PTPA to offer legal aid for players facing doping allegations
The disparity between those with the finances to seek expert legal counsel and those without has been starkly highlighted by recent high-profile doping cases
Tara Moore was banned for two years in her doping case BPI / Panoramic
There was nothing that caused greater controversy in this sport last year than both world No 1s across the women’s and men’s game testing positive for banned substances.
As Iga Swiatek and Jannik Sinner found themselves embroiled in some of the highest-profile doping cases in world sports, the inevitable whirlwind of backlash, debate and righteous rage played out as it always must – much of it fuelled by misguided or ill-informed opinions.
An investigation into Sinner ruled that he had been inadvertently contaminated with clostebol by his physiotherapist, Giacomo Naldi, and bore no fault or negligence for the two positive tests he returned in March last year.
While the Pole has now officially turned the page of her own case, with the revelation that the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) are not appealing her one-month ban, Sinner faces a fresh trial in April when the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) will hear WADA’s appeal against the International Tennis Integrity Agency’s (ITIA) original ruling to clear Sinner of wrongdoing.
Admittedly, all of this was, and remains, a terrible look for the sport.
But the crux of the matter, essentially, is that neither Sinner nor Swiatek – according to all the extensive evidence – did anything wrong.
unfair financial advantages laid bare
However, these cases did rather starkly shine the spotlight on some glaring and very real problems with the fairness of the doping appeal process.
Both Sinner and Swiatek have access to huge personal finances, which enabled them to make use of the finest legal representation in the industry. Moreover, Swiatek was able to bankroll the independent testing of her medication at separate labs, something which was crucial to proving that her prescribed medication had been contaminated.
In a nutshell, neither player faced serious consequences in light of their positive tests because they had money, and lots of it.
This is in great contrast to the case of British doubles player Tara Moore. She was condemned to a two-year absence from the tour as she remained banned throughout a protracted and painfully expensive legal battle to clear her name, having initially tested positive in April 2022.
After £200,000 spent in legal fees, a career decimated and two years of emotional stress having taken its toll, Moore was cleared by an independent tribunal who found that her positive test was the result of eating contaminated meat in Colombia. She was cleared to return to action last March, despite the ITIA choosing to appeal the tribunal’s decision meaning this case drags on even longer.
ptpa providing legal support a necessary and welcome initiative
It should therefore come as greatly welcome news for all concerned that tennis players facing allegations of doping will now be able to access pro bono legal support as part of a new initiative launched by the Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA).
The PTPA, established by Novak Djokovic and Vasek Pospisil in 2020 as a body to better represent players’ interests, said it would ensure access to “world-class legal expertise regardless of a player’s financial standing and personal resources.”
Moore herself co-founded the PTPA’s pro bono Athlete Counsel & Equity (ACE) Program, with the hope that future players caught up in positive doping tests will not have to go through the financial and emotional turmoil that she endured.
“The fight to prove my innocence left me with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt and overwhelming emotional distress,” Moore said.
“My hope is that the PTPA ACE Program and these incredible legal teams will ensure that no player has to face these challenges alone, especially in cases involving integrity issues.
“Every player deserves the chance to defend themselves without fear of financial or emotional ruin.”
It is important to stress that access to these funds will not be attached to a presumption of innocence, and will not guarantee a player’s exoneration.
But it instead ensures that all players enter the legal minefield of positive doping tests on a more level playing field, with cases unbiased by a player’s financial standing.
This, fundamentally, is what last year’s controversies were all about. It was never a debate about who had cheated, and who hadn’t. It was about fairness and parity in the doping appeals process – something which, evidently, had been sorely lacking.
That some semblance of a solution has been found should, hopefully, help draw a line under this whole unfortunate affair and move the sport to a healthier, fairer place.
