WADA proposes more independent doping testing at major sporting competitions
The World Anti-Doping Agency, WADA, has opened a new phase of discussion on who should conduct doping controls at the biggest international sporting events. According to WADA's announcement after the extraordinary virtual meeting of the Executive Committee held on Tuesday, 16 June 2026, one of the central questions was whether the national anti-doping organization of the host country should have a key operational role in testing athletes at competitions held on its territory. The Executive Committee considered the final report of the working group on the operational independence of national anti-doping organizations, known as NADO organizations, and especially the recommendation that testing at major events be entrusted to an independent and impartial body. According to WADA, this would reduce the possibility of an actual or perceived conflict of interest when athletes from the host country compete under the supervision of their own national anti-doping agency.
What would change at major competitions
According to WADA's announcement, the working group's recommendation does not mean the complete exclusion of national anti-doping organizations from events held in their countries. The key difference is that the national agency of the host, under the proposed model, would not participate in preparing the test distribution plan, selecting athletes for testing, certain aspects of sample collection and results management. These functions would be taken over by an independent, non-partisan body, and the aim is to separate the process from any suspicion of political, national or sporting pressure. Such an approach, WADA states, is already the preferred model for the Olympic Games, but the working group recommends stricter and broader application to a larger set of major competitions.
As examples of events to which the recommendation would apply, WADA cites the Olympic and Paralympic Games, continental competitions and world championships. By contrast, the local national anti-doping organization could still have a role in logistics, coordination with law enforcement bodies for intelligence and investigative activities, and in carrying out educational programs at the competition venue. In other words, the proposal does not remove the host's expertise and infrastructure from the system, but the most sensitive decisions on who is tested, when, and how the procedure after a finding is conducted would be separated from the domestic operational framework.
According to the official announcement, WADA's Executive Committee requested and accepted that the working group's 19th recommendation be translated into an amendment to the relevant mandatory international standard. This is an important technical detail because international standards, together with the World Anti-Doping Code, form the operational basis of the global anti-doping system. Some of the other recommendations from the report will require further discussions and assessments before possible concrete changes, which means that WADA has not yet presented a single package of ready-made rules for the whole system. Still, the decision to link the issue of independent testing at major events to a mandatory standard shows that this is not only a political message, but a direction that could have direct consequences for competition organizers, international federations and national agencies.
Background: the case of the Chinese swimmers and the question of trust
The discussion on the independence of national anti-doping organizations accelerated strongly after the case of 23 Chinese swimmers whose samples, collected at the beginning of 2021, contained the prohibited substance trimetazidine. According to the final report of independent prosecutor Eric Cottier, there were 28 positive findings among 23 athletes during a domestic competition in China's Shijiazhuang. The Chinese anti-doping agency CHINADA concluded that it was a case of contamination, and WADA did not appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Cottier's report, which WADA published in 2024, concluded that WADA had not shown bias toward China and that the decision not to appeal, based on the available evidence, was reasonable, but the entire case opened the question of trust in the system and the way such matters are communicated and supervised.
Additional pressure came from the report of the Anti-Doping Audit Review Committee at World Aquatics, which analyzed the handling of the same case. According to that report, among athletes there is a perception of a possible conflict of interest when national bodies supervise their own athletes who are preparing to compete at international competitions. It is precisely this perception, even when bias has not been formally proven, that became the key point of WADA's discussion. In sport in which a result can depend on hundredths of a second or a single point, trust in equal treatment of all athletes becomes almost as important as the laboratory analysis itself.
The WGOI working group was established after the recommendations of the group that monitored the implementation of conclusions from the Cottier report. According to the working group's terms of reference document, its task was to analyze the structure and operational independence of national anti-doping organizations, assess the impact of good governance, and consider possible changes to rules or guidelines. In the final report, the working group states that the issue of operational independence has been present in the World Anti-Doping Code since 2015, but that events in recent years have shown the need for more precise and more practical rules. The group formulated a total of 19 recommendations, classified into topics such as cooperation, Code compliance, development, transparency, education, athlete perception and testing.
Independence is not only a legal issue, but also a reputational one
In WADA's system, national anti-doping organizations have a central role in implementing rules at the national level. They collect samples, carry out testing programs, educate athletes and participate in results management. In its report, WGOI emphasizes that NADO organizations are the main guardians of anti-doping in their countries and that they were established precisely to act independently. The problem arises when the public or athletes gain the impression that a domestic agency, even if it formally works according to the rules, may be exposed to pressure because of national interest, the host's reputation or the political significance of a competition.
According to the annexes to the WGOI report, the new World Anti-Doping Code for 2027 further elaborates the definition of operational independence of national anti-doping organizations. The definition provides for legal, organizational, procedural or contractual safeguards that should prevent improper influence, interference or participation in the managerial and operational activities of a national agency. It is also emphasized that persons who have an actual or potential conflict of interest should not participate in management or operational affairs, for example because of simultaneous involvement in national sports organizations or state bodies responsible for sport or anti-doping.
WADA already published a guide in 2020 for strengthening the operational independence of NADO organizations, then in the context of rules that came into force in 2021. That guide emphasized that national agencies must make operational decisions without improper influence from sports organizations or governments. The current discussion goes one step further because it does not deal only with the internal independence of one national agency, but also with whether the domestic agency should lead the most sensitive parts of the testing program at events in which athletes from its country participate at all.
American criticism and the broader political context
WADA's proposal has provoked sharp reactions in the United States, especially because Los Angeles will host the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Sara Carter, sent an open letter to WADA stakeholders in which, according to the White House announcement, she warned that certain recommendations could weaken the role of operationally independent national anti-doping organizations, including USADA. In the letter, she stressed that the U.S. wants, as ONDCP states, to ensure the cleanest possible Games in Los Angeles and that reducing the role of national agencies could undermine transparency and the system of mutual checks.
The United States Anti-Doping Agency, USADA, further sharpened the tone. In a statement by CEO Travis T. Tygart, USADA claims that WADA's direction could mean sidelining truly independent national anti-doping organizations and returning control to sports structures or service providers connected with sport. Such criticism shows that the question of independence does not have only one interpretation. For WADA, the problem is the possibility that a domestic national agency supervises its own athletes at a home major event. For USADA and some American actors, the problem is the possibility that the responsibility of national agencies will be replaced by a system that, in their opinion, could be less accountable to the public and to athletes.
According to an Associated Press report published by KSL, WADA spokesman James Fitzgerald said the working group's recommendations were designed to strengthen the independence and credibility of the anti-doping process, including major events. The same report states that the American side also criticized the fact that it was not included in the extraordinary meeting of the Executive Committee, while WADA said that the reason was the non-payment of the U.S. government's contribution. That dispute further burdens the relationship between the U.S. and WADA, which has already been tense for years because of cases related to Russia, Chinese swimmers and the issue of financing the global anti-doping system.
What changing the international standard means
If the recommendation on independent testing is included in the mandatory international standard, organizers of major competitions would have to plan earlier who leads the testing program, who manages risks, who selects athletes for controls and who assumes responsibility for results. WADA's guidelines for major events already emphasize that coordination of several anti-doping organizations before and during competitions is necessary to protect the rights of clean athletes. The new approach could make that coordination stricter and more formal, especially in cases when the public expects increased supervision because of the political importance of a competition or a history of doping controversies.
The practical consequences will not be the same for all competitions. The Olympic Games already have a complex anti-doping model in which international actors and independent structures, including the International Testing Agency, ITA, have an important role in part of the operational programs. For smaller world or continental championships, the change could be more demanding because such competitions often rely more on domestic capacities, local staff and existing infrastructure. Therefore, in the next phase, the discussion will focus not only on the principle of independence, but also on financing, logistics, the availability of qualified personnel, accredited laboratories and the division of responsibility among international federations, organizers and anti-doping bodies.
The WGOI report emphasizes that the recommendations should be practical and feasible, not merely declarative. This is particularly important because the anti-doping system rests on a large number of actors: WADA, international federations, national agencies, organizers of major events, laboratories, athletes and state institutions. If responsibility is moved from one level to another, it must be clear who is responsible for failures, who finances additional capacities and how it is ensured that the independent body itself does not become a source of a new conflict of interest. This is exactly what critics warn about when they claim that independence must apply equally to national agencies, international federations and any third party entrusted with doping control.
New rules ahead of the 2027 Code
The change comes during the period of preparations for the new World Anti-Doping Code and international standards for 2027. According to WADA, the 2027 Code and accompanying standards were approved on 5 December 2025 at the World Conference on Doping in Sport in Busan, and they enter into force on 1 January 2027. This makes 2026 a transition year in which signatories to the Code, including national anti-doping organizations and international sports federations, must align their rules, procedures and contractual relationships with the new framework.
At the same meeting, according to the official announcement, WADA's Executive Committee also approved the terms of reference for reviewing the implementation of broader governance reforms approved in 2022. This shows that the discussion on testing at major competitions is not being conducted in isolation, but as part of the broader issue of trust in the institutions that govern clean sport. After cases that included Russia, Chinese swimmers and years-long discussions on WADA's financing, the question of who supervises the supervisors has become one of the key issues for international sport.
For athletes, the most important thing is that the rules be equal, understandable and enforceable. According to WADA's interpretation, more independent testing at major events should prevent claims that domestic athletes receive more lenient treatment or that sensitive decisions are made under national pressure. According to criticism from the U.S. and USADA, the reform must be careful not to weaken existing national agencies that are already operationally independent and that have played an important role in uncovering doping in numerous cases. The next steps will show whether WADA will succeed in turning the principle of independence into a system that is at the same time stricter, more transparent and operationally feasible for different types of major sporting competitions.
Sources:
- World Anti-Doping Agency – official announcement on the Executive Committee meeting of 16 June 2026 and the recommendation on independent testing at major events (link)
- World Anti-Doping Agency – final report of the WGOI working group on the operational independence of national anti-doping organizations (link)
- World Anti-Doping Agency – annexes to the WGOI final report with relevant provisions of the 2027 Code (link)
- World Anti-Doping Agency – page on the World Anti-Doping Code and international standards for 2027 (link)
- World Anti-Doping Agency – Cottier report on WADA's handling of the case of 23 Chinese swimmers (link)
- World Aquatics – report of the Anti-Doping Audit Review Committee on the case of the Chinese swimmers (link)
- The White House / ONDCP – open letter by Director Sara Carter to WADA stakeholders (link)
- USADA – statement by CEO Travis T. Tygart on WADA's proposals for major events (link)
- KSL / Associated Press – report on American criticism of WADA's proposals ahead of the extraordinary Executive Committee meeting (link)