Take drug users for example. I don't mean cocaine types. I really have no opinion about them, because so long as I don't meet with them on the highway, in the intimate sense, they don't really affect me where I live. But pro triathletes who take drugs, that's another story. I'm quite passionate about them. They are the scum of the playground. Bad things done in secret that punish the hard work and dreams of worthy people. I thought these were the lowest forms of sporting life. And here I was wrong all this time. It turns out there is one thing worse than a cheat.

And that is a bully. Take the case of Spencer Smith. I do not know if Spencer is guilty or not of taking drugs. I am the cynical sort, and I generally assume that positive tests must mean guilt. In Spencer's case, though, I am torn, because what I know of Spencer persuades me of his innocence. More importantly, he has twice prevailed in the "justice system" set up by triathlon's governing body.

Still, the USAT is taking the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, Switzerland, with the ITU right behind it, as it must do. Some begrudge them that. I do not. It is their right to do so. What's more, they are more or less obliged to do so because of IOC anti-doping rules that condemn anyone with any amount of nandrolone in his or her system to an automatic ban. Unfortunately, the IOC's own Court of Arbitration keeps tossing out the nandrolone cases, so everyone gets to put more money in the hands of an even lower form of life (on second thought, I won't go there).

What bothers me is that the World Triathlon Corporation seems to have decided it need pay no heed to the two courts that have so far found the case against Smith without merit. Ironman owners the WTC, in the person of their president Lew Friedlin, apparently have decided to go back on the promise they made to Smith and Smith's attorney which was to allow him to race if he was not penalized by the ITU appeals panel. I say apparently because the WTC has, as of this date, not decided what to do. Well, Smith qualified last year. So he's earned the right to race. By saying they haven't decided, that's equivalent to saying he shouldn't bother flying over, and don't call us, we'll call you.

The USAT has been in regular contact with WTC the whole time. What have they been telling the WTC? Did the WTC make its promise to Smith just before the second hearing, because the USAT assured Friedlin that there was NO WAY Smith was going to previal? Have Friedlin and USAT spent the past week figuring out a way to keep Smith out of the Ironman, irrespective of his standing? SlowTwitch certainly hopes this is not the case, and will certainly be glad to report that we were wrong in our suspicions once we hear from WTC or USAT to the contrary.

The USAT, a daughter federation of the ITU, ought not to rightly defy the rules under which it must abide, which include allowing the participation of an athlete in any sanctioned event so long as the athlete fulfills all other reasonable obligations to the event, and so long as the athlete is under no ban or restriction. What's more, the USAT is duty bound to direct any such event owner who might be considering disallowing an athlete's race application to reconsider their stance. This is exactly what the ITU did in the case of Olivier Bernhard. The New Zealand Ironman decided not to accept the Swiss athlete's application because of his positive test for the very same drug Smith is accused of taking, nandrolone. Bernhard's appeal to the CAS was upheld, not because he was exonerated from having the drug running around in his body, but because the CAS concluded that it might have been an amount naturally occurring in his body.

The ITU's Mark Sisson, architect of triathlon's drug policy, absolutely disagrees with the CAS finding on medical grounds. But he is also firmly in favor of Bernhard's right to race at Ironman New Zealand, because the athlete won his hearing fair and square. At that point the ITU is duty bound to stand up for the athlete against a sanctioned race that tries to ban the athlete from participation.

Not only should Ironman receive pressure from USAT and ITU, but it should be hearing from the British Triathlon Association as well. As of this writing, USAT, through its director of communications, has fielded no such communication from the BTA.

As for Ironman, speculation is wide that the reason behind its decision not to let Smith race is simply the TV show. Ironman hates drug testing, because the producers must edit the show before they know who might be disqualified for drugs. So they "cuts the show and takes their chances." To wit, there was one positive test in the past few years but the general public never knew about it, because the athlete won on appeal. So the Ironman dodged a bullet that could easily have cost them an on-air embarrassment. Imagine a person who crosses the line in first place during the November airing disqualified for doping. What do you show for your summer re-broadcast? Do you re-cut the show with second place declared the winner? Or come clean with the audience? Or just show the same show over again and not say anything?

I feel for the position this puts the Ironman in. But you can't take this out on an athlete. You've got choices. You can decide not to sanction and thereby get around drug testing. Or you can take your chances just like any other race does. Or you can re-cut the show for your subsequent summer airing. Or you can not re-cut, but add an addendum to the summer show telling about the subsequent disqualification, hoping that your audience is, in fact, grown up enough to understand and deal with what does in fact happen in sport (what a thought!).

I realize, for organizations like USAT, ITU, and WTC, that this might mean changing what were heretofore considered axioms of business and life. I figure none of these organizations much like me at right about this point in my opinion piece. So if I, bad as I am, must change the ideas under which I operate this late in life, certainly they, professional and right-thinking as they are, can re-examine their stand against Spencer Smith.

If Smith relied on a banned drug to get an edge on his other competitors, shame on him. But I don't know that Spencer did resort to drugs. Two panels of people smarter than I dismissed the charges.

While I'm not sure what Smith did or didn't do, I've got ominous premonitions about what the organizations above may be doing. And it's worse than anything Spencer is even accused of. So please, if anyone out there in acronym-land is listening, it sounds to me like you're behaving like bullies. I certainly hope I'm wrong. I would like you to prove me wrong. I'm happy to publicly retract, eat crow, say I'm sorry, and/or certainly print any press release you'd like to send, which should say, essentially, "Spencer Smith has not been convicting of any crime, criminal, civil, or sports-related. In fact, he has been cleared by two panels which operate under the rules and auspices set down by the very agencies under which the Ironman sanctions. Therefore, there are no grounds under which Spencer Smith should be prohibited from racing, and he is therefore free to race."