This is what we would call a “slippery slope fallacy”
I think for some drugs there aren’t. Mostly because when they started testing for them the testing methods weren’t good enough to detect levels that low. So a positive test was automatically above a certain threshold. But testing has gotten so good that you can detect truly minimal amounts of substances well below what would cause any sort of performance enhancement and could definitely be caused incidentally.
I guess they are going to have to work out half life’s then. Then adjust testing frequency to match.
Speaking in general… a low level of a substance doesn’t mean much in regards to guilt or innocence (remember, according to the WADA code, if the substance is in you, you’re guilty. It’s a matter of how much at fault you are that determines the punishment). On its own, it doesn’t give enough information. If a tiny amount of a banned substance is detected, is it because a tiny amount entered their system because of contamination? or was it because they doped far enough ahead of the test so that the residual amount left in their system is tiny.
In this specific case, there was a negative test 6 days before the anti-doping violation and another negative test 22 days after. That lends credence to contamination being a likely cause. So, there is an anti-doping violation that she is guilty of, but the punishment may be reduced because of her level of “guilt” is potentially very low (see the Jannik Sinner case from February).
Agree to disagree. This isn’t speculating on new behavior as much as an expansion of current behavior. For decades, athletes have manufactured plausible explanations for their positive doping tests (even in the current environment where those explanations are largely ignored). If the governing bodies started giving free passes any time a plausible/likely explanation held up, do you honestly think the dopers wouldn’t game that and be even smarter about manufacturing their explanations?
The current process is imperfect, athletes are basically guilty until proven innocent once a positive test is triggered. Innocence is a very difficult thing to prove when the test shows something in your body. In this case, maybe the negative hair sample is enough to prove innocence, I don’t know the science of how sensitive that hair test or whether it should take precedent over the positive result. The rules are not really about intent or whether the athlete gained a competitive advantage based on the amount of substance, it’s whether that substance was in their body at an illegal level. It would be great if they could devise a system that could accurately determine intent/knowledge of cheating, but until someone creates a lie detector that’s 100% accurate I don’t know how you get there.
I mean supposedly her partner purchased the drug and was taking it without her knowing. He could have very easily have been giving it to her as well. Would she still be guilty?
The hair sample was from her team. Not to mention per [this article](LGD-4033, S-4 and MK-2866 – Testing for SARMs in hair: About 2 doping cases - ScienceDirect Ligandrol is not detectable in a hair sample.
The system we have will have to do until something is better. As posted up thread these cases are usually due to micro-dosing, but like you said, there’s no way to ever really know.
Yup…I have been very careful to note that this claim is by her and her team.
Which I suppose can then be used to counter her claim that her partner’s hair tested positive for it.
Lots of people keep saying this but I can’t find anything about microdosing Ligandrol. Again, in this case we are talking about extreme trace amounts, sandwiched in between two negative tests.
What defines “better”?
From that article, it looks like the primary source for the story is the accused and her team. Maybe I’m just jaded by the long history of doping and ensuing explanations, but anything they are saying I’ll take with a grain of salt. Does it sound plausible? Sure. But I’ll wait to see how her “expert investigation” goes before putting too much stock in the explanation. Will it really be an unbiased expert opinion, or just paying someone to add some credibility? This is the same playbook we see over and over. It just feels like damage control and typical PR when the accused is making statements like this -
The swimming pool analogy plays great, makes it sound like no big deal and couldn’t possibly have an effect. Is there any science behind that? Is she the expert that can say the concentration doesn’t have any effect when obviously it’s above the allowed amount per the test? Does the amount in her system at the time of testing tell us anything about how much might have been in her system 2 days prior? Again, there is no science here, just words from the accused.
Being jaded is reasonable. I’m no longer jaded, I just assume they’re all playing in the gray area anymore and sometimes gray goes too far.
Maybe it’s been discussed above and I’ve missed it, but I think ligandrol is a drug to add muscle (or technically it may have been developed to reduce wasting in sick).
I’m not going to pretend I know her training program, but I’d have a hard time thinking adding size is something she’d be after. I’d also doubt she’s taking it to reduce muscle waste.
The combination of trace amounts, her stated excuse, plus the fact that it’s a bulk/size adding steroid make me lean towards this being a somewhat legitimate excuse.
We’ll see. From a punishment standpoint, having her not race until this is all concluded and calling it “time served” once this concludes seems reasonable.
What’s the “allowed amount”? Isn’t 0?
As with @Power13, I’m agnostic about whether this is a well-researched plausible explanation to hide her own use, or a true case of contamination. I’m not aware of data on ligandrol concentrations in semen, but as a general rule of thumb, for drugs that are in semen, levels are comparable to blood levels. So (references for some of these up-thread)
–Many drugs are detectable at fairly high concentrations in semen
–In addition, male ejaculate also contains urine, a secondary source for drug
–For some drugs, levels are high enough to cause an effect in the female–there are at least 3 cases of anaphylactic penicillin reactions that can only be traced back to exposure to semen https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(19)30253-0/fulltext
–60% of female urine specimens obtained within 24 hours of unprotected intercourse have evidence of semen/sperm
–There are several other cases with similar claims, and at least one was accepted by the governing body
So the question here is not “Is it plausible that her partner’s use of ligandrol resulted in the presence of drug in the ejaculate which subsequently was present in her urine specimen and detected at picogram levels?” , because the answer to that is yes.
There’s probably not enough evidence/data to answer the question “Is this explanation more plausible than others?”
The question “How should one weigh multiple plausible explanations in deciding appropriate sanctions?” is moral/ethical/legal, not really scientific.
The one thing that I do hope comes out of this is that WADA and the relevant governing bodies make a concerted effort to makes sure that female athletes subject to testing are made aware of this possibility.
Looks like another athlete was just popped for the same PED. Let’s see if he also comes up with some ridiculous defensive or accepts accountability.
And I didn’t realise it’s the same drug Shayna Jack (swimmer) got popped for a few years ago. In her case the amount was apparently ‘pharmacologically irrelevant’ but she got two years.
It feels like the system should be relaxed a bit like when they find a few metabolites of something surrounded by negative tests (like in this case). Maybe it should be a strike instead of an immediate violation like when a test is missed?
Still the fact that Simmonds’ SO is doing SARMs that aren’t even a legal supplements is sketchy. I looked at the sarms group on reddit after reading this topic and it is a super sketchy group. I mean, who puts a for rat research only drug in their body?
To me, this is like a pro cyclists’ SO having a bottlle of EPO and some testosterone cream in the medicine cabinet just for fun. Maybe she did not know but in general she should have a zero tolerance towards dating someone that would do this kind of stuff and/or bring it in her house. If her SO cared about her career, he wouldn’t be engaging in this behavior.
This is not very far from “Why didnt Nicole leave OJ sooner?” None of us know the dynamics of a given relationship, whether there’s explicit or implicit coercion, or how honest the couple are with each other. The scenario where she knew he was using (but not explicitly illegally or in contravention of sporting rules) but wasnt aware of the potential risk to herself is plausible. It isnt at all unusual for someone to be in a relationship that is unhealthy, where she may suspect hes unfaithful, but continues for any number of reasons. She is not then morally culpable if she gets a sexually transmitted infection.
I had never heard of this drug previously, but it seems to be a thing with endurance athletes. Makes me more suspect of the contamination claim by Simmonds. Maybe her SO really choose this drug to improve his body and she had no knowledge, but maybe they were both taking it. Here’s another cyclist (amateur masters athlete) getting popped for ligandrol about 4 years ago -
And here’s an article going back about 6 years talking about hair testing vs. urine testing for ligandrol and confirmation of test results. Sounds a little familiar, right? Coincidence or did this help the Simmonds team pull together their story? Again, I’m so jaded on this stuff that I’m probably reading between lines that aren’t there, but I’d put the odds at around 70% that this was intentional cheating based on what has been shared and the history of other athletes using the drug. I’d still say there is a decent possibility she had no clue and it sucks if that’s the case, but that’s how the system is currently designed.
So the next time i want to ingest SARMs and claim innocence all I need to do is to have my partner put the concoction in their mouth. And I would need to give them a deep kiss and suck off the capri sun from their mouth? Kinky. I’m indeed learning from the professionals.
So you created an account on the forum with that name simply to make that comment on this thread?
Well, welcome to the forum.
Believing the excuse on how the PED was transferred is not far from believing If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit.
Again, unless you are aware of some scientific evidence or have some other expertise that you haven’t cited yet, “Small levels of a PED present in semen detected in a urine specimen obtained within 24-48 hours of unprotected intercourse” is absolutely possible, and it’s clearly an area of active investigation in the context of testing for PEDs. Whether it is more likely than other plausible scenarios isn’t clear.
I don’t think anyone is “believing” anything……some are simply saying that there may be some credibility to her claims and she may be able to prove she didn’t dope.