Spanish tennis veteran Fernando Verdasco faced a two‑month sanction after an anti‑doping rule violation was recorded following a failure to renew a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) for methylphenidate, a medication prescribed to manage attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The substance appeared in his urine during a February screening, according to the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA).
The ITIA stated that the player acknowledged the anti‑doping breach and clarified his ADHD diagnosis, underscoring that methylphenidate was being used legally under a TUE. The agency noted that Verdasco, 38, subsequently had the TUE renewed, after the required verification checks were completed, but the renewal did not occur in a timely manner before the test.
Officials emphasized that Verdasco did not intend to cheat and that the violation arose from an inadvertent administrative lapse rather than deliberate wrongdoing. The ITIA described the incident as a non‑significant fault or negligence, and the sanction was adjusted accordingly to reflect the unintentional nature of the breach.
As a result, the penalty for the use of the banned substance was reduced from a potential two years to two months. The disqualification period began on the date of the penalty, with the temporary suspension requested by Verdasco and set to conclude in early January of the following calendar year.
Methylphenidate is a central nervous system stimulant widely prescribed for ADHD management. When used under a Therapeutic Use Exemption, athletes may compete within the sport’s anti‑doping rules, provided all medical and regulatory requirements are met and verified by the appropriate authorities.
The case illustrates how anti‑doping agencies navigate unintentional violations where athletes are compliant with medical treatment but fail to maintain the administrative aspects of exemption documentation. It also highlights the ongoing collaboration between players, medical professionals, and governing bodies to ensure that legitimate therapeutic needs are respected while preserving the integrity of sport. The ITIA reaffirmed its commitment to clear guidelines and proportional sanctions in scenarios where non‑intentional violations are demonstrated, and it noted that Verdasco’s case would be reviewed within the framework of current anti‑doping rules and procedures, taking into account the timing of the renewal and the steps already taken to comply with the TUE requirements (ITIA report).