In the case of Shayna Jack if I recall correctly one of the excuses it was blamed on someone in the Australian swimming organization giving her "by accident" the PED that was found in her system to claim how she was innocent. When they accuse Chinese swimmers, it because it's accused of being systematic by Chinese hence why all of them are considered guilty whether they tested positive or not. Someone in the Australian swimming authority gives their athlete a PED so they can say they didn't know it happened and no one assumes it's only just the one...?
Shayna Jack returned an AAF for a prohibited substance. Australia's NADO, Sports Integrity Australia, imposed a provisional suspension pending investigation, and subsequently recorded an ADRV against her with a four-year suspension. Jack then appealed in the first instance to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, claiming unintentional exposure via contamination, and a sole arbitrator reduced her period of suspension to two years. WADA and SIA together
appealed this reduction in penalty to the full CAS tribunal which dismissed their appeal and sustained the reduced penalty.
In the case of the TMZ 23, CHINADA recorded 28 AAFs from 23 swimmers for a prohibited substance. In short order CHINADA came to the view that environmental contamination was the most likely explanation. No provisional suspensions were imposed during CHINADA's investigation and, because it closed with no ADRV recorded or sanctions imposed, these AAFs were not immediately "broadcast" to the world outside WADA and World Aquatics (then FINA). WADA and World Aquatics considered appealing CHINADA's lack of sanction for the athletes to CAS, but after extensive deliberation and consultation with both CHINADA and external experts, chose not to do.
In the one case, both Sports Integrity Australia and WADA pursued a lengthy sanction against an Australian athlete and continued to advocate for that sanction before CAS. In the other, CHINADA chose not to sanction the Chinese athletes and WADA and World Aquatics chose not to appeal that decision. I am not suggesting that the decisions taken in the latter case by CHINADA or WADA or World Aquatics were necessarily wrong, only that these cases took very different pathways through the anti-doping system that mitigate against using Jack as an example of differential or biased treatment of Chinese vs. western athletes.
These are complex issues and I think we should try to reside in the realm of facts to the extent that it is possible to do so. On the one hand we have American figures convinced that China is running a mass doping program and that WADA and World Aquatics have been compromised by Chinese influence to the extent that they are unwilling or unable to do anything about it, and on the other hand we have Chinese figures convinced that WADA, World Aquatics, ITA, etc. are instruments of western imperialism seeking to undermine China at every turn. In the middle we have a complex assortment of facts and considerations that do not play nicely with either of these narratives.
