Why Jannik Sinner was suspended from tennis for three months as journalist makes claim about ban length

A journalist who was involved in the doping case against Lance Armstrong made a claim about how long Jannik Sinner should have been banned from tennis for his own violation.

Men's world number one Sinner was handed a three-month ban from tennis in February.

He had twice tested positive for the banned substance clostebol in March 2024.

The International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) announced the existence of the positive tests the following August, days before Sinner went on to win that season's US Open by defeating Taylor Fritz in the final.

An independent hearing found that Sinner bore 'no fault or negligence' surrounding the positive tests, with the Italian having argued that he was contaminated by a healing spray which was bought by a member of his physiotherapy team, before then being used to treat a cut on his hand. It was also used on his back and feet.

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) would appeal that particular ruling, and a date was set for the appeal.

But the three-month ban was announced after the two parties settled on a case resolution agreement.

Sinner returned to action at the Italian Open in Rome last month, with his first major tournament back on the circuit being the French Open at Roland-Garros.

The Italian would reach the final of the event, which he lost 6-4 7-6 4-6 6-7 6-7 to Carlos Alcaraz.

Sinner dropped a two-set lead against Alcaraz, who then won a set five tiebreak by 10-2 to lift the French Open trophy for the second consecutive season.

Alcaraz told his opponent after the final: "I have to congratulate you because it's amazing what you have done with your team.

"I'm not going to get tired of saying how amazing a person, an athlete, you are. Working really hard every day to make this possible, making your people proud."

Sinner's ban was still one of the subjects of discussions surrounding the final, given that he managed to reach the last two just over a month after returning to tennis.

When announced back in February, the length of the ban split opinion among tennis fans and pundits, with former British tennis player Naomi Broady telling BBC Radio 5 Live that it was felt by some that Sinner had 'received preferential treatment'.

WADA general counsel Ross Wenzel, however, told BBC Sport that the case was 'a million miles away from doping', and that scientific feedback showed that Sinner had not intentionally cheated.

"The scientific feedback we received was that this could not be a case of intentional doping, including micro-dosing," Wenzel said.

"When we look at these cases, we try to look at them technically, operationally and we don't do it with fear of what the public and the politicians or anyone is going to say."

Members of the public did, naturally, have their say, with journalist David Walsh suggesting that Sinner should have received a longer ban.

He cited the case of fellow Italian tennis star Stefano Battaglino, who was given a four-year suspension after also testing positive for clostebol.

Walsh claimed in February: "Battaglino tested positive for clostebol, and he couldn't understand it. He said, 'I've done nothing wrong. I know I've done nothing wrong'.

"He'd had a medical timeout, and he'd got a massage from the physiotherapist who was working for the tournament. This physiotherapist used a cream, massaged the cream.

"Battaglino was convinced that the clostebol had been in the cream. He tried to get in touch with the physio, he got a number ... he never did make contact.

"He got four years, and the best player in the world gets three months."

There was, however, a key difference in the two cases, as although Battaglino claimed that he had ingested the substance inadvertently, a CAS tribunal found that his argument 'did not meet the necessary standard' and that he failed to 'adequately prove the source of the clostebol or establish that the violation was accidental'.

He argued that a tournament physio had applied cream which contained the substance, but as Walsh recalls, was not able to contact the physio and therefore could not prove that the cream had been ingested accidentally.