A lot of world class endurance athletes have asthma. See here:

> is suggestive that years of endurance training may be a contributory cause.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22228581/

It's an open secret that the diagnosis is a sham because it's performance-enhancing.

That's a possibility - but the pubmed piece I linked also includes this quote:

> Athletes with asthma/AHR have consistently outperformed their peers, which research suggests is not due to their treatment enhancing sports performance.

Anecdotally, when I lived in Chicago and rode outside in cold air I had asthma like symptoms (and I didn't ride nearly as frequently as olympians do) - which lines up with this quote, also from my original link:

> Inspiring polluted or cold air is considered a significant aetiological factor in some but not all sports.

I think it's possible that it's not just a sham.

It’s irrelevant to the story. She stayed under the limit allowed by UKAD.

She did not because she tested positive for a diuretic.

> Diuretics affect the way the body metabolizes and excretes beta-2 agonists. If you are on a diuretic medication (or on any other substance in the S5 category of the Prohibited List) for any reason and you are using an inhaler that contains salbutamol (albuterol) or formoterol, then you may need a TUE. Please see the TUE section below.

Except she wasn't "on" a diuretic, it was a contaminant orders of magnitude below the therapeutic dose.

Which is covered in the article.

And one of the main points of this article is that the rules are inconsistent and not based in reality.

To paraphrase the article (but don't take my word for it, I highly suggest reading it yourself), the rules are fatally flawed because of the bimodality where contaminants at arbitrary concentrations determine whether other medications in urine samples are allowed or not.

She claims it was cross-contamination. Given that she was already likely gaming the system with the asthma steroid (it's really common in cycling and swimming to do this), I don't believe her when she says there was a contamination.

It's not arbitrary. Diuretics mask the asthma (ie, steroid) readings.

UKAD accepted that the amount was far below any effective levels. The article makes this crystal clear. It also makes crystal clear that this was contamination, as Lizzy took a hair test to show she couldn’t have taken it deliberately.

The reason why is actually in the article but I’m sick of just typing it out for you when you can stop being lazy and read the thing yourself.

She is clearly cheating (along with TONS of others) with the asthma medication. At this point, I don't believe anything else she says.

So you’re not going to read the article and instead make yourself look foolish by making points that the article clearly rebuts, with receipts. Who am I to question how you waste your weekend?

She has receipts to prove she is not cheating? Sure, man. She is a cheater just like all cyclists. She just got sloppy.

Who am I to believe? UKAD, who fought like hell to deny her defence before accepting it based on her work, or random internet commenter who can’t even be arsed to read the article before commenting?

It’s a real tough choice.

She marketed herself really well. Pictures of her brother in the hospital and her cat. Brilliant campaign and it forced UKAD to change their position.