Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

TheMKS sports founder of the modern Olympics, Baron Pierre de Coubertin, famously said that "the most important thing in the Olympics is not winning but taking part." Granted, critics of the Olympics and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) might suggest that athletes, especially the elite ones, have never believed such words; for them, it is a medal (preferably gold) or the entire experience has not been worth it. 

Over the past couple of months, it has become quite clear that some of the best swimmers from around the world want not only to win at the 2024 Summer Olympics, but they would also prefer that their Chinese counterparts not participate. In the lead up to the Games which just began on Friday, they voiced repeated allegations that Chinese athletes cheat. In their minds, such cheating means the Chinese team should not be in Paris. I will examine the circumstances of one case below.

The most vocal swimmer is Australia's Zac Stubblety-Cook. He is the defending gold medalist in the 200m breaststroke, and he is one of the favorites to win in Paris. Should he not, then he has already created an excuse: He does not cheat; and should a Chinese swimmer beat him, then that athlete might have been helped by some kind of drug. He said, "I absolutely believe in clean sport and I hope that this is a clean Games." He added that if a Chinese swimmer defeats him, then he might protest at the award's ceremony, a move that would directly violate IOC rules. 

Stubblety-Cook was specifically talking about Qin Haiyang, who holds the world-record time in that 200m breaststroke. Qin is among a group of Chinese swimmers who tested positive for a banned substance before the Tokyo Olympics but was still allowed to participate.

The Chinese delegation informed the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) that the positive results stemmed from contamination at the team's hotel. WADA recently affirmed once again that it "reviewed the Chinese swimmer case file diligently, consulted with scientific and legal experts, and ultimately determined that it was in no position to challenge the contamination scenario." 

The agency then went on the offensive, suggesting that "we stand by that good-faith determination in the face of the incomplete and misleading news reports." 

Many of those "incomplete and misleading news reports" are coming from... the US.

In fact, Stubblety-Cook's complaints look tame when compared with what some Americans are saying. Travis Tygart is the head of the US Anti-Doping Agency. He blasted WADA for "egregious failures" in examining the circumstances before the Tokyo Olympics, suggesting that "clean athletes [have been left] in the dark." WADA's repeated statements would suggest otherwise.

Of course, the US Congress has found a reason to get involved, although there is nothing that it can do to change the presence of the Chinese athletes in France. The Congressional Committee on Energy and Commerce went so far as to question whether WADA can be objective because of a sponsorship agreement it has with a Chinese company. Of course, no one dared to ask whether WADA's sponsorship agreement with the Sword Group, which has offices in multiple countries - including the US - means America might be able to influence WADA. Congress also insinuated because the head of China's anti-doping agency is "deeply intertwined" with the Communist Party of China that China will not seriously address cases of doping.

What no one in the West wants to acknowledge is that Chinese swimmers have been repeatedly tested in the months leading up to the Paris Olympics, and every single one of those tests has come back negative. According to World Aquatics, "the 31 swimmers from China competing in Paris have each been tested at least 10 times by World Aquatics, with an average of 13 tests per swimmer." 

No drugs. No cheating. Case closed.

What is the lesson here? A few people would be wise to grow up, let WADA do its job and respect its findings. 

WADA did its due diligence, conducted its investigation and reached a clear conclusion: There was no reason to suspend the Chinese swimmers three years ago. In other words, those athletes did not break either the letter or the spirit of Olympic ethical guidelines or rules. One is left to wonder if anyone within the IOC will have the courage to publicly tell the Australians and Americans (and potentially others) that they are crossing the line in their criticisms; they are the ones in violation of the essential motto of the Olympics: Competing in an open series of events for the love of sport. 

The author is an associate professor at the Department of Communication and Organizational Leadership at Robert Morris University. [email protected].