The upcoming Paris Olympics have been marred by controversy and doubts over the fairness of the competitions. The focus is on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and their handling of positive tests of Chinese swimmers, who went on to win medals at the Tokyo Games in 2021.
The allegations against WADA have raised questions about the effectiveness of doping control at the Olympics and the fairness of the competitions for athletes. American swimmer Katie Ledecky, a seven-time Olympic champion, expressed her concerns in a recent television interview, saying, “It’s hard going into Paris knowing that we’re going to be racing some of these athletes. I think our faith in the system is at an all-time low.”
The controversy stems from the positive tests of 23 elite Chinese swimmers for the banned substance trimetazidine, also known as TMZ, during a competition in Shijiazhuang in January 2021. However, Chinese authorities did not sanction the swimmers, claiming they had unknowingly ingested the banned substance due to food or environmental contamination. The investigation was carried out by China’s national police force, the Minister of Public Security.
WADA accepted this explanation and did not pursue any further action. This decision has come under scrutiny, especially since several of the Chinese swimmers went on to win medals at the Tokyo Olympics, including three gold medals. Eleven of the 23 swimmers have also been named on China’s national team for the Paris Olympics, raising further questions about the fairness of the competitions.
Criticism has been directed towards WADA for seemingly turning a blind eye to the Chinese anti-doping agency’s investigation and not publishing any scientific evidence to support their decision. The fact that the Chinese agency, known as CHINADA, did not report the positive tests to WADA until mid-March and only began their own investigation in April has also raised concerns. Additionally, it has been questioned why the national police were involved in a sports doping case.
WADA has defended their decision by stating that they had no grounds to challenge the findings of CHINADA. However, this explanation has not satisfied many, including Rob Koehler, the director general of athletes’ advocacy body Global Athlete, who said, “Athletes have zero confidence in the global regulator and World Aquatics. Transparency is needed more than ever. Without it, the anti-doping movement will crumble, and athletes will never feel they have a level playing field.”
The banned substance, trimetazidine, is listed as a “metabolic modulator” and is prohibited by WADA both in and out of competition. It is believed to enhance endurance and recovery time after training. The case of Chinese swimmer Sun Yang, who was suspended for three months in 2014 for testing positive for TMZ and later served a four-year suspension for a separate doping violation, is well known. Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva also tested positive for TMZ before the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics, but she was eventually allowed to compete after claiming the substance had accidentally contaminated her food.
The principle of “Strict Liability,” where athletes are responsible for what they ingest, is at the core of the WADA code. However, some have questioned if this principle was followed in the case of the Chinese swimmers. WADA’s rules state that a “mandatory provisional suspension” should have been issued after the positive tests, but this did not happen. Steven Teitler, the legal director of the Netherlands doping agency, wrote in a white paper examining the case, “CHINADA’s handling of the case, and WADA’s subsequent response, did not adhere to the most essential rule in the code – the principle of Strict Liability.”
WADA has appointed retired Swiss prosecutor Eric Cottier to review their handling of the case. However, there have been doubts about his impartiality. WADA has also published a fact sheet stating that there are exceptions to the mandatory provisional suspension rule, which has raised further questions about their adherence to their own rules.
The anti-doping system relies on national agencies like CHINADA to enforce the rules, which can sometimes clash with the wishes of high-profile athletes and the prestige they bring to their country and government. However, it is crucial for the integrity of the Olympic Games and the trust of athletes that the anti-doping system is fair and transparent.
In light of the recent controversy surrounding WADA and the Chinese swimmers, it is
