The pill that contaminated anti-doping worldwide

If, as we are asked to believe, one pill designed to treat heart problems, in unknown ways contaminated an entire Chinese hotel kitchen in early 2021 so effectively that traces could be detected months later - even under the extremely stringent cleaning protocols of the COVID pandemic – then the manufacturers of that medicament must immediately add an extra warning on its labels:

“Beware: Politically explosive side-effects!”

That pill – which happened to contain the performance-enhancing drug trimetazidine (TMZ) – may not only have contaminated 23 Chinese elite swimmers eating from that kitchen. It has, without doubt, poisoned the international anti-doping environment and, more recently, Olympic event policies.

A war of words and threats of legal action has broken out between the World Anti-Doping Acency (WADA) and the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) following revelations by the German tv channel ARD and The New York Times. These reports exposed that WADA had kept the 23 positive doping tests and the following procedures secret while stating that the swimmers had no fault because this was “a simple case of contamination”.

That the case is far from simple was highlighted at the session of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) on 24 July, just two days before the opening of the 2024 Paris Olympics. Here, the IOC confirmed, as expected, that the only contender, Salt Lake City from Utah, USA, was selected as the host of the 2034 Winter Olympics.

But at the last moment, a new condition was put into the host city contract. The IOC reserves the right to withdraw the hosting rights if “the supreme authority of the World Anti-Doping Agency in the fight against doping is not fully respected or if the application of the World Anti-Doping Code is hindered or undermined.”

With this move, the IOC is now taking hostages in the war between USADA and WADA. It is in no way unprecedented that the IOC meddle in the internal politics of a democratic country, but it is to my knowledge the first time that the IOC condition the rights to host an event on specific political requirements.

In this case, the IOC is forcing the governor of Utah, the mayor of Salt Lake City, and the US Olympic and Paralympic Committee to push for quashing an ongoing FBI investigation into WADA’s handling of the Chinese doping case.

The legal basis for FBI is the so-called Rodchenkov Act. It was adopted in 2020 by the U.S. Congress following another conflict between the IOC, WADA and USADA, when the latter was deeply unhappy with the half-hearted sanctions imposed on Russian sport following the Russian-international doping scandal.

Anti-doping’s future at stake

For sports political pundits, the ongoing rift in the anti-doping environment could provide entertainment and consumption of unhealthy quantities of popcorn, if the matter was less serious.

But the IOC has at least made one correct observation in its latest statement: It is the future of the global anti-doping cooperation that is at stake. What the IOC has not understood is who is responsible for undermining “WADA’s supreme authority”.

IOC and WADA – which increasingly functions as an extension of the IOC – may not like the journalistic revelations made by ARD and New York Times. They may also dislike the CEO of USADA, Travis Tygart, when he accuses WADA of staging a cover-up. And they certainly do not like the prospect of risking arrest and interrogations by the FBI when traveling to the USA, for instance for the preparations of the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics.

But WADA’s strategy of, on one hand, personalising the conflict by putting the blame on Tygart, the media and “a few other individuals”, and on the other saying the matter has been politicized because of the U.S. geopolitical conflict with China, is foolish and has failed from the start.

Worries extended far beyond the USA

The concerns over WADA’s handling of the Chinese case go much beyond the USA.

I have personally spoken to quite a few key stakeholders who have privately expressed their deep disappointment with WADA, but critics also go public. Some examples:

The Dutch anti-doping agency has produced a damning white paper with 15 pages’ legal analysis of WADA’s handling, stating in its last sentence:

“The question whether athletes’ food contamination cases over the years have been treated equally, consistently and transparently raises the question whether the principle of the Rule of Law was respected.”

The chairman of iNADO, the association of national anti-doping agencies, Anders Solheim from Norway, used more diplomacy when hinting to Play the Game that the information from WADA was not sufficient:

“[I]t’s so important in the short term to find out what happened in China in January 2021. Why did the athletes test positive and how was the food contaminated? It’s in the interest of both anti-doping and athletes to get as many facts about the case as possible. It’s a matter of trust and credibility. We owe this to the athletes.”

An “Ad Hoc Anti-Doping Audit Review Committee” appointed by the international swimming federation World Aquatics acknowledged that the affair “has weakened the trust of the Aquatics community, notably among the athletes, in the anti‐doping system.”

But one of its members, Bill Bock, who was formerly legal counsel for USADA, raised a dissenting voice in a personal statement.

“Yet, […] the ad hoc review committee inexplicably failed to recommend that the 23 TMZ cases be brought by World Aquatics in 2024. […] I call upon World Aquatics and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) to immediately bring forward these 23 TMZ cases as anti-doping rule violations and to give the 23 Chinese athletes who tested positive the opportunity for a hearing […]. Afterwards, the outcome of these cases must be publicly announced.”

WADA’s wishful thinking

WADA’s attempt to clean itself has not strengthened confidence.

Following the media revelations in April, WADA requested a so-called Independent Prosecutor to examine its own actions. It defies belief that a global organization like WADA could not find a qualified neutral professional anywhere else in the world than in the Olympic capital of Lausanne, in the network of lawyers out of which the General Director of WADA, Olivier Niggli, shaped his own career – and where WADA has its European office.

Without questioning the competencies of the chosen Independent Prosecutor, Eric Cottier, who has 39 years of experience as a public prosecutor, we can safely conclude that his first interim report of 1^st July did not disappoint his clients.

Having reviewed the case, Mr. Cottier found no bias from WADA’s side, no inappropriate interference from outside, and WADA’s decision not to appeal “indisputably reasonable.”

Indisputably? Wishful thinking. The disputes will continue until WADA openly answers some of the key questions that they forgot to ask Mr. Cottier.

Unanswered key questions

The most important question is the basis of the whole matter:

How can one solid pill contaminate 23 Olympic swimmers eating from a kitchen (some of whom might not have even been there, according to new evidence)?

Were Chinese intelligence services unable to find out who brought the pill into the kitchen? No staff with prescriptions? Did the pill explode and spread heart medication dust all over? Was it dissolved in a pot and spread by steam to places where the cleaning staff never came in the period between the contamination and the investigation?

We have not seen any attempt from WADA and the Chinese Anti-Doping Authorities to explain this almost supernatural scenario.

Another basic question comes naturally: It may be that WADA does not feel capable of carrying on an investigation in a Chinese setting. But in an affair where China’s international reputation is at stake, less than one year before China will host the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics, how can WADA rely on Chinese authorities to make an independent and truthful investigation?

There are dozens of other relevant questions for WADA to answer, questions that derive from both journalistic investigations, legal reports and athletes over the past months.

Change of attitude

While the Chinese doping case may rightly worry athletes and observers in the short run and reduce their confidence in the anti-doping measures they are subject to, there is a long-term perspective that is at least as worrisome.

WADA’s culture and attitude has gradually changed over time. As head of Play the Game, I have been so fortunate to follow and cooperate with WADA all throughout its 25 years of existence.

In its early days, WADA was an open and accessible organisation, eager to engage in dialogue with both allies and critics. It showed exemplary transparency when for instance the first World Anti-Doping Code was negotiated, and when it was later revised.

Its leaders from top to bottom understood that public trust and broad stakeholder alliances was an invaluable capital for a world organisation that never had – and will never get – sufficient financing.

They realised that public goodwill is indispensable when half of the modest budget comes from governments using taxpayers’ money, and the other half from the Olympic movement which at the end of the day is also funded by ordinary people, through private consumption or public investments.

Moreover, the first generations of WADA leaders understood that to fight doping effectively, WADA needed friendly relations to athletes, trainers, sports officials and at all levels where doping can occur.

WADA was never perfect, but the doors were open for discussion. As one example out of many, WADA’s top people – the president, director general, or other executives – would come to Play the Game, and readily discuss all kinds of questions, also from harsh critics, at the sessions, over coffee, and in the bar. We are here to learn, WADA told.

Unwilling, unable?

Today, WADA’s top people radiate anything but openness.

Its president, Witold Banka, seems unwilling, uncomfortable and perhaps unable to manage unscripted meetings with the public. Despite the importance of the China doping case, he has in recent months declined invitations to speak with the U.S. Congress, the German parliament Das Bundestag, and the Council of Europe.

Banka, the former Polish minister of sport, rose to WADA president as the candidate from the government side of WADA. He nevertheless seems to prefer the glamourous Olympic environment where mutual flattering is the order of the day and critical questions only raised if instructed from the top, such as it was shown at the above-mentioned IOC session.

When facing independent media, Banka often leaves the answers to General Director Olivier Niggli by his side, although the latter can hardly hide his irritation with the press.

Both have responded aggressively to the critique in the Chinese case, threatening legal action and in more closed circles asked international anti-doping stakeholders to stop annoying WADA.

A shift in the power balance

I will however not fall in WADA’s trap and personalise the problems. Because although Banka and Niggli have their share of responsibility and set the tone from the top, WADA’s increasingly secretive and self-satisfied style is not just a matter of individual temper.

The culture change reflects a shift in the power balance within WADA. Theoretically, world governments and the Olympic movement share the power equally, but the reality has become different.

Under the powerful IOC President Thomas Bach, the IOC has tightened its grip over WADA, especially after WADA went directly against IOC’s interests by openly demanding a full ban on Russian athletes at the 2016 Rio Olympics. This rebellion was quashed within a few days, and Russians could travel to Rio and the next three Olympics with very few restrictions.

In the governing bodies of WADA, the Olympic world manages to speak with one voice, whereas governments come with conflicting interests in sports and world politics. There is always a government ready to curry favours with the sports movement and tip the balance in favour of the IOC.

In all fairness, WADA has taken many positive steps to reform its governance and operations in the past years, but this has not affected the power imbalance between Olympic sport and governments.

That situation of course falls back on those democratic governments whose active campaigning was crucial for establishing WADA 25 years ago. Today they seem indifferent. Apart from the U.S., we don’t hear dissenting voices in the China case from Australia, New Zealand, the UK, the European Union and the Council of Europe.

Overhaul is needed

That silence is much more concerning than the individual features of the top executives at the IOC and WADA.

The case of the 23 Chinese swimmers is not the first and will not be the last where WADA and the rest of the international anti-doping environment will face difficult challenges to their credibility.

We live in an era where autocratic nations increasingly invest fortunes in and take control over international sports federations. Nations in which sport is under full government control. Nations that pursue international prestige through athletes with little or no personal freedom of choice. And nations where independent anti-doping measures are just as believable as one pill contaminating a whole hotel kitchen.

In that situation, WADA cannot afford to appear opaque, bureaucratic, thin-skinned, and aggressive.

After 25 years, it is time to renew WADA and bring back some of its old qualities. To achieve such an overhaul, democratic countries must do what WADA’s whistleblower hotline encourages athletes to do:

Speak up!