Despite a very fresh and large doping scandal in Norway that revealed wide-spread and systemic doping code violations by Anti-Doping Norway, neither WADA nor its chief Witold Banka responded when our publication sent emails asking how to “report to WADA violations of its code by a signatory National Anti-Doping Organization (NADO).” The scandal in Norway just two months earlier had revealed exactly such WADA code violations by “a signatory NADO” that we wrote to WADA about.
Anti-Doping Norway is classified as a NADO by WADA and has signed on to the WADA code (“the Code”), the rule book for anti-doping efforts and administration. Despite having signed on to the Code, Anti-Doping Norway violated it for three years by not testing underage athletes. NADO then tried to cover up their own non-compliance.
Additionally, NADO violated the Code with the full knowledge of NIF (Norges Idrettsforbund). Translating into English, “NIF” is the Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports, which describes itself as “an umbrella organisation which organises all national sports federations in Norway.” NIF receives substantial funding from the Norwegian government.
Our emails were sent to WADA on October 25 and November 1, 2022, a mere two months after news of the doping scandal in Norway broke. The email to Banka was sent on November 13, referenced our two previous emails and the scandal in Norway, and expressed surprise at not receiving a response, and asked for a comment for publication.
Banka did not respond. We know that he received it because when a person sends emails to non-existent WADA email accounts, they bounce back. None of our three emails asking how to report grievous doping offenses bounced back.
Furthermore, WADA has not denied receiving our emails. WADA’s Media Inquiries department responded to our inquiry about WADA’s response to Norway’s organized state-sponsored doping.
“In July 2022, WADA became aware of the details surrounding a critical non-conformity within the Norwegian system,” James Fitzgerald, Head of Media Relations at WADA said when we asked about the doping scandal in Norway. “Immediately, WADA demanded that Anti-Doping Norway resolve the issue as a matter of urgency. A solution was subsequently identified and has since been implemented to WADA’s satisfaction.”
In other words, the same “anti-doping” organization (NADO) that had violated the Code for three years, then covered up its violations, was allowed to itself fix the problem, and received no punishment.
Had WADA instead declared NADO “non-compliant,” then Norway could have been excluded from future Olympics and Paralympics, including the 2024 Paris Summer Olympics, or not allowed to compete under the Norwegian flag.
Not only was the wrongdoer Norway not punished — it was rewarded.
Less than four months after what WADA itself called a “critical non-comformity” within Anti-Doping Norway, the NADO:s within WADA voted on a slate of 22 candidates for 10 seats on WADA’s “2023 National Anti-Doping Organization Expert Advisory Group.” One of those elected to this “expert advisory group” was Martin Holmlund Lauesen from Anti-Doping Norway.
Before Witold Banka became WADA President, Banka gave an interview to the AP expressing an almost singular focus on doping in Russia. Banka has repeatedly condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine, even though WADA’s mission is only about doping. Banka is a Polish national, and the centuries old animosity between Russia and Poland is well-known.
WADA is a Swiss private law, not-for-profit Foundation with its in seat Lausanne, Switzerland, and its headquarters in Montreal, Canada. WADA’s statutes give “the object of the Foundation” in eight numbered points. All have to do with doping, none have to do with “invasions” or any aspects of geopolitics. But even in the realm of doping, WADA is not interested in state-sponsored doping carried out by US allies, with Norway and Kenya being the most glaring examples.
In 2018, WADA claimed that Kenya “now has a serious doping problem” but that “there is no evidence of an institutionalized system” of doping in Kenya. If there were, it would be called “state-sponsored doping,” a charge that WADA has levelled against Russia.
In September 2025, under pressure from countries that are not vassals of the US government and under the weight of overwhelming evidence, WADA did an about face and alleged that “Kenya’s Anti-Doping Agency (ADAK) is non-compliant with” the Code [this paragraph was added in February 2026 after WADA’s about face on Kenya].
Is WADA not really about anti-doping but instead another geopolitical tool of the US? If so, will such “prostitution to power” hamper actual and effective anti-doping efforts?
As always – Lacrimonia reports and the readers decide.
