I think him taking trenbolone on purpose is very unlikely. Trenbolone is a very dangerous, very anabolic drug that has massive side effects. I mean people have reported all kinds of crazy things, like paranoia and insanity. Depending on the dose it could cause him to gain a lot of weight very quickly, which no runner would want. Here is an anecdotal example.
📩 Automatically receive MPMD articles when they are published: http://bit.ly/2mtASGW————————————💊 https://gorillamind.com/derek (Gorilla Mind - My Fully Lo...
There are concentrations that are consistent with incidental consumption. In instances in which the concentration of the prohibited substance is extremely low and the substance in question is also known to be in public consumption in one form or another, documentation of the source can corroborate that the presence of substances is more than likely from incidental consumption, as opposed an attempt at doping.
Another person earlier asked how Knighton’s case differs from that of Houlihan. Knighton had the bill showing where he had purchased the food, allowing investigators to interview the staff about their supplier origins and to test the product itself, which found levels of the steroid in the oxtail which were consistent with the metabolites in Knighton’s sample.
Houlihan lacked all of that. She could not produce evidence that she ate what she said she ate from whatever vendor to support her defense that her positive test stemmed from pork.
True. Almost. Houlihan also had a bill for her meal (but for beef not the claimed pork), and they could track it all down to this Iowa pork plant. But no nandrolone was found there...
And there's more:
- her concentrations were inconsistent (way too high) with incidental consumption
- her pork tests came back negative
- her story claimed natural nandrolone but it was artificial
- her story claimed it was uncastrated boar which is extremely rare from that Iowa pork plant
Knighton (strong case with the tren actually found in the beef) and Houlihan (ridiculous case with literally everything wrong) are quite clear cases imho. But the real question is: why did Lawson and Wilson get off, noting that their drugs were not found in the beef?
24
2
if yo coach ain't Bobby, don't do roids as yo hobby
This really does put the cat amongst the pigeons. I am starting to ask myself whether the only difference between a lesser country like Kenya and the other countries is the sophisticated ability to find solutions to get athletes of the hook? I can see now why China is not backing down on their swimming doping case. Why can't they also be allowed to present reasons that exonerate their athletes but other can?
Kenya is the only country that isn't hiding behind cover ups, TUEs, legal minefields and sacred cows. That's why Kenya will be the only true clean country when the problem finally gets rooted out.
After being dirty for decades. I guess better late than never.
This really does put the cat amongst the pigeons. I am starting to ask myself whether the only difference between a lesser country like Kenya and the other countries is the sophisticated ability to find solutions to get athletes of the hook? I can see now why China is not backing down on their swimming doping case. Why can't they also be allowed to present reasons that exonerate their athletes but other can?
Kenya is the only country that isn't hiding behind cover ups, TUEs, legal minefields and sacred cows. That's why Kenya will be the only true clean country when the problem finally gets rooted out.
For once in +12 years we actually agree on something!
Does anyone really believe that an 18 year old can run 19.49 clean? Don't give me the super spikes bs there is no evidence of this over 100m, 400m or 800m compared with previous generations, obviously using the same drugs.
This really does put the cat amongst the pigeons. I am starting to ask myself whether the only difference between a lesser country like Kenya and the other countries is the sophisticated ability to find solutions to get athletes of the hook? I can see now why China is not backing down on their swimming doping case. Why can't they also be allowed to present reasons that exonerate their athletes but other can?
Kenya is the only country that isn't hiding behind cover ups, TUEs, legal minefields and sacred cows. That's why Kenya will be the only true clean country when the problem finally gets rooted out.
The clear lesson from all of these cases is that US athletes need to be a lot more careful with what they eat. They need to source drug-free meat, and if they're unsure of the provenance of meat when they're eating out, then they need to avoid it. I get that it would be a sacrifice, but athletics is a short career and you can enjoy all the roided-up meat you like once you retire in your 30s. The US food chain isn't going to be cleaned up any time soon, so it's up to athletes to take it into their own hands.
One last point: Knighton is repped by John Regis who also repped Dwayne Chambers.
Yep. I’m no expert on what drugs sprinters use, but I wouldn’t think tren, either. Sure it makes you strong quick, without retaining water, but it also f’s you up bad. And ages you fast. If knighton looks dry but muscular and quite a bit older than last year, then I’ll be sus.
He,and other sprinters can use it in very low doses, so long as its conjunction with winstrol, HGH, and maybe other drugs. Apparently russians used it,but in only minute doses and in a cocktail. Tren on its own,and in regular bodybuilder doses would be really bad for a sprinter.
The meat he had eaten was independently tested and determined to have the same levels of tren that he tested positive for. How does that make him guilty?
Have someone eat the oxtail and see if they fail a drug test that's the real experiment here
For sure. One US guy right now, in particular, has shown absurd improvement over a very short amount of time, and he has already qualified.
But it's not like track--or, should I say, not like sprinting. I GET sprinting. I have known the very fastest guys, clean and dirty. Step function. You can see it in swimming too, like the current 100 free record, or Ye Shiwen's last 100 in 58.68
I have seen it a lot in track. I must admit less so now, but we have Sedjati, Wanyonyi, etc to consider, along with others.
The clear lesson from all of these cases is that US athletes need to be a lot more careful with what they eat. They need to source drug-free meat, and if they're unsure of the provenance of meat when they're eating out, then they need to avoid it.
Totally agree with this. Give how many times contaminated meat positive tests have happened to this point, athletes must know that whenever they eat anything but organic meat they know they are at risk of a positive test. Why take this risk?
As noted in Gault's article, this is NOT the arbitrator's full decision, which has not been released yet. Rather this is just the Operative Award. A full decision that lays out the evidence presented, the parties arguments, and the arbitrator's thought process will be released in the future. Note the Operative Award states that "(the reasons will follow in due course)."
The article also explains that, due to the timing and high profile nature of the case, that Tygert thought it was better to have the arbitrator make the determination regarding accidental consumption instead of USADA so that it would be viewed by WADA and the AIU as more valid. Now, if USADA somehow tanked the case, that is highly problematic. But if it simply presented all the evidence it gathered and let the arbitrator decide, then that seems appropriate. The accidental consumption is essentially an affirmative defense. There is no dispute (as far as we know) that the trenbolone was in his system. Thus, USADA proved its case. But instead of USADA internally deciding to exonerate Knighton based on his affirmative defense - it was in the meat - it allowed an independent arbitrator to make that decision.
This is different than a criminal prosecution, where cases are NOT supposed to brought unless the prosecutor believes reasonably believes that they will be able to achieve a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, a prosecutor should never be happy with a not guilty verdict, because the prosecutor should not have brought the case unless they felt strongly that the accused was going to be convicted.
In this case, it seems like USADA believed Knighton's excuse - the contaminated meat - but had the arbitrator decide to avoid the appearance of favoritism. If this was in the context of criminal law, the charges simply would not have been brought (i.e., someone who kills another but where the killing was clearly in self-defense).
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.