When the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) closed its sixth World Conference on Doping in Sport on December 5th, the headline news was the formal approval of the 2026 World Anti-Doping Code (the Code) and accompanying International Standards. But beyond the review of the changes, one topic resurfaced repeatedly from athlete submissions and Delegate interventions: contamination.
In terms of relevance to the triathlon world, a positive test attributed to contamination is what Imogen Simmonds said occurred in her case, and after review she was recently cleared to compete again.
Why Contamination Matters
For years, contamination has sat in a grey space between unintentional exposure and deliberate cheating. The new Code represents the most substantial attempt yet to address the complex reality that athletes may be exposed to prohibited substances without intentional wrongdoing.
The official implementation guide puts the problem starkly: “The risk that a non-doping athlete may inadvertently be exposed to a prohibited substance…is a legitimate problem.” But the guide also notes that contamination claims are often used by dopers “as either a public relations excuse or legal defence.”
High profile cases – from inadvertent temozolomide (TMZ) exposure to accidental transfer through intimate or physical contact – have also forced the Code to acknowledge contamination pathways that extend far beyond supplements.
What’s New in the 2026 Code
The clearest change is the shift from the concept of a “contaminated product” to a “contaminated source.” Previously, an athlete had to demonstrate that a product (e.g., a supplement) contained a prohibited substance not disclosed on the label. Now, contamination is no longer limited to something an athlete intentionally ingests. It can include contaminated food or drink (e.g., via livestock contamination), environmental contamination, and exposure through physical contact or shared objects.
A new sanctioning pathway also allows an athlete who cannot identify the source to argue – based on reliable scientific evidence – that the result is not compatible with intentional use. In those circumstances, the maximum sanction can be reduced from four years to two.
From a legal perspective, a significant development is the creation of a mandatory Independent Review Expert. In rare situations where a national anti-doping organization intends to close a case after an Adverse Analytical Finding, an external expert must now review the matter before the case can be dismissed. This provision emerged from the Chinese swimming investigation and is intended to prevent unilateral decisions that undermine global consistency. It also reinforces transparency where contamination is suspected and may reduce perceptions of partiality in particularly contentious cases.
What Athletes Said
This evolution was shaped in part by athlete consultation. WADA invited more than 600 athletes and athlete commissions to submit feedback through a consultation process. When asked whether sanction periods should be reduced for unintentional violations related to contamination or reckless behaviour compared with intentional doping, 55% agreed.
Multiple submissions expressed concern that four-year bans, even when intent cannot be established, remain effectively career-ending: “It is not fair for an athlete to lose four years…for a mistake they did not intend to make…severe personal consequences including psychological harm may follow.” Another observed that athletes are still forced to prove the impossible: “The presumption of guilt remains higher if you cannot identify the source…This part of the framework seems quite rigid.”
The Challenges Around Contamination Aren’t Going Away
The implementation guide openly admits that no perfect solution has been found. WADA has created a dedicated working group on contamination and is coordinating its work with a task force focused on unintentional doping.
The post Contamination: A Hot Topic at the WADA World Conference on Doping (What Imogen Simmonds Used as Her Defence) appeared first on Triathlon Magazine Canada.