The Jannik Sinner Case: Potential Consequences for the Fight against Doping

2 April 2025 - Sven Wassmer

After a long period of uncertainty, on 15 February 2025, several media outlets and organisations, including the ATP (Association of Tennis Professionals), published the news that WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) and professional tennis player Jannik Sinner, currently ranked number 1 in the world, had reached a settlement agreement in the doping case pending decision by the CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport).

Sven Wassmer, PhD Abogado & Rechtsanwalt +34 91 319 96 86

The settlement provides for a three-month suspension after the banned substance clostebol was detected in the tennis player’s body. In this settlement, WADA took into account that Sinner had no intention of violating anti-doping rules and did not gain any performance-enhancing benefits. These arguments led WADA to reduce the suspension from two years to just three months.

The settlement has caused considerable controversy in the tennis world and in sports in general. Many consider the sanction to be too lenient, given that the suspension will be served from the beginning of February to May, which will allow Jannik Sinner to participate in Roland-Garros as well as the preceding clay court tournaments such as the Master 1000 in Rome. Furthermore, in other cases, more severe sanctions have been handed down, as in the case of former world number one Simona Haleb, who had been suspended for four years, albeit the sanction was later reduced to nine months by the CAS. Important voices in the tennis world such as Stan Wawrinka or Nick Kyrgios have harshly criticised the (in their eyes) preferential treatment of Sinner, while others, such as Toni Nadal or Boris Becker, have expressed their approval of the decision.

Without going into whether the settlement is fair or just, it seems obvious that it is very favourable for the player, who will eventually be suspended for three months without missing any important tournaments. From a legal point of view, however, it should be emphasised that this settlement was reached in the context of proceedings heard by the CAS and initiated by WADA itself, which in itself offers a certain degree of legal certainty. Furthermore, this type of agreement has its legal basis in the World Anti-Doping Code, which explicitly provides for the possibility of terminating doping proceedings by way of settlement (Article 10.8). Finally, WADA bases this agreement on several mitigating circumstances it considers proven, such as the player’s lack of guilt and the fact that the substance did not enhance the player’s performance.

Regardless of whether the settlement is fair or not, it should be noted that settlements as in the present case are provided for in the WADA regulations. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the anti-doping system has suffered irreparable harm.