Do the Jannik Sinner and Iga Swiatek doping cases show that tennis protects its superstars? Or do they show the opposite?

Are the world’s best tennis players also the unluckiest of all athletes when it comes to what ends up in their bodies?

That’s one conclusion you might draw from the season just past.

In August, the week before the US Open, we learned that ATP No. 1 Jannik Sinner had tested positive for a trace amount of the banned steroid clostebol, which he said entered his system through a cut in his skin, during a massage by his trainer.

This week, a similar bombshell dropped from the WTA side, when Iga Swiatek, the tour’s current No. 2 and recent No. 1, tested positive for a trace amount of trimetazidine (TMZ), a banned drug that promotes blood flow and is typically used as a heart medication. The cause, it was determined, was a contaminated dose of melatonin that Swiatek was taking for jet lag.

In both cases, the amounts found were low, and the players were judged not to have intended to dope. So far the punishments have been relatively minimal. Both lost the prize money and rankings points from the tournament where the positive test occurred; Indian Wells for Sinner, Cincinnati for Swiatek. Sinner was given no suspension at all, while Swiatek was handed a one-month ban, most of which she served when she was forced to miss the Asian swing this fall, an absence that contributed to her losing her No. 1 ranking. (The World Anti-Doping Association (WADA) is currently appealing the finding that Sinner as not at fault, with the hope of imposing a ban of up to two years.)

But if the official penalties were fairly small, the damage—emotional, psychological, reputational—to both was significant. Swiatek says it was “the worst experience of my life,” while Sinner said he didn’t “feel like myself” for the five months that it took for his case to be closed and revealed. Both talked about how devastating it is to have their accomplishments doubted by the public, and to be judged as possible cheaters by their peers.

“The only positive doping test in my career, showing unbelievably low level of a banned substance I’ve never heard about before, put everything I’ve worked so hard for my entire life into question,” Swiatek said.

The damage to tennis is also significant. Sinner and Swiatek, both 23, are young superstars who had remarkable rises to dominance in recent years, and made themselves into the faces of their respective tours. Most people won’t read the details of their cases, and will simply associate their names with doping in the future.

Most people may also be left wondering if they’re the tip of a PED iceberg that’s buried just beneath the surface in tennis. That includes those of us who are involved in the game. I’m inclined to believe Sinner’s and Swiatek’s stories, and their innocence—but I’m not naive enough to dismiss the possibility that any professional athlete, including them, would try to gain an edge by doping.

There will also be those who think that Sinner and Swiatek have been let off too easily because of their status. That includes Simona Halep, who complained this week about the differences in her 2022 case and theirs. Halep was initially suspended for four years, before having the ban knocked down to nine months. The worst aspect of her ordeal, though, may have been the two years it took for the process to play out.

Halep’s case was not exactly like Sinner’s and Swiatek’s. She took an unregulated supplement rather than a medication; was found to have a higher amount of a banned substance in her system; had a separate case over her blood passport; and didn’t immediately have an explanation that the authorities believed could account for her test readings.

While she has a right to be angry over how much longer the process took for her, that doesn’t mean every case needs to last for two years to be deemed fair, or that Sinner and Swiatek received special treatment because their situations were handled more expeditiously. It may also be that the Halep circumstance has (rightly) become an example of how not to deal with a case, and that Sinner and Swiatek benefited from that.

The unfortunate irony of testing and transparency is that they can end up sowing more doubts about the integrity of your sport than you would have if there was no testing at all. Do the Sinner and Swiatek cases show that tennis protects its superstars? Or do they show the opposite: That the sport is willing to test them and publicize their failed tests, while being flexible enough to listen to their explanations and not destroy their careers over one likely-unintentional infraction?

The public may believe the former. I’m leaning toward the latter, and hoping these two young stars can out-run and out-play the suspicions that their cases have created around them in 2024.