Doping Accusations Must Be Fair

When is a doping scandal not a doping scandal? What about when the accused person is not Chinese?

In the second week of the Olympics, coming up, we will see the UK represented in Taekwando by Jade Jones, a two-time gold medalist looking for her third.

A little digging unearths a report about her. At dawn on a cold December day last year in the city of Manchester, UK, a doping control officer knocked on the door of Ms Jones' hotel room. It was 6:50 am.

The officer asked for a urine sample.

Ms Jones declined to provide one.

As all athletes know, refusing to provide a sample is an offence in itself, punishable by a ban of four years.

DEHYDRATED

At first, Jones said she couldn't provide a urine sample because she was dehydrated, so wasn't ready to use the toilet.

Such excuses have been used before – sometimes athletes do get dehydrated. Normally, the officer would stay with the athlete until she was ready to provide the sample.

But the athlete did not want her to stay and wait. The officer reminded her "approximately five times" of the consequences of a refusal to take such a test—several years of being banned from her sport. Ms Jones continued to refuse.

A phone call was made to the performance director of GB Taekwondo, who advised her to comply.

Again, she refused.

The officer went away with no sample.

CHANGE OF ISSUE

The athlete had a test 12 hours later, which she passed. But 12 hours is a long time in sports—and anyway, but that time, the issue had shifted. Her refusal had become the issue.

The anti-doping officers later received a letter from a lawyer saying their client had made a poor decision because she was dehydrated and it affected her mentally.

Did Jade Jones get the four-year ban? No. She got no punishment at all.

The officers decided to give her the benefit of the doubt. The UK's anti-doping agency approved her to continue competing without a break.

THE CHINESE COMPLIED

Now let's compare this to the Chinese case.

Chinese swimmers were told to take anti-doping tests one day in 2021. They complied, and 23 tested positive for the banned drug trimetazidine.

The athletes expressed puzzlement. They said they had not taken any drugs – but had all shared meals at the Huayang Holiday hotel in Shijiazhuang, a city in Hebei province.

Investigators duly investigated the hotel, and found trace elements of the drug in the kitchen – in the kitchen drains, in the extractor fan, and on spice containers.

But how did the substance get there? It is not normally used in foods.

Anti-doping specialists gave them the benefit of the doubt, and they were cleared without charge.

COVERAGE IS AN ISSUE

There does seem to be an issue here. The Chinese swimmers clearly complied fully with the testing rules, and were cleared – yet there are huge numbers of negative reports about them in the mainstream media, many throwing doubt on their innocence.

In contrast, the UK athlete clearly DID contravene the drug testing rules, but there's little coverage of her case. It is quite possible that there was no drug-taking in either instance.

One of the problems may be the effect of such unbalanced coverage over a long term. There is often massive coverage of Chinese cases, with far less coverage of other cases. So a general prejudice is built up of one side "usually" cheating while the other is assumed to play fair.

But perhaps the best position to take is the one which the drug-testing agencies have taken. If one side gets the benefit of the doubt, then the other should too. The advantage of that position is that it reflects the position of natural justice.

People are innocent until proven guilty.

Memories of media trickery:

For more commentary from Nury Vittachi, check out the YouTube video below:

by Nury Vittachi

Lai See(利是)

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

Washington-based Foreign Policy magazine has been quick to point out that the Wang Fuk Court fire confirmed that the city’s “once prized freedom have vanished.”

How the magazine in it’s December 2 edition came to this conclusion is anyone’s guess, but it is indicative that anything untoward in Hong Kong is seen as politically motivated and a bad thing.

The fire, a great tragedy in Hong Kong that claimed 159 lives and many still missing, has left the city in mourning. And yet, the American press continues to use the opportunity to lambast Hong Kong as it struggles to come to terms with the devastating tragedy. It is a time for sympathies, not political gain… but that is the American way.

Foreign Policy editor James Palmer said local authorities responded to the fire by stifling civil society aid efforts and detaining critics. According to Palmer, since the 2019 protests and the imposition of “draconian” national security laws, no public institution in Hong Kong can operate freely. “Democratic mechanisms have been gutted, and political candidates must now adhere explicitly to Beijing’s line. The city’s response to the fire has confirmed Hong Kongers’ fears that the city’s political culture is now indistinguishable from that of the mainland,” he wrote.

Such comments are coming from a magazine that is popular in the halls of the US Congress and Senate. This and other foreign news coverage of the fire, prompted the Hong Kong SAR government to issue a statement that external forces were making false and defamatory remarks about the government’s post-disaster follow-up and investigations, as well as stirring up trouble and maliciously attacking the disaster relief efforts, as they “harbour malicious intent”. The Office for Safeguarding National Security also condemned a “small clique of external hostile forces” for “stirring up trouble and taking advantage of the chaos.”

One woman has been arrested over a fake donation website for the Tai Po fire victims and others have been detained for making false claims about the victims whom they claimed were “harbouring grave sins” and “got their retribution.” Others have been questioned by police for unbecoming behaviour towards the victims.

But Palmer writes Police dismantled grassroots fundraising efforts and donation sites and replaced them with state-approved efforts. So says somebody more than 13,000 kilometres away.

Hong Kong people responded in their usual fashion, with compassion and within a short period some HK$1 billion had been raised for the victims. Food, clothing and blankets were also donated by a caring public.

What Palmer means is again anybody’s guess. If he is referring to Beijing, he is sadly mistaken. All efforts relating to the fire were Hong Kong’s efforts. Beijing did offer to help and had fire tenders on the ready at the Shenzhen boundary.

Chinese President Xi Jingping offered his condolences on behalf of all the Chinese people indicating the care the central authorities in Beijing have towards Hong Kong.

The city’s response to the fire was remarkable as more than 2,300 firefighters and medical personnel were involved in the operation, which included one firefighter killed and 12 others injured.

It is writers like Palmer who give Hong Kong a bad name for the sole purpose of sensationalism and political sway. But, unfortunately, their publications are read as 丶being authoritative in the corridors of power and impact on Sino-Anglo relations, an never ending frustrating situation.