Talk:Sun Yang

the definition of doping

"administer drugs to (a racehorse, greyhound, or athlete) in order to inhibit or enhance sporting performance."

Sun yang may be many things, but there is no evidence that he is a doper. I thus changed the 'doping' part to 'substance,' which more accurately describes the largely technical infraction that he made. Happy monsoon day 20:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Happy monsoon day: do you mind being more specific? Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 22:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

If it was so technical, he wouldn't have had his career ended over it. The intro needs to reflect that rather than gushing over his (tainted) achievements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.172.31.171 (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sun Yang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160820015237/http://list.wada-ama.org/prohibited-all-times/prohibited-substances/ to http://list.wada-ama.org/prohibited-all-times/prohibited-substances/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Doping section

I have created a dedicated doping section inline with how we cover similar subjects (see: Lance Armstrong, Justin Gatlin, plus many others). This section is where the commentary about the smashing of the sample should also be covered in my opinion.

This allows for the career to cover events rather than the controversy surrounding him and makes the article easier to manage moving forward.TenderKing (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sun Yang/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lizzy150 (talk · contribs) 21:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Bobbychan193:

I have started an initial review of this article! Here are my comments so far:

Lead

• "he is also the most decorated Chinese swimmer in history." — I think you should remove this line because it sounds like puffery (see MOS: Words to watch. I know it states that he is "decorated" in the source but let's just give only the facts
  •  Reworded slightly I didn't remove it because it's objectively true; he is the most decorated (as in, he has the most medals of any Chinese athlete). (See the opening sentence of Michael Phelps.) I feel like the next sentence would be more likely to be considered puffery, but there is attribution to a reliable source. Bobbychan193 (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• In the second paragraph, you have used "At the.." 6 times. Please start the sentence with something else
  •  Reworded 3 of 6 Bobbychan193 (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• "then-stimulant" — you should rephrase it as "which was classified as a stimulant at the time by WADA" rather than using "then"
  •  Done Let me know if it sounds verbose now. I can try to trim. Bobbychan193 (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• "China's Anti-Doping Agency deputy director Zhao Jia subsequently commented: "Sun proved.." — I don't think you need this quote in the lead. It is already mentioned later. Just summarise the fact: "He was banned for three months"
  •  Removed Bobbychan193 (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Early life

• "He was named after the combination of his parents' surnames" — you can probably remove "the combination of"
  •  Done Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• "Sun is the only son to his parents." — the right phrase in English would be: "He is an only child"
  •  Done Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Career

• "he placed" — I think you should change all instances of that to "he came", because this is how it is expressed in English
  •  Changed; alternated between "he finished" and "he came" Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• "Sun was considered a favorite in the 400 metre and 1500 metre freestyle, as well.." — really? I think this needs a source(s) if it's true
  •  Done Added two sources, but couldn't find sources for the "medal contender" claim. Should I do some more searching?Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• "anchored the Chinese team" — we might need a different term because "anchored" doesn't make sense
  •  Reworded both instances Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Nevermind; changed them back. See anchor leg. Bobbychan193 (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• "in his best event" — what does it mean by best?
  •  Done Reworded to say "strongest event". The next sentence explains it. Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• "most successful Chinese male swimmer in Olympic history" — this might need to be sourced otherwise it sounds like puffery again
  •  Reworded Couldn't really find an explicit source, but this was the closest I could find to a source. Should I add it? Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• "He showed his versatility" — same as above. You should remove this
  •  Deleted Also reworded the rest of the sentence. Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• There's a few copy edits and minor language changes, which I can do later
  • Sounds good. Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

More comments later, but it's good so far. Nothing major. Thanks, Lizzy (talk 21:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Lizzy150: Thanks for taking the time to review! I’ll try to work through your comments within the next few days. Bobbychan193 (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Lizzy150: I've resolved all of your comments. I've been making additional edits and improvements to the article, including some expansions to underdeveloped/unwritten parts of the Career section. Feel free to review these changes, and take your time with the rest of the review. Bobbychan193 (talk) 06:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Bobbychan193:, thanks for addressing my comments. My advice - if you can't find an exact source that says "He is the most successful", then don't add it. It might be better to say "He is considered to be the most successful.." with the sources at the end. For the "medal contender" claim, I have removed the word "medal" because he is definitely a contender, but may not necessarily be a medal winner! I have read half of the article again and made some small changes for you. Let me know if you're okay with them.

A few comments:

• "After qualifying for the final with the fastest time, he seemed a sure winner." — does that mean a winner for a medal? Is that sourced anywhere?
  •  Rephrased Bobbychan193 (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• "most decorated Chinese male swimmer in Olympic history, and the first swimmer to win the 400/1500 double since Vladimir Salnikov.." — is that also sourced in the ref
  •  Found a source Bobbychan193 (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• "he improved on his silver showing" — what does this mean?
  •  Deleted Probably meant that he got silver last time, but it's not really too relevant here, so I deleted it. Bobbychan193 (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• "Sun was given the task of anchoring the team for the 4 × 200 metre.." — change the word "anchoring"
  •  Rephrased I'll link the key term. See anchor leg. Bobbychan193 (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• I think you need a few more sources, especially in the "Continued success (2013)" section. Does source [24] support everything in the paragraph?
  •  Done Let me know if I need more. Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Also, the "Major achievements" section will also need sources (like Michael Phelps#Honors_and_awards)
  •  Done Bobbychan193 (talk) 02:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Lizzy (talk 22:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Working through. Thanks for the comments. Bobbychan193 (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Lizzy150: For the "Major achievements" section, should I convert it to a table format? Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bobbychan193: It is optional if you want to use a table or not. If you think it looks better in a table, then you can, but it's not necessary. Also, try not to use the same quotes twice; you've got "NBC Sports described him as "arguably the greatest freestyle swimmer of all time" in the lead and achievements sections. In your career headers, try to put the date first (2013 — Continued success, 2015 — Worldwide Championships etc). Move the Awards, Achievements and Personal bests to the bottom (just after Personal life). Thanks, Lizzy (talk 20:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Lizzy150: Got it. Deleted the extra quote, and renamed the subheaders. However, I don't agree about moving those sections after Personal life. I think it's better to consecutively organize all career-related information. See the featured article Ian Thorpe. Bobbychan193 (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I can't find any sources for his achievements from 2006 and 2007, so I'll probably be deleting them. Those entries seem like national tournaments anyway, so they aren't as noteworthy as the rest of his international achievements. Bobbychan193 (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Lizzy150: Finally finished the table. Let me know if there's anything else to do. Bobbychan193 (talk) 02:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bobbychan193: Okay great, that's fine. Here's a few (last) more things, I promise!:

• In the "2013: Continued success" section, the last paragraph is about Sun driving without a licence and his apology. Could we perhaps merge this to the "Personal life" section as it is mentioned there too. I don't think it needs to be mentioned in 2 places.
  •  Merged Bobbychan193 (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• This sentence: "WADA, which has a right of appeal if it perceives a sanction to be too light, elected not to proceed further after reviewing the case file." — has been copy and pasted from the article at source 43 (The Sydney Morning Herald). Please don't copy from sources directly, see: Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources. I have rephrased this sentence for you.
  • Most of this article was not written by me. Regardless, thanks for pointing this out and for the fix. Bobbychan193 (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• In the "2019–present: World Championships" section, the two paragraphs mention the incident about Mack Horton refusing to share the podium with Sun. Does it need to be mentioned in both paragraphs if it's the same incident?
  •  Deleted first mention Bobbychan193 (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• In the "2018 testing incident", the second paragraph also has sentences very similar to source 82 (ABC News). Please avoid copying the article, and put it in your own words instead. If you take a sentence from a source, please put it in quote marks. Example below:
  • "fully transparent to clear his name" – this part should be in quote marks because this phrase is from source 102 (Swim Swam). I have done this for you. Any direct quotes from sources must have quote marks.
    • Most of this article was not written by me. Regardless, thanks for pointing this out and for the fix. Bobbychan193 (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• The Awards table is great. Could we try moving that image of Sun with a gold medal somewhere else? We should allow the table to fully expand to the right.
  •  Done Bobbychan193 (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Is it necessary to state "(long course)" in the "Personal bests" header? You could just mention "long course" in the table instead.
  •  Done Bobbychan193 (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• These references don't have website titles: 44, 62, 65, 66, 67, 90, 91, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130. This doesn't stop it from being a Good Article, but it's usually good practice to mention them.
  • Will try to work through these. Bobbychan193 (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
    •  Done Bobbychan193 (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
• Reference 130 doesn't work for me. Has the article been deleted?
  • Unfortunately it seems so. It also isn't archived. Judging from the title, the article is about Sun playing basketball, which we fortunately already have another source for. I've deleted the dead reference. Bobbychan193 (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I have also made some minor edits to the rest of the article. Thanks, Lizzy (talk 19:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Lizzy150: I think that's everything. Thanks for the detailed review! Bobbychan193 (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Bobbychan193:. Apologies — I know the article wasn't written all by you. I was meant to point out the issues to all the editors in general. Anyway, I have just finished reading the article and it looks much better. I've made some edits too, such as using "1st" instead of "first", if he came in that position in a race. This was to keep it consistent throughout the article. I've also trimmed some of the sentences down and replaced words that may introduce bias (eg. "claimed", "noted", "although") — Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Overall, the article is mostly well-written, neutral, stable, verifiable and illustrated with images. Thanks for improving this article, I hope you keep up the quality! I'm now passing this as a GA. Lizzy (talk 22:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Sun after winning the 200 metre freestyle at the 2016 Arena Pro Swim Series

• ... that Sun Yang (pictured) is the first swimmer in history to win Olympic gold medals in the 200, 400, and 1500 metre freestyle events? Source: "Sun wins gold in the 200 free, making him the first swimmer ever to stand atop the Olympic podium in the 200, 400 and 1,500 events"
  • ALT1:... that Sun Yang (pictured), a three-time Olympic gold medalist and eleven-time world champion, is the most decorated Chinese swimmer in history? Source: "Sun is also the most decorated Chinese swimmer in history ..." Note: source is from 2016 and is outdated; see achievements table in article for all citations.
  • ALT2:... that the public hearing of Chinese Olympic swimmer Sun Yang (pictured) on 15 November 2019 was hampered by translation issues, causing frustration for both judges and lawyers? Source: "The translation problems at Friday's hearing began almost from the start, and it was unclear at times how much of the testimony and questions were understood, with both judges and lawyers expressing frustration"
  • ALT3:... that Chinese Olympic swimmer Sun Yang (pictured) has been described by NBC Sports as "arguably the greatest freestyle swimmer of all time"? Source: "Controversial as he is, Sun Yang is very arguably the greatest freestyle swimmer of all time."
  • ALT4:... that in 2011, Chinese Olympic swimmer Sun Yang (pictured) broke Grant Hackett's 10-year world record in the 1500 metre freestyle, the longest-held world record in swimming? Source: "China's Sun Yang, at only 19 years old, has chased down one of the few World Records that survived the polyurethane era, and broke Grant Hackett's World Record in the men's 1500 free in 14:34.14. ... Hackett's former mark was the oldest World Record on the books: men's or women's, short course or long."

• Comment: First time doing a DYK; let me know if I didn't follow instructions correctly or if I can make improvements. Thanks.

Improved to Good Article status by Bobbychan193 (talk). Self-nominated at 04:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC).

• Article is a new GA, long enough, neutral, and well written. I find ALT0 the most interesting, which is verified with the supplied source (being described by NBC as "arguably the greatest freestyle swimmer of all time" would also make a great hook). Image is freely licensed. QPQ not required for first-time nominator.

There is, however, some close-paraphrasing issues in the "2018 testing incident" section: "Sun called his coach, the head of China's swimming delegation, and his lawyer. He was advised not to sign incorrect paperwork. According to the inquiry, one of the testing entourage had taken photos and videos of the swimmer without authority or permission. Around 3:00 am, four hours after the drug test, Sun's camp phoned the deputy director of the Zhejiang Anti-Doping Centre, asking what should be done to dispose of the blood sample." This closely resembles the abc.net.au source and needs rewriting. See Earwig report. -Zanhe (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Zanhe: Thanks for the feedback; I'll rewrite that section. What is QPQ? Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

QPQ is the review requirement, which is exempt for new nominators with fewer than 5 DYK credits. See WP:DYKRULES #5. -Zanhe (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Zanhe: Got it, thanks. I've edited the section in question. Can I add an ALT hook with the NBC quote? Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the issue. ALT0 is good to go. Feel free to add more hooks, and I'll review them too. -Zanhe (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Zanhe: Thanks. I've added two hooks. Can I ask, what is the point of having extra hooks? Bobbychan193 (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Approve ALT3 as well, ALT4 seems too complicated to me. Only one hook is required, but extra hooks provide more options to work with. Every nomination is checked by at least three people: reviewer, promoter, and admin, and they may have different preferences: some like shorter hooks with sweeping statements (such as ALT3), while other prefer hooks with more solid facts (such as ALT0). -Zanhe (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

All three proposed hooks seem problematic for not mentioning the issue of doping at all. If this DYK gets promoted with the first hook or ALT1, Wikipedia's main page will shortly be promoting a purely positive POV on (to quote the recent CBC source from above) "swimming's most controversial figure" at a time where the doping case is still being contested and seeing strange developments (e.g. just yesterday: [1]). ALT2 fails to mention what the hearing was about.

Also, the current version of the article lede has NPOV problems regarding its coverage of the doping concerns (failing to explain what was controversial about the 2018 test in the first place, and highlighting the exculpatory ruling by FINA without mentioning that it is currently being contested by WADA). Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Important/relevant guidelines to consider per WP:DYKHOOK: The hook should be neutral (all three state facts); hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided (focusing on the (supposedly unintentional) doping, which really only resulted in a three-month ban, would probably violate this rule); and When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article. Shorter hooks are preferred to longer ones, as long as they don't misstate the article content (in their current states, all three hooks are more or less short, and they are "hooky"). Given the 200-character limit per hook, it would be unfeasible to include doping; it would take too many characters to explain that he was using a recently (at the time) banned substance, but it was for his heart issues and he didn't know it became banned, etc. If we leave details out and use fewer characters, it could potentially be misconstrued or misleading. And to be clear, the recent developments are not for doping; they're for a 2018 incident where supposedly unqualified testers came into his house for an out-of-competition test, and the vials were smashed by Sun's bodyguard after Sun called his lawyer and coach. Bobbychan193 (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

For ALT2, I'm already at around 164 characters. Is there a way I can expand it to explain what the hearing was about without going over the limit? Any suggestions? Bobbychan193 (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I will expand the lead to include the recent public hearing. Thanks for the feedback. Bobbychan193 (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done Feel free to take a look. Bobbychan193 (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@HaeB: I understand your point, but DYK policies and longstanding consensus forbid featuring overly negative hooks about living people, and a hook highlighting an ongoing investigation about an alleged wrongdoing (of which he was already acquitted once) will not be approved. Even with a conviction, hooks featuring such negative aspects are often rejected. I just recently tested the waters with a corruption case, but the hook mentioning the investigation was predictably passed over. -Zanhe (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Intro needs a source but vandals try to hide it

The intro specifically states - "A few months later, the drug Sun had tested positive for was downgraded to a lesser class after it was found not to be performance enhancing when taken on its own. ". I looked up the source for such bombshell info and found it easily in an auatralian article that cited that info. Such info is generally hidden in most media but i am pretty sure i found that info also from Swim Swam, a swimming magazine. Regardless the body doesn't mention that the drug is not performance enhancing when taken on its own. Only the intro has that info and it needs a real source to back that statement and WHY i believe the source - https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/sport/swimming/2019/08/17/hypocrisy-and-bad-blood/15659640008601 - needs to be cited in the intro. And not the body that btw already has a source. I feel it is unethical to move the cited source away from the intro to leave it with Zero sources. And put it in the body which DOESN'T MENTION THE DRUG IS NOT performance enhancing when taken on its own. That is why i believe the two editors who unreasonably keeps changing the placement of the source from intro to the body is wrong. If you have a reason why the sentence in the intro doesn't need a single source and the body paragragh needs two sources. Despite the body makes zero mention of the drug not being performance enhancing when taken on its own unlike the intro. Then give reasons. As I am reverting to the ORIGINAL version and hope people read my arguments, read the intro, body and the 2 sources, and realise it's best to let it stay. I will give this a few days to be properly discussed here in civil manner, before doing so. 49.195.32.181 (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

First of all, do not accuse me of being a vandal. You can't just throw around serious accusations like that without proof. I was the editor who helped bring this article to Good Article status in the first place, so why would I vandalize the article? Second, editor Melcous already reverted your previous edits. As they pointed out, please see MOS:LEAD and more specifically, MOS:LEADCITE.

You mentioned that the body does not repeat this sentence in the lead, but it does: "In January 2015, WADA reclassified and downgraded trimetazidine from "stimulant" to "modulator of cardiac metabolism"." Although this does not exactly match the sentence in the lead, that's fine because the lead is supposed to be more generalized, not super specific and loaded with jargon. There are sources that follow this sentence as well, so there is no need to add another source to the lead. It's simply redundant.

"I feel it is unethical to move the cited source away from the intro to leave it with Zero sources." You are entitled to your opinion, but Wikipedia operates on consensus. You can't make sweeping changes and then complain about other people disagreeing. Bobbychan193 (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

If you read the saturday paper, it mentioned "A few months later the drug was downgraded after it was found not to be performance enhancing when taken on its own." The intro had that specific info but lacks any sources right now to back it. All i did was add the source. Why should the intro be deprived of a source? The ONLY reason why the intro needs a source is because people can later state that there are no sources to back the intro info and then delete that sentence. The body however CURRENTLY has none of that info that states the drug is Not performance enhancing when taken on its own. You claim to strive for a good article. Yet you gave the body info double sources that is just unnecessary and questionable. And remove the source from the intro where it's important to state at least one source to back it. People will later look at the intro and delete that sentence and reason it's because there are no given sources. If it makes you feel any better and end this drama straight ~ you can just use this as your second source for the body which says the same thing as the body info https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-21/sun-yang-doping-case-more-complicated-than-it-seems/11328364?pfmredir=sm and let the intro info have its own dedicated source so people won't risk deleting it for not having a source to back it. Or just add extra info to the body that writes the drug to not to be performance enhancing if taken on its own.49.195.32.181 (talk)^

In a nutshell, my concern is people who is motivated to delete that particular intro are people who wants to hide that particular info. And leaving it without a source, makes it alot easier to delete it later. That's my concern. Also it's hard to take good article status seriously as i checked a few mins ago. It says Sun was banned for cheating which is one - misleading as it equates him as being the same as having been tested positive for a drug. It shpuld be specific and state Sun was banned for his behavioural conduct in a sample collection that was deemed excessive. That's being neutral. And all his medals had now been removed from the intro despite most were won before 2018 so even if he cheated. The 2018 incident shouldn't remove his past winnings. That is clear bias right there. Why would that deserve a good article status with such bias like that? And info like "...the drug was downgraded after it was found not to be performance enhancing when taken on its own." needs to have a minimum of one source given its importance level and not be moved away to a body that doesn't have that info. And leave the intro to be vulnerable to deletion as it now has no intro cited directly to it. That's why i believe that's vandalism but did not intend to accuse loosely or offend, but my reason is not invalid 49.195.32.181 (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

"In January 2015, WADA reclassified and downgraded trimetazidine from "stimulant" to "modulator of cardiac metabolism"." This statement from a Saturday morning paper is relying entirely on an incorrect interpretation made by a Journalist. The reclassification of trimetazidine is not a downgrade, but is actually an increase in the ban, from a stimulant banned only during competition, to a substance that cannot be used in or out of competition. The sentence is completely iaccurate. The SwimSwam site https://swimswam.com/trimetazidine-remains-banned-wada-competition/ lists the timeline of its change, you can see that from 2015 onwards it is listed in S4, substances banned at all times. In 2014 it was classified in s6. The statement that trimetazidine was removed from the prohibited list is factually wrong. 202.20.20.129 (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The above reply shows a good reason why there needs to be a source in case someone tries to spin the info. The above user even stated that the decison was not affected despite being deemed a higher class. That massacres context and it is misleading because calling it a higher class - implies that drug has even higher cheating benefits compared to the banned stimulants. It's NOT. If it was perfromance enhancing, one wouldn;t be able to apply for exemption and use the drug legally and still compete. Not a higher class. I have also took time to read the papers and there is a DIFFERENCE between banned and just prohibited. Banned means absolutely nobody can use it AKA like anabolic steroids and stimulants that even if the doctors give them a permission slip. It still be banned. Prohibited is a WIDE umbrella term and means it's either banned to ALL or you need to apply for an exemption to get it. This drug is simply prohibited and still allowed for athletes if under exemption so not quite on the total banned list. As it was taken off the complete BANNED list when it was found not to be performance enhancing but simply risky to athlete's health and can be abused.

The journalist that above editor had criticized, is a highly reputed Australian reporter who did her homework. In terms of metabolic modulators, these substances are often not even developed enough to be used as medicine, so it is IMPOSSIBLE to know their full effects or risks. But until those things are determined, they remain on the list for PROHIBITED substances out of professional caution. Not because they are more powerful than anabolic steroids or stimulants. If they were as powerful, there would be no exemption given to use them.

We know that isn't true to write that it's stronger than average steroids or stimulants. Instead as Tracey Holmes who in the ABC MEDIA, a highly authoritative Australian gov media, made it crystal clear that later official lab tests confirmed that so far, such drugs was found to be not performance enhancing AND TAKEN OFF THE total BANNED LIST - AND ARTICLE WAS DATED YEAR 2020 and so is recent. Today it's no longer recognised as a stimulant. However because it's still relatively a new drug. It's just not possible to EVEN know the full effects and for safety reasons to prevent abuse - it' stays on the prohibited list BUT not banned to all if they have exemptions since it has no large performance enhancing effects but prohibited for SAFETY REASONS. Drugs are also prohibited it represents an actual or potential health risk to the Athlete. That doesn't make it a "higher class" of strength and is misleading to state it as such.

In a decade's time, if that same version of drug continues to show data of being safe and later be well understood enough and still not performance enhancing. It would be taken off the list but it stays only now because it's still a new relatively less experienced drug. SAYING these drugs are more stronger than stimulants and of a higher class than ACTUAL banned stimulants. That is not only not neutral but just outright deceptive because that paints the wrong picture. That's unethical editing.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-08/sun-yang-has-been-painted-as-a-drug-cheat-look-at-it-in-context/12027892

My source is authoritative and an ABC ARTICLE 2020 - AN AUSTRALIAN GOV BACKED PAPER and made it clear that the drug has no performance enhancing effects from actual studies, and no longer termed a stimulant and simply being prohibited, doesn't make it a "higher class" than stimulants. It's not banned if you have exemption as it has no performance enhancing effects but controlled primarily becasue the drug is not well understood and stays prohibited to prevent risky abuse. Currently the article makes it seem like the drug has higher cheating effects than steroids or stimulants. Except lab found it to not be performance enhancing. But just risky for athlete's health given the relative newness of the drug. So because it's not performance enhancing and somewhat risky. It's not banned but you need an exemption to continue to use it out of competition. If it was banned like actual stimulants, you wouldn't be able to get an exemption so not higher class at all or the same thing as complete ban as stimulants14.202.177.65 (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

You are entirely relying on a newspaper article that is spinning the info itself. Claiming that it is a downgrade is a straight up lie. The fact that atheletes can get a "Therapeutic Usage Exemption" doesn't have anything to do with it being a downgrade. In fact TUE's have nothing to do with the catagories that substances are banned under. There is one authoriative source on banned substances and that is WADA's list. WADA's prohibited list shifted the substance from the S6 catagory to the S4 catagory. S4 is the same category that Meldonium is listed under, the substance that Maria Sharapova was suspended for using.

The article from https://swimswam.com/trimetazidine-remains-banned-wada-competition/ is a far better source than Tracy Holmes stories because it simply states the facts of the categories that trimetazidine is prohibited under.

I didn't say its a stronger substance and neither does the swimswam article, it say it is in a stronger banned category. Substances that are classed as stimulants are banned in competition only. Athletes can use them any time out of competition without issue. It was changed to a category when it is banned both in and out of competition. This is an increase in its ban level because it is now banned in more situations. This has nothing to do with what level of performance enhancement the substance gives. Stimulats are banned how they are because their performance enhancement is generally short term.

And your claim an article on the ABC is "AN AUSTRALIAN GOV BACKED PAPER" is completely misleading as well. The ABC is an independant journalist body that just happens to be publicly funded. Nothing it puts out has an extra government backing and its not really anymore reliable than any other journalism source because of that. In fact the Australian government constantly calls them out for inaccuraries in reporting. And this article from Tracey Holmes is just yet another example of Australian Sporting Media showing a complete misunderstanding of how anti-doping in sports work. Have a look at the Essendon Football Club's drug saga for more examples. Here's an example of ASADA having to correct Tracey Holmes's inaccuracies in reporting on anti-doping cases https://www.asada.gov.au/news/media-correction-abc-report-about-asadas-legislative-powers-inaccurate Criticism of her soft approach with Essendon coach James Hird https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/viewers-slam-tracey-holmes-joke-abc-interview-with-james-hird-20160118-gm7vi2.html

Also Trimetaziden is ACTUALLY BANNED. Its listed right here https://www.wada-ama.org/en/content/what-is-prohibited/prohibited-at-all-times/hormone-and-metabolic-modulators You're putting your own spin on it, which is completely lacking in neutrality as you try and paint Sun Yang as a victim. 202.20.20.202 (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

You are mistaken. It's downgraded and not a lie. The class that it's currently in was created specifically for banned stimulants that are later found to not be strong enough but still banned because of it's newness. Meldonium was moved to the class because it's relatively new AND stays until it's officially well researched enough. Even Ben Nichols, WADA Senior Manager of Media Relations had publiclu clarified that Trimetazidine was reclassified and downgraded that same year.

Wada officially said it was downgraded and taken off the banned stimulant list. They created the class specifically because drugs are only ever reclassified to s4 and taken off the banned stimulant list, when they are now recognized as LESS likely to be used as doping agents since they are not potent or attractive enough for pro athlete to risk their reputation over. https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/sun-yang-doping-case/

It's misleading for wikipedia to just present or spin that this drug as more serious than banned stimulants when it has been officially reclassified and deemed downgraded by so many sources from this year alone. Caffeine is a stimulant yet not potent enough to be on the banned stimulant list. Trimetazidene potency is just not serious enough for the banned stimulant list and why it has been off it ever since. Yes that means it's been essentially downgraded, but it stays on the ban list but just downgraded. Downgraded doesn't mean it's off the ban list. However Thereprtuic exemptions essentially make it not completely banned. 49.179.21.158 (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Article is woefully incomplete ~ needs more minimal essential info behind 2018 incident

I have a serious issue to raise on this article after reading it very carefully. I follow swim swam magazine and why I know alot about this topic. The article need to minimally explain why Sun claims to have issues with the testers. It appears to not be explained. In swim swam, it writes "The DCO showed Sun the DCA’s contact information in a digital company portal, and it matched his ID, but SUN was still not appeased as it lacked the DCA’s photo." + Additionally Sun had contacted his agency who informed him the testers had no legal authority and he reportedly needed to urinate and couldn't hold it. And more info like that, is not added into wiki. Such info and more, has not been added and confused on why. Such facts are the very minimal basics behind the 2018 testing incident. But nowhere to be found on Wiki despite swimming magazines have covrred it in detail in the past months. https://swimswam.com/breaking-down-sun-yangs-case-part-2-swimmer-and-dco-had-a-history/ I believe such vital info has to be added in to make the article more complete and not lacking in essential details.49.195.32.181 (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to expand the article. Make sure to write in a neutral, objective tone and use reliable sources. Bobbychan193 (talk) 03:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Is adding Sun Yang's defences really a worthwhile endeavor when the CAS has ruled them invalid excuses for his actions? 202.20.20.202 (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

His defences can be not an excuse, while still being relevant to the story and the article --Spacepine (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2020

Add following information regarding translation issues during 2019 hearing: CAS later stated that the private interpretation service was provided by Sun Yang and the CAS take no part during the hiring of external interpreters. Source 1, 2. Takekawa (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Blanking of referenced content

We have various users blanking content on the supposed grounds that the sources are not reliable. But Seven News and South China Morning Post are reliable sources. Please stop edit warring. Wikipedia is not censored and it seems that certain users are simply out to blank content that might reflect badly on the Chinese government. That's not how Wikipedia works. Citobun (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be noted in the 2018 trial that material on both sides of the issue are included, including the views of those who disagree with the ban on Sun Yang. FobTown (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert Citobun. I've got another source about the harassment faced by the Horton family, which I will add tonight. --Spacepine (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Citobun and Spacepine, greatly appreciate you two staying alert against blanking and censorship. I've noticed that User:Lvhis and User:Swazzer30 seem to be dormant accounts that have been awaken. FobTown (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, thanks for labelling User:Lvhis and I as 'dormant accounts' who apparently 'censor content' just because we want non-sensationalist sources on Wikipedia. It is so glaringly obvious that Citobun and FobTown are Wikipedians who have a grudge against anything Chinese on Wikipedia. Maybe you should be aware of the fact that it was I who wrote the large majority of this well-sourced section in the first place. I will continue to monitor this page and make sure no sensationalist/unproven material is published on this page. Additionally, I will try to remain non-political, factual and neutral in my submissions to this page; something that Citobun and FobTown obviously find hard to do when editing Chinese related pages. Stop editing pages in bad faith Citobun and FobTown. Swazzer30 (talk) 13:51 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks FobTown, but I haven't done anything yet. Swazzer30, Seven news and SCMP are good sources, it is the facts that are sensational. As they are sourced I believe they should be included. --Spacepine (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC) 23:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is more from the World Swimming Magazine and other sources.[2][3][4] FobTown (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello there, labelling me as "dormant accounts" is against the fact as well as the behavioral guideline WP:AGF. This article is a biography of living person and must adhere to the WP:BLP policy. The content in question is not directly related to this living person. Although the content is referenced, the appropriate article where it should be placed is article Mack Horton instead of this article. Lvhis (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The referenced content is relevant to Sun Yang too as it shows the great lengths that the state is willing to go to support him, which includes harassing a key rival.[5][6][7] Also notable is that The Sun Yang Global Support Association has announced its intention to close down with a wide-ranging apology to “the Chinese people and all athletes” and “to all those who have been threatened and cursed, to all the people who have been misled and deceived, and to the party and the country”. [8] FobTown (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The Lede is indeed long

Lede needs to be summarised. His swim history, drug allegations, and his ban has multiple full sized paragraghs covering it in the lede. Does it have to be so extensive? Such info is already covered extensively in the dedicated chapters. The lede should be shortened. Keep it one paragraph ideally and not so many. MangoTareeface9 (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)