Wow, that's a great story. The most surprising paragraph is here:
"Sophisticated modern testing methods showed that Grove had less than 500 picograms of trenbolone, “an extremely low level,” Tygart said. But there is no established legal minimum level of trenbolone; any amount is considered a positive."
As a scientist, that's ridiculous. There need to be minimum levels of detection. The machinery is getting better, so at some point the trace amounts from eating beef will start showing up more and more. Do we really think the 90 year old guy is doping?
The rules need to be rewritten.
The second most interesting paragraph is here:
"Grove also was taking supplements. In investigating his case, Usada found that one of them contained clomiphene, another prohibited substance, although it was not indicated on the label. Clomiphene did not show up in the test."
Again, this guy was clearly not doping, but he was taking prohibited substances that weren't shown on the label of his pills.
This case really muddies the water for me. How can we believe positive tests when it can be this easy to trigger a positive test?
Maybe this points to a need for an expansion of the biological passport. Focusing on specific chemicals will always have false positives and negatives. Focusing on the physiological outcomes of doping might be easier. When somebody's physiology changes suddenly, that could indicate doping regardless of whether we can pinpoint the chemical they used.