General counsel Ross Wenzel says WADA has received several messages suggesting Jannik Sinner’s doping ban was too severe.
World number one Sinner agreed a three-month suspension with WADA on Saturday after two failed drugs tests last year.
An independent panel backed his claim that he had been unintentionally contaminated by a physiotherapist when being treated for a cut on his hand.
WADA had initially been seeking a ban of up to two years – and took their case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport – after the Tennis Integrity Unit had opted against a punishment.
The news of Sinner’s settlement has provoked outrage among many in the tennis community who have pointed to double standards and also the fact the player’s three-month ban neatly enables him to return for the Italian Open, a key warm-up event for the French Open.
But Wenzel stood by WADA’s verdict, telling the BBC: “This was a case that was a million miles away from doping.
“The scientific feedback that we received was that this could not be a case of intentional doping, including micro-dosing.”
📰 Table Of Contents
No favouritism in settlement
He also dismissed the claim of favouritism due to Sinner’s status in the game, adding: “WADA has received messages from those that consider that the sanction was too high and, in some respects, if you have some saying this is unfair on the athlete, and others saying it’s not enough, maybe it’s an indication that although it’s not going to be popular with everyone, maybe it’s an indication that it was in the right place.
“When we look at these cases we try to look at them technically, operationally and we don’t do it with fear of what the public and the politicians or anyone is going to say.”
‘Ban had to come into effect quickly’
As for the timing – Sinner’s ban is due to expire three days before his home event in Rome – Wenzel insisted that was due to the date of the settlement.
“Once you’ve reached an agreement, what you can’t do is then say ‘oh, but we’re going to have this apply from two months in the future for a period of three months’,” Wenzel said.
“It must come into effect quickly. Of course, once the deal is done, it’s important that it is executed and that it is made public for reasons of transparency.
“So it happened, because of the timing of the CAS proceedings, it happened to be decided last Friday, it was a very late night, and it came into effect immediately, so that is the reason for the timing.
“The sanctions that we impose and the code even says this, they’re blind to the calendar. The correct sanction should be imposed and it comes into effect when it comes into effect and it shouldn’t be modulated or modified to take into account whether the events that are coming up are significant or not significant.”
