“As an athlete, you are extremely vulnerable”: Casper Ruud speaks on Jannik Sinner’s doping case and fair treatment

Casper Ruud shared his opinion on Jannik Sinner’s doping case and defended the ITIA's decision not to suspend the Italian player. The three-time Grand Slam runner-up stated that after reviewing the case documents and conducting further research, he realized that there was no different treatment for the world No. 1.

Just days before the US Open, Sinner revealed that he had tested positive for doping twice in March at Indian Wells. The case was previously unknown until Sinner's announcement, and while the ITIA found him innocent, unlike other players, Sinner was not suspended from competition.

Several players on the Tour criticized what they perceived as differential treatment for Sinner, including Nick Kyrgios, Denis Shapovalov, and Simona Halep (suspended in 2022). The ITIA determined that the doping involved minimal amounts that did not affect the player's performance, and the investigation found that a physiotherapist's mistake was the cause of Sinner's positive test for clostebol.

The physiotherapist, Giacomo Naldi, used an anabolic substance to treat small cuts on his hands. The spray he used contained clostebol, and since Naldi treated Sinner without gloves, the contact with Sinner's minor wounds led to the substance entering his system.

Notable past cases of positive doping tests where players faced long suspensions before proving their innocence include Halep, Nicolas Jarry, and Beatriz Haddad Maia. In an interview with Norwegian media TV2, Casper Ruud addressed the case and defended that there was no differential treatment for Sinner: “If you have read the documents and understand the process in this type of case, then you understand that there is no discrimination here.”

“What Sinner has done well, to defend himself, is that he managed to find an explanation within 15 days after testing positive. He understood quite quickly where it came from,” the former world No. 2 added. “There are not many athletes who manage to come up with an explanation within 15 days, but Jannik has managed it. It speaks in his favor that he quickly found out where the substance came from and that he has a reasonable explanation.”

“It is an extremely small dose that came through a skin eruption, as I understand it, and I assume there are good doctors analyzing this and thinking that it is a credible explanation.”

Ruud also reflected on how easily an athlete could face an involuntary doping issue: “In a restaurant, both the chef and the waiter can put things in your food if they have something against you. I have experienced this myself. I live under strict supervision, and it is something I think about, and something I know Jannik thinks about. As an athlete, you are extremely vulnerable.”