ARTICLE
25 July 2024

Anti-doping Case Commentary: Chinese Swimmers Cleared To Compete At The Tokyo Games, Despite Testing Positive For A Banned Substance

L
Level

Contributor

Level was founded in 2017 by sports lawyers Morris Bentata, Dan Harrington, Daniel Lowen, and Fraser Reid to create a new model beyond traditional firms. Joined by practice manager Kelly Greenland, they quickly established Level as a leader in sports law. Relocating to Covent Garden, they expanded with Head of Growth Amy Sullivan in 2020, even thriving through the pandemic by attracting specialized lawyers. Level emphasizes a supportive culture, celebrating milestones like a firm-wide sports day. Recognized by The Times and ranked in Chambers and Legal 500, Level was awarded Best Small Organisation at the 2022 Business Culture Awards. In June 2024, they moved to new offices in Soho.
There's been a bit of a furor about this story and WADA's decision not to appeal. Here's an effort to explain why that has raised eyebrows (perhaps putting it lightly…):
United Kingdom Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment

There's been a bit of a furor about this story and WADA's decision not to appeal. Here's an effort to explain why that has raised eyebrows (perhaps putting it lightly...):

The Chinese Anti-Doping Agency decided not to charge any of the 23 swimmers who tested positive for Trimetazidine (TMZ) with an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV). Even bearing in mind the explanation that the positive tests were due to food / environmental contamination (as a result of TMZ found in the kitchen of a hotel), that is unusual. Ordinarily, one would expect an ADRV to be charged – it is a strict liability offence – with athletes then arguing that sanctions should be reduced on the basis of them bearing no fault or negligence (NFN) for the presence of the substance in their system.

A couple of other aspects of the CHINADA decision struck me as interesting:

  • First, TMZ is a non-specified substance. That means, that where an athlete tests positive for TMZ, a provisional suspension is mandatory under Article 7.4.1 of the Code. Yet none of the 23 Chinese athletes were provisionally suspended.
  • Secondly, given that the samples, in this case, were collected in January 2021 and CHINADA's investigation was undertaken in April 2021, it could be asked how traces of TMZ remained in the hotel kitchen (which one might have expected to have been cleaned a few times) many months later.

Perhaps the reason for the consternation is this: establishing a plea of NFN and reducing sanction to zero, is notoriously difficult. Except in the rarest of circumstances, an athlete will need to prove how the substance entered their body. Athletes are put to the expense of testing their supplements, hair, nails, and even take polygraph tests to try to prove source. Many, perhaps most, fail and face a long ban.

Here, WADA's justification for deciding not to appeal was that it had "no basis to challenge" the contamination theory. But WADA doesn't have to challenge and disprove the case – when a case goes to CAS it goes back to square one and the burden of proving a contamination case falls on the athlete.

So, to some, it may look like WADA will hold athletes to the enormously difficult task of proving NFN, but just not in this case.

The review of all this, its independence (or otherwise), and any conclusions will have to wait...

https://lnkd.in/gXHcywmM

Originally published 23 April 2024

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More