A renowned sports lawyer claims the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) will be successful in its appeal, resulting in a ban from tennis for Jannik Sinner.
World No. 1 Sinner twice tested positive for the banned substance clostebol in March, but the International Tennis Integrity Agency found "no fault or negligence" on the Italian's part and he escaped a ban.
Instead, it accepted the player's explanation that the drug entered his system during a massage from his physiotherapist, Giacomo Naldi, who had used spray containing clostebol to treat a cut on his finger. He later administered the massage without wearing gloves.
Sinner was stripped of his ranking points and prize money for the Indian Wells Open, but was allowed to continue playing.
However, WADA has appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) as it believes the no fault or negligence verdict was "not correct under the applicable rules", seeking a suspension from one to two years.
Australian sports lawyer Tim Fuller represented swimmer Shayna Jack during her legal battle after she tested positive for the use of Ligandrol.
Although it was found that the ingestion of ligandrol was unintentional, the Australian swimmer was still forced to serve a 24-month competition ban.
Fuller explained why Sinner – whose case will only be heard after February 12 next year – will likely also be forced to serve a ban following the WADA appeal.
"In my opinion, I believe that the no fault or negligence decision will be overturned on appeal and a sanction will be imposed," he told The Sydney Morning Herald.
"All WADA are really doing here is saying we accept that it is unintentional but you bear, or did bear, a certain degree of fault or negligence for what's happened … we say that you, as the athlete, bear the ultimate responsibility – which is strict liability – and we say, therefore, you have demonstrated fault and negligence in your actions.
"And then we're going to look at now [what] we say is between a mid- to high-range level of fault or negligence, and that's why they're seeking [a ban of] one to two years.
"One year would be deemed to be at the high end of the low fault standard. Zero to 12 [months] is the range for low fault."
