Eric Cottier, the independent prosecutor investigating the handling of the case of 23 Chinese swimmers testing positive for trimetazidine (TMZ) in 2021 presented his final report to the World Anti Doping (WADA)’s Executive Committee on September 12. The final reasoned report upheld the findings from the interim report, released July 9, that WADA showed no bias toward China in its handling of the case.
“The information in the file shows that WADA has done its work autonomously, independently and professionally, and that there is no evidence to the contrary. WADA has applied the rules to which its activity is subject,” Cottier said in his opening statement.
Cottier found that “clarification of certain anti-doping rules should be considered as part of the World Anti-Doping Code and International Standards Update Process” and “formalization of certain administrative processes should be considered within WADA.” In their press release on the report, WADA noted that the first of these findings is already in process.
Cottier also noted in his opening remarks that “as far as the Chinese agency is concerned, it is clear that certain rules of the World Anti-Doping Code have not been applied. This is regrettable, but in the end, it does not change the outcome of the cases and the acceptance of the contamination process.”
In WADA’s press release, its president Witold Banka “welcomed” the suggestion to review the rules on group contamination, stating this case highlighted the difficulty of dealing with group contaminations and the challenge for anti-doping organizations to “distinguish between cases of genuine contamination and cases of well-resourced cheats who fabricate a contamination defense.”
In an annex published alongside WADA’s press release on the interim report in July, Cottier said that WADA chief scientist Olivier Rabin was unable to exclude the contamination scenario, leaving him “no other solutions than to accept it, even if he continued to have doubts about the reality of contamination as described by the Chinese authorities.”
Cottier’s final report comes in the middle of an ongoing battle between WADA and the USADA. Two days before Cottier’s presentation to the executive committee, the New York Times reported WADA sought to bar Dr. Rahul Gupta, the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy and a White House representative, from these board meetings.
It was just the latest installment in the feud, which began in April when the New York Times and German broadcaster ARD broke the story about the 23 Chinese swimmers testing positive. The U.S. Congress launched a federal investigation into the matter and last month, WADA opened a compliance review of the USADA with the Independent Compliance Review Committee due to the agency’s statements and the controversial 2019 Rodchenkov Act, which extends the United States’ jurisdiction to any international sporting event the U.S. has financial connections to or where the American athletes participated, allowing the country to bring criminal charges against those found to have violated anti-doping law at any such competition.
As any country participating in or hosting an international competition must comply with the anti-doping code, this review could potentially jeopardize the United States hosting the 2028 and 2034 Olympics.
Both CHINADA and USADA released statements regarding the release of Mr. Cottier’s final report, CHINADA said that “all internal and external elements prove that the decision by WADA not to challenge on appeal the contamination scenario put forward by CHINADA is reasonable, both in terms of facts and the applicable rules.”
The statement continues, “Motivated by political bias and anti-China prejudice, USADA has fabricated false accusations to blur the lines between right and wrong, misleading the international community and the public about the nature of the [TMZ] contamination incident.”
USADA interpreted the report’s findings differently. CEO Travis Tygart said the “full report released today by WADA’s investigator only validates our concerns and even raises new questions that must be answered.” Tygart declared that the way to answer these questions was with “an independent investigation where the scope and the investigator are identified by neutral third parties and a proper results management process.”
Read More:
- Eric Cottier’s Final Report (also available in French through WADA)
Frankly the story was never really reported correctly.
The actual important details such as the swimmers in question came from different clubs and coaches but had the same hotel as the constant factor.
And their tests showed extremely low levels. Some alternated between positive and negative results in just a few hours. That didn’t suggest intentional doping or microdosing.
It’s all in WADA’s downloadable report. Yet I have barely read a single media article that explains those details. Probably because they are too biased to share the reasons why WADA wasn’t biased to not appeal against claims of contamination given the analytical data is compatible with that claim.
Yet just like COVID lab theory, people are not going to… Read more »
Mr. Cottier’s conclusory notes somewhat drift away from the main course of independent investigation: clarification, only to leave all non-stakeholders of the case a nebula of narratives.
However, the Mr. Tygart who’s been quite outspoken to the case responded amiss, acknowledging the findings but not being able to refute, or say,call out, the conclusions….
Am I missing something here? Not all rules were applied but nope nothing to see here, there certainly was no bias involved.
Did you read the report? Based on analytical data alone, there was no basis to challenge the claim of contamination.
The swimmers drug tests only showed extremely small amounts and it alternated between negative and positive, which isn’t indicative of intentional ingestion or microdosing.
Plus all the swimmers in question stayed at the same hotel but from different clubs and coaches and not all were elite. There’s enough data to show likely contamination. And it would be biased of Wada to claim otherwise.
It is worth reading the actual text of the report. The report contains ten pages (beginning at page 28) summarizing the critical findings of a legal expert hired by Cottier who determines that CHINADA and WADA most certainly did NOT follow fundamental anti-doping Code provisions regarding strict liability, notification to athletes, and provisional suspension. Followed by several pages in which non-expert Cottier then contorts himself as basically an advocate for WADA with lame excuses as to why WADA did not launch its own investigation of the positives or follow or enforce the rules in the governing Code. It’s sad, it really is.
It’s arbitrary to use that to claim guilt. Yet USADA will definitely try to spin it as if it’s proof.
I don’t know all the rules they broke. But aware there’s covid restrictions and a lot of things were in disarray back then.
But the most important data was compatible with contamination. And that’s the reason why WADA “reasonably” accepted contamination claim and not for no reason. I still haven’t seen any proof that they’re guilty except for a lot of spin and nationalistic bs.
IMHO, two sentences (both on page 53) sum up the ridiculous Cottier report:
If you read the report, you see how disingenuous WADA’s own press releases are. Even Cottier’s drafted portion of the report responding to the legal expert contains the following statement (p.37):
“…WADA has admitted that the investigation as carried out did not comply with the fundamental rules described by the expert, in particular with regard to communication to the athlete…and with the principles governing notification and its follow-up.”
And yet Cottier states that WADA did its work “autonomously, independently, and professionally”? Huh?
“Win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat”
– Newly appointed WADA Director of Overseeing Chinese Swimming,
Mr. Jesse the Body Ventura.
Jesse tried to unionize wrestling… he’s an odd dude, but i’m not seeing the bridge you’re trying to connect?
so one of “proper rules” CHADA didnt apply is hiring doper as informant?
In other words, “I did what WADA hired and paid me to do.” Not really meaningful.
Logical fallacy. There’s covid restrictions at the time so not all rules could had been applied.
But enough rules were applied and they had the data from the drug test results Which by itself showed that WADA was not biased to not challenge the claim of contamination as the data was compatible with that claim.