Dopey Decisions: The Simona Halep Decision and What It Means for the Future of Tennis Arbitration
The International Tennis Integrity Association (ITIA) has ruled that Simona Halep is guilty of two violations of the Anti-Doping Rules for the 2022 season and handed down a four-year ban from the sport.[1] Halep has maintained her innocence throughout the proceedings and has vowed to continue to fight to clear her name.[2] The decision has been mired in controversy due to the numerous delays that have left Halep in legal limbo and has raised questions about whether sports arbitration is tailored enough to the specific pressures and complexities of professional tennis.
What was decided?
The ITIA released their decision on September 14, just shy of a year since Halep was first provisionally suspended from the sport in October 2022.[3] The decision holds that Halep violated two anti-doping rules under the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (TADP), which applies to male and female players competing professionally.[4]
The first violation was for doping with the banned substance Roxadustat under rules 2.1 and 2.2 of the TADP.[5] The TADP prohibits the presence, use, or attempted use of a prohibited substance by players.[6]. Following her loss at the US Open in August 2022, Halep returned a failed urinary test that showed traces of Roxadustat, a drug used to treat symptoms of anaemia in chronic kidney failure that has been found to stimulate production of erythropoietin (EPO).[7]
Halep claimed that she had unknowingly ingested the Roxadustat through a supplement she took that was tainted with the banned substance.[8] However, the expert panel found that if the Roxadustat in her system had come solely from the supplement, Halep would have needed to be taking 900 times the recommended serving size of the supplement.[9] The panel found this ‘highly unlikely’ and stated that the evidence was ‘too compellingly strong’ to come to any conclusion other than that Halep had ingested Roxadustat from a second source also.[10]
The second violation was for abnormalities in Halep’s Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) which indicate doping under rule 2.2 of the TADP.[11] The ABP is a program that oversees the regular drug testing of professional tennis players to ensure players are not using performance-enhancing drugs. On September 27, Halep returned a blood test that the panel of experts and then ITIA were ‘comfortably satisfied’ proved blood doping.[12] The ITIA did not bring a charge against Halep for the ABP abnormalities until May 19 2023.[13]
As a result of the second failed drug test in September 2022, the ITIA elected to defer the trial for the Roxadustat charge, as it became apparent that further charges may be laid.[14] The substantial gap between the blood test and the bringing of the charge caused substantial delays to the trial, with proceedings only starting in May 2023.[15] There were further delays throughout the trial, with the initial decision set for the end of August 2023; however, a final decision was handed down in September 2023, almost a year after the initial charge had been brought.[16]
What are the implications of this decision?
This case has raised concerns about the fairness and efficiency of ITIA arbitration among players, tennis organizations, and fans. Halep was effectively in limbo for a year awaiting this decision, neither found guilty of any violation at that time or able to play. Given the limited timespan of a professional athlete’s career as well as the importance of competition to maintain their level, a year-long suspension is disproportionately impactful when compared to other non-athletic careers. In Halep’s context, this is further amplified as a 31-year-old who is in a later stage of her career.
The impacts of the delay, in the context of a now guilty verdict and four-year ban, appear less egregious as the ITIA has begun the ban from the time that Halep was first suspended from play. However, there are serious questions to be asked about how a player could be compensated for a lost year of their career if the findings of the ITIA were not guilty. That is to say that while the pillars of thoroughness, fairness, and due process cannot be compromised in arbitral bodies’ decisions, there is also a duty to ensure these decisions are efficient and tailored to the unique pressures of professional sport.
The Professional Tennis Players Association released a statement in September stating “the repeated delays in Halep’s case are both unfair and unacceptable.”[17] Australian tennis player John Millman called Halep’s “tennis purgatory a ‘disgrace,’ and French tennis player Alizé Cornet pleaded “this is going way too far, and for far too long.”[18]The obvious implication of this decision is both sympathy for Halep’s situation as well as fear regarding the impacts of potential future charges against other players.
The takeaway for players from this case is that charges under the ITIA will not be resolved quickly, and that the implications of a “not guilty” verdict could still delay, de-rail or even destroy a professional career. This is particularly scary given the tenuous financial situation of players outside the top-100, with few players able to support themselves for long, undefined periods of time without income from playing, much less to maintain their teams to retain their level of play while awaiting a result.[19]
This case has also raised questions about whether blame for doping should be shared across a player’s team rather than simply borne by the player alone. In Halep’s case, the supplement she used was not labelled as containing the banned substance. Many in the tennis community feel that it is the job of coaches and nutritionists to ensure their players are clean, to have visibility over the banned substances list, and to test player diets and supplements for these substances. For instance, former professional player and coach Renae Stubbs has spoken out publicly regarding Halep’s case, criticizing Halep’s team and saying they “hav[e] a lot to answer for.”[20] This concern is particularly prevalent given that most tennis players at the beginning of their career are remarkably young, with many not yet legal adults. Furthermore, at the elite level, players are spending significant sums to have experts in nutrition, health, and recovery join their teams with far greater awareness and expertise in anti-doping than the athletes themselves.[21] The TADP only penalizes the individual player for anti-doping rule violations, and a player’s team will not face any other sanction in front of other bodies for a guilty finding for their player. [22] However, this case does raise questions, particularly given the vulnerability of younger players and the asymmetry of knowledge and expertise between players and their teams, as to whether the international tennis community needs to place liability on teams to ensure that they are supporting their players appropriately and to add greater incentive to maintain a clean sport.
What’s next?
Simona Halep has maintained her innocence since she was first charged, claiming that she never intentionally ingested prohibited substances and that she never engaged in blood doping.[23] Halep does have the option to reduce here sentence to three years if she admits guilt.[24]However, Halep has responded to the finding, stating that she will “appeal this decision to The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and pursue all legal remedies against the supplement company in question.”[25]
There is precedent of CAS reducing sentences or reversing decisions for tennis players, with both Marin Cilic and Maria Sharapova receiving reduced sentences on appeal.[26] However, the danger is that CAS is empowered to increase sentences based on the evidence presented to the court.[27] This is particularly concerning given that the expert panel initially recommended a six-year ban, with the ITIA reducing the final sentence to four years.[28] It is a gamble pursuing this case to appeal. However, Halep appears concerned not just with “returning to the court” but also “clearing her name” and has stated she is prepared to appeal.[29]
Footnotes
