The Aftermath of the Iga Swiatek Decision
After Swiatek's positive test, the WTA faces new calculations to solve.
While still digesting yesterday’s big main course—analyzing the unexpected Iga Swiatek ITIA decision about her positive test for the banned substance trimetazidine—there was a pretty solid plate of leftovers that I wanted to dig into today while they are still fresh. I hope to entice your appetites with some new ingredients to add different flavors to what you got yesterday (and a couple clarifications, corrections and pieces of new information).
Grab a fork and let’s go:
Rewriting the Rankings
The biggest new information I got in the past ~24 hours was from the ITIA, clarifying to me that Swiatek will actually be penalized with the loss of her prize money and ranking points earned in Cincinnati this year, despite the ITIA not mentioning those penalties in their 12-page decision document (which is why I had presumed the positive test being an out-of-competition test meant those event-centric consequences were avoided).
The prize money Swiatek will forfeit for reaching the Cincinnati semifinals, $158,944, won’t matter to anything beyond her very robust bank accounts. But the evaporation of 390 ranking points from Swiatek’s ranking puts the WTA into a pickle it has never faced before.
If the loss of those 390 ranking points is applied retroactively and the rankings are recalculated as if those invalid points weren’t awarded originally following Cincinnati, it would have meant a change atop the WTA Rankings for the week of October 14th, when then-No. 1 Swiatek’s lead over then-No. 2 Aryna Sabalenka was only 69 points.
It would have been nice for Sabalenka to get the moment of reclaiming the WTA top spot by immediate virtue of winning the title in Wuhan, where she won the title, but that moment is gone.
What can, however, be amended is the historical record: Weeks at No. 1 is a statistic kept and celebrated by both tennis tours, and the WTA’s decision will affect that metric. If the rankings are retroactively revised, Swiatek’s total of weeks spent at No. 1 would be reduced from 125 to 124, and Sabalenka’s total would increase from 14 to 15—15 and counting, since she is still at No. 1 and will be adding weeks at least through mid-January.
I have asked the WTA how they will handle this situation, and they replied that they will respond later (this is an unprecedented decision for them that isn’t time sensitive, really, so no need to rush it on the holiday weekend). I will update folks here when the WTA has responded.
History Revision Repeating Itself?
This conundrum is another aspect with a direct parallel between the Swiatek case and the Jannik Sinner case from earlier this year, because the 400 ranking points which Sinner forfeited for testing positive at Indian Wells would have changed exactly one week of the ATP rankings down the road: without those 400 points in Sinner’s total, Djokovic would have reclaimed the No. 1 ranking for one week in August, when Sinner’s lead was only 310 points.
The ATP, however, decided not to revise the rankings, which they told me when I sent them a similar query three months ago.
From an ATP spokesperson:
“Following Monday’s decision, the Indian Wells points come of as of this week’s ranking (vs a retroactive re-running/re-publishing of the rankings going back to March).
So instead of Djokovic having a record-extending 429th week at No. 1, that week counts as Sinner’s 10th week at No. 1, in a haul that is currently 24 weeks at No. 1 and counting.
That wasn’t a decision I agreed with whatsoever—why should an ill-gotten week at No. 1 stand when the ability to re-run the math should be entirely feasible? When I reported the ATP’s decision, it wasn’t popular with many tennis fans I heard from, either.
Hopefully the WTA, which operates independently from the ATP, can make a more coherent decision that points that are negated because of a positive doping test can and should be treated like they were never cleanly earned.
Updates from Poland’s Pharmaceutical Industry
There have been a handful of player reactions to yesterday’s news, the most compelling of which address the apparent two-tiered tennis justice system which I wrote about (beyond the paywall) in yesterday’s post.
But the more relevant reactions to the merits of the case, I think, come from two Polish bodies who could be blamed for the contaminated melatonin determined to be the cause of Swiatek’s positive test.
LEK-AM, the manufacturer of the melatonin, put out a statement Friday, expressing regret while also clarifying that they did not understand the ITIA’s attempts to contact them through a third party.
Here’s a slightly abridged version of the pharmaceutical company’s statement:
Together with the international public and fans of Ms. Iga Swiatek, we are saddened by the situation that has occurred to the world's best tennis player. We are deeply moved by Ms. Iga Swiatek's statement dated November 28 2024, not only as employees of the pharmaceutical company, but also as fans of the Polish sports.
We are truly sorry that the incident occurred involving the drug Melatonina LEK-AM 1 mg - all the more so because our drug has for many years been appreciated and trusted by doctors and patients, including professional athletes.
…
Melatonina LEK-AM 1 mg is subject to strict inspection at every stage of production. Traces of impurities detected in the tested packages of the drug are well below the acceptable standard, which means that they do not threaten the health and life of patients to any extent. Melatonina LEK-AM 1 mg melatonin is safe for patients.
Regarding the situation, LEK-AM is in constant dialogue with the Chief Pharmaceutical Inspectorate. We declare our full cooperation in order to clarify any doubts.
We kindly inform that ITIA did not contact us directly.
We were contacted by a law firm from the UK which, however, did not indicate for whom it works. The representative of the law firm expected us to violate the Polish pharmaceutical law [Art. 36 g (1) (10) of the Pharmaceutical Law Act, Journal of Laws 2024.686] especially with regard to sending medications to unauthorized persons.
This raised our distrust and the lack of our response. From today's perspective, we would have initiated contact.
It’s understandable that the company might not have been cooperative with a cloaked approach from a third party. I know from experience that during the ATP’s investigation into the first set of abuse allegations against Alexander Zverev, for example, the people who were contacted by the firm hired to do interviews were often hesitant to trust that the people making contact were who they purported to be; companies versed in pharmaceutical laws have their own reasons for hesitation and skepticism. I understand that reluctance and I also understand why the ITIA likely did not want to divulge more information than they thought necessary, lest news of an investigation involving an easily identified top Polish tennis star begin to leak.
The Polish agency which regulates the country’s pharmaceutical industry, Główny Inspektorat Farmaceutyczny, also put out a statement regarding the news of purported contamination, and said it will launch its own investigation.
“If the defect is confirmed, appropriate actions will be taken against the medicinal product and the manufacturer,” GIF wrote. “We will inform you about the results of the inspection immediately.”
A result which confirms the ITIA’s finding would of course be very helpful for Swiatek’s credibility in this case; a result which cannot confirm their verdict would be…less tidy.
That’s all for now, but if there are major developments (or an answer from the WTA about how it will handle its Weeks at No. 1 statistic), I will keep you lovely folks updated.
Thanks for reading and subscribing!
