Jonathan Gault takes an in-depth look at the Lawson doping positive and explains the intricacies of it all and how it differs from other cases like Ajee Wilson's.
Lawson faces a 4-year ban for testing positive for .65 ng of a prohibited substance - that's 1/90,000th the weight of a grain of salt.
This thread is locked to registered posters only
I greatly enjoyed the article. The way I see it we could have titled the article "An Impossible Task" instead of "A Life on Pause."
I mean it seems to me that once he tested positive he faced an impossible to figure out what cow he ate from at a restaurant and even if he could pinpoint it, would the beef industry admit the cow had been given a drug inadvertently?
The biggest difference between his case and the others who got off is two things.
i) The substance he tested positive (trenbolone ) for theoretically shouldn't show up in drug tests at all if the cow is properly injected in the ear.
Well if that's true, then why did they let the 90 year old guy who tested positive for exactly the same thing as Lawson? It seems to me that they have clearly admitted in that case that a) either it does sometimes show up in the tests or b) the tests are faulty.
Like the logic doesn't make sense to me.
ii) Lawson didn't have another recent negative drug test in the days before his positive test.
That's just kind of bad luck.
But I'd really like to see some sort of study where 10,000 cows are tested. How many of them show up with trenbolone in them either because they didn't get the injection in the ear or because it seeps out or because the test is faulty?
I mean the amount he tested positive for is minuscule - .65 ng. Wilson had more than 10 times as much - 8 ng/ml of zeranol - in her system.
Rojo, the third different thing, as explicitly pointed out in that article, is that here the international AIU is in charge of the American, and in case of the other two Americans, our NADO, USADA. This stupidity of self-policing has to stop, Rollins, Wilson, Claye, Baumann, Decker etc. are great points in case.
They are should be banned, period.
And for the records, you should correct the suggestive title. To be correct, they got cleared after claiming to have eaten contaminated meat, without providing evidence for that.
At minimum, you should add "allegedly" , as in
"after allegedly eating contaminated meat"
instead of presenting that presumably false claim as a fact.
I believe him and am glad you got the story out there. Not all positive tests are the same, there's a big difference between getting busted for EPO versus a microscopic amount of trenbolone that can't possibly be performance enhancing.
rojo,
To your first point: You are correct in saying that if the cow was implanted properly in the ear that it wouldn't show up in a urine sample of the athlete. This is why these things aren't happening all the time. It has to be when improper implantation occurs. There is actually a contest held each year where they see what company does the implantations the best. The year I found results for, the best company did 97% correctly. That means 3% were done incorrectly. And that was the best one in the country. What is the worst one then? 10% wrong? 15% wrong? The point is, these incorrect implantations happen for sure.
To your second point: Yes, purely bad luck. He didn't have a test for almost 2 months leading into his positive test on June 2nd. Not his fault of course. But the fact that the other athletes did and that was enough to prove that meat contamination can cause a positive test it does prove that these things happen. There needs to be more research like you said. To me it's irresponsible for WADA to set these rules without knowing and having data to understand what could cause these tests to be positive.
Lawson has a legitimate beef with the AIU. Clearly he got a bum steer.
The burden of proof in his part seems all but impossible, though.
When your next steak dinner could effectively end your career, Sage Canaday may soon have more folks to swap recipes with.
Wilson and Claye should not have been cleared. If an athlete tests positive, they should be banned. Dopers always have a lame excuse ready in case they get busted, and contaminated beef seems to be a popular one.
They are all doping.
Most athletes probably eat beef at some time. So how come you don't get hundreds of failed tests?
Anyone have actual evidence of steroids in meat actually causes a doping positive?
He may have voted for Trump, that's a crime in certain places.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
They are all doping.
Most athletes probably eat beef at some time. So how come you don't get hundreds of failed tests?
Anyone have actual evidence of steroids in meat actually causes a doping positive?
Perhaps that's the new microdosing, inject your food with drugs and then say it was contaminated.
Casual tell me who tests foreigners living in the US eg Amos, Korir, Willis, Kejelcha, Koko, Hassan, Cheserek (???), de Grasse and the Greek pole vault chick? What about foreigners living in East Africa like the Moen, the Robertsons and Wanders? I hardly believe that the Kiwi, Swede and Swiss authorities are going to fly one tester to the middle of nowhere once a month for athletes outside of the top 5 in the world. So we have a situation where if a non corrupt exogenous agency isn't testing these athletes, the situation is ridiculous and if you are based in a foreign country the situation is even more advantageous.
Double standard all around. Alberto Contador claimed contaminated meat, gives up 1 or 2 Tour de France titles, gets to keep 2 & keep racing?
The Tour BTW, declined to offer the title 1 or 2 years that Americans were DQd. Translation: all the top riders tested positive.
All his 2017 blood tests with location, according to Mr. Canova (from the 2:05:48 thread):
19 Apr 2017 (Blood and Urine - Lab in Oslo) : Hb 14.3 - Hct 43.1 - OFF Score 85.1
(10 days after Hannover Marathon in 2:10:07, NR)
8 Aug 2017 (Blood only - Lab in Dresden (GER)) : Hb 15.3 - Hct 45.5 - OFF Score 103
15 Dec 2017 (Blood and Urine - Lab in Oslo) : Hb 14.8 - Hct 45 - OFF Score 84.2
- 1 after Hannover
- 1 during base training for Fukuoka
- 1 after Fukuoka
Canova: "Sondre had several tests in Kenya, but for urine only. In the period 2016 - 2017 he had 9 tests OOC."
jesseriley wrote:
Double standard all around.
Well, yes. It certainly helps if the prosecutor and judge have the right bias.
See also
https://sportsscientists.com/2017/04/jamaican-clenbuterol-positives-procedural-failure-credibility/the IOC cites scientific research to argue that contamination should be ruled out barring “very specific and extreme circumstances, such as the quantity of the substance in the food and the volume of food consumed”
from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6039332/
:
Steroidal-based growth implants have been used in the USA for decades, thus making it possible to regain some of the growth-promoting effects of endogenous hormones that are lost as a result of castration. Implants employ estrogenic (estradiol or zeranol) and androgenic (testosterone or trenbolone acetate) components, or combinations thereof. Steroidal implants stimulate feed intake and protein deposition, and have dramatic impact on cattle performance and efficiency of feed utilization. Their use is very widespread, encompassing both growing and finishing phases of production. They are most heavily used in confinement operations, including backgrounding operations and feedlots. Notable exceptions are branded beef programs that disqualify their use, such as natural, organic, or non-hormone treated cattle programs aimed at specific value-added markets.
I've always thought there should be some kind of system where the (very wealthy) shoe companies sponsoring the athletes (as well as meets, the usatf, etc) should have to cover drug testing (obviously not perform it themselves).
This is a bit of a pipe dream - but it seems like if there was more than lip service to fair sport that is how things would work - as they have the power, reach, and financial ability to make fair sport happen (at least at the PED level). I feel like if ASICS threw money and their weight/influence into the case/investigation - Lawson would have a good chance of catching a break (if indeed the facts presented in the article are correct).
Also, other than swapping recipes from Sage Canaday - the athletes might want to go organic.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
They are all doping.
Most athletes probably eat beef at some time. So how come you don't get hundreds of failed tests?
Anyone have actual evidence of steroids in meat actually causes a doping positive?
I understand the skepticism. And acknowledge, he or Ajee or any of these people who have or haven't tested positive could be dopers.
But it's clear to me that USADA thinks contaminated beef resulting in a positive is possible.
Why don't we see it all the time? I don't know. But it could be that most a) the tests are getting better. I mean .65 ng is tiny. Some labs can't detect under 5 ng. Or b) Only occasionally does the beef end up being contaminated.
Think of it this way. Let's assume his story is true. That means there was only a tiny amount of the illegal substance in the beef. Let's say that happens 1/100 meals of restaurant beef. But the odds of you getting tested the day after one of those meals might also be 1/100 so wouldn't the odds of a positive be 1 in 10,000? If he had the meal 3 days before, it probably would be out of the system (I'm assuming and would like to know how quickly it leaves your system).
And we'd never have a positive like this in most labs which aren't nearly as sophisticated.
So the reason you don't have it all the time is the testing isn't sophisticated or done often enough.
rojo wrote:
ukathleticscoach wrote:
They are all doping.
Most athletes probably eat beef at some time. So how come you don't get hundreds of failed tests?
Anyone have actual evidence of steroids in meat actually causes a doping positive?
I understand the skepticism. And acknowledge, he or Ajee or any of these people who have or haven't tested positive could be dopers.
But it's clear to me that USADA thinks contaminated beef resulting in a positive is possible.
Why don't we see it all the time? I don't know. But it could be that most a) the tests are getting better. I mean .65 ng is tiny. Some labs can't detect under 5 ng. Or b) Only occasionally does the beef end up being contaminated.
Think of it this way. Let's assume his story is true. That means there was only a tiny amount of the illegal substance in the beef. Let's say that happens 1/100 meals of restaurant beef. But the odds of you getting tested the day after one of those meals might also be 1/100 so wouldn't the odds of a positive be 1 in 10,000? If he had the meal 3 days before, it probably would be out of the system (I'm assuming and would like to know how quickly it leaves your system).
And we'd never have a positive like this in most labs which aren't nearly as sophisticated.
So the reason you don't have it all the time is the testing isn't sophisticated or done often enough.
I would accept this, but then how come we have had this happen to 3 of the very top American athletes in recent years? 1 in 10,000 odds happening to 3 athletes sounds very unlikely...
The 90-year-old cyclist was hilarious. Food poisoning at that age? And he gets out of bed & gets a record?
ezby wrote:
rojo wrote:
I understand the skepticism. And acknowledge, he or Ajee or any of these people who have or haven't tested positive could be dopers.
But it's clear to me that USADA thinks contaminated beef resulting in a positive is possible.
Why don't we see it all the time? I don't know. But it could be that most a) the tests are getting better. I mean .65 ng is tiny. Some labs can't detect under 5 ng. Or b) Only occasionally does the beef end up being contaminated.
Think of it this way. Let's assume his story is true. That means there was only a tiny amount of the illegal substance in the beef. Let's say that happens 1/100 meals of restaurant beef. But the odds of you getting tested the day after one of those meals might also be 1/100 so wouldn't the odds of a positive be 1 in 10,000? If he had the meal 3 days before, it probably would be out of the system (I'm assuming and would like to know how quickly it leaves your system).
And we'd never have a positive like this in most labs which aren't nearly as sophisticated.
So the reason you don't have it all the time is the testing isn't sophisticated or done often enough.
I would accept this, but then how come we have had this happen to 3 of the very top American athletes in recent years? 1 in 10,000 odds happening to 3 athletes sounds very unlikely...
+1 to this
I recall an earlier quip from Doyle indicating that he and Jarion would be open to hair follicle testing which has been shown to be a somewhat reliable indicator of habitual use, although not the end-all be-all. I didn't see this mentioned in the article, is this offer still on the table?