WOW Tygart is really going all out on confrontation course:
"It is difficult to understand how Travis Tygart can declare with such certainty that 'justice was served," said WADA. "In this case, given USADA had argued that the analytical result was incompatible with meat contamination and had originally sought a sanction of four years against the athlete." WADA accused Tygart of a double standard for demanding sanctions on Chinese athletes while clearing an American athlete under similar contamination scenarios. "If this had been an athlete in China, we dare to think that Mr Tygart would be singing a different tune, and very loudly," WADA said.
... "It is sad to see but WADA has truly lost it and is crumbling before the world’s eyes," added the USADA chief.
LOL "crumbling" because they dared to criticize him...
Yeah, people keep dancing around the fact that the tainted meat excuse is fine for certain athletes and no good for others.
Did you read my post above? There are exactly ZERO track athletes banned for trenbolone alone. So there isn’t a single example in the past 3-4 years (likely longer) where an athlete tried to use the tainted meat exercise for trenbolone and was still charged. In other cases, athletes likely tried to use tainted meat as an excuse for substances that aren’t actually legal for cattle and are therefore rare to find in meat.
At best you’re comparing apples to oranges.
You’re deflecting and you know it. The way of the woke. Another dirty sprinter getting off because he fits the bill, unlike some burrito gobblers.
Did you read my post above? There are exactly ZERO track athletes banned for trenbolone alone. So there isn’t a single example in the past 3-4 years (likely longer) where an athlete tried to use the tainted meat exercise for trenbolone and was still charged. In other cases, athletes likely tried to use tainted meat as an excuse for substances that aren’t actually legal for cattle and are therefore rare to find in meat.
At best you’re comparing apples to oranges.
You’re deflecting and you know it. The way of the woke.
"It is difficult to understand how Travis Tygart can declare with such certainty that 'justice was served," said WADA. "In this case, given USADA had argued that the analytical result was incompatible with meat contamination and had originally sought a sanction of four years against the athlete."
So USADA said themselves that this couldn't be contamination, but for some reason changed their mind.
WADA and USADA can't really have a standoff. WADA is owned by the IOC which doesn't want to lose US add money from the Olympics if a Russian styled ban was imposed on certain US sports teams.
USADA can't look corrupt on anti doping efforts. It undermines sports and a collective of countries won't put up with it. All roads lead to Tygart being asked to leave at some point. He can't be talking about WADA the way he is.
USA should be banned from international competition like Russia. Government backed doping program yet people still cry about Kenya here.
Which part of the US government is involved? You are just being ridiculous now. The only two Kenyans that have not been banned yet, who I believe are clean, are Eliud and Faith.
Did you read my post above? There are exactly ZERO track athletes banned for trenbolone alone. So there isn’t a single example in the past 3-4 years (likely longer) where an athlete tried to use the tainted meat exercise for trenbolone and was still charged. In other cases, athletes likely tried to use tainted meat as an excuse for substances that aren’t actually legal for cattle and are therefore rare to find in meat.
At best you’re comparing apples to oranges.
You’re deflecting and you know it. The way of the woke. Another dirty sprinter getting off because he fits the bill, unlike some burrito gobblers.
Genuine question: is tainted meat really so common in the US?
Meat producers -> distributors -> restaurants -> athletes suspensions should go in that order. It's a shame that restaurant food is often so bad. It may look all fancy but just so bad for a general well-being consumption.
WOW Tygart is really going all out on confrontation course:
"It is difficult to understand how Travis Tygart can declare with such certainty that 'justice was served," said WADA. "In this case, given USADA had argued that the analytical result was incompatible with meat contamination and had originally sought a sanction of four years against the athlete." WADA accused Tygart of a double standard for demanding sanctions on Chinese athletes while clearing an American athlete under similar contamination scenarios. "If this had been an athlete in China, we dare to think that Mr Tygart would be singing a different tune, and very loudly," WADA said.
... "It is sad to see but WADA has truly lost it and is crumbling before the world’s eyes," added the USADA chief.
LOL "crumbling" because they dared to criticize him...
What I don't understand is that if WADA can appeal the Knighton decision, why didn't it appeal the Chinese swim team decision? That case seemed to have a less plausible excuse than Knighton.
Did you read my post above? There are exactly ZERO track athletes banned for trenbolone alone. So there isn’t a single example in the past 3-4 years (likely longer) where an athlete tried to use the tainted meat exercise for trenbolone and was still charged. In other cases, athletes likely tried to use tainted meat as an excuse for substances that aren’t actually legal for cattle and are therefore rare to find in meat.
At best you’re comparing apples to oranges.
You’re deflecting and you know it. The way of the woke. Another dirty sprinter getting off because he fits the bill, unlike some burrito gobblers.
I’m one of the few people that are providing data to have an informed opinion. In my most recent posts, I provided a pretty detailed study about trenbolone levels in meat from cows receiving legal hormone implants. I also posted a 2021 ruling regarding an athlete who used trenbolone. The athlete had levels of 1.5 ng/mL in his A sample and it seemed highly unlikely to be from meat contamination. Also, he was banned for trenbolone alone which I had originally argued no athlete in the past 3-4 years had. (His test came from Swiss Anti-Doping so that’s why I didn’t seem him on the AIU or USADA list). It also shows under normal circumstances, meat contamination is unlikely to have trenbolone levels near 1ng/mL. If I’m some woke deflector with an agenda, I’m doing a pretty terrible job.
I’ve been trying to find what urinary excretion levels would look like based on various doses of doses trenbolone, but I can’t find it. Ayotte quoted a 1991 study but only said excretion levels peak after 3 hours and are 63% eliminated after 72 hours. The defense appeared to quote another 1991 study saying subjects had 20-40ng/mL. tried to look up both studies, and neither were available for me to read.
There’s some other studies examining half life’s of trenbolone metabolites (that are newer than 1991 lol). So we could estimate expected concentrations in urine after ‘x’ amount of time after ‘y’ amount of ingestion. I don’t know that math yet. Neither Ayotte nor the defense even attempted to do the math in the 2021 case. Ayotte simply said that the concentration would be much lower than what the athlete had.
Anyways, my point is, I’m actually trying to figure things out with the best available information I have, and my ‘informed opinion’ is always open to change as I learn more information. As I stated before, it seems trenbolome concentration after meat consumption would be very low under normal circumstances (maybe less than a picogram.. again idk the math yet) but so far, the trenbolone levels of the meat tested, and trenbolone levels of Knighton are officially unknown to us. (Knigton’s levels were ‘unofficially’ said to have issues determining that exact amount but were at or less than 1g/mL.)
WADA/Tygart are in some sort of pissing match. I trust the AIU much more than either party on a meat contamination case. Let’s see if they have interest in appeal. I feel like the other two parties are emotional and more interested in ripping each other than the actual circumstances of the athlete.
no, he got the USATF pass. I'm not naive when it comes to former athletes doping (including those never caught). But him getting the "bolt pass" implied Bolt was caught, but used a BS excuse to get off. I don't think Bolt was ever caught or officially accused.
A pass was back in the days before the Nados when Regina Jacobs tested positive at the American trials in 1997 and instead of the result being announced and a ban being placed on her, she instead said that she had taken ill and quietly withdrew from the world championships.
Furthermore, if the Americans were to have the power with Usada to quash a positive test for one of their own, you might do well to ask yourself why they neglected to do so for either Gatlin or Gay, both of whom tested positive at domestic fixtures at the height of their careers.
The athlete was ultimately banned with levels of 1.5ng/mL (and 3.5mg/mL in B sample). However, it doesn’t appear they tested the meat source he ate from. So all the could use was the average ranges of “normal” trenbolone residue in meat. Ayotte said Tren residue in normal meat was .1 ng/g whereas the study I posted on my previous post says it’s .3-.7 ng/g (which is equivalent to .3 ug/kg). Anyways, anywhere from .1-.7 doesn’t matter. It’s pretty much mathematically impossible for his A & B samples to be what they were if the trenbolone residues levels in the meat he ate were in normal range. Since he didn’t have the meat source to prove otherwise, there was no way of winning.
This answers my question of why more people don’t test positive. If they get tested within 72 hours of eating meat, they likely will have some Tren in their system, but it will be far far less than .1ng/mL. Ayotte said Tren is detectable within 3-7 days, however the defense noted a study where 25mg of Tren is detectable after 32 days. Ayotte said the amount in normal meat, such as 85ng in a large serving of 850g of meat would be completely gone in 72 hours.
Of course, there remains the possibility the meat tested in Knighton’s case had far more trenbolone concentration than ‘normal’. Since they actually were able to test the meat source, I’m assuming a much higher than normal concentration is the only way the arbitrator ruled in his favor (in conjunction with his exact sample concentration). If the math doesn’t make sense, WADA will appeal this, and Knighton will lose, but I find it unlikely the arbitrator could be that bad. So I’m going to assume when the full report comes out, the numbers will add up, and reasonable people that understand basic math can move on.
*Also, feel free to correct my reading comprehension.
thanks for this. this is the kind of analysis i'm keen to see. how much of meat with what concentration leaves how much in his blood over what length of time.
my question is about
the athlete was ultimately banned with levels of 1.5ng/mL (and 3.5mg/mL in B sample)
the change between ng and mg in A and B sample seems a lot to me? im guessing 3.5mg is microgrammes? so that would be ~300x less than the A sample?
I guess maybe the concentration reduces between sampling?
You’re deflecting and you know it. The way of the woke. Another dirty sprinter getting off because he fits the bill, unlike some burrito gobblers.
I’m one of the few people that are providing data to have an informed opinion. In my most recent posts, I provided a pretty detailed study about trenbolone levels in meat from cows receiving legal hormone implants. I also posted a 2021 ruling regarding an athlete who used trenbolone. The athlete had levels of 1.5 ng/mL in his A sample and it seemed highly unlikely to be from meat contamination. Also, he was banned for trenbolone alone which I had originally argued no athlete in the past 3-4 years had. (His test came from Swiss Anti-Doping so that’s why I didn’t seem him on the AIU or USADA list). It also shows under normal circumstances, meat contamination is unlikely to have trenbolone levels near 1ng/mL. If I’m some woke deflector with an agenda, I’m doing a pretty terrible job.
I’ve been trying to find what urinary excretion levels would look like based on various doses of doses trenbolone, but I can’t find it. Ayotte quoted a 1991 study but only said excretion levels peak after 3 hours and are 63% eliminated after 72 hours. The defense appeared to quote another 1991 study saying subjects had 20-40ng/mL. tried to look up both studies, and neither were available for me to read.
There’s some other studies examining half life’s of trenbolone metabolites (that are newer than 1991 lol). So we could estimate expected concentrations in urine after ‘x’ amount of time after ‘y’ amount of ingestion. I don’t know that math yet. Neither Ayotte nor the defense even attempted to do the math in the 2021 case. Ayotte simply said that the concentration would be much lower than what the athlete had.
Anyways, my point is, I’m actually trying to figure things out with the best available information I have, and my ‘informed opinion’ is always open to change as I learn more information. As I stated before, it seems trenbolome concentration after meat consumption would be very low under normal circumstances (maybe less than a picogram.. again idk the math yet) but so far, the trenbolone levels of the meat tested, and trenbolone levels of Knighton are officially unknown to us. (Knigton’s levels were ‘unofficially’ said to have issues determining that exact amount but were at or less than 1g/mL.)
keep at it you're doing us all a favour here, these are the exact questions we should be asking, and pushing Jon Gault to be having too
Seen Dressel? He looks like the fakest of fake natty fitness influencers.
Dressel is so blatantly doping it’s kind of hilarious. There are doping US swimmers, maybe 25% or so, and they are all super obvious. Look for who is more shredded than everyone else, because swimmers aren’t supposed to be shredded and a slightly higher body fat percentage is super helpful. Steroids prevent the higher body fat.
Its not all depressing though, because Katy Ledecky is very definitely clean, and she’s about the nicest person that exists and is why I still love the Olympics.
The athlete was ultimately banned with levels of 1.5ng/mL (and 3.5mg/mL in B sample). However, it doesn’t appear they tested the meat source he ate from. So all the could use was the average ranges of “normal” trenbolone residue in meat. Ayotte said Tren residue in normal meat was .1 ng/g whereas the study I posted on my previous post says it’s .3-.7 ng/g (which is equivalent to .3 ug/kg). Anyways, anywhere from .1-.7 doesn’t matter. It’s pretty much mathematically impossible for his A & B samples to be what they were if the trenbolone residues levels in the meat he ate were in normal range. Since he didn’t have the meat source to prove otherwise, there was no way of winning.
This answers my question of why more people don’t test positive. If they get tested within 72 hours of eating meat, they likely will have some Tren in their system, but it will be far far less than .1ng/mL. Ayotte said Tren is detectable within 3-7 days, however the defense noted a study where 25mg of Tren is detectable after 32 days. Ayotte said the amount in normal meat, such as 85ng in a large serving of 850g of meat would be completely gone in 72 hours.
Of course, there remains the possibility the meat tested in Knighton’s case had far more trenbolone concentration than ‘normal’. Since they actually were able to test the meat source, I’m assuming a much higher than normal concentration is the only way the arbitrator ruled in his favor (in conjunction with his exact sample concentration). If the math doesn’t make sense, WADA will appeal this, and Knighton will lose, but I find it unlikely the arbitrator could be that bad. So I’m going to assume when the full report comes out, the numbers will add up, and reasonable people that understand basic math can move on.
*Also, feel free to correct my reading comprehension.
thanks for this. this is the kind of analysis i'm keen to see. how much of meat with what concentration leaves how much in his blood over what length of time.
my question is about
the athlete was ultimately banned with levels of 1.5ng/mL (and 3.5mg/mL in B sample)
the change between ng and mg in A and B sample seems a lot to me? im guessing 3.5mg is microgrammes? so that would be ~300x less than the A sample?
I guess maybe the concentration reduces between sampling?
Say it with me: Athletes. Are. 100%. Responsible. For. What. They. Put. In. Their. Bodies. And. Tainted. Meat. Excuses. Are. BS.
Yes, Knighton is guilty. Interestingly, it sounds like Tara Davis and Tamara Clark are too (and Clark really kind of sucks now that I’m guessing she’s trying to run clean).
The athlete was ultimately banned with levels of 1.5ng/mL (and 3.5mg/mL in B sample). However, it doesn’t appear they tested the meat source he ate from. So all the could use was the average ranges of “normal” trenbolone residue in meat. Ayotte said Tren residue in normal meat was .1 ng/g whereas the study I posted on my previous post says it’s .3-.7 ng/g (which is equivalent to .3 ug/kg). Anyways, anywhere from .1-.7 doesn’t matter. It’s pretty much mathematically impossible for his A & B samples to be what they were if the trenbolone residues levels in the meat he ate were in normal range. Since he didn’t have the meat source to prove otherwise, there was no way of winning.
This answers my question of why more people don’t test positive. If they get tested within 72 hours of eating meat, they likely will have some Tren in their system, but it will be far far less than .1ng/mL. Ayotte said Tren is detectable within 3-7 days, however the defense noted a study where 25mg of Tren is detectable after 32 days. Ayotte said the amount in normal meat, such as 85ng in a large serving of 850g of meat would be completely gone in 72 hours.
Of course, there remains the possibility the meat tested in Knighton’s case had far more trenbolone concentration than ‘normal’. Since they actually were able to test the meat source, I’m assuming a much higher than normal concentration is the only way the arbitrator ruled in his favor (in conjunction with his exact sample concentration). If the math doesn’t make sense, WADA will appeal this, and Knighton will lose, but I find it unlikely the arbitrator could be that bad. So I’m going to assume when the full report comes out, the numbers will add up, and reasonable people that understand basic math can move on.
*Also, feel free to correct my reading comprehension.
thanks for this. this is the kind of analysis i'm keen to see. how much of meat with what concentration leaves how much in his blood over what length of time.
my question is about
the athlete was ultimately banned with levels of 1.5ng/mL (and 3.5mg/mL in B sample)
the change between ng and mg in A and B sample seems a lot to me? im guessing 3.5mg is microgrammes? so that would be ~300x less than the A sample?
I guess maybe the concentration reduces between sampling?
Sorry, that was a typo. The ‘A’ sample was 1.5 ng/mL and B sample was 3.5 ng/mL. These are both nanograms (one billionth of a gram).
The absolute concentration theoretically should be the same in both samples because both the ‘A’ and ‘B’ sample are from the same source. You pee into a cup, then you pour something like 60mL of that urine into your ‘A’ sample cup, and around 30mL into your ‘B’ sample cup. So it’s all the same urine collected at the same time.
At first, it’s odd to me that the ‘B’ sample is 2.333 times higher, but drug testing is complex. It’s not as simple as counting the number of ‘red’ m&m’s in a bowl. I don’t really know how it works to be honest. The ‘A’ and ‘B’ samples, I believe, are a safeguard against false positives due to the complex and imperfect testing & analysis process. I’ve also never looked at the reliability of drug detection procedure: For example, if you split that same urine into 100 samples and had it sent to different labs (equipment varies from lab to lab) with different people analyzing the results, how close would all the results be?
(I’m just asking questions in my head and reading papers on the internet to attempt to answer them the best I can… someone with experience working in a lab setting should be far more helpful on stuff like this).