Are there ‘different approaches’ to tennis doping cases?

Iga Swiatek and Jannik Sinner, both of whom have won Grand Slam tournaments, have lately tested positive for substances that are prohibited.

Questions have been raised regarding the manner in which anti-doping cases are handled and whether or not players are treated differently as a result of their cases.

Simona Halep, a two-time winner of the Grand Slam tournament, and Tara Moore, a British doubles player, have both been out from competition for a considerable amount of time in recent years while they await the proceedings of doping accusations.

When compared to the instances of Sinner and Swiatek, they were critical of the amount of time that was spent hearing their cases. Halep stated that there were “completely different approaches” to hear their cases.

It has been vehemently disputed by the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA), which is responsible for handling doping allegations, that there are any discrepancies in the way players are treated.In situations when a player denies knowingly taking a substance, it is not unusual for cases to take several months to be settled. This is especially true at the beginning of the process.

In situations like this, they have the ability to produce proof that either refutes or mitigates the failed test. Because of this, the ITIA would be required to do additional research and tests, which would lengthen the process.

In the case of Halep, she was unable to offer proof right away to explain why she had tested positive.

The original written reasons from the tribunal in her case were 126 pages long, indicating that it was a complicated matter.

The anti-doping offenses that Halep committed were not purposeful, according to the panel that was appointed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas). However, the panel did find that she was responsible for “some level of fault or negligence” since she did not exercise adequate care over which supplements she consumed.

Due to the fact that players who are serving a drug ban are not permitted to attend professional tennis facilities, Moore ultimately made money by coaching beginners on public courts in the United States. During her case, Moore fell 600 places in the world rankings because of her doping suspension.

Moore stated in an interview with The Times in July that she is of the opinion that the whole cost of the case would be two hundred thousand pounds, and that she has crowdfunded in order to afford her training and recurring expenses.

Equally complicated was her situation.

Moore was one of three players who returned an unfavorable analytical finding for boldenone during the testing that took place in Bogota. The independent specialists referred to this discovery as “striking” due to the fact that it was so unusual. Twenty-one players were tested that day.

The panel came to the conclusion that Moore’s failed test was due to the presence of tainted meat. Moore’s stated justifications demonstrate how difficult it was for her to provide evidence that she had consumed the tainted meat at the time and location in question. Due to the fact that she had consumed meat in a variety of Bogota restaurants seven days before to the positive test, it was difficult to identify the primary source of the meat.

Moore did provide data that demonstrated that cattle in Colombia are given nandrolone metabolites and boldenone. The information was thought to be “interesting and powerful” by the panel.

On the other hand, the ITIA contended that Moore ought to have been aware of the risk even if she had consumed meat that was associated with contamination.

In its decision, the panel “firmly rejected” the notion that Moore had acted negligently or with fault because he had consumed meat. Players had not been provided with any warnings regarding the potential dangers, and none were provided until “well after” this incident had taken place.

The four incidents are analyzed by BBC Sport, with a focus on the distinctions and similarities between them.