Tennis Has A Doping Scandal...?

In which we explore the inescapably related question: has Jannik Sinned?

I’m obligated to disclose at the outset that I like Jannik Sinner. I’m a fan of his, and that affects my partiality. I’ll also spoil the whole piece by saying — mainly because of the spate of recent cases specifically having to do with this particular substance among Italian athletes, a country in which it’s widely sold as an ingredient in topical OTC drugs — I’m tempted to take Sinner at his word here. It sure doesn’t sound very good, but it’s plausible at a stretch.¹

What’s roiling the discourse, however, is that the governing body of men’s tennis is taking Sinner at his word as well. They’ve been taking his word for several months, a period during which he’s been allowed to continue competing.

Quick explainer, for those playing catch-up: Jannik Sinner is the #1 men’s tennis player in the world today. This week, news emerged that he had tested positive not once but twice back in March for a banned anabolic steroid called clostebol.

This is the same drug that got San Diego Padres star Fernando Tatis, Jr. banned for half a season, and was once an integral part of East Germany’s storied doping regimen in the 70s and 80s. It’s generally used to fast-track recovery from an injury. We’ll return to that.

No one knew that any of these proceedings were even happening until this week, which, again, is five months later.

Sinner was never suspended and now, once and for all, won’t be. The positive tests were never disclosed until now, no interim punishments were ever handed down, and he’s been going about his business, all his privacy and endorsements intact, up through winning one of the bigger ATP tournaments on the calendar, the Cincinnati Open. I’m sure this was stressful for him behind the scenes, but it stayed behind the scenes.

To many, that’s a clear degree of leniency that wouldn’t be — and, in the past, hasn’t been — granted to a lesser player.

To which I say: yeah! Duh. It’s all well and good to complain about the fact that different standards exist for different people, and I find that more problematic in cases having more to do with the more immutable aspects of one’s identity, but success as a top-flight tennis player doesn’t strike me as one of those things. I’m sorry. It just doesn’t.

Bad analogy, maybe, but it reminds me of how people complain about people like LeBron or Kobe getting friendly calls from refs. It annoys me too, from time to time. Why can’t refs apply an even whistle? Why doesn’t the backup PG get that call on the same drive? Is that evidence of a league-driven conspiracy to ensure their success? Maybe, partly.

Henry Abbott

wrote a great piece about the ins and outs of that phenomenon for ESPN in 2013.

The reason those players get preferential treatment — which ranges from the benefit of the doubt in a 50/50 to more pronounced favor — is because they’re the best at what they do. This is also true of Sinner.

Nick Kyrgios’ suggestion, which struck me as First-Take-caliber analysis, was that Sinner should’ve been banned for two years. I’m guessing that would’ve upset the powers that be in tennis, if one of their foremost rising stars was shelved for two years in which he could be winning Majors and elevating interest in the sport as it exits its Big 3 era.

I’m just not convinced that’s the entire explanation for what’s happened here.

This is the statement from the IATA, the International Tennis Integrity Agency, an organization that would pretty much only come up in this context:

“Clostebol is an anabolic agent prohibited at all times under Section S1 of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List.  Under the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), when a player returns an Adverse Analytical Finding for a non-specified substance, like clostebol, a provisional suspension is automatically applied. The player has the right to apply to an independent tribunal chair appointed by Sport Resolutions to have that provisional suspension lifted.    

As such, after each positive test, a provisional suspension was applied. On both occasions, Sinner successfully appealed the provisional suspension and so has been able to continue playing.” 

That, contrary to many reactions, is how this is supposed to work by the book. Test comes back, player is suspended. Player can appeal, player does appeal. Appeal succeeds, suspension’s lifted.

In previous cases, like Simona Halep in 2022, who tested positive for a substance called roxadustat, the reason her suspension was made public is because her appeal was rejected.

Sinner’s explanation — which, again, doesn’t, sound great — is that his physiotherapist had a cut on their hand, which they treated with the aforementioned OTC drug containing clostebol, and then administered sports massages to Sinner, who thus ingested trace amounts of the drug. Gross! And weird. But, sure. I actually buy it. It’s just silly enough to be true.

And I’m no lab tech, so I guess I accept the explanation that the recorded levels of that substance were in line with the explanation he gave. There’s always the possibility that he was in fact cheating and those levels were higher at other times, but since we don’t have a test to prove that, that’s a leap.

This particular substance has been an issue among Italian players, as Charlie Eccleshare points out for The Athletic:

“Marco Bortolotti, an Italian doubles player with a career-high ranking of No 87, avoided a ban this year when, like his compatriot, it was agreed that he bore no fault or negligence for his [positive test] for clostebol.

Two more Italian players, Matilde Paoletti and Mariano Tammaro, 17-year-olds at the time, tested positive for clostebol in 2021. The same process was followed — mandatory provisional suspension, appeal, investigation, explanation, tribunal. Paoletti was found to have “no fault or negligence” but Tammaro was banned for two years. Different cases had different outcomes. Another Italian, Stefano Battaglino, was given a four-year ban last November after testing positive for clostebol and an independent tribunal finding that the anti-doping rule violations were intentional.”

You could look at that in two ways. I’m interpreting that as cause to believe Sinner, since a few other Italian players have also been found not at fault for exposure to a substance that’s prevalent in their home country.

You could also look at it more skeptically and say to yourself — well, that’s a pretty nice built-in excuse for any Italian athlete who did want to cheat. The same prevalence as a cover story, basically.

It’s tough. More than anything, I wish this hadn’t happened.

As far as what to make of it, I’ll reiterate a point I make a lot around here. Sports are entertainment products. The point — and yes, I’m sorry to report, close to the entire point — is to give fans what they want to watch. However much it frustrates us, we’d do well to always return to those terms whenever we assess anything like this.

So yes, whether you accept Sinner’s explanation or not — and though I think I do, I wouldn’t call you crazy for casting doubt on it — that’s a big part of the equation here. It does not, notably, mean that the ITIA has looked past cases involving stars in the past, like that of Halep, or Maria Sharapova in 2016, or Marin Čilić in 2013, all of whom were competing for or winning Majors at the time of their suspensions. It’s not a hard and fast rule that because you are successful, you are free of accountability.

The rule, such as it is, is that you’re probably more likely to get better treatment, and that sure appears to be the case here.

Sinner has some work to do to endear himself to his critics. That begins with the U.S. Open, where I hope to see him myself here in New York. I’ll be curious to see how he’s received.

Also, This

⏭️ I’ve got a couple of pieces close to ready that I pushed this week in favor of the Sinner news. First, I want to talk about the possibly DOA Venu Sports, and then we’re gonna get into Saudi Arabia’s latest sports buy, because this ain’t about businesspeople. It’s about business, people!

🦬 And you know what might make it into that second one? This news about a former Colorado staffer going out east to try and get the Saudis in on some NIL funds for Coach Prime. I’ve done a lot of reporting on the influx of cash into college sports these days, but damn. That’s a new one.

⚽ I read with interest that the NWSL’s latest CBA included a bunch of provisions the players pushed for, including one that’s a pet fascination of mine: getting rid of the draft. I doubt we’ll ever see this come to a sport like the NBA or NFL, where the drafts themselves are big business at this point, but it remains a confusing element of our pro sports environment. Players don’t get to choose where they play. There are examples like John Elway or Eli Manning, where guys at the top of the draft have enough clout to force their way elsewhere, but for the most part, you’re going to be told where you’re going to work. It is weird.

⚾

Joe Posnanski

recently remarked, on a trip back from St. Louis, that the baseball vibes there were bad. Can confirm! They’re bad. Wednesday night’s walk-off does not paper over the mediocrity of this team, given it only brought them to a lofty 62-64, and the accordingly record-low attendance they’ve been having at Busch lately seems reflective of fans making that realization. I’m especially confused by how the team has handled the case of Jordan Walker, a talented young player who needs playing time if he’s ever going to make good on that talent. Watching Dylan Carlson immediately succeed in Tampa, as has been the case with seemingly every young outfielder who’s left the Cardinals system, continues to frustrate. Management doesn’t account for the relative no-shows from Paul Goldschmidt and Nolan Arenado, though, and I’m not sure their would-be production is something the front office could’ve reasonably replaced. It’s a rough situation all the way around. The nuke button looms.

1. Longtime readers may remember a similar reaction to the Shohei Ohtani scandal. In both cases, if you’re looking for holes, they’re there to be pointed at. They just don’t, in my view, add up to a better explanation than the one we’ve been given.