Wreckorder by fgs gujilde Innocent Sinner

CEBU, Philippines — The tennis community protests the three-month suspension of Jannik Sinner who twice tested positive for a banned substance last year. But he cut a deal with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) by owning up partial responsibility for his positive result to shorten his sentence. He claims Clostebol, a banned substance derived from testosterone, was inadvertently sprayed by his physiotherapist into his cut. In law, it is called plea bargaining.

WADA defended its decision, claiming the positive result is nowhere anywhere near doping. The two-time grand slam champion did not know he took an anabolic steroid. In law, it is called good faith, a state of mind gauged only by concrete action or omission, the best index of human intention.

The anti-doping body justifies the banned substance does not improve performance, the evil sought prevented to equalize winning opportunity. When the reason for the law ceases, the law itself ceases.

 WADA insists the case of the world number one is one of a kind, hence the deviant decision. In law, it is called pro hac vice, which means for this moment only, or better yet, for this case only. Defensive. It merely succeeded to convince itself but not the tennis players, especially those similarly situated but punished longer and harsher. It defies the doctrine of stare decisis.

Maria Sharapova was suspended for two years after testing positive for a banned substance she took to treat her diabetes. But she claimed she did not know it was listed prohibited. Despite lack of intent, her suspension was not cut short. Ignorance of the law excuses no one.

Simona Halep tested positive but invoked lack of intent. But her legal battle from a 4-year to 9-month suspension dragged on. Although she was finally cleared to play, her body and mind were astray. She retired bitter and must now ask what could have been had she been given the same leniency enjoyed by Sinner and yes, Iga Swiatek.

The anti-world doping body maintains it decides on a case-to-case basis or on totality of circumstances. But tennis players protest the double standard. In law, it is justified by substantial distinction, one requisite for exemption from equal protection. No matter how substantive the distinction is, there appears accommodation. Not only in sports, but life in general. And politics in particular, where accommodation translates to convenience. And for Sinner, the period and timing of suspension allows him to play in the next major.