We are concluding our stay at my son's home in Brooklyn today, having enjoyed a wonderful time since August 2nd.
A friend recently asked me about the perceived double standards in Western media regarding anti-doping practices during the 2024 Paris Olympics.
Criticism of double standards in Olympic anti-doping policies has been a recurring topic, particularly when controversies arise involving doping allegations. These debates often extend into broader discussions about fairness, transparency, power struggle and the sheer integrity of international sports competitions.
A significant focus of this criticism is on the United States, which some accuse of applying stricter anti-doping rules to athletes from other countries while being more lenient or protective toward its own athletes. This perceived inconsistency is often seen as a form of hypocrisy, undermining fairness in global sports.
For instance, consider the Sha'Carri Richardson case. The U.S. sprinter was suspended from the 2021 Tokyo Olympics after testing positive for marijuana, a substance banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Some American critics argued that the punishment was disproportionate, given that marijuana is legal in many parts of the U.S. The question is whether the response would have been the same if the athlete were from another country.
Another example is the infamous Carl Lewis vs. Ben Johnson case. During the 1988 Seoul Olympics, Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson was stripped of his gold medal after testing positive for steroids. Later, it was revealed that American sprinter Carl Lewis, who inherited the gold after Johnson's disqualification, had also failed drug tests in the lead-up to the Olympics. Yet, Lewis was not disqualified, a glaring example of double standards in the enforcement of doping rules.
The 2024 Paris Olympics have sparked further controversy surrounding the U.S. and its alleged double standards, particularly in anti-doping measures. The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has faced criticism for its handling of cases involving American athletes, with some believing it reveals a bias compared to the treatment of international athletes, especially those from China.
For example, U.S. sprinter Erriyon Knighton was cleared by USADA after testing positive for a banned substance, with the explanation that it was due to contaminated meat. This decision surprised many, especially when contrasted with the stringent testing and accusations faced by Chinese athletes. The Chinese swimming team, for instance, underwent more anti-doping tests than any other nation, fueling discussions about fairness and double standards in the enforcement of these regulations.
Double standards are not confined to sports; they are often practiced at both individual and governmental levels. Individuals may tolerate behavior in themselves that they condemn in others, driven by a desire to protect their own interests. Similarly, governments may apply different standards to maintain power, control, or influence, tolerating violence from their allies while condemning similar actions by their adversaries.
A Chinese saying encapsulates this concept well: 只许州官放火，不许百姓点灯 (zhǐ xǔ zhōu guān fàng huǒ, bù xǔ bǎi xìng diǎn dēng), which translates to "Only the official is allowed to set fires, but the common people are not allowed to light lamps." This vividly illustrates the hypocrisy and inequality inherent in double standards, where those in power impose strict rules on others while exempting themselves. It's akin to saying, "There are some things that only I can do, but not you."
Addressing double standards is challenging, as they are often rooted in biases and power struggles. However, certain mechanisms can help mitigate their impact. The media, for instance, can play a crucial role by raising public awareness about the unfairness and hypocrisy of double standards, contributing to a more equitable and just environment.