WADA Asserts Confidentiality of Its Anti-Doping Process; Responds to Controversial Column

Accredited anti-doping laboratories do not know the names of the athletes whose samples they analyze. Period. Samples are identified by an anonymized code. Only the anti-doping organization (e.g., the sports federation or national anti-doping agency) that has ordered the test is able to match the name of the athlete with the code from the laboratory. It is inaccurate and irresponsible to state that the laboratories are the sources of athlete information.

The so-called Vrijman report was completely rejected for being rife with false accusations, inaccuracies and misleading statements, as well as its utterly unprofessional nature, as made clear in this statement. Responsible journalism would have perceived the flimsiness of the Vrijman information and dismissed it as such.

As for the general premise of the article, "What is the connection between WADA and L'Equipe," I would recommend that the author, prior to proliferating such serious allegations, study the World Anti-Doping Code (Code), the core document adopted in 2003 by the Sport Movement and Governments of the world as the framework for the global harmonized fight against doping in sport. WADA operates in complete accordance with the rules of the Code. That means that WADA does not comment on pending doping cases. Period. Further, WADA is never involved in the management of individual doping control results. That is the responsibility, again, of the organization that ordered the tests (e.g., the sports federation or national anti-doping agency). WADA cannot comment on pending cases because its role is to assess the entire process conducted by the relevant anti-doping organizations so that, at the completion of the process, it can determine whether the process and outcome are compliant with the Code, and whether it needs to exercise its right of appeal.