Trimetazidine in Chinese swimming "mass-contamination event" and WADA's role in an alleged cover-up

[allezfred]

If ever there was an appropriate time for saying two wrongs don’t make a right this is it!

 

[Karen-W]

If ever there was an appropriate time for saying two wrongs don’t make a right this is it!

I wasn't really commenting on whether or not it was right or wrong of USADA to do what they did, just observing that the ONLY reason it's coming out now is because WADA is pissed with USADA over the Chinese swimmers issue. If WADA was truly that bothered by what USADA did then they'd have let it be publicly known as soon as they learned about it, regardless of the danger posed to the confidential informants.

 

[On My Own]

No, they went undercover to go after bigger targets and criminal organizations.

They went undercover with doping athletes to protect their own interests, first and foremost.

It's not on the USADA to play God, and let's not pretend that covering up doping isn't advantageous for the American sports teams.

 

[kwanfan1818]

I find it interesting that the Italian WADA people were so harsh on Kostner -- Schwazer was understandable -- with their "no tolerance" policy, but it looks like Grassl will be back on the GP, which could only happen with their tolerance.

It's not simply protecting your own interests if you use the info to bust the people and organizations, including supporting criminal investigations, who are informed on.

 

[Karen-W]

They went undercover with doping athletes to protect their own interests, first and foremost.

It's not on the USADA to play God, and let's not pretend that covering up doping isn't advantageous for the American sports teams.

WTH? That's not what WADA is alleging. WADA is alleging that USADA covered up some doping offenses for a couple of athletes who weren't finishing all that high internationally and one "higher-profile" athlete who agreed to provide them with information about a larger doping scheme and that these athletes lives could be/are in danger should their identities be revealed which is why WADA agreed to keep it quiet. And now, by revealing that USADA had done this (and disclosed it to WADA several years ago), WADA is just begging the world's investigative journalists to start digging and figure out who the athletes in question are and reveal their identities, all while keeping their hands "clean" of putting those athletes lives in danger because it's not their fault if some intrepid journalist does the work for them.

I'm not sure what advantage you think the USA or those athletes in particular got from agreeing to become informants to USADA (and potentially the FBI/DOJ). It doesn't sound very advantageous to me.

 

[allezfred]

WTH? That's not what WADA is alleging. WADA is alleging that USADA covered up some doping offenses for a couple of athletes who weren't finishing all that high internationally and one "higher-profile" athlete who agreed to provide them with information about a larger doping scheme and that these athletes lives could be/are in danger should their identities be revealed.

I'm not sure what advantage you think the USA or those athletes in particular got from agreeing to become informants to USADA (and potentially the FBI/DOJ). It doesn't sound very advantageous to me.

They were literally getting the chance to continue their careers despite being nabbed for doping, finishing ahead of other clean athletes and denying them goodness knows what!.

 

[On My Own]

Karen, why are you making me agree with allezfred.

 

[Karen-W]

They were literally getting the chance to continue their careers despite being nabbed for doping, finishing ahead of other clean athletes and denying them goodness knows what!.

I'm not defending that decision by USADA.

What I take issue with is WADA's timing in calling attention to it now. If they were truly concerned with fair being fair then they would have said "consequences be damned, safety be damned" and called it out when they first became aware of USADA's actions. Additionally, they would have updated the language in their own code that allowed USADA to turn the dopers into confidential informants and made that unallowable.

The fact is that none of that happened. So, bitch as you must about USADA and doing what they do to protect American athletes, because that's your schtick, but let's be brutally frank here... WADA is the real problem. Defending them and the vague language in their own code that allows for "protected persons" like Valieva to compete in the Women's event in Beijing after her positive doping test result, or USADA thinking they could bypass any suspensions or disciplinary action by convincing dopers to "turn state's evidence" against others, is laughable.

Your high road is filled with potholes created by WADA itself.

 

[kwanfan1818]

The language in WADA's code about "protected persons" wasn't vague: it was clear to which section it applied, which was not applicable in Valieva's situation. It was the special on-site CAS panel that injected something that wasn't there.

 

[allezfred]

Your high road is filled with potholes created by WADA itself.

I absolutely am on the high road because I have not defended what either WADA nor USADA have done. You on the other hand….

 

[Karen-W]

I absolutely am on the high road because I have not defended what either WADA nor USADA have done. You on the other hand….

Sorry. I re-read what I wrote and I can see why you or @On My Own could interpret that as defending USADA. I was looking at the situation from a "personal danger" retrospective view. In that moment when the doping infractions were first received, no, I don't believe that USADA was correct in offering lesser/no sanctions in exchange for information to go after bigger targets.

What I am saying is, what's done is done and WADA was willing, up until this week, to look the other way. Now that they're in a huge public relations war with USADA over how they handled another national doping agency's investigation of a major doping violation involving nearly 2 dozen athletes, coming forward with this previous USADA situation doesn't make them look any better. It actually makes them look worse, IMO. How can anyone have ANY confidence in WADA going forward?

As long as you're from a big fed - CHINADA, USADA, RUSADA, name some others who contribute significantly to WADA's operating budget - you're going to get away with things that smaller feds won't get away with. How is that fair to any clean athlete, from any country? It's not fair to the clean Chinese swimmers (one has to think there are some that aren't doping, right?) or the clean Americans (there are some, it would seem, even according to you) or the clean Russian skaters (I'm guessing that Moskvina's skaters are at least clean) that they're tarred and feathered because their national doping agencies curry favor with WADA to overlook questionable moral practices.

 

[On My Own]

It's not fair to the clean Chinese swimmers (one has to think there are some that aren't doping, right?)

Well on that note, I feel very sad for Pan Zhanle, when he interviewed he felt snubbed at the Olympics. He seemed rather emotional after he won, and while he's technically an adult, he's still only 19. (well he turned 20 recently)

 

[skategal]

Uhm….doesn’t that information make WADA complicit in USADA’s actions?

I mean “We knew for years but couldn’t do anything because USADA forced us” is not much of a defence here.

I assume WADA does have some control over country bodies.

 

[her grace]

Why is WADA structured in a way that lets RUSADA, CHINADA, USADA, etc. police its own athletes? It’s like the system is designed to let countries “wink, wink, nod, nod” away doping violations.

 

[On My Own]

Uhm….doesn’t that information make WADA complicit in USADA’s actions?

Exactly how some have been arguing that it's complicit in CHINADA's actions

Why is WADA structured in a way that lets RUSADA, CHINADA, USADA, etc. police its own athletes? It’s like the system is designed to let countries “wink, wink, nod, nod” away doping violations.

Nothing in sports makes any sense, it's not exactly being governed by geniuses.

 

[rfisher]

What! The pure as driven snow USA had doping cheaters. Must have been deep cover Russian agents because we all know they are the only athletes who would use performance enhancements. And, that spy on your neighbor is right out of the 1950s Communist KGB handbook. (That's sarcasm for those who don't get it).

Bunch of hypocrites.

 

[MacMadame]

The agreement should have included that their results would be nullified once they retired. Maybe they wouldn't have agreed to be spies with that agreement. But then their results would have been nullified right then and there and their names made public so it seems like a fair deal to me.

And I find it unlikely that they would be physically unsafe if their names were revealed now that they are retired. They might get hassled but they are dopers who deserve being hassled about their wrong-doings.

What! The pure as driven snow USA had doping cheaters. Must have been deep cover Russian agents because we all know they are the only athletes who would use performance enhancements. And, that spy on your neighbor is right out of the 1950s Communist KGB handbook. (That's sarcasm for those who don't get it).

What a bunch of bullshit and false equivalence.

 

[rfisher]

The agreement should have included that their results would be nullified once they retired. Maybe they wouldn't have agreed to be spies with that agreement. But then their results would have been nullified right then and there and their names made public so it seems like a fair deal to me.

And I find it unlikely that they would be physically unsafe if their names were revealed now that they are retired. They might get hassled but they are dopers who deserve being hassled about their wrong-doings.


What a bunch of bullshit and false equivalence.

I guess you missed the sarcasm.

 

[MacMadame]

I guess you missed the sarcasm.

No, I didn't. I just thought you were being sarcastic in a different way.

 

[On My Own]

Independent Arbitrator Finds no Fault for American Artistic Swimmer Calista Liu

The US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) recently announced that an independent arbitrator has concluded that 18-year-old Calista Liu will be given a no-fault violation after she tested positive for dorzolamide on May 13, 2024.

swimswam.com

Lol well here's more from USADA.

 

[Vagabond]

Questions Emerge About Data Used by China to Defend Against Doping Allegations

China and the World Anti-Doping Agency say that positive tests for a banned drug among elite Chinese swimmers were a result of unwitting contamination. But the science behind that assertion is not so clear.

www.nytimes.com

The Chinese, Dr. Cowan said, did not appear to have fully considered that the positive tests could just have likely been the tail end of a full dose 11 or more days after taking the drug.

The second claim focused on how the swimmers tested positive. Over the three-day meet, many of the athletes were tested several times, and some of them alternated between negative and positive results. That pattern, the Chinese said, was indicative of contamination, not doping, an assertion later echoed by WADA.

But the scientists who examined the data said that explanation was overly simplistic. As a drug passes through the body, they said, low levels of it can be picked up one day and missed the next, depending on how much water is in someone’s system and how the body processes the drug.