This article was originally posted on Northeastern Global News by Tanner Stening.
The tennis world is buzzing with controversy this week after it was revealed that Jannik Sinner, the men’s top-ranked player, twice tested positive for a banned substance this year — but wasn’t suspended. Fresh off his win at the Cincinnati Open, Sinner took to social mediato say that in April authorities found trace amounts of clostebol, an anabolic steroid that can be found in some over-the-counter ointments and sprays in some countries, in his blood after an episode of “inadvertent contamination.”
After an extensive investigation, the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) accepted the 23-year-old Italian’s explanation, saying he wasn’t at fault and thus allowed him to continue playing — though he had to fork over $325,000 in prize money and some 400 ranking points as a result of the positive tests. An independent panel of experts echoed the ITIA’s findings, noting that the trace amounts of the drug (less than a billionth of a gram) “would not have had … any relevant doping, or performance-enhancing effect upon the player.”
A source of controversy
As there have been doping suspensions in tennis in recent years, outrage over the situation was expected — particularly as the investigation took place behind the scenes without the public’s knowledge. But in a world where there are ample legal methods that could give a player a competitive advantage, it’s often the doping rules themselves that are the source of controversy, says Rory Smead, associate professor of philosophy and the Ronald L. and Linda A. Rossetti Professor for the Humanities at Northeastern University, who teaches ethics and philosophy through sport.
Read more on Northeastern Global News.
