In The Times, a cyclist banned for two years vents her frustration: “How painful it was to watch the Wimbledon final.” But there was no double standard: these are different cases.

It doesn’t matter that the ITIA (International Tennis Integrity Agency), after a thorough investigation, concluded that Sinner had proven the origin of the banned substance and that the violation was unintentional. It doesn’t matter that the independent court of Sports Resolutions ruled that there was no fault or negligence and, consequently, no disqualification, based on the facts and the application of the rules. Nor does it matter that, at the end of it all, WADA withdrew its appeal to the CAS, agreeing with the athlete to a three-month suspension and acknowledging that “Sinner had no intention of cheating and that his exposure to clostebol provided no performance benefit, occurring without his knowledge due to the negligence of some members of his entourage.” None of this matters to the British press, which continues to sow doubts. Today, The Times published an article with the following opening sentence: “Lizzy Banks is moved almost to tears when she talks about seeing Jannik Sinner win the men’s singles final at Wimbledon.” What does the Italian’s triumph on the London grass have to do with a former British professional cyclist?

It doesn’t matter that the ITIA (International Tennis Integrity Agency), after a thorough investigation, concluded that Sinner had proven the origin of the banned substance and that the violation was unintentional. It doesn’t matter that the independent court of Sports Resolutions ruled that there was no fault or negligence and, consequently, no disqualification, based on the facts and the application of the rules. Nor does it matter that, at the end of it all, WADA withdrew its appeal to the CAS, agreeing with the athlete to a three-month suspension and acknowledging that “Sinner had no intention of cheating and that his exposure to clostebol provided no performance benefit, occurring without his knowledge due to the negligence of some members of his entourage.” None of this matters to the British press, which continues to sow doubts. Today, The Times published an article with the following opening sentence: “Lizzy Banks is moved almost to tears when she talks about seeing Jannik Sinner win the men’s singles final at Wimbledon.” What does the Italian’s triumph on the London lawns have to do with a former British professional cyclist?

differences—  In 2023, Banks tested positive for a diuretic (chlorthalidone) in a urine test, explaining—with the support of investigations—that one of the drugs she regularly took had been contaminated during production. The UK Anti-Doping Agency (UKAD) believed her, but WADA did not and, a few months ago, obtained a guilty verdict from the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). It was a long and harrowing process for the cyclist, but Sinner did not enjoy any favoritism. At the time of the positive test, his legal team immediately filed an appeal, proving that the athlete had not voluntarily taken clostebol and reconstructing the chain of events with precision, thus allowing Jannik to avoid a preventive suspension. From the outset, therefore, the two cases took different paths. And when the out-of-court settlement was reached, WADA communications director James Fitzgerald clarified in the press: “The facts of this case were truly unique and different from other cases involving administration by the athlete’s support staff. In fact, this was not a case of direct administration by the athlete’s entourage, but of transdermal absorption because the athlete’s masseur (unbeknownst to the athlete) had treated a cut on his finger with a product containing clostebol. Through its thorough review of the case, WADA verified and agreed that the athlete’s scenario was scientifically plausible and well documented on the facts. Taking into account, in particular, the level of seriousness of the violation, given the specific facts, WADA considered that a 12-month sanction would be excessively severe. Amen.