The Shijiazhuang 23 (Part 1) – The Investigation: New York Times, ARD & USADA vs CHINADA & WADA

This article has been prompted by recent media revelations that in January 2021, 23 elite Chinese swimmers tested positive to a prohibited substance linked to a domestic swim meeting held in the city of Shijiazhuang – the Shijiazhuang 23.^[1] On the ground of environmental contamination, the national anti-doping agency in China (CHINADA) neither provisionally suspended nor pursued the swimmers in question for anti-doping infractions. The acceptance by the global anti-doping control regulator (WADA) of the CHINADA determination has been simultaneously criticised and defended forcefully.

This article reviews the case and WADA’s response. It does so with the express limitation that unlike CHINADA, WADA, certain journalists at the New York Times (NYT) and in Germany (ARD), the author does not have access to any primary materials, such as the sample results, investigative reports etc. This article is a comment piece based on publicly available and, largely, secondary sources.

The article is split into three parts.  Part one, below, explains the facts of the case, why WADA has been criticised, and analyses the investigation by ARD and NYT:

• Facts of the case
• Criticism of WADA’s handling
• The ethical dimension
• The investigation by ARD and the New York Times
• Analysis of ARD/NYT’s findings
  • Time taken to publish results
  • Governance concerns
  • Inconstant legal approach (similar cases)
  • Kamila Valieva
  • Sergey Fedorovtsev v RUSADA
  • Madisyn Cox v. FINA
  • Summary of main legal question
• USADA’s vocal condemnation of WADA

Comments (1)

• Josep F. Vandellos Alamilla

  • 15 June 2024 at 07:55
  • #

  Excellent article Jack !

  reply