Who is Responsible for Anti-Doping in Long-Course Triathlon?

It’s a more complicated question than you think.

In the wake of the Collin Chartier doping bust, a lot of people had a lot of questions about how anti-doping works in triathlon. And so I started out wanting to write a straight-forward explainer, laying out the details the various programs—but as I went along one problem kept coming up: Who’s responsibility is it to oversee all of long-course triathlon? Is it no one’s? Does this set up the non-drafting half of our sport for things to slip through the cracks?

Let’s start at the beginning.

Triathlon, for the most part, adheres to the rules set forth by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), which stipulates a list of banned performance-enhancing substances and methods. This includes both obvious drugs, like EPO, and some less obvious one, like substances found in some ADHD meds. (You can check your medications here.) In order to find out if athletes are breaking these rules, anti-doping efforts are generally broken into three types:

• in-competition testing—ie. testing athletes for banned substances at the finish line of a race or at pre-race briefings

• out-of-competition testing—ie. showing up at athletes’ locations or homes at unannounced times and testing them for banned substances

• investigations—ie. putting together a case, via testimony and/or other direct evidence, that an athlete has been taking banned substances, despite not specifically failing a test

In-competition testing, at this point, is considered table stakes. It’s both necessary in order to prevent doping and not sufficient to catch dopers, given the predictable nature of the testing makes it easier to prepare for and to pass.

Out-of-competition testing, then, is an expensive—we’ll get into more on why—but necessary component of an anti-doping program because it catches athletes when they’re not prepared for the test. Out-of-competition testing, by definition, also requires maintaining a pool of athletes, who submit their whereabouts daily so that you know where they are in order to test them.

Additionally, WADA is increasingly emphasizing the use of investigations and targeted testing—ie. ‘we suspect xx athlete of xx violation because of other evidence and so we’re going to target our out-of-competition testing for xx thing’—because randomized out-of-competition testing is too expensive and too difficult to do at the scale and frequency necessary to catch cheaters.

This brings us to the crux of what has become evident:

There is no one agency responsible for anti-doping efforts for long-course triathlon. 

That means there’s no organization overseeing out-of-competition testing and investigative efforts for all of long-course triathlon. While Ironman runs its own program (more on that in a moment), it understandably does not oversee non-Ironman athletes. This creates potential holes and allows for some top long-course pro triathletes to avoid being in any out-of-competition testing pool.

Short-course triathlon

To explain this, let’s first consider short-course triathlon. 

Short-course triathlon—by which we largely mean draft-legal, what used to be called ITU, Olympic-style racing on the World Triathlon circuit—falls under the Olympic movement. This means it is overseen by World Triathlon. (Set aside Super League Triathlon for a second, because right now all of SLT’s athletes are also on the World Triathlon circuit.) World Triathlon is the international governing body for triathlon and so is required to be a signatory to WADA.

Among the other things necessary to be a WADA signatory, World Triathlon oversees and conducts in-competition testing at World Triathlon races. World Triathlon also runs an out-of-competition registered testing pool and a secondary testing pool for World Triathlon athletes. 

All national governing bodies and their national anti-doping agencies (often called NADOs) additionally fall under the oversight of World Triathlon. That means each national governing body, for example USA Triathlon or British Tri, also have to adhere to WADA rules and are required to have their own anti-doping programs for their Olympic and Paralympic pipeline athletes.

It is nearly impossible then for pro triathletes to compete on the international World Triathlon short-course circuit at any level and not fall under the jurisdiction of their national governing body and of World Triathlon. While not every athlete will be tested out-of-competition and, of course, some national governing bodies run stricter programs than others, all short-course athletes are overseen by this system.

However, this is not the case for long-course tri.

Long-course triathlon

World Triathlon’s out-of-competition testing pools do not include athletes who are solely long-course athletes—as in athletes who never race World Triathlon draft-legal short-course. While there are some athletes who do both short-course and long-course, and some who have recently moved on from the World Triathlon circuit, all athletes in both testing pools came through short-course draft-legal. 

Additionally, World Triathlon only conducts in-competition testing for their events—and they operate very few long-course events (mainly the World Triathlon Long Distance World Championship). So if an athlete never raced short-course and never raced one of World Triathlon’s events—which is many pro triathletes—then they would not be a part of the World Triathlon-run anti-doping program.

At the country level: Most national governing bodies hand their testing off to their national anti-doping agency (NADO). Some countries include long-course triathletes in their testing pools—Britain, for example. There is also increasing overlap in athletes who race both short-course and long-course—and if an athlete races short-course then they’d be covered under the above discussed system. But since the national governing bodies of each country are typically tied directly to the short-course Olympic system, they are not required to extend their reach beyond short-course tri. And most choose to focus on their Olympic and Paralympic athletes. This means many national governing bodies simply do not view long-course pro triathletes as under their anti-doping oversight, and they do not direct their NADO to test long-course athletes.

For example, USA Triathlon confirmed that the criteria they create for U.S. Anti-Doping’s out-of-competition testing pool includes only Olympic and Paralympic athletes and hopefuls. It no longer includes long-course pros.

There are, obviously, a huge number of pro triathletes, however, who race only long-course triathlon: full-distances, halves or 70.3s, the odd one-off weird distance races, and the increasingly lucrative 100K distance.

Who oversees anti-doping efforts for these athletes, if they are not in their national governing body’s system?

Challenge did not respond to requests for comment, but as far as I’m aware Challenge does not run an out-of-competition testing pool. They do some in-competition testing at their biggest races.

Most one-off events, for example Escape from Alcatraz, certainly do not run an out-of competition testing pool.

The Pro Triathletes Organization confirmed that they, at this time, do not run any out-of-competition testing program. They do in-competition dry blood spot blood and urine testing at their own events. They have created an anti-doping committee and retained an expert—but did not have further comment until after the Chartier investigation is complete.

That leaves Ironman to cover all long-course athletes.

Ironman’s anti-doping

In 2005, when it became clear that long-course triathlon did not have oversight and risked falling into the morass that defined cycling at that time, Ironman opted to become a WADA signatory and run its own anti-doping program at a reported cost of seven-figures. It was the first private company to be a WADA signatory, which requires that it meet the same anti-doping standards and comply with all WADA audits, processes, certifications, and data sharing.

As such, Ironman operates an out-of-competition testing pool for its pros and runs investigations for the pros it oversees. 

However, Ironman can only include in its pool those athletes who race Ironman branded events—and that doesn’t extend indefinitely; if an athlete hasn’t raced an Ironman event for 18 months or two years, how long can Ironman keep them in the testing pool? As more and more athletes choose to focus solely on PTO and Challenge races, this will increasingly arise as an issue for the sport. 

Additionally, from a purely financial and logistical perspective, Ironman can not oversee all long-course pros. Ironman’s out-of-competition testing pool, at current, includes 46 long-course athletes—but there are hundred of pros listed in the PTO database and over 300 registered in the U.S. It’s also important to remember: Ironman is simply a company that has chosen to invest in an anti-doping program for its own reasons; it is not a governing body or non-profit agency.

Does Ironman filling the holes in long-course tri mostly work?

Another way to view the fact that long-course anti-doping has largely been ceded to Ironman is to appreciate that all of the race organizers and governing bodies are simply trying to make the most of their funding. All organizations that are signed on to WADA can, and most said they do, coordinate with each other—meaning if an athlete is covered in one out-of-competition pool, then they don’t have to be covered in another. For example, Kristian Blummenfelt and Gustav Iden are not in Ironman’s testing pool because they’re in the Norwegian federation’s pool and are covered by World Tri. This coordination allows each anti-doping program to extend its dollars farther and to cover as many athletes as possible.

According to sources, one single out-of-competition blood test for a basic panel of common performance-enhancing drugs can cost up to $1,000. That includes contracting out to a certified tester (a process which is often run through the country the athlete is in), the travel, the test itself, the lab work, and all the accompanying personnel and time. Not to mention the database that has to be maintained for the whereabouts of all athletes in the testing pool. This is why investigations and targeted testing have increasingly become the focus, in order to prioritize resources. Targeting the testing is also why, say officials, the number of tests has stayed relatively low even in the post-pandemic era.

Another benefit is that all of the WADA signatories use the same database system, called ADAMS. When a certified lab uploads a result it is instantaneously sent both to the original agency and to the ADAMS system—so that it is shared across all WADA signatories and triggers the next step in the process. (If an athlete wins in the appeal process, an agency or governing body or company can not ever publicly comment. But just because they can’t comment publicly doesn’t mean the tests don’t happen. The ADAMS database makes it exceptionally hard to “hide” a positive test result once a lab processes it.)

It’s also true that many programs, including Ironman and World Triathlon, contract with the International Testing Agency (ITA) to actually operate their testing, investigations, notifications, and appeals process. ITA is then able to look across sports—for example, if a doctor is connected to a number of suspicious test results in track and field, and then pops up in triathlon, they would know. 

All of this is to say that it sort of works. And if not Ironman, then there’d be nothing.

Take the case of Collin Chartier.

Chartier, an American, was not covered by USAT’s out-of-competition pool because he was only a long-course pro and did not race short-course. His biggest win last year came at a PTO race, where he was tested in-competition, but we’ve already established the PTO does not operate out-of-competition testing.

He was only added to Ironman’s testing pool in the fall of 2022, after his win at Ironman Mont-Tremblant—because up until then his results had not warranted being added to their limited pool. He was added at the behest of suspicions. He was then subject to a targeted out-of-competition test in February and tested positive for EPO.

Since his positive test was announced it has prompted a number of ongoing questions and recriminations. And it’s important to note that no official agency, either ITA or Ironman, has said anything official about whether that investigation is complete, nor would they comment now.

However, with no one agency overseeing long-course triathlon’s anti-doping efforts, all of that could have easily been missed.

—

One could argue that by pure numbers the majority of long-course pro triathletes are barely professional—most have to work other jobs, there’s little money outside of the top 100 in the world, and the top athletes are likely captured in one of these testing pools anyway (whether by their country, Ironman, or World Triathlon). So how much energy should really be spent on the others?

But it’s also clear that who gets tested and who doesn’t is still a little hit or miss—depending on what country you’re from, where the testers are located, and what distance you race.

There have been times over the years when many pros took to social media to share how often they’d been tested and to attempt to create transparency: There was a crowd-sourced effort back pre-COVID with some of the top athletes posting their numbers, another wave in the wake of the Chartier positive. Jan Frodeno had been tested 10 times out of competition in 2019 (by a combo of the German NADO and Ironman) and three times in-competition. Laura Philipp recorded 16 tests. Tim O’Donnell six. Other athletes reported not getting tested at all. But there is no one place to gather all of that info. And without one overarching agency to oversee all of long-course triathlon—in the way short-course triathlon and the Olympics is treated—this is how it will continue: ad hoc, with wild variation and the potential for things to slip through the cracks.