From illusion to integrity: "WADA must confront China's TMZ failures and stop silencing critics"

Thanks to Play the Game for the invitation and opportunity to be here.
 
It is truly an honour to be back, and thank you, Jens and Stanis, for continuing to shine the light. You have made a tremendous difference for the good. Thank you.

My title “Illusion to integrity - making trust real” basically begs that we operate in a democracy, where legitimacy rests on three fundamental pillars: transparency, free speech, and the rule of law.

When we disagree, we don’t silence one another - we debate. 

We don’t refuse to meet or talk- we engage. 

When questions arise, we don’t hide the file - we open it. 

And when rules exist, we don’t bend them for a special few - we apply them equally.

That is how trust is built. It is also how trust will be real again and restored for clean athletes.

Why civil discourse and free speech matter

Transparency: Sunlight lets athletes, fans, and sponsors see whether promises match practice and move us from an illusion of trust to actual belief based on facts and actions.

Freedom of speech: Debate is not a threat to institutions; it is what keeps them honest and effective.

Rule of law: Rules mean nothing if some can avoid them and others can’t even question them.

These principles are not abstractions. They are the conditions that allow a 15-year-old athlete to believe their race is fair; a national team to believe medals are earned; and parents to tell their kids, “Your effort is enough”.

This is one area Thomas Jefferson got right when he said, “Difference of opinion leads to inquiry, and inquiry to truth.” 

Over the past year and a half, the global anti-doping system has faced yet another defining moment: how to deal with the failed handling of the 23 TMZ cases in China. And athletes and the public have a right to understand how and why the global anti-doping system failed. 

Questions over the handling of the matter are legitimate and real, and meaningful discussion should happen to ensure the truth.

In an age when disinformation abounds and our willingness to critically analyse the facts has dissipated, it is more important than ever for those of us committed to these fundamental principles not to lose sight of the importance of fair, robust fact-gathering, discussion and understanding.

Make no mistake, the cases were not handled in accordance with the rules. Even WADA’s reviewer, Cottier, concludes this.

Unfortunately, at precisely the moment when open conversation was required, the powers that be chose a different path - refusing to show up and speak up where accountability lives. 

Even WADA’s reviewer Cottier noted WADA’s silence is curious and not compatible with a global regulator.

China denied any wrong-doing and reconfirmed its zero tolerance but providing no answers as to why it did not follow the rules.

WADA declined to engage in public debate on the core questions raised such as:

• why were the athletes not notified of the positives?
• why were the B-samples not analysed?
• why were there no mandatory provisional suspensions imposed?
• why was testing data and scientific materials not disclosed?  
• Why was I&I not involved, even though they had received several tips, including interviewing a whistleblower less than 9 months before the positives were reported, and who informed them that the Chinese sports system used the TMZ systemically to dope athletes?
• Why were DQs not put in place as required?
• Why were the cases not announced as is required?

At the same time as failing to answer basic questions, WADA targeted voices who raised these questions. Pursuing or threatening litigation and complaints for speaking out, for using their voices to advocate for clean athletes.

They moved to sideline America’s and the White House’s representative to the WADA ExCo through a baseless ethics charge - an effort that, whatever its stated rationale, looks like retaliation against legitimate oversight.

Restricting press freedom at its annual symposium and placing constraints that chill questioning rather than welcome it.

Seemingly weaponising the compliance process, including public remarks implying it could be used as leverage, thereby eroding confidence that compliance is principled, not political.

This is not how a values-based regulator behaves; it is more consistent with how a sports federation protects its brand.

How to practice civil discourse

Civil discourse is not a press release; it is a practice. 

In a moment like this, it requires:

• Showing up: testifying, answering questions under oath or on the record, and engaging stakeholders. WADA leaders should be here at Play the Game. Thank you for believing in these values enough to be here, Dick Pound, as you and WADA leaders in the past have done. WADA needs your leadership more than ever.
• Disclosing the file: what was known, when it was known, how decisions were made.
• Welcoming all the press: credentialing ethically and robustly, taking unscripted questions, and protecting critical coverage.
• Protecting dissent: not punishing those who speak out in good faith.
• Committing to equal application of the rules: assuring athletes that country, star power, and commercial interests never trump the code.

You cannot answer these questions with closed doors. You answer them with documents, testimony, and debate.

Free speech is not a nuisance; it’s the safeguard.

When institutions attempt to silence critics by restricting access, threatening lawsuits, engineering ethics complaints, or hinting at compliance reprisals, they send one message: loyalty is valued more than truth.

But clean athletes do not need loyal followers above all else. They need honest champions. We at USADA will always use our voice - respectfully, factually, and persistently - to defend athletes. That is not disloyalty to the system; that is loyalty to the purpose of the system.

What athletes deserve right now

Athletes do not need perfect institutions. They need courageous ones.

Courage to admit what wasn’t done as well as it should have been. Courage to revisit decisions in the open. Courage to allow critics to be wrong in public - or right in public - and learn either way.

I have seen WADA when it worked, and maybe we can discuss this on the panel ... maybe it worked too well for some. 

And it can work again, but not on its current path.

A constructive path forward for real integrity

This isn’t about scoring points for future postions. It’s about earning trust. Here is a practical, values-based roadmap.

• Immediate transparency 
• Publish the complete, unredacted case dossier of the Chinese TMZ matter, including evidence, notifications and legal analyses
• Undergo an independent Code Compliant Audit of WADA’s role and responsibilities under the code
• Protect speech, stop retaliation
• De-politicize compliance
• Re-center athlete rights
• De-regulate the bureaucracy

The current WADA Code program’s complexity is astounding and currently consists of 2,670 pages. 

It has become an expensive compliance checkbox exercise where the have and have nots only grow wider. 

Since the Code stakeholder engagement began, we all have been asked to read and comment on over 7,450 total pages of documents. I am sure you all have done so?

For WADA’s last ExCo meeting, WADA sent out 3,164 pages of documents for the Executive Committee to review in advance of the meeting, apparently only giving those less than 2 weeks to do so.

One WADA Foundation Board member said it beautifully one time - as captured in the WADA minutes -  that “one would have to read War and Peace twice in order to deal with all the documents.”  And that “frankly, it could lead to the impression that the organisation did not want any advice because nobody could possibly absorb what was provided.”

All this regulation seems designed to avoid human discretion. Taking responsibility is basically illegal in this regulatory regime. It needs radical regulatory overhaul, or we risk suffocating. We need to get back to common sense.

In closing

Civil discourse and free speech are not PR risks; they are governance tools. They are how democracies correct course and how anti-doping can earn trust. 

When a regulator refuses debate, shuns oversight, restricts the press, sues its critics, and hints at retaliatory compliance, it ceases to be a values-based organisation and starts behaving like a brand in crisis.

Clean sport deserves better. Athletes deserve better. And with openness, courage, and the rule of law, we can do better and stop the Illusion and return real integrity to our work.

Watch Travis Tygart's presentation

The presentation formed part of the session 'Anti-doping: Can trust and transparency be restored'