International Tennis Integrity Agency CEO Karen Moorhouse exclusively told Tennis365 that Jannik Sinner and Iga Swiatek received no special treatment compared to players like Simona Halep after their failed doping tests.
Former world number 1 Halep was among those who suggested that there are big differences in the way doping cases are handled in tennis in recent years, with the Sinner and Swiatek cases sparking a huge debate in the sporting community far beyond the tennis world.
Halep was initially disqualified for four years in September 2023, just over a year after testing positive for roxadustat and registering irregularities in her blood passport. The suspension was reduced to nine months by the Court of Arbitration for Sport in March after accepting her explanation of a contaminated supplement.
Meanwhile, it was revealed last month that Swiatek had been disqualified for one month, most of which secretly served as an interim suspension, after testing positive for the angina drug trimetazidine.
The International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) admitted that Swiatek’s positive test was caused by contamination of the regulated non-prescription drug melatonin, which Swiatek took for jet lag and sleep problems.
Swiatek’s case came just three months after men’s world number 1 Sinner was cleared of all blame for two positive tests in March, with several prominent tennis voices questioning why the Italian was allowed to continue playing after failing a drug test.
The Sinner and Swiatek cases have led to accusations that players with higher status and the financial power to challenge results with powerful legal teams have a better chance of arguing their case if they fail a drug test, yet ITIA chief Moorhouse emphatically denied that allegation in a lengthy interview with Tennis365.
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is currently appealing the ITIA’s verdict not to ban Sinner and that appeal will be heard by the Court of Arbitration in 2025, with many observers expecting the Australian Open and US Open to face disqualification from the sport.
Now ITIA chief Moorhouse has responded to claims that Sinner and Swiatek were given preferential treatment, as he insisted that all players are part of the same process. ‘It’s the same rules and the same processes for every player,’ began Moorehouse, speaking to Tennis365 in an exclusive interview.
‘All cases are different and each case is based on individual facts. Cases can also be quite complex, so it’s not fair to look at two titles and make comparisons between two cases as the detail is always the key part.
‘Let’s take Swiatek and Halep. The CAS tribunal found that his (Halep’s) supplement was contaminated. So, only in relation to that discovery, they said nine months (of suspension).
‘That was the court deciding on the objective guilt she had and the subjective guilt she should have had. So what should he have done in relation to the product that was discovered to be contaminated?
‘In relation to Swiatek, the contaminated product was a medicine. So it was not unreasonable for a player to assume that a regulated medicine would contain what is written on the ingredients. ‘Therefore, the level of culpability he could accept was at the lowest level as there was little more he could reasonably have done to mitigate the risk of that product being contaminated.
‘Halep’s contamination was not a medicine. It was a collagen supplement and its level of culpability was found to be higher. ‘The key point here is that it is rare to find two cases that are the same, they will all be based on their particular facts.’
Leave a comment