Back
24 October 2025
As previously announced, the athlete provided a sample under the Testing Authority and Results Management Authority of IRONMAN during an unannouced out-of-competiton doping control performed on 8 December 2024. This doping control yielded an adverse analytical finding¹ (AAF) for ligandrol.
Ligandrol is prohibited under the WADA Prohibited List as S1.2 Other Anabolic Agents. Ligandrol is banned at all times (in- and out-of-competition) and is considered a non-specified substance. Ligandrol is a selective androgen receptor modulator which promotes muscle growth and enhances physical performance.
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.
The athlete was also able to establish that she bore No Fault or Negligence² for the ADRV and, therefore, no period of ineligibility is imposed³ and the athlete is free to compete effective immediately. As the sample was collected out-of-competition, there are no competitive results to disqualify.
The athlete accepted the finding of the ADRV4, and the matter is considered as concluded from the perspective of IRONMAN and the ITA. Pursuant to the public disclosure requirement of the World Anti-Doping Code and the IRONMAN anti-doping rules, the case must be publicly reported.
The decision may be challenged before the appeal division of the Court of Arbitration of Sport by the parties with a right of appeal, in accordance with Article 13.2.3 of the IRONMAN anti-doping rules.
The ITA will not comment further on this case.
¹A report from a WADA-accredited laboratory that, consistent with the International Standard for Laboratories, establishes in a sample the presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers or evidence of the use of a prohibited method.
²‘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”.
³The default period of ineligibility for an anti-doping rule violation for the presence of a non-specified prohibited substance such as ligandrol is four years, unless the athlete establishes that her ADRV is not intentional. If an athlete succeeds in proving lack of intent, the starting point of the period of ineligibility is two years. The period of ineligibility may then be subject to further potential mitigation is an athlete establishes, for instance, ‘No Fault or Negligence’.
4Athletes have the right to choose not to have their case referred to a hearing panel. In these instances, the anti-doping organisation will assess the athlete’s case file and establish the applicable consequences pursuant to the anti-doping rules and the athlete will have the right to accept the proposed consequences. If the athlete refuses the proposed consequences, the case is transferred to a hearing panel. This resolution mechanism is provided for in articles 8.1.3. of the World Aquatics anti-doping rules and 8.3 of the World Anti-Doping Code and is commonly referred to as an agreement on consequences and is deemed an IRONMAN’/ITA decision.
