Recently, news emerged that 23 Chinese swimmers tested positive for a banned substance in early 2021 but were still allowed to compete in the Tokyo Olympic Games six months later with no penalties. This revelation led many, especially in Western countries, to suspect a cover-up. Travis Tygart, the head of the US Anti-Doping Agency, has been especially critical of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), accusing it of hiding the Chinese test results.
Several days later, the US Anti-Doping Agency intensified its criticism, urging global institutions and sports officials to reform WADA and appoint an independent investigator to look into the 23 positive cases in China. WADA was put on the defensive, threatening legal action against Tygart for his “outrageous, completely false and defamatory remarks.” It also held a virtual press conference on the issue, during which a panel of anti-doping experts answered legal, scientific, and sports governance questions for nearly two hours.
Transparency is crucial for any organization’s reputation, and it’s problematic when a body like WADA reacts to a matter exposed by the media, in this case, a German documentary and a New York Times article. WADA likely harmed its reputation by not being upfront about the case when it first arose three years ago. However, WADA asserts it couldn’t have handled it differently due to the complexities of the global anti-doping structure involving WADA and national anti-doping bodies. It wasn’t WADA’s responsibility to reveal the test details; that was up to the China Anti-Doping Agency (CHINADA), which conducted the tests and assessed the positive outcomes. To protect athletes if no infraction is discovered, no public disclosure is required.
CHINADA, based on a study by the Chinese Ministry of Public Security, found traces of the banned substance trimetazidine (TMZ) in a hotel kitchen where the swimmers stayed, concluding that the positive tests were accidental contamination. The Chinese swimmers were cleared without any public announcement.
WADA claims that during CHINADA’s comprehensive investigation, which occurred amid strict COVID lockdowns and a local virus outbreak, the Chinese agency kept them informed. WADA didn’t just accept CHINADA’s conclusions as they were but requested the entire case file for its own scientific and legal assessment, including consulting the drug manufacturer for recent unpublished data on TMZ and comparing the Chinese tests with similar cases globally, including the US. WADA concluded there wasn’t enough evidence to refute the possibility of environmental contamination.
At its press conference, WADA explained its reasoning: Over 200 swimmers in the Chinese National Championships stayed in two different hotels, yet those who tested positive for non-performance-enhancing amounts of TMZ were all from one hotel. Test results for the swimmers varied between negative and positive, inconsistent with deliberate doping methods like microdosing. WADA found no misconduct or tampering in the information from CHINADA.
WADA reviews between 2,000 and 3,000 suspected doping cases annually and sometimes contests anti-doping decisions, such as challenging the Australian Football League’s decision to clear 34 Essendon Football Club members and appealing FINA’s decision to clear Chinese swimmer Sun Yang in a 2018 test. According to WADA’s general counsel, Ross Wenzel, the difference in the recent Chinese swimmer case is that WADA agreed with the “no fault” conclusion, unlike in the other cases. He noted WADA received external legal advice suggesting less than a 1% chance of winning an appeal in the TMZ situation. WADA claims everything was handled correctly and would repeat the steps if faced with the same scenario.
Has WADA altered the narrative? Likely not, because the mere combination of “China” and “doping” attracts attention in the current political climate, given the sharp rivalry between China and the US.
There are currently 23 individuals serving doping suspensions in Australia. Do we feel personal or national disgrace for their actions? When the US team participates in the Olympic Games or World Championships, do we associate them with memories of Lance Armstrong and the US Postal Service cycling team?
But regarding China, many quickly accuse its athletes, viewing any report as evidence of a systemic, state-backed doping program. Media articles about reassigning Tokyo Olympic swimming medals have falsely given hope to those placed below Chinese athletes and are probably an unwelcome distraction for the Chinese team as they prepare for the Paris Olympics. Olympic purists may want to think the Games are free from politics. However, with a crucial US election ahead, ongoing global conflicts, and both Russia and China perceived as threats to democracy, the geopolitical stakes at these games surpass the doping politics.