“What I believe is not fair, either, is that they announced my case straight away, and I got all the heat from the press,” Simona Halep said, highlighting the stark difference between her and Iga Swiatek’s doping saga. Halep had to serve a 4-year ban after testing positive for a banned substance, while Iga Swiatek served just one month suspension. Days after her staggering statement, the Swiatek herself stepped forward to give her reasoning.

Iga Swiatek recently addressed claims of preferential treatment by the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) regarding doping cases. “I know that people automatically need to compare such situations to others that have happened before, but the truth is that each of these cases is completely different. And the process of proving innocence will also vary accordingly,” Świątek stated. “It’s hard to compare me to Sinner, Halep, or Kamil Majchrzak because each of us is dealing with a different issue.”

She highlighted that players have no control over how cases are handled, as the ITIA decides the process and outcomes. “My fate, just like others’, was in their hands, and they decide how each case unfolds,” she said further. Świątek also expressed trust in the ITIA’s objectivity and adherence to rules, saying, “I trust that this process is objective, that everything is done according to the rules, and that no one judges a player either way based on their ranking think that’s the question for ITIA,” the player concluded.

However, Simona Halep criticized the ITIA’s approach and highlighted inconsistencies in how cases were handled. The Romanian, who tested positive for Roxadustat at the 2022 US Open, was initially handed a four-year ban. The Court of Arbitration for Sport later reduced her suspension to nine months, allowing her to return to competition at the Miami Open. Halep expressed her frustration with how her case was publicized, unlike those of Świątek and Jannik Sinner. “I find it strange because their cases were confidential and only revealed after resolution,” Halep said.

Halep revealed her repeated requests to play while her case was under investigation, which the ITIA denied. “I asked to lift the provisional suspension to be able to play,” she shared. “I said, ‘If you believe in the end that I am guilty, you take the points back and all the money and everything, but let me play.’ But now they could play,” she added, while referring to Swiatek and Sinner.

The two-time Grand Slam champion also pointed out the irregularities in Świątek’s case, specifically her three-week suspension, return for major events, and subsequent suspension. “The woman player – I don’t want to give name, you know who I’m talking about – she had the three-week suspension, but then she played two events, and then she again gets suspension. What is this? I mean, I don’t understand. So I feel it is not fair,” Halep concluded.

As the controversy continues to extend, more and more verdicts from various players emerge, adding to the debate.

Frances Tiafoe claims unawareness of Iga Swiatek doping controversy

Earlier this week, Russian ex-pro, Nikolay Davydenko, slammed the biases in the case of Swiatek, saying, “Tennis is tennis, you won’t become number one in the world with doping. It used to be easier to regulate doping, but now it’s worse. For me, Poland and Romania are two identical countries. Ask anyone in Russia, no one sees Poland [in Halep’s statements]. It’s nonsense. I don’t know what’s going on here. Maybe sponsors, maybe money. Is it possible that the President of the Republic of Poland[Andrzej Duda] decided this issue for Świątek? Anything is possible, corruption is everywhere.”

Whereas Frances Tiafoe surprised the tennis community with his bizarre response when asked about Iga Świątek’s recent doping controversy during a pre-event press conference at the Charlotte Invitational. Tiafoe claimed, “I didn’t even hear about it.” His response left reporters, as the news has been one of the most discussed topics in the sport.

The press conference moderator quickly intervened after Tiafoe’s comment. He highlighted that the topic would not be discussed further. “As much as we want to talk about it, it’s not going to happen today,” the moderator stated, redirecting the focus of the session. This move reignited the depth of the issue and highlighted the reluctance of players and officials to engage in the ongoing debate.