I won’t lie: I enjoyed watching Jannik Sinner beat Alexander Zverev last Sunday in the Australian Open men’s final.
Bear with me while I dip into a bit of Trekkie culture, but he reminds me of the USS Defiant, which first appeared in Star Trek Deep Space Nine – the best Trek by far, and you can take that absolute truth to the bank. It is a hill I will die on.
But I digress, for you see the Defiant was overpowered and over-gunned for a ship of its size, so much so that it nearly shook itself apart when the engines were tested at full power.
Sinner is also fully stocked, his arsenal barely contained in his racquet.
He has a short game, too, and a subtle touch of skill that makes his net-play a joy to watch. For a player of his size, he has impressive all-court manoeuvrability, as well.
Much like the Greek goddess Athena, he seems to have been born fully formed – perhaps also through parthenogenesis, I think tongue-in-cheek – from the hard courts he is so comfortable dominating on.
Or, perhaps the drugs also have something to do about it.
Italian Sinner – 23 years old – has already won the Australian Open twice and also the US Open, adding to his 19 career titles and 71% win-ratio, while spending 34 weeks as the World No 1.
In a post ‘Big 3’ world, where you cannot nail your colours to Roger Federer, Rafa Nadal or Novak Djokovic, Sinner looks like a viable option.
Alongside Carlos Alcaraz, they could be the next generational talents in men’s tennis.
It is a pity, then, that whenever I think of following Sinner and whenever he emerges triumphant, I find myself grappling with a serious bout of cognitive dissonance.
This whole week, in fact, I have found myself contemplating my patronage.
There is no doubt that he is under a cloud. Twice he has tested positive for the banned substance Clostebol – one of the steroids used by East Germany during the Cold War in its state-sponsored doping programme – and twice he has denied knowledge of the offence.
The levels of the drug found in his blood stream at the time, to be clear, were low, and in their argument for dismissing the case, the International Tennis Federation’s tribunal argued that it “would not have had any relevant doping, or performance-enhancing, effect upon the player”.
The World Anti-Doping Agency has appealed that decision, with the hearing scheduled for mid-April. It could see Sinner banned for two years.
Meanwhile, in the women’s game, World No 1 Iga Swiatek recently served a one-month ban after trimetazidine was found in her system.
That drug gets the blood pumping, improving the heart’s ability to use glucose as an energy source.
Both cases have not been what we can call transparent. It makes for disconcerting viewing, and it is easy to understand why some players have expressed concern. Indeed, we should all be worried.
Tennis, it seems, is playing politics, with a heavy bout of favouritism, when it comes to doping – accepting that there are certain marketable players that are above the rules, while others must follow them, lest they be punished to the maximum.
Nonetheless, having the world’s best players involved in doping cases is a terrible look for the sport, and one that should have every klaxon going off simultaneously.
Recall the era of Lance Armstrong and pro-cycling of the early 2000s. We all marvelled at their speed and strength, waxing lyrically about how astounding their feats were.
There were always whispers of systematic doping in the sport, but as fans, we trusted in the integrity of the administrators and athletes.
When it came to light that indeed it was true – and that Armstrong, who for so long had vehemently denied any such activities, was involved – many were shocked and betrayed.
Cycling’s image took years to recover, and some would say there is still a hanging suspicion that surrounds it.
Tennis must tread carefully, and not fall into that pit. Its reputation can ill-afford it.
* Morgan Bolton is the sports editor of Independent Media.