Wed, September 23, 2026

ITIA v Parikshit Somani

A decision in the case of the International Tennis Integrity Agency (“ITIA”) against Mr Parikshit Somani has been issued on behalf of the Independent Panel.

The decision concerns Mr Somani, a 24-year-old professional tennis player of Indian nationality, who has had a career-high doubles ranking of 256 on the Association of Tennis Professionals (“ATP”) Tour.

On 31 July 2025, while competing in an ATP Challenger in Astana, Kazakhstan, Mr Somani was selected for In-Competition Doping Control and provided a urine sample (the “Sample”). The Sample was divided into A and B Samples and sent to the World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”) accredited laboratory in Montreal, Canada (the “Montreal Laboratory”) for analysis.

On 29 August 2025, the Montreal Laboratory reported an Adverse Analytical Finding (“AAF”), identifying the presence of Trimetazidine (“TMZ”) in the A Sample. TMZ is classified as a Hormone and Metabolic Modulator under S4.4.4 of the WADA Prohibited List and is prohibited at all times. The estimated concentration of TMZ in the Sample was 158.6 pg/mL.

On 23 September 2025, the ITIA notified Mr Somani of a potential Anti-Doping Rule Violation (“ADRV”) and imposed a Provisional Suspension. Mr Somani denied the asserted ADRV and requested analysis of the B Sample. On 30 October 2025, the ITIA informed Mr Somani that the B Sample analysis had confirmed the A Sample finding.

Mr Somani subsequently sought to identify the source of the TMZ. Multiple medications and supplements were tested under the ITIA’s Player Support Programme, but none contained TMZ. Mr Somani subsequently identified a medication taken by a member of his family as a possible source and maintained that the TMZ had entered his system through inadvertent contamination of food prepared by that family member.

On 29 January 2026, the ITIA charged Mr Somani with an ADRV under Articles 2.1 and/or 2.2 of the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (“TADP”). In his response dated 20 February 2026, Mr Somani accepted that the presence of TMZ constituted an ADRV under the strict liability provisions of the TADP but denied that he had intentionally or knowingly used TMZ. The ITIA subsequently maintained its position that Mr Somani had not established the source of the TMZ or demonstrated that the ADRV was not intentional, and proposed a sanction of four (4) years’ Ineligibility.

On 7 April 2026, Mr Somani informed the ITIA that he did not accept the proposed sanction and initially requested that the matter be heard by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) Anti-Doping Division (“ADD”). The ITIA did not agree to that proposal and, with Mr Somani’s consent, the matter was instead referred to the Independent Panel administered by Sport Resolutions.

On 11 May 2026, His Honour Phillip Sycamore CBE was appointed as Chair of the Independent Tribunal to adjudicate this matter, with Professor Isla Mackenzie and Dr Abigail Gauci subsequently appointed as the remaining members of the Tribunal on 11 June 2026.

The proceedings before the Independent Tribunal concerned the appropriate Consequences of the ADRV. Mr Somani maintained that the presence of TMZ resulted from inadvertent contamination and that he should therefore benefit from the provisions of the TADP concerning No Fault or Negligence or, alternatively, No Significant Fault or Negligence. The ITIA maintained that Mr Somani had not established the source of the TMZ and had therefore failed to demonstrate that the ADRV was not intentional.

A hearing took place on 19 August 2026 by remote videoconference. The Tribunal heard oral evidence from Mr Somani and a member of his family, as well as from expert witnesses for both parties, and considered the written evidence and submissions presented by the parties.

Mr Somani’s case was that the TMZ had entered his system inadvertently through food prepared by a member of his family. Three possible mechanisms of contamination were advanced.

The first, referred to as the “Pestle and Mortar Theory”, concerned the possible use of the same pestle and mortar to crush medication and prepare ingredients used in food for Mr Somani. It was proposed that traces of TMZ could have remained in the utensil and subsequently transferred to the food.

The second, the “Sweat Theory”, proposed that TMZ could have been transferred through sweat while the food was being prepared by hand. Expert evidence was presented concerning whether TMZ could be present in sweat following therapeutic use of medication and whether this could account for the finding in Mr Somani’s Sample.

The third, the “Residue Theory”, proposed that small quantities of TMZ could have become exposed from medication through handling, friction, temperature or humidity and subsequently transferred to surfaces or food.

The Independent Tribunal considered each of the proposed mechanisms together with the factual and expert evidence presented by the parties. In relation to the Pestle and Mortar Theory, the Tribunal considered the evidence concerning the use of the utensil and the circumstances in which the account of crushing the medication had been advanced. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the evidence established this as the source of the TMZ.

The Tribunal also considered the Sweat Theory. Having considered the expert evidence concerning the possible presence and transfer of TMZ through sweat, the Tribunal was not satisfied that this provided a sufficiently reliable explanation for the presence of TMZ in the Sample.

As to the Residue Theory, the Tribunal considered the evidence concerning the medication and the circumstances in which it was stored and taken. It was not satisfied that the evidence established that TMZ could have been transferred from the medication in the manner proposed.

Having considered the evidence as a whole, the Independent Tribunal concluded that Mr Somani had not established, on the balance of probabilities, how the TMZ had entered his system. He had therefore not demonstrated that the ADRV was not intentional and could not rely upon the provisions concerning No Fault or Negligence or No Significant Fault or Negligence.

The Independent Tribunal accordingly found that Mr Somani had committed ADRVs pursuant to Articles 2.1 and/or 2.2 of the TADP in relation to the presence and Use of TMZ.

As Mr Somani had not established that the ADRV was not intentional, the applicable period of Ineligibility was four (4) years pursuant to Article 10.2.1 of the TADP.

Accordingly, Mr Somani was sanctioned with a period of Ineligibility of four (4) years commencing from the date of the decision, with credit for the period of Provisional Suspension already served from 23 September 2025. All competitive results obtained by Mr Somani (i) at the Event and (ii) until 23 September 2025 were Disqualified, with all resulting Consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, ranking points, prize money and appearance money.

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 Parikshit SomaniDecision