Twenty-Three Chinese Swimmers, Trimetazidine, and Trust in WADA

Timeline

1. Dec 31, 2020–Jan 3, 202123 Chinese swimmers return 28 positive samples for trimetazidine at a domestic meet in Shijiazhuang; all were staying at the same hotel.
2. 2021CHINADA concludes the positives resulted from contamination traced to the hotel kitchen; it closes the case without sanctions or public announcement. WADA reviews the file and does not appeal.
3. Jul–Aug 2021Several of the swimmers compete at the Tokyo Olympics; some win medals.
4. Apr 20, 2024The New York Times and ARD report the case; USADA CEO Travis Tygart accuses WADA of a cover-up. WADA rejects the claim.
5. Apr 25, 2024WADA appoints Swiss prosecutor Eric Cottier to independently review its handling of the case.
6. Jul 2024Cottier's interim report finds no evidence of favoritism and calls WADA's decision not to appeal reasonable.
7. Sep 2024Cottier's final report says some procedural rules were not followed by CHINADA but this did not undermine the contamination finding; it makes no formal recommendations but criticizes WADA's silence about the procedural failures.

The ethical issues

• Transparency vs. confidentiality: positive tests were never announced because no violation was charged.
• Trust in a national agency's investigation: WADA relied substantially on CHINADA's findings during pandemic travel restrictions.
• Consistency: athletes from other countries have been sanctioned in contamination cases. Were these swimmers treated differently?
• Geopolitics: the U.S.–WADA dispute became entangled with U.S.–China relations and Olympic hosting.
• Fairness to the swimmers: athletes who were never charged faced public suspicion years later.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
The 23 swimmers	Their reputations and careers; they were never charged and the contamination finding stands.
Rival swimmers	Confidence that competitors are tested and treated consistently.
WADA	Its legitimacy as the global regulator; the costs of being seen as too deferential or too political.
CHINADA and Chinese sport authorities	Credibility of their testing and investigations.
USADA and the U.S. government	Clean competition for American athletes; their leverage over WADA through funding and legislation.
IOC and future Olympic hosts	The stability of the anti-doping system; host-city obligations (e.g., Salt Lake City 2034).

The case

On April 20, 2024, three months before the Paris Olympics, The New York Times and German broadcaster ARD reported a story that had been kept from the public for three years. At a domestic swimming meet in Shijiazhuang, from December 31, 2020 to January 3, 2021, 23 Chinese swimmers had tested positive for trimetazidine (TMZ), a prescription heart drug banned as a metabolic modulator. In all, 28 samples were positive. Several of the swimmers went on to compete, and some to win medals, at the Tokyo Olympics in mid-2021.^[1][3]

China’s anti-doping agency, CHINADA, had investigated in 2021. It concluded that the swimmers had been unknowingly contaminated through food prepared in the kitchen of the hotel where they were staying, after traces of TMZ were reportedly found there. It therefore charged no violations, imposed no sanctions, and made no announcement, as the rules allow when no violation is asserted. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) reviewed the file and decided not to appeal. World Aquatics also accepted the outcome.^[1] Cottier’s final report later showed that the swimming federation, then called FINA, had quietly filed a statement of appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport in July 2021 to preserve its deadline. It withdrew the appeal on July 21, 2021, days before the Tokyo swimming events began.^[6]

Background

The pandemic shaped how the case was handled. After delays, CHINADA logged the 60 urine samples from the meet, 28 of them positive, into WADA’s ADAMS database at the accredited Beijing laboratory on or around March 15, 2021.^[1] According to The New York Times, an email that day from a CHINADA legal official asked a counterpart at the international swimming federation to keep the swimmers’ information and the case strictly confidential until CHINADA disclosed it.^[1] Of the 23 swimmers, 13 competed at the Tokyo Olympics seven months later, and several won medals.^[1] The Times reported that WADA did not refer the positives to its Intelligence and Investigations department.^[1] In 2022 the International Testing Agency raised questions with WADA about possible misreporting of the samples. WADA’s investigators reviewed them and concluded that proper procedures had been followed.^[1]

The rules and governance

Under the World Anti-Doping Code, results management for national-level tests belongs to the national anti-doping organization, here CHINADA. Its decisions can be appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport by WADA and the relevant international federation, here World Aquatics.^[1][4] Neither appealed. Strict liability means a positive test is normally a violation, but the Code allows a finding of no violation where contamination is established. In that case no sanction is imposed, and public disclosure is not required in the same way.^[1][4] Critics argued that a case of this size should have gone to a hearing so that the contamination explanation could be tested in public.^[1]

WADA’s explanation

WADA said the evidence pointed to contamination, not doping. The swimmers came from different provinces and clubs but tested positive only while staying at the same hotel. Their concentrations were very low and fluctuated between positive and negative within hours, a pattern WADA said was inconsistent with deliberate doping or micro-dosing. Teammates who stayed elsewhere tested negative.^[1] WADA also acknowledged that pandemic travel restrictions in 2021 prevented its own investigators from going to China. It said it had consulted external scientific experts and lacked any basis to challenge the findings.^[1][2]

The accusations

U.S. Anti-Doping Agency CEO Travis Tygart accused WADA of a “potential cover-up” and said TMZ “doesn’t magically appear, fairy dust in a kitchen.” He called for an independent investigation, and the White House’s drug-policy director echoed him.^[1]

WADA strongly rejected the allegations, calling them defamatory and politically motivated. On April 25, 2024 it appointed Eric Cottier, a retired Swiss attorney general, to review its handling of the case.^[1] USADA called that appointment “self-serving.”^[1]

The independent review

Cottier’s summary report, dated July 1, 2024, found “no indication of any intention to influence or direct the analysis of the case by WADA,” and “nothing suggests or even evokes interference or intervention by any Chinese sporting or political entity.”^[5] He judged that WADA could reasonably consider the chances of overturning the contamination finding “if not nil, at the very least almost non-existent.” He added that an appeal against 23 athletes more than six months after the tests would likely have breached the principle of proportionality.^[5] His final report, dated August 5, 2024 and presented to WADA’s Executive Committee on September 12, kept those answers. It found that “nothing in the file—which is complete—suggests that WADA showed favoritism or complacency,” and that the decision not to appeal was reasonable “both in terms of the facts and the applicable rules.”^[6][8]

The final report was sharper on procedure. Cottier agreed with a legal expert that CHINADA had not respected fundamental rules: it did not notify the swimmers, hold a hearing or impose the then-mandatory provisional suspension, and so it reversed “the roles of burden of proof.”^[6] He wrote that WADA had never formally and publicly challenged this. “In retrospect at least, the Agency’s silence is curious,” he said, “and its lack of reaction is surprising.”^[6] He made no formal recommendations, referring instead to his remarks.^[6]

USADA called the review “narrow.” It argued that Cottier had accepted CHINADA’s facts without verification, never contacted USADA, and did not discuss a September 2020 tip about swimmers that USADA said it had passed to WADA, and had relied on scientific conclusions it disputed. It quoted the report’s own pharmacokinetic expert: the data alone could not “rule out intentional (or unintentional) intake of TMZ.”^[7]

Politics and money

The dispute escalated beyond swimming. U.S. lawmakers held hearings and threatened WADA’s funding; the U.S. government is one of WADA’s largest public funders. The IOC, in awarding the 2034 Winter Games to Salt Lake City, added a clause allowing it to terminate the hosting agreement if the “supreme authority” of WADA is not fully respected, a response to American pressure.^[2] Federal investigators in the United States also reportedly opened an inquiry under a 2020 law that criminalizes doping conspiracies affecting international competitions involving U.S. athletes.^[2]

The 23 swimmers were never charged with violations, and the contamination finding stands.^[6]

Aftermath

In July 2024, World Aquatics, which had found no wrongdoing after its own review, confirmed that its executive director had been subpoenaed to testify to U.S. authorities as part of a criminal investigation.^[1] The swimmers faced heavy testing before Paris. Between January and July 2024 they were tested 21 times each on average, compared with four to six times for Australian and U.S. swimmers.^[1] The case is widely censored in China.^[1]

WADA’s Executive Committee set up a working group after receiving the final report. In December 2024 the group recommended structured case files, an interim process for sending high-risk cases to WADA’s intelligence and investigations department, and an alarm in its ADAMS database for unusual cases. It also proposed Code changes. Athletes would have to be told of an adverse finding within 21 days, and a mandatory provisional suspension imposed within 10 days of notification. A new “Independent Review Expert” would handle cases where an agency declines to follow normal results management.^[8]

The core dilemma

When a national agency finds that a group of positive tests were caused by contamination, and the global regulator accepts that finding without a hearing, how can the rest of the world trust the outcome? And how should the system be reformed without stigmatizing athletes who were cleared, or turning anti-doping into geopolitics?

Competing values

• Transparency vs. athlete privacy: cases closed without a violation are normally confidential, but secrecy invites suspicion.
• Consistency vs. case-by-case judgment: contamination defenses are assessed on their own facts, but different outcomes across countries look unequal.
• Deference to national agencies vs. global oversight: WADA relied on CHINADA partly because it could not investigate directly.
• Accountability vs. politicization: pressure from funders can expose weaknesses or can compromise independence.

Strongest arguments

For WADA’s decision: the scientific pattern (same hotel, very low and fluctuating levels, negatives elsewhere) fits contamination. An appeal it believed it could not win would have been an abuse of process, and an independent prosecutor found no favoritism.

For the critics: a positive test is normally the start of a public process, not the end of a private one. Accepting a national agency’s findings about its own Olympic team, without independent verification or a hearing, created a two-tier system that undermines confidence in clean sport.

Applying the frameworks

Kantian (duty)

A Kantian lens asks whether the anti-doping system applied its rules consistently. If other athletes, such as Valieva, had to prove contamination at a hearing, treating 23 swimmers differently would fail the test of universality, whatever the merits of the contamination finding. The lens also respects duties to the swimmers themselves: if they were truly contaminated, publishing their names would have harmed innocent people.

Justice

Justice focuses on equal treatment and procedural fairness among athletes from different countries. Rivals who lost medals to athletes with positive tests see an injustice. Supporters of WADA’s decision see one in treating Chinese athletes as guilty because of their nationality. Transparency is part of justice: a closed process makes it hard for anyone to verify fairness.

Utilitarian

Consequentialists weigh the costs of the dispute, including damaged trust in WADA, threats to its funding and political conflict between governments, against the costs of the alternative: a public hearing that might have cleared the swimmers but delayed results and exposed innocent athletes. The lens also counts the long-term value of a system that the public believes.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. Spot the issue. You are a WADA legal officer in mid-2021, reviewing CHINADA’s decision not to charge 23 swimmers. The stakeholders include the swimmers, rival athletes, CHINADA, World Aquatics, WADA’s government and Olympic funders, and the public. The codes in play are the World Anti-Doping Code and the International Standard for Results Management.
2. Gather facts. What does the evidence show about contamination, and what could you not verify because of pandemic travel limits? Does political sensitivity affect your judgment either way?
3. Test options. Options: (a) accept the decision without appeal; (b) appeal to CAS for a public hearing; (c) accept but require further investigation or independent review of the hotel evidence. Weigh fairness to the swimmers against consistency and public trust.
4. Check codes and law. Check whether your decision matches how comparable contamination cases were handled, and whether it respects the Code’s confidentiality and disclosure rules.
5. Decide and document. Document the scientific advice, the gaps in your evidence and your reasons for appealing or not.
6. Communicate and follow up. Prepare a public explanation in case the matter becomes known, and inform stakeholders, including other anti-doping agencies, as the rules allow.

What’s settled and what’s contested

• Settled: the positive tests, CHINADA’s contamination finding, WADA’s decision not to appeal, and Cottier’s conclusion that WADA showed no favoritism.
• Contested: whether the contamination explanation should have been tested at a hearing; whether WADA’s processes are adequate; the role of governments in anti-doping governance. No swimmer has been found to have committed a doping violation.

Why this case matters

This is a case about institutional legitimacy rather than individual cheating. It shows how a global regulator’s credibility depends not only on getting outcomes right but on being seen to do so.

See also: Paying the Watchdog: The U.S. Withholds WADA Dues Over the Chinese Swimmers Case.

See also: Iga Świątek and the Contaminated Melatonin: Strict Liability, Secrecy and Consistency.

Key terms

Strict liability

The anti-doping principle that athletes are responsible for any prohibited substance in their bodies, whether or not they meant to take it.

Trust

The public’s belief that what they are watching is real. Integrity failures are ultimately failures of trust.

Institutional accountability

Structures that make a sport organization explain its decisions and face consequences: clear authority, transparency, appeals, independent oversight and enforcement.

Codes and guardrails

Written rules of conduct, backed by real consequences, that turn values into expected behavior. Without enforcement they are decoration.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. WADA accepted the contamination explanation and did not appeal. Given the evidence described, was that decision reasonable? What further steps, if any, should it have taken?
2. Should positive tests that are resolved without sanction be made public? Weigh the interests of uncharged athletes against transparency.
3. Is it legitimate for a national government to withhold funding from WADA to pressure it over a specific case? What are the risks?
4. How should the anti-doping system ensure that contamination defenses are treated consistently across countries?
5. Can a global regulator remain neutral when its biggest funders and stakeholders are geopolitical rivals?

Sources

1. Doping in China — Wikipedia
2. Inside the high-stakes dispute between the U.S. and global anti-doping agencies over China — CBS News
3. Top Chinese swimmers tested positive for banned drug, then won Olympic gold — The New York Times
4. Contamination case of swimmers from China: fact sheet and FAQ — World Anti-Doping Agency
5. Summary Report of the Independent Prosecutor (July 1, 2024; English translation) — Eric Cottier / World Anti-Doping Agency
6. Final Report of the Independent Prosecutor (Aug. 5, 2024; English translation) — Eric Cottier / World Anti-Doping Agency
7. Narrow Review Denies Justice to Athletes (Sept. 13, 2024) — U.S. Anti-Doping Agency
8. Working Group on the Cottier Report Implementation – Report (Dec. 2024) — World Anti-Doping Agency