Certainly plausible. The burden of proof is on her now and I’d assume they’ll attempt to utilize prior receipts and potentially any electronic communications that may have occurred via text/email from her partners phone/PC/whatever to trace a history of use back to the partner.
To be clear, there is not a single person in professional sport I’d blindly believe, but I’m more willing to let this one play out given the circumstances that have been provided thus far.
We can “what if” scenarios all day….but those continue to ignore the other evidence…namely only trace amounts in one test that was sandwiched between nearby negative tests and the fact that her hair sample tested negative.
Just to be clear….I’m not saying she DIDN’T dope. I’m just saying there may not be not be enough evidence to prove she did.
If that’s the case she’d be in a strong position to claim ‘no fault or negligence’ as per Jannik Sinner, wouldn’t she?
One point that the almost entirely male respondents on this thread may not realize, since many may not be as expert in the anatomy of the female reproductive system as they think: it is EXTREMELY difficult for women to give a urine specimen that is pure urine. 40-70% of female urine specimens collected to look for urine tract infections have vaginal bacteria. In the olden days when residents did their own slide examinations, I’ve seen sperm in urine specimens. It is completely plausible that a urine specimen obtained within 24 hours of intercourse would have picogram levels of a drug that is present in semen. The degree to which the female athete needs to be held responsible for her partner’s behavior is a separate question (moral/ethical) from the biologic/scientific question of “Could a drug present in semen be detectable in a urine specimen of the female partner within 24-48 hours of intercourse?” (absolutely)
Excellent post and information.
Just to add that I appreciate the insight this thread has given me.
When I first looked I began with smirk/snigger about an unusual excuse for a positive result.
I’ve got a lot more understanding for all of the safeguards and precautions an athlete would need to take.
And sadly, in the case of Lizzy Banks , a very sad awareness that there amazing machines that can find micro traces of anything, pharmaceutical companies are not producing purity in their manufacturing processes and the legal systems are archaic and disorganised.
(Drinks my morning coffee wondering what micro traces are in my cup)
She needs to dump her partner. If he can’t get buff without drugs, he is a loser anyway.
“how” the substance got inside them is a massive difference, so that negates your analogy right there.
The differences in the amount of the substance is also a clear differentiating factor, as well as the intent.
I try to be intellectually consistent, so if it could be proven that the athlete’s coach did that without the athlete’s knowledge, I would have no problem not holding the athlete responsible.
The explanation sounds plausible, but I don’t know how it’s possible to prove she didn’t know. This isn’t like criminal law where you are innocent until proven guilty (in many countries), it’s based on a very specific set of procedures and rules. If it happened unknowingly, that really sucks for her, but I think that’s the deal you sign up for as a athlete subject to testing. If they made exceptions when there are plausible explanations, how do you punish dopers who are smart enough to game the system and engineer plausible explanations as part of their doping program? I could see exceptions when it can be proven the athlete couldn’t know, but otherwise I think you have to enforce on a valid positive test. Also, they aren’t doing their case any favors with the following statement -
So, you’ve got the accused athlete and her lawyer making medical conclusions that point to her being innocent… Not exactly unbiased or well qualified conclusions. At least point to a study or an expert opinion in a similar case, anything besides saying the accused and her lawyer have solved the case and it’s not her fault…
I think the issue, or at least the defense people are making, is that there’s no evidence the substance was ever in her system at all. If we’re talking a urine test, it could be a contaminated sample due to a woman’s anatomy. 2 other non-positive tests support this theory. If we’re going to punish someone for having doped semen ON their body, then I think the test might be flawed.
Yep. I initially was thinking about absorption since that’s the issue I deal with most of the time, but contamination is much more plausible. And there is an extensive literature on this.
Paywalled, but the abstract tells the story.
Joki-Erkkilä M, Tuomisto S, Seppänen M, Huhtala H, Ahola A, Karhunen PJ. Urine specimen collection following consensual intercourse–A forensic evidence collection method for Y-DNA and spermatozoa. Journal of forensic and legal medicine. 2016 Jan 1;37:50-4.
The purpose of the prospective research was to evaluate the benefit of urine specimen as a collection technique for biological forensic evidence in adult volunteers following consensual intercourse. For detecting Y-chromosomal material Buccal Swab Spin Protocol® was used in DNA extraction and purification and samples were analysed with Quantifiler Y Human Male DNA Quantification Kit®. The time frame for positive Y-DNA was evaluated. Immediate microscopy for detection of spermatozoa was performed.
Y-DNA was detected in 173/205 (84.4%) urine samples. Of the 86 first post-coital void urine samples available, Y-DNA was detected in 83 (96.5%) specimens. Of the 119 urine samples from volunteers with post-coital activities Y-DNA was still measurable in 70 (58.8%) urine specimens. The male DNA amount was below 0.023 ng/μl in 28/153 (18.3%) urine samples.
Of the 22 urine samples obtained after 24 post-coital hours, 9 (40.9%) were still Y-DNA positive.
No associations were found between coital durance, coital frequency during the past two weeks prior to the study intercourse, post-coital activities, and the urine sample Y-DNA positivity.
Of the 111 urine samples where the immediate microscopy was performed, in 66 (59.5%) samples spermatozoa were verified and one sample even contained motile spermatozoa. Microscopy detected 66 (67.3%) and failed to detect spermatozoa in 32 (32.7%) of Y-DNA positive samples.
In addition to conventional invasive swab techniques, urine samples seem to be an effective biological trace collection method for Y-DNA and spermatozoa within 24 h following penile-vaginal penetration. Furthermore, it may be considered as a non-invasive collection method in suspected acute child sexual abuse cases to diminish time delay in forensic evidence collection and to improve patients’ positive attitudes towards evidence collection.
There are lots of ways a blood or urine test can be misleading, but these are the “approved” tests we have in place and my understanding is that unless proper collection/processing procedures weren’t followed that the results of the test would be considered valid. Unless someone can prove their innocence (maybe her hair sample is enough?), I think the results stand. Again, not a perfect system and clean athletes will sometimes get popped even when careful, but I don’t know how you allow athletes a free pass just because there is a plausible explanation. Again, the smart dopers would always make sure they have an explanation to fall back on. Who’s to say she wasn’t doping intentionally while making sure her boyfriend was taking the banned substance so that she could claim the contamination from him? I don’t think that’s what happened in this case and I think her explanation is plausible, but you can’t let a plausible explanation overturn a positive test or it will open the floodgates for cheaters.
There is evidence, she had a positive test. The time difference between test #1 and Test #3 was 28 days. It only stays in your system for about 21 days. Test #2 is when she tested positive. She very well could have taken it the day after the first test.
There’s a lot of details missing here. I mean has it even been said if this was a urine or blood test?
If she is innocent, this is a truly sad story. (Per her claims) her long-term partner researches and finds a way to purchase a black market drug without her knowing. Uses the drug “to improve his body image,” which then puts her career and reputation on the line.
If this is the case in the very least she should have to return and winnings from the race she tested positive.
Id say its WAY more likely she was micro-dosing and screwed it up THAN the fact that she brushed bodies with a person on PEDs… Cmon now.
Trace amounts means nothing when its a synthetic compound found in your body.
Sorry, you don’t get to negate my analogy.
First - WADA sanctions address special circumstances, and the amount and type of drug. So there is already lenience in the system.
Are you arguing that these athletes shouldn’t be sanctioned at all? You seem to be ok with drugs being in your system via certain methods? (I gave my partner a hug and he had just put on his testosterone cream) Or that if the amount is low enough, we should not care (micro dosing is going to be even more rampant) Or that as long as the athlete can claim they were not aware they should not be punished? (it is always going to be someone else’s doing)
Do you understand what kind of massive loopholes you are opening up here? How would you change the doping regulations if you could?
I didn’t…the facts of the two situations did and I clearly explained how.
You continue to ignore the facts (as asserted by Simmonds team). trace amounts sandwiched in between negative tests and no positive tests from her hair sample. It is easy to deal in absolutes when you choose to ignore certain things, I guess.
And I’m not accepting anything…as I have stated multiple times, there seems to be enough evidence to question the test results. Let the case go through the appeals process. No one is suggesting otherwise. I’m just not willing to convict her based on one adverse finding.
I’ve stated that multiple times above.
No. For some substances, we are already in areas where contamination in drinking water (drug residues) is sufficient.
I guess the “buff” partner will have to use a condom from now on. This relationship is over.
But that doesn’t mean it’s a positive test. Surely the amount has to meet a minimum amount to be considered positive?
Well, I guess this excuse wouldn’t work during my marriage. We never had sex 