Vijay Singh filed a lawsuit against the PGA Tour on Wednesday, claiming that the organization subjected him to “public humiliation and ridicule for months” after he admitted he used deer antler spray.
At the time, the spray was on the Tour’s list of banned substances. Singh’s lawsuit claims that the PGA Tour used the prohibited substances list from the World Ant-Doping Agency “without any independent review, analysis or assessment of the substances.”
Singh, who has won three major championships in his 34 PGA Tour victories, is also a member of the World Golf Hall of Fame. The suit adds:
“[The PGA Tour] lacks the knowledge, skill and sophistication to determine whether it is appropriate to ban particular substances and is otherwise incapable of administering the Anti-Doping Program.”
Vijay Singh’s lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York on the ever of The Players Championship, which is the showcase event for the Tour at TPC Sawgrass.
The lawsuit adds that Sing was going to be suspended for 90 days after the doping allegations came out. The PGA Tour initially sanctioned Singh after he admitted using deer antler spray, hoping it would change his body. The Tour cleared him of any wrongdoing last week. However, it appears the damage was already done.
The pro golfer added that the Tour could have known that the product Singh sprayed contained no active biological ingredient by performing simple tests on it. The product could not have provided any performance enhancement. The lawsuit adds:
“The PGA Tour has now finally admitted that the use of deer antler spray is not prohibited. Rather than performing its duties to golfers first, and then determining whether there had been any violation of the Anti-Doping Program, the PGA Tour rushed to judgment and accused one of the world’s hardest working and most dedicated golfers of violating the rules of the game.”
Vijay Singh’s lawsuit against the PGA Tour seeks damages in an “amount to be determined at trial, punitive damages and attorney’s fee, and such other relief as the Court finds proper.”