The sport deserves more, a reflection on Stian Angermund doping case.

Last week, we finally had the opportunity to discover what Stian Angermund went through in the past 18 months since he was suspended in October 2023 due to a positive doping test after his win at OCC in August of the same year. After the initial noise in Autumn 2023, the case went silent for months with no clear updates on where it was standing - rightfully so from Stian’s perspective. At the beginning of January, Angermund announced he reached a settlement for a 16 month suspension with the French Anti-Doping Association. He is now awaiting WADA's decision to appeal or not. If no appeal is made, he will be able to go back competing in 2025.

In his first English interview after this announcement, Angermund opened up to Dylan Bowman on Freetrail podcast giving insights on the events timeline, his feelings and thoughts. From his words, Angermund’s positive test was caused by a contamination for which he was not able to locate the source. Since he wasn’t taking any medication or supplements at the time of the test and in race nutrition could have not caused it, locating the source of the contamination became almost impossible. The cause could have been everything, from Chamonix tap water to grocery store food. If keeping track of the batch number of the supplements and medicines you take is part of your duties as a pro athlete part of the anti doping protocol, analyzing and worrying about everything you consume is one step too far. In this sense, Angermund’s case is similar - but trickier - to Polish tennis player Iga Swiatek dated last September when her positive test was attributed to a contaminated batch of melatonin pills used to recover from jet lag. Swiatek walked away with a few weeks of suspension and a clean public image. Angermund couldn’t attribute his positivity to a specific element, making the case impossible to solve from his point of view, even though an independent doctor stated we were very likely in front of an involuntary contamination case. But rules are rules and contamination comes with a 2 year suspension. As fair or unfair it can be, the process has no way to be perfect but can be continuously improved, as it is being done in tennis right now.

Image: UTMB

As interesting as the case itself, Angermund raised awareness on anti doping institutions ways of working. During his case, they showed low professionalism, jeopardizing the outcome of the litigation. Bowman also double down on this topic bringing personal memories of tests being conducted in a non-professional way. If storing urine samples in a personal fridge before sending them to the testing lab is conformed to the official protocols, ghosting the athlete for months during his process of locating the cause of the contamination and, later, coming to a settlement can’t be condoned. Hours and days matter when you are trying to outline actions dated months prior.

One assumes institutions do their best to facilitate the process and ensure a fair treatment to athletes going through this process, but, intentionally or not, this didn’t seem to be the case. This process greatly affects a person’s life from a financial point of view - €50,000 in Angermund’s case - and mentally. Angermund saw his career and life falling into pieces for something he could make his mind around it. If friends and family stayed on his side, sponsors left him and legal fees piled up putting pressure on his individual and family stability.

On one hand, low institutions' professionalism has a clear path to be fixed - hiring and training their employees to be better - solving the issue of contamination is more complex. Angermund stated that 40% of doping cases are due to contamination. We can’t be surprised, but there is no easy way to fix it. Tennis is going through this painful process with his number 1, Jannik Sinner, who tested positive twice due to a prohibited substance used by his physio that got into his body during a massage. This opened a pandora vase with the question: how far your responsibility as an athlete goes in terms of controlling your exposure to prohibited substances? Are you responsible to check if the steak you are eating at the event’s lounge is contaminated?

Tennis is one of the richest sports in the world at its apex providing players with financial means unknown to trail running and, more broadly, running as a whole. Money makes things easy when you pursue a professional career and in case you have to protect yourself from doping allegations. The poorer you are as an athlete and the more vulnerable you are when testing positive to doping. For this reason, runners should use Angermund’s case to fight for higher standards of professionalism from the institutions and demand a higher commitment from WADA. If top tennis players have the financial means and intangible power to influence anti-doping institutions by acting individually, runners can better exercise their influence by getting together and demanding for fair rules and processes. In a relatively young and “poor” sport as trail running, we can’t expect the same level of testing and responsiveness - Bowman suggested that Angermund’s case was unprioritized during the Paris Olympics - but athletes, fans and media need to keep demanding. In this sense, the PTRA work goes in this direction with the clear objectives of improving in and off competition testing together with athletes education. All of this is being developed right now in trail running and we hope Angermund’s case can be a foundation for future improvements.

Bottom line, we need to keep talking about it. Analyze, discuss, propose, move things forward, pick the fights that matter.