Serena Williams has stated that she believes she would have faced a 20-year ban from tennis for a doping offense similar to that of current world number one Jannik Sinner.
Sinner received a three-month ban, which expires on May 4th, after testing positive for the banned anabolic steroid clostebol in March 2024. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) accepted Sinner’s explanation that the substance entered his system inadvertently due to negligence from his physiotherapist, who used a cream containing clostebol to treat a cut on his finger. WADA agreed that Sinner did not intend to cheat and gained no performance-enhancing benefit.
Williams, a 23-time Grand Slam champion, told Time magazine that she felt she would have been treated much more harshly if she had tested positive for a banned substance.
“Fantastic personality. I love the guy, I love this game. He’s great for the sport,” Williams said of Sinner. “(But) if I did that, I would have gotten 20 years. Let’s be honest. I would have gotten Grand Slams taken away from me.”
Williams, who never tested positive during her career, has been a vocal critic of anti-doping agencies in the past, claiming she was unfairly targeted with excessive testing.
The discrepancy in perceived treatment highlights the ongoing debate surrounding anti-doping rules and their application, particularly the principle of strict liability, which holds athletes responsible for any prohibited substance found in their system regardless of intent. While WADA accepted Sinner’s lack of intent and the absence of performance enhancement, the rules still mandated a suspension due to the negligence of his entourage. This case has sparked discussion about the fairness and consistency of doping sanctions in tennis.