Talk:World Anti-Doping Agency

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the World Anti-Doping Agency article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Untitled

The "Criticism" section seems rather, eh, is "petty" the word? It is not exactly the big lines being criticized.--Per Abrahamsen 16:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it's neccessary since WADA guys are just giving cheap evidence against the use of steroids. --Andersmusician NO 01:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The critisicm section

I'm pretty sure the big lines abovementioned are WADA itself and the values it stands for. 109.65.16.89 (talk)

It has been said that we will eventually reach a phase where the general public will be more fit than WADA probed&certified athletes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.16.89 (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WADA Allows drug cheats to perform

Wada's raison d'être seems at odd with its policy of allowing drug cheats to perform at the 2012 Olympics

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on World Anti-Doping Agency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WADA - pronunciation?

Is it WADA with an 'a' like in 'cat', or the 'a' in 'day'? Or is it spelled out "the W.A.D.A."? Could someone please add this to the intro? Malick78 (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"russian" hacking group Fancy Bears

"After reviewing the two domains provided by WADA, it was found that the websites' registration and hosting information were consistent with the Russian hacking group Fancy Bears"

Please submit official proof that the Russian group. Need proof, not a hysterical statement, WADA or american bawlers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dankodrake (talk • contribs) 16:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A citation has been added. Whether or not this "proves" to your satisfaction that the group are Russian I don't know, all us editors can do is provide verifiability, not truth. --LukeSurl^{t c} 20:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xue Yinxian and massive doping in China

See here --167.58.10.101 (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on World Anti-Doping Agency. 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/20120824032644/http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/code_v2009_En.pdf to http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/code_v2009_en.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 15:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Whereabouts" controversy

This section doesn't seem to detail any actual controversy and should be renamed (which I will do if no-one raises any objections). Spike 'em (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done....Spike 'em (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Yang incident

I'm removing most of the text on the Sun Yang incident. Reasons:

Most of it does not have to do with actual criticism of WADA. It's an accounting of the controversy (and in my opinion, a particularly biased one). In any case, this controversy is well-covered in the page Sun Yang and need not be repeated here except for a summary.
It seems most of the criticism of WADA came from Sun Yang and Chinese media. This has to be made clear.
Much of the language in the removed text was non neutral or clearly an opinion by the author. See comments from specific edits I made before the final removal.

DrIdiot (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CoE Anti-Doping Convention: Number of signatories

The article claims the Convention has 48 signatories, including "the Council of Europe". The CoE can't be a signatory to anything as it's not a country, so I changed this to "all Council of Europe member states" which appears to be correct. But according to the article Council of Europe, there are 47 CoE member states. Add the non-member signatories mentioned here and you get 51, not 48. Unfortunately the CoE website lists only CoE members as signatories, so more sources are needed. Hairy Dude (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found the CoE website doesn't display the non-member signatories on the list for some reason, but it does display them on the map - which is frustratingly hidden if you are viewing the page with a phone in portrait mode. Counting all the members yields 47, and adding the five non-member signatories (including Morocco, who weren't mentioned previously) gives 52. I also added a source for this information. Hairy Dude (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About doping in powelifting

most of powerlifters on powerlifting champion chips got used to put clean urine instead of the infected one by using condoms and to make sure you most inspect by using servillannces or to make a blood test 102.164.100.20 (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WADA vs USADA

The timing of WADA's "revelations" is a bit suspicious given that they are now in an open war with USADA regarding the Chinese doping case. Hence, USADA's alleged cover-up of doping cases is not an independent event but a new stage of the feud between the two agencies. All the reliable RS (including the ones presented by pro-China editors) support this. Hence, the wording needs to reflect the specifics of the situation and WADA's statements cannot be taken uncritically, same goes to USADA. [User:Pizzigs|Pizzigs]] (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some RS: With the Summer Olympics in full swing, sports anti-doping agencies escalate feud, Athletes undercover? Global and U.S. anti-doping agencies clash over tactics, WADA, USADA clash over American agency’s use of ‘undercover agents’ to catch drug cheats. Pizzigs (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And please be more careful with the sources you use. This article is written in association with Sputnik and falls under WP:SPUTNIK. Pizzigs (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adhere to WP:NOPA and avoid personal attacks. Labeling someone as a "pro-China editor" is an ineffective way to dismiss their arguments.

Information about American doping should be included in the article under the header "American doping allegations."

One of the two edits should be included in the article: [1] or [2]

A consensus should be reached on whether to include or exclude the two edits.

The current version of the article should be rejected as it clearly breaches WP:NPOV by showing bias against Chinese athletes and favoring American athletes. For instance, the one of the headers is titled "Chinese doping allegations and subsequent conflict with USADA," does not comply with WP:IMPARTIAL, which requires that articles be written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions. The header places a disproportionate focus on Chinese doping allegations, while American doping allegations are framed merely as a conflict between USADA and WADA. This imbalance lacks impartiality. Additionally, the article violates WP:UNDUE, as the section on Chinese doping occupies about one-quarter of the article, which appears excessive. If we include information about the "feud" between WADA and USADA, it's even longer

The rationale for excluding this information does not adhere to Wikipedia guidelines and relies on speculative, unsourced claims, as well as questionable logic regarding article titles. For instance, the editor claimed, "The timing of WADA's 'revelations' is a bit suspicious given that they are now in an open conflict with USADA regarding the Chinese doping case." However, this same argument could be applied to the Chinese doping allegations reported by the New York Times, which were released just weeks before and during the Olympics. Despite the similar timing concerns, information about Chinese doping allegations is still included. There is indeed a dispute between WADA and USADA, but the statements have been attributed to WADA, and the term "allegations" is used, which adheres to WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. Also, there is nothing in the guidelines that suggests the timing of statements should be a reason for exclusion.

Another argument for excluding the information suggests that "USADA's alleged cover-up of doping cases is not an independent event but a new phase of the ongoing feud between WADA and USADA." However, this reasoning is flawed. The same argument could be applied to the information about the 23 Chinese swimmers accused of doping at the 2024 Paris Olympics, where WADA also disputed the claims. Despite the similar "feud" between WADA and USADA, the information about the Chinese swimmers remains included in the article. Furthermore, the guidelines do not indicate that information related to a feud should be excluded.

The arguments for excluding information about American doping allegations do not seem to be applied to allegations against Chinese athletes, resulting in an inconsistent double standard.

Rebuttals by WADA have also been removed, providing unproportionate representation of all positions included in the article, which violates WP:IMPARTIAL [3].

Just to clarify, the information I included [4] is based on details from WADA's website [5]. Other edits include the NY Times and the guardian. Another editor added information. LilAhok (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with LilAhok. It is a despicable act to diminish credibility through the practice of personal attacks. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]