Up until a few days ago, Jannik Sinner was at the top of the world. The first Italian man to achieve the ATP No.1 ranking in singles, with a Grand Slam title under his belt in the form of the Australian Open, and the latest title at the Cincinnati Open to boast, he was high on confidence. But the higher you go, the lower you can fall, isn’t it?

Sinner’s latest doping saga has taken the tennis community by storm. Less was the shock at perhaps the failed dope tests – after all, this is not the first time a controversy of this kind has attached itself to a top athlete. But what was surprising was the time it took for the ITIA to resolve the issue. And it has opened up a Pandora’s box for all kinds of questions about preferential treatment.

The Brit-Canadian Greg Rusedski joined a host of other present and former players who are voicing their opinions on the controversy, as he posted on X, “The whole Jannik Sinner case is interesting how quickly it is dealt with compared to other cases which have taken many more months and years. How is this accepted and resolved so quickly? The system needs to do better for all players, not just the very best?”

The investigation originally began in March at Indian Wells but the coaches were told after Miami, following which they immediately appealed any possible ban. That has allowed Sinner to play in any and every tournament, with any withdrawals coming only due to injuries. Now, an independent tribunal has ruled that Sinner had no part in the incident and bears “no fault or negligence” because the original fault lay with his team, with physio Giacomo Naldi applying an OTC spray containing Clostebol to his skin to treat a cut. And then treating Sinner’s open wounds without gloves.

But the speed at which this case has been resolved – March to August – and the relative lack of punishment has raised eyebrows. “Different rules for different players,” said Denis Shapovalov. He later also added, “Can’t imagine what every other player that got banned for contaminated substances is feeling right now.” The Aussie Nick Kyrgios also lashed out, “Ridiculous – whether it was accidental or planned. You get tested twice with a banned (steroid) substance… you should be gone for 2 years. Your performance was enhanced. Massage cream…. Yeah nice 🙄”

Although the blame is being shifted to Naldi and co., some believe the ultimate responsibility lies with the player himself. What is also unacceptable to some is how Sinner seems to have gotten free with just a monetary punishment. “This is ridiculous lmfao second hand steroids through a massage?? ATP always looks out for their money-makers. Good for business, bad for transparency and integrity,” were Tennys Sandgren’s words.

Even former player Liam Broady was incensed, “Whether Sinner was doping or not. This is not right. Plenty of players go through the same thing and have to wait months or YEARS for their innocence to be declared. Not a good look.”

Objectively looking, a lot of such comments with similar sentiments are coming from players with clean pasts. The other recent high-profile doping case was of course WTA’s Simona Halep, who has yet to speak on the matter. But another player who violated the Tour’s doping policy has spoken out.

Tara Moore, who missed 19 months on the Tour, questions double standards after Jannik Sinner saga

There is no doubt that Jannik Sinner is the face of the game right now. Any accusations that mar his shiny clean image would need to be handled with delicacy. That’s what the Italian and his team would be thinking right now. But Tara Moore is frustrated at the unfairness of it all.

“I guess only the top players’ images matter,” Moore wrote on X. “I guess only the independent tribunal’s opinion on the top players is taken as sound and right. Yet, they question them in my case. Just makes no sense.”

Moore had tested positive for nandrolone metabolites and boldenone in May 2022. She was finally cleared last December after a panel ruled that contaminated meat was the source of the substances. She already lost almost two years as an athlete by then.

Sinner, on the other hand, was allowed to play while his appeal was under consideration. The truth, it would seem, is undeniable then. This case was treated a little differently, as it was resolved far quicker than any other doping case in the past. What do you think?