The scandal surrounding the world No.1 has sparked concerns about tennis’s numerous conflicts of interest.
- The men’s and women’s seed reports and predictions are still on track.
- Check out the latest Served podcast and our chaotic draw preview.
Moving forward…
Most questions this week have focused on L’Affaire Sinner. Although it’s not the ideal start to a major tournament, let’s dive into it.
- First, let’s clarify the situation. Did Jannik Sinner dope? Well, two positive tests typically indicate doping. The key question is whether it was intentional, deliberate, and knowing. The tribunal ruled it wasn’t.
Here’s the full report for those interested. What sets this case apart is that Sinner and his team quickly identified—or at least theorized—what triggered the positive result. They provided evidence, crafted a narrative, and built a defense that clearly worked. When players receive a positive test and claim to have no idea what caused it, the situation is entirely different, with a much more complex timeline.
Three words people dislike: “I don’t know.” Opinions vary widely. A quick look at social media shows that some believe Sinner is innocent, while others think he’s guilty and got away with it. From the decisions made and conversations I’ve had within and outside of tennis, I believe his alibi is credible. There was gross negligence but no intent. But amid all the opinions, speculation, and debate, only a few people truly know the facts.
The substance in question is Clostebol. Mark Kovacs, a top sports scientist with extensive experience in tennis, pointed out, “A well-known banned substance should never be anywhere near a professional athlete. This is one of the key responsibilities for those working with pro athletes. Experienced professionals understand this, which makes this situation so peculiar.”
One of Sinner’s attorneys not only represented the ITIA but also worked against accused (and later cleared) player Tara Moore. This was a smart move by Sinner, akin to hiring a top district attorney for criminal defense, something that would never be allowed in real life. How does this attorney justify representing private clients while also working for “the state”? This is a glaring conflict of interest.
There’s no doubt that Sinner benefited from his financial resources and ability to hire top legal representation. His coach, Darren Cahill, has repeatedly acknowledged this. It’s unfortunate that two individuals accused of the same crime might receive different outcomes based on their legal representation’s quality. But when hasn’t this been the case? (Think O.J. Simpson’s “Dream Team.”)
British tennis player Liam Broady also noted that Sinner had the advantage of an ESPN interview to clear his name. Sure, but he is the sport’s No.1 player—more attention is to be expected.
Speaking of Cahill, some of you expressed disapproval. Despite my hesitation, I’ll address this. For years, I’ve been warning about tennis’s corrosive conflicts of interest, which often strain personal relationships. Cahill is well-respected and does a lot of good. I admire him as a commentator, too. But you can’t work for a player and also be employed by a network. It’s a clear conflict. This case highlights why it’s untenable. A broadcaster with significant insider knowledge about a player has to remain silent to protect the player and the process. Then, they go on air and discuss matches while withholding crucial information. This isn’t fair to Cahill, the player, or the viewers, who are left wondering what other information might be hidden or distorted due to the broadcaster’s dual roles.
An ESPN commentator joked with me that Cahill and Nick Kyrgios haven’t been seen together lately. (Kyrgios has been vocal—perhaps too much—against Sinner.) Why not put them on a panel to discuss and debate in front of viewers, rather than through social media?
The press room minder’s attempt to block questions during Sinner’s pre-tournament press conference on Friday was absurd. It was insulting, amateurish, and showed a poor understanding of the situation. But something interesting happened—many journalists, including Mary Carillo, pushed back. Sinner took questions and answered them. In just 15 minutes, he went a long way toward explaining his position and defusing the controversy. That’s how this process is supposed to work.
There’s talk about Sinner trying to reclaim his lost prize money and ranking points. If I were advising him, I’d suggest letting it go. In a world of strict liability, you tested positive for a banned substance and largely avoided punishment. Accept this and move on.
