View the audio recording by clicking here
The following content was transcribed by AI, so there may be some minor errors.
DM Monitoring
BEIJING: The United States is again threatening to stop funding the World Anti-Doping Agency. It claims the doping watchdog exercised favoritism in a doping incident involving Chinese swimmers before the Tokyo Olympics. Why did Washington bring up the issue weeks before the Paris Olympics? How may the criminal investigation launched by US authorities affect the Chinese swimming delegation and the World Anti-Doping Agency? And what implications does the growing tendency of U.S. long-arm jurisdiction mean for the sports world?
Host Tu Yun joins Shang Ximeng, a research fellow at the Center for International Sport Communication and Diplomacy Studies, Beijing Foreign Studies University; Bai Xianyue, the managing partner of the Tianjin-based Guohao Law Firm; and Dr. Qu Qiang, a fellow of the Belt and Road Research Center, Minzu University of China for an in-depth look at the issue on this episode of Chat Lounge.
Tu Yun
Welcome to the chat. So, the US government has, again triggered concerns over attempts to extend its laws beyond its borders. Federal agencies are investigating doping allegations against Chinese swimmers, despite the world anti-dumping agency’s finding of no wrongdoing. So, it’s reportedly the first time the FBI has investigated foreign athletes. Dr. Shang, it’s your first time here. I understand you’ve followed the case very closely. Can you first briefly explain what’s happened?
Shang Ximeng
Sure. Since April this year, the United States has been complaining some Chinese swimmers of testing positive for TMZ (trimetazidine) before the 2021 Tokyo Olympics.
In fact, according to the world anti-doping agency, we called it WADA for short, China reported the situation right away and proved through a series of tests that the positive samples were due to environmental pollution of food. Thus, the doping allegations were unfolded. The latest independent investigation holds the same conclusion that China’s handling of the situation should not be appealed. The US unsatisfied with the response and conducted an independent judicial investigation by government. I think there’s a point very interesting that the US chose to have the situation 3 years later, just before the start of the Paris Olympics. I think it’s a pre-calculated move.
Tu Yun
Dr. Qu, your interpretation, then.
Qu Qiang
This is actually a very complicated issue. I think this has many ingredients behind this incident. Political interference is absolutely some factors with a hidden agenda behind the curtain, and also a business interest or business benefit is also very important in here.
Right now, everybody knows that America trying to bash China in many fronts, geopolitically economically, science and technology wise. For sure. And now here comes another very important spotlight event that is the Paris Olympic games. I think America is going to bash China in this important event as well. And also you have to know that swimming is a very important and national sports for America besides some big leagues like the baseball or basketball and American football. Swimming is very, very important in national sports, especially for the normal families, not only for the professional athletes.
And also American Olympic team has won many gold medals. There are no doubt the champions in the whole sports arena. But right now, I think Chinese the sports team is posing a bigger threat towards American swimming team. That’s gonna hurt the image of American swimming sports and hence and drag down a lot of the economic benefit as well as American national image when America right now really wants to make America great again in many aspects including sports. So, I think this is actually a very important competition between China and America, but when the state moved to the sports. So, I think that’s a reason why the whole things happen. And it’s not a one-time thing it happened every time many times from sun yang’s, what we called so called incident to many others. But funny thing is that as one of the biggest swimming athlete country, America actually has most of the scandals of the anti-doping.
So I think this is something really worth our digging into.
Tu Yun
Mr. bai, I understand what are actually didn’t publicize details of this incident back in 2021 when it actually happened. Why is that?
Bai Xianyue 05:20
Legally speaking, according to the rules and procedures of water, what itself has the discretion to make decision on? Whether to publicize a certain incident or not, it has the ultimate power to make a ruling on this, make a decision on this regarding this particular incident that happened. Water is not obliged to make it publicize, because there were no allegations. There were no any sanctions made or any suspicion of a section made. What itself is not legally is being done an obligation to publicize it, because within its discretion, after a quite extensive investigation, it comes to the conclusion that there’s no legal ground to make any allegation or to make any sanction against the Chinese athletes and the Chinese swimming association.
This is not something to be publicized, and it doesn’t have to.
Tu Yun
I understand Dr. Qu has been cooperating with the China’s Olympic committee very closely, right? Since the 2008 Olympics, how often does it happen? I a government accusing another country or athletes of another country, wrongdoings, just before a grand event to take place like the Paris Olympics. Dr. Qu.
Qu Qiang
I’m not a quite an anti-doping expert, so I didn’t keep on tap about when there is an accusation from the government, or when there’s an accusation from the water war.
When there’s an accusation from another swimming association of another country, I don’t keep track record of that, but according to my memory that happens really, really frequently, I still remember back in the 2021, I think Sun Yang got involved in such kind of an accusation, because we’re in the same chat group.
So, I can tell that Sun Yang was really not in a very good mood, but there are many troublesome things need to be done to get over that kind of an accusation or legal procedure.
So, it’s been dragging down the athlete to a very, very large extent.
For example, when you are in such kind of the lawsuit or that kind of the discussion, you cannot participate in the national team’s training, and you cannot get your entitlement in the commercials. You cannot go to all kinds of the international competitions, so that will largely drag down your international ranking and also delaying your performances. This is gonna be very huge problems. And we have been witnessing the things that before the 2008, Beijing Olympic games in 2004, Olympic games.
And also, we’ve been witnessed the things happening in Tokyo Olympic games as well. Beijing winter Olympic games are similar. Accusation always happens from all kinds of front. Right? So, I think this is more like a strategy or tactic from those leading countries in certain sports. For example, in America, as I mentioned, America is probably in number one country ranking according to the international ranking in swimming. China we are catching up very, very fast because we break down one of the superstitions that caused that death. People of Asian races cannot swim that fast. So, basically we have already tear down the superstition. This is just a phony baloney. China is ranking number two international and catching really fast, for example, for the 4 times 100 meter madly of the men’s this is probably representing the holistic comprehensive level of one country’s swimming level. American is number one effort now and China is catching really, really closely in number two and in certain international competition. China also gets the championship but beat America.
So I think right now there’s a feeling of the threatening in American sports of swimming that China is going to catch up and overrun. I think America pulled it off as a strategy or tactic, fight to drag down Chinese teams to performances. And this is what we call the dirty play, and not only happened in a swimming pool, but also in many other fronts, for example, on the tracks and fields.
For example, in other sports, this has been frequently meadow area. But as we still need to mention that according to what America is, the largest country against the doping rules. Right now, I think in America team, there are more than 400 swimmers are under the TUE, the rules, which is the therapy use exemption rules, which means I’m under the therapy. So probably my drug intake will affect my urine test results. So I can avoid that. I can have the exemption. So, this is very unfair. So, I think we need to fix that situation really seriously,
Tu Yun
Dr. Qu suggested some motivation behind this. I’m not sure what our lawyer here, Mr. Bai would say.
Bai Xianyue
I can agree with Dr. Qu said to a certain extent that is those type of investigations allegations acquired common to see happening over the years, because anti-doping is really a highly disputable area.
And nowadays because the advancement technology, doping cases come up all the time across the world in the sports arena. And those major countries in terms of sports, like China, like US and other countries, we have to deal with this type of issue that come up so frequently, right? It’s not uncommon to see.
Also, in this case, for example, the US and developing agency, they have been very active, including those agencies in other European countries. For example, they have been frequently attacking others at the doping agencies, including water in terms of the handling of particular cases. Because it is really a fair play issue, because one of the principles of an Olympic committee is to clean sport. Everybody has a stake in a clean sport, and particularly those the anti-doping agencies across the world, the athletes themselves, the national Olympic committees, etc. Everybody wants to make sure that helps athletes are competing at a level of field, and there’s no unfair advantage.
As doping is used for enhancing their performance, etc. I think there’s a distinction that we should make here. That is what the US law enforcement is doing is within the framework of a domestic legal system. And what we frequently see happening over the years that involve anti-doping issues are usually cars that is caught up to super sports and water. That is the global authority on anti-doping issues. What WADA does is something parallel to what the US law enforcement can do it. So those are parallel different procedures. They very seldom would cross path. Really. So, they completely different separate legal systems going on. So, we should be aware of the differences between them.
Tu Yun
Right? Like mister I just mentioned it’s within the US domestic legal framework will talk more about that later, but Dr. Shang, like Mr. Bai just mentioned that it’s not mandatory for WADA to reveal the doping case that happened in 2021 involving Chinese athletes. Neither, it’s mandatory for those athletes to speak it publicly.
So I’m wondering whether it seems like WADA exercise their favoritism and try to cover up the truth as alleged by you saw the chief executive Travis Tygart?
Shang Ximeng
Okay, I think there’s reasons below first and most important according to what the regulations athletes who are proven no false should not be disclosed to the public. That’s a rule. And actually, there were many cases that testing positive caused by the pollution of the environment, including American athletes as well. And all the testing procedures complying with WADA regulations, and there was no evidence of doping violations by the Chinese swimming team. And even the positive samples contained only a very small amount of TMZ, which would have no impact on the composition results.
Anyway. I can give you an example in 2018 American swimmer Madison Cox. I remember that’s the name Madison Cox. She tested positive for TMZ during training in Texas, and she was banned for 2 years, but the ban was reduced because the source of TMZ could not be proven. So that’s a question.
Tu Yun
So you’re saying WADA is not biased towards any Chinese athletes here, right?
Shang Ximeng
I think it’s obviously that WADA has no bias towards China. And the latest investigation shows the same conclusion.
Tu Yun
Then Mr. Bai, reports say the US government has launched a criminal investigation, and you’ve served as an arbitrator for several institutions, including the court of arbitration for sport. So to your knowledge, can the US side actually refer the case to the CAS?
Bai Xianyue
This is a very interesting question. First of all, I think there are a few issues we have to clarify before we delve into this question.
For example, when you talk about the US as I said earlier, what the US Law enforcement government is now doing, according to the press, is really a criminal investigation within the legal framework of the US legal system. So, I have nothing to do with, but it has little to do with what is gonna happen or could happen at the level of a cost. So, we talk about the used first of all, it cannot be the US government or any executive branches of the judicial legislative authorities. None of them has a legal standing before caste court arbitration for support. That is, which is non-government, non-profit dispute resolution institution, established under the Swiss private international law. So, it doesn’t have a jurisdiction over the government authorities or several states. A vice versa. State of government does not appear in custody proceedings, usually probably in exceptional cases that hasn’t happened so far. In addition, the only US authority organization might be involved and probably will be involved.
As we discussed today in the US anti-doping agency, which is NGO by nature as well. Moreover, you startup that is the US anti-doping agency. It does not have a proper legal standing or legal course of action to refer the case to costs either, because none of the current roles, according to water would allow such a proceeding for the USADA to bring an action against the water. Or because apparently USADA is the national branch of WADA.
And regarding this case, there’s no sanction whatsoever announced by WADA against any athletes or the China swimming association. So know what a prescribed proceeding against China athletes or China swimming association was ever instigated. There’s no decision to be appealed against at the cost level. Furthermore, you saw it as a national branch, as I said, not legally entitled to a pure and action against water according to the rules of water.
Tu Yun
So you’re saying what the US side has done has no problem at all.
Bai Xianyue
Procedures are two different questions. As I said, those are two parallel, different proceedings happening at different levels and within different framework. Right? So, whether US government, the law enforcement does, is to carry out what they think appropriate or for whatever reasons that has been triggered within the framework of the US legal system.
So that is completely up to themselves. But what will happen or could happen at the level of class is something completely different. And you said that is not an institution that represents the US government at all. This is purely domestic or international non-governmental agency, so
Tu Yun
We can leave CAS aside, right?
Bai Xianyue
All right. Then let’s turn to the responses from the concerned parties in response to the US concerns, Swiss prosecutor eric cartier was invited to lead an independent investigation into the case. And according to his latest interim report, WADA did not show bias, like a Dr. Shang mentioned, and it was reasonable for WADA not to appeal the decision of the China anti-doping agency not to punish the athlete, but it seems courtiers report wasn’t persuasive enough to the US side.
So why wouldn’t the US listen to what an independent investigator has to say? Maybe this question goes to Dr. Qu or Dr. Shang.
Shang Ximeng
Thanks for the question. I think, to the United States, the investigation results are not important at all. The American government, they just want to disrupt the Chinese swimming team before the Olympics. Let’s face it. The Chinese swimming team had a very strong performance and records over the past 2 years. Qin Haiyang may be the new king of the breaststroke and Pan Zhanle set a new world record in freestyle swimming. And we just posting a huge challenge to the US we can be a threat to them for one of their most popular sports in Paris.
For instance. During the 2008, Beijing Olympics swimming events were scheduled in the morning in Beijing time, so they could be broadcast during prime time in the US it’s just showing how much this sports matters to Americans, so they just can’t stand. You become a threat to them. During the Paris Olympics.
Qu Qiang
I think probably a lot of people don’t understand why they bothered so much to use the national machine to just to accuse the 23 Chinese swimmers, young people.
Why bother to do that? But we have to understand that swimming is a very important business in America business world. You see, in America, only the American swimming association, just a guess. How much of their annual budget they have every year? I can tell it is about a U.S.$40 million worth of the budget for only have hundreds of the director employees in that association are supporting, like hundreds of these athletes to go to the international all kinds of competition and contest. That’s the management expenses only. We’re not talking about commercial endorsement. We’re not talking about all kinds of the spokesperson fee and etc. This is a huge, actually, very, very huge businesses. And behind that, this is a whole what we call the swimming society.
For example, there are many swimming pool, equipment, training companies behind that are many of them. They just get listed, for example, the pool, as also the Hayward holding and Leslie and those are very strong companies get listed in America. And just to hold a pool company, they have the category of the product more than 200,000. Home depot probably is another big name. Everybody is familiar with in America. Because in America, there is one standard if you want to try to buy a big villa or buy a big house. Swimming pool is like something standard to distinguish you from just a normal home. You will probably purchase all kinds of SKU and home depot to improve your swimming pool and where to hire professional constructors to do. So, the contractors will give you very nice pool to elevate the whole community’s price or the house prices. You see, from the top to the downstream, there is a whole value chain concerning the swimming is not just a sport, it’s a whole industry, it’s a lifestyle. It’s American dream.
If an Asian race, an Asian country beat America in a swimming pool, just imagine how much of the damage this is going to cost you. The whole industry to be fair. I think if American team beat Chinese ping pong team, just imagine how much the blow and damage are gonna cost to Chinese ping pong sports industry.
Well, fair enough, right? So I think they will pull anything they can have at their hands to stop Chinese swimming team to get into the championship for good, even though we have ping pong as important as American swimming, but we wouldn’t have the dirty play. What we will do is swim or train our ping pong players to the best. And only by doing that, we don’t think have this dirty play is off or in line with the Olympic spirit. Even if you win it, it’s not a very good thing to be brag about. So I think this is the culture differences, because I think sometimes in America, they have to go for a spirit or can do spirit in a positive way. Yes. They always try to be the best, but in a negative way, they always do whatever they can at their expense. And then sometimes this caused a very bad backfire and negative blow to the sustainability of the sports in many other areas.
Tu Yun
You’re saying they’ll do whatever they can to maintain their dominance.
Qu Qiang
Take a look at the international politics, take a look at the whatever other areas. This is probably a very common rule when American participated in the game, right?
Tu Yun
It’s not unfamiliar to us. Mr. bai, are you? I’m not sure you’re whether you are in a good position to make comment on this, why the US side wouldn’t accept the independent investigation by the Swiss prosecutor Eric Cartier.
Bai Xianyue
I have a different perspective to look at this issue. All right. First of all, overall, I don’t think the kind of a skepticism demonstrated by the US are by some of the US officials or people. Working. You said that in the US anti-doping agencies, this is not something kind of unusual or anything that we should panic or anything. We find shocking, whatever. This is something quite natural and quite usual for people to react to.
First of all, this is not a matter whether they should listen to or accept the report of the independent investigation. We have to accept that it’s not a dispute that any individual organization who has a stake in clean sport does have the right to voice their concerns or even doubts. We should find it’s just a matter of life. I that happens all the time. The real issue we should be concerned about we should really look into is whether such doubts or skepticism or even accurate decision is well justified or well corroborated by so many evidence. I think we should support anyone. We don’t have an issue with anyone who want to ask some questions and who are doing everything to uphold the spirit of sports and the principle of each other. It’s okay to reach the concerns and make efforts to maintain the integrity of the sports. Those are well intentioned, right? You said this is something we should welcome. Given time we should also have the right to defend rule law, a transparency of proceedings as well as a due or process.
We wouldn’t welcome, and we don’t think it is something appropriate to do. That is to make some baseless allegations. Those are something that we wouldn’t support and I wouldn’t applaud.
Tu Yun
Obviously, we respect their right to do so. By the like a Dr. Qu mentioned earlier, this comes at a very sensitive moment, right? Only 3 weeks before the Paris Olympics kicks off, it might generate some negative impact on, especially on the mentality of those Chinese athletes. Shouldn’t people be concerned about that, too?
Bai Xianyue
It certainly to be fair, it definitely will, particularly for the Chinese athletes and the China swimming association is kind of unfair. And it comes at a time. All athletes are busy, getting prepared for the upcoming Olympic games, which is only a few days away. And I guess it can cause a lot of stress to them as well. So it’s a something they probably would have to cope with. It’s kind of a stressful.
But in terms again, going back to the Poland made just now, you suddenly know anyone in who has a stake in the sports industry while in sports, in swimming. In particular. I think again, it is up to them to make whatever comment they want. It is definitely within their rights to do so. For our side, I guess this is something we have to live with being athletes at an international level, being very competitive in the Olympic games level.
Those are the things that you have to deal with on a daily basis. And particularly for swimming, anti-doping and doping cases comes up all the time.
Tu Yun
The US side is able to do all these, just because it has a domestic law, right? And they can outreach their arms wherever they want to. Right? How often does such a scenario happen? When a national government is subpoenas, the head of an international organization, right? And the US has served B rent Nowicki, the executive director of world aquatics. The federation said Nowicki is working to schedule a meeting with the US government, which in all likelihood, will obviate the need for testimony before a grand jury. Mr. Bai, can they actually ignore such subpoenas?
Bai Xianyue
Again, as I said, those subpoenas are proceedings happening within the framework of the US domestic legal system. Yeah. Given this case, I think the WADA has made it pretty clear in various statement. Over the past few weeks, what I apparently had revealed the case file very diligently, and they have consulted with various experts, both scientific and legal experts. They have carried out extensive research and investigation. It is only after quite aa long, lengthy period of investigation. They came to the conclusion that they will not challenge the food contamination scenario. There’s no need to make an appeal to cars to basically challenge the decision of the China anti-doping agency. So, this case is very, I think very solid. So, the conclusion the decision made by but is something that they can definitely defense.
There’s nothing what has high data from the public. There’s nothing suspicious. So basically, every question has been answered. Every suspicion has been cleared, and it is definitely a well-founded decision supported by sufficient solid evidence and files. So, for the officials of what I don’t think, in terms of the domestic investigation, the criminal investigation by the US law enforcement agency, I would say I don’t think they would try to ignore such subpoena, but first of all, there’s no need for them to do so.
And legally speaking, I’m not the US law expert, but I think it might not be advisable to explore this. They’d better not to do that, because there’s nothing to be worried about. There’s nothing to hide. Maybe if they believe there’s nothing illegal, why don’t they simply cooperate and do what they can to basically exonerate themselves and clarify all the issues that has been unanswered. It’s up to themselves to make decision and up to water to make decision on this. They can if that’s their decision, but ii don’t know it could be consequences depending on what decision they’re making in this.
Tu Yun
Remember, the FBI actually arrested that FIFA officials right in Switzerland back in 2015. That’s what they do. They want to arrest someone using their own domestic laws, right?
Bai Xianyue
That’s a different, although I don’t know all the details of that case, but according to what I have learned from the past several years, that’s something like also, at least according to my impression that seems to be a completely different case. There was a very solid allegation supported by evidence, the existence of suspicion of a criminal offense, in particular, corruption issues, bribery issues. The prosecutor has, I guess, I get a sufficient evidence leading to that legal action against those particular individuals at FIFA. That is also probably, I’m not sure, though, aa result of aa collaboration, kind of a legal collaboration, judicial collaboration between several different countries.
So this is not as simply a one sided, I guess, legal action by the US government only. It is really a result of the discussion, a long-term discussion, quite extended eyes, I guess, discussion, collaboration and cooperation between judicial authorities in several US between several euro European countries and the US in that case, ii guess a allegation and criminal charge has been officially made after quite extensive investigation over the years.
So, this case, what we are talking about today is something completely different. Don’t think there’s any evidence. There’s any basis for any criminal charge to be made. And it’s very unlikely to happen at all, because what has been very transparent and has been very responsive as well to the media, to the press, to use other as well. And so far use out of the us anti-doping agency has not come up with any specific evidences to support its allegations against the Chinese athletes in China. Swimming associations, the all the detailed files and documents has been made public. It is accessible to the public. And you sudden, basically, so far has made some really empty accusations without any specific evidence to support it. So, in this case, there’s no chance, I think, very little chances for the u side of all the US law enforcement authorities to come up with a criminal charge whatsoever,
Tu Yun
Especially when given that there is only 2 weeks to go before they, right?
A response on the Chinese side, neither its anti-doping agency nor any swimmers have actually reacted to the US move the New York Times published an article saying the issue has been debated widely abroad. While China has remained virtually silent. So, Dr. Qu, do you think any of them should come out and say something about this
Qu Qiang
In China? We have some old wisdom from ancient time. He says Confucius used to tell us if a dog bites, you bite the dog bike. I don’t think so.
Whenever a dog bark at you or bite you as a man or woman, you are not supposed to bark back or bite back. This is not very wise thing to do. Look, we have something called the criminal assumption, right? Or non-criminal assumption. Whatever it is, we can just ask our lawyer here. So, which means if they accuse you to be criminal, it’s their responsibility to prove it, not your responsibility to defend yourself. So, this is a basic rule of law. So I don’t think Chinese men and women athletes need to do anything to defend themselves. In this case. It’s just some trick, some tactic, as I just mentioned many times. And also this is like a very common play book about in the international competing sports. So, if you accuse, they have some problems to prove it yourself, flight check or something else do whatever you need to do, or do the jurisdiction of the long arm you can do. And I think that’s something you need to do your job. When it comes to our job, if when we really need to do something, I think Chinese side will fight back as long as they are necessary to do so, but not now.
Tu Yun
All right. When Dr. Shang, how do you expect this to affect China’s national swimming delegation to the Paris Olympics? Do you think it will affect their morale?
Shang Ximeng
Since April, Chinese swimmers have continued to perform at a high-competitive level indicating that they have not been significantly affected by this issue. But after they arrived in Paris, things may be different. The foreign media may continuously track and disturb the preparation process of our team. And what is worrisome is that maybe some foreign swimmers, such as American superstar and world record holder Lily King, she has claimed on her social media that this is unfair to American swimmers. I think it may hurt the image of Chinese swimmers. And it will be regrettable if unfriendly behavior towards since Chinese athletes occurs during the Olympic games, since they may warm up and practice in the same pool before the contest begins. So that kind of things might be happened.
Tu Yun
And Dr. Qu, do you have any concern that what happened to Sun Yang at the Olympic podium may happen to those Chinese swimmers this time?
Qu Qiang
Sun Yang’s case is very unique, because they’re targeting at one athlete alone. It’s like, you’re attacking a little sheep, dragging behind the whole heart. It’s very dangerous for the roof back to chase one just little sheep, but right now you’re targeting at the whole pack. I the whole Chinese swimming team like 23 of them. And that makes the case very, very hard to form, right? I don’t think they can easily to do that this time
Bai Xianyue
Regarding the potential in negative impact on Chinese national swimming delegation to the Olympic games. No, I don’t think so. I don’t think he didn’t have any major impact on China national swimming continent to the Paris Olympic games.
They should not be distracted by the media highway and the wrongful allegations, having been able to compete at the such a high, the top level of the word sports of swimming. I believe they have the ability to cope with this type of pressure. They should be aware that when it comes to doping, disputes or scandals or allegations, the press across the world are always super attentive. They are much more likely to make a storming and take off. This is not uncommon, and it happens all the time. So, the athletes should get over it at such a discretion and focus on their games and the competition. I believe they have the ability to do so, and they have done so over the years. And it’s part of my life being the best athletes of the world. Those are the things you expect to happen all the time and that there’s something you should get worried. There’s a part of the quality of being the best athletes.
Tu Yun
So, you earlier you mentioned that the FBI or the US investigators, they need a lot of intensive work before they can actually draw some conclusion there.
So how likely do you think the US investigation may come up with a conclusion of no foul play as WADA and world aquatics have concluded, Mr. Bai.
Bai Xianyue
First of all, I think, by all, means this seems to be the only viable conclusion they will make, given what has been reviewed so far following the extensive investigation, huge amounts of documents collected and attended and professional consultations conducted with legal expert and scientific experts, etc.
And secondly, the US law enforcement, I guess, will have its own sort of proceedings to follow. This is something that we are not in a position to comment. But those are something that probably will not disclose to the public anytime soon. Again, I am back to the issue of the substance of this matter. The criminal investigation is something completely different from the anti-doping rules itself. And the US legal authority and the legal enforcement agencies, they will take their course. And when we see what happens. And in addition, the British and Chinese or agency and organizations have a demonstrate very good faith cooperation. China anti-doping organization, the generator, has also offered a substantive materials and files, supporting evidence, which all indicate the convincing conclusion has just as what has publicly stated.
So, it’s very likely, I guess, after some investigation, the US investment will come to a similar or exactly identical conclusion as what has publicized
Tu Yun
Some American lawmakers wouldn’t let it go. Some of them have raised the prospect of the US stopping funding for WADA if things don’t go, as they hope. So, Dr. Shang, how likely is that?
Shang Ximeng
Okay, I think this is not the first time that the United States has made fundings against WADA. In 2020, the US threatened funding reduction if whether didn’t give them a representative position strong enough. If the US refused to pay its membership, whether can declare the US in violation of the world anti-doping code, and their athletes might lose their rights to participate in major sports events like Olympic games.
I think the likelihood is low. There’s something to supplement the appointment of others. Budget is determined through negotiations among governments. The proportion is determined by two main factors, sports, one is sports strength, and the other is economic indicators. With its strong sports and highly developed economy. The United States has an obligation to bear a large share of the cost, right?
Tu Yun
If it’s just that if the US decides to cancel its funding for WADA, how would the agency be affected? Would it be a big bowl to the agency, Dr. Shang?
Shang Ximeng
I think that things may not happen because it will lead the American athletes lose their rights to participate almost all the major sports events around the world.
Tu Yun
Then Mr. Bai, you mentioned, it’s quite likely that the US investigators may come up with a conclusion that may go in line with what WADA said before. But what scenario may we see if the US investigation results come out on the eve of the games and an unfavorable judgment is made against WADA or anyone the US targets? Can we see the FBI arresting athletes or people in the Olympic village? Or the swimming pool, like what they did in back in 2015 to FIFA officials?
Bai Xianyue
That would be an extremely dramatic scenario to see how many I don’t think again, as I said earlier, that this is not going to happen. Is it very unlikely? It’s extremely unlikely? I think the reason being, basically, I’m gonna repeat what I said just now. The substance of the case doesn’t indicate any likelihood of possibility of any scenario that would lead to what you handed it to just now.
First of all, such, an investigation is not very likely to call anytime soon. And usually it takes quite aa long proceeding. In addition, it is extremely unlikely that they will find any evidence leading to any suspicion of a criminal offense. Like, as I said, what the US law enforcement agency is doing is basically to carrying criminal investigation within the framework of the us domestic law. In this case, I guess instigating the proceeding itself doesn’t necessarily mean there’s any criminal offense involved. And in particular, this is something that happened. What’s the allegation involves is something happened in China. There is no official kind of a judicial collaboration between China and the US in this area, I guess. So it is be very difficult for the US to carry out any substantive investigation. And what has happened, what has been reviewed to the public, according to the press? Is pretty crystal clear. I think, again, as I said, WADA has done a superb job. They have carried out quite extensive research and investigation. They have visited science, they have consulted with the China anti-doping agency. They have prepared a quite a detailed and letting a report on this and spent a lot of time and made a lot of efforts trying to find out what happened.
The truth, the relevant people involved in those the athletes themselves, the officials of the China anti-doping agencies and they have also consulted with the scientific experts and have attended their professional opinion on this. And none of them raised any questions? And all the evidence, all the expert opinions, point to the basically the same direction. That is not a big deal. There’s no need, and there’s no legal ground to make any allegations or any sanctions. There’s no need to make any sanctions against the Chinese athletes. So, this case is pretty clear. It would be hard to imagine how they can ever establish criminal charge based on such a strong and conclusive evidence against it
Tu Yun
so far, but whether or not the US investigators may succeed in their attempts. This is not the first time the US has applied one armed jurisdiction, right? Let’s zoom out for a moment to take a look at the wider implications of their move. Dr. Qu, how do you think the US law and armed jurisdiction may impact the Olympic movement? It seems it’s becoming a growing tendency right out there.
Qu Qiang
I don’t think this time they were gonna actually affect the result in Paris Olympic games or affect the IOC decision on training swimmers. It’s very different from the WTO because trade or WTO mechanisms, like more like a multilateral place for bilateral relations.
For example, if you want to join the WTO you basically need to talk to all the traders are trading partners one by one, until you can reach multiple bilateral agreement with the trading partners. And then you can join in the WTO so that how it works. For example, if America tries to put some three or one sanctions on or investigations on China, or try to pull or some anti-dumping investigation on China, they can’t do that because it’s more like a bilateral relation. They are not forbidding Chinese product to sell to Thailand or to Malaysia, but they can forbid Chinese product to be sold in American market. That’s their right to do so. But for the IOC is quite a different story, because if they wanted to block training swimmers to get into the game, is not like a bilateral thing, not just American swimmers competing with Chinese swimmers is more like and everybody getting together.
They need to have the dominant, say, in the IOC and voting rights or they can get enough votes in the IOC swimming comedy or swimming association. Then they can block Chinese team out. I still remembered what they did to Russian athletes. What they do is that they get enough votes to vote Russian players out or devote them that they cannot use Russian national teams. Name to play in the game. They can only use the individual athletes name to play in the game because they get in a vote. I don’t think this time they can put it off because no other country is so vouchering for a voting for Americans initiative to block Chinese swimmers or have any doping test for the Chinese swimmers. So, I think this is just a strategy or tactic to disrupt Chinese swimmers performances.
Tu Yun
Actually, Richard Pound, the founding father of a modern anti-doping, who was also the first WADA president and vice president of the IOC, has also criticized the US move. He said, I think the danger is that the USA is turning itself into its own kind of a rogue state. I don’t understand the end game USADA has in mind. Is it the dismantlement of the carefully constructed international system and going back to the wild west where everyone has their own rules and no oversight. So, Dr. Qu, lastly, but why do you think it’s becoming a growing tendency?
Qu Qiang
I think that warning is actually very, very blunt and straightforward. You sort of actually is the one who abused. There’s an exemption rose for American swimmers to the largest extent. And water actually sometimes. Because American come on, we have to admit American swimmers actually made a great contribution to the sports and not only influential, but also economically because there are many American swimming companies who are devices to equipment companies behind that and supporting the whole sports. Because in the whole swimming ecology, you need every kind of players, sports, people, media, infrastructure, builders, technology, and pharmaceutical companies. You need everybody. So America because we’re dominance and again, economic power and also in the sports influences or media, they have made contribution to the whole sports. I think based on that, there’s a hidden rule in that. As long as you didn’t cross the line, sometimes your athlete, if they want to use some dope up to cheer themselves, up to have better performance, as long as this doesn’t go wild, probably what I will just to take a blind eye on them.
But right now, you want to use this, like, just I mentioned, there are more than 400 American swimmers under the toe rules to protect them the performances and to or defend themselves against all kinds of the drug checks. But now not only you wanna use it for yourself to enhance your performances, but also, you’re gonna use the anti-doping groups against other people. It’s like yourself and you’re going to deep off or deep perk other countries, team and use this as a public alibi or excuses to fight against or bash other players. This is cross the line. You can use the rule or you can use a rule to the most, and you are using the anti-rule to fight another country or other countries. Or sometimes you are like putting your partner or putting your friends at a dangerous position.
Now they’re gonna do. Right? If they examined China, they examined Malaysia, examined Australia, are they entitled to examine American swimming team? Or how about the other member countries? For example, many of the other countries, China, Russia, and Australia, England, they require together to check the TMZ or a doping situation in American swimming team. How does water should react to that? If the water finally decided there’s a pressure in here, I have to check your athlete and they find out many of your athletes are right now under all kinds of the doping, then how the authority or credibility of the water will go. So you’re putting WADA at a very dangerous position. I think that’s the reason why people in WADA stands out to woman. America don’t play the dangerous game. You are already establishment in this area and don’t push it. Okay. So, I think that’s something really need to be paid attention to.
Tu Yun
Indeed, the last question to Mr. Bai and Dr. Shang, do you have any concerns that the US non-armed jurisdiction may have a negative impact on the Olympic movement?
Shang Ximeng
The current geopolitics of world sports is composed of three main elements, the IOC of areas of international sports federations and the national Olympic committees of each country along with some satellite organizations. So, it also perfects the judicial process through the court of arbitration for sports and whether the long arm in jurisdiction by the US actually is an attempt to break the existing international sports power structure to gain, control over the discourse in sports and gain the right to adjudicate sports conflicts.
So even checked. It will damage the reputation of the Olympic movement to be higher, faster, stronger, and together. And actually, the builder of the modern Olympics, Pierre Coubertin. He established the Olympic partly to emirates, the ancient Olympic truce and offering a peaceful resolution in the world rife with conflict. But this somewhat contradictionary starting point has been termed the competent dilemma by a French scholar whose name ii just can’t recall, but which refers to the inherent contradiction between the nonpolitical aspiration for peace through sports and the use of sports as a tool of power.
We must clearly recognize that although the non-policy of sports is the fundamental value of the modern Olympic games, the politics is never far away. It always here. It’s always in the Olympic games.
Tu Yun
Then, Mr. Bai, please.
Bai Xianyue
First of all, this is a legitimate concern. I have to say, in addition, ii guess there are different perspectives to look at this issue. On one hand, you can put this in a negative light. And also, there is something, I think, encouraging that we have to be aware of as well. So this long-arm jurisdiction, there must be a political and judicial consideration for the US to do so to have the law in place to make sure that he has the jurisdiction over some of the suspected criminal investigations and criminal offense, et cetera.
If you look back on the history of Olympic games or Olympic movement in the past few decades, one of the reasons why the Olympic games has a special, what we call an ad hoc division for each addition of the Olympic games, is what happened during 1996 when the Atlanta Olympic games and the summer Olympic games took place in the US.
At the time they had always been a debate, a discussion going on for a while, how to sort of divide the jurisdiction, return Olympic committee, and national domestic, legal jurisdiction. And there had been widespread concerns, particularly from the Olympic committee on some of the potential dispute that might arise very naturally during Olympic games, because it is such a huge event.
So many athletes are involved, so many government officials and sports officials from national Olympic committee, et cetera. So it’s only natural to expect some dispute to arise. So that is why Olympic committee after a consultation discussion with the US government, that the idea is basically to tell to the US legal authority, whatever dispute that might arise during the Olympic games. Please don’t step in. You’re none of your business. Please leave that for the jurisdiction of court opposition, for sports that is cast. We should delineate the scope of the jurisdiction of cars, from the domestic legal jurisdiction of the US law of enforcement or the US judicial systems. Otherwise, there would be conflict that can arise, which would be something the IOC the international Olympic committee would want to see. This is not something that it won’t happening. And so that’s when the IOC and US government and the US legal authority decided to allow the establishment of the first edition of the ad hoc division of the Olympic games for the Atlanta summer Olympic games.
So, both IOC and US are pretty clear. This is something aa ongoing kind of debates. There will be always a blurred lines to clarify on which authority has jurisdiction over certain issues. So back to the question of the long jurisdiction, the potential impact on Olympic movement, I think the debate will continue to go on. There will always be issues coming up down the road, going forward in the coming few years with each addition of the summer Olympic games, with some of the sports events going on under the umbrella of the Olympic movement. There will be always issues to be sorted out, and there will be always a debate on which authority has the jurisdiction over certain issues. When it comes to the other side of the coin, that is the US long arm jurisdiction, sometimes probably will have a deterrent effect on some of the potential, perpetuating some of the people who intended or considering some criminal activities like what we discussed.
Just now. What happened at FIFA? A few years ago, the sports authority or the sports community across the world. I think most of them would welcome some of the criminal activities are being taken care of are being dealt with in a legal way. Otherwise, the corruption that has been very rampant for a while within FIFA. This is something that wouldn’t want to see happening again. So, there are different kind of perspective to look at this issue. I don’t hope that the US long arm jurisdiction will interfere with the domestic affairs of Olympic committee and disrupt or distract the attention of American Olympic movement of hope.
The US legal authority would play a positive role in promoting the spirit of the Olympic games and uphold the principles of Olympic China and to defend the legitimate purposes and goals of our Olympic committee.
