The Italian’s doping saga caused a lot of controversy in tennis circles, not so much because he tested positive for a banned substance by accident—those things happen and have happened before.

One notable example was Simona Halep, but the difference between her case and that of Sinner was that he was allowed to compete. That’s the detail that left many current and former players puzzled because it was generally believed that regardless of how a substance enters an athlete’s body, a suspension, even a provisional one, would follow.

That wasn’t the case for Sinner because of a few factors, most notably that the go

Sinner quickly deduced how the substance got into his body and presented that, which was deemed good enough, along with evidence that it was in trace amounts. The amount wouldn’t be enough to yield any kind of competitive advantage, so Sinner was allowed to compete while the investigation was ongoing.

That’s the part that former player Lindsay Davenport didn’t understand, and she recently admitted that she didn’t know how or why he was allowed to compete all this time.

verning bodies found his explanation believable, immediately lifting a two-day provisional suspension.

It was a contentious situation because some didn’t see anything wrong with it, as Darren Cahill explained the difference between Halep’s and Sinner’s cases. By an odd twist of fate, the Australian coach had a front-row seat to both cases and knew the subtleties well.

For some, those subtleties made all the difference, but for others, it didn’t, as they wanted uniformity across the board. Halep certainly wasn’t a fan of how Sinner’s situation went because she felt she was being hounded by the governing bodies during her doping saga.

Whatever the truth ultimately is, it doesn’t change the fact that Sinner was incredibly lucky to be allowed to compete. Not only did he have a really great summer, during which he officially became world number one, but he was also able to keep playing, which proved instrumental in winning the US Open.