Slam Global

Do Olympic Cheaters Prosper?

Doping and the Paris 2024 Summer Olympic Games

Introduction
A Legal Understanding
The Controversies
Management of Doping in the Paris Games
China
Conclusion

in this concluding article of the exploration of the Paris Olympic Games 2024, Yasin Patel, Robyn Waugh, and Caitlin Haberlin-Chambers analyse the topic of doping around the Olympics, delve into the controversies surrounding the management of doping controls, and examine the challenges encountered during the sporting spectacle.

1. Introduction

Napoleon Bonaparte remarked that “Victory belongs to the most persevering”, highlighting the crucial role of persistence and determination in achieving success. It implies that triumph is often won not by the strongest, the smartest, or the most talented, but by those who remain resolute and continue to push forward in the face of adversity. This principle is particularly pertinent in the context of the Olympic Games, a stage where athletes dedicate years of their lives to reaching the zenith of their careers. However, the relentless pursuit of excellence sometimes leads a minority of athletes to use means that push the boundaries of fair and just and even resort to unethical tactics to secure victory: doping.

To combat this, a complex system of federations and processes have been established to catch those who seek to gain unfair advantages amongst their competitors, thus preserving the integrity of sport. The World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”), a key player in this system, oversees and governs a broad spectrum of anti-doping efforts: from education and deterrence to detection, enforcement, and the application of the rule of law. Yet, despite WADA's efforts, the persistent occurrence of doping raises significant questions about the efficacy of the current anti-doping system including the question of whether the WADA Code is genuinely fulfilling its intended purpose, or if it is merely sustaining a system plagued by inconsistencies and legal challenges.

2. A Legal Understanding

Doping is generally associated with the use of substances or methods prohibited by the WADA code. These substances usually meet two of the following three criteria:

they can enhance performance,
pose a potential health risk to the athlete, or
violate the spirit of sport.

The prohibited list is divided into substances and methods banned at all times and those banned only during competition.

Anti-doping rule violations (“ADRVs”) can involve various actions, including

the presence of a prohibited substance in an athlete's sample,
evading or refusing to submit to sample collection,
whereabouts failures
tampering with any part of doping control,
possession of a prohibited substance,
trafficking,
administration of a prohibited substance,
complicity, or
prohibited association.

As the code stands, the burden of compliance lies with the athlete in all aspects of the above.

The Prohibited List

The Prohibited List categorizes substances not only for in-competition and out-of-competition but also into key classes, including anabolic agents, peptide hormones, beta-2 agonists, diuretics, stimulants, narcotics, and cannabinoids. These substances are included for various reasons. All classes have justifications for their inclusion and vary from clear capabilities to promote muscle growth, enhance oxygen delivery, reduce body fat to masking agents where substances that have the ability to hide the presence of other prohibited substances.

The Prohibited List is continually monitored by WADA and is updated as a result to account for new scientific evidence and new techniques or trends identified in the doping practices. One substance of note is around cannabinoids which have been ‘subject to evolving regulations’. In 2019, WADA exempted Cannabidiol (“CBD”) from this category, however other cannabinoids (natural or synthetic) remain prohibited for in-competition testing. Therefore, there remains a possibility where athletes could be at risk of consuming impure CBD and therefore testing positive for prohibited substances but not intentionally seeking to enhance performance or dope. Athletes have to remain hyper-vigilant to ensure consumption of substances is not contaminated.

Innocent Until Proven Guilty

The principle, “innocent until proven guilty” is an internationally recognised human right.

Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence.

Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights provides the right to a fair hearing promptly and by an impartial tribunal.

In the realm of anti-doping, the principle of "innocent until proven guilty," a cornerstone of human rights law, is challenged by the strict liability principle. A central tenant of anti-doping is that an athlete charged with an ADRV is guilty until they can prove their innocence. This means that once a substance is detected in an athlete's sample, they are presumed guilty of a doping violation unless they can provide compelling evidence to the contrary. This tenet is nuanced within anti-doping law by the inclusion of the strict liability principle. Under the strict liability principle the athlete is held firmly accountable for any Prohibited Substances identified in the testing of their samples. Evidence of lack of knowledge or intent does not necessarily mean that an athlete is considered ‘wholly’ innocent.

Despite the presumption of guilt, athletes are still entitled to a fair hearing and due process under human rights law. They can present evidence, call witnesses, and argue their case before an independent tribunal. However, even if an athlete demonstrates that they did not intend to dope or were unaware of a substance's presence in their system, they may still face sanctions. The severity of the penalty might be reduced, but the athlete is not automatically exonerated.

The burden of proof remains on the athlete to demonstrate no fault or negligence around the cause of the presence of a substance: athletes are required to identify the potential source of contamination or accidental ingestion in order that their sanctions may be reduced or nullified. It is not necessary for WADA to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt which does not align with the judicial system outside of doping.

For athletes, this framework requires a heightened level of diligence. They must be aware of the substances they consume, the medications they take, and the environments they are exposed to. Even the use of contaminated supplements or inadvertent exposure to banned substances can lead to significant consequences under the strict liability principle.

While the strict liability principle is a cornerstone of the anti-doping framework, ensuring that athletes are held accountable for what enters their bodies, it also raises significant concerns about fairness, proportionality, and the protection of athlete rights. The strict liability principle effectively reverses the traditional presumption of innocence, placing the burden of proof on the athlete. This can be seen as inherently unfair, as athletes must prove their innocence, which can be difficult, particularly when the substance's presence is due to unintentional ingestion or contamination. Critics argue that the strict liability principle may infringe on athletes' human rights, particularly the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. This creates tension between anti-doping regulations and broader legal principles that protect individuals from wrongful punishment. Balancing the need to maintain the integrity of sport with the rights of athletes remains a complex and ongoing challenge in the field of anti-doping. Those athletes who struggle financially find the requirement to prove their innocence almost impossible due to the added costs of having B-samples tested, instructing experts, lawyers and legal charges and a plethora of other costs. The result is a plethora of financial requirements not budgeted for and in many instances, which cannot be afforded.

The Legal Framework in the Olympics

The legal framework surrounding anti-doping is complex, with multiple bodies involved in ensuring the integrity of sport. The WADA code has consistently had legal opinion published concerning the compatibility of new measures in relation to human rights. Judge Jean-Paul Costa, former President of the European Court of Human Rights is the latest to deliver their opinion in 2021.

While WADA enforces the WADA Code and emphasizes testing in Olympic sports, the 2024 Paris Olympic Games have introduced a shift in the oversight of ADRVs. The International Olympic Committee’s (“IOC”) fight against doping began in earnest in the 1960s. In 1999, it supported the establishment of WADA. Since March 2016, the IOC has delegated the decisions on alleged ADRVs during the Games to an independent body, the Anti-Doping Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”). This shift highlights the CAS Anti-Doping Division's role in adjudicating doping cases, replacing the IOC Disciplinary Commission in this capacity. Where disputes have arisen from ADRVs, these cases can be escalated to the CAS and national courts. Whilst this could be argued as an additional legal layer of protection - the extent and burden upon athletes to prove innocence is arguably more difficult than those accused of crimes outside of doping.

In 2017, the IOC Executive Board included the creation of the International Testing Agency (“ITA”), an independent organisation specialised in managing anti-doping programmes, in its 12 principles for a more robust and independent global anti-doping system to protect clean athletes. Since 2019, the IOC has delegated responsibility for the organisation and management of doping control at the Olympic Games to the ITA. The IOC has called on all International Federations to follow these steps and fully delegate their entire testing programmes to the ITA and sanctioning to the CAS Anti-Doping Division.

3. A Controversial History

The aspiration for a clean, fair sport—where world record achievements are beyond doubt and moments of extraordinary athleticism are free from suspicion—is widely shared by almost all participating athletes and their support teams. Many legends of the sport have spoken out around this need for stringency in the system. Most recently, Michael Phelps, a 28 Olympic Medal winner, has spoken out around the need for more considerable sanctions from doping violations stating "If you test positive, you should never be allowed to come back and compete again, cut and dry…I believe one and done.”

While this approach seems fair and straightforward, achieving this ideal is far from simple and not as clear-cut as it appears. The testing processes and management of athletes and doping offences are at the detriment of a number and combination of factors including but not limited to issues around contamination, sabotage, false negatives as well as contextual nature of test results. These complexities also extend to the substances involved, the timing of testing, and the distinctions between in-competition and out-of-competition testing.

Accuracy of the Tests

The accuracy of doping controls is critical to maintaining the integrity of competitive sports, but controversies arise when these tests fail to deliver reliable results. Testing of samples and identifying of Prohibited Substances is not always 100% accurate.

False Positives

One of the most significant issues in doping controls is the occurrence of false positives—instances where an athlete tests positive for a banned substance they did not intentionally consume. These errors can result from a variety of factors, such as contamination of supplements, mislabelling of substances, or the presence of trace amounts of banned substances that were legally ingested. When a false positive occurs, the athlete faces the possibility of suspension, loss of sponsorships, and a tarnished public image, all based on flawed evidence. The lengthy and often public process of clearing their name can leave lasting scars on their career.
Cases of false positives in doping tests, whilst rare, could lead to wrongful ADRVs being issued and consequent sanctions and bans on completely innocent athletes. Particularly where significant proportions of athletes’ salaries are associated with sponsorships and ‘image’, a notice of a potential ADV could be detrimental to their career where there will always be a slight suspicion on the athlete’s reputation.
One notable example of a false positive is the case of Diane Modahl. Modahl, a British middle-distance runner and Commonwealth Games gold medallist, faced a devastating false positive doping case in 1994. During the European Championships, Modahl's urine sample was tested, and the results showed an unusually high level of testosterone, which led to her being suspended and banned from competing. Modahl maintained her innocence throughout the ordeal. Upon further investigation, Modahl's legal team discovered significant flaws in the testing process. Modahl’s sample had been improperly stored, leading to bacterial contamination causing elevated testosterone levels. In December 1995, Modahl was finally cleared of all charges, and her ban was lifted. However, the damage to her career and personal life was profound. Despite her exoneration, the controversy overshadowed much of her achievements, and she never fully regained her previous competitive form.
The Diane Modahl case is a stark reminder of the potential consequences of false positives in doping controls and underscores the importance of strict adherence to proper testing protocols to prevent such injustices.

False Negatives

On the other hand, false negatives—cases where an athlete who has used a banned substance goes undetected—pose a different kind of threat to the integrity of sport. These failures can occur due to testing limitations, such as the inability to detect newer or more sophisticated doping methods, or because of timing issues, where the substance has already cleared the athlete’s system by the time the test is administered.
An example of a false negative doping case is the case of Lance Armstrong, the American cyclist. Armstrong, who was highly decorated in the sport, was subject to numerous drug tests throughout his career. Many of his tests came back negative, despite allegations and evidence suggesting he was using performance-enhancing drugs. The false negatives in his drug tests were attributed to various factors, including advanced masking agents and sophisticated doping methods. It was not until 2012, when the United States Anti-Doping Agency (“USADA”) conducted a comprehensive investigation and presented substantial evidence, including testimonies from former teammates and detailed analysis of his doping practices, that Armstrong was found guilty of using banned substances. He was subsequently stripped of his titles and banned from the sport.
This case highlights the limitations and challenges in anti-doping testing, where false negatives can occur if the testing methods or procedures are not sufficiently advanced to detect sophisticated cheating techniques.

The accuracy of doping controls is crucial to upholding the integrity of competitive sports. However, the challenges of achieving 100% reliability in testing can lead to significant issues. False positives, such as the case of Modahl, can unfairly damage an athlete's career and reputation due to errors in testing processes. Conversely, false negatives, exemplified by Armstrong's case, allow cheaters to evade detection, undermining fair competition. These examples underscore the necessity for continual advancements in testing methods and stringent adherence to protocols to prevent both types of errors. Ensuring the integrity of sports requires balancing accurate detection with protecting the rights of innocent athletes and effectively addressing sophisticated doping methods.

Equal Treatment?

The contrasting treatment of Michael Phelps and Sha'Carri Richardson in the context of doping cases has sparked significant debate, shining a spotlight on perceived inconsistencies in how anti-doping rules are enforced across different athletes.

Michael Phelps

Michael Phelps, the most decorated Olympian of all time and an outspoken advocate for clean sport, has himself faced the consequences of anti-doping regulations. In 2009, Phelps was suspended after a photograph surfaced showing him using a bong. Although he was not accused of using performance-enhancing drugs, the incident resulted in a three-month suspension by USA Swimming. This penalty was widely regarded as lenient, especially considering Phelps' global status as a sports icon. Despite the suspension, which took place during an out-of-competition period, Phelps was not barred from future competitions, including the 2012 Olympics, where he continued to add to his record-breaking medal tally. In addition to the suspension, Phelps lost significant sponsorships, reflecting the serious personal and professional impact of the incident.

Sha'Carri Richardson

In stark contrast, Sha'Carri Richardson, an American rising star in track and field and a Paris 2024 Olympic silver medallist, faced a much harsher penalty under different circumstances. Richardson tested positive for cannabinoids during an in-competition test at the U.S. Olympic Trials in 2021, which led to her disqualification from the Tokyo 2021 Olympics. Despite marijuana not being considered a performance-enhancing drug, Richardson’s use was linked to her grieving the loss of her mother. Her punishment, however, was severe, rendering her ineligible to compete in the event she had worked so hard to qualify for. This decision ignited widespread outcry, with many arguing that the punishment was disproportionately harsh, especially when compared to Phelps' earlier case.
The situation also reignited discussions about racial and gender disparities in how anti-doping rules are enforced, highlighting potential inconsistencies in the treatment of athletes.

The distinctions between the cases of Phelps and Richardson are striking. Phelps never tested positive for any prohibited substance, including cannabinoids, and his incident occurred during an out-of-competition period. Conversely, Richardson’s positive test occurred during an in-competition period, underlining the strictness of the rules she was subjected to. Richardson cited the emotional stress of losing her mother as the reason for her marijuana use, which, while understandable on a human level, did not exempt her from the stringent anti-doping regulations that ultimately cost her a chance to compete in Tokyo.

This comparison underscores the complexities and perceived inequities in the enforcement of anti-doping rules, raising important questions about fairness and consistency in the world of competitive sports.

Competing with Pending Allegations: Ysaora Thibus and Cynthia Ogunsemilore

As with most Olympic games, the 2024 Paris Olympic Games has not been the exception around doping being a topic of discussion. Cases of athletes competing with pending allegations as well as having previously served bans has been considered and the question of the apparent lack of a systematic approach for all athletes is clear.

Ysaora Thibus

Ysaora Thibus, a French fencer, was issued with an ADRV in January 2024, testing positive for Ostarine (found on the WADA prohibited list within the anabolic agent class). The issue of competing federations and bodies is exemplified here whereby the International Fencing Federation did not suspend Thibus as a result of the testing result due to the specifics of her case. WADA appealed this decision, asking for a suspension prior to Thibus competing in the Olympic Games. This case was subsequently escalated to the CAS.
Federation did not suspend Thibus as a result of the testing result due to the specifics of her case. WADA appealed this decision, asking for a suspension prior to Thibus competing in the Olympic Games. This case was subsequently escalated to the CAS.
t was a difficult decision either way. If found innocent Thibus risked missing out on a once-in-a-four-years opportunity to compete at the Olympic Games. On the converse, if Thibus competed in the Games, any result including medals would be subsequently stripped if found guilty of ADRV and therefore removing the opportunity for a clean athlete to celebrate a different result accordingly.
The ongoing legal battle meant that Thibus was permitted to compete in the Olympic Games as the appeal doesn’t necessarily mean an automatic suspension and whilst she did not podium in either individual or team foil events, any result could still potentially be removed if WADA is successful in their appeal.

Cynthia Ogunsemilore

In another case Cynthia Ogunsemilore, a Nigerian boxer was suspended from competing in the 2024 Games after the presence of furosemide (within the diuretic, masking agents class) was detected in an out-of-competition sample.
Whilst the Prohibited Substance of furosemide is not indicated for performance enhancement, it falls under the category of a potential masking agent which implies the attempt to hide doping. The ITA was responsible for the suspension whilst the case is ongoing and enforces the standard protocol as advocated by WADA.
However as a result of an ongoing doping case, Ogunsemilore was not permitted to compete in the Paris 2024 Olympic Games.

As can be seen, sanctions and bans can be at the detriment of the governing bodies overseeing athletes’ sports and a systematic, fair approach towards the application of violations is not yet apparent across all Olympic Sports.

4. Management of Doping in the Paris Games

At each Olympics, the Organising Committee oversees the operational aspects of anti-doping efforts for the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Under the responsibility of the IOC and IPC, Paris 2024 provides the funding, handles the planning and scheduling, and makes available the teams, equipment and infrastructures needed to enable the tests and analyses to be carried out. To perform these missions, Paris 2024 has chosen to work with the French anti-doping agency (“AFLD”), an independent public authority responsible for implementing actions to combat doping in France.

Terms and Infrastructure: Learning from the Past

Doping remains a persistent challenge in sports, despite rigorous controls. As testing methods improve, so do the sophisticated techniques athletes and their teams use to evade detection. The lure of fame, financial gain, and sponsorship deals often drives athletes to risk using banned substances. In rare cases, corruption within sports organizations or among officials can further weaken anti-doping efforts.

Ahead of the 2020 Games, Tokyo promised a model Olympic Games with the “world’s strictest anti-doping rules if it wins the right to host the 2020 edition.” The ITA launched an advanced anti-doping programme. Testing began a year before the Games, covering all 33 sports and issuing over 26,000 recommendations. The ITA's Pre-Games Expert Group identified and closed testing gaps, resulting in 2,400 individual and 400 team tests. The IOC extended the ITA’s jurisdiction, allowing out-of-competition tests two months before the Games to ensure comprehensive coverage. Testing in the Tokyo Games were issued much earlier than in the Rio 2016 Games and covered more sports compared to the seven sports for Rio.

Building on Tokyo’s success, the Paris 2024 Games intensified their anti-doping efforts. Over 1,000 personnel, including 800 chaperones and 360 sample collection professionals, were involved in the process. Paris has also hosted a training programme led by the ITA and AFLD to boost the number of qualified sample collectors in France, creating a lasting legacy in the fight against doping.

Paris 2024 also enhanced its infrastructure, partnering with Thermo Fisher Scientific for advanced equipment to store and analyze samples. The Laboratoire antidopage français (“LADF”), the only WADA-accredited lab in France, analysed human samples, while the Laboratoire des courses hippiques (“LCH”) handled equine samples. 1The French anti-doping laboratory is tripled its team to handle the increased volume of analyses during the Olympic and Paralympic Games, further solidifying Paris's commitment to clean sport.

Funding

The ITA initiated the pre-Games phase of its comprehensive anti-doping programme for the Paris 2024 Games, working on behalf of the IOC. While the Tokyo 2020 pre-Games program, also led by the ITA, focused on issuing recommendations for individual athletes and teams from a broad pool of potential participants, the Paris 2024 model placed greater emphasis on identifying and addressing strategic gaps in anti-doping efforts.

This phase saw increased funding and collaboration. On 12 June 2024, the IOC reiterated its commitment to protecting clean athletes by allocating a USD 10 million fund to further support the development of the ITA over the next Olympiad (2025-2028). The IOC also partnered with all summer Olympic international federations (“IFs”) and national/regional anti-doping organisations (“NADOS/RADOS”). These funds facilitated increased in-competition and out-of-competition testing, with at least 88% of participating athletes being tested at least once ahead of the games. High-risk disciplines received special attention, with 75% of athletes in these sports tested three or more times and 95% tested at least once. These results exceed those achieved for Tokyo 2020, making the Paris 2024 pre-Games program the most comprehensive ever implemented.

The collaborative aspect of this phase was also crucial. During the preparatory period, it was the responsibility of the respective IFs and NADOs/RADOs to implement a risk-proportionate testing regime for their athletes before they competed in France. The ITA provided an additional layer of independent strategic support and monitoring to ensure adequate testing was conducted.

Education

Alongside funding, educational programmes have been implemented to further support anti-doping efforts. Paris 2024 provided the athletes with a range of educational materials. Each doping control station featured posters and tools to share information on anti-doping regulations and rights. Paris 2024 is also building awareness of the fight against doping among all its volunteers through a dedicated module as part of their training.

However, the effectiveness of this approach remains a topic of debate. While more extensive testing may result in the identification of additional offenders, it also heightens the risk of false positives and the possibility of innocent athletes facing unjust sanctions.

Whereabouts Sanctions

In-competition testing is completed within 24 hours of an athlete competing and all substances on the Prohibited List apply and are tested for. For out-of-competition testing some substances on the Prohibited List are not applicable, for example cannabinoids. The challenge of out-of-competition testing is ensuring an athlete can be located at all times by their federations and WADA- so those engaging in doping may not be unavailable for prolonged periods of time. Managed by a system named Whereabouts, no-notice out-of-competition testing is one of the most effective tools for the prevention and detection of doping, including at the Paris 2024 Games.

Whereabouts sanctions were introduced as part of the anti-doping regulations to ensure athletes are available for testing at any time. Formalised with the introduction of the 2004 World Anti-Doping Code, the 2009 revision of the Code that significantly strengthened the requirements. This revision introduced stricter rules for athletes to provide detailed information about their location for a specified period each day to allow for no-notice, out-of-competition testing.

Under the Whereabouts requirements, athletes in the Registered Testing Pool (“RTP”) must provide their overnight location and a 60-minute time slot each and every day for potential testing. Failure to update this information can result in an ADRV. Under World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules, any combination of three whereabouts failures within 12 months constitutes a violation, with sanctions ranging from one to two years of ineligibility, depending on the degree of fault.

Spain’s Mo Katir, a world championship 1500m medallist, was sanctioned prior to the 2024 Paris Olympic Games for failure to maintain his Whereabouts to the standard expected. Whilst Katir has not been found with any prohibited substances or methods as per the WADA Prohibited list, he has received an ADRV one that he has clarified “is not related to the use of Prohibited Substances or methods, nor to the evasion of anti-doping controls”. In a statement, Katir admitted that “It is a sanction for inaccurately updating my whereabouts... These cases can and do occasionally happen to athletes who are part of the anti-doping control programme”.

Indeed the reasoning behind such stipulations is to ensure athletes engaging in illicit behaviour cannot evade testing procedures by simply being unavailable. It does bring to question the amount of responsibility that’s placed on the athlete and not the federation for ensuring integrity of the sport. Athletes (who may be full time but may also be employed) have to consider the impact of last-minute changes to their competition schedule not only on their performance but also on a catalogue of administration tasks including updating whereabouts as soon as possible or potentially risk an ADRV. The implications of which are that the athlete has indeed been consuming Prohibited Substances/ Methods and have intentionally avoided tests to avoid detection and not that it is a case of administrative error.

Athlete Biological Passports

Another additional component of the anti-doping agenda involves Athlete Biological Passports (“ABP”) which seek to collate a profile over time based on measurements of biomarkers. ABP are employed as a powerful anti-doping tool that tracks selected biological variables over time, aiming to detect the physiological effects of doping rather than the doping substance or method itself. Any significant deviations from specific modules could be an indicator of doping. This includes steroid modules whereby the ratios of testosterone and epitestosterone (T/E) are monitored within the body and haematological modules which could indicate blood doping. The collection and storage of this personal data raises issues around privacy, particularly ensuring that this data is compliant with GDPR (General Data Protection Regulations).

In the battle against doping at the Paris Olympics, the ITA plans to deploy a more streamlined, high-tech approach to identify and target potential cheats. Benjamin Cohen, director general of the ITA, said potential tools as its disposal included biological and performance passports as well as a mountain of other data. Utilising the development of technology, Cohen confirmed that the ITA is developing a “performance passport” as a counterpart to the ABP. The aim is to “predict results based on what an athlete has done over the past four years.”

The case of Kenyan athlete Cyrus Rutto Kipruto provides a notable example of the effectiveness of ABPs in the Olympics and other elite competitions. On 17 May 2023, Kipruto was provisionally suspended by the Athletics Integrity Unit for the use of a Prohibited Substance/Method from his ABP data. Kipruto’s ABP revealed irregularities in his blood values, specifically variations in hemoglobin levels and other blood parameters that are consistent with blood doping. These variations led to a strong suspicion of doping. In Kipruto's case, there was no need to catch him with a specific drug in his system; the abnormal patterns in his blood profile were sufficient evidence to warrant sanctions. As a result of the ABP findings, on 5 June 2024, the AIU announced that he had been banned for six years for a “a deliberate and sophisticated doping regime”.33 Kipruto was banned from competition, stripped of his titles, and his results were annulled.

ABPs were a critical component of anti-doping strategies at the Olympics, enhancing the ability to detect and deter doping in a more sophisticated manner than traditional testing methods alone.

5. China

China: The Hottest Topic at Paris 2024

Perhaps one of the most heated topics of discussion at the 2024 Paris Olympic Games was the return of 11 Chinese swimmers, including Qin Haiyang and Sun Jiajun, following the doping scandal of the 2020/2021 Tokyo Olympics. This situation has further highlighted the need for harmonization of anti-doping laws and clarification of jurisdiction with regard to doping laws across the world.

Prior to the Tokyo Games, 23 Chinese Olympic swimmers tested positive for Trimetazidine (“TMZ”), a banned substance. The China Anti-Doping Agency (“CHADA”) concluded that the root cause of presence of TMZ in the athletes’ samples due to the ingestion of contaminated meat was satisfactory, and therefore did not impose any sanctions. This decision allowed the athletes to compete in Tokyo, raising questions about the consistency and fairness of anti-doping enforcement across different countries.

Of the original 23 China Olympic swimmers, 11 returned to compete in Paris, including Qin Haiyang and Sun Jiajun, were successful in their 2024 Paris Olympic Games in their campaign, securing gold in the 100m medley relay. There were further reports (New York Times) that two Chinese swimmers that had competed in the Paris games had previously tested positive for steroid use in 2022, however they have not been named. This was corroborated by WADA releasing a statement regarding two Chinese swimmers testing positive for metandienone. These swimmers had served a provisional suspension however, following CHINADA testing on meat samples found the swimmers again likely of ingesting contaminated meat and no violation was instated.

This apparent leniency has sparked significant concern and criticism, particularly from the United States, where lawmakers are considering withholding the $3.7 million in annual funding that the country contributes to the WADA. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) voiced the frustration of many, stating, “WADA unfortunately failed to do its job.” This sentiment reflects a broader discontent with WADA's perceived inaction in challenging CHINADA’s decisions, especially in light of WADA's past and current interventions, such as in the case of French fencer Ysaora Thibus.

Chinese Olympic swimmers were said to be subject to twice the amount of testing compared to their US counterparts in the lead up to the games. In fact, on average, a Chinese Olympic swimmer was subject to being tested 21 times prior to the games whereas US swimmers were subject to testing 6 times on average. Despite this, frustration remains amongst the swimming community as many believe there have been failures in the management of anti-doping processes. Many US and Australian (countries who have historically dominated swimming Olympics) Past and current Olympic Swimmers have spoken out about the lack of stringency in processes including Phelps and Ledecky and questioning the integrity of the sport. What neither of them or any other European, American or Australian athletes have complained about is the apparent discriminatory practices in testing more Chinese swimmers then American, Australian or European ones.

The case of Pan Zhanle, a Chinese swimmer who set a new world record in the 100m freestyle and won an Olympic gold medal in Paris, further illustrates the extent of this scepticism. Although Pan was not among the 23 swimmers implicated in the Tokyo scandal, his achievements have been met with suspicion, with some former athletes casting doubt on the legitimacy of his times. This reaction underscores a growing mistrust in the anti-doping system, which some argue is overly reliant on national federations that may lack impartiality.

CHINADA’s defensive response to these criticisms—questioning the integrity of the U.S. anti-doping efforts—highlights the deepening divide between nations over the administration of anti-doping laws. This situation raises a critical question: Have athletes and the broader sports community lost faith in a system that is heavily influenced by national interests?

6. Conclusion

The Paris 2024 Olympic Games, like previous Games, has not been immune to doping controversies. With 29 confirmed doping cases in 2020/2021 Tokyo, it remains to be seen if Paris 2024 has been successful in achieving a ‘cleaner’ games despite controversial circumstances of Chinese Olympic Swimmers and cases such Thibus with ongoing legal appeals.

While the code has undoubtedly made significant strides in the fight against doping, it is not without its flaws. Issues remain about how the code is implemented. China's return of 11 swimmers following the 2020/2021 Tokyo Olympic Games doping scandal has sparked debate over the need for harmonization of anti-doping laws and the jurisdiction of global anti-doping agencies. The response from the U.S., threatening to withhold funding for global anti-doping systems, further underscores the challenges in ensuring a fair and consistent approach to doping across all sports and nations. The calls for blanket bans for those found guilty of doping offenses whilst admirable are not as simple as they appear as ADRVs rely heavily on the contextual nature that they arise. Furthermore, the question of fairness of a system where the burden and responsibility relies on the athletes themselves still stands. The ongoing discussions surrounding doping in sports reflect the complexity of maintaining integrity of sport. Only by addressing these issues around jurisdiction and interpretation of the WADA can a fair and truly level playing field can be created, where victory belongs not just to the most persevering, but to the most deserving.

In this three-part series, we have explored the multifaceted impact of the Paris 2024 Olympic Games, delving into the economic, social, and regulatory dimensions of this global event. The Games are not just a celebration of athletic excellence but also a significant economic engine that provided a substantial boost to the French economy, attracting millions of tourists and generating billions in revenue. However, the benefits extend beyond financial gains; the Games shone an international spotlight on France, highlighting its cultural heritage, innovation, and commitment to sustainability. However, hosting an event of this magnitude comes with inherent challenges. Security and doping remain persistent concerns for any Olympic Games, and Paris 2024 is no exception.

As we reflect on the Paris 2024 Games, it is clear that they are more than just a sporting event; they are a complex, dynamic endeavour that will leave a lasting legacy on France and the Olympic movement as a whole.