news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

An American sports expert recently said in an interview with CCTV reporters that since the 2012 Sochi Winter Olympics, the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has begun to criticize the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) for not taking enough punishment measures against athletes who take banned drugs. However, the expert admitted thatThe United States is actually allowing athletes who test positive for doping to continue to compete, acting as "spy" athletes, which is obviously unfair to other athletes in the sport.

CCTV reporter Liu Xu: According to some media reports, the United States allows athletes to take banned drugs to deceive the World Anti-Doping Agency's report, but condemns athletes from other countries for taking banned drugs to cheat in competitions. What is the logic behind this? How do you understand it?

John Volohan, professor of sports law at the School of Physical Education at Syracuse University: The biggest issue surrounding the United States and the United States Anti-Doping Agency right now is,There are reports that the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) allowed some athletes who tested positive to continue to compete, provided that these athletes agreed to help USADA "catch" more athletes who took banned drugs.Basically, although I don’t like that term, they are “spies” for USADA because even if they test positive, they agree to help USADA catch other athletes.

American sports experts also said that at this year's Paris Olympics, Chinese athletes were given special treatment in doping tests, which was undoubtedly due to'Double standards'。

According to the World Swimming Federation, since the beginning of this year, the number of athletes participating in the Paris Olympics has increased significantly.The 31 Chinese swimmers were tested an average of 21 times each by various anti-doping agencies.In contrast, the American players were tested only six times on average. In this regard, Daniel Kelly, professor of global sports at New York University, said that this significant difference in the number of tests reflects that Chinese athletes are being unreasonably targeted.And this disproportionate testing was done without any reason to suspect。

Daniel Kelly, professor of global sports at New York University:This is a double standard, Chinese swimmers were tested 21 times, which is outrageous, especially compared to the six tests per American swimmer, four tests per British swimmer, and four tests per French swimmer. So, the increase in the number of tests on Chinese swimmers is again suspicious without any reasonable reason. Overall, Chinese athletes were tested much more than in Rio 2016 and Tokyo 2020. So, with more than a thousand out-of-competition tests and more than a 50% increase in in-competition testing, the proportion of testing has indeed increased, but it seems to be only for Chinese swimmers.

Kelly mentioned that although the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) admitted that food contamination is not uncommon, there is an obvious unfairness in the doping testing process between Chinese and American athletes. He said this shows that although Chinese athletes performed very well in the Olympics, they were "accused" of doping in doping testing and did not receive equal respect and fair treatment.

Daniel Kelly, professor of global sports at New York University: My view is that Chinese swimmers are being targeted, they are being over-tested, and there seems to be a "make it up" mentality, with no reason why they are being tested so frequently. So we see that drug testing is part of this process,We saw Chinese athletes being tested multiple times, then we saw complaints about contaminated meat not being treated equally, and then of course we saw Chinese athletes being treated unfairly when they were tested., they were tested almost seven times more often than athletes from the United States, France and the United Kingdom. In general, even though Chinese athletes are very successful in competition, they are not treated fairly.