Why only 3 months? The reasons behind Jannik Sinner’s sanction and agreement with WADA

Jannik Sinner’s 3-month sanction for the doping controversy surprised many, especially due to the timing of the agreement, which allows the Italian to avoid missing any Grand Slam tournaments and return just in time to play his home Masters 1000 at the Rome Open.

Until recently, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) had requested a sanction of between one and two years in its appeal to the ITIA. However, a settlement between the lawyers of both parties was reached, according to a recent investigation by the BBC.

Read also

Former German player accuses Jannik Sinner of 'damaging' tennis after involvement in doping scandal

The lawyers’ agreement

When Sinner learned that WADA would be presenting an appeal for a ban, he was confident that he could once again prove his innocence and avoid a suspension. However, the risk of a sanction ranging from one to two years led him to accept an agreement he had hoped to avoid.

While the doping case process has been questioned, Sinner’s legal team and WADA officials met to reach an agreement to avoid a trial. On February 14th, Sinner’s lawyer, Jaie Singer, spoke with one of WADA’s lawyers, who proposed that Singer settle for a shorter suspension.

Jannik Sinner won his third major title at 2025 Australian Open.

Sinner was to accept a three-month sanction for his failed drug tests, with WADA withdrawing the appeal, bringing the case to an end. "It all happened unbelievably quickly," Singer told BBC Sport. "In a matter of a couple of days, really."

Sinner’s team persuaded the 3-time Grand Slam champion to accept the agreement, even though they sought to prove his innocence, something the 23-year-old player has been adamant about. "When I was saying 'well, look, maybe we should settle for three months,' he was saying 'well, why would we do that if the first independent tribunal found it was no ban at all, why would I accept three months now?’” Singer said.

Read also

"Conviction is dubious": Doping specialist lambasts WADA's conduct in Jannik Sinner's case

"My advice was, 'one never knows what's going to happen at a hearing, we know that WADA is pushing for a year, if we don't accept their offer then they will go to court looking for a year and who knows what those three judges could do,’” he added. “So the possibility of three months, in my view, was a good possibility.”

Why did WADA change its mind?

In the initial investigation into Sinner’s case, the ITIA concluded that there was no fault or negligence on Sinner’s part in the doping. It is remembered that his physiotherapist applied an aerosol with clostebol to his own hands, and when treating Sinner, he may have contaminated him with a tiny fraction of the banned substance, which led to the positive doping result at Indian Wells.

Read also

"Just say it was your team's fault": Nick Kyrgios targets Jannik Sinner’s doping scandal in response to Muller

Sinner only lost the points and prize money earned from reaching the semifinals. Later, WADA expressed disagreement with the decision and announced that it would appeal the ruling in search of a sanction of between one and two years.

WADA’s General Counsel, Ross Wenzel, denied that there had been a fundamental change in the institution’s stance, saying it adjusted to what they considered to be fairer. “This was a case that was a million miles away from doping,” Wenzel told BBC Sport. “The scientific feedback that we received was that this could not be a case of intentional doping, including micro-dosing.”

Read also

Daily Dose of Social Media: Serena Williams honoured at Inter Miami match, WTA shares behind-the-scenes footage with Swiatek, Gauff, and more

If the case had gone to court, there was a possibility of facing a sanction of at least a year if the jury did not agree with Sinner’s innocence. There would have been no possibility of a sanction of less than a year.

“I’m not sure that a sanction of 12 months in this case – if we’d have forced the tribunal into that position – or a case of ‘no fault’ would have been a good outcome,” added Wenzel. “One would have compromised an important principle under the code. The other one, in our view, would have been an unduly harsh sanction.”

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Unlock your ultimate tennis experience—subscribe today for exclusive access to top stories.

Subscribe