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.

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.

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 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.

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 on 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.

How similar are the two cases?

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.

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 on 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.”

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 drug 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.

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.

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.”

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

Tennis News, Photos, Stats, Scores, Schedule & Videos