The Professional Triathletes Organisation (PTO) has announced that it will be appointing counsel to ‘investigate what appears to be structural irregularities in the anti-doping case against Andrew Starykowicz.’
This follows a decision by IRONMAN’s sanctioning scheme, which under the WADA Code issued an anti-doping violation against pro triathlete Andrew Starykowicz.
According to IRONMAN, ‘Starykowicz intentionally elected to compete while knowingly using a prohibited substance, and manifestly disregarded the risk that his Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) application would be declined.’
IRONMAN’s statement noted that…. ‘Despite a written warning from the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) on October 25, 2019 stating, “if the TUE is not granted by the start of your competition, you will be committing an anti-doping rule violation by competing without an approved TUE for a prohibited substance,” Mr Starykowicz made the decision to race in two IRONMAN events without an approved TUE.’
In applying the WADA Code, IRONMAN concluded that ‘a four-year period of ineligibility was an appropriate sanction under the Code when it provisionally suspended Mr Starykowicz on December 5, 2019.’
IRONMAN added that… ‘Mr Starykowicz fought the anti-doping rule violation charges aggressively in numerous fora – and lost at every turn. Mr Starykowicz was ruled against by multiple anti-doping organizations and independent arbitrators.’
In its statement PTO noted that it… ‘has written to USA Triathlon and World Triathlon, the applicable recognised not-for-profit governing bodies, to communicate its concerns and its commitment to maintaining a dialogue with both organisations throughout this process.’
Charles Adamo, Executive Chairman of PTO said, “We have communicated to both the USAT and World Triathlon, as well as to the World Anti-Doping Agency, that there seems to be a fundamental flaw in a system where a private for-profit organisation has the ability to insist on sanctions independent of the world governing body and that an athlete’s sole recourse is an expensive legal and appeal process.”
Adamo continued, “While we are just beginning to explore the handling of the case and will not be able to come to any conclusions until we have fully investigated the matter, on the face of it we would like to understand how, under the circumstances, Mr Starykowicz was in the first instance handed a four-year ban (over ten times the length of bans for similar offences) by a private for-profit organisation without any initial oversight by our independent world governing body, and under the existing system this sanction would have been required to be implemented by all governing bodies and other organisations.
“While the PTO will always insist on the highest standards of anti-doping provisions and strict sanctions, at the same time it cannot, in good conscience, stand by in situations where a system may be subject to an abuse of power and an athlete may not be treated consistent with other cases as a result of what may be prejudicial considerations unrelated to the incident.”
Adamo concluded, “After a year of expensive arbitration, it was recognised by an independent body that Mr Starykowicz’s sanctions should not have been four years but instead 13 months.
“Mr Starykowicz has accepted responsibility for his conduct. The PTO’s review is designed to address a system that allows a private, for-profit entity, without any initial oversight from our governing bodies, to institute sanctions. The PTO is looking to work with our governing bodies so future athletes are not subject to what we believe is a structurally flawed system.”
www.ironman.com
www.protriathletes.org
