I suggest he was “trying to help improve his own personal physique” aka “was trying to dope” using this SARM: he is not a competitive athlete, aiui. But it wasn’t labelled Ligandrol (we are told) and its implied he didn’t consider whether it may be on the WADA (2024) Prohibited List, or didn’t check, or didn’t realise traces/metabolites could be transferred to Simmonds in the way described (let’s face it it’s pretty left field, though rather less so now), or several of the above.
As I think’s been said above, aiui it’s not being suggested the supplement he was ingesting in December was contaminated, it was sold (to him) ‘for research purposes’ (and legally except in Australia) and contained but not called Ligandrol - maybe the little bottle was called “LGD-4033”.
Whatever, it will, I expect, have been analysed to demonstrate it contains Ligandrol (LGD-4033), because Simmonds needs to show the source of the metabolites of that prohibited substance that were found in her urine in the 8th December test.
1.) Partner was taking something with ligandrol in it (whether he knew that or not is unknown).
2.) Simmonds says she he had no knowledge of what partner was taking.
3.) it is plausible for a positive to occur via bodily fluid exchange (at least, plausible to WADA/hearing panels).
More like what has been reported than what we really know, because we really don’t. I have read a few different versions of Item 1) in this thread. Both versions are just as messy.
As discussed ad nauseam upthread, Ligandrol (LGD-4033) appears to be available for simple purchase and legal to be sold, provided it is marked as “For research use only”. May not be called ‘Ligandrol’. Only Australia bans its sale. I offer this image as an illustration.
So countries (except for AUS) allow just anyone to purchase something that is “research use only” just as long as they click on the acknowledgment tab that this is for research only just before they take your money? Granted there is black markets for stuff, but that seems wild that it’s legal to buy/sell as long as you say it’s for research use only? Talk about a head in sand approaching, seemingly.
This is going to be one fascinating as hell decision in the next week(s?) or month(s?).
It seems like this is a open and shut case of no fault and the athlete should be cleared if all these other WADA cases are having these solutions. Which seems like more like lawyering wins out, and it just seems dodgy. But then again is this the whole reason this stuff is *supposed to stay private until a final ruling is made. So in that aspect is it good or bad that we’ve now been sorta shown the man behind the curtain of just how much “lawyering up” is needed and technicalities matter.
According to USADA “The FDA has clarified that LGD-4033 is not a legitimate dietary ingredient, and therefore it is illegal to sell this ingredient in supplements. Any dietary supplement that advertises to contain LGD-4033 would be considered an unapproved new drug by the FDA and should be avoided.” So maybe it’s legal to sell it NOT in a dietary supplement in the States.
Although this reminds me of an key point in a trial when an lawyer gets something said in the court room at some pivotal moment, yet the judge says to the jury they must remove what just happened…like is IS now going to be viewed “differently” even if she’s fully cleared. Like yes she would be clean of being a doping violator, yet there is zero chance anyone can restrict all the messy details that have now become public on it.
Yes, and why did they get made public? It sounds, from what Kelly said in his mea non culpa, that someone she trusted with information felt, for reasons unknown, to tell Kelly. And the rest is revelation.
Still, as Simmonds said in her insta, “While I am not the first athlete to have this happen to them, I likely won’t be the last, so I hope my story can help raise awareness of this form of contamination.”
As for ‘messy’ language, I have drafted a form of words:
DRAFT
<< During the results management proceedings the athlete was able to establish that the presence of SARM LGD-4033 (Ligandrol) metabolite dihydroxy-LGD-4033 in her sample was caused by the transfer of bodily fluids from her partner who was, at the time of the sample collection, ingesting SARM LGD-4033 (Ligandrol).
<< The athlete accepted the finding of the ADRV and the matter is considered as concluded from the perspective of Ironman and the ITA. Pursuant to the public disclosure requirement of the World Anti-Doping Code and the IRONMAN Anti-Doping Rules, the case must be publicly reported.
<< The decision may be challenged before the appeal division of the Court of Arbitration of Sport by the parties with a right of appeal, . . . . >>
Just so we are talking all the same language and/or I’m understanding you. Are you saying at the point where they got (A + B positive samples), this positive should have been disclosed to the public by the doping authorities? Or that this case was only seemingly at the lets just call it the half way point, where if the athlete wanted to challenge it, could do so and it all be kept behind scenes?
Yes, but you quoted a really sketchy Web page that looked from a vendor of this crap.
Someone else quoted a government Web page in NZ, and it seemed like it was not a legal compound.
Also, if a chemical is legalized “for research”( whatever that means), wouldn’t her boyfriend be breaking the law by consuming it?.
Frankly, Brooks, despite some effort (see below) I’m unsure.
But my best reading is that if this AAF was to be publicly disclosed it should have been disclosed/announced by ITA (delegated to act in ‘Results Management’ for IRONMAN).
It would (then) have been up to Simmonds to choose to go public with her explanation of the AAF or (more likely) to say little.
I have waded through the IRONMAN AD Rules and offer these extracts:
14.1.2 Notice of Anti-Doping Rule Violations to National Anti-Doping Organizations and WADA
Notice of the assertion of an anti-doping rule violation to World Triathlon, the Athlete’s National ADO and WADA, and . . . to their designated National Federation, and shall occur as provided under Articles 7 and 14, simultaneously with the notice to the Athlete or other Person.
If at any point during Results Management up until the anti-doping rule violation charge, IRONMAN decides not to move forward with a matter, it must give notice (with reasons) to the ADOs with a right of appeal under Article 13.2.3.
14.1.5 Confidentiality
The recipient organizations shall not disclose this information beyond those Persons with a need to know (which would include the appropriate personnel at the . . . National Federation) until IRONMAN has made Public Disclosure as permitted by Article 14.3.
14.3 Public Disclosure
14.3.1 After notice has been provided to the Athlete . . . and to the ADOs 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 the nature of the violation involved, and whether the Athlete . . . is subject to a Provisional Suspension may be Publicly Disclosed by IRONMAN.
Comment: “may” - so I guess IRONMAN too has a choice, with various influences operating..
14.3.4 In any case where it is determined, after a hearing or appeal, that the Athlete . . did not commit an ADRV, the fact that the decision has been appealed may be Publicly Disclosed. However, the decision itself and the underlying facts may not be Publicly Disclosed except with the consent of the Athlete . . . . if consent is obtained, [IRONMAN] shall Publicly Disclose the decision in its entirety or in such redacted form as the Athlete . . . may approve.
Eh, she would have had to say something the moment she missed Singapore and if she didn’t, definitely San Francisco. Sounds like enough people knew, that it would come out. And the fact that the HABs of PTN knew and they were essentally running interference tells me enough. It’s illegal to sell for human consumption in every place that matters. So again, she said it was listed on the ingredients list of whatever he boyfriend was using…sounds like he enjoys using dirty stuff. Why again should we accept that she is not microdosing if she associates with someone who isn’t using informed choice supps?
ETA:
The question begins with Imogen, why did she tell anyone other than her lawyer?
Missed this up thread. Please explain why you continue to be obtuse? What is in it for you?
Found the brand that you failed to link but provided a photo for. That’s about the sketchiest website I’ve ever seen and no self respecting professional athlete or their partner would be so stupid as to buy that…but perhaps we have one in front of us.
BTW, a Pharmacologically Irrelevant positive test would mean she would be able to get off. As she hasn’t chosen an expedited hearing, what is your expectation? I don’t really expect time served here. Unless she delays her hearing to say August.
Supplement that supposedly had the “alternative name” has not been disclosed.
That’s not how this works. You can set up a website tomorrow and start selling illegal drugs direct to end user. It can be plane as day. It will take the FDA years to find you and then years to get you served and then years to get injunctive relief.
In a weird way, all of these procedures are odd. She is provisionally suspended, yet still potentially able to get fully cleared. But yet by being provisionally suspended and it becoming public, there is very little chance she’s completely removed from the whispers/side eye that will happen even if she wins her case and is fully cleared (ST rules would dictate she be considered a clean athlete and any doping talk of her specifically would be no-no).
I’m still surprised her lawyers allowed her to go public, she could have easily just feigned a fake “injury” for the 1st race(s) of the year even if the rumors were there imo. (ST you wouldn’t be allowed to talk about specific doping “rumors”).
Her disclosure of the failed drug test was preemptive of the official announcement of the ITA but that disclosure would have been made public regardless of her post. Her failing both an A and B sample and being official suspended isn’t a rumor and she wouldn’t have been able to hide from it by feigning an injury for the first few races.
Idk, in my experience provisional suspensions are not disclosed by the testing agency. (I have not had a positive test, although I’ve dealt with them both as a journalist and an administrator) They only disclose testing data (was this person tested, yes or no; and sanctions. If someone gets off and it never gets published it’s as if it didn’t happen.
Now, if she had a hearing and she was declared to have failed, that would have been published regardless of appeals process. See Shelby Houlihan.
So the procedurals require the public disclosure of provisional suspensions from the testing authorities (ETA: reading up on the ITA’s site they rule that with the Public Disclosure policy they release provisonal suspensions for which cases are under the international Federation has results management)? I just find it oddly concidental that IS’s public admission and the ITA’s release happened on the very same day (I can’t find a time stamp on either the ITA release or IS’s post but I think the ITA was publicly released after her admission, again concidentally on 2/26). That’s probaly a good and bad thing, but probaly more overall good in that at min alteast everyone would know the score so to speak. I only say bad thing because if an athlete can get cleared, I still think they are sorta forever stained on some level even if the resulting clearance essentially makes it like it never happened (but it did).
The ITA provisionally suspended her on Feb 5th, she announced it on Feb 26th and they followed on the same date. I assume that’s when they put her name under the “Anti-Doping Rules Violations” list here: https://ita.sport/anti-doping-rule-violations/
Note all of the ones that are labeled on-going, they are all in the same step of the process as Imo. They have failed a drug test and are now given the option to appeal. These results are published for all to see regardless of any personal statement from the athlete. Her decision and timing of the statement were odd, but they had no impact on the ITA statement in fact I’d assume it was the other way around.
It seems provisonal suspensions get added to the list (which becomes public knowledge), but I don’t think they always get “announced” with actual additional press release (I don’t see a press release from ITA on every provisional suspended ahtlete, but several have same day releases, IS’s is the longest “delayed” press release from ITA; 3 weeks from the provisional suspension date to the ITA press release announcement).
So it may take a bit of daily sluthing that site to validate any “rumors” from here on out. Good site to put in the favorites for sure now.
Interesting note that ITA notes her sport as “Ironman” and there is a different category for “triathlon” (which I assume that’s the ITU athletes designation?)
I will say I’ve never dealt with the ITA, only USADA and World Rugby. Neither org lists provisional suspension or make statements regarding provisional suspensions unless forced to.
