Latest news with #IgaŚwiątek
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Sport
- Yahoo
Aryna Sabalenka withdraws from Canadian Open citing fatigue
World No. 1 Aryna Sabalenka has withdrawn from the WTA 1,000 Canadian Open, which begins July 27 in Montreal. Sabalenka cited fatigue following her semifinal run at Wimbledon as her reason for pulling out of the tournament, which is one rung below the Grand Slams. 'I'm looking forward to kicking off the North American hard-court swing, but to give myself the best chance for success this season, I've decided it's in my best interest to skip Montreal,' Sabalenka said in a statement announcing her withdrawal. Sabalenka played the tournament last year, after skipping the 2024 Paris Olympic tennis event which directly preceded it. She reached the quarterfinals, losing in three sets to Amanda Anisimova of the U.S. — the player who beat her in this year's Wimbledon semifinals. That defeat took her Grand Slam record for 2025 to two finals and one semifinal, but no titles, having lost the Australian Open final to Madison Keys and the French Open final to Coco Gauff. She has reached seven finals in 2025, playing 56 matches in the year to date and winning three titles. Anisimova, who lost 6-0, 6-0 to Iga Świątek in the Wimbledon final but rose to world No. 7 in the process, has herself withdrawn from the D.C. Open in Washington, D.C., which begins July 21. Defending champion Paula Badosa has also withdrawn due to a persistent injury to her lower back, so the world No. 10 will drop 500 points from her ranking; Olympic gold medalist Zheng Qinwen, who had received a wild card into the main draw, has also been removed from the player list. This article originally appeared in The Athletic. Tennis, Women's Tennis 2025 The Athletic Media Company
New York Times
6 hours ago
- Sport
- New York Times
Aryna Sabalenka withdraws from Canadian Open citing fatigue
World No. 1 Aryna Sabalenka has withdrawn from the WTA 1,000 Canadian Open, which begins July 27 in Montreal. Sabalenka cited fatigue following her semifinal run at Wimbledon as her reason for pulling out of the tournament, which is one rung below the Grand Slams. 'I'm looking forward to kicking off the North American hard-court swing, but to give myself the best chance for success this season, I've decided it's in my best interest to skip Montreal,' Sabalenka said in a statement announcing her withdrawal. Advertisement Sabalenka played the tournament last year, after skipping the 2024 Paris Olympic tennis event which directly preceded it. She reached the quarterfinals, losing in three sets to Amanda Anisimova of the U.S. — the player who beat her in this year's Wimbledon semifinals. That defeat took her Grand Slam record for 2025 to two finals and one semifinal, but no titles, having lost the Australian Open final to Madison Keys and the French Open final to Coco Gauff. She has reached seven finals in 2025, playing 56 matches in the year to date and winning three titles. Anisimova, who lost 6-0, 6-0 to Iga Świątek in the Wimbledon final but rose to world No. 7 in the process, has herself withdrawn from the D.C. Open in Washington, D.C., which begins July 21. Defending champion Paula Badosa has also withdrawn due to a persistent injury to her lower back, so the world No. 10 will drop 500 points from her ranking; Olympic gold medalist Zheng Qinwen, who had received a wild card into the main draw, has also been removed from the player list.
New York Times
2 days ago
- Sport
- New York Times
Why Amanda Anisimova's emotional post-match interview was a masterclass in handling failure
Editor's note: This story is a part of Peak, The Athletic's desk covering leadership, personal development and success through the lens of sports. Follow Peak here. On Saturday at Wimbledon, it took 57 minutes for Amanda Anisimova to lose the women's final, a painful 6-0, 6-0 drubbing at the hands of Iga Świątek. It took her just more than five minutes — and a few tears — to reframe her failure into something totally different. Advertisement The video of Anisimova's post-match remarks was soon one of the indelible moments from Wimbledon, a moment of humanity after a brutal loss. Needing just one question, Anisimova, a 23-year-old American, fought back tears, graciously complimented her opponent, thanked the fans — and apologized, too — and then broke down as she praised her mother, who had nurtured and supported her after the sudden death of her father in 2019 and during an eight-month sabbatical from tennis that began in 2023. 'I know I didn't have enough today, but I'm going to keep putting in the work,' Anisimova said, wiping tears from her cheek. 'I always believe in myself so I hope to be back here again one day.' It was easy to see why the moment went viral. To tennis fans, it was a heart-wrenching display, the cruelties of the sport laid bare. To Amy Edmondson, a professor of leadership and management at Harvard Business School, it was something more: a masterclass in failure. That might sound harsh. It's not supposed to be. Edmondson is an academic with a particular interest in human failures. Namely, she has a strong belief that we all could benefit from failing a lot more. So when she watched Anisimova's speech, she saw an example of an argument she presented in her 2023 book, 'Right Kind of Wrong: The Science of Failing Well.' 'It was courageous,' Edmondson said. 'It was honest, and then you realize how compelling it is and how few people truly take that opportunity to be honest and vulnerable and generous after a devastating failure.' Edmondson's argument stems from a simple belief: The best companies fail more, not less. 'The most successful or high-performance organizations are not the ones that never fail,' she says. 'They're the ones that catch and correct. And they're willing to take risks in new territory in ways that often lead to success — but often don't.' Advertisement Edmondson believes most human failure can be separated into three archetypes. There is basic failure, which often amounts to simple error. You send an email to the wrong person at work, or type the wrong number in an expense report. There is also complex failure, when more complicated systems, like supply chains during a pandemic, fail due to multiple causes. Both types — basic and complex — can be corrected. It's the third type of failure, which Edmondson labels 'intelligent failure,' that is most beneficial, leading to knowledge, discovery and growth. To qualify, Edmondson offers four criteria: You are operating in new territory, pursuing a goal, testing a hypothesis, and you have thoughtfully considered the risks. 'When a scientist has a good hypothesis and she tests it and it's wrong, that's not bad,' Edmondson says. 'It's one step closer to a game-changing discovery.' The most innovative companies, Edmondson says, take a similar approach. Athletes tend to understand this dynamic better than most. Jannik Sinner lost to Carlos Alcaraz in a five-set epic at the French Open this year, then pointed to the value of that defeat after beating Alcaraz at Wimbledon on Sunday. 'You just have to understand what you did wrong and you have to work on that,' Sinner said. Pete Sampras once called his loss to Stefan Edberg in the 1992 U.S. Open one of the most important moments of his career. After winning the first set 6-3, Sampras dropped the second set 6-4 and lost a tiebreaker in the third, at which point his head dropped and his whole demeanor changed. Edberg knew then he had him beat. 'I knew deep down in my heart that I didn't fight that hard,' Sampras later said. 'I didn't really want it enough at that time. And that's when things changed. When I lost the match, it bothered me, it irked me. I feel like I packed it in. I promised myself I would never let that happen again. And so I look at that match as the pivotal match of my career – and it was a loss.' Advertisement Sampras went on to win 13 more majors over the next decade. For those of us who are not elite athletes, Edmondson believes the stomach for embracing failure can be weaker. Most people are better at evaluating the failures of others than our own. And whether a failure is basic, complex or intelligent, we need to respond to them with the same emotions. 'We have to learn to be OK with failures in new territory,' Edmondson says. It's not easy, but there are ways to improve. Edmondson believes people should always consider the 'true rational stakes' of a situation, and then code it as such. Anisimova, for instance, lost out on money and career advancement by losing on Saturday, but it was still just a tennis match. Anisimova was never able to solve Świątek on the court. She became just the second woman ever to lose a grand slam final 6-0, 6-0, and after the match, Anisimova outlined what had gone wrong. She felt a little fatigued after besting Aryna Sabalenka in the heat two days earlier. She struggled to stay composed. 'I felt frozen there with my nerves,' she said. Then she did something important and powerful: She reframed the loss as an opportunity for growth, taking solace in a quote from the author Marianne Williamson: 'Pain can burn you up and destroy you, or burn you up and redeem you.' 'I told myself, 'I'll definitely come out stronger after this,'' she said. 'I mean, that's not an easy thing to go through, losing 0-0 in a Grand Slam final. If anything, I can look at it as a positive.'
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Sport
- Yahoo
Why Jannik Sinner and Iga Swiatek's doping cases hang over Wimbledon champions
This year's Wimbledon singles champions are Iga Świątek and Jannik Sinner. Świątek routed Amanda Anisimova of the United States 6-0, 6-0 in the first 'double-bagel' Grand Slam final since 1988, while Sinner beat his nearest and only real rival, Carlos Alcaraz, 4-6, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4. Świątek now has six Grand Slam titles; Sinner has four. They are both first-time champions at Wimbledon — and they have both received suspensions for anti-doping violations in the past 12 months. It is also the first time in Wimbledon history that both champions have served anti-doping suspensions. Advertisement Sinner, the men's world No. 1, was suspended for three months between February and May this year after twice testing positive for a banned anabolic steroid. Świątek was suspended for a month at the back end of 2024 after testing positive for a banned heart medication. The International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) and the World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA) have both determined that Sinner and Świątek did not intentionally dope. But their victories at the All England Club have reopened a debate in tennis and the wider sporting world about their cases. What happened in Sinner's case? Sinner twice tested positive for clostebol in March 2024. In August that year, the ITIA announced that an independent panel found Sinner to bear 'no fault or negligence' for those positive tests, so he could continue playing tennis. ITIA investigators and the independent panel accepted Sinner's explanation: that he had been contaminated by a healing spray that his physio, Umberto Ferrara, had purchased. Advertisement Sinner's physiotherapist, Giacomo Naldi, used the spray on himself to treat a cut on his hand. Naldi subsequently treated Sinner, and contaminated the player in the process. Sinner was provisionally suspended for each anti-doping violation, but he successfully appealed both suspensions, which were imposed in April 2024, within 10 days. In line with ITIA regulations, his successful appeals meant that the suspensions were not made public. In September 2024, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) announced that it would appeal the 'no fault or negligence' ruling at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA, which sits above the ITIA, sought 'a period of ineligibility of between one and two years,' because it believed Sinner should bear some responsibility for the actions of his team members. It, like the ITIA, also accepted that Sinner did not intentionally dope. Before the CAS hearing could take place, Sinner and WADA entered into a case resolution agreement, in which he received a three-month ban. The ban ran from Feb. 9 to May 4. Sinner missed six tournaments, but he did not miss a Grand Slam before returning to competitive tennis at his home event, the Italian Open in Rome. Advertisement WADA determined that it 'would have been very harsh' for Sinner to receive a longer ban, spokesperson James Fitzgerald said in a statement in February. What happened in Świątek's case? Świątek tested positive for trimetazidine (TMZ), a drug normally used as heart medication for its ability to enhance blood flow, in August 2024. The ITIA informed her of the positive test one month later, and on Nov. 27, 2024, it issued Świątek's one-month ban, at the lowest end of the 'no significant fault or negligence' range. Like Sinner, she was given a mandatory provisional suspension. Like Sinner, she appealed that provisional suspension within 10 days. Her appeal was ultimately successful, so it was not disclosed, but she missed three events while provisionally suspended. Because the length of any ultimate ban includes time served under a provisional suspension, her ban was lifted Dec. 4, 2024, six days after it was made public. Advertisement The ITIA accepted her explanation that a TMZ-contaminated batch of melatonin, a supplement that she uses to manage jet lag, was the source of the positive test. Melatonin is a regulated, non-prescription medication in Poland. Świątek submitted her medications and supplements to independent laboratories, alongside unopened containers from the same batches and hair samples. Two independent laboratories and a third WADA-accredited laboratory confirmed the contamination explanation. WADA declined to contest the ITIA's one-month ban. External legal counsel 'considered that the athlete's contamination explanation was well evidenced, that the ITIA decision was compliant with the world anti-doping code, and that there was no reasonable basis to appeal,' it said in a statement. How similar are the two cases? No two cases are the same, and conflating cases leads to confusion and misinformation. Advertisement There are key differences. One is the 'no significant fault or negligence' verdict in the Świątek case, compared with the 'no fault or negligence' in the initial Sinner verdict. This is why Świątek was given a ban, even though it was short, while Sinner, initially, was not given one at all. Świątek also provided laboratory analysis and a hair sample to prove that she did not intentionally dope. Also, WADA's appeal in Sinner's case could have led to a one- or two-year suspension. Świątek's case involved a contaminated medication, while Sinner's defense was contamination, but the product involved had a banned substance as an ingredient. This is why WADA's appeal — and the subsequent CAS hearing that never happened — could have led to a lengthy ban. They've served their time and due process was followed, so why do frustrations linger? Shortly after Sinner won the Wimbledon title Sunday, 2022 finalist Nick Kyrgios posted an asterisk on X. Kyrgios is one of several active players who have criticized the handling of the Italian's case — he called the initial verdict 'ridiculous' last summer. Advertisement Denis Shapovalov and fellow one-time top-10 player Lucas Pouille also hit out, with the former posting: 'Different rules for different players.' The frustrations are tied to a perception of other players going through longer processes, with worse outcomes, for superficially similar cases. But as with comparing Sinner to Świątek, the comparisons do more harm than good, leading to more confusion and consternation. Britain's Tara Moore said last September: 'I guess only the top players' images matter.' Moore, who tested positive for nandrolone metabolites and boldenone in April 2022, served a 19-month provisional suspension before an independent panel convened by the ITIA found her to bear 'no fault or negligence.' Unlike Sinner and Świątek, Moore did not appeal her provisional suspension, so it spanned the duration of the investigation. In February this year, 24-time Grand Slam champion Novak Djokovic said in a news conference following Sinner's ban: 'It's not a good image for our sport.' He added: 'A majority of the players feel like there is favouritism. It appears that you can almost affect the outcome if you are a top player, if you have access to the top lawyers.' Advertisement Tim Henman, the former world No. 4 and a member of the All England Club board that runs Wimbledon, told Sky Sports the timing and duration of the ban seemed 'a little too convenient' and had left 'a pretty sour taste for the sport.' Serena Williams joked in an interview with Time magazine in April that she would have been 'in jail' if she had failed a drugs test like Sinner. 'If I did that, I would have gotten 20 years. Let's be honest. I would have gotten Grand Slams taken away from me.' Is there favoritism? The ITIA strenuously denies any preferential treatment, and the feelings of favoritism are more tied to tennis being a two-tier sport in other ways. Sinner and Świątek can pay for top lawyers and bespoke laboratory testing because they have the resources to do so, which they have earned through their success and the prize money — and sponsorship deals — that come with that success. As the best players in the world and the biggest attractions at tournaments, they also get the court allocations they want, the biggest appearance fees, and innumerable other favors, including better facilities to train, first dibs on practice courts and so on. Players already frustrated by these discrepancies would look at perceived ones in anti-doping protocols and see even more unfairness. Advertisement There is further frustration for some players because of the effort required to avoid being sanctioned. Players have to give their whereabouts every day for testing, and many told this year about how paranoid they are about missing a test (whereabouts rules dictate a starting ban of two years for three missed tests) or ingesting a banned substance. Australian Open champion Madison Keys talked about being moved to tears by the stress of it. U.S. Open finalist Jessica Pegula said that she knows 'there are a lot of girls who don't sleep,' while Ons Jabeur talked about being 'traumatized' by the early morning ring of the doorbell from testers. What does it mean for tennis and where does the sport go from here? Few believe that Sinner and Świątek are anything but worthy Wimbledon winners. A bigger issue for tennis is the one that all sports face, which is how to catch those who are trying to cheat without there being collateral damage along the way. Advertisement In December 2025, WADA will confirm or reject proposed changes to its code on which the tennis anti-doping regulations are based. One of the proposed changes covers contamination. Only anti-doping rule violations linked to a contaminated substance not on its prohibited list are eligible for a reduced punishment. This is what happened in Świątek's case: her melatonin, which is not on the prohibited list, was contaminated with TMZ, which is. In Sinner's case, the substance with which he was contaminated was banned at first principle. This is why WADA originally sought a one- to two-year ban, before deciding that 'would have been very harsh.' Under the proposed reforms, the language in the code would change from 'contaminated product' to 'source of contamination.' The 'unforeseeable' presence of a banned substance in an athlete's body, whether from food or exposure via a third party, would be grounds for just a reprimand or a shorter, proportional ban if successfully proven. 'We're racking up positives that have nothing to do with intentional cheating,' Travis Tygart, the USADA chief executive, said in a phone interview in May. 'It's hard for people who understand the system and those who live within it to comprehend why we continue to have rules that are behind the science that don't stop doping, but knowingly punish innocent people.' Advertisement Fitzgerald said via email at the same time that: 'Anyone who claims there is a straightforward solution to this issue is not being honest. This is a complex and nuanced area of anti-doping in which WADA always strives to strike the right balance for the good of athletes and clean sport.' At a Sports Resolutions conference in March, Tygart, who was a key figure in exposing the Lance Armstrong doping operation, praised the ITIA for its handling of the Sinner and Świątek cases, because of how due process was followed. Where innocent explanations are more likely, Tygart would like to see cases for trace amounts of certain substances reported initially as atypical findings. The athletes should then be properly investigated, but the starting point would be different from the current protocol. At the moment, positive tests involving trace amounts — like those in these two cases — are reported as adverse analytical findings, which, for purposes of strict liability, shifts the burden to the athlete to have to prove their innocence, with a potential four-year ban the starting point for punishment. As Sinner and Świątek have discovered, a positive test is, in some people's eyes, a permanent stain on an athlete's reputation, irrespective of whether it was deemed to have been intentional doping. This article originally appeared in The Athletic. Sports Business, Tennis, Women's Tennis 2025 The Athletic Media Company
New York Times
2 days ago
- Sport
- New York Times
Why Jannik Sinner and Iga Swiatek's doping cases hang over Wimbledon champions
This year's Wimbledon singles champions are Iga Świątek and Jannik Sinner. Świątek routed Amanda Anisimova of the United States 6-0, 6-0 in the first 'double-bagel' Grand Slam final since 1988, while Sinner beat his nearest and only real rival, Carlos Alcaraz, 4-6, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4. Świątek now has six Grand Slam titles; Sinner has four. They are both first-time champions at Wimbledon — and they have both received suspensions for anti-doping violations in the past 12 months. It is also the first time in Wimbledon history that both champions have served anti-doping suspensions. Advertisement Sinner, the men's world No. 1, was suspended for three months between February and May this year after twice testing positive for a banned anabolic steroid. Świątek was suspended for a month at the back end of 2024 after testing positive for a banned heart medication. The International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) and the World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA) have both determined that Sinner and Świątek did not intentionally dope. But their victories at the All England Club have reopened a debate in tennis and the wider sporting world about their cases. Sinner twice tested positive for clostebol in March 2024. In August that year, the ITIA announced that an independent panel found Sinner to bear 'no fault or negligence' for those positive tests, so he could continue playing tennis. ITIA investigators and the independent panel accepted Sinner's explanation: that he had been contaminated by a healing spray that his physio, Umberto Ferrara, had purchased. Sinner's physiotherapist, Giacomo Naldi, used the spray on himself to treat a cut on his hand. Naldi subsequently treated Sinner, and contaminated the player in the process. Sinner was provisionally suspended for each anti-doping violation, but he successfully appealed both suspensions, which were imposed in April 2024, within 10 days. In line with ITIA regulations, his successful appeals meant that the suspensions were not made public. In September 2024, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) announced that it would appeal the 'no fault or negligence' ruling at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). WADA, which sits above the ITIA, sought 'a period of ineligibility of between one and two years,' because it believed Sinner should bear some responsibility for the actions of his team members. It, like the ITIA, also accepted that Sinner did not intentionally dope. Advertisement Before the CAS hearing could take place, Sinner and WADA entered into a case resolution agreement, in which he received a three-month ban. The ban ran from Feb. 9 to May 4. Sinner missed six tournaments, but he did not miss a Grand Slam before returning to competitive tennis at his home event, the Italian Open in Rome. WADA determined that it 'would have been very harsh' for Sinner to receive a longer ban, spokesperson James Fitzgerald said in a statement in February. Świątek tested positive for trimetazidine (TMZ), a drug normally used as heart medication for its ability to enhance blood flow, in August 2024. The ITIA informed her of the positive test one month later, and on Nov. 27, 2024, it issued Świątek's one-month ban, at the lowest end of the 'no significant fault or negligence' range. Like Sinner, she was given a mandatory provisional suspension. Like Sinner, she appealed that provisional suspension within 10 days. Her appeal was ultimately successful, so it was not disclosed, but she missed three events while provisionally suspended. Because the length of any ultimate ban includes time served under a provisional suspension, her ban was lifted Dec. 4, 2024, six days after it was made public. The ITIA accepted her explanation that a TMZ-contaminated batch of melatonin, a supplement that she uses to manage jet lag, was the source of the positive test. Melatonin is a regulated, non-prescription medication in Poland. Świątek submitted her medications and supplements to independent laboratories, alongside unopened containers from the same batches and hair samples. Two independent laboratories and a third WADA-accredited laboratory confirmed the contamination explanation. WADA declined to contest the ITIA's one-month ban. External legal counsel 'considered that the athlete's contamination explanation was well evidenced, that the ITIA decision was compliant with the world anti-doping code, and that there was no reasonable basis to appeal,' it said in a statement. No two cases are the same, and conflating cases leads to confusion and misinformation. There are key differences. One is the 'no significant fault or negligence' verdict in the Świątek case, compared with the 'no fault or negligence' in the initial Sinner verdict. This is why Świątek was given a ban, even though it was short, while Sinner, initially, was not given one at all. Advertisement Świątek also provided laboratory analysis and a hair sample to prove that she did not intentionally dope. Also, WADA's appeal in Sinner's case could have led to a one- or two-year suspension. Świątek's case involved a contaminated medication, while Sinner's defense was contamination, but the product involved had a banned substance as an ingredient. This is why WADA's appeal — and the subsequent CAS hearing that never happened — could have led to a lengthy ban. Shortly after Sinner won the Wimbledon title Sunday, 2022 finalist Nick Kyrgios posted an asterisk on X. Kyrgios is one of several active players who have criticized the handling of the Italian's case — he called the initial verdict 'ridiculous' last summer. Denis Shapovalov and fellow one-time top-10 player Lucas Pouille also hit out, with the former posting: 'Different rules for different players.' The frustrations are tied to a perception of other players going through longer processes, with worse outcomes, for superficially similar cases. But as with comparing Sinner to Świątek, the comparisons do more harm than good, leading to more confusion and consternation. Britain's Tara Moore said last September: 'I guess only the top players' images matter.' Moore, who tested positive for nandrolone metabolites and boldenone in April 2022, served a 19-month provisional suspension before an independent panel convened by the ITIA found her to bear 'no fault or negligence.' Unlike Sinner and Świątek, Moore did not appeal her provisional suspension, so it spanned the duration of the investigation. In February this year, 24-time Grand Slam champion Novak Djokovic said in a news conference following Sinner's ban: 'It's not a good image for our sport.' He added: 'A majority of the players feel like there is favouritism. It appears that you can almost affect the outcome if you are a top player, if you have access to the top lawyers.' Advertisement Tim Henman, the former world No. 4 and a member of the All England Club board that runs Wimbledon, told Sky Sports the timing and duration of the ban seemed 'a little too convenient' and had left 'a pretty sour taste for the sport.' Serena Williams joked in an interview with Time magazine in April that she would have been 'in jail' if she had failed a drugs test like Sinner. 'If I did that, I would have gotten 20 years. Let's be honest. I would have gotten Grand Slams taken away from me.' The ITIA strenuously denies any preferential treatment, and the feelings of favoritism are more tied to tennis being a two-tier sport in other ways. Sinner and Świątek can pay for top lawyers and bespoke laboratory testing because they have the resources to do so, which they have earned through their success and the prize money — and sponsorship deals — that come with that success. As the best players in the world and the biggest attractions at tournaments, they also get the court allocations they want, the biggest appearance fees, and innumerable other favors, including better facilities to train, first dibs on practice courts and so on. Players already frustrated by these discrepancies would look at perceived ones in anti-doping protocols and see even more unfairness. There is further frustration for some players because of the effort required to avoid being sanctioned. Players have to give their whereabouts every day for testing, and many told The Athletic this year about how paranoid they are about missing a test (whereabouts rules dictate a starting ban of two years for three missed tests) or ingesting a banned substance. Australian Open champion Madison Keys talked about being moved to tears by the stress of it. U.S. Open finalist Jessica Pegula said that she knows 'there are a lot of girls who don't sleep,' while Ons Jabeur talked about being 'traumatized' by the early morning ring of the doorbell from testers. Few believe that Sinner and Świątek are anything but worthy Wimbledon winners. A bigger issue for tennis is the one that all sports face, which is how to catch those who are trying to cheat without there being collateral damage along the way. In December 2025, WADA will confirm or reject proposed changes to its code on which the tennis anti-doping regulations are based. One of the proposed changes covers contamination. Advertisement Only anti-doping rule violations linked to a contaminated substance not on its prohibited list are eligible for a reduced punishment. This is what happened in Świątek's case: her melatonin, which is not on the prohibited list, was contaminated with TMZ, which is. In Sinner's case, the substance with which he was contaminated was banned at first principle. This is why WADA originally sought a one- to two-year ban, before deciding that 'would have been very harsh.' Under the proposed reforms, the language in the code would change from 'contaminated product' to 'source of contamination.' The 'unforeseeable' presence of a banned substance in an athlete's body, whether from food or exposure via a third party, would be grounds for just a reprimand or a shorter, proportional ban if successfully proven. 'We're racking up positives that have nothing to do with intentional cheating,' Travis Tygart, the USADA chief executive, said in a phone interview in May. 'It's hard for people who understand the system and those who live within it to comprehend why we continue to have rules that are behind the science that don't stop doping, but knowingly punish innocent people.' Fitzgerald said via email at the same time that: 'Anyone who claims there is a straightforward solution to this issue is not being honest. This is a complex and nuanced area of anti-doping in which WADA always strives to strike the right balance for the good of athletes and clean sport.' At a Sports Resolutions conference in March, Tygart, who was a key figure in exposing the Lance Armstrong doping operation, praised the ITIA for its handling of the Sinner and Świątek cases, because of how due process was followed. Where innocent explanations are more likely, Tygart would like to see cases for trace amounts of certain substances reported initially as atypical findings. The athletes should then be properly investigated, but the starting point would be different from the current protocol. At the moment, positive tests involving trace amounts — like those in these two cases — are reported as adverse analytical findings, which, for purposes of strict liability, shifts the burden to the athlete to have to prove their innocence, with a potential four-year ban the starting point for punishment. As Sinner and Świątek have discovered, a positive test is, in some people's eyes, a permanent stain on an athlete's reputation, irrespective of whether it was deemed to have been intentional doping.
