Fri, September 18, 2026

ITIA v Romeo Arcuschin

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

On 15 December 2025, while competing at the ITF World Tennis Tour M15 event in Lima, Peru, an In-Competition urine Sample was collected from Mr Arcuschin, a then 18-year-old Argentinean International-Level tennis player.

On 16 February 2026, the ITIA notified the Player of the presence of Stanozolol metabolites and Clomifene detected in his Sample. Stanozolol is a non-Specified substance, listed in the category of Anabolic Agents (Section S1.1. of the 2025 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List). Clomifene is a Specified substance, listed in the category of Hormone and Metabolic Modulators (Section S4.2. of the 2025 WADA Prohibited List). A mandatory Provisional Suspension was imposed with immediate effect.

On 7 March 2026, the Player submitted a written response stating that he admitted the Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) and was contesting the Consequences, as they are set out in the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (TADP). The Player also provided an explanation of how the Prohibited Substances came to be in his body.

On 13 March 2026, the ITIA formally charged the Player with four (4) ADRVs under TADP 2026 Articles 2.1 and/or 2.2, based on the presence of Stanozolol and Clomifene found in his Sample. 

On 11 August 2026, a hearing took place before the Independent Tribunal, which comprised David Casement KC (Chair), Dr Chinyere Ezewuzie, and Dr Tanja Haug, who were appointed from the Independent Panel to hear this matter.

Whilst not disputing that the Prohibited Substances had been found in his Sample, Mr Arcuschin sought to reduce the period of Ineligibility of four (4) years, set out in TADP Article 10.2.1, to a minimum of one (1) year, by establishing that his conduct had not been intentional and that he bore No Significant Fault or Negligence in committing the ADRVs.

The Player maintained, and it was accepted by the ITIA, that, on 27 February 2025, whilst competing, he fell on his left side. The fall caused the Player’s left shoulder to dislocate. While medical staff treated the Player, he suffered a second dislocation. After a period of immobilisation and treatment, the Player continued to suffer recurrent yet irregular dislocations of his left shoulder.

On 1 May 2025, the Player underwent surgery, which caused a decrease in strength of about 15% in the affected shoulder. On 7 August 2025, the Player consulted another doctor, who had come recommended to him. It was then that the Player was prescribed a 30-day-course of compounded medications, which consisted of Stanozolol and Clomifene, to treat the muscle atrophy in his shoulder and arm.

Both the Player and the doctor confirmed to the Independent Tribunal that, when the prescription was issued to the Player, neither the medication nor the potential side effects were explained by the doctor. The prescription was also illegible. The Player simply took the prescription to a pharmacy, where he received the medication in two bottles, without labels or instructions.

The Player maintained that, as he had not received any anti-doping education, he was completely unaware of what he was about to ingest or of the potential risk he was undertaking. The ITIA sought to discern when, during the period he was treating the Player, the doctor became aware that the Player was a professional athlete and was therefore subject to anti-doping rules. The ITIA insisted that the Player knew the prescription contained Prohibited Substances and that the reason he had made an appointment with the doctor, without informing his support or medical teams, and had not undertaken any research into the doctor, was not because of unawareness from a lack of anti-doping education. Rather, it was because the Player knew of the doctor’s prominent practice treating bodybuilders. Further, the doctor confirmed that he never informed the Player that the prescription contained Prohibited Substances and that, even if the Player had asked, he would not have disclosed what was contained in the compound medications.

In carefully considering the parties’ submissions, the Tribunal recognised the great imbalance in status between the doctor and the Player.

Despite acknowledging the doctor’s extensive experience as a medical practitioner, particularly in sports medicine, the Tribunal also took into account that the doctor gave no information to the Player about the substances he was prescribing, while expressly and implicitly reassuring the Player that there was nothing to be concerned about. Given the serious Consequences any athlete who ingests Prohibited Substances might face, the Tribunal noted that the doctor ought to have asked the Player whether he was playing professionally and whether he was subject to anti-doping rules.

The Tribunal also accounted for the Player’s age and the particular circumstances he was facing at the time and concluded that his mind was far from focused on anti-doping regulations, of which he had little knowledge to begin with. Although the Player had completed two multiple-choice tests, in which a select number of questions related to anti-doping, this did not, in the view of the Tribunal, constitute education. In any event, the fact that the Player struggled to correctly answer the anti-doping questions on the multiple-choice tests evidenced his lack of knowledge and his need for education. Consequently, the Tribunal accepted that the Player placed his absolute trust in a senior doctor and that, given the disparity in age, experience, and authority, together with his own youth and inexperience, the Player did not question the medications he was given. 

The Tribunal therefore concluded that the Player proved, on the balance of probabilities, that his conduct leading to the ingestion of Stanozolol was not intentional. In respect of Clomifene, the Tribunal found that, for the same reasons, the ITIA had not discharged its burden of proof to show that the Player’s conduct had been intentional. 

In assessing Mr Arcuschin’s degree of Fault and determining the appropriate sanction to be imposed, the Tribunal remained mindful of TADP 2026 Articles 2.1.1 and 2.2.1, which confirm that the Player is responsible for everything that enters his body, and that it is his responsibility to comply with the anti-doping rules. When taken into account against the Player’s unquestioning and total reliance upon the doctor’s advice, advice that was substantially lacking in important information, the Tribunal determined that Fault could not be laid entirely on the Player.

The Tribunal therefore imposed a twenty (20)-month-long period of Ineligibility. The period of Ineligibility commenced on 28 August 2026, the date of the decision, with time served on Provisional Suspension being credited. Further, Mr Arcuschin’s results obtained at the ITF World Tennis Tour M15 event, and all subsequent events achieved prior to his Provisional Suspension, are Disqualified with all resulting Consequences, including forfeiture of all medals, titles, ranking points, and Prize Money, pursuant to TADP Articles 9.1, 10.1, and 10.10. 

Sport Resolutions is the independent secretariat to the International Tennis Integrity Agency’s Independent Panel.

A copy of the full decision can be found here. 

Related Documents

• ITIA v Romeo ArcuschinDecision