PARIS – Carlos Alcaraz was taken aback by the question.
“Honestly, what you told me right now sounds to me like you were talking Chinese. I have no idea what you were talking about, so I don’t know if it is good or not. Honestly, I haven’t heard that thing in my life. So I can’t answer.”
After his answer, the Spaniard looked somewhat uncertainly to his left into the corner of the largest press conference room deep in the catacombs of the Philippe Chatrier center court – where his manager was standing. A second passed. Then the media round continued: Business as usual.
The question put to the four-time Grand Slam winner and just over half a dozen other professional players in Paris these days revolved around infusions. Intravenous infusions (IV) – even with permitted substances – are banned under the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) code if they exceed 100 milliliters. A discussion started after a recent doping case. The Australian Wimbledon doubles winner Max Purcell, who was already among the top 100 in the world singles rankings, too, was banned for 18 months this year by the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) for two intravenous infusions above the permitted amount.
Ver esta publicación en Instagram
After some background talks with players it became clear that protennis could have a problem. This is because infusions, when filled with permitted substances (Glucose, vitamin mix), naturally cannot be detected in urine- or blood doping samples, help with regeneration and endurance according to medical opinion and are helpful in pre-season preparation and also during a long, energy-sapping tournament.
When requested by CLAY the ITIA answered: “Infusions can enhance performance by increasing plasma volume. This would be a direct performance enhancing effect. Infusions can also mask the use of a Prohibited Substance and can distort the values of the Athlete Biological passport.”
The latter two would be related to masking the use of other prohibited substances or methods, which would be performance enhancing.
So the official question to tennis pros like Alcaraz in these days of Paris was: What do you think about the Purcell case and are infusions a problem in current professional tennis?
But only few tennis professionals seem to know the facts of the Purcell case. The ITIA’s closed, publicly available transcript of proceedings proves in points eight and nine that Purcell acted in full knowledge of the rules and even tried to cover up the offense. The ITIA only found out about Purcell and the two infusions from investigations into another player who was not named publicly and chat histories from his mobile phone.
According to the chat history, Purcell confirmed to the other player on December 16, 2023, during pre-season preparation, that he had received an infusion at a clinic. In addition, Purcell had instructed the clinic staff not to keep any receipts or similar relating to the treatment. The two players also discussed how the infusion could be justified in case of doubt – namely by feigning illness.
According to the WADA Code, an infusion is only permitted if there is a medical emergency. It is also clear from the search history of Purcell’, who voluntarily handed over his cell phone, that he searched carefully and was aware that an infusion of more than 100 milliliters was prohibited. The chat histories also made it clear that Purcell later received a second infusion. This is a crucial point.
Infusions of permitted substances cannot be detected by doping tests. This means that only video footage, written evidence or witness statements can reveal this method. So if a tennis professional and his team are careful enough, nothing will happen. The ITIA knows this too. The doping hunters in tennis simply don’t have the tools, it seems.
When asked by CLAY the ITIA only explained publicly: “The recent case does shine a light on the issue, and we continue to urge players and their support teams to be aware of the rules concerning IV treatments. We are available to answer any questions they may have.”
During the first days of the current French Open some players acted as if they were unaware of the situation around the Purcell Case and infusions in general. But in general, the top players are so professional that they don’t even have to think about it. Aryna Sabalenka, the world number one in the women’s singles, gave a more substantive answer than Alcaraz. “That’s a very good question. The rules are also constantly changing. I am very happy to have such a professional team around me that I trust. They always check everything a thousand times to see what we can and can’t do.”
Until 2005, infusions were part of everyday life in elite sport. Only then did WADA add the method to the banned list. In 1999, the Boston Globe, in a Bud Collins article, reported in a review of Pete Sampras that he had received infusions before his victorious US Open semi-final against Jim Courier in 1992 and needed infusions again before the final. The news agency Reuters wrote in 2003 that Justin Henin-Hardenne laid out in the Flushing Meadows infirmary with an IV drop in her arm after the three-hour semi-final against Jennifer Capriati at the US Open and called the subsequent final victory over compatriot Kim Clijsters one of the “most remarkable recoveries in Grand Slam history.”
In 2012, infusions of up to 50 milliliters were approved by WADA. In 2018, the current regulation came into force with a guideline value of 100 milliliters, as confirmed by WADA on request.
The additional “no-needle policy” has been in place for a number of years, including in doping-ridden cycling. The world federation UCI has established the rule that no infusions of any kind may be administered – and treatments may only be carried out “without needles”, i.e. without injections.
Despite the general doping cases involving Simona Halep, Iga Swiatek, Jannik Sinner and now the Purcell infusion case, tennis, especially in the energy-sapping Grand Slam mode, does not yet seem to have developed a public awareness of this.
