Aussie tennis great Lleyton Hewitt alleges “manipulated” video evidence was used against him in an investigation into an incident with an anti-doping official during the Davis Cup.
Hewitt will consider appealing a two-week suspension and $30,000 fine handed down over the incident, choosing to wait until after the nation’s Davis Cup tie against Belgium before releasing a statement through his representatives WRP Legal.
The International Tennis Integrity Agency found Hewitt guilty of pushing a 60-year-old anti-doping chaperone in the aftermath of Alex de Minaur’s loss to Jannik Sinner at last year’s Davis Cup semi-finals.
Watch the biggest Aussie sports & the best from overseas LIVE on Kayo Sports | New to Kayo? Join now and get your first month for just $1.
“In December 2024, Lleyton Hewitt AM (LH) was notified of an alleged breach of the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (TADP) following submission of manipulated video evidence to the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA). The footage appeared to depict LH making physical contact with a Doping Control Officer (DCO),” the statement read.
“The incident in question occurred immediately following the second match of the 2024 Davis Cup tie between Australia and Italy. In his capacity as Team Captain of the Australian team, LH exited the court alongside Alex de Minaur, walking through a highly congested tunnel area. During this time, a DCO, who never made himself known to either LH or Alex de Minaur, made significant contact with LH who was recovering from surgery. As the DCO attempted to re-approach Alex de Minaur in haste, LH, perceiving the threat of another imminent collision, reacted by fending the DCO away. Importantly, LH did not know who the DCO was or why he was in the tunnel.
“The Tribunal (which consisted of one solicitor based in New Zealand), accepted LH’s account of the incident as the truth and found that the contact with the official was at the lower end of the spectrum for contact with officials. The Tribunal rejected many of the claims made by the ITIA including the allegation that the push was unprovoked or motivated by anger or irritation.
“Specifically, the Tribunal found that there were mitigating features in this case which the ITIA failed to point out in their press release. The Tribunal determined that:
a. Mr Hewitt was unaware that the person was a Doping Control official.
b. The conduct occurred in response to preceding contact.
c. The DCO was not injured and continued his duties immediately.
d. The DCO did not want to pursue the complaint.
e. The incident was not accompanied by threatening or abusive language.
“The Tribunal also found that this was not an anti-doping rule violation even though it was being pursued by the ITIA via the TADP.
“The Tribunal rejected the ITIA’s claim to impose a four-week suspension and fine, and instead decided that a two week suspension and a much lower fine was appropriate. The suspension will run from 24 September to 7 October.
“LH has dedicated his life to the sport and both the tennis and wider community, as evidenced by his ongoing involvement in Davis Cup tennis well beyond his retirement as a player. LH has consistently demonstrated exemplary professionalism and integrity both on and off the court. The Tribunal expressly acknowledged this and also LH’s credibility throughout the proceedings. The ITIA’s unfair characterisation of him was rejected.
“It is with relief that these proceedings have now concluded. Whilst LH and his legal team are considering an appeal of the decision, his primary concern remains the integrity of the sport and the fair treatment of all participants. We reiterate LH’s commitment to upholding the highest standards of professionalism and respect within the tennis community and to the traditions of the Davis Cup competition.”
The ITIA denied Hewitt’s allegation that the video had been manipulated.
“The video footage was not manipulated, and if Mr Hewitt believed it was, then he had the opportunity to raise this allegation at the hearing,” they told the Nine papers.
“The independent tribunal decision is available to read in full on our website, and Mr Hewitt has the right to appeal.”
Discussion about this post