*Imogen Simmonds, Laurence Vincent Lapointe
In a growing trend across professional sports, female athletes who have tested positive for banned PEDs are successfully appealing their cases with a novel defense: intimate contact with partners who were using these compounds.
The most recent case involves triathlete Imogen Simmonds, who tested positive for ligandrol, a selective androgen receptor modulator (SARM) that helps build muscle mass. Simmons claims she inadvertently received the substance through intimate relations with her boyfriend, who was taking the performance enhancer.
While this explanation might initially sound like a convenient excuse, Simmons isn’t the first athlete to use this defense. At least two other high-profile cases have seen similar claims upheld by anti-doping authorities.
An 11-time canoe world champion Laurence Vincent Lapointe previously tested positive for a banned PED but was cleared of wrongdoing after claiming her boyfriend was the source of the contamination through intimate contact. She subsequently went on to win two gold medals in competition.
In another notable case, a professional curler also avoided sanctions after arguing that her husband’s use of performance enhancers led to her positive test through physical intimacy.
What makes these cases particularly interesting is that scientific research appears to support the possibility of such transfer. A study demonstrated that certain performance-enhancing substances, including ligandrol, can indeed be transferred through intimate contact between partners.
UFC even mentioned observing these situations in the presser where they discussed the end of their partnership with USADA and their switch to DFSI.
Sports analysts believe these cases may have established a concerning precedent in anti-doping regulations. Some experts suggest this creates a potential loophole in the testing system, as athletes could deliberately arrange for their partners to take certain substances knowing that if they test positive, they have a credible defense ready.
USADA type agencies typically operate under strict liability principles, meaning athletes are responsible for any prohibited substance found in their bodies regardless of how it got there. However, these recent rulings suggest a softening of this stance when contamination through intimate contact can be scientifically supported.
Based on the precedents set by previous cases, many sports analysts predict Simmons will likely be cleared of wrongdoing, potentially allowing more athletes to use similar defenses in the future.
The WADA has not yet announced any policy changes to address this emerging pattern, leaving many to wonder how anti-doping authorities will handle such cases moving forward.
For now, the sports world watches closely as these cases reshape understanding of contamination pathways and potentially transform how anti-doping violations are adjudicated in professional athletics.
