Erriyon Knighton Cleared by USADA After Provisional Suspension for Trenbolone (Tainted Meat Deemed Likely)

i'm not trolling and i was born in the 70s

you are proving my point though, as 100mg of test cyp (or any other ester) is not even close to microdosing

by definition of the word microdosing, one would be taking a very small amount in hopes of adding to the bodies natural supply to get a small but measurable improvement

microdosing with tren would be peak idiocy, which isn't to say people haven't done it of course

microdosing with epo makes a lot more sense because red blood cells have a lifespan measured in weeks, whereas testosterone is released in mini-pulses throughout the day. it's very different the way those two things work.

100 mg of cypionate (or whatever ester for that fact) is not that far off from microdosing.

Victor Conte explains microdosing testosterone would be "7 mg a day" - or about ~50 mg a week - which he says that amount would fly under the radar & not trip the ABP. He says the 7 mg dose will provide some performance enhancing benefits (I think Conte knows a thing or two about doping. 😉).

And I'm familiar with EPO microdosing - I've researched that quite extensively. But EPO is going to be more analogous to the endurance athletes. Sprinters & strength athletes would be more interested in microdosing anabolic steroids, testosterone, SARMs, etc. - the PEDs of choice for their particular sport (nothing new there).

Olympic Gold medalist Lauryn Williams said she was approached by a coach who suggested she "microdose" androgens to improve her performance. Also, in this article Conte explains the 7 mg a day microdosing testosterone that he says is widely used by dopers:

dailymail.co.uk

Athlete Williams reveals how she was told to dope 21st century style

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=&authornamef=Rob+Draper+for+The+Mail+on+Sunday

ROB DRAPER: Lauryn Williams will never know how much greater that record could have been had she taken advantage of some of the newest doping techniques on offer to elite athletes.

Link:www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/...

you do not know what you speak of

that you are using a 9 year old article from the dailymail as evidence says a lot

Nah micro-dosing definitely works because you can do it pre ooc testing. You just wait until after being tested to temporarily increase amounts. Anyway, given the blood passport, you want a constant higher baseline and to eliminate spikes that you would get from on/off cycles, way too risky.

^ This ^

Regarding point #1:

Of course it is "plausible" to test positive from eating intact boar meat and offal -- scientists have been studying that exact scenario for decades for a reason. The argument the CAS decided was about probabilities, not plausibility. It would be improbable, in the US, based on data collected during normal times before COVID supply-chain disruptions. This means that most pork consumers will not test positive, but from time to time, in a nation with many pork eaters, we can expect that some will. During COVID, there are reasons (both in and out of the CAS decision) suggesting that the probabilities, and the diets impacting carbon isotopes, were altered (i.e. more likely) at least for a short while due to various supply issues.

Regarding point #2:

It was misleading to talk about eating 3x the meat in a burrito, when the claim from the beginning was from offal. In literature just with Prof. Ayotte's name on it, eating small quantities of offal (kidneys, liver, heart) has produced results as large as 130-160 ng/ml -- from a small sample size not looking for a maximum. It would be sufficient to eat as little as 14g, or less than an ounce of nandrolone rich offal from kidneys, liver, heart, or even from the fat in a greasy burrito. Even WADA's own TD on nandrolone confirms that ingestion of offal can result in a positive test in the low range of less than 10 ng/ml -- just like Houlihan's.

Really "coach ewe2?" And you do? 😆

You obviously don't know who Conte is, his background with BALCO, his research with PEDs, etc.

It may be a 9-year old article. However the strategy of microdosing PEDs (steroids, testosterone, GH, EPO, etc) hasn't changed over the years.

So, do you have anything to offer on microdosing androgens, the impact microdosing would have on the T/E ratio, what impact designer steroids would have on the ABP, etc - or are you just going to continue to troll me? 🤔

You got it all wrong, presumably on purpose. It was stomach offal, so she would have to eat 2 lbs of pork.

Plus the discussion is mute, as it was synthetic nandrolone. You should know that!

The discussion is "mute"?

I'm going by what the CAS wrote in its decision (e.g. see paragraphs 8 and 9) -- if that is wrong, then the CAS got it wrong.

Contrary to your suggestion otherwise, no one knows that it was synthetic nandrolone, including not only you and me, but the AIU and the CAS. On the contrary, the CAS found that the probable source was not established.

Black privilege. They will let them dope in order to get the outcome they want. That's why there's a huge disparity. Heck look at the Kenyan situation. We were screaming about their doping program since 2004 all the while WADA turned a blind eye to it. All about the $$$$ and structured outcomes

Was it the same burrito truck as Shelby ?

Surely there's video evidence that can acquit them both

Correct. In the US look at who has gotten off using the tainted meat excuse (like Ajee and now this boy wonder).

You are lying again. Contrary to your claim, paragraphs 8 and 9 are not what CAS decided, but what the doper claimed:

Also note "the burrito was the only possible source" according to the drug cheat - remember that next time when you say "most likely", and try to blame to supplements or fruit cake or kissing Centro.
I'm going by what the CAS wrote in its decision, especially in the deciding paragraphs. The actual decision part comes a lot later, e.g.

106 (it was not "uncastrated boar"),

109 ("highly improbable that normal pork products in the US food supply chain, in particular pork stomach, would show elevated androgen levels"),

114 ("The Panel finds it possible but improbable that the ingestion of boar meat (cryptorchid) would have resulted in the urinary concentration found in the Athlete’s A- and B-Samples." - get it? Way too much nandro for a burrito EVEN IF it was uncastrated boar - which it wasn't),

and 119 ("The Panel finds that the carbon isotope signature of the Athlete’s A- and B-Samples is neither consistent with the carbon isotope signature of commercial pork in the United States nor her own signature.").

Get it? EVEN IF it was uncastrated boar - which it wasn't AND EVEN IF it wasn't too much nandro for a burrito - which it was, it still wouldn't match the data because of the CIR - as it was synthetic nandro. The drug cheat lost 4 : 0 there, all four in unanimous decisions of the CAS panel.

That is indeed why the discussion is mute. Stop lying, Troll.

Claye and Wilson and Knighton had none of Shelburrito's problems (e.g., too high a concentration to come from the food, and artificial CIR while claiming natural roids). They were two steps ahead of Shelburrito: using artificial drugs that the farmers also use, which was all the difference to Shelburrito with her alleged natural nandro from alleged uncastrated boar. Of course they all doped intentionally but that is a different question - you gotta have your excuse in line with the facts...

That doesn't look like a skin colour issue. Also, why would white Tygart/AIU prefer black athletes?

Are you sure this discussion is "mute"? You seem to be making a lot of noise.

In summary, your response to my claim that "the claim from the beginning was from offal" is "paragraphs 8 and 9 are ... what the doper claimed". I think we are in agreement that it was Houlihan who claimed "offal", and her experts who argued "offal", from the beginning.

Paragraphs 106, 109, and 114, are strictly and inexplicably limited to pork meat and stomach, and, while these unnecessarily narrow CAS findings are not wrong per se, the relevance is questionable, as they fail to squarely address and rebut Houlihan's claim of "offal".

In light of the original claim of "offal", it seems most disturbing that Prof. Ayotte's testimony misrepresented to the CAS the applicable literature by a factor of 50-75x, particularly when Prof. Ayotte's name appears on at least two other papers squarely applicable to Houlihan's claim of "offal", finding values up to 130-160 ng/ml. The testimony from the expert witnesses most certainly guided the CAS to their findings.

My other claim was that "no one knows that it was synthetic nandrolone". Nothing in the CAS decision rises to or demonstrates specific knowledge that the nandrolone present in Houlihan's samples was synthetic. The strongest argument made to the CAS was that the CIR values are "consistent with" pseudo-endogenous oral nandrolone precursors. This is speculation, not knowledge.

What about "only possible source" versus "most likely source"? Once again, what did the CAS tell us? In paragraph 43 of the CAS decision, here's what the CAS wrote that Houlihan told all the parties: "After reviewing everything she ingested with her legal team, it became clear that the most likely source of nandrolone was a burrito she bought from a food truck". Please remember that next time I say "most likely source". That comes directly from the CAS, verbatim.

Hahaha indeed the discussion is mute, for several reasons, including:

- The doper lost her case three years ago because of the too many improbabilities to put it mildly (and you lost these arguments at least 578 times here since then).

- The case was already over with decision 106 - no point in arguing about the meat amount and carbon isotope ratios.

Obviously here is nothing "inexplicably" or "unnecessarily narrow" or "questionable" or "most disturbing" and "misrepresented" - this is all in your crazy mind, not in the CAS decision, and not in the appeal of the CAS decision either.

Even a child can understand that there is a difference between stomach offal and kidney-containing offal (and that both can correctly be called "offal"), regardless of how often you childishly try to revert the CAS decision.

Apparently the discussion is not "mute" because you keep talking.

The discussion here was not about the CAS decisions, but about how the CAS was misled about the existing literature by one of the expert witnesses, before making its decisions. That is not an argument I've ever lost.

As far as the case itself, I would say it was already over by paragraph 75, when the majority of the CAS did not agree that a deviation from the ISL probably occurred. The improbabilities from 106 did not decide the case, but rather the length of the sanction. Back in paragraph 73, we can see the "meat versus offal" bait and switch deception on full display, as well as seeming deviations by the WADA Lab from its procedures. The WADA Lab appears to have considered plausibility and likelihoods and the nandrolone concentration versus literature, before reporting the AAF, which deviates from the WADA guidelines. We can also see that the WADA Lab used the carbon isotope test to determine exogenous origin, deviating from the guidance "The origin of the urinary 19-NA may not be established by GC/IRMS analysis" if "consumption of edible parts of intact pigs is invoked by an Athlete".

Perhaps, if the CAS had been completely and accurately informed by the expert witnesses, the minority decision in 75 would be a majority decision, rendering the discussion from 86 to 145 moot.

Conte also was the champion of epitestosterone gels that confuse the t/e ratios by nullifying it.