ITIA Quarterly Update - Q2 2026

An introduction from Karen Moorhouse, CEO of the ITIA

In recent weeks, our work has prompted important and interesting discussions among players, tennis fans, and the media.

The case of Markéta Vondroušová and the independent tribunal's decision to impose a four-year suspension following her refusal to submit to an anti-doping test generated important questions, not only about anti-doping rules, but about player welfare, mental wellbeing, personal safety, and how integrity systems operate in practice.

When cases attract this level of attention, it can be easy to forget that there are people involved at every stage. Firstly, there is a player facing a life-changing outcome because of one decision. On the other side of that interaction, there are trained professional doping control officers carrying out a difficult and often misunderstood role. 

At a tribunal, there are independent and well-qualified arbitrators weighing evidence and testimony before reaching what they know will be, one way or another, a significantly consequential decision. After the fact, there are many other players, and their support teams, watching closely, trying to understand what the case means for them, how the rules apply, and their own responsibilities.

As an organisation, we have never shied away from the reality that anti-doping can be uncomfortable. Being asked to provide a sample at home, often at an unexpected moment, is not something anyone would welcome – but it is essential. Unpredictable testing remains one of the most important tools available to protect clean sport. Without it, the credibility and effectiveness of anti-doping programmes would be significantly weakened. 

Aside from the specifics of the refusal, the question we have heard most frequently since the decision is a simple one: how can this result in such a significant sanction?

The answer is equally simple. Anti-doping rules have long treated a refusal to submit to testing in the same way as a positive test because the alternative would create an obvious loophole. If refusing a test carried fewer consequences than taking one, the effectiveness of the system would be undermined. The independent tribunal in this case ultimately upheld that principle, though, of course, the player has the right to appeal the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport should they choose to.

At the same time, recognising the importance of testing does not mean dismissing the concerns that have been raised. We absolutely understand why conversations about player welfare, safety and mental health have resonated with so many people. Those issues matter. They matter to players, and they matter to us. Our doping control officers operate under strict protocols, receive extensive training, and carry identification that can be verified should a player ever be unsure about who they are dealing with. We continue to review our processes, because maintaining confidence in testing is just as important as conducting the tests themselves.

One thing that is sometimes lost amid discussion of individual cases is that most of our work is preventative. Every day, players contact the ITIA to ask questions, check medications, understand rules, seek guidance, and make informed decisions. Those conversations rarely generate headlines, but they are among the most important things we do. Our goal is not to catch people out, but to help players get it right. That is why education and engagement remain central to our strategy.

The scrutiny generated by high-profile cases is understandable and, in many ways, healthy. It reflects how much players, fans and stakeholders care about fairness in tennis.

While opinions may differ on individual outcomes, I hope there is broad agreement that everyone benefits from a sport in which the rules are applied consistently, decisions are reached independently, and participants have access to both support and due process.

Sanctions and Provisional Suspensions

The ITIA confirmed two sanctions under the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (TADP) and nine sanctions under the Tennis Anti-Corruption Program (TACP) in the second quarter of 2026. 

TADP sanctions 
 
Nathan Ponwith – one month 
 
Markéta Vondroušová – four years 
 
TACP sanctions 
 
Jasel Beltre – 20 years 
 
Jossting Cruz – two years 

Ángel Maleno Rosario – three years 

Jesus Maleno Rosario – three months 

Lu Pengyu – six years 

Igor Zelenay – nine months 

Dorian Kos – one month (with one month suspended) 
 
Oleksandr Ovcharenko – six weeks 
 
Federico Colelli – two months 
 
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) partially upheld the appeal of Croatian tennis player Lauro Milanovic, reducing their suspension from eight years to six years and six months.  
 
The CAS dismissed the appeal of French tennis player Thomas Setodji, maintaining a 10-year suspension issued in 2025. 
 
Following an internal audit conducted by Tennis Australia, the ITIA issued a sanction to Milan Malicek, who held accreditation as a player guest, for breaching tennis’ betting rules. 
 
Malicek accepted a fine of $1,000, of which $500 is suspended for two years. 
 
Provisional Suspensions 
 
Karlis Ozolins (TADP) 
 
Daniil Kakhniuk (TADP) 

Match alerts

In the second quarter of 2026, the ITIA received a total of 10 match alerts through its confidential Memoranda of Understanding with the regulated betting industry.

Tennis Anti-Doping Programme Testing 

These figures outline the number of samples taken from players, not the number of tests (multiple samples e.g., urine and blood, can be taken from players when they are tested). All tests undertaken this quarter were with no notice.

The ITIA is responsible for the TADP across all members’ events. Tests in Q2 of 2026 took place at events ranging from World Tennis 15K level to Roland Garros with in and/or out-of-competition testing undertaken in 48 different countries.

ABP = Athlete Biological Passport
DBS = Dry Blood Spot