China Anti-Doping Agency (CHINADA) noted that the Global Times has published a report on the doubts about the Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) case of the U.S. sprinting star Erriyon Knighton. Knighton, a member of the U.S. Olympic track and field team, tested positive for a banned steroid (trenbolone) during an out-of-competition test on March 26. In a surprising turn, the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) abruptly decided before the start of the domestic qualifiers for the Paris Olympics that no ineligibility would be imposed on Knighton, claiming that Knighton’s positive result for trenbolone was caused by his ingestion of contaminated meat, and allowed him to eventually represent the United States at the Paris Olympics. 

However, when it comes to the contamination cases of the Chinese swimmers, USADA has shown a typical double standard by trying its best to clear American athletes on one hand, but on the other hand accusing CHINADA and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) of “covering up the truth” and demanding sanctions against Chinese athletes while ignoring the repeated clarifications by WADA and the report by the Independent Prosecutor. 

As reported by the media, many suspicions about Knighton’s AAF case remain unresolved. Studies have shown that trenbolone is an anabolic agent with strong enhancing effects on strength and explosiveness, and is not a common contaminant. Hundreds of AAF cases for trenbolone have occurred around the world in recent years in total, and publicly available information shows that while the athletes involved in most of these trenbolone AAF cases were essentially given a four-year ineligibility, three American athletes have escaped sanctions by claiming food contamination. In the Knighton case, the independent arbitrator concluded that the contaminated meat in this case came from a restaurant in Florida. Here’s the problem: it’s a strange coincidence that while USADA didn’t start investigation until two months later, it happened to detect trenbolone in a different batch of beef purchased from the same restaurant. If there is indeed widespread beef contamination of trenbolone in the U.S. market, has USADA ever conducted an extensive market research and collected data? Has it warned the American athletes about the problem of meat contamination? Has it studied how much contaminated meat can cause a positive test? The CEO of USADA publicly declared in a statement that “justice was served” before WADA had even reviewed the case and before the deadline for appeal had yet expired. What is even more suspicious is that this statement has now been removed from USADA’s website, along with its previous statements and releases on no-fault contamination cases. What are they trying to hide behind this unusual action?

The Knighton case just shows that USADA’s rhetoric about fairness and clean sport runs counter to its actual practices. This contradiction is even more evident in the fact that the main professional leagues and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) of the U.S. have their own standards for anti-doping that are in clear conflict with the World Anti-Doping Code (the Code), and that these athletes are not subject to any testing by USADA. This has created a huge backroom in sport. While USADA is a signatory to the Code, the most-watched sports leagues in the U.S.—the Major League Baseball (MLB), the National Basketball Association (NBA), the National Football League (NFL), and the National Hockey League (NHL)—are not protected by the Code, and the NCAA, the cradle of the vast majority of the most successful American athletes, has not signed the Code. The Mitchell Report published in 2006 named more than 85 active and retired baseball players who had doped. Some players claimed that 40%, 50%, or even 80% of the baseball athletes were taking steroids. The WADA President, Mr. Witold Banka also pointed out in a recent meeting that “90% of American athletes, those in pro leagues and college sport, don’t compete under World Anti-Doping Code”.

In addition, the Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act, which came into effect in 2020, asserts criminal jurisdiction over doping cases in international sports events that occurred outside its national borders. This act, while claiming to be combating doping offenses, excludes its domestic professional leagues, college leagues and other U.S. events. This is another obvious example of the double standards that the U.S. is practicing when targeting its anti-doping work towards American athletes and athletes from other countries.

The U.S. has turned a blind eye to its long history of doping problems, but is obsessed with “cross-border jurisdiction” and asserting sanctions against other countries. It seems that the accusation and attack on China and other countries is its tactic to deflect attention from the serious flaws in its own anti-doping work. This is sheer political manipulation and hypocritical double standards. Since April this year, the U.S. Congress, USADA and the U.S. media have adopted a selective approach when it comes to the contamination cases of the Chinese swimmers when they attempt to mislead the international community and the general public by confusing right and wrong through fabrication and frame-up. Moreover, they are trying to politicize anti-doping by instigating the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to initiate a “long-arm jurisdiction” over this case by opening an investigation using its domestic judicial and administrative means. Such utterly disgraceful and despicable attempts are not only a stark double standard, but are also wanton violations of the principles of fairness and justice.

Once again, we urge USADA to cease fabricating false narratives, politicizing anti doping and manipulating public perception, to stop disrupting and undermining the well-functioning world anti-doping order and global governance system, and to put an end to the abuse of “long-arm jurisdiction” and threatening and pressuring with so-called “legal means”. We call on USADA to review the approaches and principles it has adopted in doping cases to ensure compliance with the goals of the global anti-doping system, and to demonstrate due integrity and consistency in their work. This is the right way to regain trust of the international community in its anti-doping work.