Abstract
This note examines the World Anti-Doping Agency's ("WADA") disparate enforcement of its Code in doping cases involving Russian and Chinese athletes, highlighting inconsistencies in sanctioning and examining the consequences of these deviations. This disparate application of WADA's Code provisions frustrates the agency's mission to promote fair competition in international sport by diluting the legitimacy and authority of its enforcement. In both WADA v. RUSADA (2020) and WADA v. RUSADA (2024), WADA launched full investigations into Russian athlete doping in international sporting competition.
WADA v. RUSADA (2020) demonstrates WADA's condemnation of Russian state-sponsored doping practices, while WADA v. RUSADA (2024), Kamila Valieva's arbitration case, exemplifies WADA's specific handling of samples from Russian athletes that tested positive for Trimetazidine ("TMZ"). In contrast, WADA's lack of formal investigation and mere statement regarding the New York Times report of TMZ found in Chinese swimmer samples in 2021 departs markedly from its formal investigative approach and calls for sanctions in the Russian cases. This note argues that not only does WADA stand to lose its power and credibility, but international sporting competition risks losing its meaning if WADA does not adopt a more consistent approach to Code enforcement.
First Page
137
Recommended Citation
Ashleigh
Kaosombat
Fair Play or Fraud: the Disparity of WADA's Enforcement of International Anti-Doping Laws in Russia and China,
21
Loy. U. Chi. Int'l L. Rev.
137
().
Available at:
https://lawecommons.luc.edu/lucilr/vol21/iss2/5