In SARM's way: Why USADA has altered its stance on Shayna Jack substance

The head of American anti-doping agency USADA says the rules have failed to keep pace with science and that not every athlete who tests positive as the result of a contaminated supplement deserves to spend four years out of their sport.

Travis Tygart, who was a key figure in the investigations into BALCO and cyclist Lance Armstrong, believes blanket bans for otherwise clean athletes who find themselves returning inadvertent low-level positives should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, not a "gotcha" style of policing that hands out hardline sanctions more suitable for systematic doping.

Swimmer Shayna Jack (left) and her mother Pauline leave the briefing with ASADA in late July.Credit: AAP

Many of the recent inadvertent positives in the US have involved the class of substance known as SARMs (selective androgen receptor modulators), which are increasingly finding their way into even reputable dietary and vitamin supplements. One of those is the anti-steroidal anabolic agent LGD-4033, which is what was found in the samples returned by Australian swimmer Shayna Jack.

The 20-year-old faces a four-year ban should ASADA impose the maximum penalty. International anti-doping bodies have shown little mercy in many cases, but an influx of positives has prompted USADA to lead the discussion about sanctions that closer fit the crime.

The head of American anti-doping agency USADA, Travis Tygart.Credit: AP

Since 2016, USADA has handed out five sanctions involving LGD-4033 and some 38 sanctions involving another SARM known as Ostarine, which has proven to be a major headache in the US as it has been found in even reputable supplement brands.

Many of those sanctions have been significantly less than four years, with the most recent a nine-month ban for karate athlete Joane Orbon, who was able to prove supplement contamination.

Tygart said state-of-the-art lab techniques could now detect incredibly small amounts of SARMs and should the athlete be able to convince a panel that there was some contamination at play, that didn't always warrant a potentially career-ending ban.

"Osterine, in particular, is a very sticky substance," Tygart told The Sun-Herald. "It can hang around machinery so when the supplement company makes one batch, you can’t really clean it well enough – you are going to get some trace amounts.

"Couple that with the ability over the last decade for the labs to look for levels that are about 1000-fold lower in the urine samples. So what you’ve created, unfortunately here in the US, although I couldn’t comment for the Australian market, is kind of a perfect storm, where you are detecting a number, way too high, that are coming from inadvertant use and not intentional use.

"Our problem with that is that you shouldn’t sanction someone that takes reasonable precautions with the use of a dietary supplement ...  and we know about 90 per cent of athletes use some sort of supplementation.

"Even those that make really good choices – sometimes on the advice of their doctor or nutritionist or even their national Olympic committee or federations – to treat them the same under the rules as an intentional doper, whether it’s Lance Armstrong or someone in the Russian state doping system [is not fair].

"That’s not a fair system. We pursue exonerating the innocent as hard as we’re going to pursue convicting the guilty. Because we are doing all of that work, that’s why we have been so outspoken that we have to be sensible and fair and treating intentional dopers not the same as otherwise clean athletes who aren’t intentionally doping.

"From a sanctioning standpoint, that’s a system that reeks of unfairness and injustice."

ASADA has six Ostarine cases on its books. Every one was met with a four-year ban, although each case differs in its complexity and some also include positives for other substances. Most agencies have been similarly harsh with cases involving LGD-4033.

But USADA, while still handing out heavy sanctions where applicable, has taken a difference course in its dealings with supplement contamination cases. They have the resources to conduct lengthy and detailed investigations, and athletes don't always have to bring definitive, forensic proof to the table, assuming they can convince USADA of the merits of their defence.

In a recent series of settlements involving UFC fighters, four athletes were banned for six months after USADA invesigators found no evidence of deliberate doping.

"Under the WADA code, there’s a split," Tygart said. "Some panels have said the athlete has to specifically prove the exact source. Some others have just said you have to prove that it more likely or not came from something other than intentional use.

"Let’s be clear, we will give four years when the proof is there, or proof of other drugs and intent. This isn’t going easy on intentional cheats. It’s to make sure innocent people aren’t getting trapped up in a system that, given the advance in science, the rules just haven’t caught up to where they need to be.

"This frustrates clean athletes, because they feel like they are going to get trapped and get the same sanction as an intentional doper and be branded a four-year intentional cheat. That’s the part where the rules have to evolve to take into account the science."

Whether ASADA alter their stance after Jack states her case remains to be seen. Her legal team can only hope that they begin to take note of USADA's handling of similar cases rather than throw the book at the freestyler sprinter.