thts the problem with any tests none of these guys are normal
and glad the daebate goes on here after its dropped by the ADDers on the main forum
Printable View
thts the problem with any tests none of these guys are normal
and glad the daebate goes on here after its dropped by the ADDers on the main forum
what if they just got full tests run once a month, just as part of being a pro?
if the riders really wanted to ensure the public that they were serious about doping, i think theyd stop whining about their privacy and agree to something like this.
also, landis is now claiming that he just has naturally high levels of T, but then why didnt he test positive any of the other days he was in yellow? do they compare the failed test to the other results to see if it was even close?
Could the levels of testosterone be so high on his stage win because of the amount of physical exertion put out by his body that day? However, since his T levels weren't abnormally high- just his epi-T levels were low- I wonder how that plays into things. Either way, I hope all of it is a false alarm.
I think this is the 1000000000000000th time this has been mentioned, but his testosterone levels were not high, it was the ratio that was off.
I wonder when we'll know the results from the B sample.
do you have the actual numbers? cause even Floyd is saying he has naturally 'high' levels of testosterone?Quote:
Originally Posted by MassLiberal
I have a feeling this is a pretty minor point, but some more clarification might help.
as far as i remember a normal testo rate is about 1:3 … a high one is at 1:5 and Floyd was tested with something 1:9 what is far off the normal scale.
Just some info from Germany, the news around here have statements from some hormone doctor as well as from some sports doc, they say in unisono: "floyds results very strongly imply doping, his 17th stage win can't be explained otherwise."
The next sentece was like: "all tour winners of the past 20 years were doped"
one thing i belive is really funny: when Lance was accused of doping in 99 because of some unnatural testing his "excuse" was:"i used some butt cream that must have contained the hormones"
(sorry, i dont know the right word for "Gesäßcreme", the stuff you put on youre butt in ordern not to get blisters and stuff if you ride for a longer time.
So whats the time & cost required for testing these samples?
I'm so down with EPO chamois butter.
depends. The mass spec itself is relatively fast, though prep time making sure of sample integrity and controls are prolly important.Quote:
Originally Posted by cj001f
I was wondering this too, cause I think 1000000000000000th time might be a little highQuote:
Originally Posted by lph
Me too!!! I actually spread the stuff on some toast before any big ride, works great!Quote:
Originally Posted by kidwoo
Actually, this is probably true. The hydrocortisone cream that I buy at Rite-Aid for saddle sore relief would probably cause me to fail a doping test. As would other products available over the counter.Quote:
Originally Posted by burny
One of my primary reasons for believeng in Landis' "innocence" is that I just do not see him taking a shot of testosterone prior to stage 17. Where is the logic in that? If it worked, they knew that they were going to be tested anyway. It just does not seem rational. Keep in mind Landis was tested at Paris-Nice, and was probably tested at California and Georgia. We know the reullts of those tests were clean.
When the most recent scandal developed regarding the leaked EPO test results, I questioned the ethics of the testors, as well as the athletes. This is another case of bad ethics. Test resultls ahould not be leaked. The false positives CAN happen. That is the reason for the B-samples. It is generally accepted amongst the scientific community that the odds of two false positives from the same sample are so low that they are virtually impossible. The lab that has leaked this data has lost credibility. WADA needs an independent audit, as well.
Nope. No way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Plakespear
1) hydrocortisone is not an anabolic steroid, but a corticosteroid. The two do not show up on the same tests.
2) corticosteroids might very well mess up your bodies hormone levels when injected IV or intraarticular, but there is no way a lo dose cream could.
(frankly, although powerful, I doubt Intraarticular corticosteroids would mess with his thyroid) I have done hundreds of spinal and joint injections of hi dose corticosteroids and have never heard nor read of that being one of the side effects.
From a Yahoo article:
In a veiled reference to seven-time winner Lance Armstrong, long dogged by doping allegations, LeMond added: "I hope that (Landis) won't do what another American did: Deny, deny, deny."
What a douchebag. He has never been able to handle Armstrong's success.
There are some things here which make no sense:
1. His previous tests did not show a problem.
2. From what I read, taking testoterone that day would have no effect, so why do it?
3. I read some quotes from trainers who say that testosterone, which builds muscle mass, is the last thing you would take to do the TDF, especially right before or during the race.
4. The testosterone level itself, as opposed to the testosterone/epi ratio, was within normal ranges.
Should be interesting. At the very least we'll get to laugh at a guy whose name is Dick Pound
I was always under the impression that T treatment wasn't like something you could just do in a day...
Let me get this straight, you then use the lathered toast in place of the chamois.Quote:
Originally Posted by lph
Do you eat it after or during your ride?
Not sure if this has been mentioned here before, but here is an interesting article about what it's like to take some of these drugs and how they improve your performance, buy an author who was paid by Outside to take them for awhile and report about it:
http://outside.away.com/outside/body...ug_test_1.html
Long, but worth the read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irul&ublo
1. thats what is really interresting … noone can explain that …
2. thats wrong, testo does help youre muscles to recover much quicker and it causes a click in youre head to push youre limits further, i have no idea how this works but it does, even if you just get one injection.
3. why not … as far as i know testo is within the general use during training period, cyclists however dont take near as much as bodybuilders.
4. i researched and the results are: normal testo/epiT level is 1:1 a high one is 1:2 officially accepted along the wada tests is a 1:4 what seem to be stupid high (you would loose all youre hair and walk around like hulk), landis was tested with 1:11 what cant be explained by a couple of beers or a malfunktion in some organe. its just too high. i think, maybe the testers (and its really poor of them to let out landis name before the bprobe was taken and analysed) did something wrong (its just a extremely high testo/epi level), or landis just made a mistake with his doping mix.
Lets see what the B-probe will say.
the link orange posted has been postet before, but many of my infos come from that article, its worth reading …
This is my feeling, as well. If your 1;11 ratio is the correct result, that seems like a hell of a huge fluxuation to occur over a 48 hour period (he would have been tested two days prior when he was still the maillot jaune). Granted, I am not a biochemist, but these numbers seem to be a huge jump in a very short period of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by burny
If his testosterone level is in normal ranges, then the primary culprit is the epiT levels, right? What could cause that to plummet?
From the biochemists.......13:1 explained.Quote:
Originally Posted by Plakespear
Quote:
Intoxicating beverages contain a number of different forms of alcohol,
the major constituent of which is ethanol. When a beverage is consumed
the ethanol content passes through the stomach wall and digestive tract
into the blood stream. Once the ethanol enters circulation it begins
to alter the bodies' biochemistry. One such reaction is to
differentially increase the rates of testosterone (T) and
epitestosterone (E) metabolism. The overall effect of this reaction is
to increase the ratio of T to E excreted in the urine.
It has been reported that ethanol consumption can increase urinary T/E
ratios by 30% - 277% in healthy individuals. Observed changes in
plasma T/E ratios can occur with the consumption of less than 2 pints
of lager. The ingestion of ethanol by an individual will increase the
T/E ratio observed in a urine sample.
It follows that if the effect of ethanol on T/E ratios is calculated
relative to urinary E concentrations, it can be seen that increases in
the ratio are exponential as E concentrations decrease. Individuals
with naturally low E concentrations could, therefore, experience
increases in T/E ratios of ? 940% greater than increases experienced in
an individual with normal E concentrations. Calculations estimate
that in individuals with low urinary E concentration, ratios of 17 to 1
or higher could have resulted from ethanol consumption without any
administration of exogenous T.
The current T/E ratio test as performed by Kings College Laboratory and
approved by the UK Sports, the IWF and IOC cannot discriminate between
a 13 to 1 T/E ratio resulting from ethanol ingestion or a 13 to 1 ratio
resulting from endogenous T administration.
Yeah, he's been a serious DB for a while now. It's sad to see him become a bitter old man. ... But I still like his bikes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
ah, but more is coming out:
"Cyclingnews is reporting that Landis also failed the direct IRMS test that distinguishes natural from synthetic testosterone:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...ul06/jul31news
If that turns out to be true, he's going to have a very difficult time getting the test results overturned"
and Lance is as dirty as an amsterdam douche-nozzle, too.
wake up and smell the fraud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rideit
This was reported by the good ol' french newspaper, L'Equipe. We are all very aware of the truths that paper has produced. While this may be true, it's not coming from a very reliable source.
And I'm not so sure about Lance. I used to wonder, but I'm pretty convinced he raced clean, if for no other reason that he NEVER failed a drug test.
BUT, he also has never once flat out said he never doped...language is a slippery shield.
Lance supports Landis and throws greg under the bus
Quote:
ARMSTRONG: I mean, I think my reaction is that. I mean, I'm not going to — I don't want to pass judgment. I don't really want to comment until we have a confirmation of the (inaudible). As you said, I've been (inaudible) that position where there's been a lot of speculation. And I'm not going to speculate.
I mean, you can get Greg Lemond to go on the air and speculate. I'm not going to do that.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
ARMSTRONG: Listen, I mean, there's no — you can't deny the fact that — I mean, if I open USA Today today and it's the whole front cover, I mean, that's not necessarily good for any sport. But I'm not going south like Greg does. I believe in the sport. I love it, been a fan of it, and I'm going to support it.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
ARMSTRONG: I've lived that life. I know what it's like to be accused of things and, you know, my suggestion to (inaudible) would be if you're innocent, if you believe you're innocent, then you stand up and fight for it. That's what I did for — have done for the better part of 10 years.
I've said this and I've said that. At the end of the day, there's no proof. But you've got to fight back and you've got to answer the questions and you've got to be very specific and be very aggressive. And if that means talking to the press, if that means suing somebody, if that means writing about it, thinking about it, talking about it, you have to do it.
Actually he did after the '05 tour in an interview on 60 minutes or something like that, I can't remember where it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by rideit
Reporter asked: I know you've said this, but I think the american public wants to hear it. Have you ever used performance enhancing drugs?
Lance: No I have not.
I think I remember that pretty accurately.
And Woodsy, that's good stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rideit
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1447379.htmQuote:
CNN REPORTER: Can you unequivocally say you have never used an illegal substance ever?
LANCE ARMSTRONG: Listen, I've said it for seven years, I've said it for longer than seven years, I have never doped. I can say it again, but I've said it for seven years… it doesn't help.
:confused:
As Greg Lemond has weighed in with his worthy opinion on doping I also just received this breaking news bulletin. I received in over the internet so it's likely all true.
Breaking News: Greg Lemond Can't Post
Minneapolis, MN -- Greg Lemond today released a statement that said he has, reluctantly and with great sadness, been forced to add the 2006 Tour de France to the long list of tours that he should have won. Lemond initially believed, and was even quoted in an earlier interview as saying, that this was the first clean Tour de France in many years. However, in light of the recent positive doping test of tour winner Floyd Landis, Lemond has concluded that, in all likelihood, he himself should have won the tour this year.
This brings the total number of Tours de France That Lemond Should Have Won (TDFTLSHW) to 167. Lemond first won the tour in 1986. However, as he has explained many times over the years since, he should have won the Tour in 1985, but was lied to by Bernard Hinault and cheated out of the race victory. Lemond next should have won the Tour in 1987 and 1988, but was incapacitated by a shotgun blast from his brother-in-law. While the incident was ruled an accident by the police, Lemond believes that his brother-in-law was working with Hinault and a young Texan by the name of Lance Armstrong to remove him from the sport.
Lemond came back to win the Tour in 1989 and 1990, but lost in 1991 due to the fact that, as incredible as it may sound, every other rider in the Tour de France besides Lemond was taking performance enhancing drugs. Lemond believes these drugs were supplied by Bernard Hinault, who realized that if nothing were done, Lemond would continue to win the Tour for the next 50 years. The drug-tainted Tour would continue through 2005, including the reign of Lance Armstrong. In the absence of doping, Lemond clearly would have won the Tour from 1991 to 2005, bringing the total number of TDFTLSHW to 21.
Going back before 1985, Lemond believes that in all likelihood, he would have won the Tour de France each year since his birth in 1961 if a) he had known about it and b) he had not had the small stature and limited leg length common to children between the ages of 0 and 10. As Lemond explains, clearly it would be unfair to him to discount the Tour wins he should have achieved were he only able to reach the pedals of his bicycle. This brings the TDFTLSHW to 45.
While Lemond concedes that some may believe him to be "stretching it" by including in his TDFTLSHW years from Tours before his birth, he claims that if one is to think about it logically, the only possible conclusion is that the greatest bike rider in the history of the Tour would absolutely have won the Tour since its inception in 1903, if only he had been alive at that time. It was not Greg Lemond's fault that his parents were not alive and able to conceive him in time to ride the initial Tour in 1903; thus, it would be unfair to strip him of the Tour wins that he rightly should have been awarded.
Note that there have been 11 years since its creation in 1903 that the Tour de France was not held due to the two World Wars. Clearly, stopping the Tour due to worldwide war would have been unfair to Greg Lemond, had he been alive, and would have in all likelihood, been a move orchestrated by Bernard Hinault, had he himself been alive, to keep Lemond from winning the tour. Thus, Lemond believes that these years should also be included in the TDFTLSHW, giving him a total of 103 wins.
Finally, Lemond explains that he has included the years between the invention of the bicycle to the first Tour de France (1839 to 1903) in the TDFTLSHW. Had the French had the foresight to create the Tour de France in a more timely manner, Lemond would have definitely won it each and every year, again assuming he had been alive (see above). Obviously Lemond cannot be blaimed for the shortsightedness and general ineptitude of the French, and therefore the victory from the Tours de France that should have been held in these years must be credited to Lemond, bringing the final tally of TDFTLSHW to 167.
Note that while Lemond has not yet been able to rationalize including years before the invention of the bicycle in the TDFTLSHW, he has created a company to pursue such an effort. The company is hard at work on a rationalization and hopes to produce one for him within the year.
thats $ L7
pure $
After the news from France yesterday that a single doping test from the Tour had returned a “non-negative” finding (according to rules, a positive test must be confirmed by the B sample analysis, which is still taking place), speculation was rife over who, after the dramatic pre-race house cleaning of Operacion Puerto, was suspected of doping.
Said speculation settled on Floyd Landis, in part because he suddenly withdrew from a series of lucrative post-Tour criteriums, officially citing hip problems (in so doing, Floyd missed out on at least $100,000 in start money). Organizers of the Acht van Chaam criterium expressed annoyance at the fact that Landis was a no-show, indicating his departure was sudden and unplanned.
And Thursday morning, Phonak team officials confirmed that the initial adverse finding was in fact Landis’ and it was for an unusual ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone.
What now? No one really knows.
According to the Phonak team statement, Floyd has requested a counter-analysis of his B sample. If it’s also positive, he will be fired from the team, and the United States Anti-Doping Agency will start procedures to suspend him for two years.
Testosterone has been tested since the 1980s. Two parameters are measured – the most common of which is the ratio of testosterone to another hormone, epitestosterone. This test is called the T:E ratio. The normal ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone in humans is 1:1, but just as some men produce lower levels of testosterone, some produce higher levels. Thus, the International Olympic Committee adopted a ceiling ratio of 4:1 (two standard deviations above norm) to lower the risk of false positives – the ratio was lowered last year from a previous high of 6:1. As it stands, even at a 4:1 ratio there is a reasonable benefit. (However, it’s inconceivable that testosterone, even if it was taken, could alone account for Floyd’s performance on stage 17; testosterone aids in recovery and the ability to sustain higher training loads, but won’t allow a rider to ride faster simply on its own.)
Testers also view elevated overall levels of testosterone and epitestosterone – even within the ratio limit – as suspicious, but athletes often claim they have naturally high levels. That leaves testers to decide, based on multiple samples taken over a period of weeks, whether or not the elevation is natural or artificial. Sharp peaks or dips in the overall levels indicate artifical use. There again, athletes have the advantage, as instead of taking injectable or oral testosterone, they can use one of the many transdermal patches, like Androderm or Testoderm. The patches offer a more consistent release which levels off the peaks that would indicate artificial enhancement and, when removed, testosterone levels start to decline quickly.
But in addition to the commonly known T:E ratio test, there is a less-common test that, in American circles, is called CIR, or Carbon Isotope Ratio analysis. It was pioneered in the late 1990s by, among other scientists, Don Catlin of UCLA, one of the world’s pre-eminent anti-doping scientists and a noted expert in steroids.
CIR discerns naturally ocurring testosterone from artificial. It can be a stand-alone test, but is particularly useful in concert with the T:E test because, while an athlete could conceal testosterone use by taking epitestosterone (thus raising his levels of both but keeping the relative ratio below 4:1), any artificial testosterone would flag a positive on the CIR test. Further, the CIR test has been upheld by the Court of Arbitration for Sport as being sufficient proof on its own to declare a positive (independent of T:E findings). In short, the test is considered well-supported by research and past case history, and quite accurate.
However, there is one major wrinkle in the Landis case that is now making the rounds. John Eustice, appearing on ESPN with Dan Patrick, stated that it’s possible Floyd’s result is a false positive, because his testosterone level is low, not high. That corresponds to both the now-known fact that Landis was (legally) taking cortisone shots for the avascular necrosis in his hip (cortisone reduces the body's natural production of testosterone), and the wording of the Phonak press release, which stated that Landis’ A sample had returned “an unusual level” on his T:E analysis (no mention was made of results of any CIR analysis, if it was done). Despite the wording of the release, almost every media outlet in the world that has mentioned the test has said that Landis tested positive for high levels of testosterone. As of press time, Eustice had not responded to an e-mailed request for comment on the origin of his knowledge of Floyd’s testosterone levels.
In his first public comments I know of, to Sports Illustrated’s Austin Murphy, Landis denied that he’d used testosterone in any form, and noted that his cortisone treatments – or thyroid medication he’s been taking – might play a role in his test result. (The two thyroid hormones, thyroxine and triiodothryonine, help regulate metabolic rate and protein synthesis.) But, in paraphrased comments reported by Murphy, Landis told him that an elevated level of testosterone is different from a positive test and that this is a common problem among cyclists. If Landis’ levels were low, it’s unclear why Landis wouldn’t simply say his T levels were low, or why he would have retained medical counsel to advise him on the issue of high T levels.
Landis did grimly admit that he doesn’t expect the B sample to be different than the initial A sample, but he may try to prove he has naturally elevated levels of testosterone.
The worst thing about the whole sorry episode – for Landis, for us, for anyone – is not knowing what’s happening. As a journalist, it’s part of my job to get information that’s not public. But according to anti-doping rules, an adverse analytical finding is not supposed to be made public until the B sample confirms the initial analysis. Only the rider, team, UCI and relevant national federation and anti-doping agency are to be told.
Instead, we practically got a public announcement that one rider had failed his drug test at the Tour. The press naturally speculates on who that person might be. Floyd’s disappearing act in Europe may have helped direct the spotlight to him, but the simple fact is that, of this point, we simply don’t know what’s happening.
All we know is Floyd’s A sample returned an unusual ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone. High? Low? Corroborated by a B sample or even CIR analysis of the A sample? Related or not related to cortisone shots or thyroid hormone and therefore possibly a false positive? Who knows.
Floyd missed out on an easy six figures in post-Tour start money, a scheduled Friday appearance on Leno, and any number of magazine stories that are now being held, changed or killed outright. He missed out on sponsor interest and whatever size embrace the American public was going to give him – maybe not as large as that given to Armstrong, but a pretty big deal for a kid who used to sack groceries at a store in Lancaster before training from 10 p.m. to two in the morning.
We missed out too. We missed out on being able to know, rather than speculate, on what’s happening. And the more we have to speculate, the more we collectively decide that the wait is too much trouble and, aw hell, the guy probably did it. By a recent ESPN poll, 65 percent of respondents (43,000 and counting) already say they believe the reports that Floyd tested positive for testosterone. Of the 75 percent of respondents who say they were interested in the Tour to begin with, 33 percent of those say that Landis’ alleged positive test significantly diminishes that interest (another 28 percent say it slightly diminishes their interest).
Help me out here: who’s the winner in this mess?
Sounds like Floyd is fucked. The lab just revealed that some of the testosterone found in the A sample was not organic hormone. So, either hes a lying sack of shit, or the lab made an error, or he was framed. This is sounding quite Hamilton-esque.
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cyclin...ory?id=2535787
Fack. I'm not happy about this one bit.
When I first saw the headline at espn.com, I was like, "oh good, he was framed." Then I read the article. Sounds like he is totally fuct. Now begins the speculation--will he ever admit to it? Why, when he knew he would be tested would he dope? Was he possibly framed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
This is just sad. The greatest cycling event has turned into a charade of cheating, doping, and lies.
And the worst part is, the fans have to sit there and support their riders who continue to profess their innocence. Hamilton, Basso, Ullrich, Landis. These are some big names in the sport, and some very popular riders who are either banned or facing bans, and the fans will just never have answers. So frustrating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rontele
And what is equally frustrating is that Lance will always live with the dark shadow of speculation and rumor that he too was privy and party to the doping. Never caught and yet under a constant microscope because he succeeded and dominated in the age of doping.Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
If this leak is true, it is a sad sad day for the TDF, Floyd and all pro sports.
Man, how fucking depressing to think that these athletes would rather take a chance on not getting caught rather than take the chance of losing. What is the point of competing? The rationalization that everyone is doing it, just doesn't cut it, IMHO.
"Winning isn't everything, it is the only thing."
This doesn't look good at all, for the first time since this broke, I am thinking Oscar is going to be in yellow before this is over.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT