Which athletes and which sports? Do you have dates and details?
The devil is in the detail. Not saying they don’t exist. I am not emotionally invested in innocent or guilty, but you have to sit on the fence and get splinters in your arse until a final decision is made.
provisional suspended , so no she is not defo guilty, as this is being established atm , she failed a doping test
yes she has not been able to race for 7 month now.
Nope she is absolutely guilty of failing a drug test for a banned substance. She isn’t appealing her suspension on the grounds of a bad test (ie she didn’t have the drug in her system). Her justification for a no-fault appeal (not not guilty btw) is that she knowingly and willfully maintained a relationship with a person who is knowingly using a banned substance.
They may give her a no fault conclusion but that in no way absolves her of having the banned substance in her system nor the horrible judgement of maintaining a relationship with an admitted doper as a professional athlete. Certainly sucks to have to choose between those you love and your profession but it also sucks that one very well could have cost her the other.
I shared details of Lapointe and Harris a few posts back. Plus Simmonds is 3. @Engner66 's fourth: no idea - please share.
And for a fellow engineer, I have neither personal investment nor connection with Simmonds.
As for ‘emotion’, I just like a good story and I can see that the ITA hearing or CAS may judge that on the balance of probabilities that Simmonds bears ‘no fault or negligence’, and there is precedent for such a judgement.
I guess we owe Kelly a dubious slow hand clap for forcing this into the public domain, and a Slowtwitch thread of 782, so far.
So there is a chance the substance was NOT in her system?
Re: ligandrol positives claiming boyfriend contamination: Lapointe, Harris and Simmonds. I mistakenly counted Jack, but she claimed it was a supplement and got suspended.
My contention throughout this and my biggest frustration is that Athlete Discipline the system is very clear. You don’t have a presumption of innocence. She she is presumed guilty until proven otherwise. That’s why she can’t race.
She, and other athletes in her situation, are not “presumed” anything at this point in the process. At this point, she is guilty of testing positive for a banned substance and that substance level was sufficiently high to indicate cheating as per WADA code. She is currently serving the provisional suspension warranted by being found guilty of a positive doping test. If she had not been guilty, she would not be serving the suspension (ie a B sample tested negative or the A sample was deemed to be incorrectly collected/tainted).
What is still to be decided is if the athlete’s blood test was a result of intentional, accidental, negligent, or no fault actions by the athlete. Currently, we have “evidence” submitted by the athletes legal team which may explain how the test result returned a positive finding. If we assume that this evidence is sufficient, there will then need to be a decision made as to whether or not sleeping with a “doping” boyfriend is a negligent or no fault action, the same way allowing a masseuse to use a banned massage oil may or may not have been negligent behavior. If the CAS decides to dispute the “evidence” submitted by the legal team on the basis of its non-standardized and irrefutable collection policy, then there have been no other sources proposed by the athlete which may indicate that the positive test was a result of negligent and no fault actions and could very well have been intentional.
That’s my point. But we have a bunch of folks in here saying she’s “not guilty” essentially.
I would suggest the reason we have this particular defense being used, is precisely because every female in professional sport is aware of this particular get out of jail free card, and those that get caught employ it.
I became aware of this defense the instant I started following individual professional sports athletes. Indeed my first exposure to this defense was when one commentator said that for a man they have to be prepared to claim they are gay and were frequenting bathhouses. Now that seems like BS locker room talk, but the fact that it was talked about so matter of factly as kind of inside joke beggars belief that a performance obsessed athlete who measures out carbs by the gram and nutrients by the milligrams AND IS regularly drug tested isn’t aware of this
her defence is so hilarious. every time i read this thread i leave with a massive grin and 10 years younger.
yeah i used a dirty towel last time i went to the bathhouse. i broke out in full on acne and my sex drive was out of control!!!
We already discussed it. It may be irrelevant to you and me who the person is, we judge them for their actions. Sadly most people don’t act in the same way and it’s easier to throw garbage at a random Mexican guy not many knew about than a well educated Swiss who was popular amongst athletes and brands and has nice connections
AAF - test result
“The athlete now has the opportunity to present her explanations for the result.”
ADRV - based on evidence of wrongdoing
Explanation of the cause of above evidence (aka defence) - Mondaq article - the-defence-of-intimate-contact (5th July)
I encourage people to read this excellent article which looks at the previous case (Harris) - I have clipped a few sentences and subscribe them.
I wonder if Tom Sprange KC of King & Spalding International LLP in London, UK is involved in this case?
"Guilty and “innocent” are terms or minimal utility here, until:
ITA Hearing when a decision on “guilt” will be made and provisional suspension be made permanent (with a period specified) or the suspension lifted (either no fault or no significant fault).
If latter case (in Simmonds’ case) may include a suspension but likely will have been served by August 6 (6 months after Simmonds accepted provisional suspension).
Quotes from Mondaq article - the-defence-of-intimate-contact
“Article 10.5 of the WADA code allows an athlete to have a period of ineligibility resulting from a positive test to be struck out should they prove no fault or negligence.” (aka “not guilty” if you must)
(Harris) "CAS was satisfied that the evidence presented supported the conclusion that intimate contact was the source of the prohibited substance in the Athlete’s body, noting the trace amounts of the substance in the Applicant’s urine sample, the husband’s testimony and expert evidence regarding Ligandrol and its capacity to remain detectable after a single exchange of bodily fluids.
"CAS did observe that the hair testing did not meet the same standards as the urine testing, however, stated that it was useful as it narrowed the potential sources of the substance.
“CAS conscientiously elected not to impose standards of communication between spouses in its decision, as doing so would be akin to adjudicating the dynamics of intimate and personal relationships. CAS deemed this to be outside of its jurisdiction, and may likely amount to overreach should anti-doping or other governing bodies attempt to intervene. CAS noted further that the Athlete’s husband was not an international athlete and could not be bound by anti-doping regulations”
(unlike Sinner’s masseur who was a designated “Athlete Support Person”)
Yeah. Ultimately I take issue with the “guilty” part. The effective standard here as the process plays out is like you’re being held in custody while awaiting trial – it’s the potential for additional harm in the event that the suspension is confirmed through the hearing process that is being prevented by a preliminary suspension. So, yes, there’s most definitely evidence here. The question is whether that evidence is mitigated by other factors that eliminate her culpability – as nearly all doping cases require some degree of intent or recklessness.
We’re at the “awaiting trial” part. She may still be cleared of wrongdoing. In the eyes of some she will always be guilty regardless.
It was suggested earlier that an experiment should be done to determine how much contamination occurs through intimacy. Imagine how many dudes would show up for this trial. SheridanTri would show up thinking the $80 was a fee he had to pay.
When did this no fault /unknowingly become part of the doping conversation? I know years ago “contiminated” supplements didn’t get you cleared (or maybe got reduced sentence). Did covid sorta create a time where the PTB’s can address this seemingly more and more occurrence issue? IE 10 years ago this would have been an much “easier” conviction right? “No fault” was never a thing until recently?
No fault / negligence has been a part of the Code since 2015.
Interesting, I feel like it’s only happened over the last few years, or I guess it’s more prolific cases have used that pathway, and thus created “interesting” reasons for why they failed test more recently (and seemingly more often now). Which again if you can get your story accepted, why not, I think Sinner is going to be the poster child of that forever and he actually was convicted.
