Jarrion Lawson tests positive for steroid - He's fighting it using a version of the Ajee Wilson excuse

Burnsy wrote:

I don’t see anywhere that indicates she or USADA actually used receipts to trace the source of the beef and prove that source/supplier had a record of contamination....However, the story was phrased in such a way that one might make the conclusive jump that there was some sort of actual tracing of the source.

You are right, the story is hard to follow. That's largely b/c USADA didn't work to many things clear.

According to Deadspin, USADA did trace the animals, and was "able to determine" that the cows Wilson ate "received zeranol implants." However, they weren't able to test the meat, or show any history of excess levels of hormones in the meat. Instead, after talking to various experts, USADA concluded, “Because FDA minimum detection limits are fairly high, we couldn’t rule out the possibility that the low level of zeranol in Ms. Wilson’s sample came from beef containing zeranol residue just below the minimum detection level.

In other words, given the FDA limits, all meat in the US in potentially contaminated with zeranol. But if that's the case, they why is Wilson the only US athlete to ever test positive?

More details for you wrote:

If you read the USADA's statement on Wilson and its zeranol web page, you'll see USADA does not mention any studies showing these hormones make it into the food supply. Plus they point out that, as a matter of fact, positive tests are very rare among both animals or athletes.

Regarding the existence of zenanol residue in the animal (that is, the meat) itself, I think it's worth pointing out that USADA doesn't actually say that positive tests are very rare; rather, it says that there was only one reported "violation" of residue for zeranal:

"How prevalent is zeranol residue in meat in the United States?

The USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) monitors levels of various residues in tissues such as muscle and liver through random and targeted sampling. These results are published in the FSIS National Residue Program Red Book. In the latest publication, there was only one reported violation of residue for zeranol, which occurred in 2014 in a sow, not beef cattle."

Unlike WADA or USADA, USDA makes a distinction between "positive non-violative" and "positive violative" sample results:

To put it more concretely, there may be many cattle in the U.S. that would be banned from competition under WADA and USADA standards but (sadly) are eligible for consumption under USDA standards. Personally, I would rather see the cattle judged under the WADA/USADA no-threshold standard and the humans judged under the USDA threshold standard, but I don't expect to see that happen in my lifetime.

How bad it gets wrote:

USADA concluded, “Because FDA minimum detection limits are fairly high, we couldn’t rule out the possibility that the low level of zeranol in Ms. Wilson’s sample came from beef containing zeranol residue just below the minimum detection level.

In other words, given the FDA limits, all meat in the US in potentially contaminated with zeranol. But if that's the case, they why is Wilson the only US athlete to ever test positive?

Exactly. (And I want to emphasize that I don't consider your question to be merely rhetorical. I'm very skeptical that Wilson was engaged in intentional doping with zeranol.)

The apoligists are out strong for us. athletes. I See now the behavior towards africans seems to be racism

"we couldn’t rule out the possibility that the low level of zeranol in Ms. Wilson’s sample came from beef containing zeranol residue just below the minimum detection level."

That's what I'm talking about. The point I was trying to make was that the possibility should be reasonably plausible in the first instance, to even be considered by USADA.

Ok so it is released into some cows, and an allowable amount exists at slaughter. How much of that amount is in different tissues? What tissue was eaten? Does that concentration in that tissue survive cooking, and what type of cooking was done, at what heat, and for how long? And how much of whatever was in the tissue, and whatever survived cooking, survives the digestion process depending on what else was eaten at the time, and actually get transported to the blood intact? And of that residue, what is the time-rate of uptake into other tissues, and degradation?

Without such details entered into evidence by the athlete, it would be difficult at best to consider the mechanism reasonably plausible--which is why there should be some such evidence in the record in the Wilson case.

A problem is that, unless I am mistaken, there is no adverse party to appeal the ruling based on legal insufficiency. Maybe other countries should be able to appeal the ruling of a national ADA to a WADA appeal board. Can they? I have no idea. But such a mechanism could help disrupt any national ADA actions that would tend to inappropriately or wrongly protect a national athlete.

Heck, I'll do it as a private, disinterested third party! For a nominal fee, of course. :)

Habalil wrote:

The apoligists are out strong for us. athletes. I See now the behavior towards africans seems to be racism

Clear as day.

Habalil wrote:

The apoligists are out strong for us. athletes. I See now the behavior towards africans seems to be racism

America-haters trying to pretend this is equivalent to getting popped for EPO which unlike zeranol, has significant performance benefits and cannot get into your system accidentally.

And to think this guy robbed Cheserek of a Bowerman...

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Ok so it is released into some cows....

In the US, it is released into pretty much all cows. Unless you eat organic, you are eating zeranolized meat.

As USADA points out, that all US meat comes from cows that got zeranol is a big part of why Wilson's case is so puzzling. Given that there is some zeranol in all meat, how is it that there's only ever been one positive test by USADA? They've tested over 100,000 athletes, and only Wilson has tested positive. And, they claim, world-wide over 1,000,000 people have been tested, and there's only been 6 positives. How is this possible?

As for Lawson, it'd be interesting to know how close the facts of his case are to the facts of Wilson's case. Perhaps most importantly, how long ago was his most recent test? Wilson was helped a lot by having had a negative test just a week earlier. That made it less likely she'd used a consequential amount, since it wouldn't have disappeared from her system in a week.

These trace hormones stand up to cooking? I want proof that they can find it chemically intact in cooked meat.

Hardloper wrote:

America-haters trying to pretend this is equivalent to getting popped for EPO which unlike zeranol, has significant performance benefits and cannot get into your system accidentally.

I think you missed the point, which is that it's not at all clear that zeranol can get into your system accidentally. Or more precisely, nobody thought it could until Wilson tested positive. It doesn't take an America-hater to think the timing here is pretty convenient.

Here's another puzzle for you: Why, if there was no way Wilson could have avoided the zeranol, did they take away her AR?

Punishing innocent people is about as un-American as you can get.

HeadChef wrote:

These trace hormones stand up to cooking? I want proof that they can find it chemically intact in cooked meat.

Um...the USADA consulted with "independent experts." If that's good enough for them, it should be good enough for us.

Unlike growth hormones, which are proteins, steroids and estrogens are more likely to survive heating;.

Hardloper wrote:

Habalil wrote:

The apoligists are out strong for us. athletes. I See now the behavior towards africans seems to be racism

America-haters trying to pretend this is equivalent to getting popped for EPO which unlike zeranol, has significant performance benefits and cannot get into your system accidentally.

Then why test for zeranol if it doesn't work?

It's basic chemistry wrote:

HeadChef wrote:

These trace hormones stand up to cooking? I want proof that they can find it chemically intact in cooked meat.

Um...the USADA consulted with "independent experts." If that's good enough for them, it should be good enough for us.

Unlike growth hormones, which are proteins, steroids and estrogens are more likely to survive heating;.

USADA chose to not test that beef. Very disappointing; weren't they interested in the truth?

It's basic chemistry wrote:

HeadChef wrote:

These trace hormones stand up to cooking? I want proof that they can find it chemically intact in cooked meat.

Um...the USADA consulted with "independent experts." If that's good enough for them, it should be good enough for us.

Unlike growth hormones, which are proteins, steroids and estrogens are more likely to survive heating;.

"Experts" have to be qualified, and examined on their expertise, so that their opinions can be accorded the appropriate weight.

Without an adverse party cross-examining, there is no reason to believe that the experts were sufficiently qualified, or that their opinion testimony was strictly limited to the scope of their expertise, or that there was extrinsic factual evidence supporting the opinions they offered.

It is not possible to conclude that USADA was sufficiently rigorous in either its qualification of the "experts" or in the acceptance of their testimony, without evidence in the record as to these issues. Once again, I know nothing about the specifics of this adjudication, I am sure there is much more here than meets the eye, otherwise their would be troubling insufficiencies that would be legally unpalatable.

As to the compounds being "more likely than proteins to survive heating", that statement in no way supplies any answer to the chain of questions that I posed, and that should have been posed by the USADA in the Wilson case, and now in the Lawson case.

casual obsever wrote:

It's basic chemistry wrote:

Um...the USADA consulted with "independent experts." If that's good enough for them, it should be good enough for us.

Unlike growth hormones, which are proteins, steroids and estrogens are more likely to survive heating;.

USADA chose to not test that beef. Very disappointing; weren't they interested in the truth?

How do you test beef once it's been eaten?

running commenter wrote:

Here's the beef wrote:

If USADA can trace the meat in Lawson's meal back to the supplier and confirm use of trenbolone(as it did with Wilson's zeranol positive) Lawson will be fine. If not, or if he doesnt have receipts USADA can follow, then he has a problem.

This guys. A lot of you are looking past the details here. Ajee was able to prove that she had purchased bad meat with receipts. If I remember right it was from a food truck.

Have you ever heard of a food truck giving receipts? Even if they dI'd who keeps food truck receipts.

Now imagine if you were to test positive because of tainted beef. How would you go about proving your innocence? Do you have the money to mount a defense? In the eyes of the internet mobs you're guilty right? Don't think it could not happen to you, it can.

GBnothingWithoutFarah wrote:

USADA covering up for it's doping athletes? I means what's new? Their history shows it.

So the take away in the Wilson case is don't eat from food trucks?

It could happen to you wrote:

running commenter wrote:

This guys. A lot of you are looking past the details here. Ajee was able to prove that she had purchased bad meat with receipts. If I remember right it was from a food truck.

Have you ever heard of a food truck giving receipts? Even if they dI'd who keeps food truck receipts.

Now imagine if you were to test positive because of tainted beef. How would you go about proving your innocence? Do you have the money to mount a defense? In the eyes of the internet mobs you're guilty right? Don't think it could not happen to you, it can.

The critical failure of your scenario is that it assumes the very fact that is required to be proved: that it is possible to "test positive because of tainted beef". I am not so willing to accept that assumption without evidence and proof.

And if you did provide evidence and proof, then I would go about "proving my innocence" (inaccurate) by adducing evidence and proving that my experience was within the conditions that were necessary to the validity of your proof, as well as by adducing evidence that tended to weaken alternate theories of how the compound got into my system.

That is how I would do it. That is how it would be done, if your assumption was a proved fact. USADA doesn't care what "internet mobs" think. Such a defense would require some money, but not necessarily that much. An athlete can always act pro se, all it requires is some work and cognition. If it was worth it to them, they would put in the effort or the money, as possible. It is not rocket science.

But once again, your scenario rests upon an unproven premise. You assume the very fact that is to be proved.