The World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA) reached a ‘case resolution agreement’ with Jannik Sinner, the top-ranked men's tennis player, who tested positive for a banned substance twice in March 2024. This deal reduced his potential punishment from a range of one to two years down to just three months. WADA determined that Sinner “did not intend to cheat” and that his exposure to clostebol didn’t give him any performance boost.

While the global tennis community reacted with confusion and frustration, the Spanish media expressed anger over the disparity in how WADA handled Sinner's case compared to Spanish figure skater Laura Barquero, who received a six-year ban for also testing positive for clostebol.

In her Instagram appeal, 23-year-old Barquero explained that clostebol is found in a common ointment called Trofodermin, which is available over the counter in Italy for treating skin wounds. She argued that it’s not a performance enhancer and has led to “dozens and dozens of misfortunes for Italian athletes.” She even took an independent hair test to show the difference between chronic use and accidental exposure, which confirmed the latter.

Barquero accepted her six-year ban “to get on with my life,” but criticized the anti-doping rules as “rigid and insensitive,” calling the lengthy suspension “disproportionate and unfair.” In response, WADA sent a statement to the Associated Press saying that Barquero’s explanation of how the substance entered her system was not convincing based on the evidence, leaving the circumstances unclear from WADA's perspective.

Concentrate on the WADA procedure

It's clear that with all the attention on world tennis, WADA is finally facing some scrutiny. Their current decisions are now under the microscope, especially since they involve high-profile players rather than the usual lesser-known athletes like Barquero from the Olympic scene. Novak Djokovic called out the ruling on Sinner as “favouritism,” labeling it “inconsistent” and “unfair.”

Meanwhile, Aryna Sabalenka, the top-ranked woman, didn’t pass judgment on Sinner or Iga Swiatek, who also tested positive last year and got a one-month ban. She simply stated, “I don’t see how I can trust the system.”

Jessica Pegula, ranked fifth in the world, echoed this sentiment, saying, “the process seemed not to be a process.”

Exactly. For too long, WADA has been handing down judgments from a high perch, sidelining many athletes, especially those from less influential countries who lack access to top-notch legal support like Sinner has.

Recently, researchers from the University of Canberra, Dr. Catherine Ordway and Richard Vaughan, published two articles in The Conversation discussing WADA’s governance issues and funding problems.

Their articles point out the inconsistencies in WADA’s rulings and how they affect athletes. In their first piece about the double trouble for Swiatek and Sinner, they noted, “the biggest challenge for WADA is how to standardize procedures across all sports while also considering each individual case on its own merits.” They referenced similar cases in sports, highlighting that Swiatek received a one-month suspension from the International Tennis Integrity Agency after successfully arguing that her sleep medication was accidentally contaminated.

The situation with Simona Halep

Simona Halep, a former world No.1 in women's tennis, has been handed an 18-month ban due to a contaminated supplement, which is reminiscent of Swiatek's situation—she initially faced a four-year ban. Ordway-Vaughan also points to the case of Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva, who tested positive for the same substance as Swiatek but received a six-year ban from WADA. Meanwhile, Aussie swimmer Shayna Jack, who claimed she accidentally ingested a tiny amount of a banned substance, had to crowdfund A$50,000 just to cover her legal fees.

According to Ordway and Vaughan, these instances highlight clear “systemic inequities between high-profile and lower-ranked athletes” that need to be tackled by both WADA and sports governing bodies. WADA itself faces a complicated reality: established in November 1999, it operates as a Foundation/NGO funded through a public-private partnership involving the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and individual member nations via their governments.

The issues with this setup are glaringly apparent today. Take the US's approach to its funding for WADA, for example. The US contributes around $3.6 million, which is about 13% of WADA's total budget of $26.5 million from 180 nations, but has decided to freeze its contribution for 2024. The US cites WADA's failure to appeal the Chinese anti-doping agency’s “no fault” ruling regarding 23 Chinese swimmers who tested positive for trimetazidine (TMZ) before the Tokyo Olympics, with contamination from hotel food being blamed for the positive results. Following the US's funding freeze, reports from the Guardian indicated that the UK and EU were being encouraged to reconsider their financial support for WADA.

‘A fox watching over the chickens’

WADA's funding setup has been likened to a “fox guarding the henhouse” by Ordway, pointing out that they get a lot of their money from stakeholders who happen to have the most doping cases to deal with, like China, Russia, and the US. In a twist, US sprinter Erriyon Knighton managed to run his 200m in Paris 2024 even after testing positive for trenbolone last March. The US Anti-Doping Agency's arbitrator accepted his excuse of eating, you guessed it, contaminated meat.

Ordway and Vaughan caution that WADA might be pressured into making decisions that favor their major funders. They argue that if you're funded by organizations with a stake in the results, it creates a serious conflict of interest. Although the WADA Code of Ethics talks a lot about ‘conflict of interest’ and requires disclosures, it conveniently overlooks the glaring issue that the biggest financial backers also happen to be the ones with the most doping allegations against them.

WADA, as an NGO/Foundation, doesn’t have the same responsibilities as a typical company when it comes to its millions of stakeholders in competitive sports, which means it often dodges accountability questions. There’s no independent body outside of WADA’s own Foundation Board that checks the decisions made by its Executive Committee, which handles the daily operations of global anti-doping efforts. For an organization that has the power to judge the careers and futures of athletes from all over the world, this lack of oversight seems pretty careless. At its worst, it’s not just unfair but also potentially harmful.

Ordway and Vaughan suggest creating a “neutral independently managed global trust fund,” funded by a small slice of global sports revenues like broadcasting rights, sponsorships, or ticket sales. It’s hard to believe that the big players in global sports don’t realize that fixing WADA and its seriously flawed anti-doping system should start right here.

Read Also: Champions Trophy Shake-Up: Pakistan Out, India and New Zealand Advance

Get the latest Bollywood entertainment news, trending celebrity news, latest celebrity news, new movie reviews, latest entertainment news, latest Bollywood news, and Bollywood celebrity fashion & style updates!

HOW DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE? CHOOSE YOUR EMOTICON!