Erriyon Knighton Cleared by USADA After Provisional Suspension for Trenbolone (Tainted Meat Deemed Likely)

and anybody who believes Knighton's excuse, I have a bridge to sell you.

It's actually quite clever, take trenbolone in low dose for an effective anabolic boost. Chances are you'll get away with it and if you're unlucky and test positive, you have a decent chance of getting off with the tainted meat excuse. And if you aren't cleared, much of the public will view you as a victim of a failed system.

Then why are numerous athletes not being busted for it?

The cow is not being tested its the athlete and normally it obviously would not cause a failed test

Sprinters, strength athletes, bodybuilders, football players, etc all take it. Even "The Tren Twins" have a popular YouTube channel & Instagram. Lol.

Tren today is what D-bol & Winstrol was in 1970s/80s.

We don't know because of the clen cover-up:

sportsscientists.com

On the Jamaican clenbuterol positives: A procedural failure and credibility black hole

An explosive new investigative report has revealed that numerous athletes have tested positive when their samples from Beijing 2008 were retested. They include Jamaican male sprinters, so dominant …

Open link

Wasn't Shelby's burrito tainted as well? What a load of BS.

More info about the Jamaican cases here:

washingtonpost.com

Jamaica’s Olympic committee denies report alleging doping violations

The report comes from the same source that broke the Russian doping scandal in 2015.

Open link

how long does this stay in the blood, and independent of excuse, should you be allowed to compete while you test positive? unwitting or not you took something illegal that we see as performance enhancing. ok, you can run when you test clean.

along those lines was why i asked if he had tested positive at some DL meet but had this excuse, does the result stay on the books. the USADA's gloss of the decision seemed to suggest that's a separate issue from do you get suspended.

to me it would discourage abuse if it was treated more like a wind aided race for you. you can run, and make money, you're not suspended, but until you test negative, we assume the race was performance enhanced.

this theory is also based in part on the intersex/trans issue. one way they have approached it is test testosterone and such. we ignore well-meaning. we ignore "on hormone blockers." what numbers do you put up? and i'm not saying test everyone all the time, but once you've tested positive it should be monitored more closely and it would be nuts to me if you like basically test positive and admit accidental use, that we view as distorting competition, and yet your results count before you've cleared the issue.

i mean, in terms of "punishment," he has an "excuse," but in terms of "testing," is he clean or not? if he still has this in his system.....

I can't wait to see Erriyon Knighton in the 200m on Thursday.

If I had to guess, I'd assume lots of athletes are more careful about what they're putting in their body. Many aren't, of course, but it seems like oxtails from who-knows-where may be more likely to be tainted than some steak with various certifications re: organic, no hormone, etc. For all we know, plenty of regular people who aren't as conscious about their diet may test positive too if given the opportunity.

(And while I'm genuinely not suggesting he and others are doing this intentionally, it'd also make sense to go pound some sketchy oxtails after doping to have a tainted-meat excuse available. Or even that, knowing a high-beef diet can help build muscle and that a lot of beef might still have trenbolone, someone would eat way more in the hopes of getting a little boost without tipping over the line into actually doping yourself. Risky, but less so than hitting the needle.)

No, just a convenient excuse that apparently works well when you are caught doping.

while i don't think many sprinters in the top 100 are clean, that does not mean the suspension was for illegal use of the specific steroid in question.

to make a proper accusation, you have to consider the half life of the PED, and the trace amount detected, to see if contaminated meat could be a plauble explanation.

to lift the suspesion, the ruling had to be, ultra trace trace pico gram quantities, and you can back calculate based on the half life what quantity might be consumed.

it the back calculation sohow that the amount of the PED is under that which is useful in perfomance, then you have to lift the ban.

did you do your research?

like i said, i think very few in the top 100 sprinters are clean, but if you're going to bust someone, or blast them on the internet, consider doing your best research before prosecuting them.

that said, i was always ready to nail Katir, maybe prematurely, but his profile jumped off the page, with his atlas mountains protocol, outlined by Aouita way back, in the open to Australian athletes, for he assumed everyone was doing something or other, and his protocol was state of the art, hence his openness.

down cam the hammer on Aouita, and with the Ben Johnson saga, everyone was going to come clean, with the obvioul top to bottom steroid use in the sprints.

however, the gong show punative hammer down of Ben Francsis after they volunteered confessions forever sent PED users underground.

at the end of the day, the administratiors of the sport poured gasoline on the fire.

so goes track and field.

Wasn't exactly an ultra trace trace picogram amount with approx. 1 ng/ml according to his lawyer.

However, that they actually found tren in the beef is a strong argument against a ban.

I'd love to see the numbers for sure.

I think his performances are even more suspicious than Katir's, with a 19:49 at age 18, and world silver at age 19. Not to mention the sad history of America's top sprinters.

I'd seriously like to see a study which would determine exactly how much meat would have to be ingested in order to trigger a positive test.

this is very constructive.

nanogram is 1 part per billion. ml, which is approx 1/billion gram.

gather it is urine test,

for the sake of perspective,

in a blood test, given a person has about 5 kg blood, that is 5000g blood,

and 1ng/g x 5000g 5000ng which is 5 micro grams total.

which is 0.005 mg.

check the math, which is off the top, and take it from here

That doesn't really help that much. Too many unknowns.

First, we don't know how much was in the body (of 75 - 80 kg), when 1 ng tren was found per ml urine. Second, we don't know the metabolism, i.e. how much tren was metabolized since the beef was eaten two days before the test. Third, we don't know how much beef he ate. Fourth, we don't know how much tren was in the beef.

Now, there may be studies for problems 1 and 2, and the parties involved have the numbers for 3 and 4. So hypothetically one could find the answer.

If the parties involved really wanted to know, they'd given 10 volunteers of similar weight the same amount of beef (wherein the tren was found), and then test them 48 hours later. However, they decided against such a test, although it would have been informative, fast, and cheap.

yep

Yep. American sprinters tend to enjoy the same protections afforded E. Africans and various third world athletes. It’s all so obvious.

A couple years ago a Russian gold medalist from 2015 I think said America has an unfair position with anti doping. This was the final straw and I completely agree with him.