In the eyes of many sports fans, an asterisk will always be attached to Jannik Sinner’s story from this point forward.

The tennis world is moving on without its leading player after Sinner ‘accepted’ a three-month suspension following his two positive doping tests for an anabolic steroid almost a year ago, with new champions set to be crowned in tournaments missing the presence of the world No 1 as he serves his ban.

Yet even though Sinner will not be seen on a tennis court until mid-May at the Rome Masters, the outcome of his doping case remains the primary topic of conversation in the sport.

Regular Tennis365 would have been fully aware that the minimum punishment Sinner was facing was a one-year ban if he had taken his case all the way to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and lost his battle with the World Anti-Doping Agency after our exclusive interview with International Tennis Integrity Agency [ITIA] CEO Karen Moorhouse last December highlighted the prospect of a minimum one-year suspension if the verdict went against him.

Given that backdrop, the three-month ban he has been handed and the reality that he will not miss a single Grand Slam tournament appears to be, as former British No 1 Tim Henman suggested the deal with WADA was a little ‘too convenient’.

More Tennis News

Top pundit’s ‘strange’ verdict on Jannik Sinner ban: ‘Is he guilty or not?’

The 7 active players who have won the most ATP 500 titles: Novak Djokovic, Carlos Alcaraz, Jannik Sinner

Those of us living in the tennis bubble will look into the process that got us to this point and WADA’s acceptance that this was an error on the part of Sinner and his team rather than a case of cheating should be acknowlegded.

WADA’s general counsel Ross Wenzel outlined his organisation’s position, as he offered these comments to the BBC.

“This was a case that was a million miles away from doping,” said Wenzel. “The scientific feedback that we received was that this could not be a case of intentional doping, including micro-dosing.

“I’m not sure that a sanction of 12 months in this case – if we’d have forced the tribunal into that position – or a case of ‘no fault’ would have been a good outcome.

“One would have compromised an important principle under the code. The other one, in our view, would have been an unduly harsh sanction.”

As the ITIA and WADA have now both concluded that Sinner is not guilty of deliberate doping, most in tennis will accept that judgement and will not view the Italian’s future achievements with a cynical eye.

Yet that may not be the way the wider sporting public views this story.

Tennis is a sport that attracts plenty of passing interest and that is especially the scenario that will play out around a story of this magnitude.

So when Sinner plays at the French Open and then Wimbledon, many of those fans who only pay attention to the sport when the big tournaments spike awareness will not recognise the best player in men’s tennis as the guy who failed a drug test.

The timing of the deal with WADA added to the uncomfortable perceptions around this story, with the idea that Sinner could fit his ban around Grand Slam tournaments doing little to dilute the negative impact.

In the end, the right outcome appears to have been reached in a story that has dragged on for too long and thrown up more questions than answers for what comes next, but the biggest loser, in the long run, might well be Sinner.

Tennis fans who have taken time to research the background to this story will not see the player whose surname is unfortunately associated with guilt in the English language tarnished forever.

Yet this was a test case for how our sport deals after its biggest star failed a doping test and was banned from tennis, many will always associate Sinner with his drug ban rather than the successes he achieves in the future.

Legacy matters to the great sporting champions and Sinner’s will forever be tarnished by the events of the last 12 months.

READ NEXT: ATP Rankings world No 1 race: When could Jannik Sinner lose top spot to Alexander Zverev or Carlos Alcaraz?