Sinner, piquant response: the whole truth about the doping case.
The most eagerly awaited ruling of all time will not arrive until next spring. That is, the one concerning tennis number 1 Jannik Sinner, who tested positive, during the last Indian Wells Masters 1000, to a doping test. The champion has amply demonstrated the involuntariness of the contamination, but Wada has nevertheless appealed to the Tas in Lausanne, after the Itia ruling, which is why the champion cannot yet say he is completely safe.
2025 will, in this sense, be decisive. If the independent court had acquitted him in the first instance, the Wada has asked for a one- to two-year disqualification for him. The final word will, in any case, be up to the arbitration panel, whose judge, appointed by the agency, will be Ken Lalo. The same one who, some time ago, had “hit hard” in the Sara Errani case, which tested positive, in 2017, for letrozole. There will be the highly experienced Jeffrey Benz, however, to counter the case and defend Sinner, who continues to profess his innocence.
And Karen Moorhouse, who would be Itia’s ceo, is also convinced that he is. In the past few hours, he has stepped in to pull the sides of both Jannik and Iga Swiatek, who late in the season was suspended for a month because of her trimetazidine positivity. To quell the rumors that have been swirling about Sinner for months, the CEO of the independent court felt it was time to say enough is enough.
Sinner, comes the vitriolic retort
Relating to the accusations of favoritism – it has been said repeatedly that Sinner and Swiatek were favored, compared to Simona Halep, he put it this way, “The same rules and processes are applied for every player. ”
“All cases are different and each case is based on individual facts,” he added, “Cases can also be quite complex, so it is not right to look at two titles and make comparisons between two cases as the detail is always the key part. Under the Wada code, all sports have an obligation to impose a provisional suspension when you have a positive test on an unspecified substance.”
“After that, discretion can be used in announcing interim suspensions or not, and there is a range of approaches taken. Tennis,” Moorhouse further explained, ”has made the decision not to announce interim suspensions for at least 10 days. This gives time to test the B sample and gives the player time to challenge the provisional suspension. If such an appeal is successful and filed within 10 days, we do not announce the provisional suspension. With Swiatek and Sinner, they appealed those interim suspensions within 10 days, they were successful, and under our rules, we don’t announce anything at that point. “
