Tennis Mailbag: Jannik Sinner’s Doping Case Looms Over U.S. Open

The scandal swirling around the world No.1 has instigated questions about tennis’s many conflicts of interest.

Sinner defeated Michael Mackenzie in four sets in his first-round match at the U.S. Open. / Robert Deutsch-USA TODAY Sports

Submissions have been lightly edited for brevity and clarity.

Wednesday is Mailbag Day …

• Here are the men’s and women’s seed reports and predictions, which, happily, haven’t gone off the rails yet.

• Here’s the most recent Served podcast … and our shambolic draw preview.

Onward …

---

Most of the questions this week pertained to L’Affaire Sinner. So, acknowledging this is not ideal for the first week of a major, let’s start here.

• First, let’s address the semantics. Did Jannik Sinner dope? Well, two positive tests is de facto doping. The question is whether it was intentional, knowing and deliberate. The tribunal said no.

Here is the report. If you’re inclined, read it. It strikes me that one element differentiates this from other cases: Sinner and his team knew immediately —or at least theorized immediately—what triggered the positive result. They were able to furnish receipts. They constructed a narrative. They mounted a defense that, clearly, was convincing. When players receive a positive result and say, I have no idea what could have caused this it is a much different dynamic and much different timetable. 

Three unpopular words: I don’t know. There are lots of opinions, pro and con. A quick scan of social media reveals that some prominent voices are convinced Sinner is without fault. Others are convinced he is guilty and skated. Based on the decisions and conversations I’ve had inside and outside of tennis, I am of the opinion that his alibi holds up. There was extreme carelessness but no intent. But for all the opinions, bloviating and even informed speculation, only a small handful of people know the truth.

Clostebol is the substance in question. Mark Kovacs—a first-rate sports scientist and someone who has spent considerable time in tennis—makes this point: “Having a well-known banned substance anywhere near a professional athlete should never happen. This is one of the major responsibilities of individuals who work with pro athletes. Experienced professionals know this. This is what makes this situation so strange.”

What do we make of the fact that one of Sinner’s attorneys not only represented the ITIA but was working against accused (and exonerated) player Tara Moore? It was a smart hire by Sinner. If district attorneys were also allowed to do criminal defense that would be a really good lawyer to have if you were accused of a crime. Except this would never fly. How does this attorney explain taking on private clients, while also representing “the state,” as it were? On its face, it is such an obvious conflict.

There’s no question that Sinner benefitted from his means and ability to pay for top legal representation. His coach, Darren Cahill, has made repeated reference to this. It’s unfortunate that two people accused of the same crime may get different resolutions based on the quality of their counsel. But when has this not been the case? (See: O.J. Simpson’s “Dream Team.”)

Likewise, British tennis player Liam Broady complained that Sinner had the good fortune of benefitting from an ESPN interview and the opportunity to clear his name. I guess. But again, he is the sport’s No.1 player. Wouldn’t we expect there to be more interest?

Speaking of, a number of you mentioned Cahill disapprovingly. Against my better judgment, I’ll go here, reservedly. To the great detriment of personal relationships and friendships, I have been banging on for years about tennis’s corrosive conflicts of interest. Cahill is well-regarded and a force of good. I also admire him as a commentator. But you can’t be on the payroll for a player and be on the payroll for a network. You just can’t. And it’s not a close call. And this episode provides a vivid example of why this is untenable. You have a broadcaster who knows something so deeply significant about a player. To protect the player and the process, he must keep it quiet. Then, he must go on the air and talk about forehands and backhands and hip injuries, while failing to disclose—oh, yeah—the five-month ordeal with anti-doping authorities. It’s not fair to Cahill to be put in this position. It’s not fair to the player. Most critically, it’s not fair to the viewers who must wonder what other relevant information is being withheld—and even being obscured—because the broadcaster has two jobs in direct conflict.

An ESPN commentator joked to me today that Cahill and Nick Kyrgios haven’t been spotted together. (Kyrgios has been outspoken—uncharitably so, I would argue—against Sinner.) Why not put Cahill and Kyrgios on a panel and let them discuss and debate for viewers, not over social media?

The idea that the press room minder tried to shut down questions when Sinner came Friday for his pre-tournament press conference was … absurd. So insulting. So amateur. Such a poor reading of the room. Joan of Arc has made her statement about revolutions; now shepherding questions only. Then, something funny happened. A number of journalists (h/t Mary Carillo) reacted angrily. Sinner got questions. Sinner answered questions. After 15 minutes he had gone a long way toward explaining his position and defusing controversy. It’s kind of how this drill was set up to work.

There has been chatter about Sinner trying to claw back his lost prize money and stripped ranking points. If I’m advising him I say, in a world of strict liability, you tested positive for a banned substance and largely escaped sanction. I would drop this and move on. Take yes for an answer.

Sinner will face American Alex Michelsen in the second round at the U.S. Open. / Robert Deutsch-USA TODAY Sports

---

[Dominic] Thiem, the modern-day [Juan Martín] Del Potro?

@raiger05

• Sure, I’ll buy that. Two guys who won the U.S. Open and—as if starring in the tennis version of Damn Yankees and made some deal with the devil—never got the mojo back … wracked by injuries … lovely guys adored by their colleagues. For what it’s worth, I wrote this about Thiem after his first-round loss to Ben Shelton.

---

Looking for some insight, Jon. Can you tell us why on the opening night of the 2024 US Open there is a match between two players ranked 50 (Clara Burel) and 62 (Sloane Stephens)? Yes, Sloane Stephens won the U.S. Open, but it was in 2017 and she is not even close to being the same player now. Meanwhile, the defending women's champion and No. 3 ranked player in the world (Coco Gauff) played earlier in the day. Let's say Coco's team told the tournament they prefer to play during the day and they wanted to accommodate the defending champion. You still could have picked a bunch of others better than Stephens to play opening night like American Madison Keys who is ranked No. 14. Your thoughts.

Bob Diepold, Charlotte NC

• This induced a lot of raised eyebrows. Gauff—the defending champ and American darling—would have been an obvious choice to christen the first night session. Clearly, she demurred. Why give the spot to Stephens, the 2017 champ but a player currently ranked outside the top 50? Like Beyoncé playing the Democratic National Convention, there was a lot of unfounded buzz that Stephens was retiring and this was her farewell.

What happened? She raced to a 6–0, 3–0 lead in 33 minutes. Fans pitied Burel hoping there wouldn’t be such a public humiliation. Then, Burel won the match 0–6, 7–5, 7–5 in one of the stranger turnarounds in recent memory. It didn't change the scheduling weirdness, but at least the fans got a compelling match.

---

Dear Jon, 

As I head to my gazillionth U.S. Open, I’ve gotta ask: WTHIGO with the ticket pricing this year? Inflation ain’t that bad (go Kamala!). To pay well into the mid-$200s for a first-round stadium nosebleed seat or outer court grounds pass is highway robbery. USTA: For a tennis enthusiast like me—who lives in NYC and isn’t living paycheck to paycheck—to ONLY go once to the Open this year (I made it a point to go several times in years past, a staycation of sorts when tix were under $100) is a warning sign. By all means, cater to the extremely wealthy and corporate C-suite Succession types — and price out the young, old, working and middle class, or anyone potentially interested in tennis who is NOT someone already biting the bullet and handing over their entire wallet because they are addicted to the damn sport and can’t imagine NOT going to the Open as an end-of-summer rite of passage.  

Bob, Brooklyn NY

• The short answer: supply meets demand. Something is worth whatever someone else is willing to pay for it. The U.S. Open’s attitude seems to distill to: The qualifying week is free. Then, it’s naked, unbridled, unapologetic capitalism, folks.

I’m a bit torn here. Many of us have been to events—or seen events on television—that are sparsely attended. (“All the fans came dressed up as empty seats,” as Bud Collins liked to put it.) That’s not a good look. But neither are events that price out common fans. Ideally, the USTA figures out a way to take advantage of the heightened demand (yay!) without making the event so unaffordable to so many (boo).

---

Djokovic defeated Radu Albot in straight sets in his first-round match at the U.S Open. / Geoff Burke-USA TODAY Sports

Here we go again. At every Slam, Novak Djokovic has a 50% chance of landing in the same half of the draw as either Carlos Alcaraz or Sinner. With such a draw, to win the title, Djoker at age 37 would have to win two best-of-five-set matches within three days against great players who are each 15 years younger. But, for the umpteenth time, he has beaten the odds and landed in the opposite half. Adding insult to inequity, Daniil Medvedev, too, is drawn with Sinner and Alcaraz. So, at worst for Djoker, he will have to play only one of the three men with a good chance of beating him in a Slam. This familiar happenstance is way past the point of coincidence and now approaching conspiracy. Who performs the draws at Slams: Jimmy Hoffa, JFK, Elvis, Bigfoot, aliens or that woman who taught Djoker to play tennis in a Belgrade swimming pool? Or does Djoker use his Jedi mind powers to manipulate the draw, the way he changes water molecules?

James Stuchell, Savannah, Georgia   

• For years the suspicion went the other way. Why does Djokovic always get stuck with Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal while Federer and Nadal get smooth sailing to the final? Tennis has a lot of flaws and procedural issues, as this week demonstrates. Rigged draws are not among them. It’s all random. Sometimes, the bread lands butter-side up. Sometimes, not.

---

Grumpy old tennis fan here; I’m not looking for a Wimbledon-style dress code, but I am in favor of a ban on men wearing sleeveless “tennis shirts.” They look terrible.

@danieljMonhan1

• I am watching Alexander Zverev play as this question came in. He looks like he is about to go mow the yard. I say fine. I almost lean the other way. You’re playing a grueling sport. Why does your shirt have a collar?

Shelton is among those donning sleeveless shirts at the U.S. Open. / Robert Deutsch-USA TODAY Sports

---

Jon, 

For the life of me, I just don't see what is the controversy with the final point of Félix Auger-Aliassime–Jack Draper in Cincy.

I've watched the replay so many times—it was a legal shot. And kudos to the umpire for sticking with his call. What am I missing?

Thank you, 
Dominic Ciafardini
Westchester, NY

• I’ve had other people I respect say the same. Like The Dress, this was open to interpretation. Ideally, Draper would have said, If you feel so strongly, Felix, let’s play deuce. He did not. He now—to his great credit—admits that having seen the replay (and this is critical) it was not his point. Let’s give Draper some grace. He owned it. He’ll do better next time. Tennis needs replay. Let’s move on. 

---

Tennis media is carrying water for Sinner, refusing to ask tough questions and taking his story at face value.

@JustHere4Tennis

• It’s an act of strong character and abiding courage to use a pseudonym and then take potshots at a collective. Here’s the press conference. I reached out to this account asking the owner to cite the specific examples of the media “carrying water.” Shockingly, the courtesy of a response was not forthcoming. 

The larger point here is: Debate and disagreement are essential ingredients of sports. Debate and discussion are essential ingredients of society at large. If we were all in accord on every topic, we would be worse off. And social media is predicated on free expression. But at some point, there’s a decision to be made: Do I want to be one of those people who enters the marketplace of ideas? Or, do I want to urinate in the pool and contaminate the water for everyone?

---

Any thoughts/insights on the latest Bernard Tomic turmoil?

Rod, Toronto, Canada

• This is a few weeks old but, yeah. More than anything this struck me as sad. 

---

Shots

• Who wants a Roger Federer–signed racket (to benefit the James Blake Foundation)?

• The USTA announced the launch of its inaugural U.S. Open Finals Fan Fest to be held over finals weekend (Saturday, Sept. 7, and Sunday, Sept. 8).