Jannik Sinner failed drug test appeal date confirmed and length of his suspension could be brutal
The wait is over to discover when Jannik Sinner will face his hearing at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) over his failed drug tests – and he could miss the final three Grand Slams of 2025 if the verdict goes against him.
The appeal lodged by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against the decision not to ban Sinner following his failed drug tests last March will be heard on on April 16 and 17.
Sinner tested positive for the anabolic steroid clostebol last March, but the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) accepted that it was down to accidental contamination and opted against any punishment for the world No 1.
Small traces of the performance-enhancing anabolic steroid clostebol triggered the positive drug test, with the story that followed creating as big a stir as the possibility that the affable, charming and brilliant new world No.1 in tennis may be a drug cheat.
The explanation Sinner offered up for his failed doping test added fuel to the fire of suspicion as he claimed a member of his team used a cream containing clostebol to treat a cut on his finger and then transferred the drug to the Italian player when he gave him a massage.
Sinner’s version of events raised as many eyebrows as his initial positive test, yet the ITIA verdict that he was no responsible for the drugs in his system sparked a huge debate over how the case was handled.
WADA has challenged the verdict and has asked for the Italian and now a clear roadmap of what comes next has been laid out.
The CAS panel is likely to take some time considering the verdict following the hearing, but if a decision was made within a month of the hearing and it went against Sinner, he would face a minimum suspension of one year.
The ongoing Sinner case comes after women’s world No.2 Iga Swiatek failed a drug test late in 2024, as she was handed a one-month ban after proving the medicine she took to help her sleep was contaminated with a banned substance that did not appear on the packaging.
Sinner is unlikely to find such a route out of his crisis, with ITIA chief Karen Moorhouse highlighting the big differences between the two cases and that of former world No 1 Simona Halep, who is back in tennis after serving a ban following a positive doping test.
“If you test positive for a banned substance, your starting point for a possible sanction is four years,” Moorhouse told Tennis365 in an exclusive interview.
“If you can demonstrate that it was not intentional, that reduces to two years. Then, if you can prove there was no fault, there is no sanction.
“In addition, a decision of ‘no significant fault or negligence’ could fall between a reprimand and two years. That applies to any cases around a contaminated substance.
More Tennis News
Length of Jannik Sinner’s suspension would send shockwaves through tennis says former world No 7
“It’s the same rules and the same processes for every player. All cases are different and each case turns on individual facts.
“Cases can also be quite complex, so it isn’t right to look at two headlines and draw comparisons as the detail is always the key part.
“Let’s take Swiatek and Halep. The CAS tribunal found that her (Halep’s) supplement was contaminated. So just in relation to that finding, they said nine months (suspension).
“In relation to Swiatek, the contaminated product was a medication. So it was not unreasonable for a player to assume that a regulated medication would contain what it says on the ingredients.
“Therefore, the level of fault she could accept was at the lowest level as there was very little more she could have done reasonably to mitigate the risk of that product being contaminated.
“Halep’s contamination was not a medication. It was a collagen supplement and her level of fault was found to be higher.
“The complication with the Sinner case is the positive test was not a result of a contaminated product. That is the difference between Swiatek and Halep. There is no contamination here.
“The product that the masseuse used on his finger was not contaminated. It contained exactly what it said the product ingredients and because it is not a contaminated product, the range for a sanction is a one-year to two-year suspension.
“The first tribunal found that Sinner had ‘no fault or negligence’, that he had used the utmost caution. Therefore, he faced no sanction.
“My understanding from WADA’s statements is they are challenging that because they believe there was an element of fault and that the outcome should have been ‘no significant fault or negligence’.”
The annoucemement of the date of Sinner’s hearing will send shockwaves through tennis with the first Grand Slam of the year set to get underway on Sunday.
This story is now certain to dominate the news agenda around Sinner, as he will again be under huge pressure to block out the negative noise as prepares to defend the Australian Open title in Melbourne.
READ NEXT: Jannik Sinner facing shockingly long ban from tennis if he loses doping appeal
