The Jannik Sinner case and his consequences for the anti-doping system

Singer, as he has now told the British BBC, was found in a “tricky” situation. A tribunal had acquitted its client in the first instance a few months ago. Sinner had believed that its physiotherapist had treated his own wound with a remedy in which the anabolic steroid closebol was included. The supervisor then massaged the supervisor, the substance unknowingly smuggled into his body before the positive doping test occurred. Some found a roughly as credible as contaminated tortellini, but Sinner was so convinced of his innocence that he was also not worried when the World-Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) called the International Sports Court (CAS) in September 2024. The Wada doubted that Sinner hit “no fault or no negligence”. And with substances such as Clostebol, the rules are clear: one to two years of lock.

Until the Wada apparently approached Sinner’s team in the days before February 14th, well, exciting proposal: she wanted to withdraw her opposition. Sinner has to accept a reduced lock, over three months. The 23-year-old only stood out-why being sanctioned when he was innocent? His lawyer then convinced Sinner as follows: “If we do not accept the deal, the Wada will push for a lock of one year in front of the CAS, and nobody can predict what the judges will do there.” Three months lock, should Sinner take it quickly, would also run in mid -May – the French Open.

Since the Wada announced its agreement with Sinner on February 15, not only the tennis world has been upset. “The system is a closed circle. His alleged individual decisions are actually a guise for tailor -made deals, ”said the Ptpa community, representative of many professionals. And even if the Wada and Sinner’s team point out that they have strictly followed all the rules, it is becoming increasingly clear that the rules may be the problem – or the way the Wada, which is heavily, sometimes serves these rules.

Anti-doping processes can quickly become a huge act. There is the official protocol that is reminiscent of a letter soup. Sports associations commission different agencies to control professionals (such as the NADA or the International Testing Agency); Still other tribunals negotiate the cases (at Sinners it was the tennis integrity unit ITIA). Wada as a global supervision, the national anti-doping agencies or the athletes can then bring the cases to higher instances such as the CAS. All of this can quickly become so expensive that athletes accept locks because they cannot afford the procedures.

Since 2021, a abbreviation has been installed in the World Anti-Doping code, the central paragraph of the Wada, point 10.8.2.: The case resolution agree, a kind of extrajudicial comparison. Lars Mortsiefer, board member of the German Nada, basically considers this to be a “good, absolutely important instrument”; So even try that in many own controversial cases you check whether you can loosen them with this tool. On the one hand, the athletes bring it “at eye level” with the rule huts; He exchanges more directly with them, can often better present his position, defend himself better. This in turn leads to greater acceptance because an athlete experiences how “the anti-doping organization wants to set a reasonable sanction based on its lecture,” says Mortsiefer. This could also deviate from the usual catalog of sanctions – instead of one to four years, one can, at least in theory, also agree on a day or eight years.

The Wada only commented in more detail later – and informed astonishing things

In such a prominent case as Sinner, in which the views polarize to this day, Mortsiefe considers an orderly procedure to be more suitable as before the CAS: with a lecture, counter -lecture, judgment. Nevertheless, if negotiations are being negotiated so discreetly, it must be “transparent and understandable”, says Mortsiefer, the decision is publicly justified. In the case of the ice hockey player Yannic Seidenberg, whom Nada ended by agreement at the time, this was done. In the Sinner case, he couldn’t see it that way.

If the WADA had announced in September 2024 that Sinner was also liable for the mistakes of his entourage and was therefore appropriate for a year, she stated on February 15: “Based on the unique facts of this case, a three -month lock is an appropriate outcome .. ” What exactly makes this case so “unique” that suddenly three months should be permitted, the Wada did not explain. And if she was not willing to insist on a longer lock in front of the CAS, according to the Sinner’s lawyer, shouldn’t you become traded with Sinner?

Wada’s judiciary Ross Wenzel only commented in more detail last Sunday when the BBC refer to – and amazed. First of all, Sinner’s unification is one of around 70 now, which the agency has made under the new regulation since 2021. The lock is based solely on the time of the agreement, not the tennis calendar. Nothing “fundamental” has also changed as the Wada sees the case, Wenzel said. But if you had negotiated before the CAS, it would have had to strictly use the Wada set of rules: either acquittal or at least one year of lock because an athlete is also responsible for substances in his body, which should have reached there through the skin of his physiotherapist. The scope to adapt the sanction flexibly is currently only one anti-doping agency as part of the case resolution agree.

“The scientific feedback that we received,” continued Wenzel, then made it necessary, because: It was recognized that “there can be no deliberate doping here, no microdosing. This case was a million miles away from doping. ” This feedback, the WADA only writes on SZ request, has been obtained from both its own scientists and external experts. The Wada does not answer exactly when this happened. It also remains unclear why the agency in autumn 2024 was still convinced of a lock in front of the CAS at least one year before it was now satisfied with three months.

For Nada board member Mortsiefer, there is still a hole in this chain of arguments: If, as the Wada describes, there is no doping violation, “then an athlete should be acquitted”. In other words, not be blocked for three months either. Mortsiefen could even understand if the WADA deliberately let the three -month lock expired in front of the French Open, “because for reasons of appropriateness, one would like to bury as few effects as possible. That would be an acceptable justification in weighing up the individual case. But again: we need this explanation in public. ” In the end, the impression should not arise: “An athlete with the greatest financial resources can get the cheapest sanction for him.”

This is exactly what seems to get stuck with some: that since 2021 there has been this passage in the Wada rules that makes deals possible. The Russian tennis professional Daniil Medledew had recently smugly summed up: “I hope that from now on everyone can discuss with the wada and defend themselves like Jannik Sinner.”

For the Wada it is the next deep blow since it became known shortly before the games of Paris that she had accepted a controversial acquittal for 23 positively tested Chinese swimmers. The national anti-doping organizations also felt this loss of trust, says Lars Mortsiefer: “As Nada, we are the organization in Germany, which tries to bring athletes closer to anti-doping work every day. It is very important to communicate clearly and comprehensibly. We don’t always succeed, but we are – that is very important to me – very close to what the athletes tell us. I would like that internationally more widespread: that athletes will be taken well in every respect. ”

His colleague Travis Tygart, Managing Director of the American agency Usada, recently formulated the prevailing feeling in the scene: “Who”, asked Tygart in the New York Times“Actually monitors the watchdog?”