Thu, June 18, 2026
WADA recommends that testing should be carried out by an impartial body, separate from the host country’s agency
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has recommended that testing at major events should be undertaken by an impartial body that is independent from the host country’s agency to strengthen the global anti-doping testing system. When discussing major events such as the Olympic and Paralympic games, world championships and continental competitions, WADA’s committee recommended that a host country’s National Anti-Doping Organisation (NADO) should not participate in planning test distribution, selecting athletes for testing, certain aspects of sample collection or managing results.
WADA has recommended that the above should be undertaken by an “independent and impartial body” to help ensure the removal of conflict of interest and perception of bias as a body separate from the host country is less likely to face pressure to protect local athletes or the host country’s reputation.
President of WADA, Witold Bańka, elaborated: “It will benefit the integrity of, and confidence in, the system if major events are protected from allegations of bias on the part of the host country.”
WADA also expressed, however, that National Anti-Doping Organisations (NADOs) will still retain an important role where testing is concerned and in general: “NADOs should not necessarily be excluded from all involvement in major events taking place within their respective countries. Rather, local NADOs may retain a role in important aspects of the process, such as logistical support, coordination with law enforcement for intelligence and investigations purposes, and the delivery of onsite education programs.”
However, this recommendation, and the fact that NADOs were not present during the specific meeting, has caused backlash from Director of the United States Office of National Drug Control Policy, Sara Carter, who argues that the recommendation “undermines” clean sport. She elaborated: “The strong and vigorous participation of National Anti-Doping Agencies in the anti-doping ecosystem is of particular importance to the United States as we strive to ensure the cleanest Olympic and Paralympic Games in history.”
She argues that if the recommendation is implemented, it “would diminish the effectiveness of operationally independent NADOs, undercut confidence in the integrity of Games and pre-Olympic/Paralympic Games testing and thereby undermine the trustworthiness of the performances of competitors in the Olympic and Paralympic Games themselves, destroy important safeguards and checks and balances in the global anti-doping system and increase costs of testing to national governments, without a corresponding enhancement in the effectiveness of that testing.”
She argues that reducing the role of NADOs proposes “even stronger conflict of interest concerns related to testing by international sports federations and the non-Code signatory private organisations that sports hire to perform testing for them.”
CEO of the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), Travis Tygart, added to this sentiment: “WADA leaders’ intent to push aside truly independent national anti-doping organisations and hand control back to sport and sport service providers at major events is a dangerous step backwards and risks compromising the fairness of major events and athletes’ right to fair competition…
Dressing this up as progress is an attempt to mislead clean athletes, fans and the public, who deserve real independence, real accountability and a system that protects them, not one that protects sport from scrutiny and the global anti-doping watchdog from accountability.”
Tygart and Carter also referenced another previous point of contention between WADA and the USADA, the case of the 23 Chinese swimmers who tested positive for Trimetazidine in 2021 but were cleared, with WADA approving the conclusion by Chinese authorities that it was accidental contamination.
Tygart voiced: “For this to be the response to WADA's and World Aquatics' failure to enforce the mandatory rules in the 23 Chinese swimming cases is another slap in the face by the WADA leadership to all athletes who commit to competing cleanly, and to all nations that enforce the rules consistently and fairly.”
Carter stated: “NADOs complained in order to evaluate aspects of WADA’s conduct in relation to 23 Chinese swimmers…Thus, it is predictable but still deeply ironic that WADA Management’s own conclusion arising from its failure to ensure that its own procedures were followed in the Russian and Chinese situations is to reduce the oversight role of NADOs and impose costly burdens upon them.”
However, according to the Associated Press, a WADA spokesperson, James Fitzgerald, argued that the US’ main issue comes from refusing to pay its contributions to WADA and its desire for an “operational audit carried out by independent experts and auditors,” a quote taken from Carter’s letter.
Separately, during the meeting, WADA approved the terms of reference for the review of the implementation of WADA’s wide-ranging governance reforms that were approved in 2022 and subsequently implemented. The reforms focus on the structure and composition of the Board, Executive Committee and other WADA committees and aim to make them more independent and athlete centred.
The Executive Committee also authorised WADA Management to continue its evaluation of the possible establishment of an institute to advance social science research, education and capability support for the benefit of the clean sport community.
The Executive Committee recommended that the Foundation Board approve the audited 2025 financial statements and annual activity report. The accounts were audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers, who identified no material issues.
Carter’s letter to WADA stakeholders can be found here.
WADA’s official statement can be found here.
