Jannik Sinner's doping saga is set to dominate the Australian Open

Three years ago, the world's number one male tennis player was embroiled in controversy over alleged visa fraud; this year, the world's number one male tennis player is caught up in a highly contentious doping case. Welcome to the 2025 Australian Open, where two instances of doubt and controversy seem destined to overshadow the year's first Grand Slam event.

Should the world's number one male tennis player, Sinner, be banned? Is tennis once again being unfair by favoring star players and applying double standards to those less prominent? For years, tennis has struggled with match-fixing in lower-level events and the issue of underpaid players striving to reach the top ranks, while top stars earn millions of dollars.

Now, the same questions arise again, just with a different theme: do top stars receive preferential treatment and have more resources to navigate doping cases? The ATP doesn't want you to think so. ATP Chairman, former professional player Andrea Gaudenzi of Italy, stated this week that he doesn't believe there are double standards in tennis that resulted in Sinner receiving so-called preferential treatment, despite many professionals suggesting otherwise and potentially contrary evidence existing.

These comments have come from the likes of Novak Djokovic, one of the greatest players of all time, over the past six months and are also fueled by underlying discontent led by returning Australian star Nick Kyrgios. Although Kyrgios—who is recovering from a career-threatening wrist injury—has barely played in the past 18 months, he remains a lightning rod for controversy and continues to be outspoken.

Recently, he said of Sinner: "If I played him at the Australian Open, I would have everyone in the stadium against him. I'd make it an absolute riot." Sinner, for his part, has declined to engage in a war of words with Kyrgios. "To be honest, I don't think I have to answer this question… I don't want to respond to what Nick or any other player says," Sinner said on Friday. Kyrgios is also unlikely to spark that "riot." The two are on opposite ends of the draw, and would only meet in the final, and given Kyrgios’ injury problems and the external pressures facing Sinner, bookmakers would likely make punters write their own odds.

While Kyrgios’ accusations towards Sinner may be malicious, he may have a point or two. Sinner insists he has done nothing wrong in the doping case, and tennis's own anti-doping body—the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA)—which follows the principles of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)—has also cleared him of any wrongdoing. Sinner, the defending champion at the Australian and US Opens, twice tested positive for trace amounts of a substance in March, which he says was due to his physio cutting his finger and treating it with a spray containing the banned steroid clostebol, which he obtained from Sinner's fitness coach. Then, the substance transferred to Sinner through his skin when his physio massaged him.

No one believes Sinner intentionally took the banned substance. An independent tribunal convened by the ITIA found that Sinner had "no fault or negligence in the case and therefore no ban was imposed." The physio's account of what happened matched Sinner's. Sinner parted ways with his physio and coach before the US Open. Whether you believe Sinner or not, the fact is trace amounts of clostebol were found in his system, and although the ITIA found Sinner at no fault, WADA is challenging this at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, with the case to be heard on April 16-17 this year.

WADA’s view appears to be that Sinner did have some fault or negligence. “WADA considers that the conclusion of ‘no fault or negligence’ is incorrect under the applicable rules,” a statement from the governing body reads. “WADA is seeking a ban of one to two years. WADA is not seeking to have any results disqualified, other than the sanction already imposed by the initial tribunal.” A WADA spokesperson also told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that this was the first time they were aware that they were appealing an ITIA ruling. If Sinner were proven to have taken the substance intentionally, the usual penalty is a four-year ban. When players can prove they did not take the substance intentionally, the ban is reduced to two years.

As part of the Tennis Anti-Doping Program (TADP), the "no fault or negligence" provision stipulates the possibility of further reduction or complete elimination of the two-year ban under Article 10.5 of the TADP. The TADP requires players to “not know or suspect, and could not reasonably have known or suspected, even with the exercise of utmost caution, that they had used or been administered a prohibited substance.” The next level up from the potential two-year ban that could be imposed on Sinner following the Court of Arbitration for Sport hearing is “no significant fault or negligence,” which requires players to “establish that their fault or negligence, when considered in the totality of the circumstances and taking into account the criteria for no fault or negligence, was not significant in relation to the anti-doping rule violation.”

Sinner is now facing a difficult period, and he knows it. Waiting until April will be long, and the doping cloud will hang over him wherever he goes. “You think about it, for sure,” Sinner said. “If I tell you that I forget about it, I am lying. It has been on my mind for a while now, but it is what it is.” The cloud also hangs over the sport. Sinner’s exoneration, along with Polish star Swiatek receiving a one-month ban for taking contaminated melatonin, cast a shadow over the sport in 2024. Two former and current world number ones caught up in doping cases is not a good look.

But they both got favorable outcomes. Not everyone does, and doping penalties are inconsistent, as tennis faces a new possibility of double standards after years of claiming top players, particularly male players, get preferential treatment with the umpires. Two-time Australian Grand Slam doubles champion Max Purcell is unsure how long he will be sidelined after being banned for taking more than the 100ml limit of vitamins. His violation was not for a banned substance, but, as Tennis Australia said in a statement, “a prohibited method.”

But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Players like Swiatek and Sinner clearly have the capacity to hire legal and scientific teams at a moment's notice. Lower-ranked players do not. Former head of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA), Richard Ings, believes this needs to change. “Players higher in the rankings have the capacity to hire legal and scientific teams to deal with these cases,” Mr. Ings told the 7.30 program. “Lower-ranked players are facing the anti-doping juggernaut with absolutely no chance.” “Every athlete should have the same level of representation in these cases.”

While the case of British doubles player Tara Moore, who was left in debt after fighting to clear her name from a contaminated meat charge, is more the norm, another case is very similar when it comes to Sinner's case. In 2023, the ITIA banned lower-ranked Italian player Stefano Battaglino, who tested positive for trace amounts of clostebol at an ITF event in Morocco in 2022. Battaglino put forward a similar argument to Sinner, that the cream was transferred through the skin by a tournament physio. He ultimately lost his case, and was banned for four years after appealing to the ITIA and the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Unlike Sinner, he was unable to contact the physio, and in fact, the tournament physio never responded to letters of request from his legal team. The ITIA also found that clostebol was not present in Morocco and deemed it unlikely that the physio would not have washed their hands after treating another patient before treating the player as Battaglino claimed. The independent tribunal found that Battaglino failed to prove the source of the clostebol, and therefore deemed the anti-doping rule violation to be intentional, and he was banned for four years, with the Court of Arbitration for Sport upholding that ruling in September 2024, when the court found Battaglino’s arguments did not meet the necessary standard to overturn or reduce the penalty.

The entire process lasted from July 2022 until September 2024, when the Court of Arbitration for Sport upheld the ITIA’s decision. Sinner’s case will take less than half that time. Mr. Gaudenzi does not believe Sinner being world number one played a part in the ITIA finding him at no fault. “I am 100 percent sure there was no preferential treatment. The process was conducted by the ITIA following the rules,” he told AAP ahead of the Australian Open. Not everyone believes this, and it is not just lower-ranked players, with some taking to social media to voice their opinions on the Swiatek and Sinner cases.

Djokovic is one of the leaders calling for a more equitable process, as the Serbian star believes it is not a good look. “As I understand, his case was cleared pretty much the moment it was announced, but I think it's been five or six months since the news came to him and his team. So … I understand the feelings of many players who are questioning whether they are being treated equally. Many players, without naming names, had almost identical cases but different outcomes, and now the question is whether it is about the money, whether a player can afford a huge law firm to represent his or her case more efficiently,” Djokovic said. He reiterated this in Brisbane in January.

“Some players that are lower ranked are waiting for their cases to be resolved for over a year,” Djokovic said. “I’m just questioning the way the system is working, and why certain players are not getting the same treatment as other players. Maybe there is some ranking reason behind it, or some players have more financial support and a stronger legal team to handle these cases.” These are legitimate questions that tennis must answer. After all, if the greatest player by the numbers in the history of the sport is concerned about the sport’s doping policies, maybe those in charge need to listen.