I think the point would be Kenya is a country of 56M people with hundreds of doping busts in 1 sport, which is predominantly running (not field).
The US is a country of 340M people with a handful of doping busts. Given the US population is 6 times Kenya, and the US has athletes competing across track & field disciplines, shouldn't there be more than a handful of doping busts?
Running is a relatively lucrative sport in Kenya, it's not in the US. Track doesn't really pay more than a good, professional job. You'd find more doing in the money sports if they bothered to test properly but there a reason that major US sports are not covered by USADA/WADA - don't ask, don't tell
Yeah, there's no way any major sport would allow a star to be banned for 4 years in accordance with WADA rules.
I have to think it was an intentional decision by CAS to hold this release until the day before Worlds begins.
If you recall, Knighton was provisionally suspended in the spring of 2024 after testing positive for epitrenbolone (a metabolite of trenbolone, the same steroid Jarrion Lawson tested positive for in 2018). USADA charged him with a doping violation but Knighton appealed and an arbiter ruled in favor of Knighton after he claimed he tested positive after consuming a contaminated oxtail.
But both World Athletics and WADA appealed that decision to CAS. The hearing was in June and CAS announced today that it ruled in favor of WADA and World Athletics and Knighton will have to serve a full four-year ban (minus the three months he already served in 2024).
Knighton was the Worlds bronze medalist in the 200 in 2022 and the silver medalist in 2023. He did not make this year's Worlds team.
Yes! A win for the clean sport, a devastating loss for the pro-dopers here. All rekbots go home devastated.
Whoever is devastated depends on whether Knighton knowingly doped, or whether he was railroaded to a 4-year ban because a panel of arbitrators decided the athlete didn't meet the high burden of identifying the more likely than not source.
It looks like this CAS Panel was persuaded by similar arguments that trenbolone contamination in the USA would be statistically unlikely. This precedent will be devastating for both clean and dirty athletes.
I wonder who is the arbiter who accepted Knighton's contaminated meat excuse? Someone connected to USATF?
This can go both ways. Both the CAS and WADA were created by the IOC, and CAS members were initially appointed by the IOC and the International Federations (e.g. WA), and IOC members often come from the IFs, and vice-versa. See David Howman for example. It's all rather incestuous.
This post was edited 16 minutes after it was posted.
When are we going to start talking about the US as a high risk nation for doping? US sprinters are as bad as Kenyan distance runners, and it’s not talked about enough.
It’s not just the American sprinters…. You’ve got some ho-hum middle distance runners making extraordinary gains in the last 16 months
Facts and as a massive Ethan strand fan this has me a bit worried. I’m biased because he won the 1600 by like 30 seconds at my first ever middle school track meet (and beat every guy at my HS for 4 years straight), and I’ve thought he had it in him to be a top 1500m guy in the country since he was a sophomore (his 7:46 outkicking Wolfe at ACCs).
But to go from 3:35 to, if he’s to be believed, 3:27 shape (his USA splits make me believe it) is still an insane jump. Whenever anyone is accused of doping, I always like to say that they’re passing the same tests everyone else is, but when something like this comes out and we see USADA might be protecting people, it makes it so much harder to even believe that.
1. USADA charged him but I'm not convinced they would have if they weren't currently feuding with WADA over the Chinese swimming case. USADA has criticized WADA for its handling of that situation. So I suspect they didn't not want to appear to be going soft on a top US sprint star.
I did think it was notable that, when the arbitrator cleared Knighton, USADA CEO Travis Tygart said he hoped that WADA would be satisfied with the outcome. If USADA/Tygart thought Knighton was blatantly doping, you would think he'd be pissed off that Knighton was allowed to go free. This is what Tygart told me at the time:
Particularly since we were under a tight timeline to investigate and have this resolved in advance of the Trials, we felt that it was best for the technical scientific evidence on this question to be fully presented to an independent arbitrator as the process calls for and to allow WADA, in particular, who has appeal rights, to also be satisfied with the outcome as determined by that independent arbitrator. I would certainly hope they would be following our robust investigation and thorough presentation of the relevant evidence but only time will tell.
That said, WADA was not the only party who appealed this decision to CAS. World Athletics did as well, via the AIU.
2. A lot of the time in these cases where the athlete claims meat contamination, it is hard for them to prove anything because it's impossible to test whether a meal you ate several months ago contained a banned substance.
But in this case, a USADA investigator -- not Knighton's team -- was able to source a sample of oxtail meat from the bakery and it did test positive for trenbolone. Granted at a very low amount, 0.1 ng/g. Obviously this was not the exact meal Knighton ate, but the sample was from relatively close to Knighton's meal (six weeks later).
This was one of the main reasons -- if not the main reason -- that Knighton was cleared.
Look at paragraph 178 from the New Era arbitration decision:
As an initial matter, what is known is that there is a direct connection between the oxtail Respondent consumed and the oxtail served at Moreno Bakery where it was purchased. The irrefutable evidence is that the oxtail served by Moreno contains trenbolone. Respondent tested positive for epitrenbolone, a metabolite of trenbolone. This is significantly more evidence than what was available in other meat contamination cases where the athlete was found to have No Fault or Negligence. Thus, it is reasonably concluded that Respondent ingested meat contaminated with trenbolone.
3. I can't help but compare Knighton's case to the Jarrion Lawson case. And of the two Knighton actually has the stronger case for contamination yet Lawson was the one who was cleared by CAS.
Both tested positive for the same substance. Lawson's sample had a lower concentration (.65 ng/mL compared to 1.14 ng/mL for Knighton), but both of those are considered low levels. WADA's guideline says that in potential meat contaminations, anything u For cases of clenbuterol, ractopamine, zilpaterol or zeranol or its metabolite(s) at a concentration at or below (≤) 5 ng/mL, WADA-accredited laboratories shall report the result as an Atypical Finding
Based on what we've seen so far -- the CAS decision has not been published yet, so we don't know if there is any new evidence -- Knighton provided more evidence than Lawson did. Because Lawson was never able to show that the meat he ate was contaminated. One of the key reasons Lawson was cleared was because his team was able to show that some of the testimony of one of the key witnesses in his initial AIU appeal was inaccurate.
Now I'm sure that the AIU/WADA argued that the level of trenbolone in the meat sample collected by USADA was not high enough to explain the trenbolone levels in Knighton's samples. And maybe that is the case.
But the inconsistency between this case and Lawson's is troubling to me. And CAS is now raising the bar for meat contamination cases. Even if you can show trace amounts of the same substance you were banned for, that wasn't enough for them to clear Knighton.
Also, some have asked about the arbitrator who cleared Knighton. It was a sole arbitrator, Jeanne Charles.
It’s not just the American sprinters…. You’ve got some ho-hum middle distance runners making extraordinary gains in the last 16 months
Facts and as a massive Ethan strand fan this has me a bit worried. I’m biased because he won the 1600 by like 30 seconds at my first ever middle school track meet (and beat every guy at my HS for 4 years straight), and I’ve thought he had it in him to be a top 1500m guy in the country since he was a sophomore (his 7:46 outkicking Wolfe at ACCs).
But to go from 3:35 to, if he’s to be believed, 3:27 shape (his USA splits make me believe it) is still an insane jump. Whenever anyone is accused of doping, I always like to say that they’re passing the same tests everyone else is, but when something like this comes out and we see USADA might be protecting people, it makes it so much harder to even believe that.
Without commenting on Strand in particular, I think this is a good point. Many fans want to think the best of the athletes they support and kind of suspend critical faculties a little. I really want to believe in Georgia Hunter Bell because she represents a British medal hope. But if we anonymised her results, I'd be suspicious as hell just based on the numbers. It's actually ludicrous to come back to the sport after 8 years, at age 30, and within a year become one of the best mid-d runners on the planet.
There's other cases, and we then head into various levels of rationalisation because we want to believe, despite ourselves. You see it with Cooper Lutkenhaus. If you were presented with his results anonymously, you would have huge suspicions - 1:42 at 16 is absurd. Add to that the fact he hasn't been getting tested. I get it, you want to believe because the story is amazing and he's American, and it may turn out that he's a generational freak. But if he was popped next month, would you really be surprised?
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
1. USADA charged him but I'm not convinced they would have if they weren't currently feuding with WADA over the Chinese swimming case. USADA has criticized WADA for its handling of that situation. So I suspect they didn't not want to appear to be going soft on a top US sprint star.
I did think it was notable that, when the arbitrator cleared Knighton, USADA CEO Travis Tygart said he hoped that WADA would be satisfied with the outcome. If USADA/Tygart thought Knighton was blatantly doping, you would think he'd be pissed off that Knighton was allowed to go free. This is what Tygart told me at the time:
Particularly since we were under a tight timeline to investigate and have this resolved in advance of the Trials, we felt that it was best for the technical scientific evidence on this question to be fully presented to an independent arbitrator as the process calls for and to allow WADA, in particular, who has appeal rights, to also be satisfied with the outcome as determined by that independent arbitrator. I would certainly hope they would be following our robust investigation and thorough presentation of the relevant evidence but only time will tell.
That said, WADA was not the only party who appealed this decision to CAS. World Athletics did as well, via the AIU.
2. A lot of the time in these cases where the athlete claims meat contamination, it is hard for them to prove anything because it's impossible to test whether a meal you ate several months ago contained a banned substance.
But in this case, a USADA investigator -- not Knighton's team -- was able to source a sample of oxtail meat from the bakery and it did test positive for trenbolone. Granted at a very low amount, 0.1 ng/g. Obviously this was not the exact meal Knighton ate, but the sample was from relatively close to Knighton's meal (six weeks later).
This was one of the main reasons -- if not the main reason -- that Knighton was cleared.
Look at paragraph 178 from the New Era arbitration decision:
As an initial matter, what is known is that there is a direct connection between the oxtail Respondent consumed and the oxtail served at Moreno Bakery where it was purchased. The irrefutable evidence is that the oxtail served by Moreno contains trenbolone. Respondent tested positive for epitrenbolone, a metabolite of trenbolone. This is significantly more evidence than what was available in other meat contamination cases where the athlete was found to have No Fault or Negligence. Thus, it is reasonably concluded that Respondent ingested meat contaminated with trenbolone.
3. I can't help but compare Knighton's case to the Jarrion Lawson case. And of the two Knighton actually has the stronger case for contamination yet Lawson was the one who was cleared by CAS.
Both tested positive for the same substance. Lawson's sample had a lower concentration (.65 ng/mL compared to 1.14 ng/mL for Knighton), but both of those are considered low levels. WADA's guideline says that in potential meat contaminations, anything u For cases of clenbuterol, ractopamine, zilpaterol or zeranol or its metabolite(s) at a concentration at or below (≤) 5 ng/mL, WADA-accredited laboratories shall report the result as an Atypical Finding
Based on what we've seen so far -- the CAS decision has not been published yet, so we don't know if there is any new evidence -- Knighton provided more evidence than Lawson did. Because Lawson was never able to show that the meat he ate was contaminated. One of the key reasons Lawson was cleared was because his team was able to show that some of the testimony of one of the key witnesses in his initial AIU appeal was inaccurate.
Now I'm sure that the AIU/WADA argued that the level of trenbolone in the meat sample collected by USADA was not high enough to explain the trenbolone levels in Knighton's samples. And maybe that is the case.
But the inconsistency between this case and Lawson's is troubling to me. And CAS is now raising the bar for meat contamination cases. Even if you can show trace amounts of the same substance you were banned for, that wasn't enough for them to clear Knighton.
Also, some have asked about the arbitrator who cleared Knighton. It was a sole arbitrator, Jeanne Charles.
Yes Tygart's / USADA's role is quite fishy. Not for the first time of course. First the charging, then in the hearing the arguing that the tren concentration was too high by a factor of 380(!) (see point 113), then the being pleased with the non-guilty verdict. Quite strange.
Notably, USADA as the Claimant argued in the Knighton arbitration specifically that the panel made the wrong decision in the Lawson case:
194. Claimant argued strenuously that it disagreed with the Lawson panel’s reasoning finding that the athlete bore No Fault or Negligence and that this Arbitrator should not follow it. As to the legal reasoning, Claimant argues that the Panel in Lawson erred because it disregarded the plain language in the Code that requires athletes to establish, inter alia, the source of their positive test. Second, the Panel ignored evidence that the meat the athlete consumed very likely did not contain sufficient levels of the prohibited substance to cause the positive test. Third, the Panel credited factors that CAS panels have routinely declined to accept such as the athlete’s protestations of innocence, clean testing history, and, to a lesser extent, a negative hair test.
As a side note, none of that has anything to do with Ayotte, whose "inaccurate" statement was simply discarded by the panel. In the end, Lawson got away despite his positive test because the CAS panel couldn't decide which of the two conflicting boar experts' opinions to believe, and then - because in doubt - sided with the defendant. They explicitly wrote that. Same story as in the Jeruto case actually (conflicting testimonies of the hct experts), while Houlihan couldn't find a boar expert supporting her contamination theory.
But the inconsistency between this case and Lawson's is troubling to me. And CAS is now raising the bar for meat contamination cases. Even if you can show trace amounts of the same substance you were banned for, that wasn't enough for them to clear Knighton.
I agree with your thoughts on USADA and Tygart, and the inconsistency. Like USADA said, Lawson should have remained banned. That was a sad decision back then.
But, CAS is not really raising the bar. Nothing new there. First, if you can only account for 0.003 ng/ml of the 1.14 ng/ml of steroids (using USADA's expert's factor of 380 (point 112)), you really didn't prove the origin of "the Prohibited Substance" (the Code's language) but only of a small fraction of it. Third, as USADA pointed out, there is lots of precedence where the panel concurred that the amount did matter (remember Houlihan?):
153. Claimant argues that this language should be interpreted to mean that where the concentration of prohibited substance in an athlete’s sample does not correlate with the alleged source, the No Fault defense is unavailable. Claimant urges that a long line of cases support its position. See...
As for new evidence, I bet there was none, just different experts debating the same points again.
However, to verify that Knighton's meat might indeed have contained 38 ng/ml instead of the 0.1 ng/ml found six weeks later, they could have taken a sample every 4 weeks or so, plot the results and determine the range and standard deviation. If that range would have been 0.1 - 100 ng/ml, Knighton should have walked. Between 0 and 0.1 ng/ml - guilty. Between 0 and 1 ng/ml - guilty. Between 0 and 10 ng/ml - debatable.
The test was in March 2024, so they could have collected lots of data before the CAS proceedings. I bet neither party did that though for obvious reasons: WA and WADA didn't need to, and Knighton knew better (again, see Houlihan).
You'd really have to go through the details on the accidental ingestion. There are plenty of restaurants that serve oxtail in his hometown, so go through the evidence. Highly sensitive equipment will pick up trace levels of accidental ingestion. His levels were reportedly very low.
Yes! A win for the clean sport, a devastating loss for the pro-dopers here. All rekbots go home devastated.
Whoever is devastated depends on whether Knighton knowingly doped, or whether he was railroaded to a 4-year ban because a panel of arbitrators decided the athlete didn't meet the high burden of identifying the more likely than not source.
It looks like this CAS Panel was persuaded by similar arguments that trenbolone contamination in the USA would be statistically unlikely. This precedent will be devastating for both clean and dirty athletes.
Are you really this gullible/naive? Or just covering for the guy?
the same steroid Jarrion Lawson tested positive for in 2018).
I thought he was a commentator. Isn't Jarrion Lawson the guy who used to tell people to "go down to your local track" and see how long they could hold whatever pace?