Did Jannik Sinner knowingly allow clostebol to be in his system? Does it matter if it was deliberate? Or is it the responsibility of the athlete to be accountable for what’s in his body regardless of how it got there?

Let’s start with clostebol (4-chlorotestosterone). Clostebol is one of the anabolic-androgenic steroids present in Chlorodehydromethyltestosterone, which has been around since the 1960s and was the primary steroid used for decades in the East German doping program. Clostebol acetate is a synthetic derivative of testosterone and is one of two active principles found in a spray currently sold under the trade name Trofodermin.

The ITIA’s apparent reasoning for their exonerative ruling in Sinner’s case this August, according to phrasing found in 10.1.2 of the ITIA’s “Tennis Anti-Doping Programme” (TADP), was that — despite multiple positive tests — his on-court results were not “likely to have been affected by [his] Anti-Doping Rule Violation,” in conjunction with their acceptance of Sinner’s explanation “as to the source of clostebol found in [his] sample and that the violation was not intentional.”

Here’s section 2.1.1 of the ITIA’s own TADP in its entirety:

“It is each Player’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their body. Players are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or any of its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Samples. Accordingly, it is not necessary to demonstrate intent, Fault, Negligence, or knowing Use on the Player’s part in order to establish an Article 2.1 Anti-Doping Rule Violation; nor is the Player’s lack of intent, Fault, Negligence or knowledge a defence to an assertion that an Article 2.1 Anti-Doping Rule Violation has been committed.”

In determining whether or not sanctions can be reduced in accordance with the TADP, the term “degree of Fault” is seen more often than “Bluey” in a house full of toddlers. The section that applies (10.2.2) in matters such as this if mitigating “degree of Fault” factors do not exist, states: “[T]he period of Ineligibility will be two years.”

The following phrasing is what the ITIA’s independent tribunal leaned on from section 10.5 of the TADP: “If a Player … establishes … that they bear No Fault or Negligence for the Anti-Doping Rule Violation, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility will be eliminated.”

If it were to be found that a person in this circumstance bore “No Significant Fault or Negligence for the violation, the period of Ineligibility [would] be, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, and at a maximum, two years of Ineligibility, depending on … degree of Fault.”

The foregoing quoted material from section 10.6.1.1 of the TADP appears to be what WADA believes to be applicable in the case. And the word “Significant” is absolutely that in the above. Though it is noteworthy that even if a finding of No Significant Fault or Negligence were returned rather than one of No Fault or Negligence (whatsoever), Sinner could still face the simple “minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility.”

The fact that WADA is indeed seeking a suspension of one to two years shows that their position is clearly that he bears fault in some meaningful measure, which is of course consistent with the TADP’s section 2.1.1 that “It is each Player’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their body.”

So now let’s get into how significant his fault or negligence may have been, in Part 3.

—@PoisonPill4