In the world of sports, few stories are as complex or as divisive as that of athletes caught up in doping scandals. The moral and ethical questions surrounding performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) can polarize fans, media, and fellow competitors. But perhaps no case exemplifies the duality of saint and sinner more than that of the tennis world’s former No. 1, **Novak Djokovic**.
When Djokovic, one of the greatest tennis players of all time, tested positive for a banned substance in 2025, it shocked the world. But what was even more striking was the way the media and the public responded to the news. For someone who had long been adored as one of the “Big Three” in tennis—alongside Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal—the handling of his doping case was markedly different from how other athletes had been treated in similar circumstances.
Was Djokovic, an international sports icon, unfairly vilified? Or was there something about his case that warranted a different treatment—something that made him a “saint” rather than a “sinner” in the court of public opinion? The question is worth exploring because it reveals a great deal about both the nature of sports culture and our collective attitudes toward fame, fairness, and redemption.
### The Doping Allegations: A Brief Overview
In the spring of 2025, Djokovic, who had been dominating the ATP rankings for years, was tested after winning his fourth consecutive Grand Slam at the Australian Open. The tests came back positive for **Tegafon**, a controversial stimulant that enhances endurance. This was no minor slip-up; Tegafon was on the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) list of banned substances. At first, Djokovic denied knowing how the substance had entered his system, claiming that it must have been through a tainted supplement or food product.
The tennis world braced itself for what was sure to be a legal and public relations nightmare. For most, it was a gut punch to the sport. But for others, the question of whether Djokovic was a “saint” or “sinner” became a larger debate that would echo throughout the media landscape.
### Why Was Djokovic Treated Differently?
The media coverage of Djokovic’s doping case was strikingly different from the way other high-profile doping cases have been handled in the past. Consider the fates of **Lance Armstrong** or **Maria Sharapova**, two athletes who had their careers permanently affected by doping allegations. Armstrong was vilified to the point of having his seven Tour de France titles stripped, while Sharapova faced a 15-month suspension after testing positive for Meldonium in 2016.
Yet Djokovic, despite the serious nature of the offense, received a far more lenient treatment, particularly in his native Serbia and among many of his die-hard fans. The reason behind this disparity can be attributed to several factors—his long-standing reputation as an athlete, the nature of the doping infraction, and the way he handled the aftermath.
### 1. **The Tennis Legend Persona**
Novak Djokovic has long been regarded as one of the greatest tennis players in history. Alongside Federer and Nadal, he was seen as the defining figure of a generation. His artistry on the court, his record-breaking achievements, and his intense mental fortitude made him not just a champion, but a global ambassador for the sport.
He was seen by many as the “people’s champion,” particularly in the post-Federer era. Djokovic was often praised for his work ethic, his rivalries with both Federer and Nadal, and his ability to come back from setbacks—both on and off the court. But it was his off-court persona that really helped build his “saint-like” image. He was active in charitable work, particularly through his Novak Djokovic Foundation, which supports underprivileged children in Serbia and worldwide.
In many ways, this established persona of the likable, hard-working, humble, and generous champion worked in Djokovic’s favor. When the doping news broke, many fans struggled to reconcile the image of a dedicated, altruistic athlete with the reality of a doping scandal. In a sense, this made the public more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. They didn’t want to believe that their hero could be guilty of something so undermining to his legacy.
### 2. **The Nature of the Infraction**
Another key factor in the way Djokovic was treated differently is the nature of his doping positive. Unlike many doping cases that involve intentional cheating or performance-enhancing substances that have clear advantages in terms of raw athletic ability—like anabolic steroids—Tegafon is a stimulant that primarily enhances endurance. While still a banned substance, Tegafon doesn’t dramatically alter the athlete’s physique or provide the obvious, muscular advantage associated with other drugs like EPO or testosterone.
This created a narrative in which some people viewed Djokovic’s infraction as more accidental than malicious. Djokovic himself claimed that the positive test must have been the result of contaminated supplements, and while this argument didn’t eliminate the violation, it did offer a way for people to believe in his innocence.
While many athletes in similar situations—like Sharapova—suffered a great deal of public scorn, the fact that Djokovic’s positive test didn’t directly correlate to a clear, performance-enhancing drug led to a level of empathy and understanding from many quarters. His status as a beloved athlete only added to this notion that the “saint” was caught up in a mistake, not a conspiracy to cheat.
### 3. **A Different Standard for Tennis’ Biggest Stars**
The world of tennis is often seen as more “civilized” than other sports, especially when it comes to its treatment of its superstars. Unlike the ultra-competitive, all-consuming atmosphere in cycling or track and field, tennis has often managed to remain relatively free from the same level of intense scrutiny on doping.
This more forgiving culture around tennis could explain why Djokovic was given more leeway than athletes in other sports. With the “Big Three” era (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic) seen as a golden age of tennis, the sport’s governing bodies and the media may have been hesitant to bring down a hammer on a figure who had done so much for the sport’s popularity and global appeal.
Additionally, the global tennis community—at least initially—was not as quick to cast judgment on Djokovic. The high regard for his record and the “unquestionable” greatness of his playing career allowed for some space for empathy, leading many to wonder if his violation was truly intentional or a product of an accidental oversight.
### 4. **Public Perception and National Pride**
Djokovic’s case also stirred national pride in Serbia, where he is seen as a hero and symbol of the country’s resurgence on the world stage. For many in Serbia, Djokovic represents much more than just a tennis player—he is a beacon of hope, success, and resilience. His accomplishments have been deeply intertwined with national pride, and thus, many Serbs were willing to back him in the face of the doping allegations, echoing the belief that their champion could do no wrong.
The media in Serbia, as well as Djokovic’s fans around the world, rallied around him, questioning the fairness of the process and framing the scandal as part of a larger conspiracy against him. His supporters quickly labeled the situation a “witch hunt” and suggested that he was being treated differently due to his prominence on the world stage.
### The Aftermath: Redemption and Legacy
Ultimately, Djokovic’s doping case did not result in a career-ending suspension, as many had expected. His appeal was granted, with the court accepting his argument about a tainted supplement, though he still served a reduced penalty. The incident, while tarnishing his reputation momentarily, didn’t fully erase the years of success and goodwill he had accumulated over his career.
It’s clear that Novak Djokovic was treated differently after his doping positive. Whether it was due to his established legacy, the nature of the infraction, or the broader media environment in which tennis exists, his case serves as a reminder of the complexities surrounding doping allegations in modern sports. For some, Djokovic remains a saint—a misunderstood hero caught in a difficult situation. For others, he is a sinner who used every means at his disposal to remain on top. What’s undeniable is that his case challenges the way we view athletes, accountability, and the balance between fame and fallibility.