Understanding the four-year ban of Marketa Vondrousova

**Catherine Whitaker** (0:11)
Hello, 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 Vondrousova has received a four-year ban from professional tennis after refusing a doping control test at her home in December of last year. Four years was the maximum punishment available for that offense, despite explanations she presented at an independent hearing that took place on June the 11th, that, as she claims, stress and her mental health had affected her decision-making in the moment, as well as concerns for her safety. Now, 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 Moorhouse, 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.

**Karen Moorhouse** (1:23)
Thanks for inviting me to join you.

**Catherine Whitaker** (1:26)
Let's get straight into it. Lots of kind of complicated, nitty gritty stuff to get into.
Can 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?

**Karen Moorhouse** (1:49)
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 anti-doping rule violations are and also sets out the sanctioning framework. And for a refusal, it sets out, as you said, the starting point of four years. And we really recognize 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.

**Catherine Whitaker** (2:28)
So to sort of present the counter argument to that, obviously Marketa Vondrousova has made the case that she tested clean a couple of days later. She wasn't okay 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?

**Karen Moorhouse** (2:53)
Yeah, so the case is 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. In terms of the testing program itself, it's really important that a testing program is unpredictable.
Doping is increasingly sophisticated. And there are drugs that can be in and out of the body in a matter of hours. So the system wouldn't work if there was the ability but for players to control when and where they were tested. So whilst recognizing that this is a really significant ban, it is part of the framework of all anti-doping programs.

**Catherine Whitaker** (3:45)
So on that then, obviously a lot of the focus in this case and the response to the ruling that we've heard about this week is the tester having shown up outside this designating testing window 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 outside that window is kind of a red herring and actually players can and are tested at any time. And as you've just explained, that is 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?

**Karen Moorhouse** (4:33)
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. However, 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.