Another Tennis Anti-Doping Saga Drips Out
Max Purcell's intravenous infusion case injects more questions into the tennis anti-doping landscape—as does his punishment. Here are some answers.
One week before ATP No. 1 Jannik Sinner’s highly-anticipated return to competition at the Italian Open in Rome after serving a three-month ban, another notable anti-doping saga in men’s tennis has reached a resolution.
Max Purcell was, remarkably, the third player to have won a major title in 2024 before running afoul of the anti-doping regulations later that same year.
Purcell obviously isn’t nearly as famous as Sinner—or Iga Swiatek, the longtime WTA No. 1 who also caught a case last year. But Purcell has been a top doubles player for many years, reaching five major finals in men’s doubles and winning two of them: Wimbledon in 2022 with Matt Ebden and the U.S. Open in 2024 with Jordan Thompson.
Resolving a case which had first surfaced in December, the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) announced Tuesday that it had handed Max Purcell an 18-month sentence for using a prohibited method: receiving intravenous infusions of five times the legal limit. Purcell’s penalty was reduced by 25 percent from the original 24 months because of “substantial assistance” which the ITIA said Purcell provided.
Now that more information about his case is known today, Purcell’s is probably the strangest of the three, and leaves me with the most questions— both for Purcell and for the authorities.
So as is Bounces tradition at this point in these cases, let’s do a timeline of events in the Purcell case to lay out the facts, connect dots, and better understand what unfolded.
A Timeline of the Max Purcell Case:
This is a timeline I’ve made by synthesizing information which was already public about Purcell’s season and case, new information in the ITIA’s (lightly redacted) 8-page decision published Tuesday, one key bit that Purcell revealed himself in a statement Tuesday, and other reporting of mine.
Max Purcell’s Very Good 2023 Season:
After making two major finals in doubles the previous year, Purcell’s singles ranking soars in early 2023 when he wins three consecutive ATP Challenger events in India in February. Purcell had never previously been inside the ATP Top 150 in his singles career, but his ranking skyrockets from 203rd to 95th in just three weeks.
Purcell only wins 10 of his 30 main draw matches on the ATP Tour level in 2023, but a run to the quarterfinals of the ATP 1000 in Cincinnati—with a win over No. 7 Casper Ruud and a close battle against Carlos Alcaraz in the quarterfinals—breaks him into the Top 50.
Purcell ultimately reaches a career-high singles ranking of No. 40 in October 2023.
Early December 2023:
Because of his steep climb in the rankings, Purcell is added for the first time into the ITIA’s Whereabouts testing pool, meaning he is subjected to possible daily “no notice” drug tests during a designated hour of the day.
From the ITIA website’s explainer of who is included in the Whereabouts Program:
Players part of the International Registered Testing Pool (IRTP) are required to provide information on their location through the World Anti-Doping Agency’s platform, ADAMS, to support delivery of the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme.
Those selected for the 2024 IRTP includes (but is not limited to) the top 100 men and women by singles rankings, top 10 players by doubles rankings and top 10 men, women and quad wheelchair players.
Keeping up with the meticulous management required by the Whereabouts program is daunting for all players. Purcell wrote in his statement Tuesday that “since December 2023, when I was added into the testing pool and asked to provide my whereabouts every single day, I even changed the background lock screen on my phone so I would never forget.”
December 16th, 2023
Max Purcell receives an intravenous infusion of non-prohibited substances, which Purcell later called “vitamins,” at an unnamed clinic in Bali, Indonesia.
The issue is not the substances dripped into Purcell but the sheer amount: the 500mL infusion is is quintuple WADA’s 100mL limit for intravenous infusions within a 12-hour period that are not “in the course of a hospital treatment, surgical procedure, or clinical diagnostic investigation,” per WADA rules.
Purcell would later characterize the infusion as “administered at a 24/7 medical facility, in a third world location after feeling unwell and fatigued from training.”
That same day, Purcell discusses his “hydration session” over text messages with another player, referred to in the ITIA document as “Player 2.”
The ITIA suggests a degree of cover-up in its summary of these text messages, saying that Purcell “requested the Clinic staff not to keep receipts relating to his infusion” and that Purcell “discussed ways in which he could justify receiving infusions, including feigning illness.”
December 20th, 2023:
Purcell receives a second 500mL infusion from the same Bali clinic, as corroborated by text messages.
January 1st, 2024:
Purcell plays his first match of the 2024 season, losing in three sets to Holger Rune in the first round of Brisbane. He later reaches the second round in both Auckland and the Australian Open.
February 3rd, 2024:
Purcell takes his first anti-doping test of 2024. It comes back negative for any banned substances (as have all tests in his career, as far as we know).
[Seven months pass]
September 7th, 2024:
After a heartbreaking loss in the Wimbledon final, Max Purcell and Jordan Thompson bounce back to win the U.S. Open men’s doubles title. Purcell reaches a career-high doubles ranking of No. 8 thanks to this win.
September 25th, 2024:
After Purcell is implicated for the oversized intravenous infusions in the course of another ITIA investigation, the ITIA contacts Purcell and demands access to his mobile device(s).
Purcell, whose ranking has fallen back outside the Top 90 by this point, complies with this request, but according to the ITIA, “some of the relevant messages were no longer on the Player’s phone.” The messages that the ITIA used in its investigation were later obtained, however, from Player 2’s phone.
November 29th, 2024:
The ITIA notifies Purcell that its analysis of his mobile device data is complete, and they request an interview with him.
December 10th, 2024:
Purcell submits a written statement claiming that he didn’t know his 500mL infusions weren’t well over the 100mL limit:
“Until last week, when I reached out to the [Clinic] to get the medical records associated with two IV infusions I had in Bali in 2023, I thought for sure that both infusions were less than 100 ml. Therefore, I was utterly shocked when the clinic sent me back records to indicate that the infusions were actually 500 ml and over the allowable limit.. [I] directed the clinic both times to provide me with a legal IV amount. I told them less than 100 ml and both times they seemed to understand me.”
December 12th, 2024:
The ITIA sends Purcell a notice of a potential anti-doping rule violation. Purcell accepts a voluntary suspension that same day.
Also, something around this part of the timeline (at least if the document remains chronological) is completely redacted from the ITIA’s report, by far the largest redaction in the report.
December 13th, 2024:
News of his suspension is not yet public, but Purcell, who at 105th is the highest-ranked Australian man outside the main draw, is conspicuously absent from the Australian Open’s announcement of wildcards for 2025.
December 20th, 2024:
The ITIA interview takes place in Belgrade on December 20th, one year to the date after his second infusion.
In the interview, Purcell contends that his apparent attempts at obfuscations and stealth in the aforementioned text messages retrieved from Player 2’s phone were because “he requested the Clinic keep the details of his treatment confidential as he likes to keep his physical state and preparations private; (ii) he raised potential justifications for infusions in case the Clinic had not deemed his symptoms severe enough for an infusion.”
December 23rd, 2024:
The ITIA announces that Purcell “has elected to enter into a voluntary provisional suspension under the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme (TADP)” but gives few details beyond it being a rare “prohibited method” violation. Purcell later gives more details in a statement.
“I was fully convinced that I had done everything to ensure that I had followed the WADA regulations and methods,” he wrote. “But the records show that the IV was over that 100ml limit, even though I told the medical clinic that I was a professional athlete and needed the IV to be below 100 ml.”
My initial Bounces write-up of the case, exploring the rarely-discussed prohibited method category of offenses, goes up later that day.
December 28th, 2024:
Speaking to media in Brisbane, Purcell’s doubles partner Jordan Thompson rips the process that has sidelined his partner:
“It wasn’t great news for me and Maxy—and especially Max. I think it’s a bit of a joke, but there’s not a lot I can do about it…Obviously, he took too much in an IV bag, but to get suspended for that, when there are other people who are doing far worse and sometimes just get a slap on the wrist? A bit of a joke, I think…
“When you look at guys testing positive, then you have Max taking too much in an IV bag, it’s a head-scratcher…It’s a stitch-up. I mean, the guy took too much saltwater in an IV bag in Bali. He was unwell, that’s why he went there. He went to the hospital.
“I have no good words for it. It’s a joke. I mean, guys are testing positive [for] performance enhancers and he’s gone out and taken too much saltwater; they’ve suspended him. Take of that what you will. Anyone looking at it goes: ‘It’s so unfair’.”
January 2025:
The ITIA directly contacts the unnamed clinic in Bali and confirms that Purcell received two 500mL infusions, and also that the ingredients in the infusions were not prohibited substances.
March 7, 2025:
ITIA formally charges Purcell with two anti-doping rule violations for his two oversized intravenous infusions.
March 21, 2025:
The ITIA announces that a second Australian doubles specialist, Thomas Fancutt, has also begun a suspension for a prohibited method violation.
While it is not yet officially confirmed, it is my understanding that Fancutt’s case is related to Purcell’s.
April 29, 2025:
The ITIA announces that Purcell has agreed to an 18-month suspension, reducing his penalty by providing “substantial assistance” in the form of information that is not specified, and is in fact redacted from the report.
Whether this information was related to Fancutt’s case or some other matter is not yet officially known.
Purcell has all of his prize money and points from between his infusion on December 20th, 2023 and the date of his first negative test on February 3rd, 2024 stripped, adding up to about US $150,000.
June 12, 2026 (The Future):
With his suspension backdated to when he began serving his provisional suspension, Purcell will be eligible to return to tennis, which he currently plans to do.
“I am excited for the challenge and hope you all get around me for my comeback when it’s time1!” Purcell wrote in his statement on Instagram Tuesday.
Lingering Questions in the Purcell Case
There are a few questions I still had after constructing this timeline; maybe you still have some of the same questions.
Happily, as they did after the Swiatek announcement, the ITIA again held a media call this morning to discuss and clarify matters as best they could, so I did get answers to many of the questions.
Let’s reel off some questions and some (partial) answers:
Howcatchem?
What other investigation was the ITIA working on that led to catching Purcell? In their press release, ITIA chief executive Karen Moorhouse said that this case “shows that the ITIA considers intelligence from a range of sources with the overriding aim to protect everyone covered by the tennis anti-doping rules, and ensure a level playing field for all.” What other sorts of sources of intelligence might’ve been at play here? Which leads to the follow-up question: how did the use of this oversized IV bag in Bali—which surely would have gone undetected almost any normal circumstances—even get discovered so much later? Was this a situation—like American swimmer Ryan Lochte’s—in which someone posted a photo of an oversized intravenous drip on social media?
In their call, the ITIA’s senior legal director Ben Rutherford indicated that it was an investigation into another male player that led to this information about Purcell: “In essence, there was an investigation in relation to another player; We're not discussing him at this point because his case is ongoing. But in the course of the investigation into that particular player, it came to light that Max Purcell had attended a clinic and obtained two infusions which were over the 100mL limit set by WADA and were not for clinical or medicinal purposes.”
Because it was based on a trail of evidence rather than a positive test triggering an alert, Rutherford said that the case played out “a bit more like some of the anti-corruption cases that we deal with, where there's a whole lot of forensic analysis that has to go on from our intel team.”
Was There Intent or Motive?
What was the actual reason Purcell was getting these intravenous infusions? The ITIA’s description of the text messages that were no longer on his phone suggest “feigning illness” was going to be his excuse for getting them and that he wanted there not to be a paper trail. Was there some intentional subterfuge happening by Purcell here? And Purcell entering the Whereabouts program that same month—and suddenly facing the prospect of surprise tests—could that have been related to his seeking out these intravenous infusions?
ITIA chief executive Karen Moorhouse listed several reasons why WADA has banned excessively large intravenous infusions:
“Firstly, they can enhance performance and recovery, I understand, by increasing plasma volume levels,” Moorhouse said. “They can also be used to mask the use of a prohibited substance itself. And then finally for those players who have Athlete Biological Passports, they can distort the values of players' Athlete Biological Passports.”
And there was a consideration by the ITIA, they acknowledged, of thinking the text message evidence they had could prove some intent.
“The contemporaneous exchanges between the two players can be read to indicate a degree of recklessness and/or intentionality behind the Player’s ADRVs…,” their document reads.
But the ITIA leaders on the call said that, after consulting with outside legal counsel, they did not think they had a case where they would be able to prove intentional cheating by Purcell. Because intravenous infusions are a so-called “specified” method, meaning there are possible genuine therapeutic uses for using them, the burden of proving intent would have landed on the ITIA, not the athlete in this case.
When I asked about the timing of Purcell entering the Whereabouts program as a possible motive for masking something through this method, the ITIA leaders didn’t seem to think there would be a correlation—or at least that this method might not have worked.
“Not necessarily, because being in the pool means that you'd be on the Athlete Biological Passport,” Rutherford said. “So to the point that Karen made of potentially distorting the values of it: if it was not done in a sophisticated way—which this was not, this was not done in a very orchestrated way with advice from scientists like maybe has been seen in sports like cycling—it would throw the values out, and make him more likely to be picked up by the [anti-doping] program as opposed to less likely.”
What Knowledge Was Power?
What information did Purcell provide that was significant enough to knock six whole months off his suspension?
Rutherford said that “Max provided some information in relation to another case—which is also still confidential, but you'll hear about it in due course should it proceed to a point where there's a sanction.”
When I asked, ITIA chief executive Karen Moorhouse confirmed that the case which Purcell gave information about is a second separate from the case which implicated himself, so there are at least three cases in the mix here.
And lastly, the biggest question that I’m guessing people will be asking today (and that Jordan Thompson already suggested a few months ago):
Star Treatment?
Why was Purcell punished so much more harshly for receiving an infusion containing no banned substances than two star players were punished for testing positive for actual banned substances?
Purcell got 18 months; that’s 6x what Sinner got for testing positive for clostebol and 18x what Swiatek got for testing positive for trimetazidine. These are stark chasms in outcomes, especially given that Purcell could have gotten 24 months if not for the “information” he provided to the ITIA. (It’s worth noting, also, that Purcell waved his right to appeal the ruling to CAS, so unless WADA or Sporting Integrity Australia appeal, this punishment is set.)
The difference in Purcell’s, the ITIA will argue, comes down to intent and recklessness. While Sinner and Swiatek are alleged to have done little if anything wrong to get their No Significant Fault or Negligence verdicts, Purcell is ascribed possible intent—though not with enough evidence to be proven by an Independent Tribunal, the ITIA admits—and a definite degree of “significant” fault.
“I'm really comfortable that all cases turn on their own facts,” Moorhouse said. “I know we've spoken to you all before around how cases can be really complex, how two cases are rarely if ever the same, and that therefore the outcome of each is based on analysis of the facts of those cases against the rules. We recognize that we've got to look for every opportunity we can to communicate with people, to increase awareness and make sure people understand that too.
“We're doing a lot of work within the sport—and that's part of the reason for today, really—is to make sure that you and the media teams understand the rationale for different outcomes based on different facts, so that we can continue to try and improve knowledge and understanding of what we're doing and what we are all about. Which is, ultimately, protecting the sport and protecting the vast, vast majority of clean players within it.”
While the ITIA was not willing to declare Purcell as doping, they were ready to declare him dopey for not taking any stock of what was hooked up to his arm for a long period of time, twice.
From the ITIA’s document on Purcell:
“The facts and evidence in these proceedings demonstrate a significant degree of fault and negligence on the part of the Player. The Player is a very high level tennis player who has received anti-doping education over a number of years and is, by his own account, well aware of the high standard expected of him when it comes to meeting his anti-doping obligations. Irrespective of whether the Player requested an infusion of 100 mL or not, by his own admission he never sought to verify whether his request had been understood, including by taking the extremely simple step of looking at the IV bag containing the infusion.”
The difference between 100mL and 500mL, the ITIA says, is too clear to be an accident.
If only Purcell were American, he could have simply pleaded profound ignorance of the metric system.
Thank you for reading Bounces! If you made it all the way to the end here I can assume you appreciate tennis journalism and thoroughness in it, so I would in turn appreciate you subscribing if you can! -Ben
_07.jpg){kind=link}
The 2026 FIFA World Cup will have begun a day earlier, if you were wondering.
Bless you for that title lol
What a mess. I flip back and forth on the fairness. Seems like a really long suspension but the 5x times the amount allowed and having done it twice and then the attempt to hide it ain't great.