Amidst widespread criticism of the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) handling of failed drug tests in Chinese swimming, the anti-doping authorities of Britain and Australia have added their voices to the chorus demanding a review.
The controversy stems from the confirmation by WADA of media reports indicating that 23 Chinese swimmers had tested positive for trimetazidine (TMZ), a banned substance, prior to the Tokyo Games. However, China’s anti-doping agency exonerated the swimmers, claiming that they had ingested the substance through contaminated food at a hotel where they were staying.
WADA’s science department reviewed the case file and deemed the contamination scenario plausible, lacking any concrete evidence to dispute it. Nevertheless, UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) and Sport Integrity Australia (SIA) have issued separate statements expressing their concerns.
UKAD has emphasized the need for an independent review of the regulatory framework and processes employed by WADA, aiming to restore trust and confidence in anti-doping worldwide and safeguard the protection and support of clean athletes.
SIA, echoing the sentiment, has stressed the importance of athletes’ trust in the global anti-doping system and their expectation of fairness in competitions and treatment. They have directly contacted WADA seeking clarification on the handling of the case.
The case has particularly resonated in Australia, where freestyle specialist Shayna Jack received a four-year ban for a positive drug test, which she attributed to a contaminated supplement. Jack missed the Tokyo Games but later had her suspension reduced to two years after successfully appealing to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which concluded that she had not knowingly consumed the banned substance.
The latest developments follow the call made earlier this week by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency for an independent prosecutor to examine the case of the Chinese swimmers.
Despite the criticism, WADA has defended its handling of the case, stating that it had no reason to challenge China’s findings and that external counsel had advised against appealing them.
