The tennis authorities may have believed they had closed the case on Jannik Sinner’s failed drug tests, but the court of public opinion has served up a very different verdict…See details

When the news broke last week confirming Sinner had tested positive for a potentially performance-enhancing anabolic steroid on two occasions last March, the shockwaves ripped through tennis like a tsunami.

Confirmation that the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) had accepted Sinner’s explanation that clostebol, an anabolic agent that can aid muscle growth, had accidentally entered his system via a product one of his team had used to treat a small wound.

The decision has been met with criticism in the tennis world and sparked a fierce debate over the verdict and the methods used to get to the ITIA position, with former and current players expressing their surprise at the speed at which the case was heard given the recent history of similar cases leading to long bans and lengthy waits for an appeal.

Yet Sinner insisted the quick timeframe was because he could explain the origin of the substance found in his body.”Every player who gets tested positive has to go through the same process,” he said. “There is no shortcut, there is no different treatment, they are all the same process.

“I know sometimes the frustration of other players obviously, but maybe because they got suspended they didn’t know exactly where it comes from, also what substance, but the main reason is where it comes from and how it entered in their own system.

We knew it straight away and we were aware of what happened. We went straight away and I was suspended for two, three days. I couldn’t practice and everything, but they accepted it very, very fast and that’s why (I carried on playing).”

The ITIA and tennis chiefs were quick to suggest the Sinner case is closed, but the events over the last week have confirmed that standpoint was supremely naive.

Announcing details of Sinner’s case days before the US Open ensured this story would become the leading talking point ahead of the final Grand Slam of 2024 and there has been a unified bemusement over the contrast between the way this case was handled compared to similar failed tests in recent years.

Novak Djokovic was predictably articulate as he summed up his mood over the case, with the 24-time Grand Slam champion making it clear that he felt Sinner has received different treatment than players who don’t have the finances to fight the case with an elite legal team.

“There are a lot of issues in the system,” he said. “We see a lack of standardised and clear protocols. I can understand the sentiments of a lot of players who are questioning whether they are treated the same.

“Hopefully the governing bodies of our sport will be able to learn from this case and have a better approach for the future.

“I think collectively there has to be a change, and I think that’s obvious.

“Many players – without naming any of them, I’m sure you know already who these players are – have had similar or pretty much the same cases where they haven’t had the same outcome.

“And now the question is whether it is a case of the funds, whether a player can afford to pay a significant amount of money for a law firm that would then more efficiently represent his or her case.

“I don’t know. Is that the case or not? That’s something really I feel like we have to collectively investigate more, to look into the system and understand how these cases don’t happen, how we can standardise everything so that every player, regardless of his ranking or status or profile, is able to get the same kind of treatment.”

French Open and Wimbledon champion Carlos Alcaraz suggested the case was ‘complicated’ as he also hinted at his bemusement over how his rival’s case has been handled, with 2022 Wimbledon finalist Nick Kyrgios making it clear he has big doubts over the validity of Sinner’s explanation for his positive tests and the subsequent way the case was handled.

Social media reaction has been vitriolic, with all aspects of this story dissected in predictably poisonous words on X and that backlash was inevitable as it is hard to get away from the perception that Sinner was treated differently to other players as he was a higher profile star and could afford better lawyers.

So where are we on a story the ITIA, ATP Tour and tennis chiefs all hoped had been announced and concluded with one statement last week?

Sadly for Sinner, the court of public opinion has not given a verdict in his favour and not because there is a unanimous verdict on his guilt. Far from it.

Only Sinner and his inner circle can explain why clostebol was in his system and whether it could have enhanced his performance and that debate is very different to the bigger issue here.

All who have spoken on this subject appear to be united in the belief that by hiring lawyers who have previously worked with the ITIA and boasting financial firepower to fight his case a player ranked outside of the top 200 would never have has given Sinner a very different outcome.

Leading players may not speak out publicly to suggest Sinner should have been banned from competing until the outcome of his case had been resolved, but that was the fate handed out to players like former world No 1 Simona Halep and British player Tara Moore and it’s hard to explain why Sinner was treated differently.

Former world No 1 Andy Roddick has come under fire for his support of Sinner, but he admits a short ban would have been expected for Sinner while his case was being considered and the bigger issue to emerge from this is why he was allowed to play on after failing drug test in March.

Sinner may have been cleared of any wrongdoing in his failed drug tests, but this story will always be associated with him now and the ongoing fall-out may force the ITIA and tennis chiefs to formalise their response to future failed drug tests.

Whether you are the world No 1 or the world No 1000, a failed drug test should have a uniform response from tennis authorities and such has been the storm around this story in recent days that calls to change the way the similar cases are handled in the future are now deafening.