Understanding the four-year ban of Marketa Vondrousova

0:10Hello and welcome to the tennis podcast, a special bonus episode of the pod today focusing on the pretty seismic news which I'm sure you have heard about a couple of days ago that 2023 Wimbledon champion Marketa Vondroshova has received a four year ban from professional tennis after refusing to be a fan of the tennis tennis. a doping control test at her home in December of last year. Four years was the maximum punishment available for that offence, despite explanations she presented at an independent hearing that took place on June the 11th, that, as she claimed, stress and her mental health had affected her decision-making in the moment, as well as concerns for her safety.

0:52Now, understandably, the news has received a lot of attention and debate this week, because I think of the severity of the punishment and the profile of the player involved, especially in the lead up to Wimbledon. So we wanted to try and un-muddy the waters of the case as much as possible. And I'm doing that today with the help of Karen Morehouse, CEO of the International Tennis Integrity Unit. Karen, thank you so much for finding the time to do this in what I'm sure is a very busy time for you. Thanks for inviting me to join you. Let's get straight into it. Lots of kind of complicated, nitty gritty stuff to get into.

1:32Can you explain for our listeners, first and foremost, why the ITIA sought such a severe punishment in this case? And more generally, why the ITIA treats cases of refused tests as seriously as it does? So the starting point is we operate under the World Anti-Doping Code. And that code applies to the vast majority of sports across the world. And that specifies what the antidoping rule violations are and also sets out the sanctioning framework. And for a refusal, it sets out, as you said, a starting point of four years. And we really recognise that that's a really significant ban. Stepping back a bit, the rationale for that is really that the system wouldn't work if a player could be in a better position by refusing to take a test than they would by taking a test and testing positive.

2:28So to sort of present the counter argument to that, you know, obviously Marketa von Drosheva has made the case that she tested clean a couple of days later. She wasn't OK to take the test in that moment. What's the big deal about the tester coming back the next day? Can you explain why it is so important from the ITAA's point of view that it happens as it does? Yeah, so the case was heard by an independent tribunal that was appointed by sports resolutions. And so the player had every opportunity to present her case and the tribunal would consider all of the factors she put forward in deciding the outcome that they did, the four-year ban.

3:11In terms of the testing programme itself, it's really important that a testing programme is unpredictable. um doping is increasingly sophisticated and and there are drugs that can be in and out of the body in a matter of hours so so the system wouldn't work if there was the ability for players to to control um when and where they were tested um so whilst recognizing that this is a really significant ban um it is is part of the framework of of all anti-doping programs so on that then obviously a lot of the the focus in this case and the response to um the ruling that we've heard about this week is the tester having shown up outside this designating testing window that that people know about the one hour block of time each day when the players have to specify their whereabouts now my understanding is that this test and other tests having been And outside that window is kind of a red herring and actually players can and are tested at any time.

4:17And as you've just explained, it is important that that is the case, the element of potential surprise. Can you explain how common it is for players to be tested outside of their designated daily window? It's relatively common. What we do is there is a group of just over 250 players who provide us with an hour slot each day. where they tell us where they're going to be. And the reason for that is testing is really expensive. So we want to make sure our program can be effective and it can be efficient. And for that, it really helps to know where players are. And so we carry out a certain amount of testing in the hour where we can be pretty much guaranteed that the player will be where they say they're going to be.

4:59However, it's also really important that our program is unpredictable. So we carry out a reasonable number of tests outside of the hour to make sure we have that unpredictable nature to our tests. And that's actually a requirement under the WADA rules. They require that everyone in that pool has at least one test outside of that hour every year. And has that always been the case? And are you comfortable that there is sufficient communication of that element of the rules to the players? It's certainly been the case for a good period of time. We work really hard to try and educate the players. And it's something that is very much the starting point of all of this in the organisation to try to make sure that we're giving players every opportunity to understand what can be quite a complex set of rules and also understand the steps that they need to take to comply with those rules.

5:54So anyone who comes into our testing pool will have a one on one session with a member of our anti-doping team where they'll talk them through how the system works and what steps they need to take. equally we're really keen to make sure that we are approachable that players are able to contact us whenever they want with any questions that they they have in relation to their obligations and you may have seen last year we actually set up a whatsapp number to try and make it as easy as possible for players to come to us with any questions or concerns that they have. I know this is one element of the case that that occurs to me I don't know if this is I haven't sort of seen this angle anywhere else, but I sort of can't shake it from my mind.

6:39I know there is provision within the protocols that the gender of the tester always be matched to the gender of the athlete, which makes a lot of sense. But beyond that, the rules are the same for both genders of athletes. I just wonder whether you think there might be room for more consideration of the implications of random out of hours testing on female athletes, because living in a situation where a stranger can show up to your door at any time of the night or day, that feels different for women than for men to me and is potentially not necessarily looking at this case specifically, but is in theory more likely to trigger an anxiety response in women.

7:24because of the reasons that we all know being women, you just live with that sort of inherent sense of threat. Like, is that something that has been considered? Would you consider factoring that into the protocol in future? Yeah, it's such an important area. We absolutely want to make sure that everyone involved in the process, both players and testers, feel safe in what is, in any other walk of life, stepping back from it, a really unusual situation where you have someone turning up at your house and and then being asked to to urinate in front of them it's such an unusual set of circumstances and we we really want to make sure that everyone everyone in the process knows that their safety is at the heart of it um there are um lots of protocols in place to try to achieve that um every tester has id they have a letter of authority from us and really crucially they they have access to the player's unique number and the player can ask for the tester to provide that unique number and to give them that extra um surety that the person who is claiming to be a DCO is is who they say they will be but you know just to reiterate you know we are absolutely aligned in terms of understanding understanding the world we live in and the environment that our our tennis players operate in and wanted to ensure that they feel safe in this process.

8:50Obviously, a lot of people will have seen Marketa von Droshevis' Instagram post. There's been the one in response to, excuse me, that's my dog. There's been the one in response this week, but obviously there was the one a few months ago closer to the time and she posted the picture of the doping control officer and she put her side of the story across. was that an element of the of the case in the hearing could her social media posts have impacted the length of this ban um all of the facts were considered by by the tribunal um ultimately to the extent they they went to her case then they would be considered by by the tribunal but the most important thing is that she had every opportunity to to explain events from her perspective and knowing that that independent tribunal would give full consideration to them.

9:44And just in terms of the process again at the tribunal, is an athlete's past record factored into their case and punishment? A player is entirely able to raise that. However, when a tribunal is looking at this, they're looking at it under the framework of the WADA code which sets out what the sentencing and sanctioning framework is for any rule violation so in this case the starting point for a refusal is four years it's then within the panel's discretion to then look at the whether there is a compelling justification whether there are grounds on which they can reduce that ban lower than four years are there any examples of cases where people have refused tests and got shorter bans than this?

10:34And if so, what reasons were deemed justifiable in those cases for the lesser sentence? Yeah, I mean, thankfully across all sports, refusal cases are relatively unusual. We carry out over 3 ,500 out of competition tests every year and this is the first out of competition refusal case the ITIA have dealt with. Across all sports, there are a small handful of cases where players have managed to achieve the threshold for showing they had a compelling justification. The ones I'm aware of, predominantly they've turned on having psychiatric advice regarding the circumstances the player was in And that has led to tribunals on those facts reducing the sanction below the four years.

11:29Just to confirm what you just said, this is the first ever case for the ITIA of out of competition refusal. Yeah, we had one a couple of years ago, which involved Ivanov, a Russian player. That was a in competition test where there was a refusal and that also ended with a four year sanction. And is in-competition and out-of-competition refusal treated the same? Yes, yeah. Right. Other examples, some people, there's an obvious kind of comparison between the ban length here for refusing a test and the punishments that have been doled out in some cases for missed tests. I think the example that most readily springs to mind is of Mikhail Ima, who missed three tests and received an 18-month ban.

12:24Could you explain why missed tests, and in this case, or in some cases, multiple missed tests, is treated differently to refused tests? Yeah, I can absolutely understand the question. they are two different rules so a refusal happens where a doping control officer has actually made contact with the player they've been notified in person that they are being asked to undertake a doping test and that they've refused despite being notified the other rule is the the whereabouts rule in effect that says that if a player on three occasions within 12 months either doesn't file their whereabouts information correctly, or they're not in the place they said they were going to be in the hour, that those are each whereabouts strikes, and three of those is an anti-doping rule violation.

13:15And the difference being that the player is not notified that they're required for a doping test. So there is an element of those being administrative breaches of a player either providing the wrong information or not being in the place where they should be, rather than a conscious refusal to provide a test when notified. So kind of less plausible deniability in the case of a refused test than a missed test. Exactly. OK, that makes sense. One other element of this, and I'm sure you've seen it and are, you know, across it all, but the responses out there, there's been a huge response to this case, I guess largely because of the length of the ban.

13:57It seems longer than a lot of people were expecting or braced for. And it's obviously important that the authorities that police doping in sports not just do the policing, but they're seen to do the policing, right? And that they have the faith of those that they're doing it on behalf of, which is both the sports fan and the competitors, the fellow competitors. And I just wonder whether the response you deem right or wrong, does it optically, does it worry you that there has been two very recent cases of high profile players actually testing positive for banned substances, albeit with significant kind of mitigating circumstances surrounding that.

14:44but they've received significantly less punishment than a player here who hasn't tested positive for anything. I think for a lot of people on the face of it, optically, that's just tough to take. Yeah, I think we really recognise it's a really significant ban and I can absolutely understand that initial gut reaction that people get where they think, gosh, that's a really long ban. I think then when people can reflect further and think about a doping system where that wasn't the starting point and what that would mean in practice the conversations I have is that people understand it they understand the you can't be in a better position by refusing to take a test than you would be by taking that test and testing positive you know albeit that they you know equally recognize this is a really significant ban for for this individual in relation to the the other high profile cases we've had over the last couple of years very different facts um i'm assuming you're probably mainly talking about the synod and shantek cases you know in each of those cases they tested positive and but then each of them were able to explain how that substance had entered their body and and therefore satisfy that it wasn't intentional and that they each had a very low level of fault in relation to those positive tests so they're just very very different cases and therefore it's really hard to draw comparisons.

16:10Is there any argument for could you explain why a lot of people might point to the possibility of kind of a ratcheted system where if it's your first offence you get a shorter ban and second offence you get a longer ban kind of going straight in with no benefit of the doubt given at a four-year ban why why is that felt necessary i think absolutely and it's a good conversation for sport not just tennis because these are a world anti-doping rules so i think it's a good conversation for all sports to have um ultimately from our perspective you know we have to apply the rules that are in place at any given time um and and that's what we did in this case and and referred the matter to the tribunal but you know i'm always encouraged i think it's really important that everyone across all sports is engaged in terms of what is the right system, what are the right processes to protect all sports and in our case, tennis.

17:11Do you think people underestimate the size of the battle to keep sport clean?

17:24I think it is a really good question. And I think when you look inwards to this system, there are parts of it that feel really burdensome. You know, when you consider players having to provide whereabouts information every day, players having to do tests in their home, players, even the act of what testing involves. To any of us who are not professional athletes, all of those are really significant things. and then it's a bit of balancing with the fact that we all want to know that the sports that we love you know are clean that we can believe what we see and therefore this is the system that has to be in place to make sure we can do that we can turn on television and believe you know what we're seeing is is clean so you so you believe that let's say punishments for for for missed tests were shorter for refused tests excuse me were shorter than for failed tests you think that would be used kind of the logical conclusion is that that would be used as a loophole for doping to refuse a test i think there's a risk there um and you know people within sport who either corrupt or dope.

18:44There's some really smart individuals. And therefore, if there is a loophole, then there will be people who look to exploit a loophole. Whether sport as a whole think that's a price worth paying is probably the focus of that discussion and what should be the focus of that discussion. I assume you've seen the response from a lot of Von Drosheva's fellow players. She's received a lot of support. Now, some of that is just kind of on a human level, not specifically related to the facts of the case. I think it's possible to sort of feel awful for her and treat the facts of the case separately. But does that concern you?

19:27Because you're working for them as well, aren't you? You're working for the fans, but you're also working for the players. You need to feel like they have confidence in you protecting them as well as the sport as a whole. and some of the response suggests that maybe they don't feel that way and whether they're right or wrong to feel that way, it's not great that they do feel that way. Does that concern you? It's really essential that we have that trust and we build that trust and really essential that we work to make sure that players understand why the antedaping programme is there and ultimately to understand that it's there to protect them, It's there to protect their achievements.

20:11We're always really keen to engage with players. I know my Interopen team have already made contact with one of the individuals who's spoken about this matter because we really want to listen to players. We want to understand what their concerns are. And in some cases, we'll be able to respond to them. In others, it's still really valuable to have those discussions and to explore issues with them. Does it bother you that maybe this is just the modern age that we live in, but players are very quick to take to social media, aren't they, and pop off about something, whereas it sounds like you're kind of here with your hands up saying, come to us with any queries you have about the situation.

20:49Does it feel like, I don't want to put words into your mouth, but don't do that thing, do that thing. We are here to hold your hands more than we're currently being used for that. Look, it's the reality of the modern world, as you say, And also, you know, inevitably players will get questions on this probably when they're least expecting it when they've just played a long match in the UK heatwave. So I'm not troubled by that. I think for us, it's that bit of the longer game of going. These are really complex rules, particularly when you get into the legal process. it would be totally unrealistic to expect anyone to fully understand every single aspect of the anti-doping, sanctioning, legal process.

21:38Where we want to get to is that players understand who we are and they have that confidence and trust that we will run the process in line with that rules and in the right way for the sport and we just want to keep talking to them and answering any questions they have to try and achieve that. How much emphasis is there on communication with players about the rules? Do you feel like you're in a place where if you don't, if you don't, as a player, if you don't know what the rules are, that's on you? I think it's really hard. We have a massive focus on education. Everyone who takes part in any of our events had to do education online.

22:18And then we have targeted face-to-face education at key points in players pathways and and we constantly reiterate the um the fact that we can be contacted at any point but you know ultimately what we're talking about is a is a group of players with really busy schedules you know traveling around the world young players um juggling their playing commitments and their commercial commitments and and really where we need to land is that they need to um consider what happens off the court and the rules off the court in the same way that they look at the rules on the court and that's something we've just got to keep working with everyone across tennis to try to make sure we're delivering that message.

22:57They're working really hard with the tours, with the ITF, but also with some of the people who surround players. So making sure that they're giving that right help and support and advice from their coaches. Presumably agents are a big part of this. Yeah. Just finally, Vondroshova is allowed an appeal. could you just talk us through that process what the likely I know there aren't specific dates here but what a likely time frame for that might be as well sure so the player has 21 days from when she gets the full written reasons which we haven't got yet to decide whether she wants to appeal any appeal would go to the court of arbitration and sports they would appoint the panel with each side nominating one arbitrator to hear that.

23:46In terms of timelines, we would then very much be in the hands of that tribunal to set the timetable for a hearing. And they would clearly take submissions from us and from the player in relation to that timeline. Again, we would want to make sure that we're striking the right balance between wanting to get cases dealt with efficiently, but equally making sure we give the player every opportunity to put her right arguments forward at any appeal if she chooses to appeal. Okay gosh lots to take in. Thank you though that's really really useful background and I think our listeners will really appreciate that.

24:26It's obviously an incredibly complicated case that it's easy to have very like reactionary reactions to but so I think the detail is important and I really appreciate you taking the time karen thank you for inviting me to do so thank you uh folks that's it for this bonus show normal programming will be resumed tomorrow thursday when we'll be doing our first show from wimbledon covering qualifying and with daily from here on out so folks thank you for listening we'll speak to you then