Anti-doping protocols in tennis, or any other sport, are harsh for a reason: to maintain the sport’s integrity and discourage bad actors from using unfair means. This is why the four-year ITIA ban handed out to ATP Pro Parikshit Somani was in accordance with the violation by the Indian player.
Somani failed a doping test back in 2025 while competing at the Astana Challenger. The Indian player’s sample tested positive for Trimetazidine, which is on the prohibited list of ITIA. As soon as the positive result kicked in, the anti-doping machinery was in motion, handing out a provisional suspension to the Indian Pro on September 23, 2025.
Somani mounted his defense on the grounds of contamination, claiming that the substance in question came from contaminated food containing TMZ-contaminated medication. The Indian player used the resources available to him through the ITIA player support program, sending product samples for testing. Still, none showed any signs of the prohibited substance.
Taking all matters into account, the independent tribunal’s verdict imposed a four-year ban on Somani, as they found his explanations to be ‘highly speculative’ and ‘unconvincing’. Under the anti-doping framework, the burden of proof falls on the player to provide an acceptable explanation for how any prohibited substance entered their body. The principle of strict liability is imposed on the player, whereas all the anti-doping agencies need to bring charges is a positive test. For Somani, the ban will end in September 2029, taking into account the suspension period the Indian player has already completed.
Somani’s case is similar to that of former World No.1, Iga Swiatek, in one key aspect, as the Pole tested positive for the same substance back in 2024. The six-time Major champion was handed a provisional suspension after which she went before an independent tribunal. The Pole, however, was able to provide conclusive evidence that the substance in her system came via contamination from a sleep medication that she consumed, which consisted of traces of the prohibited substance. Having already served a certain amount of provisional suspension, Swiatek was able to come back to the Tour after only one month.
While the substance found in Somani’s system was on the ITIA’s prohibited list, there have been cases where players have sued the tennis authorities for not warning them about potential sources of contamination.
Tara Moore Sued the WTA for $20 Million
Having tested positive for banned substances back in 2022, Tara Moore has had a tough battle to prove her innocence. The British player was cleared by an independent tribunal in 2023, which provided an acceptable explanation for the meat contamination, a common issue in South American events. However, the ITIA moved CAS to intervene, with another legal process against the British player in 2024.
In 2025, Moore was handed out a four-year ban, as CAS was not satisfied with Moore’s defense. This is when the Brit sued the WTA for twenty million dollars, citing the association’s negligence in failing to warn players about the risks of meat contamination in the region in question. However, her claims were dismissed by a US court, with Moore set to return to tennis in December next year.
The four-year ban is the ITIA’s standard punishment for anti-doping violations. Another player who was handed a four-year ban recently was former Wimbledon champion Marketa Vondrousova. While the Czech player did not test positive for any prohibited substance, she was handed a ban for refusing to take the test outside of the window specified in her whereabouts window.
The case highlighted the lack of communication between the ITIA officials and the players themselves, as Vondrousova’s team was not aware that the anti-doping officials had the remit to conduct testing even beyond the time window provided by the player. Other top players like Coco Gauff and Jessica Pegula have also spoken about the existing harshness of the anti-doping protocols and called for better understanding from the authorities.