Iga Swiatek’s one-month suspension for unintentionally taking the banned substance trimetazidine (TMZ) comes down to picograms. World No. 2 Swiatek’s positive test, recorded August 12 and communicated to her alongside a provisional suspension September 12, detected 50 picograms of TMZ per milliliter of urine, which doping experts call a trace amount.
A picogram is 1,000th of a nanogram; there are one billion nanograms in a gram. Not the sort of usage that would provide any advantage in a tennis match.
Combined with Swiatek submitting her medications and supplements to independent laboratories alongside hair samples, those numbers led the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) to accept her explanation that she had taken a contaminated dose of melatonin, which she had used to help her sleep to combat jet lag.
Here are some more numbers.
On September 20, 15 days after Jessica Pegula knocked her out of the U.S. Open and eight days after being told she had tested positive, Swiatek announced she was going to skip one of the top tournaments of the year.
“Due to personal matters, I’m forced to withdraw from the China Open in Beijing,” Swiatek said in a statement. “I’m very sorry as I had an amazing time playing and winning this tournament last year and was really looking forward to being back there. I know that the fans will experience great tennis there and I’m sorry I won’t be a part of it this time.”
The announcement came after Swiatek spent the end of the summer rightfully talking about how exhausted she was following the Olympic Games in July and August, at which she took the bronze medal after an intense period that included winning her fourth French Open in five years, competing at Wimbledon, and not winning a gold medal for which she was viewed as champion-in-waiting. Skipping a tournament due to “personal matters” seemed to fit with that narrative. Fatigue. A medical issue. Burnout. Family stuff.
Iga Swiatek at the Olympics earlier this year. (Dimitar Dilkoff / AFP via Getty Images)
Under the broadest definition, “personal matters” does cover just about anything. That said, when someone uses that phrase, the immediate understanding generally involves some sort of health or family issue. It’s personal, and generally separate from something that’s either public or professional.
There’s also an implicit boundary request in the phrase: What’s going on is my own business.
But positive doping tests and provisional suspensions handed down by an anti-doping authority are not personal matters. Those are professional matters, in a profession that is very public.
GO DEEPER
Explaining Iga Swiatek’s doping ban, why it was kept secret and what it means for tennis
The ITIA holds off on announcing any positive test for 10 days so the player has the right to appeal the provisional suspension. If the player decides to appeal, the agency keeps the findings secret, and the player generally does, too. Then the process of testing, litigation and judging unfolds behind closed doors. In Swiatek’s case, her successful appeal allowed her to play the WTA Tour Finals and the Billie Jean King Cup Finals while that process was going on.
Swiatek’s team’s statement says that she “was unable to inform the public about the ongoing investigation”. The ITIA’s code subjects its officials, employees and associates to confidentiality, but nothing explicitly prohibits a player who has tested positive and is serving a provisional suspension during an appeal from explaining what’s going on.
So, if you feel that you have been misled the past few months, then join the club. “Personal matter” doesn’t begin to describe a positive doping test and the process that ensued, and in the the long run, that less-than-transparent explanation for her absence may end up harming Swiatek more than the positive test for unintentionally taking a performance-enhancing substance that likely had no effect on her performance.
Whose decision was it to describe this as a “personal matter”? Was any consideration given to saying something else?
Swiatek’s communications team did not respond to a message seeking comment.
“The whole thing will definitely stay with me for the rest of my life,” Swiatek said in a video statement Thursday.
Both Swiatek’s one-month suspension and the decision not to ban Jannik Sinner for his two positive tests for clostebol, an anabolic steroid, have been conducted according to ITIA protocol. Both cases have also revealed deep wells of mistrust and anger within tennis from fans and players alike, confused at players being allowed to play while under investigation. Everything has been done by the book. The book appears in need of a rewrite.
There are also plenty of hard-nosed anti-doping officials who believe the science has gotten ahead of the rulebook. Swiatek tested negative multiple times before the positive test and then again after. That would indicate that she was not in the middle of a doping cycle, and the trace amount of TMZ suggested an unintentional use as well.
Iga Swiatek playing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on November 3. (Robert Prange / Getty Images)
So perhaps provisional suspensions are not the way to go when the science says the athlete didn’t receive any benefit.
On a conference call with reporters Thursday, the ITIA’s chief executive, Karen Moorhouse, said the rules are in place to be fair to the players. “We’ve been absolutely transparent once they’ve reached an outcome,” Moorhouse said.
But is that transparent enough?
It’s true that players may not see much incentive for going public amid a period of uncertainty; that as soon as they announce they have tested positive for a banned substance and are under investigation, everyone will brand them as a cheater. Some no doubt would.
But a player is going to have to answer for the positive test eventually anyway. Would Swiatek, the ITIA and tennis be better off had they jointly come clean about this in September, rather than announcing it as done and dusted now, after Swiatek had spent the fall giving other explanations for her absence from competitive tennis?
It’s hard to not think so.
Now she has both tested positive and opted not to be “absolutely transparent” for two months. That’s not a very good combination.
It’s impossible to consider the Swiatek case without comparing it to that of Sinner, the world No. 1 in the men’s game.
Sinner tested positive for clostebol on March 10 this year at the BNP Paribas Open in Indian Wells, Calif, and again on March 18, out of competition. The independent tribunals of the ITIA determined the now 23-year-old Italian bore “no fault or negligence” for the positive tests, and therefore wasn’t deserving of a ban. But all this only became public at the conclusion of the ITIA’s investigations and hearings in mid-August.
There wasn’t much transparency there either, and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has since challenged and appealed the ruling to the Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS), arguing that Sinner’s level of culpability should be upgraded to “no significant fault or negligence”, which would leave him facing a ban of up to two years.
GO DEEPER
Jannik Sinner’s doping case explained: What WADA appeal means and what is at stake for tennis
Through it all though, Sinner never explained anything to the public. He didn’t have to. He successfully appealed two provisional suspensions quickly enough to avoid missing any tournaments. Still, when the ITIA announced the details of the Sinner investigation and its ruling, much of the tennis-watching public felt like people had put one over on them.
That’s not good for anyone.
Swiatek repeatedly talked about the matter coming to a close in her video statement. Yet it’s hard to believe it has.
She will absolutely face more questions when the 2025 season begins in Australia in late December — about the doping violation, but also about why she didn’t tell us what was really keeping her off the court. So too will tennis authorities, about how a system which they say is working as designed can create situations in which so many people feel left in the dark.
(Top photo: Robert Prange / Getty Images)
