Think of this as your investigation log. Answer each question to explain what you discovered and how you got there.
1. Write a brief overall summary of your findings.
I found an informational article directly from the “International Olympic Committee" which states that their “fight against doping began” in “the 1960s”, proving that the Olympic has never had a tolerance for steroid use. I also found various other articles that explained how the use of steroids is highly prohibited, but I will be focusing on the International Olympic Committee's (IOC) article, because I believe it has the most credibility.
2. What primary sources did you find (e.g., transcripts, videos of politician speeches, tweets from public figures, scientific studies)? For each source, write at least one or two sentences explaining what you learned. Include all links.
Because the article was written directly from the IOC, I believe that it is a credible primary source because they directly state their lack of tolerance for performance enhancing drugs. They also dive into “anti-doping rule violations” and various allegiances they support like WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) and the CAS’s (Court of Arbitration) anti-doping division.
3. What secondary sources did you find (e.g., newspapers, magazines)? Only use secondary sources if sufficient primary sources are not available. For each source, write at least one or two sentences explaining what you learned. Include all links.
While the article comes directly from IOC, they do include secondary data from the organizations they support. For example, they explain how the ITA (International Testing Agency) includes “12 principles for a more robust and independent global anti-doping system” to protect athletes, which came from a secondary website.
4. What potential biases or interests might each of your sources have?
Because the source comes directly from the Olympics, they are going to have their own best interest in mind. While their data and facts are credible, they may have an ulterior motive to present the best facts to boost their brand image.
5. What evidence supports the claim you are fact-checking?
I think that by finding a source directly from The Olympics supports the claim that I am fact checking. Because the original claim was questioning The Olympics, I think that a source that came directly from the IOC is one of the best pieces of evidence to support the fact check.
6. What evidence undermines the claim you are fact-checking?
One piece of evidence that could undermine the claim that I am fact checking is that the article I examined wasn't very lengthy. While there are many informational and trusted articles that are short in length, I think that this one in particular could have provided more detail to really uphold their claims of anti-doping policy.
7. What happened when you tried contacting the person or group who made the original claim? (Always try to contact them—it’s okay if you don’t get a reply. For example, if the claim is that the president said something, try reaching out to the administration. If it was a Bluesky user, message that user on Bluesky.)
There will most likely be no response because The Olympics are a huge corporation with lots of inner workings that may not prioritize my inquiries.
