NEW DELHI: According to an Australian newspaper, 23 Chinese swimmers were permitted to participate in the Tokyo Olympics despite testing positive for doping.
The Daily Telegraph in Sydney reported that these swimmers were found with traces of trimetazidine, a heart medication, during a pre-Olympic training camp. Despite these findings, Chinese anti-doping authorities cleared them, attributing the positive results to contamination.
The 30-member Chinese swim team managed to secure six medals in Tokyo, including three golds.The newspaper highlighted that both the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and World Aquatics (then called FINA) were informed of the positive samples. However, both governing bodies agreed with the Chinese authorities’ assessment that the tests were contaminated, thus refraining from imposing any sanctions on the athletes.
The Daily Telegraph quoted World Aquatics as expressing confidence in the handling of these Adverse Analytical Findings (AAF), stating that all applicable anti-doping regulations were adhered to.
“World Aquatics is confident that these AAFs were handled diligently and professionally, and in accordance with all applicable anti-doping regulations, including the World Anti-Doping Code,” the newspaper quoted World Aquatics as saying.
Professor Olivier Rabin, WADA’s senior director of science and medicine, also provided insight into WADA’s review process. He mentioned that WADA examined the case meticulously in the lead-up to the Tokyo Games, even consulting with the manufacturer of trimetazidine to evaluate the plausibility of contamination.
“We even sought pharmacokinetic and metabolism information from the manufacturer of (trimetazidine) in assessing the plausibility of the contamination scenario that was presented to WADA,” Rabin said.
Rabin emphasized that WADA ultimately determined there was no substantial evidence to challenge the contamination claim. He explained, “Ultimately, we concluded that there was no concrete basis to challenge the asserted contamination. Indeed, the contamination scenario was further supported by the combination of the consistently low concentrations of (trimetazidine) as well as no doping pattern with several athletes presenting multiple samples collected over the course of several days which fluctuated between negative and positive (and vice versa).”
(Inputs from AP)
The Daily Telegraph in Sydney reported that these swimmers were found with traces of trimetazidine, a heart medication, during a pre-Olympic training camp. Despite these findings, Chinese anti-doping authorities cleared them, attributing the positive results to contamination.
The 30-member Chinese swim team managed to secure six medals in Tokyo, including three golds.The newspaper highlighted that both the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and World Aquatics (then called FINA) were informed of the positive samples. However, both governing bodies agreed with the Chinese authorities’ assessment that the tests were contaminated, thus refraining from imposing any sanctions on the athletes.
The Daily Telegraph quoted World Aquatics as expressing confidence in the handling of these Adverse Analytical Findings (AAF), stating that all applicable anti-doping regulations were adhered to.
“World Aquatics is confident that these AAFs were handled diligently and professionally, and in accordance with all applicable anti-doping regulations, including the World Anti-Doping Code,” the newspaper quoted World Aquatics as saying.
Professor Olivier Rabin, WADA’s senior director of science and medicine, also provided insight into WADA’s review process. He mentioned that WADA examined the case meticulously in the lead-up to the Tokyo Games, even consulting with the manufacturer of trimetazidine to evaluate the plausibility of contamination.
“We even sought pharmacokinetic and metabolism information from the manufacturer of (trimetazidine) in assessing the plausibility of the contamination scenario that was presented to WADA,” Rabin said.
Rabin emphasized that WADA ultimately determined there was no substantial evidence to challenge the contamination claim. He explained, “Ultimately, we concluded that there was no concrete basis to challenge the asserted contamination. Indeed, the contamination scenario was further supported by the combination of the consistently low concentrations of (trimetazidine) as well as no doping pattern with several athletes presenting multiple samples collected over the course of several days which fluctuated between negative and positive (and vice versa).”
(Inputs from AP)