Isn’t it pretty clear that Ironman gets informed of the positive test and has a clause to block the announcement if they feel like it. Once it was public anyway they had to quickly give the ITA go-ahead to publish. And this is the main problem a lot of us have. Thomas Rodriguez’ positive was announced when it should have been, but other people are afforded a ‘marketing impact assessment’ or a chance to swap legal threats behind the scenes. It’s not truly independent and good on the whistleblowers for getting ahead on this one. Since there wouldn’t be testing without ironman funding it, this is all anyone can do.
Right so in this case it was never going to come to light until IS was forced to announce it. So there is sorta this procedural inconsistency for whether provisional suspension actually auto get announced or not. I don’t know how different ITA vs WADA public announcement rules are, that I had assumed it was never announced until full ruling was complete as Stro mentions as well. I can’t for the life of me find WADA’s ‘25 procedures everything comes up as 2023 or before.
So again I’m kinda on the fence with provisionals being announced if it’s still in the hearing phase. I think that’s different than an athlete taking its ruling to CAS. I can see why it’s helpful to let everyone know what is going on behind the scenes w athlete not racing, and I can reason why it’s also harmful to the athlete if they are then eventually fully cleared.
The answer probably is just pick an SOP and follow that. Especially as doping controls have such strong procedural standards they must uphold to then sorta be maybe they will announce or maybe they won’t seems a bit backwards.
I am not buying this stuff. I seek to show that it can be bought (define “sketchy”).
@TheStroBro earlier quoted a purportedly NZ link but actually it was the statement of the Australian position (which is “it’s illegal to sell however labelled and (aiui) illegal to possess without presciption”. Not NZ.
“wouldn’t her boyfriend be breaking the law by consuming it”
Please suggest what NZ (or indeed USA/EU/UK/Swiss) law might he thus break?
Of course Simmonds’ partner is not in the dock, at least not this one.
Simmonds will say (has said) he was ingesting this; his hair analysis (sample taken in early February and showing previous three months) will evidence he was ingesting, I assume they’ll have bought some more in Feb (assume all December’s used up - the two of them stayed in NZ till NYE) and have it analysed.
How he obtained it, whether it was labelled Ligandrol (which is the listing in the WADA list (other anabolic agents)), if it’s “legal”, how the stuff got to NZ, is peripheral to Simmonds’ defence.
@kajet shared a lovely image of a rabbit in front of a hole, upthread.
1 Like
Based on the timeline of all of this, she basically went all in on this defense and likely not knowing the Feb hair samples results to also help her case, until after she was provisionally suspended (Feb 5th). If the hair samples needed 2 months of growth to show what Dec 8th timeline would look like, and then. a sample would need lead time to be processed (I doubt it’s 24 hours).
Come to your own conclusions, but that would be a tick in her favor imo.
I’ll try to offer you responses in order.
“she would have had to say something”
Respectfully disagree. This broke on 26th February, before the T100 Singapore start list was published.
She would have needed to say nothing if she had not appeared on that start list: several other women weren’t on it and the T100 contract allowed athletes to just be there (photo shoots and media stuff): they didn’t have to race: no ‘excuse’ needed (West et al). Simmonds suffered there last year: deciding not to risk her health would have been reason (to give) enough. As for T100 SF: the start list will be published in 8 days, so “we’ll see”.
“Imogen, why did she tell anyone other than her lawyer?”
As I suggest you would, she reached out to friends and knowledgeable people whom she could both trust to keep confidence and for advice she valued, as well as to a selected lawyer. One of them betrayed her trust (to Kelly).
“It’s illegal to sell for human consumption in every place that matters.”
You seem unable to grasp this: tight head stuff? This stuff is being sold legally (exempt Oz) provided appropriately labelled. But as concluded in post above: irrelevant to Simmonds’ case.
“Please explain why you continue to be obtuse? What is in it for you?”
Please explain why you fail to comprehend. For me? I, like I assume all of ‘us’ are third party observers to this sad imbroglio (for our sport and Simmonds). Feel free to suggest what might be “in it for” me!
“As she hasn’t chosen an expedited hearing, what is your expectation? I don’t really expect time served here.”
Idk (obv) but see no reason for Simmonds to even ask for a “expedited hearing”.
She would not’ve been able to race Singapore whatever and a ‘normal’ hearing timetable and decision might allow her to race T100 SF (no acclimatisation required). . . . .“expedited” hearing seems to be applied to CAS appeals as opposed to the hearing after an ADRV has been asserted. Some text pasted/subscribed below. Feel free to provide an explanatory analysis: maybe you have experience of this?
“I don’t really expect time served here.”
Idk what date Simmonds’ provisional suspension started but has to be after the AAF was communicated to Simmonds (late January aiui) and probably after the ‘B’ sample confirmed AAF. The ITA bulletin does not give a date but it’ll be in February. If a period of ineligibility is imposed then the ‘time served’ from xx Feb will count towards it. If three months, then May. @BDoughtie says “5th February” - must have missed this (source)?
Definitions (from IM A-D Rules):
“Provisional Hearing: For purposes of Article 7.4.3, an expedited abbreviated hearing occurring prior to a hearing under Article 8 that provides the Athlete with notice and an opportunity to be heard in either written or oral form.”
Article 8:
“For any Person who is asserted by IRONMAN to have committed an ADRV, IRONMAN shall provide a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a fair, impartial and Operationally Independent hearing panel”
@TheStroBro you can access the rules and control ‘F’ to find "expedited yourself: see if you can discern more.
From ITA"s database (which I had no clue was a thing until last night).
Simmonds, Imogen Carlina Switzerland Ironman Provisional Suspension (since 5 February 2025) On-going
That’s why to me if she got provisional suspended without her knowing her hair samples results and was full bore on “I’m innocent” even without the sample data in her hand as additional evidence, that gives a little more credence to the facts of the case.
Well sleuthed, Brooks!
- AAF communication in late January; leaves Lanza
- Close to immediate request for ‘B’ sample test (standard practice needing little consideration).
- I suspect Simmonds, after the ‘B’ sample confirmation, with advice, voluntarily accepted a Provisional Suspension (text of article below) - because whatever her defence an ADRV was pretty certain to be supported by a subsequent hearing (as it will be). May as well start the clock: might be only 3 or 6 months, and missing no races that ‘matter’.
- Subsequent efforts to discover source etc and hair sample sampling/analysis.
- Leakage of info, newshound pursuit
- Felt forced to defend publicly (am 26th February)
- ITA (assume with Ironman and once Simmonds had posted) went public with announcement of provisional suspension (same day)
- Under Article 14.3.1 IM “may” disclose (delegated to ITA): it’s up to them.
7.4.4 Voluntary Acceptance of Provisional Suspension
Athletes on their own initiative may voluntarily accept a Provisional Suspension
if done so prior to the later of: (i) the expiration of ten (10) days from the report
of the B Sample (or waiver of the B Sample) or ten (10) days from the notice of
any other anti-doping rule violation
I don’t like this may or may not publicly disclose a provisional suspension. I think they need to stick to a SOP like pretty much every other angle/process within doping controls. Every step of the process needs to be above reproach and this “may” add line to the procedures just seems to muddy the waters. (And I don’t even care if it should or shouldn’t be announced, I more care for the consistency/transparency of it).
I don’t see how she isn’t given full clearance, if they allow “no fault” as an reason for clearance. This seems sorta an open and shut case imo at this point.
I’m jv at sleuthing, your the expert here on ST for all things rules/regulations. Learned from the best, lol.
I don’t know how many links have to be posted for you to just accept that you’re wrong. Here is the Anti-Doping Authority for New Zealand
https://sportintegrity.nz/news/the-truth-about-sarms
This was posted on 9 MAR 25, by me. This is not the “Australian Position”. This is the position of many countries to include NZ.
It really wouldn’t. Anti Doping agencies don’t really put much provenance in hair samples. (I mentioned this previously but I realise this thread continues to have a life because an individual doesn’t want to let it lay which means the rest of us replay). 
I’ve already quoted the WADA code for you. I know this significantly in greater detail for a variety of reasons and you continue to argue.
She had a competition as a contracted athlete for Singapore, in the WADA code, which Ironman is a signatory of and ITA follows she is entitled to an expedited hearing. Not a “provisional” one. Expedited hearings are granted where there is “significant” or “major” competition within 10 days.
Perhaps we’ll see a hearing result before Ironman Texas. But I doubt it since she’s a T100 contracted athlete. The result of an expedited hearing is the same as a regular one, the step following that if you still profess innocence is an appeal.
But the point that you don’t seem willing to understand is this all runs on Imogen’s timeline, if she wants an expedited hearing, she gets one. If she wants the slow train, she gets that. What I still can’t seem to get out of this is what you get for being right about her “guilt” that is driving you to write non-sensical essays that ignore everything you’ve been educated on in this thread.
If your telling me this case was, 5 years ago, I’d agree with you. If your telling me that now athletes can go in and prove “no fault” and get cleared or only have a “time served” penalty, I don’t necessary agree with hair samples not mattering.
Looking at all the facts, I don’t see how she doens’t get fully cleared. A “time served” penalty looks like it would be out the window since if they are saying it would be no fault, they would have to fully clear her. So it seems like this is going towards a fully cleared or almost a full santioning.
We’ll see, but at this point given the lack of desire to clear their name this could have been a Chartier because she could have told no one and come up with a bogus story. But she told ended up telling probably 20 people who then told 10 who then told another 10…
Also curious on why you think this is going to a “no fault” ADRV? Given that the only thing we actually know about this case her instagram post and yet we’ve had an almost 700 post thread about it…I will admit I’m guilty of pushing the discussion but having people dismiss the illegality of the drug has annoyed the hell out of me.
Thank you for posting that again. This is a sports website and when they say “illegal” they mean it’s illegal in a sports anti-doping sense. HTH
Try this:
" Bringing medicines into New Zealand on your person or in luggage
If you are arriving into New Zealand and carrying prescription medicines (other than controlled drugs) either on your person or in your luggage you must ensure:
- You declare the possession of those medicines on your incoming passenger arrival card . . .
All other medicines including herbal medicines, dietary supplements and over-the-counter medicines may be imported without the above documentation provided they do not contain prescription medicines."
(I have checked: Ligandrol shows ‘nil result’ searching on Medsafe’s ‘prescription medicine’ list.)
https://medsafe.govt.nz/compliance/FAQs.asp
But remember, whether or not Ligadrol is illegal in NZ is irrelevant (to Simmonds’ case).
The hair sampling and analysis results will seek to show/confirm/evidence that Simmonds’ boyfriend was using during the relevant period. Period. I suggest the ITA hearing panel will (or already have) place sufficient weight on the results of a reputable lab. Testing samples takes a few days btw, inter-research suggests (so three weeks between 5th and 26th February is plenty).
I mentioned this previously but I realise that some have difficulty grasping the detail/logic.
Simmonds’ negative hair analysis result will not be used to show she did not have Ligandrol metabolites in her system/urine, 'cos clearly she did.
Again HTH, and thank you for your continued apparent interest in this matter.
1 Like
Ultimately the legality of the drug in question doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things.
It’s whether or not Imogen either intentionally, recklessly, or negligently ingested the drug and subsequently tested positive for it – all of which require some degree of suspension. Or if she truly has no fault / negligence in the case.
For the record: let’s assume for a moment that the hearing panel determines a finding of no fault / negligence. Imogen will still have an AAF on her record. That’ll be fine to discuss.
Also, some of y’all need to re-read the article we wrote during the TRH saga about how procedurally this stuff works. If a sport decides that they want provisional suspensions announced, they can. If that sport prefers to wait until the actual sanction is announced, they can. IRONMAN gives itself latitude in these cases to have ITA announce provisional suspensions in cases where they feel like it makes sense (namely when athletes go ahead and try to announce it themselves, whether as part of a PR or appeal strategy).
Now back to mainlining caffeine after traveling to the new home…
Specific to the provenance of hair samples. It’s not about whether the lab is reputable, it’s about whether the results are continuously repeatable from person to person and anti-doping tribunals generally don’t value them. They’re just color information that may support the an argument that is already close to being accepted.
I liken them to polygraph’s which is funny, because they use them in natural bodybuilding. Yet polygraphs are inadmissible in every court in the US.
That’s sorta whaty I’m arguing. That makes no real sense if your talking about an process that every detail of every rule is dissected. It would seem to make more sense to either announce all provisional suspensions or don’t. This letting a sport decide…what is that then based on? The facts of the case, the person in question…it seems to lead to more questions then answers.
Because ultimately the sport is the governing body and gets to decide. IRONMAN is its own signatory.
Simmonds had no “significant” or “major” competition within 10 days (February) so an application for an expedited hearing would not be valid.
WADA 8.2 Event Hearings
Hearings held in connection with Events may be conducted by an expedited process as permitted by the rules of the relevant Anti-Doping Organization and the hearing panel.53
53 [Comment to Article 8.2: For example, a hearing could be expedited on the eve of a major Event where the resolution of the anti-doping rule violation is necessary to determine the Athlete’s eligibility to participate in the Event or during an Event where the resolution of the case will affect the validity of the Athlete’s results or continued participation in the Event.
Rather than concerning yourself with my motives and what ephemeral benefit your fertile imagination seems to require, I counsel a period of introspection. I sense that you have taken a step towards that with an admission of guilt in pushing the discussion further than you’re comfortable.
It must be frustrating to grapple with the idea that a drug (which I heartily depreciate btw) is not illegal in a non-sporting context.
Has anyone anywhere in the world been prosecuted for either its possession or use? Worth taking a long breath and spending time riding your bike (rather than wasting your time finding ‘nil result’/‘not found’).
Here’s a ‘UK SARMs’ article (which i expect you’ll dismiss 
) to bump your gums on, after a long ride.
Right but what I’m saying is that if that’s the case, there is no transparency on why IM would or wouldn’t divolve public information. Will they keep it hush if they like you or are a former champion? But if you have too many drafting penalties or race too many Challenge races will they “out” you? Correct me if I’m wrong that’s basically the worst process we’d want in this type of real world consequences.
I’d rather have it black or white that YES provisional suspension is automatically public knowledge or it isn’t. This “may” can be very much ambigious.
It is never going to be black and white, Brooks. Doping cases aren’t black and white, as much as we want them to be.
The relevant language from IRONMAN’s rulebook:
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.
The only time that turns into a must is following a hearing where a suspension comes out.
Ironman is a signatory to the WADA Code, the WADA code is what drives the “lack” of transparency. As has been mentioned multiple times in this thread, as anti-doping violations for the most part are not crimes, the confidentiality is a benefit to both the competition organizer and the accused athlete. Because if they are innocent, it never happened. But once they are found to have fault, then the sanction is published. That’s how sports discipline works.
1 Like