I haven’t looked at the details for a while so might be out of date.
I thought you could only receive a reduced punishment of 2 years (reduced from 4) if you admitted responsibility and showed in detail how you doped/who helped you. As far as I understood she can’t get 2 years if she uses the publicly mooted defence.
Yup - I read that there were 60+ AAFs in 2019.
Here’s a recent (May 2025) Journal of Analytical Toxicology paper for you to chew on.
SARMs have similar properties to anabolic steroid agents and have the potential to be misused for performance enhancement in sport due to their anabolic properties as well as their ability to stimulate androgen receptors in the muscle and the bone. Prohibited by WADA since 2008, Ligandrol is one of the more popular SARMs. A urine test of a female athlete turned up a AAF: the major ligandrol metabolite at approximately 90 pg/mL (specimen A) and 200 pg/mL (specimen B). The athlete challenged this anti-doping rule violation and requested a hair test to document possible incidental exposure. About 7 weeks after urine collection, a hair specimen was tested but with a limit of quantitation at 1 pg/mg, no ligandrol was identified. [However] it appears that the athlete was unaware her husband was taking the substance, which was confirmed by his hair test (ligandrol at 7 and 8 pg/mg in 2 × 2.5 cm segments). The Court of Arbitration for Sports accepted the athlete’s explanation that she had been exposed to ligandrol through the exchange of bodily fluids with her husband and lifted her provisional ban. This case demonstrates that drug transfer between two subjects is possible during intimate moments.
How long did it take that case to get resolved? What were the levels detected on Imogen? Was it urine or blood?
Idk which case was subject of paper. Maybe Canadian curler Briane Harris.
Harris was tested on Jan 24, 2024 and notified of AAF on Feb 15.
CAS hearing in August
Decision: Jan 13, 2025: “. . . decided she bears no fault or negligence and that there will be no period of ineligibility.”
Consider, please, how the use of Ligandrol might conceivably benefit a Curler. No, me neither.
As an aside, well done her/them: had a son 7 weeks ago, after a 9 month ‘delay’.
In the case of Laurence Vincent Lapointe (female Canadian canoeist)
Tested July 2019, ooc
Provisional suspension 19th August
ICF’s Doping Control Panel in Lausanne, Switzerland, in December
Decision ‘no fault or negligence’ /26th Jan 2020
In time for final trials for Tokyo 2020,
Subsequently raced in Tokyo July 2021 and two medals
Ref your question wrt Simmonds, think urine: aiui they prefer the urine for SARMs testing and she reports the A sample showed "pico’ levels of Ligandrol metabolites. CAS considering Jack’s appeal noted the pico levels for her as a mitigating factor (she was still banned).
Also worth bearing in mind Simmonds negative test six days before 8th December, (negative as in below the limit of detection (LOD) of 8 pg/ml: qualitative detection of LGD-4033).
So… 5 months? Maybe a resolution is soon to arrive then; we are at the 5 month marker.
The problem she has is her defence whilst plausible has holes in it.
She was with her boyfriend for the whole of the period before and afterwards when he was taking the alleged product. If it is plausible to test positive for the OOC test it is plausible she would have been positive when tested 6 days before and 2 weeks afterwards? If her defence is contamination by bodily fluids why wasn’t she positive for the other 2 tests?
Her defence has more holes than a tea bag and it is up to her to prove how that could have happened. If it wasn’t for the other 2 tests she could have been cleared but now it is up to her to prove conclusively.
Yes - it’s a mystery. How could she not have been “contaminated by bodily fluids” every single day and twice on Sundays?
I invite you to play out that conversation with ambidextrous insight.
The “alleged product” is one which her partner has admitted to consuming and which his hair analysis corroborates (if one accepts those aspects of Simmonds’ statement).
How does it work? Do you test positive the day after you had sex? And after that it’s all negative? So just a small window for the sample to be positive?
I would say, the only way for anyone to find out is to somehow test that. Which is probably why some of the authorities have accepted the defense instead of just going the other way and telling them to get bent.
So no one knows. But that people automatically on here want to accept the defense, it is a defense really of dopers who’ve gotten away with it. Because there is no way actually repeat it. With that said I guess Shelby should have claimed that instead of a burrito.
That is exactly what would make sense. It is such a small trace amount that is detected, so one would expect it would go to 0 quite quickly. Now if it was a huge dose from the test, probably not as quick. Half life and all that comes into play.
Was it made public what amount was found in her sample?
Not sure, but the fact that it wasnt there days before and after, seems to indicate it was a rather small amount. Or it could just be it clears very quickly, I dont know the chemistry of this particular drug works. Seems to hang in the hair for quite a long time…
Or it could possibly be that she had a test 6 days earlier and thought she had a couple of weeks before her next test? Not saying she did, not saying she didn’t. There are lots of possible answers and we won’t know the truth until afterwards.
Was she busted for a performance enhancer or a masking agent? Can’t remember.
Ligandrol - a SARM. So actual enhancer, as opposed to the current running story, which was a diuretic / masking agent.
Elimination half-life is 24-36 hours.
As you correctly mention, there’s still an awful lot left to be discovered. Given the ITA has still left this as a provisional suspension, we can assume that everything from no fault / negligence to 4 years is on the table.
She didn’t disclose that, just at the picogram level and compared it to a dash of salt in a swimming pool. Saying that though isn’t relevant, WADA labs to be certified have to be able to detect below 5 picograms. Theoretically some of them might be able to detect down to a femtogram.
good to read an post that is worthwhile to read
kind of funny there is still people that want to push she is defo innocent or she is defo dirty at this stage.
Well she is defo suspended for violation of doping standards. So she is currently defo guilty. She may have her suspension reduced to a no fault suspension but that doesn’t change she had a banned substance and she has a self claimed doper in her inner circle so innocent is off the table.
I still find it astonishing the amount of elite or professional female athletes that are dating dudes that are using this particular, potentially dangerous and illegal substance.
What is that amount, very very roughly, that you find “astonishing”?
To help you, it’s estimated that there are 11,400 professional athletes (all sports) in the UK (pop = 70M) and well less than half are women.
I suggest a more reasonable ‘learning’ is that athletes need to recognise and mitigate all the hazards of substances specified as ‘WADA illegal’, and the proscribed methods, and take rigorous steps to mitigate the risks not just to ALARP but to ‘negligible’: and this is a hazard/route to add to the list for women.
If nothing else positive comes of this Simmonds imbroglio, there’s an increased proportion of female athletes who now realise this means of contamination (whether or not judged the cause for Simmonds’ ADRV) is a faint possibility and have a robust conversation with their male partners.
We have four cases so far, that’s in my view a really high number. Same illegal substance, etc. Of course you will disagree because you are personally and emotionally invested in trying to convince the world she is innocent.