You will NOT find any published data on how many times Alcaraz was tested in 2024.
The ATP, through the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA), does not publish individual player testing data—such as the exact number of doping tests conducted on specific athletes like Alcaraz—for any given year.
Instead, the ITIA releases quarterly and annual summaries of anti-doping activity that report the total number of samples collected across all players and events, sometimes broken down by sample type (urine, blood, etc.) and competition level, but not by individual athlete. The most recent ITIA report for Q3 2024, for example, outlines the number of samples taken from players during that quarter, but explicitly notes that these figures do not represent the number of tests per player and do not specify which players were tested or how often.
By contrast, some other sports and anti-doping organizations—for example, those overseeing Olympic sports—do publish individual testing statistics or at least provide more granular data regarding athlete testing frequency. The ITA (International Testing Agency) for the Olympics, for instance, has reported the proportion of athletes tested and the total number of tests conducted at the Paris 2024 Games, including how many athletes were tested at least once.
This level of transparency is not matched by the ATP/ITIA for tennis.
Put away your shovel and stop digging. You will not find it because it is not published.
Should you ever be contaminated through a massage are we all free to slander you as a doper just as you have with the young Sinner?
Should you ever be contaminated through a massage are we all free to slander you as a doper?
"I've been put down so much".
A charmed life or been put down? Which is it?
Every top player gets criticized…
She was allegedly seen screaming "ive been put down so much, Sinner would have gotten a table for 20!!"
Almost certain to be true then...
And there we have it. Labeling the young Sinner a doper and a liar.
Does not wish to believe the "contamination by massage" story even though a panel of impartial experts deemed accidental contamination to be the most plausible explanation.
All players are perfectly aware that they are subject to testing 365 days of the year. Subject to testing both at tournaments and at home visits.
Why is our favourite Bart not skeptical of Serena's story of running into her panic room because she feared the Doping Control Officer (DCO) was an intruder?
For out-of-competition home visits, the sample collection process is usually conducted at the athlete’s home, following World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and International Testing Agency (ITA) protocols.
DCO Protocol for Home Visits
- On-Site Testing: During an unannounced home visit, the DCO aims to collect the sample (urine, blood, or both) at the athlete’s residence to ensure convenience and compliance. The athlete’s home is treated as the Doping Control Station (DCS) unless logistical issues arise.
- Urine Collection: The athlete provides a sample in a private area (e.g., bathroom) under direct observation by a same-gender DCO or chaperone. The DCO ensures the area is secure and suitable.
- Continuous Observation: From notification (when the DCO presents proper ID and informs the athlete of testing) until sample collection is complete, the athlete remains under direct observation by the DCO or chaperone to prevent tampering.
- Documentation: The Doping Control Form is completed at the home, and sealed samples are prepared for transport to a WADA-accredited lab.
www.independent.ie
Williams suggested she would have faced harsher consequences for a similar violation, emphasized her caution with substances (e.g., avoiding Advil), and expressed sympathy for Maria Sharapova’s 15-month ban in 2016.
I can agree her outbursts vs line judge & the Osaka match shows some not-so-good tendencies. The restaurant incident in France sounds a bit off too...She is so opinionated. Bashing the young #1 Sinner for doping. And yet somehow making it all about herself.
She is certainly very defensive for someone who has never doped. Cognitive dissonance?
Context of Serena Williams’ Statement
In a 2025 Time magazine interview, Serena Williams commented on Jannik Sinner’s three-month doping suspension for testing positive for clostebol in March 2024. She stated:
Williams suggested she would have faced harsher consequences for a similar violation, emphasized her caution with substances (e.g., avoiding Advil), and expressed sympathy for Maria Sharapova’s 15-month ban in 2016.
Projection and Moral Hypocrisy Lens with Narcissistic Tendencies
The phenomenon involves individuals who have committed an unconvicted offense condemning others for similar acts to alleviate guilt, project a moral image, or resolve cognitive dissonance. Adding narcissistic tendencies, Williams’ statement could reflect a self-centered need to make Sinner’s issue about her own narrative, using it to reinforce her victimhood, moral superiority, or unique status. Here’s how this might apply:
- Projection of Guilt with Self-Centered Framing:
- If Williams had concerns about past supplement use or team practices (purely speculative), her criticism of Sinner’s lenient ban could project her own guilt or anxiety while centering the narrative on herself. By claiming she would have faced a “20-year ban” and lost Grand Slams, she shifts focus to her hypothetical suffering, casting herself as a victim of harsher scrutiny. This narcissistic lens suggests she’s less concerned with Sinner’s case and more with elevating her own story of enduring unfair treatment.
- Her emphasis on avoiding even Advil could be a way to showcase her exceptional diligence, portraying herself as uniquely virtuous compared to others like Sinner. A narcissistic tendency might drive her to frame this vigilance as evidence of her superior character, making Sinner’s case a backdrop for her own narrative.
- Moral Hypocrisy as a Platform for Self-Aggrandizement:
- Moral hypocrisy involves condemning others for behaviors one has engaged in to appear virtuous. If Williams had private doubts about her team’s practices (speculative), her critique of Sinner’s ban could serve to deflect scrutiny while positioning herself as the moral center of the doping debate. Her statement, “I’ve been put down so much, I don’t want to bring anyone down,” juxtaposed with her claim of facing harsher penalties, might reflect narcissistic hypocrisy—presenting herself as both compassionate and uniquely persecuted.
- Her sympathy for Sharapova could be less about genuine empathy and more about aligning with another high-profile figure to elevate her own status. A narcissistic lens might suggest she uses Sharapova’s harsher ban to underscore her own hypothetical martyrdom, implying she’d face even worse consequences due to her unique prominence or scrutiny.
- Cognitive Dissonance and Narcissistic Resolution:
- Cognitive dissonance arises when actions conflict with one’s self-image. If Williams ever questioned her team’s integrity (speculative), her outspokenness about Sinner could resolve this by centering the narrative on her own exceptionalism. By exaggerating a “20-year ban,” she might be soothing internal conflict while feeding a narcissistic need for attention, portraying herself as a singular figure who would suffer disproportionately due to her fame or identity.
- This self-focused framing could manifest as a need to dominate the doping conversation, making Sinner’s case a vehicle to highlight her own struggles, resilience, and moral purity. Her claim of being “put down so much” reinforces a narrative of personal persecution, a common narcissistic trait where external events are reframed to affirm one’s centrality.
Conclusion
Serena Williams’ statement about Jannik Sinner’s suspension could align with projection or moral hypocrisy if she had unconvicted doping concerns and used her critique to deflect guilt or assert a virtuous image. Her emphasis on facing harsher penalties and her vigilance with substances might suggest an attempt to distance herself from hypothetical wrongdoing, driven by cognitive dissonance.
She is so opinionated. Bashing the young #1 Sinner for doping. And yet somehow making it all about herself.
She is certainly very defensive for someone who has never doped. Cognitive dissonance?
Context of Serena Williams’ Statement
In a 2025 Time magazine interview, Serena Williams commented on Jannik Sinner’s three-month doping suspension for testing positive for clostebol in March 2024. She stated:
Williams suggested she would have faced harsher consequences for a similar violation, emphasized her caution with substances (e.g., avoiding Advil), and expressed sympathy for Maria Sharapova’s 15-month ban in 2016.
Projection and Moral Hypocrisy Lens with Narcissistic Tendencies
The phenomenon involves individuals who have committed an unconvicted offense condemning others for similar acts to alleviate guilt, project a moral image, or resolve cognitive dissonance.
Adding narcissistic tendencies, the statement could reflect a self-centered need to make Sinner’s issue about her own narrative, using it to reinforce her victimhood, moral superiority, or unique status. Here’s how this might apply:
- Projection of Guilt with Self-Centered Framing:
- If Williams had concerns about past supplement use or team practices (purely speculative), her criticism of Sinner’s lenient ban could project her own guilt or anxiety while centering the narrative on herself. By claiming she would have faced a “20-year ban” and lost Grand Slams, she shifts focus to her hypothetical suffering, casting herself as a victim of harsher scrutiny. This narcissistic lens suggests she’s less concerned with Sinner’s case and more with elevating her own story of enduring unfair treatment.
- Her emphasis on avoiding even Advil could be a way to showcase her exceptional diligence, portraying herself as uniquely virtuous compared to others like Sinner. A narcissistic tendency might drive her to frame this vigilance as evidence of her superior character, making Sinner’s case a backdrop for her own narrative.
- Moral Hypocrisy as a Platform for Self-Aggrandizement:
- Moral hypocrisy involves condemning others for behaviors one has engaged in to appear virtuous. If Williams had private doubts about her team’s practices (speculative), her critique of Sinner’s ban could serve to deflect scrutiny while positioning herself as the moral center of the doping debate. Her statement, “I’ve been put down so much, I don’t want to bring anyone down,” juxtaposed with her claim of facing harsher penalties, might reflect narcissistic hypocrisy—presenting herself as both compassionate and uniquely persecuted.
- Her sympathy for Sharapova could be less about genuine empathy and more about aligning with another high-profile figure to elevate her own status. A narcissistic lens might suggest she uses Sharapova’s harsher ban to underscore her own hypothetical martyrdom, implying she’d face even worse consequences due to her unique prominence or scrutiny.
- Cognitive Dissonance and Narcissistic Resolution:
- Cognitive dissonance arises when actions conflict with one’s self-image. If Williams ever questioned her team’s integrity (speculative), her outspokenness about Sinner could resolve this by centering the narrative on her own exceptionalism. By exaggerating a “20-year ban,” she might be soothing internal conflict while feeding a narcissistic need for attention, portraying herself as a singular figure who would suffer disproportionately due to her fame or identity.
- This self-focused framing could manifest as a need to dominate the doping conversation, making Sinner’s case a vehicle to highlight her own struggles, resilience, and moral purity. Her claim of being “put down so much” reinforces a narrative of personal persecution, a common narcissistic trait where external events are reframed to affirm one’s centrality.
Conclusion
Serena Williams’ statement about Jannik Sinner’s suspension could align with projection or moral hypocrisy if she had unconvicted doping concerns and used her critique to deflect guilt or assert a virtuous image. Her emphasis on facing harsher penalties and her vigilance with substances might suggest an attempt to distance herself from hypothetical wrongdoing, driven by cognitive dissonance.
She knows perfectly well that she would have been granted the exact same leniency as Sinner. If not more so.
So we agree that she would receive the same treatment as Sinner today.
She certainly knows about Iga's slap on the wrist so it is odd that she brings up Sinner.
by far one of your worst takes i’ve ever seen Raul
It is not a matter of favouritism my dearest. The top players will retain the best lawyers. And the best lawyers tend to win more doping cases. This is just the way of the world. In every country on the face of the earth.
