WADA: an offer he can’t refuse.

Sinner Case and the Contradictions of the Anti-Doping System

On February 15, 2025, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) announced that it had reached a settlement agreement with Jannik Sinner, pursuant to Article 10.8.2 of the World Anti-Doping Code. This provision allows athletes to accept a reduced sanction in exchange for WADA waiving further appeals.

As a result, the world No. 1 received a three-month suspension, despite WADA itself confirming that:

• Sinner had no intention of doping.
• The amount of clostebol detected in his system was minimal and provided no sporting advantage.
• The substance was entered in the body accidentally, due to an error by his medical staff.

However, WADA regulations hold athletes strictly liable for the actions of their support personnel, which is why a sanction was imposed despite the lack of intent.

While this decision was seen as a balanced resolution compared to the risk of a harsher penalty, it raises serious questions about the rigidity of the anti-doping regulations, which fail to differentiate between deliberate doping and accidental contamination.

The Incident: A Physiotherapist’s Mistake That Involved Sinner

Jannik Sinner’s positive clostebol test was traced back to an incident involving his medical staff. His personal physiotherapist, Giacomo Naldi, had suffered a skin cut and applied a healing spray containing clostebol to treat the wound.

This ointment was never intended for Sinner and was not applied to him directly, nor was it part of any treatment prescribed to him. However, shortly after using the spray, the physiotherapist conducted a massage therapy session on Sinner, coming into direct contact with the player’s skin.

Through transdermal absorption, trace amounts of clostebol were unintentionally transferred into Sinner’s body. This was not an intentional intake nor an attempt to gain a competitive advantage but rather an indirect and involuntary contamination.

Lab results confirmed that the detected clostebol concentration was extremely low and had no performance-enhancing effects.

Nevertheless, under WADA’s strict liability principle, the presence of any prohibited substance in an athlete’s system automatically triggers a sanction, regardless of the circumstances.

First-Instance Ruling and WADA’s Appeal

Initially, the Independent Tennis Anti-Doping Tribunal (ITIA) fully acquitted Sinner, recognizing that:

• He had taken all necessary precautions to avoid a positive test.
• He could not reasonably foresee or control every action of his medical staff.
• He had acted with maximum caution, carefully selecting his team and enforcing strict anti-doping rules.

However, WADA appealed the decision, citing the strict liability rule under Article 2.1 of the World Anti-Doping Code, which states that any prohibited substance detected in an athlete’s body constitutes an anti-doping violation, regardless of how it was entered the body.

According to WADA, while it was clear that Sinner bore no direct fault, the fact that the positive test resulted from his physiotherapist’s negligence still made him liable for a sanction.

Additionally, WADA invoked Article 10.6.2 of the Code, which stipulates that if some degree of negligence is established, the minimum suspension is two years, with a possible reduction of up to 50%. Under this provision, Sinner faced a potential ban of up to 24 months, with a minimum of 12 months.

Sinner’s legal defense, however, was exceptionally strong, likely arguing that under civil and labor law in most Western countries, an employer cannot be held liable for the personal health decisions of an employee.
In general, civil law takes precedence over sports regulations, meaning that a sporting rule cannot override a fundamental principle of civil law.

Faced with this legal challenge, WADA took an unusual step (though within its discretionary powers) by offering Sinner a three-month suspension, carefully timed to avoid impacting any Grand Slam events and ensuring that he would not lose titles or prize money.

At this point, Sinner faced a difficult choice:

1. Pursue a lengthy legal battle before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), risking a much harsher sanction.
2. Accept WADA’s offer, resolving the case with a three-month suspension without loss of rankings, titles, or prize money
3. —and without admitting guilt (see below).

Sinner chose the second option, stating:

“This case had been hanging over me now for nearly a year and the process still had a long time to run with a decision maybe only at the end of the year,” Sinner said in a statement. “I have always accepted that I am responsible for my team and realize WADA’s strict rules are an important protection for the sport I love. On that basis I have accepted WADA’s offer to resolve these proceedings on the basis of a three-month sanction.”

His lawyer, Jamie Singer, added:

“It is clear that Jannik had no intent, no knowledge, and gained no competitive advantage. Regrettably, errors made by members of his team led to this situation,” Singer said.

Consequences of the Suspension

Sinner’s suspension began on February 9 and will end on May 4, allowing him to return just in time for the Rome Masters 1000 and the French Open (Roland Garros).

From a competitive standpoint, the impact is moderate. He will miss six tournaments:

• Doha
• Indian Wells
• Miami
• Monte-Carlo
• Munich
• Madrid

However, since he had already lost the ranking points from Indian Wells 2024, Sinner will forfeit a total of 1,600 ATP points but is still expected to retain the world No. 1 ranking upon his return.

The biggest issue concerns his training, as until April 13, he will not be allowed to train in any facilities affiliated with tennis federations or associations.

A Regulation in Need of Reform

The Sinner case highlights the urgent need for a revision of the World Anti-Doping Code. The current rules fail to distinguish between intentional doping and accidental contamination, leading to indiscriminate punishments, even for athletes who have committed no wrongdoing.

This incident raises critical questions:

• Should an athlete be punished for a mistake made by a member of their staff?
• Is the strict liability principle truly fair?
• Why do some athletes receive harsher sanctions for similar or even less severe violations?

If WADA does not undertake a thorough review of its regulations, the risk remains that innocent athletes will continue to suffer disproportionate sanctions, jeopardizing their careers and reputations.

Sinner will return to competition on May 5, but his case will remain a landmark precedent exposing the flaws in the anti-doping system.

Legal Point: Admission of Guilt? Not Exactly

The extrajudicial agreement between WADA and Jannik Sinner cannot be considered a plea bargain in a technical sense under English law.

1. Plea Bargain under English Law

In the English legal system, a plea bargain is an agreement between the prosecution and the defendant, in which the latter pleads guilty in exchange for:

• A reduced sentence,
• The withdrawal of certain charges,
• A lesser offense classification.

It is a mechanism strictly within criminal law and must be approved by a judge.

2. Nature of the Agreement Between WADA and Sinner

The agreement between Sinner and WADA concerns a disciplinary sports matter, not a criminal proceeding. Specifically:

• It does not involve any admission of guilt by the athlete.
• It is a negotiated resolution aimed at avoiding formal proceedings before sports adjudicatory bodies (e.g., CAS – Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne).
• It does not result in a conviction or criminal sanction, but rather the amicable resolution of an investigation.

3. Comparison Between Plea Bargain and Sports Settlement Agreement

4. Conclusion

The agreement between WADA and Sinner is not a plea bargain under English law, but rather a settlement agreement, which is common in disciplinary and civil disputes. A plea bargain requires an admission of guilt and takes place in a criminal law context, whereas a sports agreement is a negotiated resolution without any formal acknowledgment of responsibility.

All Photos by ©Luce Martini