Sweden's number one player on the ATP Tour, Mikael Ymer has been suspended from tennis for 18 months after a complicated situation resolved badly for him.
Ymer has been Sweden's top player for a while, even though he has been nowhere near the Top 10 as the country struggles to replicate some of the historic success it had with players like Bjorn Borg and Mats Wilander.
Ymer is currently ranked number 51 with a pretty decent season behind though not one devoid of controversy. Earlier this year, the Swede made headlines after being defaulted from a match due to breaking his racquet onto the umpire's chair and damaging it.
He was heavily fined for that, and now he's out of tennis after a sequence of events that ultimately resulted in a suspension from the sport. Ymer explained the story with a long post on Twitter, and we will bring you a breakdown of the situation.
Back in January 2022, Ymer was charged by the ITF with an anti-doping rule violation as he missed three tests in 12 months. It's the same situation that happened to Jenson Brooksby earlier this year when he was suspended.
Ymer actually fought the charge with a hearing where he was cleared of any wrongdoing by 3 independent arbitrators in June of last year. Even so, the ITF appealed that decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which then ruled against Ymer, letting him know yesterday, July 17th, that he's been suspended for 18 months from the sport.
Ymer expressed disbelief in the decision as he stands by his assertion that he didn't miss a 3rd test in 12 months. He expressed great disappointment that he was trialled again after being cleared with the 18-month punishment put in place.
Ymer didn't express anything related to a possible hearing or appeal from his side so it seems like, as of now, the decision is final. He once again expressed his firm belief that he did not break any rules saying that his conscience was clear. Below, you can read Ymer's full statement.
"In January 2022, the ITF charged me with a potential anti-doping rule violation for having 3 missed out of competition test attempts in a 12-month period. I fought that charge at a hearing, and was cleared by an independent tribunal of 3 arbitrators in June of 2022."
"The ITF appealed that decision despite the fact that the 3 independent arbitrators who cleared me were appointed under its own rules, and asked the Court of Arbitration for Sport to reach a different decision on the same facts under which I had already been cleared."
"Yesterday, I learned that the Court of Arbitration for Sports has suspended me from professional tennis for 18 months, despite never having used nor been accused of using banned substances."
"Having already been cleared once, and wholeheartedly standing by the fact that I do not feel that the 3rd offence was committed, I find their decision to try me again and subsequently find me guilty, unfair."
"On top of that, I find it difficult to comprehend that they found an 18 month suspension to be a just punishment. I understand that these rules have been put in place to protect the integrity of our sport, and that they are there for a reason. However, I do not believe I broke those rules, and my conscience is clear with God as my witness."
The Court of Arbitration for Sport which judged Ymer's case, also released a lengthy statement on July 17th, 2023, which explains the whole process, and their reasoning behind the decision made to suspend the Swedish player for '18 months following 3 whereabout failures'.
"The first-instance tribunal had found that, in relation to the third whereabouts failure, which occurred on the eve of the 2021 Open International de Tennis de Roanne (France), the Doping Control Officer (DCO) did all that was required of him to locate the Player, but that no negligence could be attributed to the Player or his agent."
"During the CAS proceedings, it was established that the Player had three whereabouts failures (22 April 2021, 10 August 2021, 7 November 2021) recorded against him in the 12 months prior to 7 November 2021. The Player accepted his first two whereabouts failures, but contested his third failure, arguing that (a) the DCO who attempted to locate the Player did not make a reasonable attempt to do so, and (b) no negligence on the part of the Player contributed to the whereabouts failure."
0 Comments