Sinner ain't sinning? Doping ban raises concerns for Indian sponsors

Jannik Sinner has won the past two tennis Grand Slams, but less than a month after his Australian Open victory, he is the talk of tennis for a different reason: Agreeing to a doping deal that has led to a three-month ban. Sinner endorses many brands, including Gucci, Rolex, Nike, Lavazza, La Roche-Posay, and De Cecco. Despite the ban, not one of these brands has withdrawn its sponsorship of the “tainted” Sinner.

 

In stark contrast, tennis star Maria Sharapova lost several major sponsors after admitting that she failed a drug test at the Australian Open, back in January 2016. The former world champion had been the highest-paid female athlete in the world for 11 years in a row till then: She earned $29.7 million in 2015 — including $23 million from endorsements and appearances. Nike quickly cut ties with the 28-year-old star. Her eight-year contract with Nike, extended in 2010, was said to be worth as much as $70 million, including royalties. Porsche “suspended” any further collaborations; luxury watchmaker TAG Heuer whose contract had run out in end-2015 decided not to renew. Danone, the owner of Evian water, said that it was “surprised” by the positive drug test but stopped short of cutting ties with Sharapova.

 

The response of Sinner’s sponsors has been very muted. No withdrawals, no cancellations, no negative vibes at all. It seems business as usual.

 

Sponsors seem to have accepted, without demur, Sinner’s explanation that traces of clostebol — a banned anabolic steroid — had entered his system through inadvertent contamination from his physio during a massage.

 

Sinner’s team stressed that they had scientific feedback that this was not a case of intentional doping, including micro-dosing. The World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) seemed to grudgingly accept it. Sponsors too chose to tamely buy the explanation. And Sinner seems to have gotten off with a fairly light sentence, and with no damage to his lucrative endorsement deals.

 

When Canadian track star Ben Johnson won gold in the 100m at the Olympic Games in Seoul, he not only established a new world record but also defeated his American rival, Carl Lewis. Then Johnson tested positive for the steroid stanozolol. He had to return his gold medal, which then went to Lewis. Johnson had dizzying fame and million-dollar promotional deals before his fortunes reversed. Argentinian soccer player Diego Maradona, who’d led his team to victory in 1986 World Cup, tested positive for five different variants of ephedrine at the 1994 World Cup. Though he’d been suspended for 15 months in 1991-92 due to cocaine use, Maradona had lost 26 pounds to get ready for the tournament. He was promptly tossed out of the competition. While his career lasted a few more years, he never played for Argentina again. American cyclist Lance Armstrong won seven Tour de France titles in a row from 1999 to 2005. In January 2013, Armstrong confessed to Oprah Winfrey that he’d been doping for all of his Tour de France wins. Doping has demolished many a superstar over the years.

 

Which brings us back to where we started: Why are sponsors getting so tolerant of the usage of Peds (performance enhancing drugs)?  Sinner used the “plausible deniability” argument and blamed it on his team (a massage from the physio in this case). Wada decided to accept Sinner’s explanation, that the presence of the clostebol did not artificially enhance the Italian’s performance and that its use was not intentional. His punishment? A mere three-month ban. Why? Because Sinner was found to bear “no fault or negligence” and cleared of any wrongdoing, and avoided a long doping ban. Sponsors too seemed to have swallowed the findings, hook, line, and sinker.

 

The only explanation to the soft-pedalling by the sponsors can perhaps be attributed to the fact that substance abuse today has many shades. A lengthy six-year ban was handed out to Spanish skater Laura Barquero after she tested positive for the anabolic clostebol, the same substance that earned Sinner a three-month suspension. The Wada explanation was that Barquero’s version of how the substance entered her system was unconvincing in light of the evidence. So intent has begun to overshadow content.

 

India thankfully has not had many commercially valuable sports stars stripped because of doping. Prithvi Shaw was given an eight-month suspension by the Board of Control for Cricket in India in 2019 for a doping offence. The cricketer later explained that the banned substance entered his body due to a cough syrup.

 

The Sinner episode should nevertheless put Indian sponsors on high caution mode — what if a top cricketer with multiple endorsements gets into doping trouble? Improbable perhaps, but not impossible.

 

---

The author is chairman of Rediffusion