8th December 2017

Triathlete sues supplement company over ostarine positive

Ironman-winning triathlete Lauren Barnett is suing Classified Nutrition, alleging that its Neurolytes capsules resulted in a positive test for ostarine, reports the Dallas News. Barnett accepted a six month sanction in February after the World Triathlon Corporation (WTC) accepted that her adverse analytical finding (AAF) was due to a contaminated supplement. It is understood that Barnett filed a lawsuit against Classified Nutrition on 4 December in Dallas County Court, alleging that three separate laboratory results confirmed that Neurolytes capsules contained concentrations of ostarine at approximately 150 nanograms per capsule.

‘Subsequent testing by two independent laboratories on both the bottle she had used on the day of her positive test and another sealed bottle from an entirely different batch and lot number proved that a salt tablet that Lauren had taken was contaminated and caused this positive test’, read a 3 February statement. ‘The World Triathlon Corporation, having recognized the salt tablet contamination, has agreed to significantly reduce her sanction to the minimum timeframe allowed’.

‘I never would have imagined that a salt tablet, an electrolyte replacement that endurance athletes routinely rely on while racing in hot and humid conditions, could be the root cause of all of this’, said Barnett in the same statement. Classified Nutrition has not commented on the lawsuit, but Neurolytes Capsules are no longer listed on its internet site. In April, the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) issued a warning confirming that Neurolytes was on its High Risk List. There are over 350 supplements on the HRL.

Earlier this week, British weightlifter Sonny Webster was sanctioned with a four year ban by UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) after failing to prove the source of an ostarine AAF. Webster, who said that he spent his life savings in an attempt to discover the source of the ostarine, said he was twice offered a 50% reduction in his ban if he admitted to ‘knowingly’ taking the selective androgen receptor modulator (SARM). In Webster’s case, it would appear that an attempt to scientifically prove the source of his ostarine AAF resulted in the maximum ban, whereas admission of guilt to a doping offence he argues he did not commit would have cut his ban in half.

You may also like...

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This