Blimy. If this is true, that poor lady must be feeling awful. Having to provide a detailed explanation like this because of something her partner has done is no doubt difficult. It would be interesting to hear her partner’s thoughts too.
Now female athletes have yet another layer of responsibility, and trust, to worry about.
I’m usually extremely skeptical of contamination excuses, but in this case, she tested negative 6 days before her positive test and 22 days afterwards. Given the tiny amount of the drug found in her system, those two other tests go to support the contamination theory. That being said, being tested 3 times (out of competition) in 28 days sounds a bit high, so maybe she was being targeted for some reason.
That’s what caught me as well - completely shocked that a T100 athlete was tested 3x in a month given that in 2023 PTO didn’t have a testing protocol set up for any of their athletes.
Ever since Jack Burkes positive over a decade ago, I’m always at least somewhat willing to entertain contamination or similar theories. The trace amounts of substances these tests have been able to detect for at least a decade is impressive, id be interested to hear exactly how much of the substance was in her system - surely it would have to be an extremely low amount.
Great excuse lol. These people are unbelievable. I wish she’d just be honest and own it… “yes, I doped, because the other top level people fighting for podiums are and I wanted to take this seriously as a career. Sorry to my sponsors for getting caught. I’ll see you all again when my suspension is served!”
There’s a few problems… either her partner is using a PED and she knew about it, or perhaps worse was lying to her and hiding it. Not good either way.
The amount that triggered the positive was not released. Just a statement from her team that it was a “small amount.”
Being tested 3 times in 28 says is a sign the doping agency was suspicious.
If she is innocent, it is sad that it had to come out this way.
If it was a small amount it wouldn’t have been called positive by the doping authorities.
The amount is reportedly picogram levels of a metabolite of the banned substance
So yes, it was an extremely small amount. Also, her hair sample tested negative while her partner’s hair sample tested positive.
So I think she certainly has enough evidence to mount a defense. Whether it will be successful or not is a different question. I also state that as the person who started this thread mocking her defense.
Thanks to @EMyers for educating us on the potential for this type of adverse test result.
I have no idea who her partner is, but perhaps WADA / local agencies were aware of his activities and were therefore testing her, as well.
Which again raises the issue of women being held to standards that male athletes aren’t as they now have to be responsible for their partners’ activities.
According to her claims, her genius boyfriend literally brought WADA prohibited drugs into the household as he was using them to get BUFF. https://www.trizone.com.au/sex-lies-and-ligandrol-simmonds-blames-partner-for-failed-drug-test/
This hits a little different for me than an athlete drinking well water that was tainted. Not necessarily saying she deserves a max suspension if this is true, but feels like this situation has factors which are more controllable than some other excuses I have heard.
So she needs to be responsible for her boyfriend’s behavior as well as her own?
I’m sorry, but that is insane and just another way that we find ways to burden women but not men.
Under the WADA strict liability rules, this is no different for any other athlete, man or woman. You are responsible for what gets into your body, no matter what. No matter how it gets into your body.
If you are on a World Tour cycling team, you part of a huge organization. You are responsible for anything that gets in you. That means you are responsible for the behavior or your coach/trainer, all the soigneurs, all the nutrition suppliers, etc. You are also responsible for anything that comes into your household.
Being responsible for the actions of others is far far far from unique in the current system. You can argue that the system needs to change, but not that this is uniquely unfair to her.
I don’t necessarily think it’s unfair. I do want to see how this is handled from a suspension standpoint though as what I think a reasonable solution would be a 6 or 9 month suspension rather than a multi year ban.
Being responsible for everything that goes into your system is fine, but not considering trace amounts of a banned substance could get into your system via intercourse is also a reasonable thing not to consider, if in fact they can prove it through prior purchase history and whatever else they may do to prove it was her partner.
There are tiers of punishment in other industries and I’d like to see that here (again, if proven).
I don’t see where you’re coming from. If a male rider tested positive because his female partner had banned substances in the house, or they were watching the male rider because they were aware of his partner’s purchases, it would be the same. Same for a gay couple (of either sex). Just because in this one case a woman claims she got it from her male partner doesn’t mean she’s being held to a different standard.
Edit: for the record, I’m absolutely not saying women don’t have to deal with all kinds of issues and a system that is often geared against them, they do and it is. I just don’t see it in this specific case.
The difference is that a woman is not in control of another person’s bodily fluids. It is unreasonable, IMO, to put the brunt of responsibility on her because someone she ostensibly trusts and cares for did something without her knowledge. Obviously, this would apply to gay male athletes, as well.
If there is a case where a straight man has to be unduly burdened about what his sexual partner does with her body, perhaps I would feel differently.
ETA - we are also not talking about having banned substances “in the house”. we are talking about the most intimate details of someone’s personal life.
Also, the concept of “zero tolerance” has long been outlived by the level of specificity that these tests can now deliver. There is a balance that can’t be sustained between zero tolerance and this level of specificity. If an athlete goes to a restaurant that bought meat raised with hormones, what is that athlete supposed to do….save a sample of every meal they ever consume? We are reaching the point of being unreasonableness.
It seems like you are getting all wrapped up in this because it involves sexual relations. Just take that out for a moment. Lets say someone’s coach, who they trust and care for puts performance enhancing drugs in their athlete’s recovery drink without their knowledge. The athlete is responsible for this. Why is this any different? It’s not, other than how they got the fluids inside them.
I still think zero tolerance is a good policy. My thought is that we need to set levels of punishment commiserate with the amount found in your system. For cases that they find minute levels of a banned substance that would be below a level that would be performance enhancing and would suggest that contamination would be a likely cause, maybe give a 6 month ban. Maybe you get 3 of these bans and the punishment increases. Just something that distinguishes the difference between catching a doper red handed and these cases where the tests are picking up minute amounts of a drug that wouldn’t that don’t suggest an athlete is on a doping program.
Let’s not forget that the bodily fluid thing is her response. It’s not proven that that’s how she got it. It could easily be in her system many other ways. If we say “it’s ok if it’s bodily fluids but not ok if it’s rubbed in or residual from sharing food (or whatever)” then guess what happens when someone rubbing it in or eating it pops positive. “Oh, I wasn’t rubbing it in, and I didn’t consume it, it was inadvertent transfer of bodily fluids”. Suddenly everyone in the Peloton who gets busted will be “swapping fluids with people who dope”.
There would be a substantial difference in the amount found in a person’s system between “rubbing it in” or taking it orally, intravenously, etc. vs. the situation Simmonds is claiming.
And the evidence (as portrayed by her at this point) would seem to back that up….very trace amounts that were not there in either prior or later samples and her hair tested negative.
Which, IMO, gives credence to the idea that the level of specificity has exceeded the decades-old “you are responsible for anything you put in your body”. That was fine when the testing could only detect levels that were commensurate with actual doping. They can now detect levels far below that point. I believe it has reached a point where it is putting an undue burden on athletes.
We need to set levels of punishment commiserate with doping, not accidental ingestion or absorption.
Some cases are going to be very hard to prove if it is accidental ingestion versus doping.
What if her partner is playing scapegoat and ingested HER ped to help with the defense? Assuming her partner isn’t a professional athlete and potentially has nothing to lose.
