The claim appears in a forthcoming memoir and has reignited discussion surrounding one of the Royal Family's most scrutinised marriages. Share Princess Diana’s brother has made an extraordinary new claim about the breakdown of her marriage, alleging that the late Princess once told him her husband was “in love with his valet” . Charles Spencer, the 9th Earl Spencer, recalls the private conversation in his forthcoming memoir, Swan Song: Diana, My Sister, as he prepares to share his version of events nearly three decades after Diana’s death. Earl Spencer appears on the BBC discussing claims from his forthcoming memoir, Swan Song: Diana, My Sister , in which he recounts private conversations with Princess Diana about the breakdown of her marriage to the then-Prince Charles. According to Spencer, Diana made the remark during lunch at a London restaurant after announcing that she intended to seek a divorce. When he reportedly warned that the public ...
HYROX Under Fire After Wietrzyk Continues Racing Despite Bowel Incontinence
Get link
Facebook
X
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps
Officials face criticism for failing to intervene as shared equipment and flooring were contaminated mid‑competition
Australian elite athlete Joanna Wietrzyk has become the centre of a fierce sporting controversy after suffering bowel incontinence during the women’s Pro race at HYROX Beijing on 12 September, yet continuing through the course and winning in 1:01:23. Distressing footage appeared to show faecal matter on her legs as she completed demanding exercises and came into contact with equipment shared by other competitors. Her determination has been praised by some, but for many, this was no longer simply a story of an athlete refusing to surrender, it became a serious question of hygiene, safety and respect for everyone else competing.
Joanna Wietrzyk continued through all eight HYROX workout zones and the full 1km run loops despite visible bowel incontinence, completing the entire women’s Pro course in 1:01:23 while repeatedly contacting shared flooring and equipment.
Wietrzyk is one of HYROX’s leading competitors and the women’s Pro world-record holder, but sporting status should never place anyone above basic health protections. Bowel problems can occur unexpectedly during intense endurance exercise and she should not be humiliated for experiencing a medical incident. However, once contamination became visible, should she have stopped—or, more importantly, should officials have stopped her? Continuing across shared flooring and workout stations potentially exposed athletes, judges and cleaning staff to bodily waste. Determination may win races, but when does perseverance become an unacceptable risk to others?
Wietrzyk, one of HYROX’s top elite athletes, is the women’s Pro world‑record holder and a regular podium finisher across global events. Known for her high‑intensity racing style, she entered Beijing as one of the sport’s most dominant competitors.
At the time of the race, HYROX’s published rulebook did not appear to contain a specific penalty dealing expressly with faecal incontinence. It did, however, impose a two-minute penalty for littering, spitting or blowing the nose onto the floor. Crucially, it also gave the race director authority to withdraw a competitor on medical grounds in accordance with HYROX’s medical and safety procedures. That means there may not have been an automatic “bowel incident equals disqualification” rule, but officials seemingly possessed the power to intervene if her condition or the resulting contamination presented a medical or safety concern.
HYROX officials did not stop Wietrzyk despite visible contamination; the rulebook lacked a specific faecal‑incontinence penalty, and race directors relied on discretionary medical‑withdrawal powers that were not exercised—an oversight HYROX has since admitted and pledged to reform.
HYROX has since acknowledged that the incident was not handled adequately, pointing to uncertainty between its elite-racing and mass-participation procedures and promising changes to its rulebook and bio-contamination protocols. The organisation was right to condemn the abuse and threats directed at Wietrzyk, but protecting her from harassment must not prevent legitimate scrutiny of its own decisions. She was an athlete under extreme physical pressure; trained officials were responsible for the wider competition. Perhaps the most important question is not why she refused to quit, but why those charged with protecting every participant allowed the race to continue unchanged.
