Talk:Sun Yang

the definition of doping
"administer drugs to (a racehorse, greyhound, or athlete) in order to inhibit or enhance sporting performance."

Sun yang may be many things, but there is no evidence that he is a doper. I thus changed the 'doping' part to 'substance,' which more accurately describes the largely technical infraction that he made. Happy  monsoon  day  20:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * do you mind being more specific? Dschslava  Δx  parlez moi  22:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

If it was so technical, he wouldn't have had his career ended over it. The intro needs to reflect that rather than gushing over his (tainted) achievements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.172.31.171 (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sun Yang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160820015237/http://list.wada-ama.org/prohibited-all-times/prohibited-substances/ to http://list.wada-ama.org/prohibited-all-times/prohibited-substances/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Doping section
I have created a dedicated doping section inline with how we cover similar subjects (see: Lance Armstrong, Justin Gatlin, plus many others). This section is where the commentary about the smashing of the sample should also be covered in my opinion.

This allows for the career to cover events rather than the controversy surrounding him and makes the article easier to manage moving forward.TenderKing (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Intro needs a source but vandals try to hide it
The intro specifically states - "A few months later, the drug Sun had tested positive for was downgraded to a lesser class after it was found not to be performance enhancing when taken on its own. ". I looked up the source for such bombshell info and found it easily in an auatralian article that cited that info. Such info is generally hidden in most media but i am pretty sure i found that info also from Swim Swam, a swimming magazine. Regardless the body doesn't mention that the drug is not performance enhancing when taken on its own. Only the intro has that info and it needs a real source to back that statement and WHY i believe the source - https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/sport/swimming/2019/08/17/hypocrisy-and-bad-blood/15659640008601 - needs to be cited in the intro. And not the body that btw already has a source. I feel it is unethical to move the cited source away from the intro to leave it with Zero sources. And put it in the body which DOESN'T MENTION THE DRUG IS NOT performance enhancing when taken on its own. That is why i believe the two editors who unreasonably keeps changing the placement of the source from intro to the body is wrong. If you have a reason why the sentence in the intro doesn't need a single source and the body paragragh needs two sources. Despite the body makes zero mention of the drug not being performance enhancing when taken on its own unlike the intro. Then give reasons. As I am reverting to the ORIGINAL version and hope people read my arguments, read the intro, body and the 2 sources, and realise it's best to let it stay. I will give this a few days to be properly discussed here in civil manner, before doing so. 49.195.32.181 (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * First of all, do not accuse me of being a vandal. You can't just throw around serious accusations like that without proof. I was the editor who helped bring this article to Good Article status in the first place, so why would I vandalize the article? Second, editor already reverted your previous edits. As they pointed out, please see MOS:LEAD and more specifically, MOS:LEADCITE.
 * You mentioned that the body does not repeat this sentence in the lead, but it does: "In January 2015, WADA reclassified and downgraded trimetazidine from "stimulant" to "modulator of cardiac metabolism"." Although this does not exactly match the sentence in the lead, that's fine because the lead is supposed to be more generalized, not super specific and loaded with jargon. There are sources that follow this sentence as well, so there is no need to add another source to the lead. It's simply redundant.
 * "I feel it is unethical to move the cited source away from the intro to leave it with Zero sources." You are entitled to your opinion, but Wikipedia operates on consensus. You can't make sweeping changes and then complain about other people disagreeing. Bobbychan193 (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you read the saturday paper, it mentioned "A few months later the drug was downgraded after it was found not to be performance enhancing when taken on its own." The intro had that specific info but lacks any sources right now to back it. All i did was add the source. Why should the intro be deprived of a source? The ONLY reason why the intro needs a source is because people can later state that there are no sources to back the intro info and then delete that sentence. The body however CURRENTLY has none of that info that  states the drug is Not performance enhancing when taken on its own. You claim to strive for a good article. Yet you gave the body info double sources that is just unnecessary and questionable. And remove the source from the intro where it's important to state at least one source to back it. People will later look at the intro and delete that sentence and reason it's because there are no given sources. If it makes you feel any better and end this drama straight ~ you can just use this as your second source for the body which says the same thing as the body info https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-21/sun-yang-doping-case-more-complicated-than-it-seems/11328364?pfmredir=sm and let the intro info have its own dedicated source so people won't risk deleting it for not having a source to back it. Or just add extra info to the body that writes the drug to not to be performance enhancing if taken on its own.49.195.32.181 (talk)^


 * In a nutshell, my concern is people who is motivated to delete that particular intro are people who wants to hide that particular info. And leaving it without a source, makes it alot easier to delete it later. That's my concern. Also it's hard to take good article status seriously as i checked a few mins ago. It says Sun was banned for cheating which is one - misleading as it equates him as being the same as having been tested positive for a drug. It shpuld be specific and state Sun was banned for his behavioural conduct in a sample collection that was deemed excessive. That's being neutral. And all his medals had now been removed from the intro despite most were won before 2018 so even if he cheated. The 2018 incident shouldn't remove his past winnings. That is clear bias right there. Why would that deserve a good article status with such bias like that? And info like "...the drug was downgraded after it was found not to be performance enhancing when taken on its own." needs to have a minimum of one source given its importance level and not be moved away to a body that doesn't have that info. And leave the intro to be vulnerable to deletion as it now has no intro cited directly to it. That's why i believe that's vandalism but did not intend to accuse loosely or offend, but my reason is not invalid 49.195.32.181 (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "In January 2015, WADA reclassified and downgraded trimetazidine from "stimulant" to "modulator of cardiac metabolism"." This statement from a Saturday morning paper is relying entirely on an incorrect interpretation made by a Journalist. The reclassification of trimetazidine is not a downgrade, but is actually an increase in the ban, from a stimulant banned only during competition, to a substance that cannot be used in or out of competition. The sentence is completely iaccurate. The SwimSwam site https://swimswam.com/trimetazidine-remains-banned-wada-competition/ lists the timeline of its change, you can see that from 2015 onwards it is listed in S4, substances banned at all times. In 2014 it was classified in s6. The statement that trimetazidine was removed from the prohibited list is factually wrong. 202.20.20.129 (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The above reply shows a good reason why there needs to be a source in case someone tries to spin the info. The above user even stated that the decison was not affected despite being deemed a higher class. That massacres context and it is misleading because calling it a higher class - implies that drug has even higher cheating benefits compared to the banned stimulants. It's NOT. If it was perfromance enhancing, one wouldn;t be able to apply for exemption and use the drug legally and still compete. Not a higher class. I have also took time to read the papers and there is a DIFFERENCE between banned and just prohibited. Banned means absolutely nobody can use it AKA like anabolic steroids and stimulants that even if the doctors give them a permission slip. It still be banned. Prohibited is a WIDE umbrella term and means it's either banned to ALL or you need to apply for an exemption to get it. This drug  is simply prohibited and still allowed for athletes if under exemption so not quite on the total banned list. As  it was taken off the complete BANNED list  when it was found not to be performance enhancing but simply risky to athlete's health and can be abused.

The journalist that above editor had criticized, is a highly reputed Australian reporter who did her homework. In terms of metabolic modulators, these substances are often not even developed enough to be used as medicine, so it is IMPOSSIBLE to know their full effects or risks. But until those things are determined, they remain on the list for PROHIBITED substances out of professional caution. Not because they are more powerful than anabolic steroids or stimulants. If they were as powerful, there would be no exemption given to use them.

We know that isn't true to write that it's stronger than average steroids or stimulants. Instead as Tracey Holmes who in the ABC MEDIA, a highly authoritative Australian gov media, made it crystal clear that later official lab tests confirmed that so far, such drugs was found to be not performance enhancing AND TAKEN OFF THE total BANNED LIST - AND ARTICLE WAS DATED YEAR 2020 and so is recent. Today it's no longer recognised as a stimulant. However because it's still relatively a new drug. It's just not possible to EVEN know the full effects and for safety reasons to prevent abuse - it' stays on the prohibited list BUT not banned to all if they have exemptions since  it has no large performance enhancing effects but prohibited for SAFETY REASONS. Drugs are also prohibited it represents an actual or potential health risk to the Athlete. That doesn't make it a "higher class" of strength and is misleading to state it as such.

In a decade's time, if that same version of drug continues to show data of being safe and later be well understood enough and still not performance enhancing. It would be taken off the list but it stays only now because it's still a new relatively less experienced drug. SAYING these drugs are more stronger than stimulants and of a higher class than ACTUAL banned stimulants. That is not only not neutral but just outright deceptive because that paints the wrong picture. That's unethical editing.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-08/sun-yang-has-been-painted-as-a-drug-cheat-look-at-it-in-context/12027892

My source is authoritative and an ABC ARTICLE 2020 - AN AUSTRALIAN GOV BACKED PAPER and made it clear that the drug has no performance enhancing effects  from actual studies, and no longer termed a stimulant and simply being prohibited, doesn't make  it a "higher class" than stimulants. It's not banned if you have exemption as it has no performance enhancing effects but controlled primarily becasue the drug is not well understood and stays prohibited to prevent risky abuse. Currently the article makes it seem like the drug has higher cheating effects than steroids or stimulants. Except lab found it to not be performance enhancing. But just risky for athlete's health given the relative newness of the drug. So because it's not performance enhancing and somewhat risky. It's not banned but you need an exemption to continue to use it out of competition. If it was banned like actual stimulants, you wouldn't be able to get an exemption so not higher class at all or the same thing as complete ban as stimulants14.202.177.65 (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You are entirely relying on a newspaper article that is spinning the info itself. Claiming that it is a downgrade is a straight up lie. The fact that atheletes can get a "Therapeutic Usage Exemption" doesn't have anything to do with it being a downgrade. In fact TUE's have nothing to do with the catagories that substances are banned under. There is one authoriative source on banned substances and that is WADA's list. WADA's prohibited list shifted the substance from the S6 catagory to the S4 catagory. S4 is the same category that Meldonium is listed under, the substance that Maria Sharapova was suspended for using.

The article from https://swimswam.com/trimetazidine-remains-banned-wada-competition/ is a far better source than Tracy Holmes stories because it simply states the facts of the categories that trimetazidine is prohibited under.

I didn't say its a stronger substance and neither does the swimswam article, it say it is in a stronger banned category. Substances that are classed as stimulants are banned in competition only. Athletes can use them any time out of competition without issue. It was changed to a category when it is banned both in and out of competition. This is an increase in its ban level because it is now banned in more situations. This has nothing to do with what level of performance enhancement the substance gives. Stimulats are banned how they are because their performance enhancement is generally short term.

And your claim an article on the ABC is "AN AUSTRALIAN GOV BACKED PAPER" is completely misleading as well. The ABC is an independant journalist body that just happens to be publicly funded. Nothing it puts out has an extra government backing and its not really anymore reliable than any other journalism source because of that. In fact the Australian government constantly calls them out for inaccuraries in reporting. And this article from Tracey Holmes is just yet another example of Australian Sporting Media showing a complete misunderstanding of how anti-doping in sports work. Have a look at the Essendon Football Club's drug saga for more examples. Here's an example of ASADA having to correct Tracey Holmes's inaccuracies in reporting on anti-doping cases https://www.asada.gov.au/news/media-correction-abc-report-about-asadas-legislative-powers-inaccurate Criticism of her soft approach with Essendon coach James Hird https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/viewers-slam-tracey-holmes-joke-abc-interview-with-james-hird-20160118-gm7vi2.html

Also Trimetaziden is ACTUALLY BANNED. Its listed right here https://www.wada-ama.org/en/content/what-is-prohibited/prohibited-at-all-times/hormone-and-metabolic-modulators You're putting your own spin on it, which is completely lacking in neutrality as you try and paint Sun Yang as a victim. 202.20.20.202 (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken. It's downgraded and not a lie. The class that it's currently in was created specifically for banned stimulants that are later found to not be strong enough but still banned because of it's newness. Meldonium was moved to the class because it's relatively new AND stays until it's officially well researched enough. Even Ben Nichols, WADA Senior Manager of Media Relations had publiclu clarified that Trimetazidine was reclassified and downgraded that same year.

Wada officially said it was downgraded and taken off the banned stimulant list. They created the class specifically because drugs are only ever reclassified to s4 and taken off the banned stimulant list, when they are now recognized as LESS likely to be used as doping agents since they are not potent or attractive enough for pro athlete to risk their reputation over. https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/sun-yang-doping-case/

It's misleading for wikipedia to just present or spin that this drug as more serious than banned stimulants when it has been officially reclassified and deemed downgraded by so many sources from this year alone. Caffeine is a stimulant yet not potent enough to be on the banned stimulant list. Trimetazidene potency is just not serious enough for the banned stimulant list and why it has been off it ever since. Yes that means it's been essentially downgraded, but it stays on the ban list but just downgraded. Downgraded doesn't mean it's off the ban list. However Thereprtuic exemptions essentially make it not completely banned. 49.179.21.158 (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Article is woefully incomplete ~ needs more minimal essential info behind 2018 incident
I have a serious issue to raise on this article after reading it very carefully. I follow swim swam magazine and why I know alot about this topic. The article need to minimally explain why Sun claims to have issues with the testers. It appears to not be explained. In swim swam, it writes "The DCO showed Sun the DCA’s contact information in a digital company portal, and it matched his ID, but SUN was still not appeased as it lacked the DCA’s photo." + Additionally Sun had contacted his agency who informed him the testers had no legal authority and he reportedly needed to urinate and couldn't hold it. And more info like that, is not added into wiki. Such info and more, has not been added and confused on why. Such facts are the very minimal basics behind the 2018 testing incident. But nowhere to be found on Wiki despite swimming magazines have covrred it in detail in the past months. https://swimswam.com/breaking-down-sun-yangs-case-part-2-swimmer-and-dco-had-a-history/ I believe such vital info has to be added in to make the article more complete and not lacking in essential details.49.195.32.181 (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Feel free to expand the article. Make sure to write in a neutral, objective tone and use reliable sources. Bobbychan193 (talk) 03:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Is adding Sun Yang's defences really a worthwhile endeavor when the CAS has ruled them invalid excuses for his actions? 202.20.20.202 (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * His defences can be not an excuse, while still being relevant to the story and the article --Spacepine (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2020
Add following information regarding translation issues during 2019 hearing: CAS later stated that the private interpretation service was provided by Sun Yang and the CAS take no part during the hiring of external interpreters. Source 1, 2. Takekawa (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 04:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Blanking of referenced content
We have various users blanking content on the supposed grounds that the sources are not reliable. But Seven News and South China Morning Post are reliable sources. Please stop edit warring. Wikipedia is not censored and it seems that certain users are simply out to blank content that might reflect badly on the Chinese government. That's not how Wikipedia works. Citobun (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed, it should be noted in the 2018 trial that material on both sides of the issue are included, including the views of those who disagree with the ban on Sun Yang. FobTown (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the alert Citobun. I've got another source about the harassment faced by the Horton family, which I will add tonight. --Spacepine (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Citobun and Spacepine, greatly appreciate you two staying alert against blanking and censorship. I've noticed that User:Lvhis and User:Swazzer30 seem to be dormant accounts that have been awaken. FobTown (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello fellow Wikipedians, thanks for labelling User:Lvhis and I as 'dormant accounts' who apparently 'censor content' just because we want non-sensationalist sources on Wikipedia. It is so glaringly obvious that Citobun and FobTown are Wikipedians who have a grudge against anything Chinese on Wikipedia. Maybe you should be aware of the fact that it was I who wrote the large majority of this well-sourced section in the first place. I will continue to monitor this page and make sure no sensationalist/unproven material is published on this page. Additionally, I will try to remain non-political, factual and neutral in my submissions to this page; something that Citobun and FobTown obviously find hard to do when editing Chinese related pages. Stop editing pages in bad faith Citobun and FobTown. Swazzer30 (talk) 13:51 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks FobTown, but I haven't done anything yet. Swazzer30, Seven news and SCMP are good sources, it is the facts that are sensational. As they are sourced I believe they should be included. --Spacepine (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC) 23:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Here is more from the World Swimming Magazine and other sources. FobTown (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello there, labelling me as "dormant accounts" is against the fact as well as the behavioral guideline WP:AGF. This article is a biography of living person and must adhere to the WP:BLP policy. The content in question is not directly related to this living person. Although the content is referenced, the appropriate article where it should be placed is article Mack Horton instead of this article. Lvhis (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The referenced content is relevant to Sun Yang too as it shows the great lengths that the state is willing to go to support him, which includes harassing a key rival. Also notable is that The Sun Yang Global Support Association has announced its intention to close down with a wide-ranging apology to “the Chinese people and all athletes” and “to all those who have been threatened and cursed, to all the people who have been misled and deceived, and to the party and the country”. FobTown (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The Lede is indeed long
Lede needs to be summarised. His swim history, drug allegations, and his ban has multiple full sized paragraghs covering it in the lede. Does it have to be so extensive? Such info is already covered extensively in the dedicated chapters. The lede should be shortened. Keep it one paragraph ideally and not so many. MangoTareeface9 (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)