0:02

School's out, but work isn't. And

0:04

you need dinner ideas like yesterday.

0:07

So you search New York Times Cooking and

0:09

see that you can easily shop recipe ingredients through

0:11

Instacart and get them delivered in as fast

0:13

as 30 minutes. Skillet

0:15

shrimp and corn with lime dressing. A

0:17

perfect early summer meal. Click Shop Ingredients

0:19

on Instacart to order it all to

0:21

your door. Just like

0:24

that, a new family favorite is

0:26

served. Learn how to shop for

0:28

New York Times Cooking recipe ingredients

0:30

on Instacart at nytcooking.com/ Instacart.

0:35

From the New York Times, I'm Natalie Ketroff.

0:38

This is The Daily. A

0:47

new doping scandal is rocking the

0:49

world of competitive swimming as the

0:51

Paris Olympics approach. Those

0:54

allegations are raising questions about fairness

0:56

in the sport and whether we

0:58

can trust what we see at

1:00

these summer games. Today,

1:04

one of the reporters who broke that

1:07

story, Mike Schmidt, explains the controversy and

1:10

what it reveals about the struggle to police

1:12

doping in sports. It's

1:20

Thursday, June 27th. Mike,

1:30

on Tuesday, we saw two

1:32

stars of American swimming testify

1:34

before Congress, where they

1:36

questioned the fairness of their own sport

1:39

and of the Olympic Games. This

1:41

was a pretty remarkable moment. Tell me

1:43

about what happened. Mr. Chairman,

1:45

members of the committee, good evening. My name

1:47

is Michael Phelps and I come before you… Michael

1:50

Phelps, the most well-known

1:52

swimmer probably in American history. Thank

1:56

you for this opportunity to address to you

1:58

today on a matter of crucial importance. importance

2:00

as we approach the 2024 Olympic Games. And

2:04

Alison Schmidt, one of the most

2:06

accomplished female swimmers in American history,

2:09

went up to Capitol Hill to

2:12

essentially say they had

2:14

lost complete faith in the

2:17

system that is supposed to ensure

2:19

that there's a level playing field when

2:21

you sit down and watch Olympic

2:24

athletes compete. And

2:26

they started their argument by

2:28

telling the story of what

2:30

it's been like to be

2:33

them. There are times where I

2:35

would be blood and urine tested twice a day.

2:37

They could be within a 30 minute window or taking

2:40

four to six vials of blood every time they test.

2:42

To be Olympic athletes

2:45

who gave basically all of

2:48

their privacy over

2:50

to a drug testing system. Filling

2:53

out forms to update our whereabouts every

2:55

hour of the day. Where

2:58

their whereabouts was always known so

3:00

a drug tester could find them.

3:02

Pulling our pants down below our knees, pulling

3:04

our shirts up to our breasts and having

3:06

them watch the pee come out. And

3:09

where it was so invasive that

3:11

they had to urinate directly in

3:13

front of a tester. I

3:16

knew at 17 years old,

3:18

16 years old, that I was signing

3:21

my privacy and my rights away for

3:23

fair sport and clean sport. They're

3:26

basically saying look, in the

3:28

hopes and dreams of their being

3:30

fair sport, they would

3:33

play by the rules and

3:36

wouldn't use drugs they weren't

3:38

supposed to, but would also

3:41

essentially open their lives up

3:43

to drug testers. They're

3:55

saying the more that we learn about

3:57

how this system works around the world,

4:01

The more that we learn that not everyone

4:03

is being held to the standard that we

4:05

were held to. There was a stat back

4:07

in 2016 when I was swimming that I

4:10

had over 150 drug tests during that year.

4:16

There were other delegations as

4:18

a whole that were having 30 or 40. Because

4:22

of that, how can we trust anything

4:24

that we see that goes on at

4:26

the Olympics? And honestly, I think if

4:28

we continue to let this slide any

4:31

farther, the Olympic Games might not even

4:33

be there. Okay,

4:43

so why now? Why are they coming to

4:45

Congress and saying this right now? These

4:48

decorated swimmers were

4:50

up on Capitol Hill because of

4:52

a story my colleague

4:54

Tarik Panja and I wrote two

4:57

months ago. The

5:01

story begins at

5:03

the height of the pandemic. It was

5:06

early 2021. The

5:09

Summer Olympics were just a couple of

5:11

months away. And

5:13

the Chinese Swimming Association wanted

5:15

to hold a

5:18

meet to essentially

5:20

allow their swimmers, who

5:23

had been training in seclusion, to

5:26

practice competition. So

5:28

all of the elite Chinese swimmers congregated

5:31

in the same city south of

5:33

Beijing. And there,

5:36

over several days, they swam

5:38

against each other. The swimmers,

5:41

like they normally are at major

5:43

meets, were being drug tested.

5:47

But what no one knew was

5:49

that 23 out of

5:52

the 39 athletes who were tested showed

5:55

that they all had the

5:57

same performance enhancing drug. drug

6:00

in their system. That's

6:06

a lot of positives. I mean, 23

6:08

out of 39 is more than half

6:10

of everyone tested. It's

6:12

a staggering number and it's all

6:15

for the same drug. A

6:18

drug called trimetazidine. It's

6:21

known as TMZ. It's

6:23

a prescription heart medication used

6:26

to treat people that have

6:28

chest pains, that have angina.

6:30

It's supposed to make the

6:32

heart work more efficiently and

6:34

allow those with heart disease

6:36

to exert themselves in ways

6:39

that they're often unable to.

6:42

So this helps for training. Correct.

6:45

This drug is popular

6:47

amongst dopers for several

6:49

reasons. It allows

6:52

you to train harder. And

6:55

if you train harder, that

6:57

means that you will be in

7:00

better shape and more capable

7:02

when you finally get to

7:04

a competition. It's

7:06

also attractive because it

7:09

quickly clears through an athlete's

7:11

system. So if an

7:13

athlete is trying to find a window

7:16

between drug tests to use

7:18

a drug, this would be

7:20

a good one because it's not going to

7:22

stay in your system for too, too long.

7:26

And Mike, I'm assuming this

7:28

drug then is on the

7:30

banned substances list. It's penalized

7:32

harshly. The drug

7:34

is classified in

7:36

the highest level of

7:39

substances that can help an athlete. If

7:41

you have any amount of it in your

7:44

system, you're potentially on the

7:46

hook for a four-year

7:48

ban. So

7:50

for the Chinese, this was

7:53

a nightmare scenario. It's

7:55

just months before the

7:58

Summer Olympics. at

8:00

the possibility of

8:02

essentially half of your swimming

8:04

team not being able

8:06

to go to the games because

8:09

they were doping. Okay,

8:11

so what happens? What do they do? So

8:14

the Chinese engaged in

8:17

a wide scale investigation and

8:22

scientific research effort to

8:25

explain what happened. And we know this because

8:27

we've obtained a lengthy secret Chinese

8:29

document that lays out how

8:33

they investigated the positive tests. They

8:36

brought in the top law

8:39

enforcement agency in the country to

8:41

investigate it. And

8:44

they said that a couple of months after

8:46

the athletes tested positive, investigators found trace amounts

8:48

of TMZ in

8:53

the kitchen of

8:55

a hotel where the athletes were

8:57

fed. They say

8:59

that this prescription heart drug

9:01

was found in spice containers, in

9:04

the hood over the grill and

9:09

in the drainage. So the Chinese anti-doping

9:12

agency finds that all of these swimmers

9:15

test positive for this drug that should prompt

9:17

suspension. But

9:19

instead of suspending them, they say

9:21

these swimmers tested positive because

9:24

of contamination, not

9:27

because they were intentionally doping to

9:29

improve their performance. The Chinese

9:31

say that this was evidence that

9:35

the athletes had been contaminated with

9:38

the drug. And

9:41

because of this explanation, we

9:43

are not going to be able

9:45

to do that. And with this explanation, we

9:48

are not going to discipline the

9:50

swimmers. But what

9:53

the Chinese are unable to explain is

9:55

how the drug got into the kitchen

9:58

and why it was there. It

10:00

sounds like there's a lot that

10:02

is unexplained in all

10:04

of this. I mean, the entire

10:06

theory seems a little

10:09

questionable. There

10:11

are contamination cases

10:14

and there are drugs that

10:17

sometimes end up in food because they're

10:19

given to cows and athletes eat the

10:21

cows and it's in their system. TMZ

10:24

is not one of those

10:26

drugs. This is a prescription

10:28

heart medication and the

10:30

Chinese are unable to explain why

10:33

a prescription heart medication ended

10:36

up in a kitchen or

10:38

how the athletes even ingested it. And

10:41

under the code that is supposed

10:43

to govern Olympic athletes, you

10:46

can have what are

10:48

called essentially no-fault contaminations in which

10:50

an athlete is not penalized for

10:53

testing positive for a drug. But

10:56

to do that, you essentially need

10:58

to prove exactly how

11:00

it happened. And

11:03

the Chinese explanation, according

11:05

to anti-doping experts who've looked at this

11:07

and studied it, doesn't

11:09

rise to that level. And

11:12

not to hit you over the head

11:14

with more inside doping

11:17

code minutia, under

11:20

the way the system is supposed to

11:23

work, each country

11:25

is supposed to police their own

11:27

athletes. If those countries

11:30

fail to do that properly, the

11:33

world anti-doping agency, this

11:36

entity that is supposed to ensure

11:38

the level playing field

11:40

in Olympic sports is

11:42

supposed to step in and essentially

11:44

take over and prosecute

11:47

the case to make sure

11:49

that the rules are followed

11:51

and that athletes are properly

11:53

disciplined. Okay, so what do they do

11:55

in this case? In this

11:57

case, the world anti-doping agency

12:00

essentially comes in, looks

12:02

at the Chinese explanation, and

12:06

accepts the rationale

12:09

that these athletes were contaminated

12:11

with this prescription heart drug.

12:14

And without anyone knowing, these

12:17

swimmers who tested positive head

12:19

to the 2021 Olympics, and

12:22

have some of the greatest

12:24

success in Chinese swimming history.

12:27

A male swimmer who had tested positive

12:29

for TMZ becomes the second man in

12:32

Chinese history to win a gold in

12:34

swimming. A female

12:36

swimmer who had tested positive

12:38

won two gold medals and

12:40

one silver. And

12:43

the most dramatic example comes

12:45

in the women's four by 200 relay

12:47

race. China

12:50

up for the challenge. Talent

12:53

across the Chinese team, they're the Asian

12:55

Games champions. Two

12:57

of the four swimmers on the

12:59

Chinese team had tested positive for

13:01

TMZ. The

13:05

state's are in lane five. Alison

13:08

Schmidt, Paige Madden, Catherine MacLoughlin. Katie

13:10

Ledecky, anchor in. For the United

13:13

States, Alison Schmidt, who

13:15

testified on Capitol Hill, is

13:18

the first swimmer in the water. Looks

13:22

as though China getting off to a good start, and

13:24

so too. For much of the race, China

13:27

and Australia are neck and neck.

13:29

But the Australians still can't shake

13:31

off the attentions of China. Zhang

13:34

is remaining tough, and what a way to do

13:36

it. 200 fly and even coming

13:38

back on the Australians now. But

13:40

then. While Ledecky is racing in the

13:42

water for the USA, the USA could steal

13:44

this whole thing with Ledecky now. In

13:47

the final leg, Kate

13:49

Ledecky, the greatest female swimmer

13:51

of her generation, gets

13:53

in the water and closes the

13:55

distance. I think we may have a change of leader when

13:58

it comes to the 50 metres to go. Mark,

14:00

China just hanging on. Ledecky, what has

14:03

she got left? She loves to race

14:05

for the styles and stripes. Look at

14:07

that underwater. This is a

14:09

wild finish at the end of the women's 4 by 200 freestyle.

14:12

China have broken Australia, but Katie Ledecky

14:15

on the charge. And as it comes

14:17

down the stretch, the United States pulls

14:19

into second. China still in front. Fast

14:22

finishing. Katie Ledecky is giving everything to

14:24

this final. And in the final moment.

14:26

With five meters to go, can China

14:28

hang on? As the swimmers

14:31

are approaching the wall. China strike gold.

14:34

Trusting from the United States.

14:36

It's a new world record, of course it

14:39

is. A Chinese swimmer hits

14:41

the wall first by less

14:43

than half a second. Giving

14:46

China the gold and

14:48

the United States the silver. And a

14:50

hot a spin from the Americans. You

14:53

write them off at your peril. But that's

14:55

what it means to China. A world record.

14:57

A huge world record. And

15:01

their first gold medal in the 4 by

15:03

200 freestyle relay at the Olympic

15:05

Games. What a team. I

15:08

honestly have chills hearing this. I mean, this

15:10

is an extremely tight

15:12

race, which we're now

15:15

learning based on your reporting

15:17

was potentially fundamentally unfair.

15:22

And as Phelps and Schmidt said when they testified

15:24

before Congress. All of this calls into question the

15:26

larger system. Was

15:29

the system that was supposed to

15:32

ensure that athletes were all competing on the

15:34

same playing

15:37

field? Was that functioning? Was

15:40

this a race in which athletes

15:42

were showing their natural

15:44

abilities? Were

15:47

showing their natural abilities? Or

15:50

that something else was at play? We'll

16:01

be right back. My

16:30

name is Audra D. S. Birch, and I am

16:32

a national correspondent covering race and identity for The

16:43

New York Times. Race

16:45

coverage is complicated. It

16:48

can be joyous and affirming. It

16:50

can be uncomfortable, but I feel like

16:53

it's still absolutely necessary. Race

16:55

and identity are not just understanding

16:57

who you are, but who the

17:00

person in front of you is, and wanting

17:02

to understand more about them. We're

17:04

trying to wrestle down these really hard

17:07

subjects and maybe not answering the

17:09

question but asking the right questions and

17:12

listening, listening, listening

17:14

a lot. The Times

17:17

is dedicated to ambitious and deeply

17:19

reported coverage of race and identity,

17:21

and they're willing to back it

17:23

up with resources. If

17:26

you are curious about the world in which we

17:28

live, if you're interested in who you

17:30

are, where you come from,

17:32

and how you relate to others, I

17:34

would encourage you to subscribe to The New

17:37

York Times. Mike,

17:40

let's talk about that larger

17:42

system that failed to expose

17:44

these positive tests by Chinese

17:46

swimmers that kept these tests

17:49

hidden. It sounds like

17:51

one potential issue is that the

17:53

system relies on self-policing, on the

17:56

idea that countries will punish their own athletes

17:58

when they find evidence of dope. which

18:00

doesn't totally make sense to me if

18:03

I'm honest. There are these perverse incentives,

18:05

right, for many countries to

18:07

not actually root out doping when they

18:09

find it because, I mean, number

18:12

one, they want to win medals and number

18:14

two, they don't want to

18:16

damage the reputation of their athletes. Why

18:18

does the system work this way? One

18:20

of the reasons that it was set up this way is

18:23

that it was just too logistically

18:26

hard to have the world

18:28

anti-doping agency also known as

18:30

WADA, trying to track thousands

18:32

and thousands of Olympic athletes

18:35

around the world. They

18:37

needed the countries to be able

18:39

to administer the testing and

18:42

to prosecute the cases because it would

18:44

have been too much. It

18:46

would have been too cumbersome. But

18:48

for there to be checks and balances

18:51

and for independence and rules and facts

18:53

to be followed, WADA

18:55

was supposed to make sure that

18:58

those countries were doing their job,

19:00

that they were holding their athletes accountable,

19:03

and they had the power to

19:05

step in. And in

19:07

those cases in which they said, hey, this

19:09

doesn't look right, more needs to

19:11

be done, they could come in

19:13

and prosecute the cases. But

19:16

what happens here is

19:18

that when WADA finds out about this

19:22

and they get this explanation from the

19:24

Chinese, they essentially

19:26

take it at face value. They

19:28

don't insert themselves as they've done

19:30

in other cases to try and

19:33

discipline the athletes and keep

19:35

them out of the water. And

19:37

because the system is

19:39

so reliant on trust and

19:42

on WADA doing their job to make sure

19:44

that everyone's following the rules, when

19:48

WADA's credibility comes into question, the

19:50

whole system comes into question. And

19:53

that's the point that

19:56

Phelps and Schmidt were making when they

19:58

were sitting before Congress. under

20:00

oath. They were saying, can

20:03

this thing, this thing that athletes

20:05

have given themselves to, that they

20:07

have allowed into their lives

20:09

to ensure that they and others are

20:12

following the rules, is

20:14

this thing legit or is

20:16

it a charade? Mike,

20:18

it feels like a lot of this comes

20:20

down to a pretty central question, which is

20:22

why did WADA,

20:25

this institution that's supposed

20:27

to be a backstop, just

20:29

accept China's explanation for the

20:31

doping, which as you've said,

20:33

seemed a little suspect. WADA

20:37

says that it accepted the

20:39

Chinese argument basically because all

20:41

of the athletes had similarly

20:43

low levels of this drug

20:45

in their system. The

20:48

science looked like it had

20:50

come from ingestion. All

20:53

of the swimmers who tested positive

20:55

were staying at the same hotel.

20:58

Swimmers who had not been staying at the

21:01

hotel did not test positive

21:04

and that it was just simply too hard

21:07

to disprove what the Chinese were

21:09

putting forward. And that if they

21:11

tried to prosecute the case themselves,

21:13

they wouldn't have been successful and

21:16

they wouldn't have been able to

21:18

stop them from competing at the

21:20

Olympics. But a lot

21:22

of people don't buy it. They

21:24

don't buy that that

21:26

was enough to not do

21:29

anything. And look,

21:31

we don't know the answer. We don't

21:33

have full visibility into what

21:35

went down here. WADA has

21:37

appointed a investigator

21:39

to look into this to see

21:42

whether they gave China preferential treatment

21:44

and whether this was handled properly.

21:46

That report is supposed to come out

21:48

before the Olympics. But

21:51

in the void, as

21:54

people have looked at this, they

21:56

have speculated about why is it

21:59

that this... happened.

22:01

And one of the theories put forward

22:03

a sort of dark one has

22:06

been Wada didn't

22:08

want to embarrass China, especially

22:10

at a time when China

22:13

was moving heaven and earth

22:15

to do the Olympic movement

22:17

as solid by holding the

22:20

2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing,

22:22

games that they were trying to

22:24

pull off at the height of

22:26

a pandemic in a country

22:28

that was shut down. And

22:30

other theories have been that the

22:33

Olympic movement doesn't really want to

22:35

go out and tarnish their own

22:37

sports and put out there

22:39

the notion that these games may not

22:41

be being played on a level

22:43

playing field. But Mike, doesn't it

22:46

tarnish the sport more to find

22:48

evidence of doping and not report

22:50

it? I mean, doesn't it damage

22:52

the reputation of swimming of the

22:54

Olympics to not come clean about

22:57

this stuff? Not if you're

22:59

able to keep it secret, because

23:01

if you're able to keep it secret, then you don't

23:03

ever have to deal with the ramifications of it. But

23:06

if in the lead up to an Olympics, you

23:09

had to suspend half

23:11

of a country's swimming team, so

23:14

they couldn't compete, that

23:16

would cast a really dark cloud

23:18

over the games. And

23:20

at the end of the day, there's an

23:22

enormous amount of money on the line here.

23:25

And sports first

23:27

instinct is not necessarily

23:30

to tarnish its own product.

23:33

As much as these games are about, you

23:35

know, athletics and competition,

23:38

it's about making money. And

23:41

do you want to tarnish that

23:43

product? Do you want to undermine

23:46

it in the eyes of fans

23:48

and raise the question, oh gosh,

23:51

is this really a level playing

23:53

field? Or are there cheaters

23:55

who are out there? And if it

23:57

remains secret, you don't have to. have

24:00

to deal with that. And the

24:02

only reason we know about this case

24:04

is because of your

24:06

reporting, which makes me wonder

24:08

whether you think there may be other

24:10

examples of this that we haven't yet

24:13

heard about. Look, I don't know

24:15

what I don't know, but the

24:17

problem is, is that when you

24:19

learn about things like this, it

24:21

calls everything else into question. If

24:24

this was happening here, why

24:26

was it happening? And what does it

24:28

mean for everything else? After

24:31

all your reporting, Mike, I

24:33

have to ask, if you actually think

24:35

that we can trust what we

24:38

see in the Olympics next month, that

24:40

we're gonna be watching the best athletes

24:42

from all over the world who've trained

24:44

for years for this, put

24:46

their bodies to the test and achieve these

24:48

miraculous feats based not

24:51

on drugs, but on

24:54

their merit. I mean, when you

24:56

watch the Olympics, will you trust that?

24:59

Well, we know that 11 of

25:02

the Chinese swimmers who tested positive

25:04

for TMZ will be going

25:06

to this Olympics in Paris

25:09

to compete. They

25:11

have faced no consequence and

25:13

will be in the water swimming

25:16

against American swimmers who

25:19

have been subject to

25:22

this rigorous drug testing program.

25:26

But I've wondered about this question too,

25:28

right? What should we think when we

25:30

tune into the Olympics? Should we look

25:32

at it and sort of just

25:35

kind of let it go and

25:37

enjoy it for what it is or should

25:40

we look at it more skeptically? I

25:44

don't really know the answer. So

25:46

what I did was I went

25:49

to the chief broadcaster of

25:51

the Olympics, NBC, and

25:53

I asked them essentially

25:55

that same question. I

25:58

said, as the entity that is in in

26:00

charge of putting this thing out, that

26:02

is in charge of the pipe in

26:04

which everyone will get the Olympics. Are

26:07

you confident that you'll be broadcasting an

26:09

Olympics in which the athletes will

26:11

be competing on a level playing field? And

26:16

NBC acknowledged receiving the email.

26:19

They said that they got it and

26:22

they never got back to me. And

26:26

in all of this, it was a bit telling

26:29

that the chief broadcaster of

26:32

the Olympics couldn't

26:34

answer the basic question about

26:37

whether fans could

26:39

trust what they're going to be

26:41

seeing. Mike,

26:48

thank you so much. Thanks

26:51

for having me. We'll

26:58

be right back. Thanks

27:00

for having me. Shopping

27:09

ingredients for New York Times cooking recipes

27:11

through Instacart is convenient, but delivery in

27:13

as fast as 30 minutes. Perfect

27:16

for a home cooked steak dinner for your date

27:18

in an hour, but plot

27:20

twist. They're vegetarian.

27:23

You open New York Times cooking and

27:25

find just the thing, halloumi with corn,

27:27

cherry tomatoes, and basil. Click

27:30

shop ingredients on Instacart and get it all

27:32

delivered to your door. With groceries en route,

27:34

there's even time to make a playlist. Learn

27:37

more at nytcooking.com slash Instacart.

27:43

Here's what else you need to know today. The

27:45

Supreme Court handed the Biden administration a

27:47

victory in a First Amendment case on

27:49

Wednesday. It was a case

27:51

that involved government officials urging social media

27:53

platforms to take down posts on topics

27:56

like the coronavirus vaccine and election

27:58

fraud, which they believed were the case. were spreading

28:00

misinformation. Two

28:03

Republican attorneys general and several others

28:05

had sued, arguing that that communication

28:07

violated the First Amendment. But

28:09

the court rejected their argument in a

28:12

6-to-3 decision with Justice Amy Coney Barrett

28:14

writing the majority opinion, where she said

28:16

that the plaintiffs didn't have standing to

28:18

sue because they hadn't suffered direct injury.

28:23

And the Supreme Court looks poised to

28:25

temporarily allow abortions in Idaho when a

28:27

woman's health is at risk. That's

28:29

according to Bloomberg News, which obtained a copy

28:32

of an opinion that briefly appeared on the

28:34

court's website. If that document

28:36

reflects the Justice's final decision, it would

28:38

reinstate a ruling by a lower federal

28:40

court that paused Idaho's near total ban

28:43

on abortion to allow hospitals in the

28:45

state to perform the procedure in emergencies

28:47

in order to protect the health of

28:49

the mother. Today's

28:53

episode was produced by Ricky Noweczky,

28:55

Carlos Prieto, and Michael Simon Johnson.

28:58

It was edited by Lisa

29:00

Chow, contains original music by

29:02

Marion Lozano, Alicia Beitoupe, and

29:04

Dan Powell, and was

29:07

engineered by Chris Wood. Our

29:09

theme music is by Jim Brunberg and

29:11

Ben Landsberg of Wonderly. That's

29:20

it for The Daily. I'm Natalie Kitroweth. See

29:22

you tomorrow. School's

29:32

out, but work isn't. And you

29:34

need dinner ideas like yesterday. So

29:37

you search New York Times Cooking and see

29:39

that you can easily shop recipe ingredients through

29:41

Instacart and get them delivered in as fast

29:43

as 30 minutes. Skillet shrimp

29:45

and corn with lime dressing. A perfect

29:47

early summer meal. Click Shop Ingredients on

29:49

Instacart to order it all to your

29:51

door. Just like that, a

29:54

new family favorite is served. Learn how to

29:56

shop for New York Times cooking recipe ingredients

29:58

on Instacart at Enri. at

30:01

mytcooking.com/Instacart.