Joanna Wietrzyk has reportedly been dealt a further blow following the backlash over her viral incident at HYROX Beijing last weekend, after appearing to be removed from Puma's promotional material and online store.
What happened at the race
Wietrzyk, an Australian world record holder, soiled herself while competing at HYROX Beijing on 12 September, but was allowed to continue racing indoors using shared equipment and carpeted flooring, an incident widely described online as a biohazard concern. The situation prompted significant criticism of both Wietrzyk and HYROX itself, ultimately leading the organisation to introduce a rule change.
Her removal from Puma
According to the Daily Mail, a clothing range branded "Joanna Wietrzyk x PUMA" has since been deleted from Puma's global online store, with references to her also removed from the brand's promotional material. Wietrzyk is a HYROX ambassador for Puma and had previously collaborated with the brand on product releases, describing the partnership as a "dream come true," saying: "I've raced in [Puma] shoes since the beginning. To have them support me in my journey now is truly incredible. If I told my younger self, she'd be gobsmacked." She wore Puma gear during the race in Beijing and was promoting the brand's latest shoe release in the city in the days beforehand. It's not currently confirmed whether the removal was a deliberate decision, a timing coincidence, or made at Wietrzyk's own request, and Puma still appears in her Instagram bio. LADbible has contacted Puma and Wietrzyk for comment.
Her coach's defence
Wietrzyk hasn't publicly addressed the incident since a now-deleted Instagram post saying "a win is a win." Her coach, Chris Bayens, has since spoken out to defend her, writing: "No one is perfect, not in sport, not on social media, not in real life. What happened was extraordinary." He described the circumstances as unforeseen and rapidly evolving, adding: "Decisions were made under competition conditions by an athlete, judges and officials, all responding to a situation none of them could reasonably have prepared for." He argued that hindsight offers a clarity that wasn't available to those involved at the time, saying: "Those decisions can be reviewed and lessons can be taken from them. But judging someone's intent, character or morality through the clarity of hindsight is neither fair nor honest."
