Jannik Sinner’s lawyer has hit back at “unfair” criticism over the world tennis number one only receiving a three-month ban in a doping case settlement.
Lawyers for the Italian player successfully argued it was not a case of cheating but contamination from a massage that was responsible for two positive tests last year for a banned anabolic steroid.
Sinner has won two Grand Slams – the US Open and Australian Open – since testing positive. And there have been claims from 24-time Grand Slam champion Novak Djokovic that the majority of players do not feel that punishment is fair and “there is favouritism”.
But Sinner’s lawyer, Jamie Singer, told Sky News: “I think the players are always hawks when it’s another player involved and possibly doves when it’s them.
“It is very unfair. He [Sinner] has been through the process from the very beginning by the book. And there’s no favouritism. It just so happens that these circumstances have been very unusual.
“He says he feels that he’s been treated quite harshly.
“The players have quite a platform, but they don’t necessarily have the opportunity to investigate and get into all the details that are out there. So they make their opinions known. But perhaps the facts do need a bit more investigation.”
The background to the case
Having overturned a provisional – initially secret – suspension last April, Sinner was cleared to play on by the International Tennis Integrity Agency.
They accepted Sinner’s mitigation that Clostebol – a substance derived from testosterone – came into his system via a spray his physiotherapist had used on a cut.
But a higher body, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), appealed believing Sinner should face a sanction.
Then, with a hearing looming at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), a deal was cut by Sinner’s legal team to avoid the minimum one-year ban he could have faced.
“He sees it from completely the other perspective that he had an independent tribunal that found there was no sanction to be applied,” Mr Singer said in an exclusive interview.
“And yet why is he accepting three months later? So it took a little bit of time to persuade him that it was actually the right thing to do – to accept WADA’s offer rather than going all the way to a CAS case.
“He says he feels that he’s been treated quite harshly, but he accepts that everyone’s entitled to their own opinion.”
Past tests being looked at
In a separate discovery on Tuesday, the world’s top anti-doping lawyer revealed to Sky News that Sinner’s past tests were examined again.
WADA general counsel Ross Wenzel said: “WADA went back and looked at every single one of Mr Sinner’s samples for the 12 months before the two positives in March of last year to see whether there was any even indication, albeit not meeting the identification criteria, but any suspicious indication of this substance in any of those samples.
“And the answer from all of the labs, and this is a large number of samples, was that there was not. So I think whatever people say and think about this case, it is not a doping case or a cheating case.”
Read more from Sky News:
Passengers describe plane crash escape
Huge sinkhole forces high street closure
Follow our channel and never miss an update
And there was an insistence that Sinner did not get off lightly and a convenient resolution was not provided to enable a return to play in time for the French Open in May.
‘Right and fair outcome’ – WADA
“A three-month sanction was the right and fair outcome in this case, given these very, very unique facts,” Mr Wenzel said.
“The ability to agree this case resolution agreement at any stage of the process is something that is clearly set out in the rules.
“It’s something that WADA has done on I think 67 occasions since this provision came into effect about four years ago… and it is something that we felt was the right outcome in this case.”
Be the first to get Breaking News
Install the Sky News app for free
After seeing a bandage, Sinner had apparently sought assurances from his physio that no prohibited substance was used to treat the cut. Only after the bandage was removed was a spray applied that led to Sinner testing positive.
Mr Wenzel said: “This was, if you like, almost the paradigm case for agreeing a resolution, because the minimum sanction [a one-year ban] would, in our view, and I think many would agree with this, have been unfair given the specific facts of this case.”
