ARWS - Draft Rules and Doping Controls
Carrick Armer / 26.10.2017
It's been an interesting few days in the world of the Adventure Race World Series, with linked issues and announcements via the Facebook page. The main topic relates to doping control, and our followers may recall that Life Adventure Team (LAT) were disqualified from Hauirasinchi back in April in events related to that. The discussion of that incident has rumbled on until a statement issued this week. To re-iterate the situation for the sake of clarity:
LAT finished second at Hauirasinchi in April 2017 but questions subsequently emerged on the ARWS Facebook page from Pavel Paloncy (whose Fenix Multisport team had also raced there) about LAT team member Gonzalo Calisto's eligibility to compete in light of an existing International Trail Running Association (ITRA) competition ban. Calisto was issued a 2-year ban in 2016 by the ITRA and the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) after testing positive for EPO at the UTMB in 2015. The ITRA edict disqualified Calisto from the UTMB and issued a 2-year ban from all ITRA and IAAF events, commencing March 2016.
After a meeting of the ARWS Referee Board and much discussion, a statement was issued that stated "The Judging Panel determined that Gonzalo Calisto and team Life Adventure had violated Rule 9 and are to be hence forth disqualified from the Huairasinchi race. It also determined that Rule 8.3 was violated which states that an athlete must not bring the ARWS into disrepute."
That statement generated a certain amount of discussion, as at the time the ARWS rules on Doping (Rule 9) simply stated "The use by athletes of banned substances as specified in the World Anti-Doping Code, the 2013 prohibited list, is prohibited". As neither ARWS or race organisers Proyecto Aventura had taken any samples for testing during the race, that one would be slightly difficult to apply on its own. Likewise, the ruling on misconduct (Rule 8.3) simply referenced the conduct of racers during an event, not outside the ARWS. Again, as there was no specific breach of this rule during the event, this ruling seemed specious and LAT disputed their disqualification.
In the past couple of days, ARWS have given some clarification. The first part was a joint statement between ARWS, Proyecto Aventura, and Life Adventure Team, stating that the initial ARWS Judging Panel was based on both Rule 9 and Rule 8.3, and the disqualification of LAT was led by an interpretation of both of these rules. Contentious as that may be in the context of events that occurred outside of a race itself, that disqualification stands.
In light of this incident, and as part of the continuous evolution of the ARWS itself, a draft update to the series rules has also been issued. While section 8 on misconduct is largely unaffected bar a minor wording tweak, section 9 on doping has been substantially expanded, with the headline being Rule 9.2 "Any athlete who has a suspension or ban for a breach of the World Anti-Doping Agency Code, issued by either by the ARWS or any other sport, is prohibited from entering and/or competing in any ARWS race while that ban or suspension is current." While, judging by some of the comments on the initial compainant post, that may raise some eyebrows, it marks the first time ARWS has explicitly stated that a racer can be banned from competing in the series as opposed to just being disqualified from individual races. It also lays out a very distinctive marker as to where ARWS wish to position themselves in the sporting world, alongside larger sports perhaps more heavily entrenched in the fight against doping.
Regardless of the relatively small worldwide profile of AR, aligning the ARWS with other WADA-controlled disciplines gives a benchmark for all racers who compete in the series, and there is good precedent in inter-sport blanket bans under the WADA Code - see Lance Armstrong's ban from the US Masters Swimming competitions as a high-profile example. Whether there is an increase in doping controls at ARWS events themselves to give further credence to this alignment remains to be seen.: while this would be a positive for the sport, it could likely be viewed as another administrative burden for race organisers. Being able to monitor the WADA lists and enforce bans that way is a first level of control, but again is an extra admin step for race organisers or ARWS itself. While this incident was a result of one racer being called out by another, this can't be the sole method by which doping controls are maintained. Even in this single case, Pavel Paloncy was accused of his complaint being "the caprice of a team that wants to get into the podium and up in the ranking", which doesn't seem a comment intended to foster any sort of camaraderie in our sport.
At least, in these matters, race organisers have a greater degree of backup these days. The latest draft ARWS rules also expands the roles and responsibilities of the Race Referees and the system for protests, as well as prohibiting the use of additional maps and the administration of IV fluids. The draft rules are linked from the ARWS Facebook page for discussion - we'd encourage all racers to have a read of the rules and add their voice. Hopefully, these changes continue the clean expansion of the adventure racing world.
