A new report confirms that Chinese swimmers participating in the Paris Olympics were subjected to doping tests at least eight times between the beginning of the year and the opening ceremony of the Games.
An anti-doping audit review committee report released on Monday found no evidence of “irregularities, mismanagement or cover-up” by World Aquatics (then known as FINA) in its review of a decision by the Chinese Anti-Doping Agency not to suspend 23 swimmers who tested positive for the banned substance trimetazidine (TMZ) six months before the 2021 Olympics.
They were able to avoid suspension. The swimmers won three gold medals in Tokyo.
Eleven of the athletes who tested positive at that time will compete in Paris.
The committee’s report contains ten recommendations to further strengthen World Aquatics’ anti-doping program and to “strengthen the trust of those involved,” as athletes’ confidence had been “weakened” by the TMZ case.
The report revealed that “a certain number of athletes from certain nations” would be tested four times by the International Testing Agency (ITA) between January 1 and the opening of the Paris Olympics, and that Chinese athletes would be tested “no less than eight times” during that period.
“The ITA will do its best to have all such tests of Chinese athletes conducted by a sample collection site other than CHINADA and to have the samples analyzed by laboratories outside China,” the committee’s report said.
The report also said World Aquatics would release the results of pre-Games testing before the opening ceremony.
The Chinese Anti-Doping Agency (CHINADA) concluded that the positive tests were due to food contamination in a team hotel where the athletes were staying. Ultimately, neither FINA nor the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed against this decision.
The case only came to light in April through reporting by the New York Times and ARD.
An interim report published last week by Swiss prosecutor Eric Cottier said WADA had shown no “favor or deference” to China in its handling of the case and had “acted reasonably” by not appealing CHINADA’s decision.
with AP