Triathlon Canada banned its member Julie Miller for a breach of Triathlon Canada's Code of Conduct. This action followed a similar step taken by Ironman, which disqualified Ms. Miller twice from its events and then suspended her indefinitely from Ironman races for "repeated rule violations."

Triathlon Canada did not originally evince any interest in Ms. Miller's Ironman race DQs because the organization considered Ironman separate from the other races Triathlon Canada sanctions. I could not understand this. Ironman sanctions its races in every province where its events take place, and so has as much right to Triathlon Canada's attention as any race Triathlon Canada or its confederacy of provincial federations sanction.

Triathlon Canada's approach to Ironman might have changed. It appeared that Ironman Canada's results were included in Triathlon Canada's analysis, as its executive director Tim Wilson replied to me that its Disciplinary Committee, "Requested objective testimonies or evidence supporting [a] claim that three (3) events were completed, in the three (3) events she was disqualified." These races were most likely the two Ironman Canada events along with the Subaru Vancouver Triathlon, all owned by Ironman. One positive outcome might be that Triathlon Canada even better understands that the entire triathlon community is in this together.

Triathlon Canada has also realized that a lack of confidence in the result of a race is serious business. It has asked the ITU to investigate its Weihai World Championship held in 2014 – a race in which Ms. Miller was awarded a world championship title in her age group.

Finally, Triathlon Canada took a principled step. Ironman never alleged "intent" in any of its actions against Ms. Miller. It simply DQd her for actions – failure to complete the course and/or the loss of a timing chip – and it suspended her simply for "repeat rule violations." Triathlon Canada's Disciplinary Committee, according to Mr. Wilson, "Found compelling evidence of unsportsmanlike conduct."

Why do we care about behavior or actions that "do not affect your race"? We care not because we want to impress our view on others, but because we all race under the umbrella of a social contract. Every aspect of our lives requires adherence to contracts that are only quasi-enforceable, but nevertheless important. I trust that my spouse shows me the fidelity I pledge to her. We honor a man whose "word is his bond."

We trust but verify in cases where breaking the social contract has great consequence (we don't simply take passengers' word about the contents of their luggage before they board an airliner). Nobody is going to die if a competitor fails to complete the prescribed course. We don't impose jail sentences for failure to complete a course, or for a doping violation. But the social contract is not a trivial one – while one failure to adhere to the contract doesn't bring a plane full of passengers to the ground, social contracts are pervasive in society and these contracts knit together the fabric of our lives.

When a truncated route to the finish is taken, or an ingested substance is detected, the next question is whether the violation was inadvertent or purposeful. This is a serious question in sport, because if purposeful then the social contract was broken. A group of competitors looks to the relevant governing body, to see how seriously the custodians of sport take what might be a breach of the social contract.

When that body treats this in a cavalier fashion, or tags it as low-priority, the athletic community loses faith in these custodians.

On September 9, 2015, I was told by the ITU that its Weihai race, "is under review and will go to the technical committee in light of the new information we have received in the last several days." On the 29th, when I wrote again, the ITU replied, "The Technical Committee discussed it in Chicago and all agreed that further investigation is required to draw any conclusion. This means that the case is still on the table and on the agenda. I hope you understand, but the process within ITU is not necessarily as simple as in the case might be for other events."

But it is that simple. On the 25th of June, 2011, the behavior of British athlete Harry Wiltshire came under scrutiny. The question of his actions at the swim finish of Pontevedra ETU Triathlon European Championships was considered by the ITU. Exactly one month later it was announced that the ITU executive board voted to impose a 6-month sanction on Mr. Wiltshire.

All the data was available to the ITU more than 2 months ago and, according to my reporting, the ITU was aware of the Weihai questions long before that. I'll give the ITU the benefit of the doubt that prior to September, any investigation simply didn't return a confident finding. Still, the race in question occurred more than a year ago, so one might hope for some increased urgency under the doctrine that justice delayed is justice denied.

When the ITU's look at Weihai is over, we'll know two things. First, whether its interest in age group racing is simply to help fund elite racing, or whether it understands, honors and appreciates the struggle, the lucha, the backbone, the framework, that landscape for the sport created and supported by age group racing. Whether it sees age group racing as a necessary financial component of the sport or whether it understands that it is the foundation that makes Olympic triathlon possible.

Second, whether it understands the basic importance of the social contract, which in turn either invests confidence in, or erodes confidence from, the age group world championship races that are labeled "ITU."