Ajee Wilson, Will Claye and a 90 yr old cyclist got cleared after eating contaminated beef - Why not Jarrion Lawson?

wats stopping athletes taking this drug then claiming it was contaminated beef. reminds me of lagat being tested positive then being cleared that was disgraceful

alsal

For something lighter than a grain of salt? And he only tested positive that very day. That's ridiculous. Let him compete

Most drug cheats get caught for something lighter* than a grain of salt, and "only" once. I go with Dr. Schamasch here (IOCs Medical Director):

https://i1.wp.com/sportsscientists.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Screen-Shot-2017-04-03-at-9.11.32-AM.jpeg?resize=700%2C371&ssl=1

* Well actually we are talking about concentrations here, so that mass comparison is quite misleading.

VroomVroom wrote:

For something lighter than a grain of salt? And he only tested positive that very day. That's ridiculous. Let him compete

The problem is the concentration of a drug in your body decreases with time. Think of alcohol, drink a case of beer and you will fail a breath test, 24 hours later you will pass. What no one knows is whether Lawson accidentally consumed a minuscule amount of the drug the evening before the test, as he claims. Or whether he intentionally took a significant dose 51 days before the test, i.e. the day after his previous test.

As people have pointed out the current rules state that no trace of the drug can be present. That was probably OK when testing could only measure down to a certain level of drug presence. But now that testing can reveal minuscule traces the message is probably don't eat beef, or if you do, hope that you are not tested within the next few days.

LetsRun.com wrote:

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

The article says it was .65ng per millilitre. So unless the sample was only one millilitre this is obviously wrong.

Aside from that, does anyone have any insight into what a typical concentration might be for someone using the steriod for performance enhancing purposes, and how long it might take to reduce to .65ng/ml?

According to the decision, "There is no evidence that residues of Trenbolone in US meat can lead (and have led to) adverse findings, as confirmed by the expert witness Professor Ayotte". So presumably the other athletes were let off without providing such evidence, or had not given that evidence to Lawson.

It does seem quite difficult for Lawson to provide the required evidence as presumably it would need the beef producer to admit providing contaminated beef or breaking the industry regulations on how to inject cows... which could seriously damage their business.

Everyone accused of doping fervently claims innocence.

The innocent and guilty have that in common.

The latest, this top athlete (in her sport) just tested positive for a steroid-like substance, Ligandrol, and claims accidental ingestion from tainted supplements.

An issue you're basically guilty until proven innocent, in terms of leniency due to intent.

In cases were there was no significant performance benefit, ruling bodies should exercise more discretion.

I took the time to read the decision. The IAAF is calling total BS on the tainted beef defence.

Coincidentally, their other expert witness is "Professor Johnson".

Ernest wrote:

distancerunner1500 wrote:

[quote]LetsRun.com wrote:

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

The IAAF is calling total BS on the tainted beef defence.

Naturally. A complete joke. The real scandal is that Wilson and Claye got away thanks to USADAs protecting hand.

If everything is a scandal, then nothing is a scandal. The WADA code allows for a range of different punishments that range from a warning to a lifetime ban. In fact, Ajee was punished: she served a provisional suspension, missing some competitions, and had her American record performance annulled. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the beef on June 1st contained trenbolone, and consumption was unintentional, the burden shifted to Lawson only two months later, on Aug. 3rd, when he was first notified. That's when his preparation for his defense can begin. This case illustrates the high burden of detailed record keeping placed on all athletes, and specifically on the innocent, but unlucky athlete, to prove "unintent" was "more likely than not", by first investigating his own eating history, then going back to restaurants asking for evidence that they are not obliged to give, and asking them to ask their suppliers for evidence they are not obliged to give, to prove the history of the cow that ended up on his plate. Keep in mind that most athletes struggle for sponsors and may not have the resources to fight a lengthy legal battle, particularly when they are no longer competing due to a suspension or a ban. Tygart's view on this topic, and his proposals for changes to WADA (which they have already partially adopted) seems quite reasonable, to "ensure that genuine inadvertent positive tests are not unfairly punishing clean athletes":

rekrunner wrote:

If everything is a scandal, then nothing is a scandal.

The WADA code allows for a range of different punishments that range from a warning to a lifetime ban.

In fact, Ajee was punished: she served a provisional suspension, missing some competitions, and had her American record performance annulled.

No Casual didn't state that everything was a scandal. He said it was a scandal that countries can let their athletes off for the most ridiculous of excuses.

Not explicitly.

Subway Surfers wrote:

No Casual didn't state that everything was a scandal. He said it was a scandal that countries can let their athletes off for the most ridiculous of excuses.

Funny how that goes. Ajee provided none of the evidence requested from Jarrion (she only proved that she ate beef), and was caught with a much higher PED concentration.

Plus, her case was tackled very timely, meaning both USADA and Ajee actually - unlike Jarrion - had the opportunity to analyze the beef in question, but wisely chose not to.

As Jonathan Gault wrote:

And the IAAF/AIU wrote tellingly about Lawson:

In conclusion, Wilson and Claye simply got lucky with USADA, avoiding the normal 4 year ban.

And now, with Caster finally (?) out of the picture, we can see how dominant the beef eater actually really is.

The report is well worth reading as it clearly goes through the various arguments used by Lawson and counters them quite effectively.

For the injection of the implants see Section 84 and specifically 84(v) for incorrect injections.

For other cases, Wilson, Claye et al, see Sections 91 to 102

Alberto Contador puts in an appearance in Section 63

And Section 62 presents one of the most imaginative "dog ate my homework" excuses as it does include a dog, and eating, but fingernails rather than homework. But it seems it did happen at home.

https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://www.athleticsintegrity.org/downloads/pdfs/disciplinary-process/en/190531-IAAF-v-Jarrion-Lawson-Final.pdf

USA should stop using hormones to grow their beef.

Athletes should also stick to "organic" meat in the meantime.

alsal wrote:

wats stopping athletes taking this drug then claiming it was contaminated beef. reminds me of lagat being tested positive then being cleared that was disgraceful

alsal

Nothing. It worked for Wilson and Claye. Lawson wasn’t so lucky, lol.

Wilson and Claye did have key evidence that Lawson did not. In the case of Wilson, similar to Valle and Grove, "USADA also took into consideration ... the fact that she tested negative one week prior." In the case of Claye, his evidence included "meat consumed in Mexico." When the standard of proof required is "balance of probability" or "more likely than not", these facts help tip the balance in favor of Wilson and Claye. Lawson was "unlucky" that he did not have a recent "negative" test and he consumed his beef in the USA.

Raddison wrote:

The report is well worth reading as it clearly goes through the various arguments used by Lawson and counters them quite effectively.

For the injection of the implants see Section 84 and specifically 84(v) for incorrect injections.

For other cases, Wilson, Claye et al, see Sections 91 to 102

Alberto Contador puts in an appearance in Section 63

And Section 62 presents one of the most imaginative "dog ate my homework" excuses as it does include a dog, and eating, but fingernails rather than homework. But it seems it did happen at home.

https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://www.athleticsintegrity.org/downloads/pdfs/disciplinary-process/en/190531-IAAF-v-Jarrion-Lawson-Final.pdf

I agree, the report is certainly worth reading, especially Section 84.

King Tiger wrote:

USA should stop using hormones to grow their beef.

Athletes should also stick to "organic" meat in the meantime.

They have to be careful. If they cannot prove they ate "nonorganic" meat, then they would be banned for the illegal substances in their system! Best stick to at least getting receipts for nonorganic meat so that they can have an alibi when they get caught.

rekrunner wrote:

Wilson and Claye did have key evidence that Lawson did not.

In the case of Wilson, similar to Valle and Grove, "USADA also took into consideration ... the fact that she tested negative one week prior."

This to me was the ONLY reason why I didn't automatically assume Ajee' is doping.

Doesn't mean it's definite that she's clean, only that it's possible. And I'm sure she is tested frequently since that test and looked at under a microscope.