–

On Nov. 11, the ITIA handed down a six-month sentence after a positive test for the same prohibited substance to 18-year-old Czech player Nikola Bartunkova.

It didn’t get much attention at the time, mostly because unlike Iga Swiatek or Jannik Sinner, the young player is just in the early stages of her career and is far from a household name.

But it’s obviously worth revisiting now, in the wake of the news about Swiatek.

The full decision can be read here.

Bartunkova, who was the Wimbledon girls’ singles finalist in 2023, had her case take longer than Swiatek’s did. She tested positive at an ITF tournament in Slovakia in late February, 2024. And again at one in Slovenia on March 19. The pre-charge notice was issued April 16.

Iga Swiatek issued one-month suspension for positive doping test

In contradiction to the claims from some that only the top players get special treatment, Bartunkova was granted two extensions to respond to the pre-charge notice, which she was granted on May 31 and July 5. But by the end of July, she still hadn’t been able to find he source.

It was only on Oct. 27 that Bartunkova was able to find it: a contamined supplement that contained “milk thistle” (the supplement also contained vitamins B and E).

Bartunkova submitted the results of laboratory testing in Prague and Strabourg (Swiatek also used a Strasbourg lab) that confirmed the product contained the banned substance TMZ. Notably, there was a negative test between the two positives – which Bartunkova’s lawyer explained by stating she had stopped taking the supplement during that period because it was contraindicated by an actual medication she was taking.

Bartunkova checked with the sports doctor who recommended the supplement that it contained no banned substances. He confirmed it. And she and her parents searched the ingredients themselves and found nothing that was on the WADA list. She was under 18 at the time.

She had not been … specific on her list for doping control, declaring she was taking “Vitamines C, D, B” for the test in February. For the March test, she said she was taking “Vitamine B, Vitamine C and Vitamine E (among other supplements).

In Bartunkova’s case as well, the manufacturer refused to respond.

Six months vs. One Month

Once she was able to locate the source of the contamination, the case went as quickly as Swiatek’s did.

But why did Bartunkova get six months, as opposed to the one month assessed to Swiatek?

That period was consistent with previous similar cases. And in the end, she was able to get back on court with roughly the same speed that Swiatek will – it’s just that identifying the source took longer in her case.

As well, the fact that it was a (highly unregulated) supplement that was the source of the contamination worked against her, in the opposite way that the fact that the particular brand of melatonin Swiatek ingested WAS regulated in her country worked for her.

By definition, the ITIA seems to consider that those taking supplements – which are at far greater risk of being contaminated because of that lack of regulation – imputes a higher degree of fault to the player. Even within the parameters of “no significant fault,” which is a range.

Not yet back on court

Bartunkova had reached a career high of No. 226 in April just days before the received word of the positive test.

She had a number of results from the spring disqualified, and of course was suspended through the summer.

Bartunkova has been eligible to return since Nov. 11. But so far, she’s not been back on court. Which is logical, as she wouldn’t have been allowed to enter any tournaments while she was suspended, and there’s a lag time between the entry deadlines and the actual events.

A quick run through the remaining ITF tournaments in 2024 indicates she hasn’t yet entered anything else, although it’s always possible she could get a wild card.

About Post Author