Ask me no questions and I’ll tell you no lies…

The proverb originates from Oilver Goldsmith’s 1773 play, She Stoops to Conquer. It is an apt description for the so-called Independent Investigation commissioned by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) into whether it should have intervened, after China failed to suspend 23 swimmers who tested positive for Trimetazidine (TMZ).

An Interim Report published by WADA indicates that as far as the agency is concerned, it is mission complete, job done. This article is designed to indicate questions that Eric Cottier should have asked. The point of the title is that he didn’t have the freedom to independently investigate. He was handcuffed by WADA’s narrow remit, restricting his response to answers to two questions posed by WADA, as previously highlighted by THE INQUISITOR:

The fairy tale of an independent investigation into Chinese doping

The champagne corks are popping at the headquarters of the World Anti Doping Agency and in Beijing. A so-called investigator has delivered the desired result in response to two questions posed by his client. WADA has allegedly done everything right. But in fact all questions remain unanswered.

THE INQUISITORJens Weinreich

Independence says "Go. Investigate, and tell me what you find". Cottier’s remit said: "Answer these two questions, the answers to which we already know and are acceptable to us". It is a well-rehearsed strategy from the playbook of international sporting organisations.

Here are some of the main inconsistencies in Cottier's thin report – all unacceptable breaches of the rules, aren't they?

1. The call between WADA and the Chinese government
2. Why weren’t the 23 swimmers provisionally suspended?
3. Why wasn’t WADA’s Ad-Hoc Division used?

A call between WADA and the Chinese government

Cottier’s Annex reveals that a day after it was notified about the final Decision from China’s National Anti-Doping Agency’s (CHINADA) regarding the 23 positive tests, a telephone call took place. The participants? Olivier Niggli, WADA’s Director General, Olivier Rabin, WADA’s Director of Science and Medicine and Yingchuan Li, China’s Vice Minister for Sport.

Yingchuan Li is a also Member of WADA’s Foundation Board. Beijing’s hosting of the 2022 Winter Olympics was six months away, and WADA required a fully functioning local anti-doping agency and laboratory to utilise during the Games. China is the second biggest Asian contributor to WADA’s budget after Japan, and in the years leading up to the postponed Tokyo 2020ne Olympics, upped its additional contributions.

1. Cottier’s Annex doesn’t mention whether WADA or the Chinese government initiated the call, which concerned the case of the 23 swimmers who tested positive for TMZ. It also discussed "questions relating to the affiliation of the accredited Laboratory in Beijing, with a view to the Beijing Winter Olympics in January-February 2022".
2. Cottier’s Annex mentions that the content of that call was documented in writing. Did Cottier ask for that documentary record? It would be interesting to see what discussions took place.
3. Is contact with government officials normal procedure in an anti-doping case? Cottier doesn’t explore this important question.

There is no evidence that WADA held similar telephone discussions with Russian officials during the recent Kamila Valieva case. Such a suggestion would have been scandalous. WADA successfully appealed against RUSADA’s later Decision to lift the 15 year old’s provisional suspension, as previously reported by THE INQUISITOR:

The tentacles of the Russian state invade Kamila Valieva

Is it still state doping in Russia under the supervision of the FMBA? Russian athletes are spoilt for choice between the carrot and the stick. Either they toe the FMBA line and compete, or face the wrath of the Russian state and expulsion from the sport.

THE INQUISITORAndy Brown