Jannik Sinner doping case: Why did WADA settle and who wins? Key questions answered…

After Jannik Sinner’s doping case ended with the World No 1 accepting a three-month ban, Sky Sports News’ Geraint Hughes answers the key questions to have arisen from the saga.

How did Jannik Sinner test positive for a banned substance?

Sinner tested positive twice in March 2024 for a banned anabolic steroid called Clostebol which is derived from testosterone.

In line with anti-doping processes throughout professional sport, Sinner provided a sample to anti-doping controllers. He first did so on March 10 during a tournament at Indian Wells.

Eight days later an out-of-competition test prior to the Miami Open also returned a positive result. Both Sinner’s tests amounted to less than a billionth of a gram, in essence trace amounts.

Sinner was informed of the positive test results and was initially provisionally suspended from tennis on April 4. He successfully appealed that suspension a day later and also another short suspension that lasted between April 17 and 20. Provisional suspensions can be overturned if an athlete demonstrates that a contaminated product was likely involved.

What was his explanation and why was he initially spared a ban?

The International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) took the case to an independent tribunal, which heard it in August 2024. The ITIA handles anti-doping and corruption in tennis.

Sinner successfully argued that the two positive tests had been as a result of contamination. The Italian and his legal team said that his fitness trainer had purchased an over-the-counter spray called Trofodermin widely used in Italy to heal cuts. Trofodermin contains Clostebol.

Sinner’s physio Giacomo Naldi cut his finger in early March 2024 and used the spray for several days to treat the wound. He also continued his work with Sinner, massaging him and wrapping Sinner’s feet in bandages. Sinner argued that he was inadvertently contaminated by Naldi, who had not been wearing gloves when working on him, and also argued that he had no idea his trainer had bought Trofodermin or that Naldi had used it while working on him.

At the independent hearing, three scientific experts said Sinner’s explanation was plausible. The ITIA accepted Sinner’s explanation that this was how he had returned two positive anti-doping tests with Clostebol present – the Independent Tribunal agreed.

Technically Sinner was found to bear “no fault or negligence” for the failed tests. Because of that finding and ruling from an Independent Tribunal and the ITIA, Sinner was cleared of any wrongdoing and avoided a doping ban.

What then happened?

It was appealed in September 2024 by WADA, the World Anti-Doping Agency – which technically launched its appeal against the ruling of Sinner having committed “no fault or negligence”.

WADA believed that the ruling was not correct under applicable rules. The ITIA, which originally investigated and passed on the investigation to an Independent Tribunal, acknowledged WADA’s right to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) under the WADA Code, which states WADA has a final right to appeal all anti-doping decisions.

CAS was due to hear the case – WADA vs Jannik Sinner/ITF/ITIA – at its headquarters on April 16 and 17. It was set to be heard privately with the decision by CAS communicated after the hearing.

Now, due to the compromise agreement away from CAS, that hearing will no longer happen.

Why has this agreement come about and who wins?

The settlement is a surprise as WADA had made such a point of disagreeing with the ITIA ruling and also publicly stating it was its opinion that Sinner did bear “fault and negligence” and that a ban of between one and two years was appropriate.

There is an acceptance among many that Sinner did not deliberately use Clostebol to enhance his performance and that the trace amounts of less than a billionth of a gram – accepted by a panel of three independent scientific experts – do not constitute cheating.

However, WADA’s appeal was based around enforcement of what they see as the rules for all sportsmen, sportswomen, their coaches and entourages. Strict liability means that ultimately it is the athlete who is responsible for what goes into or onto their bodies and that substances which are clearly highlighted as banned on the WADA prohibited list must not be used by any athlete.

WADA and global sport take the notion of “strict liability” seriously, so for WADA last September to say it was seeking a ban as long as two years and now settle on three months is a little surprising.

So who will be happier? Who can claim to have won? In truth, no one, but perhaps Sinner will be the more relieved. He has been banned and that stays on his record forever – although a ban between now and May doesn’t hugely affect the Italian’s schedule this year nor his attempts to win the Grand Slam events. Having just retained his Australian Open title in January, he is eligible to return to action ahead of the next major – the French Open – in May.

WADA publicly stated it agrees that the settlement of a three-month ban is appropriate, but that’s a public stance. Some within the anti-doping community will not be happy with this compromise. WADA is meant to be the global lead, a strong agency, but critics will see this as a sign of weakness.

Its effectiveness has already been called into question by the US anti-doping agency (USADA) and the US Government. WADA is funded by national governments and the USA is the largest contributor – its budget for 2025 is just under £50m – but at the beginning of this year the US Government withheld a £2.8m payment to WADA over the agency’s decision not to take action against 23 Chinese swimmers involved in a much-publicised doping scandal.