The testing done to clear 23 Chinese athletes of wrongdoing after their positive drug tests in 2021 is facing scrutiny from independent scientists who reviewed the report after the New York Times obtained it.
In April of this year, news broke that 23 Chinese swimmers had tested positive for performance enhancing drugs at a national training meet in early 2021 before competing in the Olympic Games later that year. The swimmers were cleared of any wrongdoing due to an investigation by the Chinese Anti-Doping Agency that came to the conclusion the positive test was due to contamination.
The swimmers all tested positive for trace amounts of trimetazidine, which is a heart medication that can help athletes train harder and recover quicker. The drug, also known as TMZ, has led to suspensions before, including Chinese swimmer Sun Yang who was suspended for three months following a positive TMZ test.
China’s anti-doping agency and China’s public security authorities conducted separate experiments to determine the cause of the positive tests, with both organizations utilizing human test trials.
Varying doses of TMZ were given to 144 volunteers aged between 14-32 over the course of a few days. The volunteers would then have their urine screened to see how quickly the drug left their system.
Chinese authorities determined that the results ruled out doping. They claim the data pointed to the conclusion that the athletes tested positive due to food contamination, likely from the hotel they were staying at, and that they ingested the drugs accidentally.
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) determined that they had no evidence to challenge the conclusion, thus allowing it to stand.
It is worth noting, that one of the international scientists who reviewed the report, via the WADA investigation, had trouble believing the contamination theory, but they had no evidence to disprove it. A separate scientist had the same issue, stating that the science was more ambiguous than WADA and China were stating, and that doping could not be ruled out simply based on the science.
The New York Times sent the report, which has not been released, to five independent scientists who all came back with the conclusion that the evidence in the trial was not as clear-cut as China and WADA made it out to be.
Dr. David Jurrlink, who is the head of the Division of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology at the University of Toronto, told the NYT that China’s conclusions were “not intellectually honest.” He went on to say that it was not backed up by their science and that if they “submitted this to a scientific journal worth its salt, that conclusion would be laughed at.”
The scientists discussed how the data presented by China only represented how the body metabolizes the drug over time, and does not adequately represent that the levels must have come from accidental contamination.
They also expressed concern over the fact that even individuals who were provided normal, therapeutic doses of the drug saw significant drops in their levels in as little as 11 days, dropping to the point seen in the athlete’s samples. This time period could be damaging because testing significantly dropped off in the month before the meet where the positive tests emerged, with the closest test occurring 12 days before the meet began.
Finally, the scientists took issue with the two central claims China used to prove contamination. The first was that the concentration was low at the time of testing and competition, meaning it would have had no performance-enhancing effects during the races. The scientists felt this did not address the ways the drugs could have enhanced training.
They also disagreed with the 2nd claim which stated that the fact that swimmers alternated between negative and positive results over the meet pointed to contamination rather than doping. The scientists claimed that when levels of a drug are low there are a variety of things that can impact it showing up on a drug test, including how much water they have consumed that day. In their opinion, this explanation simplified the results and does not point to contamination over doping.
David Cowan, the anti-doping scientist who was in charge of the testing lab at the 2012 Olympic Games, stated “In my opinion, the scientific data cannot distinguish between” accidental and intentional consumption.
When the NYT reached out to WADA to inform them of the scientists’ conclusion, WADA held its ground stating they stood by their handling of the case, emphasizing that they had no evidence to challenge the conclusion, a position that is shared by World Aquatics.
This is the position WADA has maintained through the entire ordeal, stating that, due to their lack of evidence to contradict China’s claims, they would lose the case in the Court of Arbitration for Sport, CAS.
The United States launched a federal investigation into the doping scandal, which saw famous American swimmers Michael Phelps and Allison Schmitt testifying at the congressional hearing. We are still waiting on a determination from the Biden administration about their yearly payment to WADA for 2024.
China is a doping country
It is 3:55 am in Beijing right now. As soon as daylight breaks, we can expect the comments section to be flooded with denials of doping and accusations of racism.
No kidding it was intellectually dishonest and would be laughed out of the room. Generalities overwhelm specifics. When a large joined block of athletes simultaneously test positive for the same banned substance, it was intentional doping designed to greatly enhance training. Details might as well be fruit loops.
we all already know this