Fri, July 31, 2026

ITIA v Markéta Vondroušová

A decision in the case of the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) against Markéta Vondroušová has been issued by the Independent Panel.

Ms Vondroušová is a professional tennis player (the “Player”) from Czech Republic and the 2023 Wimbledon Ladies’ Singles Champion.

On 27 February 2026, the ITIA issued a notice of charge against Ms Vondroušová for the commission of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (“ADRV”) under the 2026 Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (“2026 TADP”). The charge arose from an alleged violation of Article 2.3 of the 2025 Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (“2025 TADP”) on the basis that on 3 December 2025, the Player refused or failed to submit to Sample collection without compelling justification after notification by a duly authorised Person (the “Incident”). Ms Vondroušová denied that she had committed an ADRV.

The matter was subsequently referred to the Independent Panel on 2 March 2026 for determination.

The Independent Tribunal comprised Ms Grace Cheng (Chair), Ms Cristy Cooper, and Ms Lorraine Johnson.  

The hearing took place in London on 11 June 2026, with Ms Vondroušová in attendance.

Ms Vondroušová denied committing an ADRV on 3 December 2025 and disputed the ITIA’s account of the Incident. She stated that she spoke via the Intercom to a person seeking an Out-of-Competition Sample, but as the person failed to identify themselves and the request was outside her specified 60 minutes testing slot, she became fearful and refused to open the door. When the person continued attempting to communicate, Ms Vondroušová went downstairs with her dog, where the person identified herself as a Doping-Control Officer (“DCO”) but failed to provide proof of authorisation. Ms Vondroušová therefore refused testing and signed a refusal Form.

The ITIA submitted that, on 3 December 2025, an authorised DCO attended Ms Vondroušová’s home to collect an Out-of-Competition Sample. The DCO identified herself and explained that she was there to carry out a Doping Control. The Player refused to open the door stating she did not understand why she was being tested outside of her specified 60-minute timeslot. The DCO informed the Player that testing could take place outside her designated timeslot. The Player then went downstairs to take her small dog for a walk where she encountered the female DCO at her front door. The Player talked to her, refused to provide a Sample, and signed the refusal Form.

To establish an ADRV under Article 2.3 of the 2025 TADP, the Independent Tribunal had to be comfortably satisfied that: (1) that the person who notified the Player was duly authorised under the TADP; (2) that the Player was notified that she was required to provide a Sample for Doping Control purposes; (3) that the Player intentionally refused to provide a Sample; and (4) that the Player’s failure was either intentional or negligent.

As to the first issue, The Independent Tribunal was satisfied that the DCO was duly authorised to conduct the control on the Player based on the Letter of Authority provided by the ITIA.

Regarding the second issue, provided with conflicting accounts of the Incident, the Independent Tribunal preferred the DCO’s evidence and accepted that during the First Exchange, she introduced herself to the Player and explained that she was there to carry out Doping Control. This was supported by the evidence placed before the Independent Tribunal, namely the Player’s WhatsApp messages sent to her boyfriend and to her agent, and the Instagram post that evening. These showed that the Player clearly knew that the person was a DCO and that she was asked to be tested. Therefore, the Independent Tribunal was comfortably satisfied that the requirements for notification were fulfilled and that the DCO had properly notified the Player that she was required to undergo Sample collection.

As to the third issue, the Independent Tribunal treated this as a question of fact. By signing the refusal Form and walking away from the DCO, the Player made it clear that she was refusing to be tested. As such, the Independent Tribunal was comfortably satisfied that the Player refused to submit to Doping Control on the evening of 3 December 2025.

Regarding the final issue, the Independent Tribunal found that the Player knew she was being asked to undergo testing but refused based on her erroneous belief that she could only be tested within her designated timeslot. The Independent Tribunal was therefore comfortably satisfied that the Player’s refusal to submit to Doping Control was intentional.

Having established the elements of Article 2.3, the burden shifted to Ms Vondroušová to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that she had a compelling justification for refusing to provide a Sample.

The ITIA submitted that a "compelling justification" must be assessed objectively by whether it remained "physically, hygienically and morally possible" for the Player to provide a Sample. It relied on expert evidence that, although the Player may have exhibited symptoms of Generalised Anxiety Disorder, she did not suffer an Acute Stress Reaction, as demonstrated by her maintained executive and cognitive functioning, including posting an Instagram story after the Incident featuring a photograph of the DCO taken without the DCO's knowledge. The ITIA therefore contended that the Player voluntarily and deliberately declined to provide a Sample and invited the Independent Tribunal to find that she committed an ADRV under Article 2.3 of the 2025 TADP by refusing or failing to provide a Sample after valid notification on 3 December 2025, without compelling justification, and to impose a four-year period of Ineligibility.

The Player contended that she had a "compelling justification" for not providing a Sample because she was suffering from Generalised Anxiety Disorder and an Acute Stress Reaction, which significantly impaired her cognitive capacity and decision-making, rendering Sample collection mentally and morally impossible. She relied on expert evidence that acute stress prevented her from appreciating the significance and consequences of signing the refusal Form. She invited the Independent Tribunal to find that she had not committed the alleged ADRV or, alternatively, that any Fault was minimal and invited a 12-month period of Ineligibility.

The Independent Tribunal found no evidence that Ms Vondroušová sought medical assistance for cognitive impairment around the time of the Incident. It also considered that her decision to go downstairs with her small dog to meet the DCO was inconsistent with her claim that she perceived a serious threat. While accepting that she experienced anxiety and stress, the Independent Tribunal found that there was enough contemporaneous evidence showing that no Disorder or stress reaction prevented the Player from complying with the Doping Control process or constitute a compelling justification under Article 2.3.

Therefore, the Independent Tribunal was comfortably satisfied that the charge was proven to the required standard, and determined that a period of Ineligibility of four (4) years should be imposed. The period of Ineligibility commenced on 22 June 2026, the date of the Operative Award, which the parties had requested before the Wimbledon entry draws deadlines

The Independent Tribunal determined that Ms Vondroušová’s results achieved during the period between 3 December 2025 and the date of the Operative Award, 22 June 2026, shall not be Disqualified.

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 Markéta Vondroušová Decision