The trouble with Ostarine: Jimmy Wallhead’s
16th March 2018
Australian swimmer Shayna Jack has blamed contaminated supplements after testing positive for Lingradol (LGD-4033), arguing that she never intended to cheat and vowing to fight to clear her name. Jack tested positive for the developmental selective androgen receptor modulator (SARM) on 26 June, and Swimming Australia provisionally suspended her on 12 July, when it was informed of the positive test – or adverse analytical finding (AAF), accompanying her home from the FINA World Championships in South Korea.
A statement (PDF below) released by Jack reveals that she requested analysis of her B sample, which explains the delay between the initial test and Swimming Australia being informed about her AAF by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA). Jack argues that she did not reveal her AAF because she didn’t want to distract attention away from the achievements of the Australian team. Swimming Australia said that it could not announce the test until given the nod by either Jack or ASADA.
‘We supported the process as outlined in the agreement we have with ASADA and our contractual obligations with that agreement – prohibiting us from disclosing details’, read a statement from Swimming Australia CEO Leigh Russell. ‘The ASADA agreement requires Swimming Australia to maintain confidentiality until such time as either ASADA or the individual athlete release details of the adverse test result.’
ASADA confirmed that the agreement prevented Swimming Australia from commenting on the case. A separate statement clarified that in certain situations, ASADA may take the decision to not make an AAF immediately public.
‘The assessment by ASADA as to whether information is disclosed publicly is made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the matter’, it read. ‘Often it is not in ASADA’s interests for our investigation to be public in the early phase of our processes. In simple terms, what would a facilitator of doping do if they were to become aware of ASADA’s investigation?From our experience, evidence could be destroyed, or our investigation frustrated by the fact that it was subject to public commentary. Despite our powers, ASADA can never restrict an athlete’s right to discuss or talk about their case in public.’
Twenty three athletes from ten countries, competing in ten sports, were involved in anti-doping proceedings...
Ninety two athletes from 13 countries, competing in 22 sports, were involved in anti-doping proceedings...
A total of 43 athletes from eleven countries, competing in 17 sports, were involved in...