Is Olympic year, and topping the Olympic medal table is a political ideology in some countries.

China is the new Russia. Which is the old East Germany. The only thing that surprises me, is that some people are surprised.

That’s a great point, regarding World Aquatics not being the subject of any where near as much criticism as WADA. I understand that in this case they were notified too.

I am not at a computer today so unable to write a proper response to trails great reply which certainly deserves one, but my understanding is that technically speaking (1) as it was a contamination CHINADA did not regard it as an anti doping violation and (2) WADA have a policy at least for the last decade or so, to not take matters further to CAS to query cases like that which may in the end only obtain a no fault anti doping violation.

So in this case Chinada is the relevant anti doping organisation (ADO) - trail , that is my understanding

I understand that here WADA did their own investigation of the material forwarded to them and in a kind of negatively expressed conclusion did not find anything that could lead them to reject the CHINADA explanation. The independent review going on will be interesting.

obviously there are two issues here - what the current rules say and whether these were followed, and what the current rules should say. In cases of contamination (and potentially this example is not the most clear example or one that universally fills people will confidence) I wonder whether it is right for there to be reforms and public disclosure. It’s hugely damaging to the reputations of all involved.

If you haven’t had the chance I learnt a lot from reading the WADA press release

The case for reform and public disclosure:

1) If athletes consuming TMZ is a risk for them testing positive, athletes deserve to understand that risk so they can seek to avoid it. For example, consumption of some meats has been identified as a possible way to test positive for some substances, such as metabolites of trenbolone - a cattle steroid. How did TMZ get into food (or whatever the method was)? CHINADA appeared to do a very minimal - if any - investigation into that.

2) USADA, at least, seems to be tired of dinging American athletes for likely consumption of contaminated meat. The most embarrassing being dragging a 90 year-old man through the whole process. If the WADA Code needs tweaking to better handle cases of contamination, it may help to bring the issue into the sunlight.

Lastly, even if CHINADA appears provided a plausible explanation, 23 swimmers testing positive is worth some side-eye. Particularly since Chinese Olympic swimming is not new to TMZ (Sun Yang).

I do recognize the Occam's Razor that if CHINADA were truly and fully corrupt, there would have been no notification whatsoever to WADA. No positives. The RUSADA method.

If you're talking about the UFC Partnership, that partnership is over. Ended in October when McGregor re-entered the testing pool, it was gonna get killed off by Christmas I'm sure as the UFC wanted to move to a more NFL like sanction model (be a lot softer) and USADA didn't want to be a part of that. They now contract out to Drug Free Sport International.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

the lab automatically contacts WADA. it would have to be a totally corrupt WADA lab.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Nah. The USOPC which has an ARR of half a billion dollars mostly from media deals provides roughly 50% of USADA's $30-40M annual operating budget.

---

Dr. Alex Harrison | Founder & CEO | Sport Physiology & Performance PhD
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
📱 Check out our app → Saturday: Pro Fuel & Hydration, a performance nutrition coach in your pocket.
Join us on YouTube → Saturday Morning | Ride & Run Faster and our growing Saturday User Hub

Point of order: what was said is not what you said.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I wonder if the same is true at slowtwitch: there are commentators at swimswam who are NOT punching above their output.

I mean, sure, there’s a lot of stooges like me (I’m zthomas over there if you ever see the name) but there are also gold medalists and us Olympic team coaches who post.

Do you know who slow breaststroker is? I’ve
tried to keep a tab on this stuff for my amusement.

Fun fact for me: my son has won a swammy (swimmer of the year award given by swimswam.). He tells me I care about it more than him, which is hard to argue.

Confused about your nah....you meant the organization that makes money by producing entertaining competition wasn't a reference to UFC, but OSOPC? I believe TheStroBro's account of the USADA-UFC relationship is accurate.

All elite - and amateur - sport is about producing entertaining competition so I could understand the confusion.

Jesse - I looked your son up on Swimswam and his times are very impressive. I mean, 4:17.8 for 400 LCM at age 12 is just ridiculous. I've included a link to his page for STers unfamiliar with Swimswam.
https://swimswam.com/2023-swammy-awards-age-group-swimmer-of-the-year-11-12/

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Ok, incredibly confused by you here. Without USOPC funding and other NGB funding, USADA doesn't exist and there is no anti-doping agency at all.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

Happy to stand corrected. I was directly referencing the WADA statement.

Is your point of correction that those 10 athletes are not US athletes but just athletes that tested positive (on a contamination ) , as you have some further information, or just that they may not necessarily be US athletes as it just refers to US soil?

The more pedantic and technical the correction the better ; that is just the kind of person I am lol

The official statement you quoted only said that ten athletes were tested on US soil and had AAFs. You said they were US athletes, which may be true but does not necessarily follow from the quoted statement. That's all (that, and poking you about "point of order" :-).

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Your logic is impeccable :)

The purpose of anti doping agencies is to give the impression of something being done, whilst doping continues to be prevalent. Unusual cases, such as the Balco affair, where an aggrieved party gave USADA a sample of "the clean", do lead to some anti doping success. If you think I am cynical, bear in mind that during the Bradley Wiggins "jiffy bag" parliamentary enquiry, Nicole Sapstead, head of UKADA, testified under oath that sophisticated drug cheats are one step ahead of the testers.

Top level sport is now about the show and not the integrity. There is too much money involved, and a line has been crossed from idealistic sporting values to mass entertainment. Netflix and Amazon in particular have been accelerating this process.

I grew up believing in the beauty of honest competition, and am disheartened to see how corrupt sport has become. I am also saddened to see that spectators seem to be generally unaware or uncaring about what is going on.

This China cover up story is irrelevant.

It has always been the case, and long before anyone had heard of Netflix.

And, perhaps, spectators have enough going on in their own lives to be overly concerned, and simply want to be entertained?

The jurisdictional arguments around which organization knew what when are very confusing to me. I don't really understand if it's WADA's responsibility to take action regardless of what CHINADA or USADA do? Also, I believe the international organizations (example: FINA) are empowered to take their own action as well, is that true?

Setting the above aside:
1. I believe it's extremely unlikely that 23 elite athletes just happened to all have been contaminated by the powerful performance enhancer TMZ just before testing. I personally don't buy it.
2. Regardless, other similar cases involving TMZ have resulted in suspension even after inadvertant contamination had been proven. Example: Madisyn Cox.
3. This might be an obvious "mild take", but I believe that the only sports that take doping at least somewhat seriously (swimming, cycling and track) are the only ones with doping positives. These sports are far (FAR) from perfect in doping control but at least they've done something. As a result, ironically these sports are seen as "dirty" by the general public. Meanwhile, I believe the big money sports like soccer (football), football (American football), basketball, hockey, tennis etc couldn't care less about doping, don't really test and are very willing to cover up any potential issue. There's too much money involved and there's no benefit to a "tough on doping" policy in these sports.I believe these sports are RIFE with doping.

I didn't mean that the UFC partnership statement was or was not true. And I didn't mean that the USOPC should or should not continue to fund USADA.

By "Nah" I meant: "Nah, I wasn't talking about that UFC partnership."

By the rest of it, I meant: the USOPC is a media-funded corp which funds anti-doping efforts. ← That is what I was referring to when I said "They're still 50% funded by the same org that makes money by producing entertaining competition, which is absolutely enhanced by athletes being... enhanced."

Overall, I was just clarifying that, no, I wasn't talking about UFC, but rather USOPC funding. Sorry for the confusion!

BTW, I make no claim as to how that should change or remain. Just stating facts, neutrally. I'm just calling out where incentives align. Specifically, USADA is 50% financially incentivized to produce entertaining competition that people believe is clean because generally people want to believe that most competition is fair and clean, at least when it is reported on, as such. USADA is incentivized to be a better marketing agency for the success and vigor anti-doping efforts, more than they are incentivized towards highest-possible efficacy of actual anti-doping efforts themselves. :)

For everyone's awareness, I'm not saying whether that's good or bad, necessary or unnecessary, should change or remain, etc etc. I'm not judging it or assessing at all. I'm just stating the incentive alignment. And I also happened to relay 4 personal anecdotes that seem in alignment with their alignment if you 'nom sayin'. Again, I seriously am not making an assessment or judgement here. Complete non-stance here. If my tone is anything but neutral it's purely a matter of personality. :)

---

Dr. Alex Harrison | Founder & CEO | Sport Physiology & Performance PhD
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
📱 Check out our app → Saturday: Pro Fuel & Hydration, a performance nutrition coach in your pocket.
Join us on YouTube → Saturday Morning | Ride & Run Faster and our growing Saturday User Hub

^^^ He said it better than I did. :)

---

Dr. Alex Harrison | Founder & CEO | Sport Physiology & Performance PhD
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
📱 Check out our app → Saturday: Pro Fuel & Hydration, a performance nutrition coach in your pocket.
Join us on YouTube → Saturday Morning | Ride & Run Faster and our growing Saturday User Hub

WADA's response and account of events, as well as FAQ about the case (for those who are interested):

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/contamination-case-swimmers-china-fact-sheet-frequently-asked-questions

 

I don’t know enough (anything) about doping, except what I learnt from reading the Doper Nextdoor. But, from my read of that doc - it doesn’t seem like there was any cover up at all.

What am I missing?

That was my wife's likely take away before she even knew the particulars of the case (she has worked in anti-doping for the better part of 20+ years, not at WADA). When this came out she straight away said:
- Knowing how WADA operates, I would be very surprised if there was any cover-up; If they didn't pursue matters further it's likely there were valid reasons;
- Likely a case where you don't want this to be made public to protect athletes and follow procedures;
- Tygart a bit of an attention-seeker and likely with an agenda.

But we'll see what else comes out of it.

I don't think 'coverup' is the right word.

Because taking the information presented in the press conference at face value, a proper process was followed and WADA are prepared to accept that they cannot disprove this was contamination.

But cynics are asking themselves whether this is the 'perfect crime'. Instead of the old stereotype of the gruff, moustached, coach saying ‘here, these are vitamins’, athletes are now being doped in a way that is not provable and entirely 'legal'.

For example, the cynic may say, TUEs correctly obtained are enabling athletes to use otherwise prohibited medications which give a performance benefit. Those involved can truthfully say they are competing clean and want to root out all the cheaters. Again, using a performance enhancing medication on a drug trial, not currently banned, can also permit the user to be 'clean and want to root out all the cheaters. Or micro-dosing to never be 'glowing' during testing - a bit harder to say you are 'clean' in that situation but still hard to detect.

And the highest risk option if all else fails, food doping where from a process and legal pathway, it appears as though it is entirely possible to plausibly demonstrate contamination of a food or kitchen on a retrospective basis (and in one sense you don't even need to prove how the contaminant got in there, as that is the whole point). And the athletes themselves just do not know.

Just conjecture

Tangent...sorry your post got me thinking.

Is there a good study anyone can point to where they gave PEDs to a cow or pig and then the test subject got it in their bloodstream?

If so, would that cause a performance increase?

If people who innocently use tainted supplements get banned, why don't people who use tainted meat get banned?

And holy hell, we've got all kinds of "professionals" telling us the various antibiotics, vaccines, and hormones they give livestock doesn't affect us on one hand and on the other we see it persists so much that it passes from our digestive system into bbloodstream?

How much of food doping claims is really just cover?

And if it's legit... would it be possible for an athlete to work closely with a small rancher and have their live stock juiced to the gills to impart some benefit to them?

I am not too sure about that but I imagine there could be some ethical issues with running a study along those lines lol

How much of food doping / contamination is cover I am not sure. I really don’t think it would be very common and more of a last resort option, as my cynical theory option from above. It requires too much by way of time and resource to establish for it to be the preferred method.

“ And holy hell, we've got all kinds of "professionals" telling us the various antibiotics, vaccines, and hormones they give livestock doesn't affect us on one hand and on the other we see it persists so much that it passes from our digestive system into bbloodstream? “.

I don’t know what the answer is to that but it’s certainly depends on what you mean by affect us. There is a bit of information out there, although I don’t think it’s very well known, about the significance and volume of antibiotics used and antimicrobial resistance. Some statistics estimatr that 66% of all antibiotics are used in farm animals, not people. Enables the animals, to be kept in poor conditions where disease spreads easily. And then the theory is the modern world will be decimated by a super virus spread from these antimicrobial conditions.

I don’t really see how what I have written is connected to what you have written but there you go