Is Salt Lake City on Thin Ice? How the Ongoing Feud Between U.S. and WADA Could Impact the Future Olympics

By: Emily DeMartino*                                                                    Posted: 09/26/2025

Seven months before the Tokyo Olympics were set to begin in 2021, twenty-three Chinese swimmers tested positive for trimetazidine, a heart prescription drug banned due to its performance-enhancing qualities.[1]  The positive tests occurred during a hotel stay at a domestic swim meet.[2]  Although typically required, Chinese officials did not publicly disclose the incident and conducted their own investigation instead.[3]  Chinese authorities reported to the World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”) that the positive tests were caused by food and environment contamination, as opposed to an intentional ingestion of banned substances.[4]

WADA is responsible for developing world anti-doping rules, monitoring implementation, and maintaining international standards.[5]  As a key part of its duties, WADA reserved the right to appeal the Chinese authorities’ decision.[6]  Instead, WADA chose not to intervene and agreed with the original findings.[7]  After the appeal window closed, WADA kept the information about the positive tests private and allowed the Chinese athletes to compete in the 2021 Olympic Games, where they went on to win three gold medals.[8]

The United States’ Initial Response

Although the positive tests occurred in 2021, the United States public did not receive notification of the incident until April 2024 when the New York Times reported on it.[9]  The United States Anti-Doping Agency (“USADA”) immediately condemned WADA for how it handled the initial investigation.[10]  In response, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) launched a criminal probe into the case, potentially invoking the recently enacted Rodchenkov Act.[11]  In a statement following news of the DOJ’s inquiry, WADA stated it was “disappointed” and U.S. law enforcement had not contacted the agency at that time.[12]

Tensions continued to rise between WADA and the U.S. in January 2025, when the White House held off on its 2024 membership dues to the agency totaling $3.625 million.[13]  The decision came after the U.S. government requested an independent audit of WADA’s operations and reforms.[14]  The U.S. wanted more transparency from WADA and more rules to protect athletes.[15]  After the U.S. failed on delivering its dues, WADA automatically removed the U.S. representative from its executive committee.[16]  Article 6.6 of the WADA Statutes states that “[o]n 1^st of January each year, any Foundation Board or Executive Committee member representing a country which has not paid its due for the previous year . . . will automatically lose its seat . . . .”[17]

U.S. Legislation Attempts to Monitor the World Anti-Doping Agency

After withholding its dues, U.S. Senators introduced a revised bill entitled Restoring Confidence in the World Anti-Doping Agency Act of 2025.[18]  The bill would permit the Office of National Drug Control Policy (“ONDCP”) to withhold the full amount of membership dues to WADA, as well report on WADA activities and ensure the agency is making reforms.[19]  As of June 25, 2025, the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee unanimously passed the bill, and it is awaiting a vote by the full Senate and the House of Representatives.[20]  This key piece of legislation follows the Rodchenkov Act, a federal law enacted in 2020 as a response to a Russian state-sponsored doping scheme.[21]  In 2014, after the Sochi Winter Olympics, whistleblowers reported a Russian laboratory had been swapping out and concealing positive drug tests, largely led by Dr. Rodchenkov who later revealed more details of the scandal.[22]  Frustrated by the perceived lack of accountability, U.S. Congress introduced the Rodchenkov Act authorizing U.S. prosecutors “[t]o impose criminal sanctions on certain persons involved in international doping fraud conspiracies . . . .”[23]  The Act criminalizes doping for persons involved, but excludes athletes from criminal penalties.[24]

Implications for the Future of the Olympics

Despite the ongoing battle between the U.S. and WADA, America is set to host the Olympic Games in 2028 and 2034.[25]  Although Los Angeles was formally awarded the 2028 Summer Games in 2017, Salt Lake City’s bid came amidst the public disclosure of the doping incident, leaving it more vulnerable to the consequences of the feud.[26]

The recent introduction of the Restoring Confidence in the World Anti-Doping Agency Act adds another layer of risk to the U.S.’s ability to host future Olympic Games.[27]  The threat of withholding future funding reflects the U.S.’s aggressive approach to resolving the issue.[28]  WADA on its own is not capable of withdrawing hosting rights but may report a country in violation of the World Anti-Doping Code, as it has done in the past.[29]  However, the funding threat is unlikely to trigger sanctions, as unpaid dues are not currently a violation of the Code.[30]  Notably, WADA has considered revising the Code to include punishment for a government that fails to pay membership dues and address concerns about a country’s ability to weaponize funding.[31]  Such sanctions may include prohibiting a country from bidding as a host, suggesting future repercussions if this controversy is not resolved.[32]

The bill’s enactment would likely be more consequential with the International Olympic Committee (“IOC”) than WADA.[33]  The IOC members discussed the U.S./WADA feud before voting on the Salt Lake City bid, as the U.S. DOJ had announced less than two weeks prior that it launched a criminal probe into the incident.[34]  This led to the IOC’s addition of a clause in the Utah host contract that required the U.S. to recognize the “supreme authority” of WADA or risk contract termination.[35]  While previous contracts have contained termination clauses, none have specifically addressed WADA.[36]  Thus, the bill’s requirement that ONDCP keep oversight of WADA may violate these terms, and enable the IOC to cancel Utah’s host contract for the 2034 Winter Olympics.[37] 

Additionally, the IOC previously expressed concerns about the Rodchenkov Act for failing to include U.S. professional and college level sports and stating it hoped the U.S. would address the issue of extraterritorial jurisdiction.[38]  Considering other organizations characterized the Act as overreach, a new bill (like the Restoring Confidence in the World Anti-Doping Agency Act) may be interpreted as another attempt by the U.S. to go beyond its jurisdiction, thus challenging WADA’s power.[39]

Despite its ability to do so, it is unlikely the IOC would terminate its Utah contract due to the time invested.[40]  Instead, the IOC is far more likely to revoke future bidding opportunities as a result of the legislation.[41]  To maintain relations, the U.S. may consider refining the funding portion of the Act.[42]  While the threat of withholding funds serves as an enforcement mechanism to ensure transparency, it also blocks the ability of the U.S. to influence reform from within the agency.[43]

* Staff Writer, Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal, J.D. Candidate, May 2027, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law.

[1] See Michael S. Schmidt & Tariq Panja, Top Chinese Swimmers Tested Positive for Banned Drug, Then Won Olympic Gold, N.Y. Times (Apr. 20, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/20/world/asia/chinese-swimmers-doping-olympics.html(describing drug effects as increasing stamina, endurance, and decreasing recovery time).

[2] See id. (explaining swimming meet was hosting two hundred top performing swimmers ahead of Olympic Games).

[3] See id. (clarifying food contamination explanation allowed officials to conceal positive tests).

[4] See id. (describing food supply as tainted); see also Associated Press, Report on Chinese Swimmer Doping Fuels Anger over Testing, ESPN (July 30, 2024, 12:01 PM ET), https://www.espn.com/olympics/story/_/id/40681020/report-chinese-swimmer-doping-fuels-anger-testing (noting several other times athletes used tainted food as reason for positive test).

[5] See What We Do, World Anti-Doping Agency, https://www.wada-ama.org/en/what-we-do (last visited Sep. 6, 2025) (describing responsibilities of World Anti-Doping Agency).

[6] See Case Law, World Anti-Doping Agency, https://www.wada-ama.org/en/case-law (last visited Sep. 6, 2025) (confirming WADA retains right to appeal decisions made by signatories).

[7] See Contamination Case of Swimmers from China Fact Sheet, World Anti-Doping Agency (Apr. 29, 2024), https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/2024-04/2024-04_fact_sheet_faq_chinese_swimming.pdf (clarifying all evidence supported theory of contamination including multiple tests hours apart).  The agency reviewed the case file and consulted with experts to ultimately determine its findings were consistent with those of Chinese officials.  See WADA Statement Regarding U.S. Department of Justice Investigation into Chinese Swimming Case, World Anti-Doping Agency (July 4, 2024), https://www.wada-ama.org/en/news/wada-statement-regarding-us-department-justice-investigation-chinese-swimming-case (explaining WADA stood by initial decision not to appeal).

[8] See Contamination Case of Swimmers from China Fact Sheet, supra note 7 (explaining decision not to publish incident because China authorities did not charge individuals); see also Associated Press, supra note 4 (highlighting of twenty-three positive tests, eleven were swimmers part of China’s Olympic team in Tokyo).

[9] See Schmidt & Panja, supra note 1 (citing incident as “previously unreported”).  Unlike the public, the F.B.I. learned about the positive tests within the prior year.  See id. (observing non-disclosure enabled athletes to escape public scrutiny).

[10] See Statement from USADA CEO Travis T. Tygart on Chinese Swimmers’ Positive Tests, U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (Apr. 20, 2024), https://www.usada.org/statement/statement-chinese-swimmers-positive-tests/ (criticizing WADA’s decision to hide test results).

[11] See Graham Dunbar & Eddie Pells, World Swimming Federation Confirms U.S. Federal Investigation into Chinese Swimmers’ Doping Tests, AP News (July 4, 2024, 15:53 EDT), https://apnews.com/article/china-doping-swimming-paris-olympics-world-aquatics-d55b6c2853e2d7a79cefa68afe51f9bf (announcing international swimming federation administrator ordered to testify).  For further discussion of the Rodchenkov Act, see infra notes 21–24 and accompanying text.

[12] See WADA Statement Regarding U.S. Department of Justice Investigation into Chinese Swimming Case, supra note 7 (reaffirming WADA’s own decision not to further investigate and expressing concern over Rodchenkov Act’s criminal jurisdiction).

[13] See Amy Tennery, US Withholds WADA Dues, Calls for Reforms to Global Watchdog, Reuters (Jan. 8, 2025, 18:43 EST), https://www.reuters.com/sports/us-withholds-wada-dues-calls-reforms-global-watchdog-2025-01-08/ (explaining U.S. withheld membership dues as way to push for more reform and transparency).

[14] See id. (citing failure to meet requests of transparency is reason for withheld funds); see also Associated Press, U.S. Government Holds Back 2024 Funding from WADA, ESPN (Jan. 8, 2025, 14:46 ET), https://www.espn.com/olympics/story/_/id/43336764/us-government-holds-back-2024-funding-wada (discussing previous demand in 2022 for more transparency).

[15] See Statement from USADA CEO Travis T. Tygart on the U.S. Government Withholding Payment to WADA, U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (Jan. 8, 2025), https://www.usada.org/statement/u-s-withholding-payment-wada/ (supporting notion that withholding funds ensures protection of athletes’ rights, accountability, and fair competition). The focus throughout the incident has been to protect the rights of clean athletes and integrity within the sport.  See id. (describing WADA’s responsibility to uniformly enforce rules).

[16] See Rob Draper, World Anti-Doping Agency Faces Crisis After US Government Withholds Funding, Guardian (Jan. 8, 2025, 14:00 EST), https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/jan/08/world-anti-doping-agency-faces-crisis-after-us-government-withholds-funding (stating failure to supply funds results in automatic removal).  The U.S. representative on the executive committee was Rahul Gupta, who also served as the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which leads U.S. drug policy and implements the budget.  See Associate Press, supra note 14 (explaining Office of National Drug Control Policy distributes funds); see also Office of National Drug Control Policy, White House, https://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/ (last visited Sep. 20, 2025) (defining Office of National Drug Control Policy purpose).

[17] See World Anti-Doping Agency Const. art. VI, cl. 6, https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/wada_statutes_-_14_june_2023.pdf (defining requirements of country funding).

[18] See Eddie Pells, Irritated with WADA, Congress Looks to Give Government Authority to Withhold Payments, AP News (Jan. 23, 2025, 16:07 EDT), https://apnews.com/article/wada-congress-doping-b4f16effa5d483402c7cbc95a708eb2d (confirming new bill would give permanent power to withhold future payments).

[19] See Restoring Confidence in the World Anti-Doping Agency Act of 2025, S. 233, 119th Cong. (2025) (implying if ONDCP decides WADA lacks transparency, withholding membership dues acts as enforcement mechanism); see also WADA Statement on U.S. Senate Commerce Committee Bill, World Anti-Doping Agency (June 26, 2025) https://www.wada-ama.org/en/news/wada-statement-us-senate-commerce-committee-bill (expressing concerns with new bill).

[20] See id. (stating ongoing status of bill); see also Statement from USADA CEO Travis T. Tygart on the Senate Commerce Committee Unanimously Passing the Restoring Confidence in WADA Act, U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (June 25, 2025), https://www.usada.org/statement/restoring-confidence-wada-act/ (announcing bill received bipartisan approval by subcommittee).

[21] See Genevieve F.E. Birren, The Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act: The United States’ Response to the Russian Doping Scandal, 32 Marq. Sports L. Rev. 241, 244–245 (2021) (indicating Act was named after doctor involved in doping scandal).

[22] See id. (discussing state-sponsored doping scheme that dated back to 2012 London Olympic Games).

[23] See Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act of 2019, 21 U.S.C. § 2401 (Supp. V 2024) (including restitution for any victims); see also Rodchenkov Act Passes Senate, Goes to President for Signature, Commission On Security And Cooperation In Europe (Nov. 17, 2020, 5:00 EDT), https://www.csce.gov/press-releases/rodchenkov-act-passes-senate-goes-president/ (clarifying U.S. purpose of Act).

[24] See Birren, supra note 21, at 246 (noting athletes not defined as “Persons” within Act).  The Act criminalizes doping, which WADA has contested.  See id. at 245 (noting other countries have criminalized doping).

[25] See generally Future Games, Olympics, https://www.olympics.com/en/olympic-games (last visited Sept. 6, 2025) (detailing list of future Olympic Games locations including Los Angeles and Salt Lake City).

[26] See Lisa Riley Roche, The Olympics Are Coming Back! Utah Will Host the 2034 Winter Games, Deseret News (July 24, 2024, 04:21 MDT), https://www.deseret.com/utah/2024/07/24/2034-olympic-winter-games-announced-for-salt-lake-city/ (announcing bidding presentation involved discussion of public battle between U.S. and WADA); see also David Wharton, L.A. Officially Awarded 2028 Olympic Games, L.A. Times (Sep. 13, 2017, 10:48 PT), https://www.latimes.com/sports/olympics/la-sp-la-olympics-approved-20170913-story.html (describing timeline of LA announcement).

[27] See generally Restoring Confidence in the World Anti-Doping Agency Act of 2025, S. 233, 119th Cong. (2025) (indicating ODNCP might be allowed supervision of WADA through bill).

[28] See Statement from USADA CEO Travis T. Tygart on the U.S. Government Withholding Payment to WADA, supra note 15 (concluding withholding of funds approach was “the only right choice”).

[29] See, e.g., WADA Confirms Non-Compliance of Five Anti-Doping Organizations, World Anti-Doping Agency (Oct. 7, 2021), https://www.wada-ama.org/en/news/wada-confirms-non-compliance-five-anti-doping-organizations (describing previous violations and consequences of other countries).

[30] See generally Statement from USADA CEO Travis T. Tygart on the U.S. Government Withholding Payment to WADA, supra note 15 (noting non-payment has no repercussions on athletes).

[31] See WADA Launches Stakeholder Consultation Process Regarding Proposed Additions to the World Anti-Doping Code Addressing Voluntary Withholding of Funding by a Government, World Anti-Doping Agency (Sep. 24, 2024), https://www.wada-ama.org/en/news/wada-launches-stakeholder-consultation-process-regarding-proposed-additions-world-anti-doping (emphasizing WADA relies on payment for research, education, etc.).

[32] See id. (analyzing how implementation of new sanctions may occur).

[33] See Lisa Riley Roche, Inside the Last-Minute Drama That Brought Changes to Utah’s Olympics Bid, Deseret News (July 24, 2024, 04:23 MDT), https://www.deseret.com/utah/2024/07/24/utah-2034-winter-olympics-bid-presentation-changes-doping/ (recalling IOC frustrations with U.S.).

[34] See ASOIF Statement on US Federal Investigation into Chinese Swimmers’ Case, Ass’n of Summer Olympic Int’l Fed’n (July 12, 2024), https://www.asoif.com/news/asoif-statement-us-federal-investigation-chinese-swimmers’-case (finding threat of investigation may undermine authority of WADA).  The IOC demonstrated the urgency of resolving the conflict.  See Roche, supra note 33 (explaining amendment to host contract intended to ensure U.S. respects WADA authority).

[35] See Eric Fisher, Salt Lake City’s Olympic Host Deal Includes Last-Minute Doping Clause, Front Off. Sports (July 24, 2024, 12:32 EDT), https://frontofficesports.com/salt-lake-citys-olympic-host-deal-includes-last-minute-doping-clause/ (discussing termination clause if WADA is undermined).

[36] See Michael S. Schmidt & Tariq Panja, A Doping Feud Almost Cost Salt Lake City the Olympics. It Still Might., N.Y. Times (Dec. 31, 2024), https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/31/us/politics/wada-doping-salt-lake-city-2034-olympics.html (highlighting IOC statement that termination clause was not rare); see also Stephen Wade, ‘Host City Contract’ Gives IOC Much Leeway to Cancel Olympics, AP News (March 4, 2020, 08:30 EDT), https://apnews.com/article/7749e3fa1fd4a79348cde9077b6eba1b (recognizing safety of athletes as previous reason for inclusion of termination clause).

[37] See Fisher, supra note 35 (explaining IOC retains right to terminate).

[38] See IOC Statement on the Rodchenkov Act, Int’l Olympic Comm. (Mar. 12, 2020), https://www.olympics.com/ioc/news/ioc-statement-on-the-rodchenkov-act (recognizing importance of Act, while also suggesting U.S. includes its own athletes outside international level).

[39] See Roche, supra note 33 (suggesting individual approach risks unified global system).

[40] See Associated Press, IOC President: Unlikely Salt Lake City Would Lose 2034 Games, ESPN (Sep. 29, 2024, 07:37 ET), https://www.espn.com/olympics/story/_/id/41508122/ioc-president-unlikely-salt-lake-city-lose-2034-games (finding less cities willing to host Winter Olympics).

[41] See id. (suggesting reasons IOC is unlikely to terminate Utah contract); see also Roche, supra note 33 (suggesting future risk of no bids).

[42] See WADA Statement on U.S. Senate Commerce Committee Bill, supra note 19 (describing WADA response to bill).

[43] See Executive Committee, World Anti-Doping Agency, https://www.wada-ama.org/en/who-we-are/governance/executive-committee (last visited Sep. 6, 2025); see also Statement from USADA CEO Travis T. Tygart on the U.S. Government Withholding Payment to WADA, supra note 15 (implying withholding to enforce transparency).