis has a problem, which has the potential to tarnish its reputation. So, how will it move forward?

The fairness of ‘strict liability’

As WADA laboratories develop more sophisticated technologies to test athletes, so-called “adverse analytical findings” (or positive tests) are becoming increasingly common.

It’s not just tennis. Figure skating^[5], swimming^[6] and many other sports have been rocked by doping scandals in recent years. These cases have divided athletes, national anti-doping organisations and armchair pundits alike.

Sinner’s case has become a focal point for the treatment of inadvertent anti-doping rule violations under the WADA Code’s “strict liability^[7]” principle.

The principle – effectively an “absolute liability” requirement – mandates athletes are ultimately accountable for any banned substance found in their bodies, regardless of intent. WADA’s appeal in Sinner’s case speaks to this – it is directly questioning^[8] the “no fault or negligence” finding by the tennis tribunal that cleared him of wrongdoing.

While the “strict liability” principle is intended to ensure fairness and circumvent any “dog ate my homework” excuses, the Sinner and Swiatek cases raise questions about athletes who test positive due to inadvertent contamination.

As Michele Verroken, an anti-doping policy expert, and Catherine Ordway (one of the authors here) argued in relation to meat contamination doping cases^[9], the “strict liability” principle does not sufficiently differentiate between intentional doping and accidental exposure.

As we see it, the biggest challenge for WADA is how to achieve its goal of standardising procedures across all sports, while also considering each individual case on its own merits.

Another issue relates to the role of athlete support teams in doping cases.

Sinner fired his physio after his positive test, yet he’s the one who faces a potential two-year ban. The need for better accountability, education and certification for support teams is paramount, as their actions can significantly affect athletes’ careers.

Inconsistencies in approach and punishments

In addition, there are too many contradictions and inconsistencies in how athletes are treated in the system.

Australian swimmer Shayna Jack, for instance, received^[10] a reduced two-year ban for unintentional ingestion of a minute amount of the muscle growth agent Ligandrol. She was branded a drug cheat^[11] and had to raise A$50,000 through crowd-funding to pay her legal bills.

Tennis player Simona Halep, who missed 18 months for a positive doping test from what she claimed was a contaminated supplement, complained^[12] of “completely different approaches” between her case and Swiatek’s. She said:

I sit and wonder, ‘Why such a big difference in treatment and judgement?’ I can’t find, and I don’t think there can be, a logical answer.

And Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva is currently serving^[13] a four-year ban after testing positive for the same banned substance as Swiatek. The vastly different outcomes in these two cases are difficult for everyday sports fans to comprehend.

Some tennis players^[14] have complained^[15] that Swiatek and Sinner were able to skirt harsher punishment because they had the financial means to pay for expensive laboratory analysis and top legal teams.

“Different rules for different players,” 2021 Wimbledon semifinalist Denis Shapovalov wrote on X^[16].

These inconsistencies have the potential to damage athletes’ trust in the system. As Kyrgios put it^[17]:

Tennis integrity right now, and everyone knows it but no one wants to speak about it, it’s awful.

While privacy and confidentiality need to be balanced with transparency, the seemingly inconsistent penalties without clear explanations create enormous harm.

The systemic inequities between high-profile and lower-ranked athletes in cases like these also need to be addressed for WADA to achieve its aim of a truly “standardised” doping control regime.

What happens next?

The Court of Arbitration for Sport is set to deliver^[18] its ruling on WADA’s appeal in Sinner’s case in the coming months. This decision could set a precedent for how inadvertent doping cases are handled, influencing not only tennis, but also other sports.

Yet, systemic reforms are urgently needed, including:

• stronger accountability for support personnel implicated in positive tests (especially involving minors)
• means-tested funding to support athletes seeking to identify the source of minuscule amounts of detected substances (including legal advice)
• better education for athletes and their entourages to understand their shared responsibility.

Any reforms would require funding. Yet WADA is facing a financial crisis after the US government defaulted^[19] on its contribution to the organisation in a stoush over its decision to clear Chinese swimmers to compete at the Tokyo Olympics after they tested positive for TMZ.

While tennis and other sports might not yet be “cooked”, the pressure on WADA to implement reforms is undeniably rising. For tennis and other sports to uphold integrity, the organisation must embrace reforms that balance fairness, transparency and accountability.

References

1. ^{^} cleared (www.itia.tennis)
2. ^{^} cleared (www.nytimes.com)
3. ^{^} less than a billionth of a gram (www.espn.com.au)
4. ^{^} has gone so far as to say (www.dailymail.co.uk)
5. ^{^} Figure skating (www.bbc.com)
6. ^{^} swimming (www.bbc.com)
7. ^{^} strict liability (www.wada-ama.org)
8. ^{^} directly questioning (www.wada-ama.org)
9. ^{^} meat contamination doping cases (theconversation.com)
10. ^{^} received (www.abc.net.au)
11. ^{^} branded a drug cheat (www.facebook.com)
12. ^{^} complained (www.bbc.com)
13. ^{^} currently serving (www.abc.net.au)
14. ^{^} tennis players (www.aljazeera.com)
15. ^{^} complained (www.hindustantimes.com)
16. ^{^} wrote on X (www.nine.com.au)
17. ^{^} put it (apnews.com)
18. ^{^} set to deliver (www.tennisworldusa.org)
19. ^{^} defaulted (www.theguardian.com)