Jannik Sinner’s return to the Rome Masters comes as Max Purcell still has over a year of doping ban

World number one Jannik Sinner makes his return to the tennis scene this week in the friendly climate of the Rome Masters.

You may not have noticed its absence if you are one of the many tennis fans who only come for a few weeks, four times a year, for the Grand Slam tournaments.

It may also be because the doping ban he served lasted about as long as his dismissal for a broken ankle.

Sinner has not missed a major competition since testing positive for traces of a banned steroid in March last year, and has actually won seven titles in the meantime, including the 2024 US Open and 2025 Australian Open, after news of the tests became public.

Less than three weeks after defending his crown in Melbourne, Sinner was banned for these positive doping tests.

The process and the possible three-month ban between Grand Slam tournaments was heavily criticized and was tantamount to “being suspended during spring break,” but there will be understanding from some of his peers who have witnessed the vagaries of the anti-doping regime up close.

“I think it will definitely be divided,” Australian tennis player-turned-commentator John Millman said of the expected reception on the tour.

“The reality is on tour, not everyone gets along, (but) we all function together.

“I think what Jannik has proven is that he’s very, very good at blocking out the noise…I don’t necessarily think it’s going to affect his performance, but the perceptions are definitely mixed.”

Sinner’s case comes after five-time major winner Iga Świątek received a one-month suspension in similar circumstanceswhile the Australian doubles the star Max Purcell banned for 18 months for IV drips which did not contain any prohibited substances.

And while the results are undeniably convenient for two of tennis’ biggest names, it’s an oversimplification to say they were hit on the wrists with substances in their system while Purcell took a harder hit for simply getting too much fluid.

Read the full decisions to Fisherman, Swiątek And Purcell is always a useful process.

In Sinner’s case, he argued that the clostebol entered his system because a member of his support team gave him a massage with a certain ointment on his hands, which could have entered the open wounds on Sinner’s feet.

Świątek said his doctor recommended he take a sleeping pill contaminated with a banned metabolic modulator called trimetazidine.

And Purcell received two 500 ml intravenous infusions exceeding the allowed limit of 100 ml per 12 hour period.

The explanations, as is often the case, were accepted to some extent by the various authorities involved, but it appeared that the three players had not been as careful as they could have been to avoid an anti-doping rule violation.

A process or player problem?

But between very nervous athletes, sometimes even more tense supporters, and the often opaque processes and drip-feeding public information, the conversation is rarely so nuanced.

And, according to Millman, that’s part of the problem.

“You just have a very long procedure and it’s not good,” he told ABC Sport.

“I think there have to be consistencies in how long it takes for your case to be heard, it has to be black and white. … There are so many gray areas and I just think there has to be consistencies.

“Regardless of your status as a player, there must be consistencies in decisions and what can and cannot be in your system.

Millman said any questions regarding doping should remain private until the matter is resolved to avoid unwanted and unfair speculation.

Purcell, for example, was revealed by the International Tennis Intergrity Agency (ITIA) in December last year to have entered into voluntary provisional suspension.

The ITIA press release indicates that this is a violation of anti-doping rules and “the use of a prohibited method”.

It wasn’t until his ban was confirmed in late April, after months of speculation and misleading information, that we got meaningful details about what it meant.

The ITIA investigation found that on December 16, 2023, Purcell and another professional tennis player texted about a “hydration session” at a Bali medical clinic and that that afternoon Purcell said he had received an IV. Another text from this second player revealed that Purcell received another infusion on December 20, both five times the legal limit.

Messages between Purcell and the unnamed player showed the Australian doubles star asked clinic staff not to keep receipts regarding the infusion, which he told ITIA because he wanted to keep his physical condition and preparations private.

In the texts, he discussed ways to justify the infusions, including faking an illness, which he said was in case the clinic refused to give him an infusion; and after the first infusion, he researched whether the method was prohibited by WADA.

The ITIA investigation found evidence on the other player’s phone during exchanges, although Purcell has since deleted some of it from his phone.

Eleven days after the ITIA requested an in-person interview about the infusions, Purcell sent a statement to the ITIA saying that up until that point he was under the impression that the infusions contained less than 100ml and that he was “completely shocked” to discover otherwise, but accepting that he had broken the code.

The clinic confirmed there “could have been a misunderstanding”, but the ITIA found a “significant degree of fault and negligence” on Purcell’s part, including failing “to take the extremely simple step of looking at the IV bag containing the drip”. (100ml is a decent sized dropper bottle, 500ml is two metric cups.)

The investigation found that the breach was not considered intentional in the sense that it was likely that Purcell did not know that there was a significant risk that he would break the rules and did so anyway.

“This case does not involve a player testing positive for a banned substance but demonstrates that the anti-doping rules are broader than that,” said Karen Moorhouse, chief executive of the ITIA.

All this to almost say that no two cases are as simple as: “You’re on drugs, you’re not.”

Sometimes tax avoidance involves reporting the wrong thing as a work expense, sometimes it involves setting up a shell company in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying your fair share. You may be lumped together, but the two examples are hardly alike.

As someone who likes to be thorough and read individual cases before passing judgment, Millman believes neither Sinner nor Purcell intentionally did anything wrong, but he said it didn’t sit well with him that his compatriot’s punishment was much harsher than that of his more senior peers.

“They are different cases, but it seems like one of them is quite extreme,” he said, while acknowledging that top players get preferential treatment in terms of everything from hotel rooms to on-field training hours.

Millman admitted that he tends to side with the players in these cases, perhaps because he spent more than 15 years on tour, during which time he reached a career-high singles score of 33.

Loading…

He never had the kind of profile that Sinner commands, nor the entourage that came with him.

This means it was up to him to be very careful and triple check everything that entered his body, which is where Purcell fell. On the other hand, Sinner was undone by the size of his support team, failing to verify that the treatment used by his physical therapist was WADA compliant, nor that it was possible for it to enter his system.

He could not have asked for better treatment from the authorities, nor a more comfortable landing spot for his return, conveniently scheduled at home at the Rome Masters, just weeks before the second major tournament of the year, Roland Garros.

Shattering or ignoring the perceptions of those who will always think of the last three months when they watch it might just be a bigger challenge than winning either tournament.