Jannik Sinner’s doping verdict ‘will be overturned and sanction imposed’

Jannik Sinner appears set to be banned from tennis, with a leading sports lawyer claiming the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) will succeed in its appeal against the International Tennis Integrity Agency’s verdict ( ITIA).

World number 1 Sinner twice tested positive for the banned substance clostebol in March, but the ITIA found ‘no fault or negligence’ on the Italian’s part and he escaped the ban .

Instead, he accepted the player’s explanation that the drug had entered his system during a massage from his physiotherapist, Giacomo Naldi, who had used a spray containing clostebol to treat a cut finger. He then administered the massage without wearing gloves.

Sinner was stripped of his ranking points and prize money for the Indian Wells Open, but was allowed to continue playing.

However, WADA appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), finding that the verdict of absence of fault or negligence was “not correct under the applicable rules”, requesting a suspension of one to two years.

Australian sports lawyer Tim Fuller represented swimmer Shayna Jack during her legal battle after she tested positive for using Ligandrol.

Although it was established that the ingestion of ligandrol was unintentional, the Australian swimmer was still forced to serve a 24-month ban from competition.

Fuller explained why Sinner – whose case will not be heard until after February 12 next year – will likely also be forced to serve a suspension following WADA’s appeal.

“In my opinion, I believe the no-fault-no-negligence decision will be overturned on appeal and a penalty will be imposed,” he said. The Sydney Morning Herald.

Jannik Sinner News

Jannik Sinner and Iga Swiatek drug scandals could lead to big change in world sport

Swiatek & Sinner to Sharapova: 7 Grand Slam champion doping scandals

He added: “I would say this is a very, very unusual case.

“All WADA is doing here is saying that we accept that it was not intentional, but that you bear, or have borne, some degree of fault or negligence for what happened… we say that you, as an athlete, bear ultimate responsibility – which is strict liability – and we say, therefore, that you have demonstrated fault and negligence in your actions.

“And then we’re going to look now at (what) we’re saying is between a medium to high level of fault or negligence, and that’s why they’re asking for (a ban of) one to two years.

“One year would be considered the upper end of the low-fault standard. Zero to 12 (months) is the low fault range.