This article was originally published in the May/June 2024 issue of UltraRunning Magazine. Subscribe today for similar features on ultra training, racing and more.
In February of this year, Stian Angermund revealed that he failed an in-competition doping control following his win at the 2023 OCC (UTMB). If you haven’t heard Stian’s name before, he is the two-time, reigning short course trail running world champion, two-time OCC winner and was the winner of the Golden Trail Series in 2018 and 2021. The news sent shockwaves through the elite trail and ultrarunning world. By all accounts, Stian is well-liked, approachable and a commensurate professional. His claim is that he is a clean athlete and he intends to fight the finding. Yet, at least publicly, he has not offered any rationale for the finding. In an interview with Athletics Weekly, he stated, “I’m utterly bewildered. I haven’t used any medications or supplements, nor have I ever taken or misused drugs. Where could this possibly have come from? I am a clean athlete.” UTMB, for their part, has been silent on the episode. The community of elite athletes is seemingly split into two camps: 1.) He’s a good guy and could not have done this, and 2.) Dopers suck.
Regardless of Stian’s ultimate guilt or innocence, the situation points to a small part of the conundrum in trail and ultrarunning. In this situation, you have a Norwegian athlete who, after OCC, is being tested by French anti-doping authorities (the AFLD). The athlete is proclaiming his innocence in the court of public appeal, but without providing justification. Meanwhile, there is an unidentified adjudication process happening in the background between the athlete, UTMB and the AFLD. The process of which I can’t seem to put a finger on. Any result of the infraction carries with it a similar amount of obscurity. How long and from what races would he be potentially banned? Can he appeal his finding, and to what level? Once the official results are posted, how does anyone actually know about them? In any Olympic-level sport, these steps would be clearly laid out for all to understand. However, at present, with Stian’s case, none seem clear to any onlooker nor any of the elite athletes paying attention to the saga.
The Landscape is Messy
My point with this introduction is not to cast any further doubt on Stian. Rather, I’d like to emphasize that this landscape is currently messy. In any normal, Olympic-style program, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) sets rules, procedures and the tone of how everything is managed. The national governing bodies (like USA Track and Field) and national anti-doping organizations (like USADA), carry out the rules and determine the pool of athletes to be tested. Athletes know if they are part of a testing pool, have ready access to what substances and methods are banned, what the sample collection procedures are like, how to file for a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) which allows for banned substances to be (potentially) used if they are medically required and do not provide a performance advantage. The athletes know how the results management process works, who they can appeal to and what standards are applied to sanctioning. While we would all love to think that the process is as simple as peeing in a cup with that sample turning red or green, it’s much more complicated than that.
Contrast that with what we see in trail and ultrarunning. To start off, there’s no overarching governing body to even determine who needs to be tested in the first place. UTMB states that all athletes are subject to both in-competition and out-of-competition testing, but there is no clarity on who performs those tests, how they are going to find any of the athletes for out of competition testing or if it’s just some vague threat to cover all the bases. Similarly, the Western States Endurance Run will issue an athlete a lifetime ban from the race if they have previously served a ban in any sport from any point in time.
The middle ground between protecting the integrity of the results and ensuring athletes’ rights is not as clear cut as many would think.
While this might seem like a brave stake in the ground against cheating, the lifetime ban applies equally to athletes with “no fault” findings (i.e., the athlete took a contaminated substance or violated the rules with no intent of cheating) and to athletes like Lance Armstrong who are serving lifetime bans for their actions. And yet, Western States’ own policy allows for appeal based on “no fault” should an athlete be found to have a banned substance in their urine.
But it gets better. The AFLD is currently in the process of adopting French trail and ultrarunners into their out-of-competition testing pools. This process treats them like any other Olympic-level athlete where they must submit their whereabouts to authorities (so that doping collection agents can show up to their house, training grounds, gym, etc.), enroll in the ADAMS program (the administration and management system for WADA), file for Therapeutic Use Exemptions and a whole host of other acronyms and (necessary) bureaucratic procedures.
But This is Good, Right?
Let me get one thing straight before you read on: all of this progress is good. It’s messy progress, but still good at the end of the day in the vast majority of cases. Solutions are never perfect. The middle ground between protecting the integrity of the results and ensuring athletes’ rights is not as clear cut as many would think. For example, many of you have probably heard or are even thinking the following:
“Just test for the heavy-hitting drugs like EPO and testosterone.”
“Give bigger sanctions.”
“We need out-of-competition testing.”
These are well-intended, but usually ill-informed requests from athletes, race directors and Monday morning quarterbacks, alike. So before throwing out these vague suggestions, let’s think about the following:
What is actually being tested for, and how do athletes keep up with the ever-expanding list of prohibited substances and methods? Are we testing for all drugs on the WADA-prohibited list or some small selection that we deem appropriate?
Who is being tested? All athletes on the start line? Just the elites? Who makes that cut between elite and not?
Who is doing the testing and where do those results go? USADA? The AFLD? A third party?
Who pays for all of this? The athletes? Race directors? Brands?
These questions don’t have any easy answers. They also won’t come cheap and will require resources beyond athletes peeing in cups. A couple of years ago, I had the distinction of working with USADA on some initial framework (which still can be used as framework today) for out-of-competition testing, complete with results management, adjudication of results and athlete education for the trail and ultra space. The tab would have cost $300,000–$500,000 annually, depending on how deep the pool of athletes was and the amount of testing. Add to that a few dedicated professionals to on-board and educate the athletes, manage the finances, distribute results and the task is not an easy one. It is, however, reasonable in terms of cost (even when adjusting for recent years’ inflation) and deployment. Let’s face it, it’s several hundreds of thousands of dollars and several people, not several millions of dollars and an army. So, I’m hopeful some solution can come to light.
Where Can We Start?
When the UFC contracted USADA to conduct the anti-doping program for their fighters, they enrolled all the athletes in a 6-month, no-fault out of competition testing program. Why? So that the athletes could learn the rules, submit their whereabouts, subject themselves to testing, pour through the myriad of supplements they are using and educate themselves on the process, all without fear of making a mistake that has the potential to cost them millions of dollars. USADA deployed a team of individuals to tour around the world, going to the major gyms and giving in-services to inform the athletes on the rules and procedures. My favorite lesson from this ordeal was the bewilderment from the fighters around one particular prohibited method: intravenous fluids (IVs). In combat sports, IVs had become as mainstay as protein powder. Fighters cutting copious amounts of weight universally used IVs to rehydrate in the short period of time (normally a day) between weigh-ins and the fight. As USADA toured around to the gyms and informed the fighters and their coaches that the use of IVs was just one of a long list of prohibited methods, many sat in pure disbelief. What was once a ritual is now forbidden (author’s note: at times, IVs are permitted under a therapeutic use exemption for medical emergencies and other necessary procedures).
Trail and ultrarunners can take a similar tack. For the most part, the elite athletes and race directors are not subject to major anti-doping efforts. But they are coming. So, let’s all take the time in between now and then to educate ourselves. Just like the UFC’s 6-month no fault program, each athlete, brand and coach who works with elite athletes can take this time to get up-to-speed about what is inevitably coming down the pipeline. Here’s where we can all start:
- USADAs Anti-doping 101: This overarching resource explains the testing process, prohibited list and outlines athletes’ rights.
- GlobalDro: This online database cross references medications with the WADA-prohibited list. Every medication and substance that an athlete takes should be run through this database.
- NSF for Sport: Did you know that approximately a quarter of all positive doping tests come from a contaminated supplement (Lauritzen, 2022)? Also, anywhere between 16–50% of all supplements on the shelf contain some form of contamination that would result in a positive test. NSF for Sport tests supplements for contaminants. You can scan the bar code on just about any supplement and it will instantly tell you if it has been certified.
- The WADA-Prohibited List and Monitoring Program: This prohibited list is published in October every year and goes into effect in January. There are usually several changes year-to-year, many of which come from the Monitoring Program, which serves as a “Heads up, we’re looking at this,” from the community.
No Excuses
While trail and ultrarunning will certainly go through some bumps and bruises as this patchworked anti-doping system comes to light (if you’ve been paying attention—we already have), let me make one thing clear: the ultimate responsibility is on the athlete and there are no excuses. “I didn’t know,” “I forgot,” and “This came from my supplement,” are not valid justifications. And unfortunately so, they are defenses used by athletes deliberately trying to cheat as well as athletes who make a legitimate mistake. And the most tragic piece of it all is that the difference between the two groups is indistinguishable to the public at large. Athletes, their coaches and the managers that advise them all have adequate resources available to be apprised of the rules and stay on the right side of the line. Sure, it’s a bit of work and effort to get the right information, but it’s also part of our job. So, let’s do this right. Take the time to get educated, then, as the system unfolds, we will all be in a better position to manage it and keep the sport clean.
References
Lauritzen F. (2022). Dietary Supplements as a Major Cause of Anti-doping Rule Violations. Frontiers in sports and active living, 4, 868228. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2022.868228