What Is Fair in Triathlon?

We're heading into some very slippery territory in triathlon right now. The lines between what's doping and what's technology are about to get very blurry. And in my opinion, the common denominator that's going to make this messy is money.

Now, before you jump down my throat, understand this isn't about individual athletes. This is about where we're headed as a sport. I'm not making accusations, I'm asking some questions.

Where does optimisation end?

What is clean sport, then? Where does legitimate performance optimisation end and doping begin? Are we naive about pharmacology and technology influence in endurance sport? And if you think that's not going to trickle down to age group racing, you're kidding yourself.

So why do we celebrate extraordinary performances while rarely, if ever, discussing the pressures and the incentives that surround them? Is the public's image of elite sport more sanitised than the reality?

It'd be absolutely naive to imagine that doping isn't happening out there. Technological doping, pharmaceutical doping and DNA doping are going to make this very fucking hard to control. And not every technological or pharmaceutical intervention constitutes doping.

The uncomfortable question isn't just what we can substantiate today. It's whether our definitions of fair competition can keep pace with what's becoming possible out there.

A bike or a fairing with pedals?

Not long ago things were simple, weren't they? Get lower, get narrower, hold position, reduce drag. Rider-first optimisation.

Now look at modern setups. Integrated cockpits, arm cups with side walls that lock you in, hydration systems built into the front end, everything shaped, tucked and smooth into one system. You're not just holding position now, you're being held in it, designed into it.

So where's the line? At what point does optimisation stop being about positioning the rider and start becoming about enclosing them in a fairing? Fairings were banned for a reason, and the edges are getting harder to define.

Long live the battler

So this isn't about right or wrong. It's about fairness. What is fair in sport? Is having enough money to outmanoeuvre your competition pharmacologically and technologically okay with you?

I'm watching the financial pressure gaps widening, and it makes me uncomfortable. I don't want to see our sport turn into a vehicle that only the elite can participate in.

I've sponsored young, up-and-coming athletes in the past with the ass out of their pants. And I've seen some of them make it all the way to the top. To me, that should continue.

My view is this sport is still about heart, lungs and spit and will. So long live the battler who has more will than money.

Gilesy