DM Monitoring
Intro:
The World Anti-Doping Agency, or WADA, is stepping up efforts to defend its authority. For the first time, WADA will take the US Anti-Doping Agency, also known as USADA, to an independent court for compliance review as the latter is allegedly involved in data breach activities. What signal is WADA trying to send out with this landmark move? If USADA is found in breach of the world anti-doping code, what consequences will it face? And what implications does WADA’s move mean for the global sporting community?
Host Tu Yun joins Dr. Qu Qiang, a Fellow of the Belt and Road Research Center, Minzu University of China, Dr. Wang Zhengxu, a professor from the School of Public Administration, Zhejiang University, and Edward Lehman, the Founder and Managing Director of China-based law firm Lehman, Lee & Xu for a close look at the issue on this episode of Chat Lounge.
The following content was transcribed by AI, so there may be some minor errors.
Tu Yun
So, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) will, for the first time, take the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) to an independent court for compliance review. This landmark move, expected later this month, is a result of a dispute provoked by the U.S. It claims that the world doping watchdog exercised favoritism in the doping incident involving Chinese swimmers before the Tokyo Olympics.
We actually discussed this issue 3 weeks ago after the U.S. government launched criminal investigations against WADA based on its domestic law, which allows U.S. officials to prosecute doping globally.
First question to all of you. Let’s begin with Dr. Qu. Were you surprised at WADA’s latest move?
Qu Qiang
Yes, I’m a little bit surprised because water is usually well considered a little bit in favor of the you startup, because according to the past few years, the drug pass carried out towards all the swimmers. Chinese swimmers actually enjoyed, quote, by, quote, privilege of frequent checks, like 4 times more than average, and US swimmers basically have zero check on the drugs.
So, people are saying WADA probably have a more of the special relation with USADA and supporting US swimmers. But this time, it’s a bit surprise to me that WADA actually acted very swiftly, denied all kinds of the false accusation towards Chinese swimmers by USADA and also carried out more of the further actions towards the USADA.
I think they are trying to make things right and trying not to go very far from the rules. And I think this is actually a good information, good message sent.
Tu Yun
Actually, it was only 3 weeks ago we talked about this. The development seems a little bit fast, right, Dr. Qu?
Qu Qiang
Yes, the development seems fast because like 3 weeks ago, we can discuss this because you sort of actually put out of all kinds of the accusation towards Chinese swimmers. And after that, WADA actually answered their request and carried out some certain routine check on the Chinese swimmers’ drug intake situation before the Olympic Games. And all the results show that Chinese swimmers are very innocent. So, they have no ground to accuse that what they have already announced for. But they are not satisfied. WADA has done what they need to do according to US request.,But still USADA cannot be satisfied and want to have more of their own independent actions against Chinese swimmers.
I think that move actually agitated WADA and challenged the authority of WADA in the whole world swimming circle. I think that’s the reason why they have the following actions.
Tu Yun
Right. And to Dr. Wang, you’ve been following this incident very closely. What’s your first response to WADA’s latest move?
Wang Zhengxu
I was watching the Olympics and I saw news that Chinese swimming team was treated morespecially, given many more testing than the average. That’s how I got started.
And then I read this report that there is now a dispute between WADA and USADA. I tried to sort this out and I think the issue WADA had with USADA is that USADA and the American government are trying to press WADA for something that is under WADA’s jurisdiction. I think that’s how WADA’s got the feeling it was necessary to take actions because from WADA’s point of view, no matter what the US side is pushing , that is in 2023 Chinese swimmers were tested positive,but according to WADA internal rules, they were cleared later on. So WADA felt some US lawmakers and other people are trying to impose US intentions, US willonto WADA and international organizations. WADA felt its legitimacy was at stake. But something I don’t quite understand is that WADA has its reason to feel that the US anti-doping regime might have some problems might need to go into review,
but the thing I don’t want to say is if this was according to the US people’s accusation, this is a retaliation of WADA.
Tu Yun
That’s what they say.
Wang Zhengxu
A retaliation of WADA to USADA for the US government people trying to impose US internal law over an international organization. I don’t quite understand. If you feel some US lawmakers or activists or lawyers were trying to disrupt WADA’s work, WADA is using the review of USADA as the retaliation. That’s something I feel quite interesting.
Tu Yun
If I remember correctly, that’s what the head of USADA said. I think Mr. Tygart said it’s retaliation from WADA. And to Dr. Lehman, the only American guest here, what’s your first response to this news?
Edward Lehman
Certainly the way that’s been presented seems very troubling for the Chinese and its swimmers. I can certainly say.It was very difficult for me to find about the amount of testing that was going on.
So, these 23 swimmers I would assume, and it’s not very clear, were tested pre the games.
Tu Yun
I think the tests on the Chinese athletes, approximately 200 tests within 10 days.
Edward Lehman
- I’m just saying this is just general information. I can’t confirm or deny it. But that there is testing going on both sides. And it’s a bit fuzzy as far as the statistics that are coming out from both sides. Is there something gonna be going to a court? I just so everyone knows it’s a kind of a special court. It’s the court of arbitration for sports, which is based inLausanne, Switzerland. So, it’s not going to a US court or something like that. And this is all again closed as well. So, it’s WADA versus any organization like USADA that is not complying with the world anti-doping code. So, it’s an arbitration and they have procedures. And there’s a panel of arbitrators. And this all takes place in Lausanne. So, it’s not like a court of law happening in China or the United States. It’s a different kind of thing. And the sports community is what I’m trying to say. They have a kind of closed ecosystem, and they’re trying to keep it within their purview as opposed to something else. So, I am surprised. I do think it’s not fair if that happens. And it is stressful for the athletes. There’s no doubt about that. I do think that there isn’t…
Tu Yun
What do you think is not fair? WADA bringing USADA to the independent court?
Edward Lehman
No, I think that’sfair. I think anytime when people have a dispute, rather than drawing guns on each other, fighting it out, I think it’s better to be going to court.
And I think even though this is a sports arbitration tribunal, it’s called a court. And in sorting it out and having there be some transparency, hopefully with regards to how this is happening. And I think that the problem we have here is lack of transparency. And to study this just objectively from third party sources, it can’t get a clear feed.
Tu Yun
The reason why WADA brought USADA to this independent compliance review court is that there are allegations of illegal contacts, such as data breaches. USADA is allegedly involved in illegal revealing personal information of Chinese athletes. Are you aware of that?
Edward Lehman
Yes, I am. And I obviously that’s verboten, not allowed by any country to be able to do that or any organization to do that. People’s data privacy is taken seriously. And specifically in Europe, they’ve got a whole body of law on data privacy. So, they would have, in essence, violated that if it took place in the run up to the Olympics. The Chinese they’re entitled to protection under the law.
Tu Yun
Does this happen often? According to reports, this is the first time WADA has done this to a country’s anti-doping agency.
Edward Lehman
Yeah, to the best of my knowledge, it’s the first time that it’s been leaked. I sometimes these incidents are leaked by private sources, kind of Julian Assange, not him, but people like him that or of the media that’s trying to get an edge on their news stories, but not an organization per se, I USADA itself. That’s not normal.
And that’s just bad behavior because they’re supposed to be part of the regulatory regime that’s respecting each other’s rights, all across the boards and how they had access to the private information. I don’t know. I would assume that it should have been walled off between the different countries. I can’t imagine Nigeria has, their anti-doping team has availability to data and information across the whole Olympic spectrum. But the fact that America had Chinese names or Chinese information is troubling that they Americans would also be in WADA for sure. And I would imagine Chinese are there as well.
Wang Zhengxu
WADA was saying for the Chinese case in 2021, WADA has properly managed and dealt with it.
And now USADA people and then some law enforcement people in the United States are saying now WADA did a very bad job and the US agenciesneed to get involved or need to persecute someone there. So, I think that’s the dispute. And I think it’s reasonable WADA felt the US law enforcement people are infringing or are imposing US domestic process over an international organization. So WADA felt that is inappropriate. And then what I find interesting is the response from WADA was not in a way to defend WADA’s authority and legitimacy. It’s now saying we are coming to review USADA’s internal process, (whether) USADAis doing the correct job, ensuring the doping issues are being probably managed in the US sports field. I think that’s the core issue here.
Why the Chinese people are unhappy is that the US law enforcement are trying to upset WADA’s decision to clear the 20 some Chinese swimmers for the last and this Olympics. Chinese people are unhappy the US is the interrupting. The second is that so many Chinese swimmers are now for this Olympics are being tested too frequently like 5 times 7 times a day. And then they feel the average performance of Chinese swimmers so far has been much lower compared to the ordinary event. So, I think they feel the Chinese athletes are purposely specifically targeted for many more tests. That I think for the Chinese audience is the issue.
Tu Yun
Right. China’s Anti-Doping Agency has issued statements pointing out that USADA’s actions right before the Paris Olympics might influence the performance of the Chinese swimming team. But we’ll come to that later in the show. So, the core issue here is that WADA is trying to verify if USADA is in breach of the World Anti-Doping Code. Actually, why did WADA’s decision come only 2 days before the Paris Olympics? Dr. Qu, what’s behind the timing of WADA’s move?
Qu Qiang
I think this is actually a very important moment. Olympic Games are a world level show. It’s been closely watched by everybody. If you want to protect your own authority, or if you want to raise your own fame, I think there’s nowhere moreso like the Olympic Games as a better stage. You show up your own image to build your own name, especially current opening ceremony of the Paris Olympic Games had drawn a lot of attention.
So, I think this time, this OlympicGames is actually more than just a sports or culture event. It has become a very popular in a worldwide event paid attention by many other ordinary people, for example, people who do not usually a fan of sports event or culture event due to some other factors. They paid attention to Paris Olympic Games.
I think during this timing, it’s very important for WADA to stand out to make sure that rules they make can be respected by every member country or member region. If they do not make a quicker move to build up their own credit in this area. I think everybody can shit on their head. They will have no credit at all in the future for more of the law enforcement in anti-doping.
Tu Yun
Indeed. And WADA President Witold Banka, when speaking at a meeting of the international Olympic committee in Paris ahead of the games, said if the United States, encouraged by USADA, continues to threaten that harmonization of global anti-doping, it will isolate itself from the global sporting community and carry significant consequences for American sport. Banka also noted the US should make sure its own sporting organizations follow international doping codes before accusing others of illegal enhancing their athletes.
And “the uncomfortable truth for USADA is that it’s failing to address a significant problem, which is that 90 % of American athletes compete outside the protection of the WADA code. So, Dr. Wang, how unusual does Banka’s blunt and harsh rhetoric sound to you?
Wang Zhengxu
I think that’s indeed quite a tough position. And I actually feel it is a counter measure for WADA regarding USADA and the US the law enforcement people’s attempt to pressure WADA to take actions that WADA feels it doesn’t want to. Like I said earlier, it’s about WADA’s legitimacy as a global organization for policing anti-doping issues.
And then some US people feel you have done a terrible job in terms of dealing with one issue. And WADA said “no, we have done this properly. You are not in a position to impose what you believe is the correct thing to do over us. If you continue to do this, we have to give you a response. And then the response is that now we’re going to bring USADA under the review of compliance board. And we all know the anti-doping managed in the United States is 90% of US athletes are not under WADA code. So, it could be some loopholes there that a review process might find.
And then so you should look after your own behavior first and don’t try to impose your intention onto WADA.
Tu Yun
It’s believed the significant consequences for American sport are related to the Olympic Games the U.S. is about to host, namely, the Summer Olympics in Los Angeles in 2028 and the 2034 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. Dr. Lehman, theoretically, under what circumstances will the US be taken away the right to participate in and host the Games?
Edward Lehman
Yeah, I that’s a difficult question to say. Historically speaking, it’s quite difficult to not let countries participate. It hashappened. In 1980, there was a boycott at the Moscow Olympics. In 1984, the Soviet bloc boycotted that. But it’s difficult because I mean China…
Tu Yun
It’s different this time. It’s not about boycotting.
Edward Lehman
No, it’s not about boycotting. You’re exactly right. But they’ve already been named that, I think that the wheels are in motion, no matter what happens unless something catastrophic happens. It’llprobably continue to go forward in those locations because the IOC has made commitments to those two locations.
Also the Olympics is not the bonus that is has been in the past. It’s kind of waned and waxed over the years since 1896 when they started the modern Olympic Games. And there was competition. And now, as you remember, they awarded both Tokyo and Paris at the same time. It wasn’t like there was competition for the bid. So that’s another thing to keep in mind. But your question is, could they do something that would allow them to be eliminated? It’s possible. It’s not probable. This whole thing has to do, by way, if you want to get a little legal background, is the Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act, which was enacted in 2020. And this is a federal law that allows prosecutions of individuals involved in doping schemes at international competitions involving US athletes, sponsors or broadcasters. It provides criminal penalties to those involved in doping conspiracies.
So, when it comes to the United States and even when we’re talking about it now, and I think this is what was mentioned by Mr. Banka was that the fact that you’re getting this long-arm jurisdiction, which says we’re going to surpass WADA, we’re actually going to enforce criminal laws on people, whether that’s in Paris or wherever else it is,
then that makes WADA feel uncomfortable. And it’s kind of usurping their power is they’re not infallible because they’re finalat WADA, but they’re infallible because they’re final. This is what I think is troubling. And that’s why they’re having a look-see at that. But you, like you mentioned, I this long arm statute of the United States is prevalent and has been a part of the global policy for quite some time. It comes down on US citizens, but it also comes down on non-US citizens. Tu Yun
It’s not just about applying US domestic law to foreign athletes or to WADA officials. It’s about whether USADA broke any rules of the world anti-doping code.
So, I think if USADA is found to be in breach of that code, WADA or the IOC will have the authority to revoke, as you said, US right to host the Games, right?
Edward Lehman
But certainly to get those revoked, I think it’s an uphill battle. It could happen, but it’s very difficult for a lot of pragmatic reasons, even though in light of bad activity by the US or USADA or whomever, and not even limiting this to the United States. For countries to lose that right Is very difficult. I can just say from a legal, in a business standpoint because there’s contracts in place and everything else. But it does bring the whole program into disrepute.
And I many are not old enough to remember, but East Germany, they were the vanguard of doping when doping was not a thing. These German swimmers. This has happened. But the reputation of the country is tarnished because of that. I don’t think people recover from that. We’ve had it in the United States in a lot of different sports categories. And I think that it harms the sport for sure.
Tu Yun
But that’s the consequence of USADA’s behavior, right? Dr. Qu, do you think in reality that could happen? Revoking US Olympic host status.
Qu Qiang
We have never seen a case happening before.
Tu Yun
Right? But in reality, do you think it’s likely? Dr. Lehman just said there are a lot of pragmatic issues to be taken into account.
Wang Zhengxu
Yeah, Let me chip in. I actually agree with Dr. Lehman. It will be very unusual, very, very rare that the hostship is removed., Highly unpragmatical.
Tu Yun
Then it’s just a threat by WADA.
Wang Zhengxu
Yeah. WADA is saying the stake is very high. So we hope USADA will find a way to get out and solve this issue.
Tu Yun
Right, Dr. Qu, your take.
Qu Qiang
As I think it’s just a threat. I think eventually it still needs to go through the IOC to decide who is gonna get the hostship. WADA’s opinion is very important for sure, but I think whether they can be strong enough to revoke the hostship or partnership with one of the national Olympic committee is actually well-based on how serious and how true the accusation it is.
For example, if America Olympic Committee or the USADA is organizing all this athlete to take dopes, to enhance their performances, more like an organized crime and then be exposed. And probably if WADA find it out, that can be a very strong reason to revoke the hostship. But if it’s just some disagreement on certain rules or requirements, I don’t think it’s gonna be that serious enough for the IOC to make further move because this is a really big deal.
Tu Yun
What are the major concerns there?
Qu Qiang
There are many concerns, economic concerns, and IOC also has their own authority. If IOC decides one city or one country will host the next Olympic Games, it means IOC has already done thorough investigations and get enough vote for that city or country. And that cannot be easily changed according to just one department testimony. So that will be decided very seriously with many procedures and cannot be decided by just one side accusation unless it’s been really true in a really serious offense of IOC fundamental rules and also international laws.
Edward Lehman
Yeah, I just to add to that just a second for a moment and just support. what was being said is that the ultimate decision is the Olympic Charter. So, it’s a document that outlines the rules and regulations of the Olympic Games. So, the IOC actually, not WADA, makes the decision. And if a country violates the Olympic Charter of the International Olympic Committee, it could take a number of sanctions, including suspension of the Games. But they’ve got to do that and doping is one of those things under the IOC, use of performance ascending drugs or methods.
If the country is found to have systematic doping problem, IOC could ban the country from the Games. It isn’t really outlined in the law that they would revoke somebody who already has the Games. But the IOC may cancel or relocate the Games if there is war, or civil unrest in the country. That’s one of the grounds. And they may cancel or relocate Games if the host country is not able to meet its financial regulations.
So WADA does not really make the decision. They obviously would have to do with the doping issue. And then the IOC would have to consider whether they’ve broken the charter.
Tu Yun
And I think the IOC has already endorsed WADA’s stance on this issue. So, you don’t think the IOC would take the ultimate move.
Edward Lehman
All that may be true. But at the end of the day, this is gonna be an economic decision for the IOC, a contractual decision for the IOC. And then remember also that the wheels of justice turn slow. So, it’s not like they’re gonna announce the case and it’s gonna be heard automatically. There’s gonna be rights of appeal and some other things. And I don’t know whether it will take as long as before the next Olympics roll around.
So it’s unclear as to that, but yeah I they have agreed. But it doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re gonna pull the trigger because of the investment, the sponsors and everything else. For a country to be found non-compliant, it has to first have public reprimands and financial penalties and restrictions of the international competition and suspension of competition. So there’s kind of a whole stair step of things that would come into play, which would affect whether this country would lose their right to host the Olympics. And so, once they’re found guilty of this noncompliance, even though the IOC is supporting WADA, they need still to be found guilty of doing whatever they’re doing, the USADA does not comply.
So that’s the first step. And then the international committees, including the IOC, would exert pressure on the non-compliant country and not necessarily cancel those things. But that kind of fact, like I said, is that the athletes and spectators will lose confidence, obviously, in that the Games are fair, and this is what becomes problematic.
Obviously, Chinese and netizens and folks are thinking this is unfair, whether it is indeed going on or whether it is not, the confidence in the Chinese people that they’re being persecuted is a problem and that needs to be addressed. And it’s not gonna go away until there’s a transparent reckoning as to what’s going on.
Right now, we all don’t have as much information because this is testing and everything is supposed to be private. And like you said, they leaked information about folks, which is completely out of bounds. And so, there’s a possibility, but I also think the pragmatic approach is going to be taking over from there, unfortunately. But I think that would be the case in it. Wish it wasn’t so. But that’s the situation, I think,
Tu Yun
Isn’t USADA aware of the possible consequence that the US may lose the right to host the Olympics? You said it’s highly unlikely for IOC to deprive or revoke US status of hosting the Olympics, so it can continue with its behaviors without any hesitance. How much of an economic concern is it actually for the IOC? Do you have any specific numbers? Are we talking about billions of dollars or anything like that?
Edward Lehman
To the IOC, the harm actually comes to the host city, because as we know from Beijing. And by the way, I’ve acted on behalf of Olympic sports teams during the 2008 Olympics about doping issues, quite a number of them during that time. So, it’s kind of a closed society. And to answer questions specifically with the USADA knowing or not knowing what the rights are. They live in a bit of an echo chamber. Even for us Americans, we are essentially very large nation. We’re separated, except from Mexico and Canada by nations, from with two oceans, generally, and people live in sort of an isolated world.
But then you also take the folks at the USADA or with the Olympic Committee. They’re living in isolation, and they’re living in a whole different kind of world from regular Americans. People in America are very vested in sport as our businesses is our whole wide range of the community. I’m not saying they all play sports, but they talk about it all the time.In essence, I think that they’re living in an ivory tower. I think that they are aware of this. And this is in the interacting myself with the US Olympic Committee and not necessarily USADA directly. But I do think that they’re aware. I do think that they think they’re infallible and not subject to this. And this is my general speculation and observation of being around the community and representing the Olympic Committee and the US Olympic Committee in 2008.
So I think that they don’t feel that’s possible, because the economic consequences and that they believe they contribute a lot more than most other countries to the Olympic ideal or whatever the Games in some way, shape or form. Whether that’s true or not is another thing.
And financially, who would it hit? It would hit the host country because you remember when Beijing put so much money into infrastructure that politically they need those Games to have these contracts to build these facilities and the politicians in America make money.
Maybe some of that trickles off to the US Olympic committee. Maybe it doesn’t. All that stuff is not publicly made available. But what it means to the Olympics, to the IOC is America not participating or being banned from the Olympics for a period of time. Like Russia. It seems to be banned right now. They’re part of this sort of a special team. That might damage the International Olympic Committee. They don’t have participation in a country that has a pretty good consumer market and is very vested in sport.And then would that lose interest from other countries from participating? We’ve seen that in the boycott. I none of that worked towards whatever goal it was supposed to be. This would be something different. Five levels up into a band and into saying you can’t host it and then getting American disaffected might harm the overall Olympic message. But if America is a bad actor, then they have to suffer the consequences. I think that those people are really living in an ivory tower and are not as aware of things as they are because they are so vested in what they are doing.
Tu Yun
Right? WADA said it would make its move this month. So, Dr. Lehman, are you aware when we could expect a ruling from this independent compliance review court if this case was filed at the court?
Edward Lehman
It will take time.
Certainly it’s going to take a year, I would imagine, at the very least because of the amount of data and information and the amount of pretrial discovery that’s gonna be going on with both sides.
And then there’s always gonna be delays with regards to scheduling and everything else. So, this doesn’t have as big a docket, but this is a very big case. And there’s a lot riding on it. And there will be a lot of legal counsel, a lot of oppositions and pretrial pre runup to the hearing type of arcane rule making and rule decisions with regards to it.
So, I don’t think it’s not going to be done in months. It’s not going to be possible, like I said, but then certainly there will be a decision and that is supposed to be binding, but that doesn’t mean necessarily that it is binding. They’ll find all sorts of clever ways to try to object to that or object to the enforcement of that. Whether that’s fool’s errand, they might try to run out the clock to try to make it as long as possible,
Tu Yun
At least 1 year. That’s what you’re saying, right?
Edward Lehman
Yeah, no doubt about that.
Tu Yun
But regardless of the court ruling, one tangible aftermath is that Chinese swimmers were facing increased scrutiny over 10 days after they arrived in Paris like you all have already mentioned.
And we’ve seen this Olympic gold medalist, China’s diving queen Gao Min saying in an online post that the athletes’ pre-competition training, evidently ran into some snags and the routine of seven doping tests in a single day has successfully disrupted Chinese swimming team. Qin Haiyang, who set a new world record in the 200-meter breaststroke at the World Aquatics Championships last yearand became the first swimmer in history to win all three breaststroke events at a single edition of the champions, has released a statement saying American and European athletes are conspiring to distract Chinese athletes from their Olympic preparations.
Actually, Qin finished in 7th place in the men’s hundred-meter breaststroke final,the worst result he’s had in the last 2 years. Besides that WADA Director General Olivier Niggli has said the fact the names of Chinese swimmers involved in contamination case were leaked by certain media organizations has caused concerns of athletes and unauthorized disclosure of the information of the swimmers is clearly a breach of the rules and potentially about violation of legislation.
So even if the independent compliance review court’s ruling supports WADA’s proposition, China swimming team will still turn out to be the victim of this dramatic dispute, right? And the damage is already done. Then there comes this question: how can Chinese athletes protect their rights and interests? Or does that mean they could do nothing but fall victim to the US willful practice of long-arm jurisdictionin defiance of global rules? Dr. Qu, what’s your observation here?
Qu Qiang
I think Chinese athletes, no matter women or men are undertaking huge pressures, not only in the Paris Games, but also in many other tournaments in the past.
I think under that is still the mindset that Asian people is not fit to swim and black people can’t swim. This is a basic huge stereotype and a bias in the international swimming circle.Especially in the current past years, we’ve been seeing Asian players or athletes are achieving hugely with unprecedented championship in the swimming pool. That actually agitated lots of the stereotype and racism of some other countries. They probably will get one conclusion if an Asian of small size, usually like that and can swim faster than Caucasian race is probably due to doping.
I think of this kind of understanding is very prevailing in the whole circle and the whole society of the swimming. I think this is the fundamental issues that really need to be changed. We’ve been saying anti-racism, anti-discrimination in many fronts, and this can actually become a universal rule in most of the Western countries.
But actually, sports arena is one of the dark corners that are still hosting this kind of shadow or dirt of the racism. So that really needs to be changed. Otherwise, no matter how much you do with the rules, with the regulations, it cannot be changed. Second thing, what we need to do is that we need to build up a rules-based checking system. For example, an athlete maximally, can be checked with anti-doping tests for how many times in a certain period of time.Or are they going to get amnesty if they got the very good track record in anti-doping so they can be immune of this kind of tests. So all this kind of the rule need to be implemented. I don’t think the retaliation is a good thing to do. For example, sometimes the tournament can be held in China, and Chinada can actually replicate what USADA is doing, have some retaliation on US swimmers by giving them like seven tests a day.
But I don’t think that is the right thing to do. You just blow off the steam and you just release your anger for sure. But what that can do for the whole human race and swimming sport? What we need to do is higher, quicker, and swifter, stronger. That is what we try to achieve as one human being. We want to see human being can achieve better in a swimming pool. That’s the whole reason we’re doing everything here with all the economic investment, with all the athlete training, every day, with all the organizers, with all the audience. We are not here to see people wrestle with each other with anger and hate. If we want to do that, just go to the zoo to watch the chimpanzee, or the bears. What we need to see here is cooperation and sports competition. That’s all about it.
So, I think we need to do what we need to do is rule and culture and not retaliation. That’s what I see of this whole issue.
Tu Yun
And fair competition. Actually, US top Olympic official, its Olympic and Paralympic chief Gene Sykes has called for a truce between WADA and USADA. He said he was fully supportive of WADA and called on tempers to cool. How do you expect this incident to unfold in the coming weeks or months? Actually, this question goes to all of you. Let’s start with the Dr. Wang, please.
Wang Zhengxu
I think like what we have decided this is quite a big issue. Now, if you are going to put a big sporting country’s anti-doping agency under review is quite a big thing. And for the US Olympic Committee, it is more concerned about the Olympics and the overall US sports in the global sports community. So, I think he wants a soft landing of the matter.
I think you can go both ways with WADA to withdraw that request or you can go ahead But like what Dr. Lehman was saying, this will take a very long time. And regardless of what outcome the court will find, the IOC still has a room to decide how to proceed. I hope they will have a soft landing. You start to realize it is inappropriate to try to enforce US long-arm jurisdiction outside of US territory in the international sports area.
Tu Yun
Dr. Qu, do you expect WADA to, like what Dr. Wang just mentioned, tcancel this move?
Qu Qiang
No, I don’t think WADA is gonna cancel the move unless USADA backs off because it’s all about politics and the face.
Edward just mentioned about the economic costs. It’s a really important factor need to be considered in the Olympic sports event, but also politics. For example, nobody wants other people to boss you around in your own turf. That is a very important rule because in the anti-doping turf, WADA will have the final say. Anyone would like to challenge that authority will be challenged or will be backfired. Even IOC will have to respect the authority of WADA. So if USADA cannot back off, I think WADA will have to do what it has to do because of pure politics. You mentioned about the IOC. Can WADA tell IOC to cancel certain countries’ participation rights or hosting rights?
If you IOC how to do their own job, you’re infringing their authority in their own turf. That’s not tolerable. That is a basic rule in international politics, not only in the UN, not only in WTO, but also in the Olympic Games. So I think that should be made very clear. I don’t think WADA is going to back off unless its US counterparts back off first.
Tu Yun
Some analysts are expecting USADA to apologize so that WADA would withdraw its legal action against USADA. Dr. Lehman, do you expect that, too?
Edward Lehman
I certainly wouldn’t expect that the USADA would give an apology, and they would back off. I think that lines have been drawn. I think they’re gonna go forward, which I think is a good thing. I think all th stuff needs to be aired. And remember, we’ve sort of been through this with the Russian Moscow laboratory with regards to Russia and their doping data.
And then they faced a 4-year ban in major sporting events. And Russian athletes were barred to fly the Russian flag, which is the situation we’re in. So, I think that it’s good to have it be litigated. with regards to the 7 times a day, that it seems overly burdensome for sure. But the persons who would have been doing those testing was WADA, right? It wouldn’t have been USADA. I do think that there’s legal recourse for Chinese swimmers and the Chinese swimming association to be able to show to try to say this shouldn’t be right, and they could take a bunch of different avenues to do so.
The Chinese swimmers themselves also can take legal action.
Tu Yun
Again, today, it’s not about Chinese swimmers, it’s more about the feud, if you will, between WADA and USADA.
Edward Lehman
I understand. It was brought up or recently happened to Chinese and that’s unfair, certainly. But with regards to the feud between WADA and USADA.
Tu Yun
How is it going to unfold? If you’re saying the IOC is unlikely to take action such as revoke US status of Olympic host, then what consequences, WADA or IOC are talking about?
Edward Lehman
Yeah there’s a first time for everything. Who would think that a television star like Mr. Trump or a movie star like Ronald Reagan was gonna be elected president of the United States. The answer is no. It would have been seemed inconceivable. It happened. We’re just discussing the fact about whether this could happen or not. Those things happened. It could happen here. You don’t know until you try. So, 100 % of the shots you don’t take, said Wayne Gretzky, the hockey player, don’t go in the goal.
So, I do think that the WADA and USADA dispute resolution should go forward. I think it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think a lot of this is in anticipation, obviously, of the two Olympics that will take place in the United States, and that people need to know whether there’s going to be problems with these laws and whether they’re going to be just jumping over WADA to be able to enforce US laws or not. The American prosecutors haven’t had a good reputation in the last few years. And it could get worse. So, we don’t know where it’s gonna go. That’s why I think the litigation is positive and things should be transparent. And it should be equal for all that are participating in the Games.
Tu Yun
How is it going to develop then? Do you think this truce between WADA and USADA could be reached. Otherwise, it would be, like Dr. Qu mentioned, a case of no face for either side.
Edward Lehman
Yeah. They’re calling on a truce and they should do a truce, but I think that people are stuck in, not because they’re getting bad legal advice, because they’re listening to the echo chamber that they’re living in, that they don’t think it’s a possibility.
So, I think you need to kind of shake it up and go through this process. But if they would come to such a conclusion, I think that would be fantastic. But as an American having dealt with the international Olympic group, I would say I in America, I would say it would be difficult for them to come to a conclusion or bend the knee or make an apology. I just think that they need to be made to do that rather than doing it voluntarily. I don’t think they’re gonna see through it. That’s my own personal opinion.
Tu Yun
And then where do you expect this going eventually?
Edward Lehman
It’ll go through the process, and then there’s a decision made. And from there, the IOC can make a decision. And I think there will be some kind of appeal of some sort, and o that will still be pending before the IOC can make a decision.
So, I think they’re gonna what we called run out the clock, make this last as long as possible. Kind of get it buried in the somewhere in out of the public spotlight and then sort it out in some way. It begins with a bang, like many of these prosecutions happened in the United States and then ends with a fizzle is to the outcome. For many of them, they don’t have the teeth to go through with them. They do that through diluting the whole process so that it’s something different in the end as to what the outcome is. At the end, again, it could come under some settlement, which is happening under this agreement which is sealed and confidential.
So, there’s all kinds of exit ramps for the USADA certainly, that we don’t know about. And I’m just trying to tell you a as a legal practitioner, how these things deal in reality. It’s big headline news. And then when you get into the dirty work of the actual litigation and the subsequent appeals, and the applications of IOC and whatever else, it turns into something else. I would hope that it is not that, but my hoping doesn’t necessarily make that to be a fact.
Tu Yun
We’ll have to wait and see. And last question, are we going to see more such cases, as long as any US sporting agency feels uncomfortable about its dominance in certain fields being challenged? What can be done to maintain fairness in sports. Let’s start with Dr. Lehman.
Edward Lehman
Yeah, fairness in sports has got to be the bottom line to be able to administer at any kind of athletic gathering or event. If you don’t have a strong public image of having fairness, then people don’t want to participate or they don’t want to watch. I mean certainly when I was a kid and it was one million years ago, but everyone watched the Olympic Games. We had limited amount of television.
Now, it’s a choice that’s made by people whether to watch or not to watch the Games. And if you don’t have fairness, which has to be instituted, the only way I know of is by writing rules, regulations, and having guidelines, then people are not gonna be interested to watch.
And if you don’t watch the event, it loses credibility and the whole thing falls apart. So, the difficulty and we really haven’t addressed this. My brother actually had made a 1980 Olympic team. They didn’t go to Moscow that year because Jimmy Carter boycotted it. But at that time, there was no really discussion about doping. It really wasn’t in the lexicon of sports participants. But now and this is some of the things we didn’t necessarily address is that doping is so prevalent and so clever with regards to how one can do it, that again wasn’t part of the conversation, and I don’t think my brother even knew what doping was. So that’s part of the problem. It’s not necessarily what’s happening to countries necessarily, but it’s the idea that doping itself is prevalent in a part of athletics in not only the Olympics, but in all throughout. So this idea that the WADA has to play a key role to be able to combat that—and I think that they’re trying to deal with it as best they can because of the numbers of and various types of doping that can take place—that has to continue on and get better, but be more fair. But they’ve got to stop anti-corruption. They have to have global cooperation, certainly. And there has to be financial transparency. I think there also has to be mental health support for athletes, but the independent oversight and of being able to monitor these activities is really interval.
And so that’s why I think this move by WADA to litigate against USADA is an important thing to make things fair. But hopefully people will want to watch the Olympics as opposed to when I was a kid, when we had nothing else to do, but watch the Olympics. And by having a good system, it will be able to support that. And when that breaks down, then the whole thing will fall apart.
Tu Yun
You talked about a public image, but public image can be unfairly shaped through unfair means, right? That’s also a factor to be considered. And next to Dr. Wang.
Wang Zhengxu
Yeah, I think fairness is very important, but it is very hard. And I think there are two things in this matter. One is the global community, Chinese audience view of the US to reinforce long-arm jurisdiction. At least in this specific matter, it was terribly hurting the Chinese athletes.
And then the second thing is, in general international sports, there are few equalities, and that’s to say, in general, very unbalance toward rich countries or more developed countries.. Many sports require a lot of resources so that many countries cannot actually compete in many of these sports. But in terms of enforcing rules, in terms of refereeing each match, there are biases,there are at least biases coming from culture or racism or cultural stereotypes. And they also come from idealogical perception.
So, I actually said this in my social media post that in many way at the Olympics , Chinese and Asian people and people from other developing countries are sometimes biased or prejudiced against. So, we are always, I suppose we need a better system to make sports fair. But it’s quite challenging.So, we have to continue to pursue fairness.
Tu Yun
Indeed, Dr. Qu, please,
Qu Qiang
We’re talking about how we can make the Games more transparent and cleaner. A lot of people say we should put more stricter rules on the athlets, we should have more supervision on the arena or on the national team, or we should build more regulation bodies to see what’s happened in each sport. They’re all right. To build rule of laws, to have more supervisors and to have more media supervision. That’s all correct. But now what’s the fundamental reason for all these dirty plays and more and more default on the anti-doping regulations?
If you consider that deeper, you will find out it’s because too many interests, too many benefits right now are at stake. That’s the whole reason why. Just think about that in the first Olympic Games, in the time of Mr. Coubertin, that kind of Olympic Game were just so pure, so innocent. Nobody would even consider using doping or drugs to enhance their performances. Why is that? Because there was very much less money involved, very much less of a political or propaganda influence involved. When people go there, people just want to enjoy the sport, only sport, no game. And people are following their own heart. And that is a very idle situation. It’s a very spirit that the sports are after, and what the Olympic spirit is all about.
In order to do that, I think right now against our intuition, to put more regulation on this whole game or whole thing, reduce authority of the IOC and reduce their involvement in the money or economic relations is utter most important thing.
We should make IOC like before in 1986, a nonprofit organization to make the whole Olympic Games, a pure sports event, very different from the Super Bowl, very different from the NBA finals, just a globalized international celebration of human being, of the human culture, human spirit. And that’s it. When IOC finally gets immuned from money, from political power, I think the sports people will also be cleaner. That’s what I think.
Tu Yun
But isn’t it too idealistic?
Qu Qiang
It’s very much idealistic, but it’s something we’re after because I think all human being and all progress we’re making as one human being is after all kinds of dreams, and after all kind of pure ideas we want.
Tu Yun
All right, on that note, we wrap up our chat for this session. Many thanks to Dr. Qu Qiang, a fellow of the Belt and Road Research Center, Minzu University of China, Dr. Wang Zhengxu, a professor from the school of public administration at Zhejiang University and Dr. Edward Lehman, the founder and managing director of China-based law firm, Lehman, Lee & Xu.
