ITIA CEO responds to claims Swiatek and Sinner received favorable treatment

Karen Moorhouse, CEO of the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA), insisted that Iga Swiatek and Jannik Sinner had not received favorable treatment in their doping cases compared to d others like Simona Halep.

The ITIA’s handling of Swiatek and Sinner’s cases has sparked much controversy and divided opinions in the tennis world. Some have accused the body of treating the two men better than others because of their place at the top of tennis.

Swiatek was suspended for a month after testing positive for the banned substance trimetazidine. She was provisionally banned on September 12 and had ten days to appeal before the case was made public.

The Pole appealed on September 22 and had the provisional suspension lifted after additional tests proved her explanation that the melatonin tablets she had purchased were contaminated with the banned substance without her knowledge.

Swiatek was then given a one-month ban, from which she had already benefited mainly on a provisional basis. This means she is free to return to professional tennis at the start of the 2025 season without any restrictions of any kind.

Sinner tested positive twice for the banned substance clostebol at the Indian Wells Open in March. Within minutes, the Italian identified the source of contamination as accidental to his physiotherapist after receiving massages.

The ITIA cleared him after a five-month private investigation, but The World Anti-Doping Agency appealed the decision at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and wants to see Sinner banned for one to two years.

Several current and former players have spoken out against the way the ITIA handled the cases of Swiatek and Sinner. This includes Halepwho initially received a four-year ban from the ITIA before having it reduced to nine months by the CAS.

In the comments to Tennis365Moorhouse tried to explain why there was no preferential treatment in either case and that the rules were followed. She compared Swiatek’s case to Halep’s to try to demonstrate the differences.

“It’s the same rules and processes for every player. All cases are different and each case is based on individual facts. Cases can also be quite complex, so it’s not right to look at two headlines and making comparisons between two cases as the detail is always the key element.

“Let’s take Swiatek and Halep. The CAS court concluded that his (Halep’s) supplement was contaminated. So just regarding that conclusion, they said nine months (suspension). It was the court that decided fault objective that she had committed and the subjective fault that she should have had. So, what should she have done in relation to the product which turned out to be contaminated?

“As far as Swiatek is concerned, the contaminated product was a medicine. It was therefore not unreasonable for a player to assume that a regulated drug would contain what is stated on its ingredients. »

“Therefore, the level of fault she could accept was the lowest, as there was little more she could reasonably have done to mitigate the risk of contamination of this product.” Halep’s contamination was not medicine. It was a collagen supplement and it was found to have a higher level of fault.”

Moorhouse also discussed Sinner and Swiatek’s appeal within ten days to avoid the matter becoming public, a rule that appears to be misunderstood by many who claim to have received preferential treatment.

“Under the WADA Code, all sports have an obligation to impose a provisional suspension when a test is positive for an unspecified substance. After that, they can decide at their discretion whether or not to announce provisional suspensions and various approaches are adopted.

“Tennis has taken the decision not to announce a provisional suspension for at least 10 days. This allows time to test the B sample and gives the player time to challenge the provisional suspension. If this appeal is successful and lodged in the 10 days, we do not announce the provisional suspension.

“With Swiatek and Sinner, they appealed these provisional suspensions within ten days, they were successful and according to our rules we are not announcing anything at this stage. Although these rules are in place in tennis, our job is to follow them. which we did in both cases.