Jannik Sinner might face some bad news about his doping situation, with a top sports lawyer suggesting he could be suspended by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
In 2024, Sinner had an amazing year, winning two Grand Slams and even grabbing his first ATP Finals title in Turin. He also helped Italy win the Davis Cup again.
But things took a turn when he tested positive for clostebol at Indian Wells Open twice, casting a shadow over his achievements.
| Name | Age | Points | Stats 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
| it Jannik Sinner | 23 | 15,405 | 33 - 3 |
Sinner shared how shocked and scared he felt upon learning about the positive tests. The International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) later cleared him after five months of investigation, but he lost ranking points and prize money from Indian Wells. Fans might wonder if this will affect his future games.
Potential Suspension:
Despite wanting to move past this ordeal, WADA appealed the case, claiming Sinner should take more responsibility for the test results than ITIA decided. Both agencies agree that clostebol entered his system accidentally through his physiotherapist; however, WADA believes Sinner is still partly to blame.
The appeal hearing date remains uncertain but won’t happen before February 11th since other hearings are already scheduled until then.
Opinions vary on whether Sinner deserves suspension. Nick Kyrgios thinks any player testing positive should be banned for two years no matter what happened. Meanwhile, Darren Cahill defends Sinner vigorously while Italy’s Davis Cup captain calls suspending him “one of the biggest injustices in sports history.”
Australian sports lawyer Tim Fuller predicts WADA will succeed in getting a suspension despite acknowledging it’s an unusual case: “In my opinion I believe that the no fault or negligence decision will be overturned on appeal and a sanction will be imposed.”
Fuller explains that WADA accepts it was unintentional but insists athletes hold ultimate responsibility under strict liability rules: “All WADA are really doing here is saying we accept that it is unintentional but you bear…a certain degree of fault or negligence…”
He suggests they’re looking at mid- to high-range levels of fault leading them to seek one- or two-year bans: “One year would be deemed…high end low fault standard.”
Fuller’s insights don’t guarantee suspension yet may heighten anxiety levels as appeals loom ahead—what do you think?
