Advertisement

Iga Swiatek doping ban explained: Why it was kept secret and what it means for tennis

charlie eccleshare
·10-min read
Iga Swiatek doping ban explained: Why it was kept secret and what it means for tennis

Iga Swiatek is serving a one-month doping ban after testing positive for trimetazidine (TMZ) in August.

The world No. 2 in women’s tennis — who has won five Grand Slam titles and has spent 125 weeks as No. 1 — received the ban Wednesday, November 27, before tennis integrity authorities announced it publicly 24 hours later.

Here is everything you need to know about Swiatek’s case.

Swiatek, a four-time Roland Garros champion, tested positive for a trace concentration of TMZ, a drug normally used as heart medication for its ability to enhance blood flow, in an out-of-competition sample on August 12 ahead of the Cincinnati Open.

The 23-year-old was informed of the positive test by the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) exactly one month later, September 12, and given a mandatory provisional suspension. Swiatek appealed that provisional suspension within 10 days of the original notice. The appeal was successful, so her provisional suspension was not publicly disclosed. This is in line with the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (TADP) regulations.

Because Swiatek served 22 days of the ban while the case was being investigated, she only has eight more days to serve. She will be allowed to play from December 4, meaning she will be eligible for the Australian Open, the first Grand Slam of 2025, which begins January 12.

The ITIA issued the ban after ruling that the player’s level of fault was at the lowest end of the range for ‘No Significant Fault or Negligence’ and was not intentional.

According to the European Medicines Agency, trimetazidine “is a medicine used to prevent angina attacks, which are sudden pains to the chest, jaw and back brought on by physical effort, due to reduced blood flow to the heart.”

Because it increases blood flow, TMZ has been included on the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) list of prohibited substances since 2014. It is listed as a “metabolic modulator” and its use by athletes is banned, both in and out of competition.

“What this drug does is actually make your heart work more efficiently,” Dr. Elizabeth Murray, pediatric emergency medicine physician at the University of Rochester Medical Center, told CNN’s Early Start program in 2022. “It doesn’t change your blood pressure very much or change your heart rate.

“An athlete wouldn’t get jittery or necessarily feel all that different, but they would theoretically be able to perform at a higher level for longer. It would increase their endurance, potentially.”

The amount of TMZ found in Swiatek’s system was extremely low. Dr Andrzej Pokrywka of the Medical University of Warsaw, an expert in anti-doping at the Center for Sports Medicine, and someone who originally recommended TMZ be added to WADA’s banned list, said in analysis shared by Swiatek’s camp on Thursday that: “The concentration of the substance in the urine sample is extremely low, and the negative result of the analysis of the athlete’s hair sample confirmed that there was no ingestion of trimetazidine by her in an amount corresponding to even a single lowest therapeutic dose for the substance.”

To combat the effects of jet lag, Swiatek said she was taking a non-prescription medication containing melatonin that was recommended by her doctor. After a series of independent laboratory tests, it was concluded that this medicine had been contaminated with TMZ.

The ITIA said in its statement Thursday: “The ITIA accepted that the positive test was caused by the contamination of a regulated non-prescription medication (melatonin), manufactured and sold in Poland that the player had been taking for jet lag and sleep issues, and that the violation was therefore not intentional. This followed interviews with the player and their entourage, investigations, and analysis from two WADA-accredited laboratories.”

In an emotional, seven-minute video released Thursday, Swiatek explained the toll that the whole affair has taken on her. Particularly the fact that she had to remain silent when pulling out of the Korea Open, China Open and Wuhan Open, citing fitness concerns, “personal issues” and then a change of coach.

Missing those three events also saw Swiatek lose her No. 1 ranking, and her suspension will also see her lose the points she won at the Cincinnati Open in August where the positive test was taken.

Swiatek said in her video: “This experience, the most difficult in my life so far, taught me a lot.

“There were many tears and lots of sleepless nights. The worst part of it was the uncertainty. I didn’t know what was going to happen with my career, how things would end or if I would be allowed to play tennis at all.

“I admit this situation hit me hard, because all my life I strived to have a career that could be an example for generations to come.”

WADA does not mandate the announcement of provisional suspensions.

Some sports do it and some don’t. Tennis actually does, with the ITIA erring on the side of transparency. The exception to that rule comes when a player appeals against the suspension within 10 days, as was the case with Swiatek.

Once appealed, the case is considered to be under investigation and therefore confidential from the ITIA side until it has been concluded (the player under investigation could technically speak publicly about it).

On a conference call with reporters Thursday, the ITIA’s CEO Karen Moorhouse said the rules are in place in the “interests of fairness”, adding: “We’ve been absolutely transparent once they’ve reached an outcome.” She said that it was up to every sport to consider what worked best for them in terms of confidentiality, and that the ITIA regularly reviews its processes.

If it can be proved, like in this case, that the athlete had no knowledge of the presence of the banned substance, and that it was reasonable for them to have that expectation, then that will affect the level of punishment they receive.

Here, it was deemed reasonable that Swiatek should have taken a medicine that was not supposed to contain any known banned substances, and which is available over the counter in Poland and was recommended by her doctor, without anticipating that it might lead to a doping violation.

The ITIA considered “the player’s level of fault was considered to be at the lowest end of the range” and the shortness of Swiatek’s ban is commensurate with that. Had she been deemed to have had no fault or negligence then she would have escaped a ban altogether.

A ‘no significant fault or negligence’ verdict is, broadly speaking, divided into three bands: Low, where a ban is usually 1-8 months, medium (8-16) and high (16-24).

“Once you get into a particular band you look into the objective fault,” explained Ben Rutherford, senior director, legal, at the ITIA during Thursday’s conference call.

“You look at the substance. How risky is it? Is it a medication in that country? Is it a supplement?

“Then look at subjective factors. Does the player have education? How old is the player? What sort of resources does the player have to conduct their own testing? What steps did they take to check labels? To take proper advice from sports physician? To check the WADA website etc.”

It’s not uncommon. Tennis players are constantly travelling and looking to improve their sleep and sleep quality due to frequent time-zone changes. According to the document shared by Swiatek’s team on Thursday, the medicine she was taking is recommended to tennis players and athletes in general for this very reason.

In December last year, Britain’s world No. 24 Katie Boulter told the WTA website that her secret to good sleep was: “Melatonin, 100 per cent. When I discovered melatonin, my life changed. I don’t take it very often, and when I do, the only reason is because of jet lag. It just gives you that little nudge to get to sleep when you really need to. And I don’t get much of a hangover. I’m not a fan of putting drugs in my system, but that’s one I stand by.”

In the same WTA article, Ukraine’s Anhelina Kalinina and Kazakhstan’s Yulia Putintseva also said they took melatonin to help their sleep patterns.

Not especially. According to the ITIA, testing numbers and the number of anti-doping rule violations have remained pretty steady over the last few years. According to the most recent two ITIA annual reports, 12 individuals were sanctioned for doping offences in 2022, compared to 13 last year.

But this year has been remarkable because two of tennis’s most high-profile players — Sinner and now Swiatek — have been given doping sanctions.

Every case is different and so it’s not possible to directly compare them.

Sinner tested positive for clostebol, a banned anabolic steroid, on March 10 at the BNP Paribas Open held in Indian Wells, Calif, and on March 18, out of competition. It was determined that the Italian bore “no fault or negligence” for his positive tests, and therefore wasn’t deserving of a ban.

WADA has since challenged this and appealed to the Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS), arguing that Sinner’s level of culpability should be upgraded to “no significant fault or negligence” which would leave him facing a ban of up to two years.

It is this “no significant fault or negligence” classification that has been applied to Swiatek, but at the very lowest end, hence her relatively short ban.

That is a possibility, although there is not much precedent in terms of other “no significant fault or negligence” cases.

WADA has 15 days to request the files, and then 21 days after receipt to lodge an appeal to the CAS. Though this period could be longer if the Polish anti-doping agency (POLADA) decides to get involved.

Swiatek’s ban expires next Wednesday (December 4), so she will be eligible to play once tour events resume at the end of December. The key thing is that Swiatek will be eligible for the Australian Open, the first Grand Slam of the year and one of the two majors (along with Wimbledon) she has not won. That begins on Sunday, January 12.

Coupled with the Sinner case, this threatens to do major damage. Even though it has been shown there has been no intention to dope in either case, there will be plenty of supporters who feel disillusioned with what has happened.

And even though due process has been followed throughout both cases, there will be question marks around the rules that mean it’s taken so long for information to be made public.

Moorhouse said on Thursday: “The first point to reiterate is that these are not cases of intentional doping.

“We’re dealing with inadvertent breaches of the rules so I don’t think it is a cause for concern for tennis fans and the like. The fact that we’re being transparent shows the depth and breadth of our doping program.”

This article originally appeared in The Athletic.

Tennis, Women's Tennis

2024 The Athletic Media Company