WADA pushes Jannik Sinner's suspension from the world of Tennis

Jannik Sinner is currently facing the possibility of a suspension from tennis, as a prominent sports lawyer believes that the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) may succeed in its appeal regarding the International Tennis Integrity Agency's (ITIA) recent decision.

Reigning world No. 1, tested positive for the banned substance clostebol on two occasions in March. However, the ITIA concluded that there was no evidence of fault or negligence on his part, allowing him to avoid a ban.

The player's explanation was accepted that the drug entered his system during a massage given by his physiotherapist, Giacomo Naldi. Naldi used a spray containing clostebol to treat a cut on his finger and later administered the massage without gloves.

As a consequence, Sinner was stripped of his ranking points and prize money for the Indian Wells Open, but he was permitted to continue competing.

WADA may force a ban on Jannik Sinner 

WADA has decided to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) because it feels the decision indicating no fault or negligence was inconsistent with the applicable rules. The organization is seeking a suspension that may range from one to two years.

Sports lawyer, Fuller elaborated on the situation regarding Sinner, whose case is scheduled to be heard after February 12 next year, suggesting that he may also face a ban as a result of WADA's appeal.

“In my opinion I believe that the no fault or negligence decision will be overturned on appeal and a sanction will be imposed,” he told.

He added: “I would suggest that it’s a very, very unusual case. All WADA are really doing here is saying we accept that it is unintentional but you bear, or did bear, a certain degree of fault or negligence for what’s happened … we say that you, as the athlete, bear the ultimate responsibility – which is strict liability – and we say, therefore, you have demonstrated fault and negligence in your actions."

“And then we’re going to look at now [what] we say is between a mid- to high-range level of fault or negligence, and that’s why they’re seeking [a ban of] one to two years. One year would be deemed to be at the high end of the low fault standard. Zero to 12 [months] is the range for low fault.” he said.