Sun Yang Lawyer Accuses WADA & CAS Of ‘Evil Lies’; Will Fight To Race At Tokyo 2020 & Sue Testing Agent

Sun Yang‘s Chinese lawyer has lambasted the Court of Arbitration for Sport in a statement that effectively described the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) as evil liars after an eight-year ban was handed down to the swimmer.

In his statement, Beijing lawyer Zhang Qihuai said that Sun would see a stay from the Swiss Federal Tribunal to allow him to race at Tokyo 2020 and would sue one of the IDTM testing agents in response to the WADA ban. He also opined:

“February 28, 2020 was a dark day. It shows the scene where evil defeats justice and power replaces self-evident truths. On this day, CAS listened to prejudice, turned a blind eye to rules and procedures, turned a blind eye to facts and evidence, and accepted all lies and false evidence.”

The lawyer also accused WADA of “distorting facts and (an) abuse of power”.

Sun will take his case to the Swiss federal Court, seek a stay on his eight-year ban so that he might race at the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games and sue a doping inspector who he alleges gave “false evidence”, said Zhang.

The statement repeated the accusations rejected by WADA and CAS’s senior judges that doping agents from the IDTM agency based in Sweden and action on behalf of FINA, the international swimming federation, were neither qualified nor authorised to act as agents.

IDTM rejected that claim outright at a CAS hearing in Montreux on November 15 last year, while FINA departed from any sense of neutrality in the case and, as a signatory to the WADA Code, backed Sun and China, a nation that is home to many of the federation’s biggest sponsors.

The Swiss tribunal, with has a narrow focus of jurisdiction available to it but can reverse CAS decisions, has granted stays on judgements in the past but those tend to happen where the opposing party in cases does not raise any objection to a stay being granted.

It is highly unlikely that WADA would let any plea from Sun go unchallenged. If successful, one other thing would seem much more likely: the pool at Tokyo 2020 would probably hum to the tune of the boos and jeers witnessed at Rio 2016 every time Sun stepped up to race.

Swimming World’s coverage of Sun Yang & FINA Vs WADA At the Court of Arbitration for Sport

Name*

Email*

Welcome to our community. We invite you to join our discussion. Our community guidelines are simple: be respectful and constructive, keep on topic, and support your fellow commenters. Commenting signifies that you agree to our Terms of Use

Name*

Email*

28 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Jesse Goodyear

4 years ago

Kay Macpherson

Ed Burton

4 years ago

???

Leslie Cichocki

4 years ago

8 year ban was fully deserved.

Kimberly Joy

4 years ago

Reply to Leslie Cichocki

Leslie Cichocki should have been a lifetime ban

Leslie Cichocki

4 years ago

Reply to Leslie Cichocki

Kimberly Joy I agree.

Shelly Murphy Marsalek

4 years ago

He smashed his vial, that’s not a lie. He should have been banned for life right then and there! Clean sport!

Scott Young

4 years ago

Again, he SMASHED HIS SAMPLES WITH A HAMMER. The person he should be blaming is the guy who looks back at him in the mirror.

Benjamin van der Wel

4 years ago

So he’s not contesting the facts or the law and has decided to shoot the messengers? I think this is the strategy often employed by the guilty and the desperate.

Monique McKay

4 years ago

This guy OMG! Shut up, you have no place in this sport or any other. You took glory away from other swimmers and you should be silenced ?

Leslie Cichocki

4 years ago

Reply to Monique McKay

Monique McKay I agree. Sounds like his lawyer should be fired. Both should share the 8 year ban.

Alejandro Cä

4 years ago

Clearly, one shameless to claim itself athlete to race at the Olympic. That’s a disgrace for everyone contestants to race along a doper. *It* sink no lower.

Koch Róbert

4 years ago

F.ck WADA & Co!

Julie Tellier

4 years ago

He is an ARROGANT ASS! Actions have consequences!

Emily Victoria

4 years ago

Lewis McColl when will he SHUT UP

Lewis McColl

4 years ago

Reply to Emily Victoria

Hopefully he’ll just fade away soon

Geoffrey McNicholl

4 years ago

Trash.

Howard Hay

4 years ago

Oh the exact same modus operandi directly from that playbook of the evil CCP…. Aggression, unreasonable and demanding, how typical!!! ??‍♂️??

Taff Jones

4 years ago

Let him appeal, and be found guilty all over again. All the smoke and mirrors he tried last time failed, he’s nothing more than a loud mouthed cheating bully. The sport is so much better off within out him and his complicit team.

Ann Doe

4 years ago

He has no sportsmanship! Even he got the gold medal, no one was truly happy for him..

Cynthia Lorraine

4 years ago

Lying cheat.

Russell Weaver

4 years ago

Does anybody familiar with these kind of appeals process know if there’s any chance of success for reinstatement?

Author

Craig Lord

4 years ago

Reply to Russell Weaver

I’m not an expert but have looked at the results of a lot of cases… the chance of success is much greater, it seems, in cases that involve disputes over fees, commercial rights and human rights… far, far less successful where the court is being asked to judge whether doping rules, ie, the WADA Code is sound in law… the general acceptance is that such jurisdiction rests with WADA and CAS… where the court has its greatest authority is in areas and on themes that affect, well, all the rest of us, too… the laws of a land and the rights of citizens. This is the criteria that has to be fulfilled:
“Judicial recourse to the Swiss Federal Tribunal is allowed on a very limited number of grounds, such as lack of jurisdiction, violation of elementary procedural rules (e.g. violation of the right to a fair hearing) or incompatibility with public policy.” The Chinese lawyers will argue on these grounds: “violation of elementary procedural rules (e.g. violation of the right to a fair hearing)”… they wills ee to say that CAS did not follow certain procedural protocol and may include in that the problems over translation etc, although the CAS Rules on that are clear: it is the responsibilities of the parties concerned, not CAS, to hire the expertise required to make their cases as strongly as they might.)
Hope that helps a little.

Author

Craig Lord

4 years ago

Reply to Russell Weaver

Hi Russell. I’m not an expert but have looked at the results of a lot of cases… the chance of success is much greater, it seems, in cases that involve disputes over fees, commercial rights and human rights… far, far less successful where the court is being asked to judge whether doping rules, ie, the WADA Code is sound in law… the general acceptance is that such jurisdiction rests with WADA and CAS… where the court has its greatest authority is in areas and on themes that affect, well, all the rest of us, too… the laws of a land and the rights of citizens. This is the criteria that has to be fulfilled:
“Judicial recourse to the Swiss Federal Tribunal is allowed on a very limited number of grounds, such as lack of jurisdiction, violation of elementary procedural rules (e.g. violation of the right to a fair hearing) or incompatibility with public policy.” The Chinese lawyers will argue on these grounds, perhaps: “violation of elementary procedural rules (e.g. violation of the right to a fair hearing)”… they will seek to say that CAS did not follow certain procedural protocol and may include in that the problems over translation etc, although the CAS Rules on that are clear: it is the responsibilities of the parties concerned, not CAS, to hire the expertise required to make their cases as strongly as they might.) It seems to me that CAS followed protocol that is followed in many many many cases and has certain flexibilities of procedure built into protocols. As such, it is hard to see how a strong case may be built – and one won’t be built if Sun’s team simply want to go through the case again and seek to show why they feel they have right on their side and others have lied. I don’t believe that to be the basis of what the SFT’s jurisdiction is. Time will tell.
Hope that helps a little.