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...
+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?
Read the article again. It's in there:
"They showed the results of a hair test conducted in August 2018 that proved Lawson is not a habitual user of trenbolone (regular use would show up in a hair sample)."