Editor’s note, September 21, 11:20 a.m. ET: Quotes attributed to Caroline Wozniacki that originally appeared in an earlier version of this story were found to be inauthentic. IF has since learned that she was not the source and regrets this error.
Hey everyone…let’s do a column on just one topic. Next week we can look back at tennis, the Laver Cup, events in Asia, Coco-Mania, best wishes for Brad Gilbert, etc.
There have been a lot of questions and comments on social media about Simona Halep and last week’s explosive decision “substantial evidence” of “intentional” doping violations, accompanied by a four-year ban. The decision is here. Even by legal standards, it’s a bit of a chore. And that leaves several obvious questions unanswered (or admits that there is no decisive answer). But it is extraordinarily detailed and provides justification not only for the guilty verdict, but also for the delay. Trying to incorporate as many of your questions/comments as possible, here are some of my takeaways.
• Halep is a cheater! No, Halep is the victim of a witch hunt! You adopt a binary position at your own risk. We can all name athletes whose decisions have been reduced or overturned on appeal, or who have successfully pointed out procedural errors. We can also cite many other athletes who have protested their guilt or provided alibis, only to later admit their guilt. That said, objectively, this is a lot of forensic details and a rough set of facts for Halep and his defense team. His lawyer, Howard Jacobs, is first in his class. But it will be difficult to overcome this situation.
• This is not a standard doping case; Roxadustat is not your standard banned substance. Very simplified, as I read the decision, the conclusion is essentially that although Halep supplements were contaminated, this does not explain the volume and concentration of roxadustat revealed by the tests nor the irregularities with its biological passport. The court found that it was “unrealistic” that the levels of roxadustat in his body could have come from a keto MCT supplement. An additional source was needed.
Halep has won 24 career singles titles and two major tournaments, but recently crashed out of the US Open in the first round.
Dan Hamilton/USA TODAY Sports
• At first glance, it’s overwhelming. But a possible defense might look like this: Wait, you’re telling me the supplement contained roxadustat; but you’re also telling me that you don’t believe this is the exact source of the same banned substance? So two different products in the same markets are both contaminated with the same banned drug? What are the chances of that? …And assuming that Halep intentionally doped with roxadustat and then used a roxadustat-contaminated supplement as a cover, that also seems unlikely.
• It is easy to express opinions and state without reservation that an athlete is either a cheater or a victim. But it’s harder to report these stories. As should be the case, the process takes place behind closed doors. Panel members are rarely available to the media/public for follow-up questions and clarification.
• Besides the levels of banned substances and discrepancies in the biological passport, here’s what’s deeply problematic: Halep’s failure to list the MCT keto supplement on various forms and in interviews. According to the decision: “This was clearly negligent on his part, especially during the interview where the need for complete openness would have been more obvious. »
Note that this is where Maria Sharapova’s defense also went off the rails. If meldonium was used harmlessly to treat his diabetes, why not list it on the forms? Halep also omitted the banned substance from her forms. By Halep’s own admission, she was trying a new supplement. She and her team had serious enough concerns that their colleagues were asked to double-check and source the ingredients. The supplements were so “boutique” that they were not available over the counter, but rather ordered from Canada. …And, weeks later, Halep did not mention this new substance on the forms, nor when asked, even after his positive test? Imagine: you have been wrongly accused of taking a banned substance; wouldn’t you empty the bucket and come up with every possible substance you ingested, hoping that someone can explain the accident? Why refuse anything?
• I was in contact with a member of the Halep camp last week. As part of her defense, she will argue that two of the tribunal members were allegedly prepared to exonerate the athlete based on the facts and the strength of the evidence. Then they discovered Halep’s identity and effectively changed their vote to guilty. If true, this is obviously very worrying and would represent real corruption. But this strains common sense, even credulity. There are integrity issues here. There are liability issues here. These doctors and professors will risk their reputations – and that of the process – and possibly risk their medical licenses, because of a personal vendetta/agenda against… a particularly popular and controversial 31-year-old Romanian tennis player. free before that?
• We need to talk about Patrick. Coaches do victory laps and interviews when their players (or sometimes not even their players) succeed. GOOD. But fairness demands that coaches be forced to respond when players hesitate. These are the rules of engagement. In 2022, Halep begins working with Patrick Mouratoglou. Like us written last summer, this has caused considerable concern in some corners. Halep – hardly considered reckless and hot-headed – abruptly severed ties with her entire team, with many members having been with her for years and therefore felt betrayed. For the first time in her career, she suffered a panic attack on court at Roland Garros. After a successful tournament at Wimbledon and Canada, she lost in the first round in New York. Then a positive doping test. And surgery. And one life changesto start.
This does not mean there is culpability or negligence. This does not mean that there is doping. This does not mean that correlation is the same as causation. But that’s a lot of churn, flux and drama for a player always known for her measured professionalism. If you hide in the spotlight when things are going well, otherwise there must also be accountability. (Note: This is another example of conflicts of interest corroding tennis. When a central figure in a doping sanction/appeal shares your green room, imagine the chilling effect that has on an open and robust on-air discussion about PEDs in tennis.)
Williams won 10 of the 12 clashes between the two, but Halep got the better of the American in the 2019 Wimbledon final.
Susan Mullane/USA TODAY Sports
• Player reactions and opinions are everywhere here. Serena Williams – who of course lost to Halep in the Wimbledon final and was previously the player coached by Mouratoglou –makes his thoughts known. I heard from several other players who shared the same sentiments. It’s just not that players who lost to Halep are now wondering if she was dirty. Having finished in the top 10 in 2022she won WTA bonus money.
On other players who condemned Halep: “The opinions of rivals affect public opinion. There should be more respect, at least until the final verdict. And everyone should treat the case “exactly” as the final verdict rendered without presumption. If it’s contamination, then it’s just contamination, not a whole career of cheating! How can (the accused athletes) return to sports if everyone calls them cheaters? Destroy career and life because of contamination!! …everyone could be in the same situation!
She added: “It’s not at all fair that the athletes receive all the punishments without the team. They hire staff to do the work for them; they are not experts in nutrition or chemistry. The staff should receive most of the punishment…it’s their responsibility.”
• I was destroyed on Twitter (the platform now known as X) for making this remark, but I stand by it. Four years – let alone six – is a brutal punishment. That doesn’t make it undeserved or unfair. But it’s hard and it’s a huge part of an athlete’s career. (And a virtual death sentence for a career at age 31.) If this were an American sport — where anti-doping policy is collectively negotiated between leagues and unions — Halep wouldn’t have missed a full season for a first offense. If it was the CFU (another individual sport), the sentence would probably have been six months to a year.
• Condition to be an Olympic sport, tennis is a signatory to the WADA code and respects its rules. I’m not sure it’s a good idea for athletes to call for less rigorous testing and lighter penalties. But note that NBA players are eligible for the Olympics but are not subject to WADA testing during the season. In other words: if tennis players felt they had leverage (and could take a unified approach), they might be able to have a say in their anti-doping policy.
• Note that Halep could reduce her sentence to three years if she admits her guilt. This seems unlikely.
• Halep has the right to appeal to the CAS; and she will exercise this right. Historically, CAS has reduced sanctions imposed on tennis players. But he has the right to increase punishments based on evidence. It will be interesting to see if the ITIA comes down strong and reiterates its recommendation of a six-year ban. That is to say, there are many more sets to play here. …I received this text from Halep the other day: “I will not back down. I can’t wait to clear my name and get back on the field.
