{"id":584884,"date":"2024-05-01T07:07:16","date_gmt":"2024-05-01T14:07:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.swimmingworldmagazine.com\/news\/?p=584884"},"modified":"2024-05-01T07:10:47","modified_gmt":"2024-05-01T14:10:47","slug":"ard-delves-further-into-questions-on-chinese-anti-doping-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.swimmingworldmagazine.com\/news\/ard-delves-further-into-questions-on-chinese-anti-doping-case\/","title":{"rendered":"ARD Delves Further Into Questions on Chinese Anti-Doping Case"},"content":{"rendered":"

ARD Delves Further Into Questions on Chinese Anti-Doping Case<\/strong><\/p>\n

ARD, the German broadcaster which originally broke the story of 23 Chinese swimmers testing positive for Trimetazidine (TMZ) in 2021 along with the\u00a0New York Times<\/em> and the\u00a0Daily Telegraph<\/em>, has realized a supplementary Q&A containing pushback to the theory of contaminated food posited by the Chinese Anti-Doping Agency (CHINADA) and then sanctioned by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).<\/p>\n

Hajo Seppelt<\/strong>, a journalist with ARD, posted a thread to X containing 34 questions and responses outlining holes in WADA’s argument that the Chinese swimmers were not at fault for their positive test results.<\/p>\n

The first group of questions ponders whether WADA conducted a full investigation on how TMZ was found in the kitchen of the hotel where Chinese swimmers allegedly ingested the banned substance. The ARD response notes that WADA “did not object to the failure to find the source,” did not question the Chinese theory and did not view hotel surveillance footage. ARD also shed doubt on the idea that the kitchen would not have been thoroughly cleaned because of intensive COVID-19 protocols in place in China at the time.<\/p>\n

In response to why WADA made “such a big fuss about the low concentrations of trimetazidine in the urine samples of the 23 athletes,” ARD wrote, “The low concentrations could have been caused as much by contamination as by doping in the days and weeks before.” The answer added, “The low concentrations that were found prove nothing.” Later, the Q&A denies that it was possible to rule out doping altogether.<\/p>\n

In the 12th question, ARD points out a pattern regarding the testing of that the 23 Chinese swimmers with abnormal test results, implying that there could have been an attempt to cheat.<\/p>\n

The answer states that the swimmers “were tested relatively frequently in September, October and November 2020. After the first week in December, however, there was a sudden significant drop in the number of tests – i.e., the three weeks before competition. Taking trimetazidine during this period would have made perfect sense, especially as a significantly lower number of doping tests would have significantly reduced the risk of getting caught.”<\/p>\n

ARD further adds that WADA “quietly abandon[ed] the principle of strict liability,” which calls for all athletes who test positive to be sanctioned and given the burden of providing their innocence.<\/p>\n

In further questions, the Q&A sheet goes on to ask why WADA did not conduct further testing while simply accepting many of the claims that CHINADA presented, despite a reasonable expectation for WADA to investigate further. It points out the differences between this case and Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva<\/strong>, who tested positive for TMZ at the 2022 Winter Olympics and was suspended for four years despite a similar claim of contamination.<\/p>\n

The answer in the 24th question said, “The obvious difference between the two cases: The Valieva case was already known to the world public; no outsider knew about the Chinese case.”<\/p>\n

The follow-up also calls out World Aquatics, noting, “It is striking that the swimming world federation is being less heavily criticized than WADA” since World Aquatics also had the jurisdiction to investigate.<\/p>\n

Read the full post shared by Seppelt on X here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Read more:<\/strong><\/p>\n