Grand Slam winners Iga Swiatek and Jannik Sinner have recently tested positive for banned substances.
Their cases have led to questions over the way anti-doping cases are handled and whether players are treated differently.
Two-time Grand Slam champion Simona Halep and British doubles player Tara Moore have, in recent years, spent significant time out of action waiting for doping cases to be heard.
They were critical of the time taken to hear their cases compared to those of Sinner and Swiatek, with Halep saying there were “completely different approaches”.
It is not uncommon for cases to take several months to be resolved, particularly when a player denies knowingly taking a substance.
In such cases, they can produce evidence to disprove or mitigate the failed test. That would prompt further investigation and testing by the ITIA – extending the process.
In Halep’s case, she could not immediately provide evidence as to why she had tested positive.
Hers was a complex case – the original written reasons from the tribunal spanned 126 pages.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas) panel determined Halep’s anti-doping violations were not intentional – but she was found to bear “some level of fault or negligence” for not exercising sufficient care over which supplements she took.
Moore slipped 600 places in the world rankings during her case and, as players serving a doping suspension cannot enter official tennis facilities, ultimately earned money by coaching beginners on public courts in the US.
Moore told The Times in July she believes the total cost of the case will be £200,000, and she has crowdfunded to cover her training and ongoing fees.
Her case, too, was complex.
Twenty-one players were tested in Bogota, and Moore was one of three to return an adverse analytical finding for boldenone – something the independent experts described as “striking” because of how unusual it was.
The panel ruled contaminated meat was the source of Moore’s failed test. The written reasons show how difficult it was for Moore to prove when and where she had ingested the contaminated meat. She had eaten meat in different restaurants in Bogota seven days before the positive test, so it was hard to pin down the source.
Moore did provide evidence showing cattle are administered with nandrolone metabolites and boldenone in Colombia, which the tribunal described as “interesting and powerful”.
The ITIA, however, argued that even if Moore had eaten contaminated meat, she should have been aware of the risk.
The tribunal “firmly rejected” that, by eating meat, Moore had acted with fault or negligence. It added players had received no warnings about the risks, and none were given until “well after” this event.
Are there ‘different approaches’ to tennis doping cases?
