ITIA v Lleyton Hewitt

Decision Summary

• Sport: Tennis
• Issue: Arbitration
• Type: Anti-Doping
• Tribunal: Michael Heron KC (Chair)
• Decision date: 01 August 2025
• Outcome: 2-week period of Ineligibility; fine of AU$30,000

A decision has been issued by the Independent Panel in the matter of the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) against Mr. Lleyton Hewitt (the “Respondent”). The Charge arises under Article 7.15.1.1 of the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (TADP), alleging that the Respondent engaged in offensive conduct towards a Person involved in Doping Control. 

The facts underlying the Charge concern events that occurred immediately after the second match of the 2024 Davis Cup tie between Australia and Italy, held on 23 November 2024 in Malaga, Spain. Video footage shows the Australian team leaving the court, followed by the Respondent, who was serving as the Australian Team Captain. As Mr. Hewitt proceeded down the tunnel behind his team, he passed members of the opposing team and exchanged handshakes. At that point, the Doping Control Officer (DCO) assigned to chaperone one of the Australian players moved from the side of the tunnel toward the centre in order to follow the group. While continuing down the tunnel, Mr. Hewitt converged with the DCO and, believing that the DCO might make further contact, pushed the DCO with his right hand, forcing the DCO to the side of the tunnel. 

Michael Heron KC was appointed as Chair of the Independent Tribunal and heard the matter sitting alone. The Independent Tribunal was properly seized of jurisdiction under Article 8.1.1 of the TADP and conducted a hearing to consider the Charge, the facts of the case, and the arguments of both parties.  

The proceedings were held over four hearing dates to ensure that all evidence and submissions could be fully considered. The first hearing took place remotely on 2 June 2025, followed by a second remote hearing on 15 July 2025. The third hearing was held in Sydney with remote participation on 21 July 2025, and the fourth and final hearing took place in Sydney with remote participation on 22 July 2025. 

The ITIA submitted that the Mr. Hewitt’s conduct was intentional, forceful, and disproportionate. The ITIA relied on several key arguments. First, the seriousness of the conduct was emphasised, noting that the Respondent pushed a 60-year-old DCO against a wall, demonstrating a high degree of culpability. Second, the ITIA highlighted the impact on the victim, pointing out that the DCO stated he would “never volunteer again” as a result of the incident, which represented a tangible disruption to the Anti-Doping Programme. Third, the ITIA submitted that the Respondent had shown no remorse, failing to apologise or check on the welfare of the DCO. Fourth, the ITIA argued that the Respondent’s position as Davis Cup Captain carried a responsibility to act with exemplary conduct, which he had failed to uphold. Fifth, the ITIA referred to the Respondent’s disciplinary record, highlighting five prior incidents of offensive conduct toward officials, and submitted that this history should aggravate the penalty. Sixth, the ITIA contended that the Respondent’s conduct during the proceedings had been obstructive and caused unnecessary delays, imposing a burden on the Independent Tribunal and ITIA resources. Finally, the ITIA relied on comparative cases from tennis and other sports, arguing that similar conduct warranted meaningful suspension and fines, and proposed a suspension of four (4) weeks and a fine of US$25,000, with 25% suspended conditional on no further breaches within twelve months. 

Mr. Hewitt accepted that the physical contact occurred but presented multiple arguments for mitigation. He submitted that he did not know at the time of the incident that the individual with whom he collided was involved in Doping Control. He further contended that the push occurred after preceding contact in the tunnel, and he acted in anticipation of potential further contact rather than out of anger. The Respondent noted that no injury was caused, the DCO immediately returned to his duties, and the act was not accompanied by verbal abuse. The Respondent highlighted his 25-year distinguished career in tennis, his exemplary professionalism, and expressed genuine regret for the incident. He argued that the offence should be treated at the lower end of the seriousness scale and that a reprimand or minimal suspension would be proportionate. 

A hearing on sanction and costs was conducted on 22 August 2025, during which the Independent Tribunal considered submissions from both parties, including aggravating and mitigating factors, relevant case law, and guidance from applicable regulations. 

After a thorough review, the Independent Tribunal determined that Mr. Hewitt engaged in offensive conduct under Article 7.15.1.1 of the TADP. The push was intentional, forceful, and disproportionate, but the mitigating factors, including the lack of awareness of the DCO’s role, the absence of injury and preceding contact, placed the offence at the lower to mid-range of physical contact offences against officials. The Independent Tribunal also considered aggravating factors, including the Respondent’s position of authority, his prior disciplinary record, and the lack of expressed remorse. 

In light of these considerations, the Independent Tribunal imposed a suspension of two (2) weeks from all tennis-related activities, including coaching, mentoring, playing, captaincy, and associated roles. The suspension commences on 24 September 2025 and concludes on 7 October 2025. The Independent Tribunal also imposed a fine of AU$30,000, payable as directed by the ITIA, with a recommendation that one-third of the fine be paid to the DCO to compensate for stress, discomfort, and embarrassment. No order for costs was made. 

Both parties retain the right to appeal this Decision. 

Sport Resolutions is the independent Secretariat to the International Tennis Integrity Agency Independent Panel. 

A copy of the full decision can be accessed via the related links tab on the right-hand side.

Related Documents

• ITIA v Lleyton Hewitt Decision
• ITIA v Lleyton Hewitt Decision - Sanction and Costs

Share this page