Not sure what point you are trying to make here, and I'm sometimes confused which athlete you are asking about ...
Most of the answers to your questions are obvious:
Why do we not get hundreds of failed tests from contaminated beef:
- Not all beef is contaminated. Risk of contamination varies widely by country. Different countries like China, Mexico, USA, and countries in Europe are subject to widely varying standards for giving hormones to cattle. If the UK leaves Europe, and strikes a agriculture deal with the USA, they will surely experience an influx of the same contaminated meat, combined with relaxed labelling standards that would hinder athletes making informed choices.
- Within a country, contamination will vary depending on how the beef is produced -- i.e. organic beef will likely not be contaminated with hormones.
- Urine testing will not always catch contaminated beef, due to short windows (days?) and concentration levels too low to be detectable.
If odds are so low, why are recent top athletes testing positive? (Don't recall if you asked that question, but it was asked above):
- Testing is not uniform. Top athletes are tested more. Most athletes in all countries are not in the OOC testing pool. Even in competition, unless they win medals, most athletes will only be selected for testing at random.
- Some testing is getting better. Low levels that were previously undetectable are now detectable in some labs.
Is there evidence of steroids causing an AAF?
- Yes and no.
- One of the factors against Lawson was the expert statement that "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;"
- However NADOs have warned against beef from Mexico and China: For example, "On February 11, 2019 the ITF published a warning on the risks of ingesting Clenbuterol and Trenbolone when eating beef or liver in Mexico or China ..." and USADA wrote: "USADA, WADA and other anti-doping agencies have issued specific warnings about this problem in China and Mexico." Presumably these warnings are based on evidence.
Is there evidence that the beef was contaminated?
- I think the answer for all athletes is "no". The standard of proof is a "balance of probability" and "more likely than not". So athletes recently eating beef in Mexico will likely score higher on this balance of probability, without specific evidence that the beef consumed was contaminated.
- In the case of Jarrion Lawson, the "tribunal" accepted that it was possible, but that Lawson failed to show that it was "probable".
What do you mean by "assumption of innocence"? All athletes from all countries are "assumed innocent" until proven guilty, and then the burden shifts to the athlete. This initial assumption of innocence is a fundamental pillar of justice in countries like the USA and UK. American Jarrion Lawson just had his 4-year ban upheld by CAS for failing to meet the higher burden of "balance of probabilities", notwithstanding the initial assumption of innocence. Other Americans, like Wilson and Claye, met this burden of proof to the satisfaction of USADA. It's hard to speak for other countries/sports in hypotheticals, but I'm sure UKAD offers a similar "assumption of innocence" to UK athletes.
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.
So no evidence that (low level )steroid contamination in beef will cause a positive dope test in humans.
Any evidence the beef he had was contaminated?
Would the same assumption of innocence for someone with a 4 year ban be extended to any non American?