Maybe I missed it but Seavey never seems to answer the questions about the blood tests he had done at his own expense and with the help of Iditarod vets. At about 6 minutes into the interview with the woman reporter she asks if the blood tests would have shown tramadol in the dogs' blood.  Incredibly, he answers that he doesn't know. He should have found that out immediately in April.

The blood was drawn in Nome on March 15 at the same time as the urine tests.  He was notified that his urine samples showed tramadol in early April.  Why didn't he call the lab and ask them to test the blood for tramadol?  If it was not found in the blood that could mean that the urine test was wrong. 

Did Iditarod get the blood results as they had planned so they could interpret it?  Maybe the blood was used up on other tests before  a tramadol search could be ordered. But he should have at least known after 6 months of research if the blood work could have exonerated him.