Talk:Doping in China

WADA statement should stay

I addressed this before.[1] The WADA statement in intro is essential and yet it's repeatedly deleted. Without it, the previous version makes most readers think the swimmers were confirmed to be doping. And Wada was just slow on issuing suspensions and so those swimmers went on and won medals in the Olympics. But then the tests became public years later but WADA was too late to suspend them. Except that's not what happened at all. The WADA statement explains they aren't proven dopers and it was due to contamination and also the levels in their system was not capable of performance enhancement. The WADA statement (https://www.wada-ama.org/en/news/wada-publishes-media-conference-recording-regarding-environmental-contamination-case-swimmers) is essential context that avoids misleading, and why I re-added it as there was no good reason to hide that.[2] 49.186.88.247 (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

As it stands, the article makes a number of outright false claims - including that no stand was taken by world aquatics and WADA on Chinese doping allegations. On the contrary, WADA and World Aquatics have rejected the claims levelled by the NY Times against them and have maintained that they assessed CHINADA's claims in accordance with the Anti-Doping Code and without any favoritism whatsoever. MingScribe1368 (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Pizzigs@Johannesvdp@Normchou I do not wish to get involved in your edit disputes with others. If you want to argue about the intro, please go ahead and edit the intro only. I don't understand why the information from the TMZ chapter now needs to be deleted. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_in_China#Trimetazidine_allegations_in_Chinese_swimming) That chapter is neutral and simply states what WADA, the IOC, and athletes have said. For example, when WADA appointed Eric Cottier as an independent prosecutor to review its handling of the case, I added the investigation results that came out a few months later. But several of you have constantly removed it, effectively erasing the last two months of the matter's updates with careless, impulsive edits, without looking at what you're deleting. I urge you three, who keep deleting it, to minimally read the entire chapter as it is in this version.[3] Tell me what part is problematic. I highly doubt you can find anything problematic. If you don't have any issues then please remember to leave that chapter alone. Please, don't just delete content without reading it first. Thank you.

49.179.43.130 (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

WADA has also officially described the New York Times article as "inaccurate", "sensationalist" and "misleading". These are the words of a respectable international institution with both expertise and authority on its side. Surely if NY Times is allowed to launch claims of bias against WADA, then WADA"s own defense, including its own assessment of the charges levelled against it by that journalistic rag. MingScribe1368 (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

MingScribe1368, the community found that WP:NYTIMES is a WP:GREL source. If you think otherwise, then you are always free to head over to WP:RSN and propose a RfC to make your case. - Amigao (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

A reliable source may on occasion produce an inaccurate, sensationalist and misleading article. WADA is reliable as far as doping is concerned. NYTimes is not. MingScribe1368 (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

WADA, IOC, World Aquatics, CHINADA v New York Times and USADA

I do not see why allegations from the New York Times and USADA are given free rein on this article, while corresponding statements and evidence from WADA, IOC, World Aquatics and CHINADA are suppressed and deleted.

Secondly, world doping figures are extremely relevant in an article about Chinese doping, in order to give a sense of magnitude and international context to the problem. Thus far, these comparisons have been concise, thereby illuminating rather than detracting from the subject matter. MingScribe1368 (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, both sides here seem to be cited. Comparing to other countries is a classic case of whataboutism, and would probably be WP:UNDUE. The big problem here seems to be that content from both sides is jam packed into a large section, making it hard to see who is responding to who or really clearly see any party's position in the matter. Allan Nonymous (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Allan NonymousAs far as I can tell, the intro only shows one side. The US response and not WADA's. And it has loaded statements like It presents Xue as if her claim is proven. And then goes on to subtly say, "it's unclear whether systematic doping has continued to modern day", giving the loaded impression that it's been proven beyond doubt that it occured in the past. And information like China losing a total of three Olympic medals to doping. Yes, only 3 total. That part is not mentioned clear enough. Instead it casually mention that three weightlifters were stripped of medals straight after mention of allegations of systematic doping, and makes it appear that they are also proven cases of systematic doping. While neglecting to inform readers that they are the ONLY three cases of China's Olympic medals stripped for Doping and also there's no sources provided to even state that they were proven examples of systematic doping. So it needs to be rewritten better than that. *Btw, I was anon IP editor with address; 49.179.43.130

and 49.186.88.247 in two threads above. IP49XX (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The irony is that for an article about doping in China. It is surprisingly light on details on proven cases of doping. Instead it's almost entirely about allegations. Which aren't even proven. What the article really needs now is a chapter to explain how China compares to other countries in doping rates. How many Olympic medals they lost to doping. And give finer details about the three Olympic weightlifters who actually were tested positive for doping. Which I have read the article and found virtually nothing about them except briefly in the intro. Maybe the comparative stats are not needed in the intro, but it's definitely okay for a dedicated chapter of its own to give readers better comparative understanding of how it compares to other nations. IP49XX (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

There should be a separate section for proven cases of doping violations and another section for allegations.

Prominence and weight should be given to international bodies like WADA and the IOC, and the actions these have taken (for e.g. medal stripping). International comparisons should be provided to give a sense of the magnitude of the problem of Chinese doping.

Secondly, allegations should not be represented as fact or expatiated about at length on this article until they are proven. Perhaps a separate page for NY Times allegations is warranted. Where allegations from a source are included, then a defense against those allegations and an assessment of the credibility of the allegation-makers must also be included for reasons of neutrality. MingScribe1368 (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

International comparisons are not whataboutism but provide information on the extent of the problem.

Otherwise this statement would also need to be removed:

"Between 1990 and 1998, 28 Chinese swimmers tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs, almost half the world total of drug offenders in sport"

You cannot include only inculpatory comparisons whilst excluding exculpatory ones. Comparisons are relevant precisely because they introduce a point of reference and enable us to gauge the extent of a problem. This is pure common sense.

1. The article as it currently stands already includes such a comparison such as "almost half of the world total of drug offenders in sport". If it can make such a claim, it should also include a mention of doping in 2022 and 2021, im which Chinese athletes form the minority of doping cases, and also in IOC medals stripped in totality, of which Chinese represent a very small fraction.

2. Many media articles on doping focusing on a particular country, say India or Belgium, make such comparisons. It would be impossible to get a sense of the magnitude of the problem without it.

3. WADA itself sees such comparisons as relevant, publishing statistics at a national level.

4. Doping confers an unfair advantage in sports, and the concept of "unfair advantage" being a term of relation requiring a comparison with other nation's doping practices.

5. The clear motivation of many participants (I hestitate to call them editors - they do not deserve the term) is not to describe Chinese doping impartially, but rather to paint as bleak a picture of China as possible, as is clear by their removal of content on the grounds of it being "pro-China", implying that they are not so much concerned with the logical weight and credibility of arguments, but rather with their effects in augmenting or diminishing a particular position (in this case, an anti-China position).

What I say is simply common sense, and unless the people can address these points specifically and individually, I would say their removal of content from the WADA and IOC, and comparisons with doping internationally, are unwarranted and impair the objectivity and neutrality of the article. MingScribe1368 (talk) 03:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you on the ""Between 1990 and 1998, 28 Chinese swimmers tested positive..." claim. It seems to be a violation of the WP:FULLCITE guideline as it is sourced to a dead citation url. An editor in good faith cannot argue that this constitutes due weight while claiming that the additions we both support which is easily verified by articles from The Hindu, The Brussels Times, AFP News etc. is "WP:UNDUE". Donkey Hot-day (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Please remove any contentious assertion that has no verifiable citation. MingScribe1368 (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Another issue is the sentence of "The International Association of Athletics Federations confirmed it had reach out to the Chinese Athletics Association for verification and would investigate the matter, but the latter did not respond." The latter not responding is not supported by Daily Telegraph citation. The closest thing suggesting this is found in the Reuters citation which says: "An official from the Chinese Athletics Association declined to comment [to Reuters]." So it should be changed to: "The International Association of Athletics Federations confirmed they had launched a probe into the claims and asked the Chinese Athletics Association to assist it in verifying whether the letter is genuine.(cited to Daily Telegraph) An official from the Chinese Athletics Association declined to comment to Reuters on the matter. (sourced to Reuters)"

On another note, I found a couple more reports of China issuing bans/suspensions on coaches and swimmers following cases of doping (articles from Swimming World and The Independent). They can be included in the 1990s swimming section and perhaps cited to support inclusion for the anti-doping measures/efforts section (Swimming World interviewed Swimming Australia president Terry Gathercole who said news that Wu had been caught by Chinese authorities and reported to FINA was a sign that China was trying to clean up its act. "If the tests were conducted by China itself, it's significant because it shows they are really trying to overcome the problem," Gathercole said.) A 2010 report by AFP News reposted by The Hindu also covers more recent anti-doping measures including increased testing and bans on top sprinter Wang Jing and judo champion Tong Wen. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Correction needed

This is an article about doping. Not about disqualifications due to being under-age. When I read this article, I wrongfully assumed that China lost 4 Olympic medals due to doping because it has a chapter showing how many Olympic medals were stripped for disqualification. That is misleading. China has only 4 medals stripped, however one of them was for Dong Fangxiao, who was a different situation (she was just underage at the time of competition and wasn't caught doping). I suggest the chapter table to be renamed as "Athletes losing medals for doping" and correctly list only 3 and not 4, to not mislead others. IP49XX (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

That is a valid concern but a source is needed to support the claim that Dong Fangxiao is counted as the fourth athlete. For instance, Calstate University Professor Raymond Stefani & Deccan Herald both say 4 medals were stripped due to doping & not anything else. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Donkey Hot-day There is no fourth athlete whose Olympic medal was stripped due to doping. The confusion might stem from the case of Dong Fangxiao, whose team was disqualified because she was underage, not for doping. This could be a journalistic error without specific details. I also believed it was four until I double-checked this morning. It's nonetheless misleading to mention Dong Fangxiao in an article dedicated to doping in China, as it implies doping when there was none. Only three Chinese athletes have lost Olympic medals due to doping: Lei Cao, Xiexia Chen, and Chunhong Liu, all from the 2008 Beijing Olympics. If there is a fourth athlete, they are extremely difficult to find, and the Wikipedia page for stripped Olympic medals does not mention them. So, it's safe to say it's just three, unless someone can identify this "fourth" person.[4] IP49XX (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Donkey Hot-day After reading your reply, it is a bit confusing and think you may have misunderstood my first post. Just to be sure, are you actually agreeing with me that only 3 athletes lost Olympic medals due to doping? Or were you trying to say I am wrong to state that? Regardless I made the correction myself.[5] IP49XX (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@IP49XX I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing. I'm simply saying that the claim of 3 athletes' medals being stripped for doping needs a source, because other notable reports say it is 4 athletes. The most important rule in Wikipedia is following what the sources say, not conducting original research or speculation. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Article Violates Neutral POV requirement by stating opinions as facts

The article states the following opinions as if they were facts;

1. "Their improvement rate was much better than could have been expected as a result of normal growth and development."

2. "China improved in swimming until 1998 when four more positive tests and the discovery of human growth hormone (HGH) in the swimmer Yuan Yuan's luggage at the 1998 World Aquatics Championships in Perth, Australia".

Sentence 1 attempts to make a bold and irresponsible claim without relevant citations from credible scientific papers representing scientific consensus. Sentence 2 attributes the improvement in swimming to HGH, again violating the same rule. Both are opinions of the editor unsupported by citations but are represented as statements of fact. Moderators should remove these statements. MingScribe1368 (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

#1 can be removed as it is unsourced. #2 is mostly supported by Reuters except for the "China improved in swimming until 1998" part, so #2 should be changed to "Yuan Yuan was caught with 13 vials of human growth hormone in her luggage at Sydney airport ahead of the 1998 world championships in Perth." The mains issues I have with the 1990s Chinese swimming section are that contentious statements like "Chinese leaders initially blamed racist sports officials in Japan for manufacturing test results" are sourced to dead urls. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Please proceed to remove unsourced statements of opinion and non-verifiable information (such as those linked to dead urls). MingScribe1368 (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to include impact on Ye Shiwen in the 1990s section

Sources covering the 2012 swimming performance by Ye Shiwen tend to reference the 1990s scandals as context for some of the unsubstantiated doping allegations levelled against her. Several sources also reference sporting figures who defend her, like former British swimming star Adrian Moorhouse who said "I think it’s sour grapes...I understand it’s about China’s system. But we saw the Chinese swimmers in the 1990s. They were the size of houses. They looked like they had huge muscle growth. This girl is quite small...she’s just in good shape." (sourced to Al Jazeera's repost of an AFP article, Belfast Telegraph, Saudi Gazette etc.) Moorhouse's statement I think should be included in the 1990s section to compare the differences between 30 years ago to just 10 years ago. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Lede NPOV violation

I have lately been interested in the topic of state-sanctioned sports doping and have relied on Wikipedia to inform me, and have read this whole article.

The lede currently looks like this:

China conducted a state-sanctioned doping operation in the 1980s and 1990s, according to former General Administration of Sport of China physician Xue Yinxian. Allegations of doping have focused on swimmers and track and field athletes, such as those taught by Ma Junren (the Ma Family Army). Three Chinese weightlifters were stripped of their gold Olympic medals at the 2008 Summer Olympics. China's doping has been attributed to a number of factors, such as the exchange of culture and technology with foreign countries. Some commentators have compared it to doping in East Germany. Discussion of doping scandals involving Chinese athletes in international sports is widely censored in China.

It's striking in what ways this is biased anti-China, compared with the article as a whole:

• Manipulated phrase order within sentence states unproven allegation as fact: "China conducted a state-sanctioned doping operation";
• Gives supporting evidence (state physician claimed) and no refuting evidence (IOC and WADA found no evidence, with a whole 5 citations);
• "China's doping" phrase has no reference to alleged nature of allegations;
• Last two sentences have spurious secondary commentaries based on unproven basis of "China's doping" – "exchange of culture", "comparable to East Germany" (this is an obvious lie because no evidence, no Stasi, no court case etc.), "some commentators" (weasel word, I'm guessing to disguise irrelevance of source).

My recommendations for what should be in the lede:

• Primary focus on who has had medals stripped, and the relative abundance of that vs other countries.
• Secondary focus on allegations, with accusing party, official investigations and how they ended.
• Mention of Chinese censorship (needs elaboration beyond one sentence in article body). — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMasic (talk • contribs) 11:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• No mention of alleged causes of unconfirmed state-sanctioned doping from external commentators.

The user who's most recently been responsible for introducing these edits is @Amigao, whose user page talks about "state-backed information warfare efforts", has one edit summary baselessly accusing the following (neutral) statement of whitewashing:

This represents less than 2% of the 154 Olympic medals that were stripped from all nations by the IOC for doping from 1968 to 2022

I'm pretty suspicious of this itself being manipulated editing to serve USA information interests, so would like to see some sort of consensus lede, edit protection, and warning/restriction for this user. There seem to be several people interested in the neutrality of this article so I don't understand how this is standing and am disgusted by the manipulated message the lede is putting out to interested readers. FMasic (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

You might consider first reviewing WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and also reviewing the WP:RSes cited for the lede statements in question. - Amigao (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I concur, and I think the lead is written with a blatant and obvious anti-China bias that causes Wikipedia to lose completely its encyclopedic tone. I am not sure why allegations are still allowed to occur in the lead. MingScribe1368 (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

MingScribe1368, your proposed edits introduce WP:SYNTH and you still have not attempted to gain consensus here on talk. - Amigao (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

They are not WP:SYNTH, they are a simple arithmetic calculation and by definition not original research nor synthesis. MingScribe1368 (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

You might want to elaborate on what exactly you find to be a synth issue, Amigao, since simple arithmetic is allowed per WP:CALC. I support the suggestions of FMasic, especially the "medals stripped and the relative abundance of that vs other countries" but I'm always ready for a compromise. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:CALC is about "routine calculations" and not statistical comparisons around politically-charged issues. For contentious topics, it is always best to stick to what WP:RSes directly state (and preferably WP:GREL and academic WP:BESTSOURCES). - Amigao (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

This, and more importantly, if we do include these statistics, we run the risk of introducing whataboutism in wikivoice. This article should follow other "doping in (Country)" articles when doing these sorts of comparisons, and I'm not sure if articles on other countries include these sorts of comparisons. It might be a good idea to start a general RfC as to whether this type of information should be included in all articles on doping in a country. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

we should introduce a comparison on all "doping in.." pages. The statistic is relevant. Doping is about obtaining unfair advantage, and what is unfair also depends on what other parties are doing. MingScribe1368 (talk) 07:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

That is not necessarily a a bad idea, an RfC on whether doping articles should include context about their scope might be a good idea. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Given that WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, the tally of stripped medals from the Asian Games should also be mentioned. This article is not simply about the Olympics but rather "doping in China" in general. - Amigao (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@CurryCity @Donkey Hot-day @IP-49XX

Please refer to the above. MingScribe1368 (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I would advise you to avoid WP:CANVASSING. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as you have read up on some Wikipedia policies, Allan Nonymous, I would also advise you to avoid stonewalling since you've only made one post here 24 days ago opposing the addition of doping figures in China relative to the world on the basis of "undue". And you still have not addressed my response that the figures are not undue since they are reported in mainstream RS. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Even if I was stonewalling (which is frankly a dubious claim), this reply is a pretty blatant example of whataboutism (in this case, the o'l Tu quoque) (for an illustrative example of see the old soviet retort "And you are lynching Negroes"). Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Not a case of whataboutism, but entirely necessary to give context when discussing a global phenomenon and to avoid bias, a fortiori when the mainstream media and putatively reliable sources like NY Times and BBC seem bent on portraying this as primarily a Chinese problem. MingScribe1368 (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

1. In the context of doping by a country in international sport competitions, what percentage of medals stripped in international sport were from that nation is not just highly relevant, but necessaryto give context and meaning , and central to the subject matter.

2. Proportion involves a single, very simple arithmetic operation and cannot be regarded as original research or as WP:SYNTH. It is not performing a Laplace transform or a Riemann integral. MingScribe1368 (talk) 07:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

This is an article about doping in China in general, not just at the Olympics. As such, we should not focus the lede on the Olympics in an undue and unbalanced fashion. - Amigao (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I have this on watch as one of the editors who contributed to the relevant sections some time ago but did not have time to get more involved. CurryCity (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

If the allegations by Xue have been found by WADA to be unsubstantiated and old samples were retested and found negative, then this should be reflected in the leading section as well. Either that, or the whole unsubstantiated and uncorroborated allegation should be removed. MingScribe1368 (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

New York Times

David Pierson (3 July 2024) When China’s most famous swimmer, Sun Yang, was accused of doping in 2018, state media scrutinized the fairness of the investigation with extensive coverage, and social media users were allowed to leave hundreds of thousands of comments voicing support for Mr. Sun. By comparison, state media coverage of the 23 swimmers has been largely limited to official remarks. As recently as 2022, internet censors allowed Weibo users to rally around Lyu Xiaojun, an Olympic gold medal-winning weight lifter who was suspended for doping. More notably in 2012, Chinese state media came to the defense of the teenage sensation Ye Shiwen, a swimmer whose record-shattering victory in the 400-meter individual medley at the London Games was met with suggestions that she might have used performance-enhancing drugs. He noted that this also appeared to be the first time censors have imposed a blanket ban on online comments criticizing athletes accused of doping. CurryCity (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)