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.