WADA leaves anti-doping community in amazement with Sinner agreement

World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has made many scratch their heads by its announcement of a Case Resolution Agreement with Italian tennis player Jannik Sinner. Its decision to withdraw its appeal to Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) focuses more on ‘circumstances surrounding this specific case’ rather than on a solid reason for it changing stance.

Back on September 26 last year, WADA confirmed that it had lodged an appeal to CAS against the decision of the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) that found Sinner bear no fault or negligence despite having tested positive twice for banned steroid, Clostebol, in March 2024. But now, WADA has withdrawn its appeal from CAS.

On the face of it, there is nothing wrong if WADA and an athlete against whom there is an allegation of an anti-doping rule violation enter into a settlement agreement under Article 10.8.2 of the World Anti-Doping Code. The questions, though, arise from the change of position – from asking for a one to two year sanction to agreeing to a three-month ban.

If it had to settle for an agreed sanction of three months on the men’s World No. 1, why did it not walk that route until now, well after the completion of the year’s opening Grand Slam tournament? If it was convinced that Sinner’s lapse deserved only a three-month sanction, why did it seek a one to two year ban in the first place?

Curiously, WADA accepted Sinner’s explanation for the cause of the ADRV. It now concluded that it is convinced that the player did not intend to cheat, that his exposure to Clostebol did not provide him any performance-enhancing benefit and took place without his knowledge as a result of negligence of members of his entourage.

It is unclear how WADA arrived at a different conclusion when accepting Sinner’s explanation and coming to an agreement with him.  If it was convinced enough to appeal the ITIA decision and was seeking a one- to two-year ban on Sinner, what new evidence did it consider before scaling the penalty down to a three-month ban?

It also did not spell out the ‘circumstances surrounding this specific case’ that caused it to enter into a settlement agreement when it had challenged the first instance decision with alacrity and a sense of purpose. Did the circumstances have anything to do with Sinner’s position as one of the world’s leading tennis players?

When WADA announced its decision to appeal ITIA’s order before CAS in September, the Agency said  its thorough investigation included advice from WADA accredited laboratories. And that the independent three-member panel decision of no suspension based on ‘No Fault or Negligence’ was rooted in facts and the application of the rules.

Quite interestingly, WADA revealed that ITIA also accepted the Case Resolution Agreement in the Sinner case. It means that ITIA now admits that the tribunal with Dr. David Sharpe, Tamara Gaw and Benoit Girardin, had erred in coming to the conclusion that Sinner did not deserve any period of ineligibility.

Certainly, WADA will be aware of athletes around the world offering similar explanations for testing positive for banned substances – there was no intention to cheat, the banned substance found in the sample did not enhance performance (so, what is such a substance doing in the list of banned substances?) and the doping occurred because of someone else’s fault.

What would WADA tell athletes who have been in similar situations but have been given longer ineligibility periods? How can it prevent this ‘specific case’ from being cited as precedent by athletes and their lawyers when they use the three reason to explain the presence of a banned substance in athletes’ samples?

For instances,  many Indian athletes (barring those who accept doping and come to Case Resolution Agreements with National Anti-Doping Agency) invariably tell disciplinary panels that they had no intention of doping and that the banned substance did not enhance their performance. Some indicate their coaches or friends as the reason for the rule violation.

Yet, few such Indian athletes are let off with only a warning. A vast majority gets substantial periods of ineligibility being imposed on it. Over time, it will be of great interest to see if WADA’s decision to withdraw its appeal to CAS and enter into a settlement with Sinner will inspire at least a few creative athletes and lawyers to come up with similar arguments.