A Complete Record

If you've come here from HERE, you already know what this cost me. This document exists for one reason: transparency. My main article tells the story of how this dispute shaped my life and what I built afterward. This document is different. It is the complete technical and legal record — the facts of the analysis, the procedural violations our experts identified, how the laboratory and ITIA responded, and why I believe the system failed in my case. I am publishing it in full because I have nothing to hide, and because every athlete who goes through this process deserves to understand what actually happens inside it.

Where This Stands

It's been nine months since I received the notification from ITIA — the International Tennis Integrity Agency — accusing me of violating anti-doping rules. My case has now been heard by an Independent Tribunal. We were hoping for a fair and objective decision — but despite all the evidence and expert conclusions, the arbitrators ruled in favor of the ITIA. I believe this decision isn't just unfair to me — it sets a troubling precedent for every athlete who trusts this system. I was 19 years old when this happened and just beginning my professional career.

The Number That Should Have Ended This

The substance detected — nandrolone — was measured in my sample at 1.7 nanograms per milliliter. Under WADA's own guidelines, any reading at or below 2.5 ng/mL is considered a negative result. The level detected can occur naturally in the human body. By the organization's own standard, my test should have returned negative.

The Additional Test and What It Requires

In certain cases, the laboratory has the discretion to run an additional test to determine whether the substance has a natural origin or came from an external source. This is a highly complex analysis that involves comparing the athlete's sample and the control samples at the molecular level. This type of test requires the laboratory to process reference samples — called quality controls — alongside the athlete's sample, under identical conditions.

This is not a suggestion. WADA's own technical document states clearly: the control samples shall be subjected to the same preparation procedure as the athlete's sample. The key word is "shall." No exceptions.

What the Laboratory Did — Confirmed by Their Own Experts

In my case, the Montreal laboratory processed the control samples differently from my sample. Their own experts confirmed this in writing — they did not deny it. This is not my claim. This is the other side confirming it happened. Their argument was simply that this part of the analysis "doesn't count" — and therefore the rule does not apply.

That argument fails on its own terms. WADA's own technical document TD2021NA states clearly: sample preparation covers every step of the process, from start to finish. The laboratory was not claiming an exception exists. It was claiming that what it did was not covered by the rule at all. WADA's own text says the opposite.

Why This Violation Matters

Here is why this matters. The control samples exist for one purpose: to compare the molecular composition of your sample with the molecular composition of the reference samples. If the controls are processed differently from your sample, that comparison becomes meaningless. They become useless as a verification tool. The laboratory then used those same controls — the ones it had made invalid — as proof that the test on my sample was valid. They used the evidence they had invalidated to prove themselves right. The tribunal accepted this. And that is what ruined my career.

Five Independent Scientists. The Same Conclusion.

Multiple independent scientists reviewed the laboratory's work and reached the same conclusion: the control samples were invalid and proved nothing about my sample. These included Dr. Emmanuel Strahm, a PhD scientist from the University of Geneva with seven years of experience inside anti-doping laboratories across Europe, who now works independently with no connection to any anti-doping organization. And Dr. Ilya Podolskiy, a widely recognized expert who spent eight years working in a WADA-accredited laboratory and is a specialist in exactly this type of analysis. Both reviewed the documentation independently. Both identified the same violation. Both reached the same conclusion.

We subsequently retained three further independent chemistry specialists from academic institutions with no connection to the anti-doping industry. All three independently reviewed the same methodological questions. All three reached the same conclusions as Dr. Strahm and Dr. Podolskiy. Five independent scientists from different countries and institutions looked at what the Montreal laboratory did and said the same thing: the control samples were invalid, and without valid controls, the result cannot be considered reliable.

A Conflict the Tribunal Ignored

It is also worth noting that one of ITIA's own expert witnesses — presented as an independent voice — works at a laboratory whose WADA accreditation was partially suspended specifically for failures in this exact type of analysis as recently as 2019. The very methodology being defended in my case is the methodology that laboratory was penalized for applying incorrectly just a few years earlier. My legal team raised this. The tribunal did not address it.

The Accusation That Makes No Sense

There is one more thing worth stating plainly. Nandrolone is a steroid that builds muscle mass. Tennis is not a sport where muscle mass determines outcomes — technique, coordination, reaction speed, and mental resilience win tennis matches, and nandrolone improves none of them. Beyond that, its use carries serious criminal consequences including imprisonment. I was 19 years old and just beginning my professional career. The accusation does not make sense on any level.

The Decision and What It Means

We were hoping for a fair and objective decision. But despite all the evidence and expert conclusions, the arbitrators ruled in favor of the ITIA.

This decision is not just unfair to me. It undermines every athlete's faith in a system that is supposed to protect them. International sports arbitration has established this principle clearly in previous decisions — sanctions against athletes have been overturned specifically because of laboratory departures from analytical standards. In one of those cases, the arbitrators stated it plainly: "If an athlete is to be sanctioned solely on the basis of the provable presence of a prohibited substance in his body, it is his fundamental right to know that the Testing Authority, including the WADA-accredited laboratory, has strictly observed the mandatory safeguards. Strict application of the rules is the quid pro quo for the imposition of strict liability." That principle could not be clearer. You cannot demand absolute accountability from athletes while excusing the laboratories that test them from following their own rules. What's the point of international laboratory standards if the institution that created them excuses those who break them?

My Position

I have never accepted this accusation as true and I never will. I have never violated anti-doping rules — not intentionally, not accidentally. I have documented the full record publicly, I know the truth, and I am at peace with my innocence.