i perfectly understood your point. but again, expecting someone to behave illogically given the situation they are in only to satisfy someone's internet rhetorical questions is yes, silly.
You expressed that opinion before, which is why I prefaced my response to the poster with “if it were me”. I specifically avoided saying Bert should do that, only saying that if I were in that situation and were innocent, I would do it.
athletes cheat just like the farmers cheat. both are attempting to evade controls. doping techniques evolve to stay ahead of the tests. there is absolutely no reason to assume that cheating farmers will stop evading controls by NOT experimenting with doses and etc. assuming a fixed window for cheating like wada did and you seem to repeat is too simplistic.
I don’t understand your point. Yes, farmers can experiment to find the best dose for optimizing cattle growth and avoiding a positive test. But again, if they avoid a positive test, then the meat is safe to eat.
To pursue your analogy, riders micro-dose with EPO, in order to get PE effects yet have it cleared from their bodies before the test. In the same way, farmers may find doses that get their growth effects yet have the CB cleared from the animal before slaughter. The meat is then safe to eat and will not trigger a positive in someone who eats it.
How can a doping athlete avoid a positive? 1) avoid being tested when the drug is in his system; 2) use a masking agent; 3) use doses and timing in a manner such that there is not enough substance in his body to trigger a positive. The only one of these three that applies to farmers is 3). Wrt 1, they can’t avoid the possibility that their meat will be tested and traced to them. Yes, their meat not be tested, just like someone might speed when a cop is not around, but the testing system insures that if this kind of cheating is occurring at a significant level, it will be reflected in the statistics. The latter say it’s not happening. IOW, while some cheating is undoubtedly going on, the tests are ensuring that it is extremely unlikely that someone is eating contaminated meat.
Wrt 2, there is no masking agent for CB, a point you yourself made when Bert’s positive was announced.
we've been through this multiple times -- the same athlete, same sample, same lot number is positive if tested in germany but is perfectly 'clean' if tested in another country. why do you simplistically assume that testing a farming animal is less messy ?
That’s one reason why there is a 100 ng/kg standard. Because any lab can meet that standard. The standard is not set so that only a special machine in Germany can meet it. If it were, the standard would be meaningless, and WADA could not have based its evidence that Bert did not eat contaminated meat on this particular level. Do you seriously believe that some labs can’t detect 100 ng/kg, that they only detect, say, 200, 300 or 500 ng/kg? If this were the case, Bert’s lawyers would have been all over this immediately at RFEC, pointing out that in completely invalidated WADA’s pharmacokinetic estimates. And I not only would have agreed with them, I would have advised all my meat-eating Euro friends that Spanish beef is not as safe as advertised.
Sure, there may be meat that has CB at a
lower level, which may or may not be detected, depending on the lab doing the testing. But this is completely irrelevant to Bert's case, because a lower level makes contamination even less likely. The case against contamination begins assuming that any meat Bert ate anywhere in Spain could contain up to 100 ng/kg.--that it could be this high and avoid detection. In this respect, he is given the benefit of doubt.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram