Doping scandals in professional sports are always controversial, but even more so when the case involves claims of unintentional contamination. The case of Jannik Sinner, the current ATP World No. 1, raised debates on the consistency of anti-doping rulings and whether top players receive more favourable treatment. With WADA having appealed the tribunal’s decision, this case was set to establish a major precedent in sports law and anti-doping regulation.

The Case: What Happened?

In March 2024, Sinner tested positive for clostebol, a banned anabolic steroid, during the Indian Wells tournament. A second out-of-competition test, conducted eight days later, confirmed the presence of the substance. Sinner argued that the contamination was accidental, through his physiotherapist, who had applied on himself a wound-healing spray containing clostebol. Later, without wearing gloves, he massaged Sinner, unintentionally transferring traces of the banned substance onto the player’s skin.

An independent tribunal of the ITIA accepted Sinner’s explanation and found it “credible.” It ruled that he was blameless and without fault, thereby clearing him of suspension. However, as a strict procedural penalty, his results, ATP points, and prize money at Indian Wells were nullified.

Are Top Players Given a Free Pass?

The ruling immediately sparked heated debates about whether elite players get preferential treatment in doping cases. Among the first (and last) to comment was Nick Kyrgios, a player as famous for his brilliance on the tennis court as for his loud and provocative behaviour. Given the Australian’s history of frequent on-court outbursts, fines, and even accusations of tanking matches, Kyrgios implied that lower-ranked players might not have been cleared so easily. Denis Shapovalov also echoed similar concerns, stating that anti-doping decisions are often inconsistent and tend to favour those with better lawyers and stronger institutional support.

A related comparison emerged with the case of former WTA World No. 1 Iga Swiatek, who also faced an anti-doping investigation in late 2024 after returning a positive test for a banned substance. Like Sinner, however, she successfully argued contamination, and the ruling in her favour attracted relatively less media and community scrutiny in tennis.

These incidents reinforced the perception that high-profile players have better legal representation and, often, escape with lighter punishment.

Counterexamples: When High-Profile Players Were Not Spared

History has shown time and again, however, that being a star is no guarantee of clemency. Several big names in tennis have received severe sanctions, proving that strict liability remains the guiding principle in most cases:

• Marin Čilić (2013) – The former US Open champion tested positive for nikethamide, claiming it was due to a contaminated glucose supplement. He was suspended for nine months, later reduced to four months on appeal.
  
  
• Maria Sharapova (2016) – The five-time Grand Slam champion tested positive for meldonium, a substance recently added to the banned list. Despite insisting she was unaware of the rule change, she was suspended for 15 months.
  
  
• Andre Agassi (1997, Covered Up) – Unlike Sharapova or Čilić, Agassi’s case was never made public until years later. After testing positive for methamphetamine, Agassi submitted a personal letter claiming accidental ingestion, and the ATP allegedly covered up the case—something a lower-profile player likely wouldn’t have been able to negotiate.

These examples suggest that preferential treatment is not always guaranteed. While top players do have advantages in legal defence, history shows that they are not always spared from severe consequences.

WADA’s Appeal and Legal Consequences

Despite the independent tribunal’s ruling in Sinner’s favour, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the decision, arguing that the tribunal misinterpreted anti-doping principles, particularly strict liability, which states that athletes are responsible for any banned substance in their body, regardless of intent.

In February 2025, Sinner reached a settlement with WADA, agreeing to a three-month suspension from all competitions, including training and coaching. Therefore, he will lose 1600 ATP ranking points and will be ineligible to compete until May 2025, when he is expected to make his return at the Rome Masters.

Conclusion

Jannik Sinner’s case reignited debates about fairness in anti-doping enforcement. While some argued that top players receive more favourable treatment, historical cases suggest that many stars have faced severe punishments in the past.

With the case now settled, this outcome sets a precedent for future accidental contamination claims in tennis and beyond. It highlights the ongoing tension between the need for strict enforcement and the right of athletes to a fair and evidence-based hearing.

It remains to be seen whether sports law will continue evolving to better address cases of accidental doping, or if strict liability will remain the dominant principle in anti-doping regulation.

by Lodovico Sanna

Footballers who bet on football, especially on matches involving their own team or competition, face serious legal, sporting, and financial consequences. In fact, strict rules prohibit players from betting on football in order to preserve the integrity of the game and prevent match-fixing or any perception of unfair manipulation.

The Nicolò Fagioli case is an important example of the legal and sporting consequences that a professional footballer faces regarding accusations related to sports betting. Fagioli is an Italian midfielder currently playing for Juventus and the Italy National Team who was at the center of a sports betting scandal that ultimately lifted the lid on some very grave repercussions from such betting infractions within professional football. A detailed breakdown of the case, both from the legal and sports regulatory perspective, is discussed herein.

After the investigation, Fagioli was temporarily suspended by the FIGC from all football activities during the period the case remained open, which is a common precautionary measure in such cases. Suspension criteria by the FIGC ranged from some months up to a few years, depending on the seriousness of the infringement.

Besides the suspension, Fagioli faces fines or other monetary penalties either by the FIGC or his club Juventus. All that and the player’s commercial value, endorsements and all sponsorships, may take a hit, too, since many clubs and sponsors move away from players embroiled in gambling scandals.

In November 2023, he reached a settlement with the Italian Football Federation, accepting a seven-month suspension. A rather moderate sentence if one takes into account the seriousness of the violation.

This suspension was reduced to five months after Fagioli cooperated with the investigators and attended a rehabilitation program for gambling addiction. The factor that might have influenced the sentence in his case is that sometimes these aspects result in lighter sentences, especially when the player shows commitment to getting the problem resolved.

The Ivan Toney case is another high-profile example of a professional footballer being penalized for breaching sports betting regulations. Like Nicolò Fagioli, Toney’s situation points to how seriously players can be with when involved in gambling activities.

Toney became the subject of one of the big investigations back in 2022 when it was revealed he had placed numerous bets on football matches, including ones involving his own team, Brentford.

He was subsequently charged by the FA for a breach of the betting regulations, particularly those regarding betting under the FA rules. It was found that Toney did this through several online portals. Toney pleaded guilty to these charges. “The FA has been informed by Ivan Toney that he has breached FA Betting Rules, with the matter now referred to an independent Regulatory Commission,” confirmed the FA in a statement.

In May 2023, Ivan Toney was finally served with an eight-month ban from all football activities after going through a disciplinary hearing. The suspension came into effect immediately, thus locking out Toney from participating in any football matches and football events during its duration. Moreover, the Football Association fined him £50,000.

No criminal charges were pressed against him. This is because, per se, betting on football matches and placing bets was not illegal, but on grounds of betting rules violation for footballers, that became an internal matter of football bodies.

The legal risk of criminal prosecution would only arise if Toney had been found to be involved in match-fixing or manipulating the outcome of games, which was not the case here.

Both the Fagioli and Toney cases revolve around violations of football’s betting regulations, with serious penalties for breaching the integrity of the game. However, their cases differ in keyways:

• Fagioli’s practice of sports betting was, to some extent, justified by addiction to gambling; this fact allowed some mitigation in his sentence, which was partially meant for rehabilitation.
• The case of Toney is clearer regarding the betting on the outcomes of football matches. While his practices were considered extensive, there were no appeals to addiction.

In both cases, the FA and FIGC took no prisoners in safeguarding against betting infringements and made it clear that integrity and sportsmanship within the game are worth more than the most unfortunate of player situations.