Moore's four-year ban and Sinner's three-month suspension: A dual mirror of tennis justice

On July 15, 2025, 32-year-old British doubles star Tara Moore received a four-year ban. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) overturned a previous independent tribunal's ruling of "meat contamination," concluding that she could not reasonably explain the source of high nandrolone levels, leading to an immediate suspension. Despite a reduction in her ban due to a prior 19-month provisional suspension, this former world number one in British doubles will have to wait until 2028 to return to the court.

A dramatic contrast occurred on the same tennis courts—current men's singles world number one Jannik Sinner faced a very different outcome in his doping case. In March 2024, Sinner tested positive for synthetic anabolic steroid clostebol at two consecutive events. The independent tribunal initially ruled him "not at fault," merely nullifying his event results; even after WADA's appeal, the final settlement resulted in a mere symbolic three-month suspension (from February to May 2025), which did not affect his participation in the French Open, allowing him to retain both his results and prize money. While Moore's career hangs in the balance due to her "failure to prove contamination," Sinner only received a light penalty based on "team oversight," stating, "I have the ability to hire a top legal team, which is a legitimate use of the rules."

The handling of Sinner's case has raised concerns about the instrumentalization of procedural justice. Initially, his temporary suspension was only five days and kept entirely confidential, while former Grand Slam champion Halep was banned for a year under similar investigations. More critically, after WADA appealed to the CAS, they chose to compromise and settle despite weak scientific evidence, accepting a three-month symbolic suspension. This maneuver avoided the risk of loss but sacrificed consistency in penalties. The anti-doping system's vague definitions of "unintentional contamination" were exposed in this case, revealing cracks created by celebrity influence and legal resources.

Moore, on the other hand, became a victim of the rigidity of procedures. Although the independent tribunal accepted her explanation of "Colombian meat contamination" and dismissed the charges, the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) questioned her scientific evidence, stating that the nandrolone levels did not align with the contamination hypothesis. The CAS's final ruling emphasized that Moore failed to prove the source of the drug and could not eliminate the suspicion of "intentional use." Under the same rules, the burden of proof faced by the two players was vastly different—Sinner's trace amounts of drugs were attributed to contact with his therapist's application, while Moore's career ended because she could not trace the source of a steak.

The core contradiction in Sinner's case was revealed by his own words before Wimbledon: "Resources allow me to hire top lawyers, which is a legitimate right." This statement sparked a huge controversy as it openly exposed the control that legal resources have over judicial outcomes. This scenario feels familiar, reminiscent of the 1994 Simpson murder case in the U.S., where a wealthy athlete assembled a "dream team" of lawyers for millions, using flaws in police evidence to overturn blood evidence, ultimately leading to his acquittal. The American legal maxim "procedural justice must be seen" has devolved into a commentary on the game of money: while the public widely believed Simpson was guilty, 80% of Americans still had to acknowledge that "the trial process was compliant."

This controversy over "double standards" in tennis has erupted. Players like Kyrgios and Shapovalov openly criticized Sinner for enjoying "privileged treatment," while lesser-known players like Moore struggle against the system due to a lack of resources. The deeper irony lies in the fact that the drug levels found in Sinner (76-86 picograms/mL) are considered "far below the threshold for potential performance enhancement" and would be difficult to achieve through intentional doping; meanwhile, the nandrolone levels in Moore's sample were deemed by the ITIA to be "abnormally high and unexplainable by contamination." Behind the differences in scientific conclusions, the disparities in legal team strength have clearly predetermined the scales of justice.

The compromise ruling has exposed the systemic dilemmas faced by tennis governing bodies. As one of the new generation's "tennis giants," alongside Alcaraz, Sinner has captured nearly seven Grand Slam titles, making his commercial value crucial in the "post-Big Three era." Initially, WADA sought a 1-2 year ban but ultimately accepted three months, interpreted by the public as a concession to ticket sales and viewership realities. When organizations need stars to maintain interest in the sport, the rigidity of anti-doping rules is forced to yield to commercial flexibility.

Moore's case thus becomes a tragic reflection of this compromise. ITIA CEO Karen Moorhouse emphasized, "We set the bar very high for appeals, and the scientific advice in this case clearly indicates insufficient explanation." However, when similar incidents result in stark penalties due to differences in player status, the ethical foundation of sports justice is eroded. While tennis fans celebrate the "new era of giants" ushered in by Sinner and Alcaraz, do they realize the shadow of privileged rules that accompanies it? When the "strict liability principle" is softened to "shared responsibility" for star players, the core of sports spirit—fair competition—becomes a luxury.

The CAS's ruling on Moore stated, "Failed to prove unintentional violation." Meanwhile, Sinner's three-month ban set a record for the lowest penalty in steroid-related cases, with their fates balanced on a scale: one side representing the rigid framework of procedural justice, the other the power of resources and capital. As the "fruit of the poisonous tree" principle from criminal courts spreads to sports arbitration, and as the Wimbledon champion lifts the trophy amid doping controversies, the moral credibility of tennis has tilted under the leverage of capital and celebrity.

The purity of sports spirit faces a crisis of disconnection between procedural justice and substantive justice—if the enforcement of rules always leaves loopholes for money and status, every ace serve on the field will echo the silent questions of ordinary athletes.(Source: Tennis Home, Author: Xiao Di)