The level of responsibility made the difference in dictating the sanctions in the cases of Romanian Simona Halep and Polish Iga Swiatek, explained Karen Moorhouse, the general director of the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA), in an interview with AFP.
Iga Swiatek and Simona Halep, former world number ones, tested positive for banned substances two years apart, but received drastically different sanctions (a one-month suspension for Swiatek and initially four years, reduced on appeal to 9 months, for Halep).
Asked how she can explain this ‘difference in treatment’, as Simona Halep described it, the head of ITIA replied: ”In Iga Swiatek’s case, the positive test was due to contaminated medications. For us, her level of responsibility (…) was therefore very limited. This explains why she received a one-month suspension. Halep’s case is extremely complex, but ultimately the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) acknowledged that her positive test was due to a contaminated supplement. To determine her level of responsibility, they took into account the nature of the product in question – it was not a medication – and the precautionary measures the player had taken to try to limit the risk of contamination. After weighing these various factors, CAS imposed a nine-month suspension. All decisions (by anti-doping authorities) are based on the nature of the product in question and the precautionary measures taken by the player to limit the risk of contamination”.
Karen Moorhouse also commented on the criticisms received by ITIA after the case of Italian Jannik Sinner, the current leader of the ATP ranking, whose positive test was revealed with a delay of several months, similar to the case of Polish Iga Swiatek.
”We always try to be as transparent as possible, while at the same time respecting the rules. Communication issues around Sinner’s case may have revealed a misunderstanding of our rules regarding the announcement of positive tests and provisional suspensions: people mistakenly believed that we announce positive tests, when in fact we announce provisional suspensions. In both cases, the rules were followed: players contested the provisional suspension within the ten-day period provided in our texts. And because their appeal was successful, the provisional suspensions were not made public. If we had done otherwise, we would have violated our own rules,” Moorhouse explained.
”These cases have sparked healthy discussions. And it is complex to find the right balance between the interest in disclosing a positive test and the interest in keeping it secret until a thorough investigation is conducted. Some sports decide to immediately announce provisional suspensions, such as athletics. Others, especially team sports, never announce them. They wait until (the accused player) is heard. Tennis has tried to find a fair balance with the ten-day rule: if someone appeals (their suspension) within ten days and wins, it is not made public. This is a rule that could be changed,” added the ITIA director.
”It is something we will work on together with the tennis world. There are arguments for and against. But when we examine a case, we always apply the rules in force at that time. So I am very comfortable and confident in how we handled this case (Sinner’s case). And it is good that this case has led to discussions to determine if the rules are still appropriate or need to be changed,” Karen Moorhouse further stated.
ITIA accepted Jannik Sinner’s explanations, who claims that his positive test was due to contamination with clostebol, after a massage by a member of his team. Asked if she will sanction the members of the Italian tennis player’s staff in the future, the ITIA director replied: ”Our rules are based on the World Anti-Doping Code, which includes several offenses that can be committed by a player’s entourage: doctor, coach, agent… But most of the offenses in question involve an intention (to dope). In Sinner’s case, according to the legal expertise we received, there was no justification to pursue anyone from his entourage. There were no violations of the anti-doping rules in tennis, which are based on the World Anti-Doping Code. As part of our training development (regarding anti-doping rules), we truly try to make them accessible to the players’ entourage”.