Here is an example of a fairly typical U.S. information operation – this one against China.
On April 20 the New York Times, in collaboration with some German media, came up with this sensational headline:
Top Chinese Swimmers Tested Positive for Banned Drug, Then Won Olympic Gold – New York Times
China’s own doping agency had detected tiny amounts of a banned drugs in some athletes of its swimming team. It informed, as it should do, the World Anti Doping Agency WADA and started to investigate the case:
How the Brain Works: T...
Best Price: $10.50
Buy New $12.95
(as of 04:00 UTC - Details)
China acknowledged the positive tests in a report by its antidoping regulator, saying that the swimmers had ingested the banned substance unwittingly and in tiny amounts, and that no action against them was warranted.
But an examination by The New York Times found that the previously unreported episode sharply divided the antidoping world, where China’s record has long been a flashpoint. American officials and other experts said the swimmers should have been suspended or publicly identified pending further investigation, and they suggested that the failure to do so rested with Chinese sports officials; swimming’s international governing body, World Aquatics; and the World Anti-Doping Agency, the global authority that oversees national drug-testing programs.
…
Even after other national and international antidoping officials repeatedly provided the global regulator, known as WADA, with intelligence suggesting a cover-up and doping by Chinese swimmers, the agency chose not to try to hold the athletes accountable, asserting “a lack of any credible evidence” to challenge China’s version of events. WADA defended its decision not to take action, calling the criticism unsubstantiated.
The Chinese anti-doping agency as well as WADA handled the case by the book. There was a plausible explanation of a food contamination with tiny amounts of the drug during a swimming event in China. No other test before and after that event had been positive. The amount of drugs involved was too tiny to make a difference. WADA did not put out a public notice about the incident as no further action was required. No athletes were publicly named and shamed as none had been proven to be guilty.
But that did not fit the U.S. messaging agenda that was designed to defame China. Thus other headlines in the usual western propaganda media were following up:
- US anti-doping agency attacks Wada’s ‘half-truths’ over Chinese swimmers – Guardian
- Adam Peaty slams cover-up of ‘systemic’ doping by Chinese swimmers – Daily Mail
- Lawyer for banned Aussie swimmer Shayna Jack outraged by Chinese Olympic drug scandal – Mail Online
- China to send 13 swimmers under doping cloud to Paris Olympics – The Times
In a long press conference (video) WADA went public to defend itself. It had done all what it was supposed to do in that case.
WADA says it astonished by ‘completely false, defamatory’ remarks by USADA chief in case of Chinese swimmers – Global Times
A fairly neutral report on the issue came out in support of WADA:
Chinese swimming scandal: a strong defence by world anti-doping body, but narrative of ‘cover-up’ remains – The Conservation
Transparency is key to any organisation’s reputation. It is never a good look when a body like WADA is forced to respond to a story exposed by the media, in this case a German documentary and a New York Times report.
WADA has surely suffered reputational damage by not being open about the case when it unfolded three years ago. But it maintains it couldn’t have handled the situation differently because of the complexity of the global anti-doping framework between WADA and national anti-doping agencies.
It wasn’t up to WADA to make the details of the failed tests public – this responsibility rested with the China Anti-Doping Agency (CHINADA) because it had carried out the tests and investigated the positive results. To protect innocent athletes if no violation is found, no public announcement is required.
Given an investigation by the Chinese Ministry of Public Security found traces of the banned substance trimetazidine (TMZ) in a kitchen at the swimmers’ hotel, CHINADA ruled the positive tests were the result of accidental contamination. The Chinese swimmers were cleared without any public announcement.
…
Far from accepting CHINADA’s findings on the face of it, WADA requested the entire case file so it could conduct its own scientific and legal investigations – including speaking with the drug manufacturer to get the latest unpublished science on TMZ, and comparing the Chinese positive tests with TMZ cases in other countries, including the US. WADA ultimately determined there was no concrete evidence to “disprove” the possibility of environmental contamination.
The damage though, due to the sensational U.S. information operation, has been done:
The Panic of 1819: Rea...
Best Price: $19.74
Buy New $12.95
(as of 10:56 UTC - Details)
So, has WADA succeeded in changing the narrative? Probably not.
Why? Because putting the words “China” and “doping” together is a lightning rod in the current political climate given the intense rivalry between China and the US.
Currently there are 23 people serving anti-doping suspensions in Australia. Do we feel personal or national shame for their wrongdoing?
Every time the US team marches into an Olympic Games, or steps up onto a World Championships medal podium, do we point at them while recalling memories of the US Postal Service cycling team and the banned-for-life cyclist Lance Armstrong?
But when it comes to China, many observers are quick to name and shame athletes, viewing every news story as some kind of proof the country must have a systemic, state-sanctioned doping program.
And that dear friends was the sole purpose of this nonsense.
As the next summer Olympics will soon begin we can expect to see more of such stuff.
Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.
