What a load off everyones shoulders
2 Likes
I have not cared much about this but correct
Me if I am wrong .
she did have the performance enhancing drugs in her.
She is innocent of how it got in her.
The lawyer talk about how little it is doesnāt matter. One it gets diluted as time goes by so there is that and it makes it sound like it wasnāt enough but you can get little amount of things that make big gains doesnāt need to be in large forms .
Does this leave an explanation for other dopers to call for the same action. I didnāt know my coach was spiking my bottles???
If I am mark Mathewās I am taking one for the family .
1 Like
I meanā¦thatās what happens after the climaxā¦
2 Likes
She had residuals that occur when performance enhancing drugs are metabolized. Those residuals could have come from someone else or from her metabolizing them. Not sure if the case addressed if they were able to specifically distinguish the difference.
1 Like
The WADA Code attempts to deal with this at 10.5 (note - below)
I expect that the new WADA Code (due 2027) may seek to place a degree of āfaultā on an athlete who receives bodily fluids by mouth or otherwise from an āassociateā. I can see this moved to āno significant faultā (and I observe Simmonds has effectively served more than the likely period of ineligibility that would have applied.)
But see the Gasquet case with a pro (FNKSNUANK iykyk)(no fault). If nothing else, this unhappy saga should have highlighted to every athlete in whatever sport the potential jeopardy of this risk of contamination and be careful who you ākissā even frogs.
65 [Comment to Article 10.5: This Article and Article 10.6.2 apply only to the imposition of sanctions; they are not applicable to the determination of whether an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. They will only apply in exceptional circumstances, for example, where an Athlete could prove that, despite all due care, he or she was sabotaged by a competitor. Conversely, No Fault or Negligence would not apply in the following circumstances:
- (a) a positive test resulting from a mislabeled or contaminated vitamin or nutritional supplement (Athletes are responsible for what they ingest (Article 2.1) and have been warned against the possibility of supplement contamination);
- (b) the Administration of a Prohibited Substance by the Athleteās personal physician or trainer without disclosure to the Athlete (Athletes are responsible for their choice of medical personnel and for advising medical personnel that they cannot be given any Prohibited Substance); and
- (c) sabotage of the Athleteās food or drink by a spouse, coach or other Person within the Athleteās circle of associates (Athletes are responsible for what they ingest and for the conduct of those Persons to whom they entrust access to their food and drink).
However, depending on the unique facts of a particular case, any of the referenced illustrations could result in a reduced sanction under Article 10.6 based on No Significant Fault or Negligence.]
It did not. Just that it was proven to ITA for its purposes that Imogenās defense was the most likely scenario for the result at hand.
@Ajax_Bay I politely dissent; I donāt foresee the Code adding any additional provisions to deal with athlete contamination by sex (or other certain acts). The Code requires at least gross negligence / recklessness from the athlete in order to wind up with some type of penalty for the ADRV. I donāt foresee athletes needing to check what supplements / vitamins / pills their partners are on before having sex as meeting that standard of culpability that the Code is really intended for.
He was contaminated, the supplement would not be for sale in the US or Australia or even New Zealand [where he was]. He was definitely doping and the part about his not knowing is nonsense.
But whatever, itās over. Iām not sure if it was a good enough punishment butā¦
We do yearly anti-doping educated in our league and we literally tell these dudes that they need to ensure whatever their partner or roommate is taking is on the informed choice list.
She got a no fault penalty, but it also took her 9 months to do it. Maybe I should think that means sheās not doped to the gills, but I just donāt believe her. And letās say her explanation is true and that she tested above threshold (she was) then she still got a performance enhancing benefit. . .
Maybe she swallowed lol is that a bannable comment? Lol
3 Likes
Partner was doping: yep and deliberately so. Whether he knew what he was ingesting was banned is not germane nor is whether substance is illegal in the law of the land (possession isnāt btw except in Australia aiui). His ācontaminationā, proven by the post hoc hair analysis to the satisfaction of the ITA Hearing Panel, vitally shows (more likely than not - the level of āproofā required) the source of the metabolites found when Simmonds was testes.
Footnote 58 [Comment to Article 10.2.1.1: While it is theoretically possible for an Athlete or other Person to establish that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional without showing how the Prohibited Substance entered oneās system, it is highly unlikely that in a doping case under Article 2.1 an Athlete will be successful in proving that the Athlete acted unintentionally without establishing the source of the Prohibited Substance.]
The fact that you ājust donāt believe herā is on you. I also suggest that you are causing yourself more stress by ānot believingā to the detriment of your health, in the long term. On āperformance enhancing benefitā perhaps you could describe the benefit for an endurance athlete in the week before a world champs, likely her āAā race of the season (NB pico amounts in her urine sample /ml)? Remember she tested negative 6 days before and the race was 3 days later.
Fair, no additional provision but I envisage an addition to to the explanatory footnote: how about (d) below to shift this type of contamination not by a āone time interactionā but by a spouse, coach or other Person within the Athleteās circle of associates into āNo significant fault or negligenceā. If the person is an ASP they will, in ordinary course, be open to a doping investigation/sanction. Lawyers will be able to find a form of words.
65 [Comment to Article 10.5, [current]
-
(c) sabotage of the Athleteās food or drink by a spouse, coach or other Person within the Athleteās circle of associates (Athletes are responsible for what they ingest and for the conduct of those Persons to whom they entrust access to their food and drink).
-
(d - Ajax Bay words) transfer of bodily fluids from a spouse, coach or other Person within the Athleteās circle of associates (Athletes are responsible for their conduct and for the conduct of those Persons with whom they associate and closely interact).
āspouseā is doing some āliftingā in the current text - suspect has not moved with the times and is left over from the 1900s.
ETA: For those whose diet does not include @ironmemes_140.6 I paste this from insta (NB missing apostrophe):
WADA may still appeal (letās hope not). They have (in practice) about 45 days. and they appealed the āno faultā FIE determination wrt Thibus, a French Olympic fencer kisser.
- AAF January
- FIE determination June
- WADA appealed after 43 days on 17th July.
- Their appeal was heard 7 MONTHS later (March) and rejected
- and the decision made known 4 further MONTHS later (July)
āUnder WADA Code Article 13.2.1, the following have the right to appeal to CAS n(a) the Athlete; (b) ITA; (c) World Triathlon; (d) the Swiss national ADO; (e) N/A and (f) WADA.ā
2 Likes
Fair point since we traded numerous barbs. But I will contend that her boyfriend knowingly took shady supplements. She is required to go through education yearly on anti-doping and she has a responsibility to control what enters not only her body but what enters her house. The legality of the supplements is more to say her explanation is full of shit, or if that is what her partner is using as his defense for having her get caught, then sheās incredibly naive. Like the naivetĆ© of an adolescent.
But itās over. Yet look how long it took to nail Ruth? Yet she gets to keep her Chicago record. Not sure if a season is enough of a BAN, but thatās essentially what occurred here. So some justice was rendered.
Not necessarily ā¦ consider anti pasta 
1 Like
Check out Lizzy Banksās blog if you want to see what happens when WADA appeal/override an initial no fault finding
Misspelled ācumā on that memeā¦
Hey everyone,
As we prep for our upcoming podcast, I wanted to ask a question to the community especially those with experience in anti-doping policy, legal process, or athlete rights.
I also plan to send this question to the ITA, WADA, and T100, but I thought Iād reach out here first in case anyone has insight or can point me to specific language in the WADA Code or ITA policies.
Hereās the question Iām wrestling with:
If an athlete returns a positive test result (an AAF) but chooses to contest it and ultimately proves āno faultā ā and the case was never made public during the process ā is that case still required to be made public at the end? Or are there situations where, if the athlete is cleared and no sanction is imposed, the case remains confidential and never reaches the public sphere?
The reason I ask is because this case involving Imogen Simmonds feels like an unusual one. It was made public before a final ruling had been issued. Ultimately, she received a āNo Fault or Negligenceā decision after establishing the substance entered her system through intimate contact with her partner. She was cleared and received no sanction. But what stood out to me was that the case was made public during the ongoing process and Iām trying to understand whether thatās standard or more of an exception.
To be clear: Iām not looking to argue whether that was right or wrong. Iām just genuinely curious about how this typically works.
-
Are all cases disclosed no matter what once resolved?
-
Or is disclosure only required when a violation and sanction are officially confirmed?
-
And in āno faultā outcomes, is it standard to publicly post those cases, or does it vary?
Would love to hear from anyone with background in this space and if you can point me to specific code articles or CAS precedents, even better.
Thanks in advance ā appreciate any help or thoughts on this.
Most anti-doping cases are not acknowledged until there is a sanction handed down. This is specific to Rugby.
I personally havenāt seen a lot of no fault sanctions in the sport that I work in. But āNo Faultā is still a sanction.
Aiui this is dealt with in detail in Section 14 (esp 14.3) of the WADA Code. Youāll see Iāve popped your Q into another thread and you may get an ADO perspective (which for Simmonds in this case is the ITA) but the key aspect is what is the actual practice - which is, roughly it is allowed to make ADRVs public but not required
Go read 14.3.
And please lay off @JackKelly-TTH - he has said he has struggles. No need to exacerbate. There are no āwinnersā in this space.
My emboldening and caps.
**Public Disclosure 14.3.**1 After notice has been provided to the Athlete or other Person in accordance with the International Standard for Results Management, and to the applicable Anti-Doping Organizations in accordance with Article 14.1.2, the identity of any Athlete or other Person who is notified of a potential ADRV, the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method and nature of the violation involved, and whether the Athlete or other Person is subject to a Provisional Suspension MAY be Publicly Disclosed by the Anti-Doping Organization with Results Management responsibility.
Simmonds was tested on 8th Dec and notified on 5th Feb. She felt forced by . . . . to out herself on 26th Feb and later that day the ITA duly issued the notice of her positive AAF asserting an ADRV. Whether the fact sheād shared the AAF (and her defence btw) may have been a factor in the ITAās decision to issue that notice, I know not.
However since and ADRV has been admitted by Simmonds (the āagree/acceptā bit in the title of this thread) as I read it the ADO MUST make the outcome public.
14.3.2. . . . the Anti-Doping Organization responsible for Results Management MUST Publicly Disclose the disposition of the anti-doping matter including the sport, the anti doping rule violated, the name of the Athlete or other Person committing the violation, the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method involved (if any) and the Consequences imposed. The same Anti-Doping Organization MUST also Publicly Disclose within twenty (20) days the results of appellate decisions concerning anti doping rule violations, including the information described above.
4 Likes
Just FYI ā although IRONMANās rules are based on the WADA code, there are occasional variances with it. Always good to have this one bookmarked ā the IM Code. https://www.ironman.com/sites/default/files/2024-10/IRONMAN_Anti-Doping_Rules_FINAL-_2023.pdf
Relevant:
14.3.1 After notice has been provided to the Athlete or other Person in accordance with
the International Standard for Results Management, and to the applicable Anti-
Doping Organizations in accordance with Article 14.1.2, the identity of any
Athlete or other Person who is notified of a potential anti-doping rule violation,
the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method and the nature of the violation
involved, and whether the Athlete or other Person is subject to a Provisional
Suspension may be Publicly Disclosed by IRONMAN.
14.3.2 No later than twenty (20) days after it has been determined in an appellate
decision under Article 13.2.1 or 13.2.2, or such appeal has been waived, or a
hearing in accordance with Article 8 has been waived, or the assertion of an anti-
doping rule violation has not otherwise been timely challenged, or the matter has
been resolved under Article 10.8, or a new period of Ineligibility, or reprimand,
has been imposed under Article 10.14.3, IRONMAN must Publicly Disclose the
disposition of the anti-doping matter, including the sport, the anti-doping rule
violated, the name of the Athlete or other Person committing the violation, the
Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method involved (if any) and the
Consequences imposed. IRONMAN must also Publicly Disclose within twenty
(20) days the results of appellate decisions concerning anti-doping rule
violations, including the information described above.
Oh, and for the age groupers amongst us:
14.3.7 The mandatory Public Disclosure required in Article 14.3.2 shall not be required
where the Athlete or other Person who has been found to have committed an
anti-doping rule violation is a Minor, Protected Person or Recreational Athlete.
Any optional Public Disclosure in a case involving a Minor, Protected Person or
Recreational Athlete shall be proportionate to the facts and circumstances of the
case.
1 Like
Hi @talbotcox
I trust that, as journalists, your podcast will cover in an unbiased manner, the fact that her explanation for the positive test (which was only released after legal consultation) is exactly the same as two previous athletes who have tested positive and evaded punishment?
Journalism is more than just having a press accreditationā¦..
1 Like
Gday Jack.
1 Like
Great contribution, for your first post - welcome; but.
I suggest the use of the verb āevadeā invites pejorative interpretation (āJournalism is better if words are used with careā).
Simmonds tested positive (she has āagreedā this) as did Lapointe and Harris (tiny bit of detail below, second went to CAS ADD). She, as they, were each deemed to bear āNo Fault or NegligenceĀ² for the anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) and, therefore, no period of ineligibility is imposed.ā Neither Simmonds nor the previous two āevadedā anything. If anything they were effectively punished by being provisionally suspended from competition (and training with others) for many months, while the results management process ground its slow way to a fair/balanced conclusion.
I assume you support the WADA Code: 10.5 Elimination of the Period of Ineligibility where there is No Fault or Negligence* If an Athlete or other Person establishes in an individual case that he or she bears No Fault or Negligence, then the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be eliminated.*
Ā² āNo Fault or Negligenceā is defined as āThe Athlete . . establishing that he or she did not know or suspect, and could not reasonably have known or suspected even with the exercise of utmost caution, that he or she had Used or been administered the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method or otherwise violated an anti-doping ruleā.
One of the ālessons re-identifiedā from this case is that every ADO / National Sports Fed needs to include this risk in its mandatory AD training for athletes and ASPs. Until they all do so, this lesson will not be learned and we may have other positive tests which, on the balance of probability, have as their root cause intimate contact bodily fluid transfer (can be kissing too btw: see the latest French fencer NForN CAS arbitration award, mentioned upthread).
I can see this explanation for a positive test moving from NForN to No Significant Fault or Negligence as it will subsequently be argued that athletes should be aware of the risk and take precautions certainly with regular partners eg:
- educate them,
- ask/tell them specifically to take the same level of precautions as an Athlete, or
- ākiss on the cheekā / barrier use, if, say, they have a medical reason for prohibited substance ingestion).
Canadian canoeist Laurence Vincent Lapointe was cleared after it was determined the substance entered her system through intimate contact with her partner, who was using it.
Canadian curler Briane Harris was found to bear no fault after a positive test, with the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruling that she had been unknowingly exposed (contamination by the same āintimate contactā mechanism).
2 Likes