Markéta Vondroušová’s doping test refusal, case and four-year ban explained

Markéta Vondroušová, the 2023 Wimbledon champion, was banned from professional tennis for four years Monday after refusing a doping test in early December 2025.

Vondroušová, who received the maximum punishment for the offence, presented explanations in an independent hearing on June 11 that stress and her mental health had affected her decision-making, in addition to concerns for her safety.

The Olympic silver medallist and former world No. 6 was on the entry list for this year’s Wimbledon, which starts Monday, June 29. She will now be watching from the sidelines as she begins a suspension that expires in 2030, by which time she will be 30, pending any appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

But what offense did Vondroušová commit? Why was the penalty so severe? And how have her fellow tennis players reacted to the news?

What is the offence Vondroušová has committed?

Vondroušová, 26, did not submit a sample when required by a Doping Control Officer (DCO), during an attempted out-of-competition test at Vondroušová’s home. It took place around 8 p.m. on December 3, 2025.

In February this year, the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA), which oversees anti-doping in tennis, charged Vondroušová with refusing a test. Earlier this month, an independent tribunal convened by the ITIA heard the case and concluded that Vondroušová’s evidence offered “no compelling justification” for her refusal of the test.

They therefore agreed with the ITIA’s recommendation that Vondroušová be given the maximum starting punishment for refusing a test, which is a four-year ban.

What was Vondroušová’s defence?

Vondroušová issued a statement on Instagram in April, detailing how the random visit from a doping control official, outside of her one-hour whereabouts slot for testing, caused an “acute stress reaction” which, she said, prevented her from thinking clearly.

“Experts confirmed I suffered an Acute Stress Reaction (F43.O) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (F41.1). In that moment, fear clouded my judgment and i just couldn’t process the situation rationally. After what happened to Petra (v, the fellow Czech Wimbledon champion who was stabbed in her own home 10 years ago), we don’t take strangers at our door lightly,” she wrote.

During the independent tribunal, she submitted clinical evidence that she was suffering from an acute stress reaction.

What does the case reveal about players’ knowledge of tennis’ anti-doping rules?

Back in December, when Vondroušová refused the test, she emphasized that the tester arrived at her house outside of her one-hour slot. Tennis’ whereabouts rules require players to give a location and time slot when they can be tested for each day of the year. Refusing one, or failing to update whereabouts three times within 12 months, can lead to a player being sanctioned.

“Every day we are required to be home for one specific hour for doping control. I respect that rule — every single day,” Vondroušová wrote in December on an Instagram Story, in which she included a picture of the tester.

“Tonight, however, a tester arrived at 8:15 p.m. and told me that my declared time doesn’t matter and that I must be tested right now. When I pointed out that it’s outside my testing window and a serious intrusion into my privacy, I was told: ‘This is the life of a professional athlete.’

Vondroušová tagged the International Tennis Federation (ITF), the women’s WTA Tour and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), appearing to believe that the ITIA had committed wrongdoing by arriving at her home outside of her testing window.

By the time of the hearing, this did not form a major part of her defense because that is not how the testing rules work. Players can also be randomly tested at any time.

“Unpredictable testing is an essential tool to protect clean sport,” ITIA chief executive Karen Moorhouse said in a statement Monday.

“The independent tribunal ultimately supported that principle. This case is an important reminder that players can be tested at any time, in any place, and that refusal comes with significant risk.”

In a video briefing, ITIA senior director for anti-doping, Nicole Sapstead, said that a single female doping control officer attended Vondroušová’s property and the potential for significant consequences for refusing the test “was made very clear to the player. It was very clear that the player did not wish to engage with the process.”

Dr Jan Exner, Vondroušová’s lawyer, declined to comment on Sapstead’s account.

The World Anti-Doping (WADA) Code, on which the Tennis Anti-Doping Program (TADP) is based, states that the ITIA has to test outside of the hour a certain number of times. WADA spokesperson James Fitzgerald said via email last year: “The point of out-of-competition testing is that it is a surprise. Sample collection can take place outside the times given (within certain parameters that respect reasonable access and privacy concerns).”

Those parameters include not turning up at player’s homes for a test between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m., apart from in “exceptional” circumstances, Sapstead said.

The incorrect assumption that the one-hour slot is the only time for testing is seemingly widespread. In April, when Vondroušová’s charge was announced, former world No. 1 Andy Roddick articulated a view echoed by some fellow ex-pros and tennis fans. “If it’s not during the time that she had given or the hour that she had given, then they (the anti-doping authorities) are wrong,” he said on Served, his podcast.

Speaking on the same podcast Tuesday, following news of the suspension, Roddick said that “hopefully by next week’s show or as we bleed into Wimbledon, I will have a firmer opinion. But what I don’t want is to be reactionary and not gather as much information as possible before I form an opinion.”

During a news conference at last year’s Madrid Open, French Open champion Alexander Zverev expressed his frustration at a test outside of his allotted hour. Zverev recounted going to pick up his daughter from Nice airport the previous December and receiving a call telling him he had to get back home to Monte Carlo for a doping test.

Zverev had given his window for that day and so was put out by being told that the test, outside of that window, was compulsory.

Zverev’s would-be test was conducted by the German National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA). Dr. Eva Bunthoff, the head of its testing department, said via email: “Doping controls will not only take place during the one-hour slot that athletes in the highest testing pool have to submit. The anti-doping regulations require doping controls at all times.”

Testers also carry ID cards and other documentation to prove they are who they say they are.

How can this disconnect be solved?

The ITIA has compulsory education programmes for players and that has been expanded to coaches and agents this year, to ensure that they are aware of the TADP’s intricacies.

On Tuesday, the day after the Vondroušová verdict, the ITIA released a video explaining the case.

Moorhouse said in Monday’s briefing that ensuring players are aware that they can be tested outside of the designated hours was a “collective challenge for everyone across the sport.”

Why is the punishment so severe, and what is the difference between it and other offences?

One of the fundamental principles of any anti-doping program is that there needs to be a major deterrent to refusing a test. The ITIA wrote in a news release Monday stating that: “Under anti-doping rules, the starting point for a sanction when a player refuses a test must be the same as if they had tested positive. This is to ensure that anyone who is doping cannot serve a shorter ban simply by refusing to be tested.”

There therefore needs to be, as Sapstead put it Monday, a “high bar” for refusal. She gave a funeral of a close relative or partner going into labor as examples of a “compelling justification.”

Russian men’s player Vladislav Ivanov was also given a four-year ban in December 2023 for refusing a test.

Other reactions to Vondroušová’s initial ban have focused on the disparity between it and players who have tested positive for a banned substance.

The four-year ban is analogous with the maximum punishment for intentional doping. If a player returns a positive test, the initial punishment is not a ban, but rather a provisional suspension pending an investigation. Evidence collected during that investigation, the facts of the case and the player’s defense are then used to determine the extent of any full suspension, which may be significantly shorter than four years, depending on each individual case.

What has Vondroušová said since the ban?

Vondroušová wrote on Instagram on Monday that the last seven months had been the “hardest of my life”.

“I have never doped,” she added. “I have never had a positive test. Throughout my entire career, I have undergone countless anti-doping controls and have always stepped onto the court with a clear conscience. Just three days after the incident that ultimately changed my life, I was tested again.

“The result was negative, just like every test before it.

“A time when I had to open up my private life in ways most people would only share with their closest loved ones. A time when I did everything in my power to show that I had nothing to hide. I cooperated. I answered every question. I provided everything that was asked of me. I testified before the tribunal and did my best to explain what happened. I gave it everything I had. Every bit of my energy, strength, and belief.

“One of the hardest things was coming to terms with the fact that the future of the career I had spent my entire life building was no longer in my hands. All the while, you hope that the truth will be enough. That everything will be explained. That if you are honest, cooperative, and do everything you can, it will be enough. But sometimes it isn’t.”

How did other players react?

Vondroušová’s post received an outpouring of supportive emojis and messages from fellow players like Coco Gauff, Paula Badosa, Sloane Stephens, Marta Kostyuk, Ons Jabeur, her Wimbledon final opponent, and her Czech compatriots Linda Nosková and Karolína Muchová.

The Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA) said in a statement: “Without weighing in on guilt or innocence: a four-year ban for a player who has never tested positive, and who said she feared for her safety when an unidentified person came to her door late at night, should give this sport pause.

“We ‌defend testing. But players deserve a real voice in the rules that govern them.”

What happens now?

The full written decision will be issued in “due course,” the ITIA said. As with all ITIA cases, Vondroušová will have access to independent and confidential wellbeing support through the organization’s player support programme.

Vondroušová, as well as the ITIA and her national anti-doping organization, have the right to appeal the decision to CAS. Dr Exner said via text message: “We will review the written reasons and decide on our next course of action. First, we must consult with Markéta; I do not want to speculate on further steps at this moment.”

Once the written decision is published, Vondroušová will have 21 days to decide whether to appeal to CAS.

While suspended, she is not allowed to play in, coach at, or attend any events organised or sanctioned by the ITF, WTA, ATP, the Grand Slams, or any national association.

This article originally appeared in The Athletic.

Sports Business, Olympics, Tennis, Global Sports, Women’s Tennis

2026 The Athletic Media Company