The Shijiazhuang 23 (Part 2) – Why didn't WADA challenge CHINADA’s decision? And should they have done?

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, available here, explains the facts of the case, why WADA has been criticised, and analyses the investigation by ARD and NYT.  Part two, below, explains why WADA chose not to appeal CHINADA’s decision, and asks whether that choice was a reasonable one in all the circumstances:

• WADA’s position: no basis under the WADA Code to challenge CHINADA’s findings
• Intelligence and investigation
• Science
• Legal
• Why were the Shijiazhuang 23 not provisionally suspended?
• Was WADA’s choice not to appeal CHINADA’s decision a reasonable one in all the circumstances?

Part three, available here, examines what comes next in the case, and what the lessons are for future anti-doping and sports integrity investigations.