Australian swimmer Shayna Jack has denied using Ligandrol, a banned performance-enhancing drug. But when Jack was subjected to an out-of-competition anti-doping test at Tobruk Pool in Cairns in 2019, she returned an adverse analytical finding. As per protocol, Jack was given a provisional suspension, the suspension was made public and the swimmer was eventually banned from the sport for four years.
On appeal, Jack maintained that she had not knowingly taken Ligandrol. She speculated that the legal supplements she was taking might have been contaminated, or that she might have come into contact with the substance while using public pool facilities. But because the global anti-doping regime operates on a strict liability basis, a lack of evidence that Jack had not knowingly taken Ligandrol was insufficient.
Related: Wada defends its actions due to doping accusations from Chinese swimmers
At the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the referee described being “very impressed” by Jack’s witness statements. The swimmer presented himself as someone “who at all times conscientiously strove to comply with the anti-doping policy of [Swimming Australia]”. But despite the arbitrator accepting that Jack had not deliberately taken performance-enhancing drugs, despite a legion of character witnesses describing the swimmer as ‘hard-working, conscientious, sympathetic and motivated athlete of the highest integrity’, the arbitrator could only reduce the suspension. from four years to two. All of this played out in a very public way.
With its strict accountability, utmost transparency and heavy burden of proof, the global anti-doping system overseen by the World Anti-Doping Agency can result in cases of individual injustice. Jack is Exhibit A – banned for two years in the prime of her career, even though an arbitrator accepted that the ligandrol in her system had been ingested accidentally and without performance-enhancing intent. Peter Bol is Exhibit B – publicly suspended for testing positive for synthetic erythropoietin, only to have the case withdrawn due to apparent test failures.
Although the Bol case has led to some important changes, the foundation of the anti-doping system remains. Athletes are responsible for what goes into their bodies, however it gets there, subject to strictly defined exceptions that are considered under close and transparent scrutiny. In the arms race for performance improvement, in which anti-doping authorities are constantly playing catch-up, this is the solution we have collectively arrived at: in some cases, dishonesty in the interest of trust in the system as a whole. In some ways this is the opposite of Blackstone’s famous rationale about criminal justice – that it is better for ten guilty people to go unpunished than for one innocent person to suffer.
But this only works in sports if everyone is subject to the same rules. And the news that 23 Chinese swimmers tested positive for a banned substance, trimetazidine, only to compete months later and in some cases win medals at the Tokyo Olympics has shaken the swimming world to its core.
With less than 100 days to go until the Paris Games, athletes, national federations and anti-doping authorities around the world are shocked and angry. The fuss points to a bitter pool match in Paris, reminiscent of the feud between Australian Mack Horton and China’s Sun Yang (whose four-year anti-doping ban expires next month), but on a much grander scale.
The Australian swimmers do not hide their feelings. Emma McKeon, who won four gold medals in Tokyo, shared a quote from Horton on her Instagram account. “This news is infuriating,” the report said. “I sympathize with the deserving athletes who have missed out on life-changing medal opportunities because of a failed system.” McKeon won bronze in the 100m butterfly in Tokyo, behind China’s Zhang Yufei – one of the athletes who tested positive.
Backstroker Kaylee McKeown, who won three gold medals in Tokyo, shared the same quote: McKeown and McKeon were both part of the Australian 4x100m medley relay team, which finished third behind China. So did freestyle queen Ariarne Titmus – along with McKeon, part of the 4x200m freestyle relay team that finished third in a race won by a world record-breaking Chinese effort.
There is confusion about these revelations. The environmental contamination theory put forward by the Chinese athletes and accepted by Wada is not entirely implausible – all 23 positive tests occurred at the same time and place, and in too small a quantity to be likely to be performance-enhancing. That certainly doesn’t sound like large-scale, state-sponsored doping. But questions remain: How could a drug used as a heart medicine, found only in tablet form, end up contaminating a kitchen? And why was this only made public after an investigation by the New York Times and the German broadcaster ARD?
On Twitter, Richard Ings, former head of Australia’s Anti-Doping Authority, defended Wada’s handling of the case, pointing to specific rules around environmental pollution, Wada’s receipt of outside legal advice and the difficulties posed by the pandemic. an investigation. But that’s not everyone’s opinion. A veteran sports lawyer told the Guardian that the saga shows that “Wada is not fit for purpose as a regulator, investigator and judge.”
Related: The Peter Bol case is pushing Wada to reform its synthetic EPO testing processes
The story certainly leaves the global anti-doping authority with important questions that need to be answered – questions that will not be brushed aside by threatening critics, including the head of the US Anti-Doping Agency, with legal action. China’s long history on anti-doping issues, especially in the doping pool, only adds to the concerns. The anti-doping regime is based on maintaining public confidence in athletic performance; Wada’s opacity at the time and hostile response undermine this now. Like British swimming great Adam Peaty asked“Why not release this information at that time, who really benefits from the lack of transparency and secrecy?”
This all promises a combustible atmosphere when the world’s swimmers meet in Paris in three months. They are likely to be joined by Shayna Jack, now returning to the pool after her doping ban, and a key member of Australia’s relay teams. While her colleagues have spoken out, Jack has remained silent on the current controversy. But she could be forgiven for wondering why she was treated so differently.