The WADA presidency: Election or coronation?

2025 is expected to be a thrilling year for everyone interested in international sports politics. During the first five months of the year, presidential elections in two of the most powerful sports-related organisations in the world will name three of the most influential rulers of international sport in the years to come.

No less than seven candidates are running for the presidential election of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) which was called last year when the IOC president since 2013, German Thomas Bach, confirmed he would abide by the term limits of the Olympic charter and end his 12-year presidency this summer.

Although the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has suffered from increasing internal tensions, there seems to be much less interest in standing for election when the current terms of both its Polish president Witold Banka and its Chinese vice-president Yang Yang expire on 31 December 2025. The members of the agency’s Foundation Board will cast their vote on 29 May 2025.

While the IOC's presidential election fulfils the principle that in an election there should be more than one candidate to vote for, critics argue that WADA's election rules make it so difficult for interested candidates to be nominated that there is a risk the vote will be a coronation of Banka and Yang instead of a democratic election.

A growing dissatisfaction with the WADA top

The WADA election is the agency’s first election of a so-called independent president and vice-president. Until now, all presidents and vice-presidents of WADA have been elected in turn by either the public authorities or the Olympic movement who share power over the agency in a 50-50 partnership.

However, Play the Game has spoken to several stakeholders in European anti-doping who criticise WADA for having approved an electoral package that could prevent independent candidates from applying to run against Banka and Yang who were elected in 2019 by the public authorities and the Olympic movement, respectively.

The European critics in general believe it would strengthen democracy in WADA if there were one or more interested opponents, but the criticism is also rooted in a growing dissatisfaction with Banka and Yang as well as the agency’s senior management who are seen as secretive, self-satisfied, arrogant and unresponsive by many European stakeholders.

Unfortunately, the critics cannot be convinced to engage in an open debate that would help develop democracy and transparency in anti-doping. Some of them fear ending up in a public dogfight with WADA's management to the detriment of international anti-doping efforts. Some fear retribution from WADA’s leadership.

Others are afraid that criticism of the IOC-backed management of WADA could harm their national anti-doping interests or impair their home country's chances of being awarded a bid to host the Olympics or other major sports events.

Whether or not the fear is justified, it is fair to say that the international anti-doping community has an internal trust problem. Just as in many other international sports conflicts, a culture of silence prevails in the public domain.

An opportunity to engage in a democratic debate

According to the critics, holding a presidential election with several other candidates than the incumbent president and vice-president would be an opportunity to engage in a public debate about the visions and strategies of different candidates during a two-month-long campaign period prior to the election day in May.

This argument is supported by Travis Tygart, CEO of the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) and one of the very few anti-doping leaders who has never been afraid of engaging in an open debate about how the partly publicly funded WADA is run.

“We in the US certainly support a robust, democratic, and competitive election process at multinational organisations that directly affect athletes’ lives like WADA, and we would hope others also do,” Tygart says to Play the Game.

To him, a democratic election is about holding leaders accountable and having more than one candidate to vote for.

“It’s an opportunity to hear the positions of leaders and understand what the vision is for the organisation,” he argues adding that a WADA election shouldn’t just be a popularity contest.

“It ought to be a decision on what the organisation is going to do to achieve the vision for bringing the world together and restoring confidence in clean athletes.”

Controversy over Chinese case

The calls for a WADA presidential election with more independent candidates engaging in a democratic debate of visions and strategies follows a bitter fight between the USA and WADA over the agency’s handling of a case of positive tests in Chinese swimming in January 2021.

On 20 April 2024, The New York Times and German broadcaster ARD revealed that 23 Chinese swimmers weren’t sanctioned for violating the anti-doping rules even though they tested positive for the banned performance-enhancing heart medication trimetazidine (TMZ). Several of the Chinese swimmers were allowed to compete at the Olympic Games in Tokyo in 2021 and some of them won Olympic medals.

Following the media revelation, the China Anti-Doping Agency (CHINADA) published a statement which said that the findings of TMZ in 28 urine samples of the 23 swimmers “were an isolated mass incident caused by athletes’ unknowing consumption of food contaminated with TMZ”.

CHINADA also said the conclusions were based on a “thorough and comprehensive investigation with scientific methods”, adding that “it was then decided that the athletes involved would be held to have no fault or negligence”.

WADA published a fact sheet on the ‘contamination case of swimmers from China’ in which the agency said that for technical reasons, the agency did not entirely agree with CHINADA’s approach in the case but “having determined that it was in no position to challenge the contamination scenario”, WADA decided not to initiate 23 technical appeals to CAS.

The agency argued that an appeal would not have been able to obtain a judgement before the Tokyo Games in July and August 2021 and “for reasons of pragmatism and fairness towards the athletes”, WADA decided not to lodge what would have been a largely technical appeal.

US withholding payment to WADA   

The decision not to appeal the Chinese case led to a war of words between USADA CEO Travis Tygart and WADA president Witold Banka which is still going on. In an interview with Play the Game, Anders Solheim, chairman of the Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO), called for statesmanship and diplomacy to ensure discussions take place positively and constructively, but so far to no avail.

Moreover, the Chinese case led to several reports: A compliance audit on CHINADA’s national anti-doping programme, a WADA-commissioned report on its own and CHINADA’s handling of the TMZ case, a legal white paper from the Doping Authority Netherlands, an International Testing Agency investigation, an ongoing FBI investigation, and a US Congress hearing.

On 8 January 2025, the Biden Administration announced that the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) had decided to withhold 2024 dues payment of USD 3.6 million from WADA. The US has been the highest government contributor to WADA ever since the agency was established in 2000. Because of the rule that the IOC doubles government payments, WADA is losing USD 7.2 million out of a total 2025 budget of USD 57,5 million.

The ONDCP authority to withhold payment to WADA was put in place under the first Trump Administration in conjunction with the US Congress as a response to WADA’s handling of the Russian case of state-sponsored doping which led to the Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act, signed into law by president Trump in 2020.

At the same time, US politicians have argued for years that US payments should lead to more US representatives in WADA’s decision-making bodies. This has not happened. In a USADA statement on the US government withholding payment to WADA, Tygart said:

“Given the US is hosting many international competitions over the next 10 years, such as the 2026 FIFA World Cup and the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games, now is the time to get WADA right to ensure these competitions on US soil are clean, safe, and a pageantry of fair competition in which we can all have faith and confidence.”

40 Foundation Board members are voting

The WADA presidential election will be held at an online Foundation Board meeting on 29 May 2025. The Foundation Board is WADA’s highest authority and is composed of an equal amount of representatives of public authorities and the Olympic movement, respectively.

40 members of the ruling Foundation Board are eligible to vote. To win, a simple majority is not enough. Candidates need a two-thirds majority of the votes cast by the members present at the time of the vote.

Election perhaps decided in advance

Although the call for candidates is open in principle, the outcome may have been decided only a few days after WADA launched the process on 2 December 2024. Because anyone wishing to be a candidate must document support from at least one Foundation Board member among the public authorities and one from the Olympic side.

The latter will be almost impossible to get.

Five days after WADA’s launch of the election, the IOC issued a communiqué from the so-called Olympic Summit – an informal get-together of top leaders from the Olympic movement initiated by IOC president Thomas Bach to coordinate political signals from the movement. 

The communique announced that they stood behind the re-election of Witold Banka and Yang Yang, “underlining their important achievements over the last six years, including the implementation of the governance reforms and the commitment to the implementation of the recommendations of the Cottier Report” (the WADA-commissioned report on the Chinese doping scandal).

All the Olympic organisations that are represented in WADA’s Foundation Board were also present at the Olympic Summit: ANOC, ASOIF, WOF, IPC, IOC Athletes Commission and, of course, the IOC itself.

Only the two Foundation Board members of WADA’s Athlete Council were not invited to the summit but WADA’s president Banka took part assisted by WADA’s secretary general (in the photo, but not on the list of participants).

Term limit extended from six to nine years

So there is very little chance for anyone to challenge the incumbent WADA president Witold Banka, a former sprinter and sports minister, and Yang Yang, a former speed skater, who were elected president and vice-president of WADA in 2019 – Banka as the public authorities’ candidate, Yang as the Olympic movement’s candidate.

They took office on 1 January 2020 and were soon met with several political challenges, including the long-lasting impact of the Russian-international doping case, the COVID-19 pandemic, and calls for WADA reforms and more athlete influence at the agency.

In November 2022, Banka and Yang were re-elected president and vice-president for a second and – at the time – final three-year term without counter-candidates. Six months later, in May 2023, an internal WADA paper obtained by the German broadcaster ARD exposed that the agency planned to extend the presidential terms of office from six to nine years.

According to ARD, WADA told the broadcaster that the Executive Committee at a meeting on 9 May 2003 had discussed “some proposed changes to the terms of office of the president and vice-president in the context of recent governance reforms”.   

In June 2023, WADA confirmed that the Foundation Board had officially approved changes to the agency’s statutes and regulations as part of a reform process that included “a proposal to extend the initial term for a WADA president and vice-president from three to six years”.

In a press release, the agency explained that “a possibility for a further and final term of three years” had been introduced to harmonise “the total term limit of nine years with term limits for other members of the Board and ExCo members”.

WADA director general Olivier Niggli added that “these reforms are making WADA more efficient, effective, athlete-centred, transparent, and independent”. The reforms included creating an Athlete Council, separating powers between the Foundation Board and the Executive Committee, and establishing an Independent Ethics Board.

At the following 2023 European Games in Poland, Banka defended the extension of the term limits for WADA presidents and vice-presidents in an interview with Inside the Games, in which he said it was only a “small change” among much wider reforms.

Banka backed by WADA’s founding president

Banka has a strong base among governments in Eastern Europe, but he has also been backed by WADA’s founding president, Richard W. Pound of Canada.

On 17 May 2024, at a Foundation Board meeting, Pound said he was "deeply disappointed and disgusted by the deliberate lies and distortions coming from USADA”. He suggested that Banka should ‘institute legal action against USADA since there must be serious consequences arising from its outrageous conduct’.

Pound now says to Play the Game that he hasn’t found any reasons so far to change his view. When asked how Banka has handled anti-doping challenges during his first six years as WADA president, the Canadian IOC honorary member says:

“You mean (alphabetically) American, Chinese, Russian? I think he has been forthright, persistent and active, but if both ‘sides’ of an issue are not actually looking for a solution, it is difficult to make significant progress.”

What major challenges are facing the elected president and vice-president of WADA?

“I think that the public authorities need to get their act together. It is outrageous that they were unwilling to pursue the Russians over the state interference in doping. WADA needs to put in place a mechanism similar to the resolution of the Code disputes that permits it to refer such matters to CAS if the party does not accept proposed consequences of an asserted violation.”

What impact do you think the ongoing WADA-US-China controversy will have on the election?

“None. It is an artificial problem created by USADA and is being continued because of declining relationships between the USA and PRC (People’s Republic of China).”

Do you think WADA’s election packet will attract other candidates than the present president and vice-president?

“I would be very surprised if other candidates were to apply.”

WADA: Potential candidates have had ample time

Play the Game has asked WADA whether the agency agrees that it would be democratically desirable to have more than one candidate for each presidential position. And if so, what WADA has done to encourage candidates other than the current president and vice-president to apply for a nomination?

James Fitzgerald, head of media relations at WADA, answered by e-mail saying that candidate applications must include endorsements from at least two members of the Foundation Board (one from the 20 Olympic movement seats and one from the 20 public authorities’ seats) to ensure “that potential candidates are serious and credible contenders who can garner a basic level of support”.

He also said that since WADA made a public call for interested presidential candidates on 2 December 2024, six months before the election, “potential candidates have had ample time and opportunity to obtain the endorsement they need to run for these positions”.

The real time available is however less than two months, from 2 December 2024 to 31 January 2025.

Fitzgerald did not answer whether it would be democratically desirable for WADA to have more than one candidate for each presidential position. And if so, what the agency had done to encourage other candidates than Banka and Yang to apply.

When Play the Game reminded Fitzgerald to provide an answer, he replied:

“I have provided you with WADA’s response to your questions.”