The 2023 edition of Vertical Blue, a famous annual freediving competition held in Dean’s Blue Hole in the Bahamas, was the subject of much speculation and controversy in the freediving community. In particular, the unofficial luggage search of Croatian freediving athletes Vitomir Maricic and Petar Klovar was conducted by the event organizer and fellow freediving athlete William Trubridge on July 4, 2023.
While the Croatian athletes tested negative in a doping control performed the same day, social media users continued to discuss the substances allegedly found in the athletes’ luggage: the WADA-banned furosemide, Vertical Blue-banned benzodiazepines, and sildenafil – mainly if the substances are considered performance-enhancing for freediving. US freediving athlete Tory George was also subjected to doping control later that evening and is currently in a fight against what he claims to be a false positive in his preliminary results.
Freediving Doping Controversy
After 12 months of extensive investigation, including over 400 hours of research and interviews by author Kristina Zvaritch, DeeperBlue.com is exclusively releasing this four-part series about doping in freediving. The series is inspired by the events that preceded the 2023 edition of the renowned Vertical Blue freediving competition and its aftermath. Kristina received no compensation for this investigation.
The series includes the following articles:
- Freediving Doping Controversy: Part 1 – Everything You Need to Know About Vertical Blue 2023
- Freediving Doping Controversy: Part 2 – What Happened to Tory George?
- Freediving Doping Controversy: Part 3 – Examining the Drugs in Question
- Freediving Doping Controversy: Part 4 – When Ethics Are Forgotten (this article)
This final article examines how WADA-compliant doping control procedures should be ordered and carried out, comparing them to Vertical Blue’s July 4th doping control. It also covers other unofficial doping controls ordered by Vertical Blue, hears from William Trubridge on how he became concerned with doping and the accused athletes, examines conflicts of interest, and analyzes how freediving organizations responded to the 2023 event’s luggage search and doping control.
How Trubridge Became Concerned with Doping in Freediving
Multiple comments on social media indicated that, while the luggage search was mishandled, William Trubridge was still a pioneer for tackling a problem he saw growing in the shadows of competitive freediving – a rise in doping.
I asked Trubridge how he became concerned with doping in freediving.
“For the longest time, most of my career, I wasn’t concerned about doping in the depth disciplines. And then, in recent years, the wealth of kind of anecdotal information and anecdotes about people doping, and some of them fairly open, like students talking about how their instructor, who’s a high-level freediver, recommended this or that substance, or people being seen arriving at full competitions with rucksacks full of pharmaceuticals.”
“Information started to pile up, and it became more and more clear that something was happening. That started to become prevalent, and everyone was talking about it. But none of the organizations were really doing anything about it. That’s when we felt that in order to protect the sports, Vertical Blue would need to be a little more proactive about countering doping.”
Ordering a Doping Control
First, let’s explore how the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) conducts doping controls. The WADA ‘Code’ is an essential document that outlines anti-doping guidelines for sports organizations and government agencies. It aims to create consistent anti-doping policies across different sports and ensure that all athletes are held to the same standards regarding banned substances and practices.
Ordering a WADA-compliant doping control is not a simple procedure that just anyone can initiate. WADA’s International Standards for Testing and Investigations Section 4 – Planning Effective Testing highlights a complex process with many regulations regarding each control’s planning, coordination, and documentation. Following international standards is mandatory for compliance with the WADA Code.
Regulations are stringent to ensure that controls are fair, maintain an element of surprise, and preserve testing integrity.
Risk Assessment and Test Distribution Plan
It begins with an anti-doping organization (ADO) conducting a Risk Assessment (Article 4.2.1) to determine the likelihood of doping in a specific sport. The Risk Assessment is comprehensive—an ADO needs to consider nine points at minimum, such as what prohibited athletes would most likely use, rewards or potential incentives for doping, the history of doping in the sport, and more.
Next, the ADO creates a Test Distribution Plan based on the Risk Assessment results. They update this plan regularly throughout the year, considering new information and testing performed by other ADOs.
Deciding whether an athlete is international-level or national-level
While creating the Test Distribution Plan, ADOs need to identify whether an athlete is international-level or national-level, according to Article 4.3.1. Since resources are limited, International Federations should focus on conducting testing on international-level athletes, while national anti-doping organizations (NADOs) should focus on national-level athletes.
Collecting whereabouts information
After choosing which athletes must be tested, ADOs collect athletes’ whereabouts information (Article 4.8). This allows ADOs to locate an athlete to conduct No Advance Notice Testing for in-competition and out-of-competition testing. High-level athletes in sports are often placed in Registered Testing Pools, meaning they must provide their whereabouts information regularly so they can be randomly tested throughout the year.
Once an athlete is selected for testing, an ADO creates a Testing Order through ADAMS (‘Anti-Doping Administration and Management System’) to be issued to a Sample Collection Authority and begin the actual doping control.
Management through ADAMS
ADAMS is a tool that WADA and ADOs use to ensure effective monitoring and implementation of anti-doping regulations. Every step of the doping process, including planning and distribution, athlete whereabouts information, Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs), and results management, is documented in ADAMS to allow coordination between multiple ADOs and International Federations in the doping control process for each athlete.
Doping controls in action
Doping controls have four authorities responsible for different parts of the actual doping control:
- Testing Authority – The organization ordering the sample collection.
- Doping Control Coordinator – The anti-doping organization (ADO) or third party coordinating doping control aspects.
- Sample Collection Authority – The organization that gathers athlete samples is responsible for sample collection compliance.
- Results Management Authority – The ADO conducts doping control results management.
Freediving Doping Controls
Freediving is a small sport with two record-governing bodies – CMAS (‘World Underwater Federation’) and AIDA (‘International Association for the Development of Apnea’).
CMAS is an International Federation under WADA, which means it is responsible for governing freediving at the global level. CMAS is also a WADA Code Signatory – it must conduct drug tests, manage results, provide education, and enforce sanctions, all while complying with the WADA Code; AIDA is not yet a Code Signatory. CMAS conducts its anti-doping activities through the International Testing Agency (ITA), an independent organization that manages anti-doping programs on behalf of International Federations.
Since CMAS is responsible for international-level freediving athletes, it is the Testing and Results Management Authority for freediving doping controls. However, it uses ITA as its Doping Control Coordinator and a third party as a Sample Collection Authority.
Below are three screenshots of doping control forms ordered by CMAS on Croatian freediving athletes Vitomir Maricic and Petar Klovar, who competed in different countries in 2023 and 2024.
Both high-level international athletes are part of CMAS’ Registered Testing Pool. They regularly undergo doping controls multiple times throughout the year and provide their whereabouts quarterly so that they can be located for out-of-competition testing. Maricic has provided whereabouts information to CMAS since 2018, while Klovar began in 2021. The athletes estimate that in 2023 alone, Maricic had 6 to 8 in- and out-of-competition tests, and Klovar had 12 or more.
Vertical Blue 2023’s July 4th Doping Control
The doping control conducted on Croatian athletes Vitomir Maricic and Petar Klovar on July 4, 2023, notably differed from their previous experiences. This control occurred more than two weeks before Vertical Blue 2023, scheduled for July 20 – 30. Below is a photo of Maricic’s doping control form from July 4th, filled out similarly to Klovar’s and US freediving athlete Tory George’s forms.
Notice that the Testing Authority, Sample Collection Authority, and Results Management Authority are listed as the Bahamas Anti-Doping Commission (BADC). While Maricic and Klovar were indeed present in the Bahamas for Vertical Blue 2023 (which takes place in Dean’s Blue Hole on Long Island), the BADC is a national ADO – it would typically use its resources to test national-level Bahamian athletes rather than international-level athletes like the Croatians.
The main difference between the July 4th doping control and the athletes’ previous controls is that a private individual (Vertical Blue organizer and freediving athlete William Trubridge) ordered the control rather than the athletes’ International Federation – CMAS.
However, it’s important to note that in the Bahamas Anti-Doping Commission Anti-Doping Rules, under Article 5.4.1, a provision states, “BADC shall conduct test distribution planning and Testing as required by the International Standard for Testing and Investigations.” Whether the BADC followed this criteria, despite a private individual ordering the test, is still unclear.
The BADC did not respond to my request for comment.
The fact that a private individual ordered the July 4th doping controls may explain why the sample collection process and results management procedures were, as you’ll soon read, so considerably different from WADA-compliant out-of-competition doping control practices.
First, let’s take a look at the anti-doping rules for Vertical Blue 2023.
Vertical Blue Doping Control Policy and Procedures document
The 2023 edition of Vertical Blue had a unique element – the VB Doping Control Policy and Procedures. The document outlined an extra set of rules and procedures for doping control at the competition that athletes had to agree to compete in the event, including additional substances that are not on WADA’s Prohibited List.
Blind agreement
In the document’s introduction, athletes were asked to sign the registration form without knowing the terms and conditions. The second question is, “Do you agree to VB and AIDA policy regarding doping testing (copies available on request)?”
In the first article of the series, I included excerpts from my interview with William Trubridge. When I asked him why he didn’t link the Doping Control Policy and Procedures directly to the Google registration form, he stated that they probably could have done so, but “in a way, it’s also a sign, because I mean, if someone is asking to see the policies and procedures and wanting to check them out…I wouldn’t say it’s a red flag, but it’s just an extra piece of information, I guess, about that case.”
In other words, Trubridge’s statement suggests that athletes who asked to review the Doping Control Policy and Procedures document would be viewed negatively, to varying degrees, by those who agreed to the rules without reading them, despite the universal right to examine any document before agreeing to it.
This also raises an important question – how would an athlete with a prescription for one of the Vertical Blue-only banned substances (such as benzodiazepines or thioamides) on the Doping Policy and Procedures document apply for a TUE beforehand if they didn’t ask to see the document during registration?
Audio recording
According to point 6 in the Vertical Blue Doping Control Policy and Procedures, “For clarity in any potential litigation, the doping officer/AIDA judge may record audio of any communications with the athlete upon presenting themselves and during the testing.”
William Trubridge secretly recorded audio of the Croatian athletes during VB2023’s July 4th luggage search, which was later uploaded to Vertical Blue’s YouTube channel.
However, William Trubridge secretly recorded the Croatian athletes during the July 4th luggage search using his cell phone. He or a team member then uploaded selected snippets of the Croatian conversation to a YouTube video accompanied by English translations. Note that Trubridge is neither a doping officer nor an AIDA judge.
Doping control administration
Point 2 in the document states that “athletes must comply with reasonable requests for testing by an official WADA doping officer or AIDA judge, when visited at their home address or any address where they are actively practicing freediving related activities.”
Yet on the third competition day, William Trubridge conducted some of the male athletes’ unofficial doping controls with home drug tests. Once again, Trubridge is neither a WADA doping officer nor an AIDA judge.
I’ll discuss this unofficial doping control in more detail later in the article.
Results disclosure
Point 8 in the document mentions that if an athlete tests positive for a PED, they will be removed from the event with no refund and banned from Vertical Blue events for life, and “unless there is a dispute and/or analysis of the B-sample, the athlete’s name will also be disclosed publicly and to the AIDA Technical Committee.” A ‘B sample’ is the second sample collected in a doping control.
Nevertheless, as detailed in the second article of this series, these protocols were violated in Tory George’s case. AIDA International was informed of George’s Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) – a preliminary result that indicates the presence of a banned substance in his July 4th doping control sample but not yet confirmed as an ‘anti-doping rule violation’ – before George himself received his results. This premature disclosure denied George the opportunity to dispute the findings or request a B sample analysis before other parties were notified.
Private competition rules
Since the 2023 edition of Vertical Blue was held under AIDA rules, I asked 2024 AIDA International President Sasa Jeremic if AIDA International allows private competition organizers to make their own rules for their competitions.
“Organizers should not impose any additional rules, and judges and organizers work together to ensure that AIDA rules are not overruled in AIDA competitions,” she told me. “AIDA Judges are taking care that all AIDA rules are followed and applied in the competitions.”
“We always encourage athletes to register for AIDA competitions through the AIDA website directly and get informed with rules and regulations that are applicable to this competition,” Jeremic continued. “However – we don’t have control over documents that athletes sign directly with organizers.”
How athletes were chosen for doping control at Vertical Blue 2023
I asked Trubridge why he chose Vitomir Maricic, Petar Klovar, and Tory George for doping control and the two Croatian athletes for a luggage search. He told me that other athletes also underwent doping controls but that he could only speak about Maricic, Klovar, and George because they had spoken about it publicly on social media.
However, it’s important to note that only George broke the news on social media himself—Vertical Blue announced the news of the luggage search and doping control on the Croatian athletes via Instagram.
“All of the athletes who were tested with off-season testing were either World Record holders…or there was a large amount of anecdotal kind of data that made them a more higher risk athlete for doping. So, therefore, he [Tory George] is in that second category.”
As for Maricic and Klovar, Trubridge told me, “There’s a wealth of data that goes into making a decision about who gets tested or not. And all of that data, none of it is black and white in the sense that it’s 100% incriminating, because if it was, then that would have been used already to incriminate them. So it is by definition going to be kind of anecdotal.”
“But when there is a hundred pieces of anecdotal information about this athlete and zero about this other athlete, then obviously this one is a better, more efficient use of the resources the funds that we have for testing.”
“I don’t think it’s a good idea for me to go into all of that information about like there’s this one time when he said this, there’s this is other time when he was seen doing this, there’s this other time when someone said this, I mean some of it is out there publicly.” He then proceeded to tell me an excerpt from Mateusz Malina’s document titled “The Undisputed Truth” (the original has been removed, but you can still find it here).
Malina refers to three athletes – Vitomir Maricic, Petar Klovar, and David Custic – as the “Rijeka trio,” stating they all trained together. Custic broke a Dynamic with Bifins (swimming for distance in a pool with bifins) World Record, then later failed a doping test for steroids. Malina said that Maricic claimed to be Custic’s coach.
“They all started together, and they were training together,” Trubridge told me as he finished the story. “So then, by itself, that’s just one example. But there’s a wealth of information like this that makes a fairly clear picture that this is an athlete who is at a much higher risk of doping to this other athlete for whom there is zero anecdotal kind of data like that.”
Sample Collection
The Croatian athletes involved in the July 4th doping control – Vitomir Maricic and Petar Klovar – noticed some key differences between the sample collection process and their previous doping controls.
Athlete whereabouts
In an official out-of-competition doping control, the Sample Collection Authority informs the doping control officer (DCO) of an athlete’s whereabouts at a given time (Section 5.3 – Conducting Out-of-Competition Testing in the WADA Doping Control Officer’s Training Tool Kit Manual). With this information, the DCO can locate the athlete for testing or notify them via phone call that they’ve been selected for doping control and to report to the doping control station immediately.
As described in the first article of this series, in the case of the July 4th doping control, the DCO showed up at the unmarked building where Vitomir Maricic and Petar Klovar were getting their luggage searched by William Trubridge and Royal Bahamas police officers. This is highly irregular, considering the athletes couldn’t have listed the building’s address in their whereabouts information. Since William Trubridge and Vertical Blue staff planned and executed the luggage search, they could have only notified the DCO of the athletes’ location.
Furthermore, Trubridge met Maricic and Klovar at the airport when they landed. While Maricic and Klovar have their travel plans listed in their ADAMS locations, only WADA and relevant ADOs would have access to them. So, how did Trubridge know when the athletes would land? He could not have gotten that information from ADAMS, nor could anyone at an ADO lawfully give him that information, as it would be a severe breach of athlete privacy.
Tory George is not part of ADAMS and has never been asked to provide information on his whereabouts. This raises an important question: How did the DCO know George would be on Long Island on July 4th for the luggage search and doping control? This date was more than two weeks before the start of Vertical Blue 2023, which was scheduled to begin on July 20th.
However, it does seem that some forethought was given to locating athletes’ whereabouts. The VB Doping Control Policy and Procedures states that “athletes must supply their current home (residential) address as part of registration to the event.” Nevertheless, it didn’t ask athletes to specify when they would arrive on the island, leaving my previous questions unanswered.
DCO’s expired identification badge
Vertical Blue posted a post on their official Instagram account to “dispel false claims made publicly.” One of these claims was that while the DCO present at the July 4th doping control had an expired identification card, athletes scanned the card’s QR code, which showed it was valid until 2025.
I asked the athletes whether they scanned the QR code to verify the expiration date. Maricic said the DCO briefly showed his ID to start the process but did not offer the athletes to scan it or explain the expiration date.
Meanwhile, George told me that during his own July 4th doping control, he tried to scan the QR code. When that failed due to the plastic enclosure covering part of the QR code, he told the DCO that the ID badge should probably come from the plastic cover. The DCO took his ID back without any further comments or explanations.
However, WADA’s 2021 Code Implementation Support Program Guidelines for Sample Collection – Chapter 2, Section 3 explicitly states, “In case personalized IDs have been issued by a TA/SCA (Testing Authority/Sample Collection Authority) to its SCP (Sample Collection Personnel), the TA/SCA should manage the administration of such IDs to ensure they are renewed in advance of the expiry date of the ID. SCP should not conduct sessions with expired IDs.”
Since the BADC was the Sample Collection Authority, it is the BADC’s responsibility to renew the IDs of its personnel before they expire. Furthermore, according to protocol, the DCO should not have conducted the doping control with an expired ID.
Missing authorization letter
Additionally, George informed me that he was not presented with an authorization letter for his doping control, which is required in WADA’s International Standards for Testing and Investigations Article 5.3.3, “Sample Collection Personnel shall have official documentation, provided by the Sample Collection Authority, evidencing their authority to collect a Sample from the Athlete, such as an authorization letter from the Testing Authority.” An authorization letter can be generated and printed directly from a Testing Order in ADAMS.
Furthermore, according to WADA’s Doping Control Officer Report Form, in Section 4 – Sample Collection, the DCO must check a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ checkbox stating “Were the athletes shown the letter(s) of authority?” It goes on to state “if answered ‘No’ the DCO should provide an explanation for not showing all Athletes the letter(s) of authority.”
Maricic also did not recall seeing this document in his doping control or hearing an explanation of why it wasn’t presented to him.
Results Management
The BADC was listed as the Results Management Authority on all three athletes’ July 4th doping controls.
Let’s first examine how Tory George received notification of his preliminary results.
Unofficial notification of Tory George’s results
George had previously stated that “the positive result of my drug test was not communicated in the correct way.” His whole story was the subject of the second article in this series, “Freediving Doping Controversy Part 2: What Happened to Tory George?” and discusses his doping control on July 4, 2023, how he received his results, and the aftermath of his Adverse Analytical Finding.
According to George’s account in the article, he was unofficially informed about his July 4th doping control result on August 6, 2023. This information came from Ricardo Paris, the President of AIDA USA (the US national branch of AIDA International), who had reportedly received a call from William Trubridge. Notably, George only received his official results via email from the International Testing Agency (ITA) on August 10, 2023 – four days after the unofficial disclosure.
When I asked Trubridge how George’s results were communicated to him, he stated, “it was AIDA USA who contacted him [Tory George] regarding his positive result. Vertical Blue wasn’t involved in informing the athlete themselves.” But when I asked Paris how he received the results, he said, “I heard the news about Tory when official WADA ITA results were released weeks after Vertical Blue.”
This contradicts Article 14.1.2 in the WADA Code, which states that results will be released to “the Athlete’s National Anti-Doping Organization, International Federation, and WADA…simultaneously with the notice to the Athlete.” In other words, the athlete and all listed organizations should receive the results simultaneously.
A post on Vertical Blue’s Instagram told a different story. It stated that the laboratory that tested the athletes’ samples sent a report to the BADC and WADA, “who in turn informed CMAS, AIDA and the Event Organiser, as per protocol.” In Vertical Blue 2023’s case, Trubridge was the Event Organizer.
Paris’ and Trubridge’s explanations don’t match the protocol outlined in Code Article 14.1.2. No one but Tory George, CMAS, WADA, and his national ADO (which would be USADA – the United States Anti-Doping Agency) should have received the results simultaneously.
Tory George receives official notification from ITA
I asked George to show me the official ITA email that communicated to him his doping control results on August 10, 2023.
The email was sent to:
- Tory George
- USFF (the United States Freediving Federation, which is a national member of CMAS)
- WADA Results Management
- USADA
- Dr. Michel Leglise (CMAS Anti-Doping and Medical Director)
That official email, sent according to the standards outlined in Code Article 14.1.2, did not include AIDA International, AIDA USA, or William Trubridge.
So, how did these parties receive George’s preliminary results before he received them?
BADC lacked Results Management Authority
Furthermore, the email stated that initially, the BADC was the Testing Authority and the Results Management Authority. It said, “However, considering that you are not a citizen of the Bahamas, BADC found that it was not in the position to proceed with the Results Management of your AAFs.” Consequently, “in the present case, CMAS is exercising its right under Article 7.1.2 of the CMAS ADR [anti-doping rules] to proceed with the Results Management of your AAFs under the CMAS ADR.”
Article 7.1 of the WADA Code stipulates that the Anti-Doping Organization that ordered the sample collection is responsible for results management. In typical freediving doping control scenarios, CMAS would act as the Testing Authority and Results Management Authority while delegating doping control procedures to ITA. However, in the case of the July 4th doping control, since the testing authority listed was the BADC, the results management authority also had to be listed as the BADC according to standard protocol.
Nevertheless, since George isn’t a Bahamian citizen, the BADC does not have authority over his results management, which forced CMAS to take over per Article 7.1.3 (“in circumstances where the rules of a National Anti-Doping Organization do not give the National Doping Organization authority over an Athlete or other Person who is not a national, resident, license holder, or member of a sport…Results Management shall be conducted by the applicable International Federation”).
The BADC has been a Code Signatory since 2009, so it was likely aware that it does not have authority over non-Bahamian athletes’ results management. Yet, it still proceeded to disregard this rule. Was it done deliberately, since the BADC knew that CMAS would be forced to do the Results Management in the end?
AIDA International receives the results
AIDA International told me it was unaware of the out-of-competition doping controls to take place at Vertical Blue 2023 on July 4th. However, one month later, on August 3, 2023, AIDA International received an unexpected email from the BADC that included the July 4th doping control results. William Trubridge was CC’ed on that email.
The next day, AIDA International received another email from ITA that included George’s AAF and requested that AIDA International inform the athlete about the findings. AIDA International told ITA it didn’t have that authority and directed them to CMAS.
I asked Professor Dr. Nenad Dikic, the president of Clean Game (an independent anti-doping organization recognized by WADA) and AIDA Anti-Doping Manager, about the Results Management in this case, and he provided more details. “AIDA could not be listed as a point of contact by law, and all results that AIDA received are illegal and against privacy and data protection,” he told me. “Even more, there is no way to do that through ADAMS. Only athletes, the BADC, CMAS, and WADA could have the results. An athlete cannot be announced doping positive since he didn’t waive an opening B sample and had the initial hearing, but his result was circulated immediately by Mr. Trubridge.”
“If results were in ADAMS, Mr. Trubridge could not have that information by law and was not authorized to communicate results with anybody,” Professor Dr. Dikic continued. “If Mr. Trubridge believes that testing was organized for AIDA, why did he inform the CMAS Director of Doping Control results that belong to AIDA and the President of AIDA USA?”
I contacted the BADC for clarification on the matter, but they did not respond to my request for comment.
Unofficial Doping Controls Performed by Vertical Blue
The July 4th doping control was not the only instance where Vertical Blue initiated testing procedures.
Unofficial doping control in Dominica
Less than two months before the July 4th doping control, Vitomir Maricic and Petar Klovar underwent another Vertical Blue-ordered doping control – this time, in Soufriere, Dominica, where the athletes were training depth.
At around 8 p.m. on April 15, 2023, a DCO from the Caribbean Regional Anti-Doping Organization (RADO) arrived at their residence to conduct a doping control. The DCO was with a doctor who stated he was a witness.
Upon reflection, Maricic found several unusual aspects of the doping control process in Dominica. While some of these practices are permissible but uncommon, others raised questions about whether they followed standard protocols:
- Presence of a witness: The DCO arrived with a doctor acting as a witness. While not directly prohibited, this practice is uncommon in Maricic’s experience.
- Private funding: The DCO stated Vertical Blue and William Trubridge sent him. While private funding of doping controls is possible, it is not typical in Maricic’s experience.
- Use of AIDA doping control forms: The DCO provided doping control forms from AIDA. This surprised Maricic, as he was unaware that AIDA was conducting out-of-competition testing then.
- Joint testing order: Maricic and Klovar were listed in the same order. This raised logistical questions about maintaining proper oversight, as WADA guidelines stipulate that DCOs should not let athletes out of their sight once contact is made (Section 4.2—Doping Control Stations in the WADA Doping Control Officer’s Training Tool Kit Manual). For example, if the DCO witnesses an athlete providing a sample privately in a bathroom, the other athlete would be left out of sight in another room.
After the control, Maricic stated to me that he thought nothing more of it until he spoke to the AIDA Sports Officer on the phone sometime around the July 4th luggage search and doping control. The Sports Officer wondered to Maricic why William Trubridge kept constantly asking him about controls from Dominica—are they Maricic’s controls? Maricic replied that he assumed so, but why is Trubridge asking the Sports Officer? After a confusing discussion, Maricic realized that the Sports Officer knew nothing about their Dominica control.
When I asked 2024 AIDA International President Sasa Jeremic about the Dominica control, she commented, “The Sport Officer received a report from a Canadian lab and was not able to understand for some time what these results are for, as codes of samples mentioned in the report were not corresponding to any of doping forms that were sent to him in that period. And as it sometimes takes time to receive doping forms from distant locations, such as if judges are traveling, etc., he kept that report on the side, thinking that answer will come from somewhere.”
“Eventually, he was contacted by William Trubridge, who explained that tests are for Vitomir Maricic and Petar Klovar in Dominica.” Jeremic told me, “But more or less, as results were negative, no one was bothering too much with procedures and protocol. It stayed only in comments and discussions between board members. AIDA has never ordered and organized out-of-competition testing and did not order this one – we allowed out-of-competition testing, but who can order them and how needs to be clear.”
“At that time, we didn’t have an advisor agency specialized in doping like we have Clean Game today, and all were managed ‘in-house,'” she continued. “Now, with guidance of Clean Game and with preparing to become WADA Signatory, AIDA is conducting and out of the competition testing.”
In the results of this particular doping control, the following four authorities were listed:
- Testing Authority – Ms. Sasha Sutherland of the Caribbean RADO
- Sample Collection Authority – Caribbean RADO
- Results Management Authority – AIDA (reportedly without their knowledge)
It appears that William Trubridge took matters into his own hands by downloading the AIDA Doping Control Form (which is freely available to the public on the ‘Documents’ section of the AIDA website), directed the Caribbean RADO to test the athletes, and then listed AIDA International as the Results Management Authority. In doing so, he once again bypassed Article 4.1.1 of the WADA International Standards for Testing and Investigations, which specifically lays out how an ADO must complete thorough Risk Assessment and Test Distribution planning on an athlete’s doping control.
Unofficial Doping Control on Vertical Blue 2023’s 3rd Competition Day
Returning to the scene of Vertical Blue 2023 – the July 4th doping control was not the only control administered to athletes participating in the competition.
As mentioned earlier in the article, the 2023 edition of Vertical Blue had a special caveat – athletes registering for the event had to agree to the Vertical Blue Doping Control Policy and Procedures, marking the first time supplementary anti-doping measures were implemented in a Vertical Blue competition. According to the document, “athletes must comply with reasonable requests for testing by an official WADA doping officer or AIDA judge, when visited at their home address or any address where they are actively practicing freediving related activities, whether training, competition, or instruction.”
Nevertheless, a few male athletes confirmed that William Trubridge conducted some doping controls on the third competition day of Vertical Blue 2023. Trubridge confirmed that he, Vertical Blue medics, and a medic they hired from the local clinic had used Amazon-purchased multi-panel urine drug tests to test athletes’ urine.
I asked Trubridge if he or the medics were official doping control officers or AIDA Judges, and Trubridge confirmed that neither he nor the medics were either. “We didn’t have to use, for these tests, official testing officers, since, as we told the athletes, they were preliminary tests,” he told me. Trubridge stated that if an athlete tested positive and disputed their results, then an AIDA Judge would have taken a sample and sent it to a forensic laboratory or something similar.
The multi-panel urine drug tests Trubridge and the medics used tested for the presence of different drug groups, including benzodiazepines. Trubridge allegedly approached several male athletes individually to witness them giving urine samples in a parking lot with no doctor present and no doping control forms to fill in; they had to write their names and the date on the back of their testing kits outside on the hood of a car.
Concerns amongst male athletes at Vertical Blue 2023
Two male athletes who preferred to remain anonymous felt uncomfortable about how the tests were being conducted and that it was Trubridge testing them.
These male athletes mentioned:
- The cups not being labeled directly: Since athletes’ names weren’t written directly on the cups, one athlete’s sample could easily be swapped for another, whether by mistake or with intention.
- Disclosing current medications: Since some prescription medications can potentially trigger false positives in urine drug tests, athletes must disclose any medications they are currently taking to doping officers. However, Trubridge is not a doping officer and doesn’t have the authority or medical knowledge needed to perform these tests.
- Conflict of interest: Trubridge is a fellow athlete. While he withdrew from competing at Vertical Blue 2023, he is still active in competitive freediving and participates in other freediving competitions.
Examples of medications that may trigger false positives include:
- Methamphetamines: The ADHD medication Adderall
- Amphetamines: The antidepressant medication Wellbutrin
- THC or barbiturates: Over-the-counter NSAIDs such as Advil, Motrin, and Aleve
- Benzodiazepines: The antidepressant medication Zoloft (which is an SSRI, not a benzodiazepine)
While disclosing taking an NSAID like Advil for menstrual cramps may not be a severe concern for some athletes, others may not feel comfortable telling a fellow competitor that they take Wellbutrin for their depression or Zoloft for anxiety or panic attacks. This is why the right to privacy is among athletes’ rights in the WADA Code – and why there are accredited doping control officers administering doping control to avoid potential conflicts of interest.
However, these concerns were sidestepped in this case by declaring the testing as ‘unofficial preliminary testing,’ which was highly unusual for such an event.
If proper protocol were followed
Since Vertical Blue’s 2023 competition was held under AIDA rules, I asked AIDA International about their involvement in luggage checks and doping control.
AIDA International President Sasa Jeremic confirmed that AIDA International had no prior knowledge of the luggage check or unofficial doping controls conducted by Vertical Blue before they happened. Furthermore, she stated, “They were done completely differently than how we would have done so if AIDA judges were involved. AIDA judges are trained for doping control and luggage searches, and there are protocols that must be followed.”
Additionally, AIDA Anti-Doping Manager Professor Dr. Nenad Dikic stated that “doping control officers have responsibilities that are defined by the Code and International Standards of Testing, as well as the AIDA DCO manual. William Trubridge broke the DCO responsibilities; he was in a conflict of interest as organizer and competitor since he performed doping controls and did other investigation activities in the name of Local Organizer and NADO.”
Conflict of Interest
Avoiding conflicts of interest is crucial in anti-doping efforts to maintain fairness in sports. When the people involved in testing and decision-making have no personal stake in the outcomes, it ensures unbiased results, protects athletes’ rights, and helps them trust the system.
Article 4.1.2 in WADA’s International Standards for Testing and Investigations focuses explicitly on this topic. It states, “The Anti-Doping Organization shall ensure that Athlete Support Personnel and any other Persons with a conflict of interest are not involved in test distribution planning for their Athletes or in the process of selection of Athletes for Testing.”
How Vertical Blue chose athletes to test
In the first article of this series, I discussed how William Trubridge confirmed that an executive group of three people (himself, Marco Cosentino, and a third individual who didn’t wish to be specified) chose which athletes to test for the July 4th doping control. In the same interview, Trubridge also told me the testing costs came from the event budget and that “it was pretty expensive, and we didn’t have a huge budget for it.” Vertical Blue had multiple sponsors for its 2023 event, including Garmin, Double K, and Orca.
Initially, Trubridge was included on the list of competitors for Vertical Blue 2023, appearing there for a period leading up to the event. While he told me in an interview that he dropped out of the competition “sometime in June,” a webpage archive from July 3, 2023, just one day before the luggage search, showed him still on the list of competitors. Whether he decided to participate at Vertical Blue 2023 before or after deciding to test Vitomir Maricic, Petar Klovar, and Tory George, there is an apparent conflict of interest with him as a competitor.
Many social media users highlighted this conflict of interest since Klovar aimed to beat Trubridge’s 7-year-old CNF World Record (a dive to 102m / 335ft of depth with only arm and leg strokes).
How a NADO chooses athletes to test
I became curious about how the BADC could allow Trubridge to order doping control and carry it out on his behalf. This is not only because he is a fellow athlete but also because, as stated earlier in the article, risk assessment and test distribution planning seem very complex and require a lot of work on the part of the ADO. Since the BADC didn’t respond to my request for comment, I reached out to USADA (the USA national ADO) with a question: “If an event organizer wanted to pay for an out-of-competition doping control on an athlete, would a NADO like USADA be able to arrange this?”
USADA replied, “Our standards require that testing and all other anti-doping decisions be made by USADA, independent of the client. While our clients can make testing recommendations and we will consider any intel provided, they cannot tell us who to test or investigate. Similarly, all our OOC [out-of-competition] testing programs must fall under an established and robust rule set, with financial and operational commitments also made to results management, medical exemptions, Whereabouts, etc.”
Furthermore, USADA mentioned, “In situations where USADA already has jurisdiction over an athlete and receives tips that indicate the need for testing, an organizer would not be responsible for any associated costs.”
According to USADA, which presides over US athletes as the BADC presides over Bahamian athletes, a private individual can provide intel but cannot order testing through them. Furthermore, if USADA orders testing on an athlete within their jurisdiction, the event organizer would not have to pay anything for the doping control.
Input from WADA
I decided to go one step further and ask WADA directly if an event organizer who is a participating athlete can order out-of-competition testing on a fellow athlete. WADA responded, “If the event organizer is an individual athlete in the same event they are organizing, they should not, in principle, be involved in the direct implementation of the testing program.”
While WADA’s response indicates that an athlete organizer should not be directly involved in implementing the testing program, this conflict of interest is not explicitly prohibited in the WADA Code or the International Standards for Testing and Investigations. This creates a notable gap between WADA’s stated principle and the formal regulations.
Continuing on the subject of conflict of interest – if you recall from the second article of this series, William Trubridge, on behalf of AIDA USA, proposed to AIDA International a vote to ban the three athletes from that year’s AIDA World Championship and to prohibit two substances in freediving: benzodiazepines and sildenafil.
This situation becomes even more complex when considering that AIDA USA Vice President Francesca Koe also serves as Vertical Blue’s Chief of Media, further blurring the lines between these organizations and potentially compromising impartiality.
This is a notable issue in freediving—athletes are also judges, competition organizers, and members of the boards of freediving organizations, and they are often unpaid, creating a complex web of conflicts of interest.
Freediving Organization Responses
Perhaps the most interesting part of the Vertical Blue 2023 doping controversy is how freediving organizations responded to the July 4th doping controls.
AIDA International
As described in the first article of the series, AIDA International hired the anti-doping organization Clean Game to manage AIDA’s anti-doping activities.
Then, in the second article of the series, William Trubridge and AIDA USA submitted a proposal for a special vote to AIDA International to ban benzodiazepines and sildenafil. AIDA International believed the members of the AIDA Assembly should be informed on what they’re voting for, so they enlisted Clean Game’s help in the search for scientific studies on the substances rather than through information from social media posts. The vote is still under consideration since no scientific studies have been found.
However, AIDA International is currently gathering information to research the prevalence of benzodiazepines among competitive freediving athletes. AIDA will also hold its first International Conference on Freediving Science and Medicine in Dahab, Egypt, on October 31, 2024, where topics of discussion will include anti-doping issues in freediving and the presence of benzodiazepines in freediving competitions.
2024 AIDA President Sasa Jeremic had a final thought on the matter: “I think that all of freediving society had a chance to learn a lot from all these events, athletes about their rights and duties, and sports authorities about the importance of defining and following proper rules and procedures in the fight to keep freediving a clean sport, free of doping.”
CMAS
On the other hand, CMAS provisionally suspended Vitomir Maricic and Petar Klovar by way of a Presidential Order – where the CMAS President can suspend a CMAS member for up to 60 days until the Board of Directors can convene to ratify the ruling. However, out of the public eye and just one day before the 60-day limit was reached, CMAS privately ratified the Presidential Order yet lifted the suspension since “in lack of sport tournaments the necessity of preserving their [the athletes’] health conditions and the balance of competition is not imminent.”
It’s important to note that the Presidential Order states, “The athletes did not present any Therapeutic Use Exemption certificates in respect of the substances found in their possession.” However, Maricic and Klovar could not have applied for Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs) for benzodiazepines or sildenafil since neither of these substances is on WADA’s Prohibited List. As for furosemide, which is on the Prohibited List as a diuretic and masking agent, Article 4.1 of WADA’s International Standards for Therapeutic Use Exemptions allows athletes to apply for a retroactive TUE if the substance was used or in their possession for emergency medical treatment.
It seems that since no official anti-doping rule violation had been committed by the pair of Croatian freedivers, charging them with a CMAS Code of Ethics violation was the only way to justify their suspension.
Eventually, this Code of Ethics route was the road CMAS chose – the CMAS Disciplinary Committee eventually found the athletes guilty of “having been found in possession of substances capable of enhancing athletes performances, thus altering the outcome of a competition, and at the same time causing harm to the health of freedivers.”
Note that WADA does not currently consider these two substances to be performance-enhancing, and neither did CMAS until after the conclusion of Vertical Blue 2023. In fact, according to a CMAS Instagram post, CMAS “resolved to provisionally ban…benzodiazepines and sildenafil…until a full scientific report is delivered in this respect by the competent CMAS commissions.” As of August 2024, CMAS has not released a scientific report concerning the substances and whether they are “capable of enhancing athletes performances.”
For the guilty verdict given to them by CMAS, Maricic, and Klovar were fined 5,000EUR each and given a six-month suspension.
After I began asking more pointed questions about Vertical Blue’s July 4th doping control, CMAS directed me to their lawyer. After informing me that CMAS did not order the July 4th luggage search or doping control, CMAS’s lawyer did not answer any follow-up questions.
A note from the AIDA Anti-Doping Manager
AIDA Anti-Doping Manager and President of Clean Game Professor Dr. Nenad Dikic had an interesting take on the matter: “The Vertical Blue case shows that Athletes are not provided with sufficiently strong safeguards, which are undefined, underdeveloped, and unclear. It also shows that athletes are vulnerable and that there is no secure way to protect their rights. Instead of sanctioning the main culprit in the whole event, Mr. William Trubridge, CMAS, took advantage to punish athletes for an alleged anti-doping violation treated as an ethical violation.”
“The entire case points to the need to review the rationale and provide a better definition of the CMAS Code of Ethics,” he continued. “This would prevent a unilateral interpretation to the detriment of athletes and protect their vulnerability and elementary human rights.”
In other words, Professor Dr. Nenad Dikic believes that the Vertical Blue 2023 case shows that athletes lack proper protection due to unclear and poorly developed rules. Furthermore, instead of holding the primary person responsible—William Trubridge—CMAS punished the athletes for an ‘ethical violation.’ This highlights the need for a clearer CMAS Code of Ethics definition to better protect athlete rights.
William Trubridge in Hindsight
I asked William Trubridge the question, “This event happened over 6 months now and it has been something that has brought a lot of division and conversation to the community. You’ve both received praise and criticism from the community. Upon reflection, is there anything that you would have done differently?”
Trubridge told me, “I mean, if I have the benefit of hindsight, sure, there’s ways that I would have done things that are maybe given a little more clarity, for sure, but I definitely don’t regret. I think, firstly, for something that hasn’t been done before, it was executed in a way that was pretty robust. So, I have to give myself and the team credit for the fact that we kind of led the way with new types of checks and everything and that it seemed to function pretty well, apart from obviously the complaints from the people who were found out.”
“And so yeah, would I change? Would I not do it if I was in that position again? Definitely not. There was nothing about the process that was savory. There’s nothing about it that was enjoyable, that was something that I wanted to do. It was a hundred percent pulling teeth out of my mouth kind of thing. You can’t even go and compare it with just being an athlete, being able to compete and do what I’m accustomed to doing, what I enjoy doing and do best.”
“But the simple truth is that we would not be in the situation that we are now, where organizations are mobilizing in order to change their doping checks and controls, to add substances, extra petitions from thousands of athletes.”
“And all that’s the visible stuff – what’s invisible is all of the athletes who were maybe starting to move or gravitate towards using these kinds of substances. Because I’ve heard of it happening, ‘Organizations aren’t doing anything, so we might as well do it as well.’ That kind of thing, and I’m hoping that that’s been turned around as well. You’d have to assume that there’s been some effect to that kind of round movement.”
“And so none of that would have happened if Vertical Blue had not taken the action that we did in 2023. We would be in a completely different place, we might have other world records that are bogus, that we don’t know about, etc.”
“So, yeah, it was definitely something that had to happen.”
Brief Summary
The Vertical Blue 2023 freediving competition, held on Long Island in the Bahamas, was the subject of an alleged doping controversy. On July 4, 2023, Croatian athletes Vitomir Maricic and Petar Klovar had their luggage searched upon arrival to Long Island, conducted by event organizer William Trubridge and two Royal Bahamas police officers. The alleged substances found in the athletes’ luggage were publicized via an Instagram post and a YouTube video on Vertical Blue’s social media accounts. The luggage search was followed by an official doping control, which Trubridge ordered himself rather than by standard anti-doping authorities. US athlete Tory George was also subjected to doping control later that evening.
Vertical Blue’s official YouTube channel published a video containing audio clips from the luggage search and images of medication packaging allegedly found in athletes’ bags.
These doping controls held on July 4th deviated from standard procedures in several ways. The doping control officer’s identification was expired, and proper athlete notification protocols weren’t followed, with the doping control officer somehow managing to locate the Croatian athletes in an unmarked building and knowing George was on the island despite the athlete’s lack of official whereabouts information. Moreover, the results management process broke from standard WADA protocol – George learned of his preliminary doping control results from unofficial sources before receiving official notification, violating confidentiality and WADA standard procedures.
Maricic and Klovar also underwent a questionable and seemingly unofficial doping control in Dominica, reportedly ordered by William Trubridge, two months before Vertical Blue 2023 commenced. Meanwhile, on the third competition day of Vertical Blue 2023, Trubridge also conducted additional unofficial doping controls on some male athletes using home drug test kits, disregarding proper doping control procedures. This raised concerns among athletes, particularly given Trubridge’s dual role as both organizer and competitor, creating a clear conflict of interest.
After Vertical Blue 2023’s July 4th luggage search and doping control, freediving organizations had different responses to the situation. AIDA International hired an independent anti-doping organization to manage its anti-doping activities and is currently research the prevalence of benzodiazepines in freediving. In contrast, CMAS swiftly suspended Maricic and Klovar despite the absence of a clear anti-doping rule violation. CMAS later fined the athletes and imposed a six-month ban for a CMAS Code of Ethics violation rather than an anti-doping rule violation. In hindsight, Trubridge has no regrets on the luggage search and doping control and states it was something that had to happen.
The Investigation Concludes
My original idea for writing this article was to put all of the social media posts surrounding the Vertical Blue 2023 luggage search and doping control into a timeline for people to be able to follow clearly. This is because I saw many comments under posts expressing confusion over the situation and wanting to know what happened. However, just like a game of ‘Telephone,’ social media posts and comments were unclear, sometimes absent of facts, and oftentimes filled with opinions. What was especially troubling was seeing people make small mentions of ‘due process’ or questioning if proper procedures were followed, only to be accused of doping themselves for ‘supporting cheaters.’
But as I began interviewing people and asking questions, I found that many of them also had their own questions and opinions but feared speaking them aloud or attaching their names to their words – understandably so. And with every person I interviewed came a suggestion of “Oh, you should also talk to so-and-so.” I kept being given more information, which turned into more questions on my part than I could have imagined. And so, a simple timeline article evolved into four massive articles totaling over 100 pages – one year after asking my first question.
What the truth of the matter is, is that we may never know what the truth of the matter actually is. All we can consider is whether standard procedures were followed, whether actions were taken with ethical intentions, and whether the Vertical Blue 2023 luggage search and doping control set a precedent that we wouldn’t mind being applied to us in the future. Additionally, we must address how freediving organizations can effectively investigate possible freediving-specific performance-enhancing drugs while maintaining fairness and integrity in the sport.
After all, we, too, may one day be competitive athletes and the subject of scrutiny rather than scrutinizing safely behind our mobile phones. I believe that everyone mentioned in this article was acting with good intentions – but did their actions match those good intentions? That’s up to you to decide.
Now, four articles, one year, and over 400 hours of work later, I realize that my aim for writing these articles is something else. What I want is for freedivers to once more engage in meaningful discussions about this topic – this time, armed with more facts and details, and hopefully absent of threats, emotions, and wild accusations. Because while anecdotes and gossip are abundant, the truth and hard facts are what really matter. We can all agree that protocols and regulations must be followed to establish the trust of our competitive freediving athletes and ensure an even playing field.
The freediving community is small, but it is also mighty. It is my hope that this investigation acts as a catalyst for positive change in our sport, with transparency, fairness, and mutual respect at its forefront so that we can continue to keep rediscovering the limits of the human body – together.
