Has Sinner sinned?
What a terrible headline but has he?
We’re 3 days away from the last major tournament of the year but already we have drama in the tennis world. Interestingly, it’s one of the least dramatic people on tour who is causing it. Somebody whose emotional meltdown consists of gently kicking the wall of a tennis court as if not to hurt it. A few days ago, current world number 1 on the men’s side Jannik Sinner announced that earlier this year during Indian Wells he was tested positive for low levels of the anabolic steroid Clostebol. Clostebol can be found in ointments and sprays used to treat cuts or scrapes. Used differently, it can also promote muscle growth. How low were said levels? We will get into it.
What I want to talk about briefly, before I delve into the case, is the frenzy the tennis world plunged into after the news were made public. Having social media around for awhile now I sometimes expect people to have learned the lessons a territory of a direct mouthpiece into the world should have taught us by now. Do not judge before you know all the facts. Do not comment unless you have read a few different sources on the subject matter. And just in general, wait a few hours (better even, a few days) before the frenzy has died down and you can look at all aspects with a cool heart and a clear mind. Of course, I then remember that humankind is not rational.
In the late 60s and early 70s the likes of Tom Wolfe, Norman Mailer and Joan Didion had revolutionised the art of reporting. Rather than trying to portray the world as it is they introduced the self into their pieces, portraying the world as they see it not as it is. By doing that, they exposed a built-in mistake in supposedly objective journalism. As long as a human being sits on the other side of a typewriter (or computer, let’s not be nostalgic) there is no objectivity. They might be very good at hiding the self but it will always shine through if you read closely. New Journalism was born.
I will give you an example. I started this piece by saying that one of the least dramatic people on tour has caused drama in the tennis world. At first, I thought I just marvelled at the irony hence why I opened this way. Looking at it now - with a cool heart and a clear mind (and my editor’s glasses on) - it clearly showed sympathy towards Sinner which instantly stains a supposed piece of objective reporting. Now, let’s not kid ourselves, this newsletter has never been about objectivity in the first place but in this case I really wanted to try to present the facts and have people decide for themselves.
The crux is, the new journalists were still fantastic journalists. They were still extraordinary reporters, trained in the craft of watching, observing and learning. Social Media has blurred the lines of journalists and “regular” people and selves are inserted everywhere, sometimes without knowing the basic skill set it requires to make an informed stance. That being reading as much as possible on it before coming to conclusions.
I have tried to do that. At the same time being fully aware that I will have missed things without intending to. Here is what we know (or think we know as of August 23):
The amount found in Sinner’s sample was “less than a billionth of a gram” according to his lawyers. A tribunal of three experts who are presented the sample and the athlete’s explanation, not the athlete’s name in question ruled independently from each other that explanation and amount found in sample were plausible, one of the experts saying that “the amount found in the sample could not have been performance enhancing”. Sinner’s explanation was that his physiotherapist who had cut his finger on a scalpel used a steroid cream on his wound before massaging Sinner who suffers from Psoriasis which is how the steroid cream entered Sinner’s system. Again, this explanation along with the sample seemed plausible to the 3 experts who were presented the details separately and without knowing whose sample and explanation they were looking at.
The steroid cream in question is forbidden in many countries. In Italy, however, where Sinner and his physiotherapist are from, it is an over-the-counter cream you can buy at the pharmacy. There have been similar cases reported concerning Italian athletes before.
This is the case at hand.
What are the controversies surrounding it which had the tennis world in a frenzy?
From Sinner’s perspective the most severe issue is and this is probably true for anybody who has ever been associated with a doping case, many people will not read the details, will maybe just scan a headline and decide for themselves that Jannik Sinner was using performance enhancing drugs. There is nothing he or anybody else can do about it.
Another point of discussion was the question of how Sinner and his team were able to resolve the matter as quickly as they did and why the entire thing became public only now - 4 months later. The tribunal is ready to go the moment both parties have their witnesses and evidence in order. Apparently, Sinner and his team appealed the provisional suspension on the same day of learning that he was tested positive. As long as the player appeals the provisional suspension (which normally is part of a pending doping case) before the provisional suspension has been put into place the provisional suspension will not come into effect while the decision is pending. Lawyers were put in place who handed in the explanation cited above in a timely manner. That’s why Jannik Sinner was able to continue playing.
Why was there no announcement until now? A case will only go public until the matter is heard in full by a tribunal which was concluded this week. If you are interested about this in detail please check out Richard Ings (@ringsau on X) who himself has prosecuted around 500 doping cases in his career and can go more into depth than I can and has done so already on his X page.
Basically, Jannik Sinner had capable lawyers by his side right away who knew the rules and were able to utilise them to protect their client to the best of their abilities. Do other players have that? Technically, yes. Realistically, of course, a player ranked around 200 probably doesn’t have the financial means to do the same. Or the cultural knowledge for that matter, the network and the phone numbers to call whoever needs to be called in a moment as this.
Here lies another point of contention. Sinner hired a high-profile lawyer who specialises in sports law. One of the lawyer’s clients (or former clients, so much is unclear) is or was the ITIA, the International Tennis Integrity Agency, whose main responsibility is to ban players from playing when they have either failed doping tests or are caught in match fixing. While from Sinner’s perspective one can see how he would hire somebody who knows the rules inside and out (you wouldn’t hire a real estate attorney to handle your divorce) there could be a conflict of interest at hand here - which, by the way, the tennis world is riddled with.
The other thing I want to do is just place some insider knowledge within the realm of rumours and accusations I have seen flying around.
“His Australian Open title should be revoked, he was probably positive there, too.”
At major tournaments from quarterfinal stages on every single player will be tested. Still 50% of players who lose in the third round or in the round of 16 (drawn by lot) will be tested. At least that’s how it was when I still played 2 years ago and considering the recent cases they have not dialled it down, more likely the opposite.
“He probably pulled out of the Olympics because the IOC promised to be particularly strict with doping tests this time around.”
Again, at big tournaments from quarterfinal stages on everyone gets tested. Jannik, who has only lost 6 matches this season, would have likely been tested in every other tournament he’s played this year.
The WADA (World-Anti-Doping-Agency) still has the right to appeal the decision made on Jannik Sinner’s behalf.
I have tried my utmost to present the facts as they are, to leave emotion or sympathy out, trusting that the readers (you!) will make their own decision on what and who they want to believe. It is not easy. No matter how neutral of a sentence I try to write, there is always a little bit of Andrea in it. I trust that you will be able to look past her. And I also trust that next week we can go back to fun things again.
Things that make me happy:
Anyone who is a tennis fan should go watch the final stages of qualifying at a major tournament at least once if the opportunity arises. The most emotional moments you will see at a tennis tournament happen here. My personal favourite I witnessed was Aussie Li Tu saving two match points and qualifying for the first time for a major ever, playing bravely and committed in the last few games of the match. I’ll admit, I’m a cryer. I admit, I cried.
Things that make me unhappy:
I still haven’t had a Honey Deuce. Buuuh.
May you have a wonderful weekend and if you run into me at the US Open, please let’s have a drink together and discuss the pitfalls of life. I can’t wait!
Your truly, Andrea
Eva Lys made the qualifying, too 🎉 wuup wuup
Minor correction: the Clostebol was in spray, not cream, form.