Allan Hird: WADA’s stark contrast between Sinner and Essendon drug cases inherently unfair

WADA determined Jannik Sinner didn’t try and cheat despite testing positive to a banned substance. Neither did the Essendon 34, and they didn’t test positive at all. Allan Hird writes, it’s time for change.

The World Anti-Doping Agency has just handed this year’s Australian Open winner Jannik Sinner a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Analytic tests showed Sinner took clostebol, which is named in WADA’s prohibited list. Under the agency’s code that would ordinarily mean a two-to-four year suspension and the stripping of any titles or awards an athlete has received.

However, Sinner got three months’ – to be served between the world’s major tennis tournaments – and he’ll keep all the titles he has won since the failed tests.

Not a bad deal if you can get it.

Sinner is set to serve a three month ban between Grand Slams. Picture: DAVID GRAY / AFP

The 34 former Essendon footballers must be envious.

The WADA statement says Sinner “did not intend to cheat” and the “clostebol did not provide any performance-enhancing benefit”.

But the WADA code is quite clear – the athlete’s intentions are not considered – if he/she tests positive to a banned drug it’s “out you go, sunshine” – even though they may not know if the substance is banned, or even if they took it by mistake.

But Sinner apparently is different; the anti-doping code doesn’t apply to him.

The WADA statement, without explanation, justifies this when it says three months, rather than two-to-four years, is okay because of the “unique set of facts of this case”.

To borrow a slogan from a well-known superannuation advertising campaign, let’s compare the pair. The pair being Sinner and the 34 former Essendon footballers.

Sinner failed his drug tests. The Essendon footballers were tested many times and each time the tests came up negative.

WADA claims Sinner did not intend to cheat; but neither did the Essendon players. They, in fact did not cheat. They asked – and were assured in writing – that their supplements program was WADA-compliant. None of the substances the players were told they were taking were named on the agency’s prohibited list.

The footballers were convicted by the Court of Arbitration for Sport for taking thymosin beta-4 (TB4) in 2012 – WADA listed the substance as prohibited in 2018.

The Essendon 34. Picture: Quinn Rooney/Getty Images

The AFL lawyer at the CAS hearing pointed out that TB4 was not named on the WADA prohibited list, but that was ignored. And further, the information given to players about the substances they were taking stated that all were WADA-compliant and the information did not list thymosin beta-4. As a result of the CAS ruling, the 34 Essendon footballers missed the entirety of the 2016 AFL season and Jobe Watson lost his 2012 Brownlow Medal.

Sinner did not intend to cheat, according to WADA. The Essendon players did not cheat, let alone intend to cheat. There is no evidence they took a banned drug.

So, why were Sinner and the Essendon players treated differently?

Sinner managed to escape the capricious anti-doping system set up by the International Olympic Committee and administered by both WADA and CAS.

The contrast, however, with the treatment of the former Essendon players and Sinner is stark and inherently unfair. For many of the 34, it meant the end of their AFL careers. For all, it took a huge personal toll.

The Sinner case is just the latest that demonstrates WADA doesn’t dispense justice in a way that we, in Australia, see as fair and reasonable. Judgements are not explained clearly and penalties are inconsistent.

Jobe Watson was stripped of his 2012 Brownlow Medal. Picture: AAP Image/David Crosling

Surely, Australia’s needs to reassess WADA’s handling of doping in sport and, like the United States Anti-Doping Agency, speak out. Of course that takes courage, which has been singularly absent for the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (now SIA), unless they are pursuing athletes like Shayna Jack and Peter Bol.

Surely, the AFL should be asking why the principles followed in the Sinner case did not apply to the Essendon footballers. After all, the players were AFL employees. While they’re at it, the league could also reinstate Watson’s Brownlow Medal.

Sinner tested positive, yet kept his tennis titles. Watson’s tests were negative, yet he was stripped of his medal.

Again, it would take courage from the AFL to return the honour of the Brownlow to Watson, something the league has lacked when dealing with the big boys.

– Allan Hird is the father of former Essendon coach James Hird.