Do share the link: well done for finding: what did it come under?
Contrary to what?
I fail to see the relevance of where I live but it’s currently UK. @lastlap says: “He already posted a bogus link saying SARMS were legal but conveniently ignored my offical links showing they are illegal.”
I just tried to see if I could find whether Ligandrol could have been imported (for use) legally into NZ.
Your “official links” do not show this. The
is an Australian doc (and on p15): “determined that SARMs will be classified as a Schedule 4 medicine and included in Appendix D in the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons. This will make it illegal to possess SARMs without legal authority (through prescription).”
They are illegal in Oz (as my “bogus link” says).
As for the Sportintegrity.nz site that says
Prohibited in sport and illegal in NZ
“SARMs are prohibited in sport at all times (both in- and out-of-competition) under Section S1.2 of the WADA Prohibited List. SARMs are also illegal in New Zealand.”
Is this not illegal in the context of sport? https://sportintegrity.nz/news/the-truth-about-sarms
If SARMs are illegal in NZ I will call her boyfriend a naughty, naughty boy. Will that satisfy you? Clearly you both care.
Again: all terribly interesting, but peripheral to the issue. The hair analysis will show that he was ingesting Ligandrol during the period leading up to and including 8th December.
Might be a silly question, Do they lose their Pro License? Maybe a price increase on the Pro renewal would deter as well as a time away penalty. Or maybe keep offenders away verse just time served.
I don’t particularly care, more interested in accurate information which you seemed to care about until you are shown is not accurate and then it becomes ‘peripheral to the issue’…
“Enobosarm, also formerly known as ostarine and by the developmental code names GTx-024, MK-2866, and S-22, is a selective androgen receptor modulator”
This is not Ligandrol.
I’m not f-ing interested in buying this stuff. I do consume 4000iu of Vitamin D though.
From your BBC link:
In UK "The [UK] Food Standards Agency (FSA) says they are categorised as an “unauthorised novel food” that “should not be consumed”. It adds that “placing them on the market in the UK is a criminal offence.” Selling the stuff looks as if it’s illegal but possession and use is not, aiui.
On the other hand:
“FSA classifies SARMs as ‘novel food’ and has thus far not authorised them to be sold for human consumption, they are not marked as ‘scheduled drugs’ either – meaning that their sale is not banned outright. SARM law means they can be purchased legally in the UK as research chemicals. They can be sold without breaking the law as long as they are not marked for human consumption, but rather for research and laboratory purposes.”
HTH
It is insane how some people keep going on this post on nothing. Going to great lengths to defend a positive test.
I mean Sinner got stopped because basically nothing was found on him due to a leg cream ffs.
I can’t see how with this bogus excuse she thinks of getting away with it. Here it’s a matter of getting 2 years rather than 4.
She was positive and it is a fact, the only point to assess if whether she doped consciously or not (if you want to believe to the semen contamination fairytale…).
Whether it’s a picogram or she was glowing in the dark, doesn’t change it considering the threshold is 0.
I agree it’s pointless to discuss at this point. I thought we had run out of topics here a long time ago, but new posts keep coming, like yours…
There’s no probable way she gets anything close to 2 years. If the Over/Under was 2 years here, I’d be betting a substantial sum on the Under. My expected value is somewhere in the 0-6 months area, probably 4 months.
Given the high-profile cases on this, and that the alleged fact pattern mirrors them to a T, I would put the over-under at 5.5 months, and I’d take the under. (I would also probably take the under if it were set at 0.5 months, off of nothing but gut instinct.)
Maybe take a step back and think about the story that you keep trying to sell us: the BF is buying these illegal dangerous drugs, using them, and perhaps even importing them into NZ only to “improve his physique”? So he is compromising his GF’s career and integrity and even risking getting criminally charged? And you really believe this?
On a separate note and to avoid beating a dead horse: this is the same stuff that NBAs Canadian player Tristan Thompson tested positive for (I would argue that the infertility side effect might not be an issue for some ). Interesting that NBA only issues a 25 game suspension while in other sports this is enough for a 4 year ban. Unpopular opinion but comparing cycling to NBA, it can be argued that this might be a better public positive perception management approach (i.e. how many NBA fans discuss doping or even care?)
Except for no where except in Ajax posts has it been categorically stated that he was out on the street corners or in dark alleys buying these illegal and dangerous drugs. To accuse him of importing dangerous drugs in NZ without proof is ridiculous.
In fact the Swiss article said it was found in a supplement that is available both on line and in certain shops. Not only that but the illegal drug wasn’t listed on the ingredients but a different (but commonly used) name for the drug was.
Don’t get me wrong I think she is culpable but can’t make my mind up to what degree.
Not accusing him or anyone of anything, just trying to understand what their explanation really is and implies.
Her statement: “unknown to me, my longtime partner had been ingesting ligandrol to help improve his own personal physique around the time of the positive test”. Unknown to her…
This was obviously crafted by an experience lawyer. Given the negative social and even legal issues his BF could be exposed through this ordeal, why not write in the statement he unknowingly ingested the LGD through a contaminated supplement without his consent?
Stepping back is so 2024, don’t you think?
And I’m not ‘selling’ anything: I’m trying to see the framework within which this whole sorry tale has played out. It doesn’t matter whether I believe it: it matters whether the ITA Hearing Panel (date?) judges, on the balance of probability, that Simmonds’ AAF was caused by this source, transmitted by the activity described, that Simmonds did not know he was ingesting this.
She needs to persuade the panel of all three elements to get a ‘no fault or negligence’ decision (and an immediate lift of the provisional suspension). Such a decision might then be challenged by WADA and go to CAS.
Personally I believe this, wild though it is, is more likely than Simmonds (after a clear OOC on 2nd December, 11 days out from competition) starts ingesting ineffective quantities / ineffective frequency of Ligandrol (pico-levels detected) for an unclear benefit.
If the panel is not persuaded she’ll get a ban which will be moderated by the fact that the amount of Ligandrol (metabolites) found in her OOC sample was classified as “very low” and considered to be pharmacologically irrelevant. It would have no performance enhancing effects at this level.
Ligandrol is, as I’ve sought to show, not illegal to possess in, aiui every country in the world except Australia. “Criminally charged”? Any cases so far? Zero risk. It looks legal to sell all over the place (not Oz) provided it is not marketed for human consumption, but IANAL.
Sadly lots of losers seem to use. And (men mainly) only to “improve [their] physique”. I cannot empathise with ‘gym bunnies’. They need to get out and SBR.
The ‘danger’ seems mostly to be that people can buy stuff without having assurance of its quality. The danger of ingesting it seems relatively low and certainly less dangerous than AS. Remember this medicine is being used for various patients.
Importing into NZ: have still not seen rules which say bringing this in without prescription is illegal. Doesn’t seem sensible to me: perhaps he’s a risk taker or bought it online for delivery to Taupo to avoid the Auckland airport risk (idk).
“Compromising his GF’s career” Either he’s ignorant or careless and thought ‘Hey I’m taking this but so what? It’s not infectious.’ But he’s not the one being (effectively) prosecuted: Simmonds is.
But it’s been brought up many times the whole notion of microdosing is hard to catch. Done frequently in very small quantities.
Anyone playing this “unclear benefit” and “such small quantities” is just making room for that ambiguity to keep playing forward in the future.
It seems more possible that the innovations in the cycling world that has allowed so many super human feats to go undetected (or successfully disputed) have been successfully adopted in the triathlon world.
The whole idea of micro dosing and metabolic residue being low fits. Any one particular instance is going to cause such a small gain, as you correctly observe. But that’s also true with training. Small numbers consistently applied over time make a big difference in the end.
If the rules are going to say that a small detection doesn’t deserve a large penalty, then it’s basically just opening the door for athletes to incrementally dose over time with their training with only a few months of fallout at worst if the tests come to light during arbitration.
I’m really not understanding his angle for the point of the discussion unless Ajax is a lawyer in the UK and he’s practicing arguing for whenever he ends up having to litigate something.
It’s very clear to me, that you can’t just go to a reputable supplement store or website and buy Ligandrol or a Ligandrol’s alternate name Anabolicum. Want to buy SARMs? You’re buying from shady stores and shady websites.
You and a few others are misreading the speeding analogy. It’s not to say, “speeding!!! throw the book at them!!!” But the fact of you speeding doesn’t go away just because you allege something happened beyond your control.
Regarding the burden of potential contamination being yet another cross women have to bear as part of the reality of biological reality, ya ok. It’s not something that should elicit a lot of sympathy.
“You’re telling me that no only do I have to maintain an accurate log of where I’m going to be and provide that with someone at all times, but I also have to be careful about who I have sex with? WTF!” — that’s not an argument I’m sympathetic to. By the way, I think the men should be careful too… as it’s already been argued that salvia could transfer metabolites, or that gay men have this consideration as well.
The reality here is that in most cases, we have elite athletes who would have a motive to cheat with banned substances, suddenly getting found with traces of a banned substance in their body. That shoe looks like a pretty perfect fit.
Why are we hung up on where you can buy this? The internet has made acquisition of almost anything remarkably easy. SARMs are floating around just about every high school locker room in the US so any grown adult is going to be able to get their hands on them relatively easily.
I still would love to know what supplement he was taking that had this in it.
The 1 troubling side to all of this that I have is that micro dosing is pretty much SOP at this point in the game seemingly. And since there is a period of time that testers can’t test athletes, there’s generally a sense of athletes sorta know when they can and can’t dope with fairly good precision. Add in the fact that did she get OOC tested what a week prior, could this simply be a case of an athlete thinking she’s not getting tested a week later, she’s got time to get cleared by race day, and so it simply was too much in the system.
And like I said, I guess all the contimnation created issues of “neglience” being part of the ruling now, whereas 10 years ago this would seemingly have been an easy ban. So again if she can prove she’s clean, by all means cool.
If we assume/agree micro dosing is sorta SOP these days, talking about the amount in your system is a bit misleading I would think. We aren’t going to catch “glowing” athletes any longer, it’s going to be likely these levels of amounts it would seem.
). Interesting that NBA only issues a 25 game suspension while in other sports this is enough for a 4 year ban. Unpopular opinion but comparing cycling to NBA, it can be argued that this might be a better public positive perception management approach (i.e. how many NBA fans discuss doping or even care?)