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.
2 Likes
I think the problem is that she can’t PROVE she didn’t. In the end, this will come down to “Do you believe her excuse or don’t you?” and/or “Do you believe in zero tolerance or don’t you?”
Nobody can prove a negative…
Not at this point…as noted above, the testing accuracy and specificity has far exceeded the idea of “zero tolerance” for some substances.
4 Likes
You might as well also strip her credit away for an original excuse. This seems to be the go to get of jail free card.
It is not the first time that a female athlete has tested positive for ligandrol or its metabolites and stated that it was the result of bodily fluid exchange. Sprint canoeist Laurence Vincent Lapointe was suspended in 2019 for testing positive for ligandrol. After a lengthy investigation, the International Canoe Federation accepted Lapointe’s evidence that her ex-boyfriend had ingested ligandrol, her test result was due to bodily fluid exchange, and rescinded the suspension.
Curler Briane Harris was suspended in March 2024 for four years after both her A and B sample were positive for ligandrol. Harris won her appeal at the Court of Arbitration for Sport , arguing unknown ingestion due to bodily contact with her husband, returning to sport earlier this year.
Your post proves nothing except that it’s possible to submit a contaminated sample and test positive. Or not.
2 Likes
Amazing how many husbands/boyfriends are using performance enhancing drugs with absolute no knowledge from their professional athlete significant other. 
4 Likes
Amazing how many husbands/boyfriends do lots of things with absolute no knowledge from their significant other.
In a setting where the specific PED is not illegal, the male partner isn’t a competitor in a sport where use of the PED violates rules, and the female partner isn’t aware of the risk of a contaminated specimen, what is she to do? For example, if the partner was an actor preparing for an action movie, where PED use is common, or a body builder? Is a vegan who lives with someone who only eats paleo guilty of anything? The partners in a relationship with different religions may each have practices that are forbidden by the other.
1 Like
What setting is using PED legal?
Ligandrol is a black market drug not approved for human use. I am confused.
7 Likes
I know right… lol
Hopefully WADA tightens up this loophole and sets a precedent to avoid future dopers from claiming the same.
For ligandrol, simple possession may be illegal in Switzerland, and I agree with you that knowing her partner illegally obtained an drug is a piece of evidence against her, but the idea that she HAD to be fully aware of what he is doing is inconsistent with—well, all of human history, literature, music, art, etc.
“PED”, to me, refers to any drug that could plausibly be used to enhance performance, and many have legitimate medical uses. There are settings where these drugs approved for one indication may be used for other purposes where, while maybe not medically advisable, might not be explicitly illegal–in the US, anyone legally qualified to prescribe a medication can prescribe it for any indication, not just the one its approved for. So, again, the partner of an actor given a short course of steroids to prepare for a role would be quite likely to test positive for that steroid if asked to give a urine specimen within a day or two of intercourse.
1 Like
The burden is on the athlete to understand these things. That’s a known part of the deal. With all the contaminated supplements out there and different ways something can get in your body, it’s not a small task. I’ve heard some athletes on podcasts say it’s one of the hardest things to navigate as a pro athlete since you can only control so much. And people being people, there are also pro athletes who are not cautious and don’t educate themselves on how contamination can happen and don’t spend time making sure their supplements are clean.
For someone working their butts off trying to stay clean, it absolutely sucks that they can still get dinged for stuff out of their control. For the athletes who are lazy/sloppy about it, I don’t have a lot of sympathy when they get popped even if they didn’t intentionally cheat. It’s part of their job to rigorously police what makes it into their bodies. The sexual transmission risk sounds like it’s been a known risk for a while, so the athletes who do their homework should understand that risk.
Maybe Simmonds did ask her SO all the questions and he lied to her. But that’s going to be impossible to prove. A positive test puts the burden on the athlete to prove their innocence which is really tough. On several of the cases mentioned in this thread, it seems like giving a plausible explanation can be enough to reduce the penalty but usually not eliminate it. For a pro athlete with positive test, there is no downside to denial and giving a plausible explanation. Worst case, it builds some positive PR and some people/sponsors might believe you. Best case, you get a free pass or reduced penalty.
1 Like
I don’t disagree with that at all. But if you’re going to have a 0 tolerance policy, then I think the governing bodies have a responsibility to make the potential mechanisms for a positive test clear. I was struck when I first looked into this that there were several previous examples, but, unless I’m missing it, nothing on the WADA web page. Especially since this is a potential risk limited primarily to female athletes, if the onus is on them to “educate themselves”, there needs to be an official source for that education that is kept up to date.
1 Like
Many are legal and to be found in cough medicines.
I’d also add that it seems like it would be quite feasible to test urine specimens for the presence of semen to rule out this possibility, and if it’s been known well enough that athletes are responsible for “doing their homework” (without a specific official "textbook, apparently), then the anti-doping bodies should be incorporating it into their protocols.
2 Likes
Define “legal”.
A lot of defense of the use of PEDs here. I am heading over to the unpopular opinions thread. 
3 Likes
Viagra is a PED
1 Like
How exactly does that solve anything? The presence of semen only proves the presence of semen. Just because semen is present doesn’t mean there was contamination. Would it help the case for a plausible explanation is some cases? I guess, but there isn’t any causation here. The only big benefit I see from adding a test for semen would be for a female doper’s significant other (constant sex to help cover up the doping)…
1 Like
By definition, the presence of semen in a urine specimen from a female would be proof that there WAS contamination of the SPECIMEN. That specimen would have no evidentiary value at all in determining whether the female athlete was using, and another sample would need to be obtained.
4 Likes
And, conversely, the absence of semen eliminates contamination as an excuse
1 Like