You Gotta Sinner to Be Saved?

If you're a tennis fan by now you've heard that top-ranked Jannik Sinner twice tested positive for Clostebol, an anabolic steroid.

The International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) announced in a statement Tuesday that Sinner bore “no fault or negligence” despite testing positive at low levels from a sample that was collected March 10 at Indian Wells. A further sample collected eight days later also tested positive at low levels. 

When Tommy trolled Sinner

In a statement posted on social media, Sinner said the positive tests stemmed from “inadvertent contamination of clostebol” through treatment from his physiotherapist. (Clostebol acetate ointment has ophthalmological and dermatological uses.) 

The 2024 Australian Open winner also said that his physio had been applying an over-the-counter spray to their own skin -- not on Sinner -- to treat a small wound.

I think it's good news that he wasn't up to anything nefarious. The findings note that the amount was tiny -- "less than a billionth of a gram" -- and would not enhance anyone's performance. 

Fine.

But like many fans, I feel that the real question is this: Why is this just now coming to light? Why was he not given a provisional suspension the second he tested positive? (Others who have been cleared certainly were.) It's hard not to think that he's being treated differently because of his status. Maria Sharapova and Simona Halep -- big names but both on the way down -- were good targets to make examples out of, whereas the reigning No. 1 player being tainted with even a whiff of a doping scandal would be too dangerous for the brand. Any way you slice it, it's not a good look. 

Here's Sinner's statement:

And here's what the ATP had to say:

We are encouraged that no fault or negligence has been found on Jannik Sinner’s part. We would also like to acknowledge the robustness of the investigation process and independent evaluation of the facts under the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (TADP), which has allowed him to continue competing. 

This has been a challenging matter for Jannik and his team, and underscores the need for players and their entourages to take utmost care in the use of products or treatments. Integrity is paramount in our sport.

UPDATE: Mark Petchey lays out how this was 100% fair and done by the rules HERE.  

I'm no expert on this. But he claims Sinner refused to accept a provisional suspension, which:

A. I didn't know was an option

and

B. Am unclear why others in this situation -- most notably Simona Halep but also Robert Farah (who missed a major only to have his "tainted beef" excuse get accepted) -- wouldn't also have refused the provisional suspension while things were sorted out if they also believed they would be cleared.

Bottom line: Something still doesn't sound right -- and I'm not sure if it's Mark's take or something else.

UPDATE 2: Got my answer, although it kind of leads me back to the original thesis that the powers that be were more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt than they were others:

The provisional suspension applies always, but you can appeal to not serve it, and they may grant that if they think you are likely to win your case, as they apparently did with Sinner.

In a surprise to no one, Nick Kyrgios had the most needlessly bombastic response. So bad, in fact, that he's got to be the first tennis player to ever get a "community note" added to one of his posts on the X hate/misinformation platform. 

 UPDATE 3: Jannik Sinner’s doping case and what players’ reaction says about tennis