Imogen Simmonds Agrees to No Fault Finding for Positive Test; Free to Compete
Imogen Simmonds, who had been provisionally suspended by the International Testing Agency (ITA) after testing positive for ligandrol metabolites in December 2024, has accepted a finding of no fault for that positive test, according to a release from the ITA.
That means that the Swiss athlete is no longer suspended, and may compete as early as this weekend.
Simmonds wrote on Instagram, “It feels as if I have spent the past 9 months being haunted by this ordeal, and I’m finally able to breathe again.”
Ligandrol is a banned substance at all times by the WADA Code. Ligandrol is a selective androgen receptive modulator (SARM), and primarily used in a medical setting to prevent muscle wasting in hip fracture patients. It is also known to improve lean muscle mass. Ligandrol has been a prohibited substance under the WADA Code for nearly a decade as an other anabolic agent.
When announcing the suspension, Simmonds had raised the defense that her partner had been taking substances containing ligandrol for his own physique, and that “considering the timeline of events: specifically, that I had a negative doping control test six days earlier and 22 days after, and that my partner and I engaged in intimate relations both the day of and day before my…doping control test – my legal team and I have concluded that this substance got into my system via the transfer of bodily fluid.”
The ITA accepted that defense, writing that, “Over the course of the results management proceedings, the athlete was able to establish that the presence of ligandrol in her sample was due to inadvertent contamination through intimate contact with her partner who was taking supplements containing the prohibited substance without her knowledge.”
Ultimately, this led the ITA to offer a finding of no fault or negligence. According to the WADA Code, a finding of “No Fault or Negligence” is defined as “The Athlete or other Person’s establishing that he or she did not know or suspect, and could not reasonably have known or suspected even with the exercise of utmost caution, that he or she had Used or been administered the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method or otherwise violated an anti-doping rule.”
Because the test was taken out of competition, there were no results to disqualify. According to the ITA, both it and IRONMAN consider the matter closed.
Simmonds, in her Instagram post today, wrote that, “I hope that my story can serve as a warning and education for other athletes out there. I wouldn’t wish my experience over the past 9 months on anyone. Yet I fear that given the increased presence of artificial compounds (such as SARMS) in society and numerous other factors that can lead to unexpected ways of transmission, every single athlete is at risk of contamination, in some form.”
“I urge the ITA to make the process for athletes fighting to prove their innocence as transparent and streamlined as possible; athletes have a right to protect themselves, their reputations and their careers.
Just saw that Brian posted a not guilty verdict on a locked thread. Probably some discussion to be had for sure.
I will start and say that it sucks for her that she lost an entire season waiting for this, so in essence got a 1 year suspension. And just when she was coming into top form and a true contender in the T100 series..
Writing this up now.
Turned out exactly how I said it would in the previous thread
So if she was never coerced into going public no announcement would have been made and she would have just stopped racing for a year?
No, all suspensions are posted for public view. Her suspension was no different.
She’s not qualified or Marbella is she?
It’s murky. Provisional suspensions are not necessarily publicized under IRONMAN’s WADA exceptions. Though we’ve seen them be more likely to do so (see, e.g., the Tomas case.)
Anyways. Here we are.
Certainly, her sudden absence from start lists would have likely compelled her to say something before the official suspension announcement.
Lots of athletes have season-long injuries which prevent them from competing. I’m not insinuating that others have employed this technique but it wouldn’t seem out of place in this sport.
“Oh, guess its not healed yet”
I was looking for this 17 hours ago!
HUr-bloody-rah!
Note that WADA could appeal this to CAS. They did when the French fencer was handed down the same decision ‘no fault or negligence’ after being contaminated in a kissing session with an American ex-fencer who, unknown to her, was taking ostarine (a SARM). And it took a year to resolve
“The decision may be challenged before the appeal division of the Court of Arbitration of Sport by the parties with a right of appeal [ie WADA], in accordance with Article 13.2.3 of the IRONMAN anti-doping rules.”
Sure, but she would have to actually lie then.
She’s always going to have this episode in the public’s (or triathlon aficionado’s) consciousness, including for sponsors. Even now that she’s been cleared, there’s always a residual doubt.
Under those circumstances, I can see that lying could be appropriate - if on purely utilitarian terms. If she was found guilty, no one is going to care that she lied (she’d be cast out of the sport anyway) and if she’s cleared, then no one is the wiser.
Huh? I thought ligandrol was still classified as an investigational drug and was not available as a licensed pharmaceutical for medical use. Did I miss something?
What do you mean that Imogen Simmonds “agrees to no fault finding” or “has accepted a no fault finding”
I’m not sure she has much agency in agreeing or accepting whatever the finding of ITA is. And she’s hardly going to not accept or agree to a finding of “no fault” is she!
Dubai and Qatar, at best, if she’s in a fit state to compete. And be welcomed back by her peers after time in a dark place.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DQMhS7siLkx/?img_index=1