The doping controversy over world no. 1 Jannik Sinner has divided the tennis world. In March 2024, Sinner tested positive for clostebol, a banned anabolic steroid. As per the rules of the International Tennis Integrity Agency and the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), this would result in an automatic provisional suspension pending an appeal.

Sinner, however, appealed the provisional suspension, and an independent hearing convened by the ITIA found that he bore “no fault or negligence” for the positive tests. Subsequently, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed this ruling.

WADA’s appeal was supposed to have come up for hearing at the Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS) on April 16-17, 2025. But now the WADA appeal will not be heard because Sinner and WADA have reached a case resolution agreement.

Under this settlement, instead of the one to two-year ban that WADA had wanted, Sinner will serve out a three-month ban, from February 9 to May 4. This means he will not miss any Grand Slams, despite committing a doping offence that, in the case of other players, has caused them to serve out a ban of one to several years.

Is tennis’s anti-doping process “broken” as the likes of Stan Wawrinka and Nick Kyrgios have said? Are there double standards in this process - with top players benefiting while the lower ranked players don’t get the same treatment or benefit of doubt? How transparent is a process where a player can negotiate a “settlement” for a doping offence?

Guest: N Sudarshan from The Hindu’s Sports Bureau.

Host: G. Sampath, Social Affairs Editor, The Hindu.

Edited by Sharmada Venkatasubramanian.