The International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) has confirmed that Mexican tennis player Luis Patiño has been banned from the sport for three years after the player admitted possession and use/attempted use of substances included on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited list.
The information came to light during an investigation by the ITIA under the Tennis Anti-Corruption Programme. In the course of that investigation, evidence was found relating to the player’s possession of clenbuterol and stanozolol which are both Prohibited Substances.
On 18 September 2022, Patiño admitted to the possession and use / attempted use of both substances, therefore admitting that they had committed Anti-Doping Rule Violations under articles 2.2 and 2.6 of the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (TADP).
The TADP provides for a one-year reduction in sanction for certain Anti-Doping Rule Violations based on early admission. Therefore, the ITIA determined that the player should be subject to a three-year period of ineligibility, reduced from four years and backdated to 15 July 2022 when the player was initially provisionally suspended. The player’s ban will therefore run until 14 July 2025.
The ITIA’s Senior Director of Anti-Doping Nicole Sapstead commented, “Not all anti-doping sanctions involve a positive test and this case demonstrates the benefits of the ITIA’s integrated approach to integrity in tennis. It is testament to our intelligence and investigations teams that we were able to pursue a non-analytical finding in this way and sends a clear message to anyone in the sport who is tempted to make a wrong turn that there can be repercussions, even years later.”
The ITIA is the delegated third party, under the World Anti-Doping Code (the Code) of the International Tennis Federation, the international governing body for the sport of tennis and signatory of the Code. The ITIA is responsible for the management and administration of anti-doping across professional tennis in accordance with the 2022 TADP.
Notes to editors:
The decision was made by the ITIA under provision 7.14 of the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme rules:
“7.14.1 At any time prior to a final decision by the Independent Tribunal, the ITIA may invite the Player or other Person to admit the Anti-Doping Rule Violation(s) charged and accede to specified Consequences […]
7.14.2 In the event that the Player or other Person admits the Anti-Doping Rule Violation(s) asserted and accedes to the Consequences specified by the ITIA […], the ITIA will promptly issue a reasoned decision confirming the commission of the Anti-Doping Rule Violation(s) and the imposition of the specified Consequences […], will send notice of the decision to the Player or other Person and to each Interested Party, and will Publicly Disclose the decision in accordance with Article 8.6. […]
7.14.3 Any decision issued by the ITIA in accordance with Article 7.14.2 that an Anti-Doping Rule Violation has been committed […] will address and determine (without limitation): (1) the factual basis of the decision that an Anti-Doping Rule Violation was committed; and (2) all of the Consequences to be imposed for such Anti-Doping Rule Violation, including the reasons for imposing the Consequences specified, and in particular the reasons for exercising any discretion not to impose the full Consequences available under this Programme.”
The player’s offence comes under provisions 2.2 and 2.6 of the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme rules:
2.2 Use or Attempted Use by a Player of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method, unless the Player establishes that such Use or Attempted Use is consistent with a TUE granted in accordance with Article 4.4
2.6 Possession of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method by a Player or a Player Support Person.
2.6.1 Possession by a Player In-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method, or Possession by a Player Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method that is prohibited Out-of-Competition, unless the Player establishes that such Possession is consistent with a TUE granted in accordance with Article 4.4 or other acceptable justification.
2.6.2 Possession by a Player Support Person In-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method, or Possession by a Player Support Person Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method that is prohibited Out-of-Competition in connection with a Player, Competition or training, unless the Player Support Person establishes that such Possession is consistent with a TUE granted to the Player in accordance with Article 4.4 or other acceptable justification.
Published 12 October 2022 15:20
Popular reading from Sanctions this month