Doping by Tour Winner

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

"I am proud of the fact that I won the tour because I was the strongest candidate - that's my position," Landis said

There is no doubt about that. I think the question is how he became the strongest candidate

__________________________________

He also, hesitated and stammered when asked straight-out, if he'd been doping! Hmmmmm...


Chuck

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

The 30-year-old rider said Friday that his positive test for testosterone showed up levels which "are absolutely natural and produced by my own organism".

This is what makes me a bit suspicious. Those high levels would've been consistent all throughout the race and his history. If they spiked, then what caused the spike. I'm not saying he is guilty, but if he is, he should just confess or just submit to a full blown blood test to prove his innocence.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

at the moment it's only a positive on the A sample, unconfimed. Properly no names should be given until the B sample is tested (in front of the athlete), but his withdrawl from races stood out.

If the B passes, then we'll have Lance II, with the Frenchies bitching and moaning, and the Americans wondering who fucked with the A test.

If the B confirms the A failure, dunno, I've always had trouble with the threshold failure standards - men have their own 'monthly' type cycle with testosterone levels and some are going to be higher than others. There have also been trouble in the past with thresholds on the EPO test that lead to revisions upward to avoid [any more] false positives.

Does an injection of testerone give immediate results? I had thought of it more like steroids- helpful over the longer haul.

B test was positive.

Apparently not only a doper, but a liar as well who takes the fans for idiots.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ypelchat 0]

Quote

Quote

if testosterone is a doping agent, call me a doper... I'm loaded with the stuff.

I assume they caught him with highly elevated, unusual levels?

Yes, elevated.

But couldn't winning the TDF elevate your testoserone a bit? I mean, they guy DOES have nuts.

Yeah! Supernatural nuts. They produce synthetic testosterone,

Yves.

[ypelchat 0]

Quote

How do you test for a hormone that occurs naturally in the body? A guy who gets laid every day has a different level from a guy who hasn't in weeks? Groups of men working to together (for example in the military) typically have elevated levels too. So, how can that be tested? Is there an "artificial" hormone?

Testosterone and epitestosterone are naturally and normally produced by the human body (male), at a ratio of 1/1. 1 part of testosterone, and 1 part of epitestosterone.

Apparently, Landis had a 11/1 testosterone vs epitestosterone ratio, in his urine samples...

The accepted levels were set at 4/1 maximum, to give the athletes a "safe" margin...

Furthermore, it was determined that the testosterone found in Landis's urine samples, was synthetic (i.e not naturally produced by the human body)

So, unless it is proved, without a doubt, that the Landis samples have been sabotaged or tampered with, in any way, prior to testing, then it is reasonable to say that Landis was, effectively, a doped athlete.

EDIT to add: It doesn't matter how many times you get laid!

Yves.

[Casurf1978 0]

He's a doper plain and simple. Levels just dont spike overnight, granted super athletes in his class might have higher ratios than you or I but those ratios are consistent. He should just fess up. Secondly how do you explain the synthetic testosterone in the urine sample. He was doping and messed up the the doping cycle.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

He's a doper plain and simple. Levels just dont spike overnight, granted super athletes in his class might have higher ratios than you or I but those ratios are consistent. He should just fess up. Secondly how do you explain the synthetic testosterone in the urine sample. He was doping and messed up the the doping cycle.

it still smells funny - there was no problem with the other tests, then an 11:1, then normal again. Giving the two most likely scenarios - he screwed up on the doping, or the tests failed for a false reason.

I'd like to believe the latter, but the burden of proof is definitely on his side now.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

He's a doper plain and simple. Levels just dont spike overnight, granted super athletes in his class might have higher ratios than you or I but those ratios are consistent. He should just fess up. Secondly how do you explain the synthetic testosterone in the urine sample. He was doping and messed up the the doping cycle.

it still smells funny - there was no problem with the other tests, then an 11:1, then normal again. Giving the two most likely scenarios - he screwed up on the doping, or the tests failed for a false reason.

I'd like to believe the latter, but the burden of proof is definitely on his side now.

Tell ya what. I have to take drug tests all the time. Who the fuck knows what they do w/ those samples once outta your sight? I think you should have a 3rd sample (your own) to be verified by a 3rd party

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Tell ya what. I have to take drug tests all the time. Who the fuck knows what they do w/ those samples once outta your sight? I think you should have a 3rd sample (your own) to be verified by a 3rd party

the B sample is securely closed and the athlete in question is present when it is opened for the follow on test.

What you described is a very plausible concern with the supposed Armstrong positives on the 1999 samples. No chain of custody ot real security was maintained, and the research in question intended to use some spiked samples.

[Casurf1978 0]

I agree, but still two false positives. What are the odds against that. I would also rule out tampering with the samples, that would be so obvious. He should be a man and fess up. It's also a bit too late for a blood sample. IMO he's a liar and a doper.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

Tell ya what. I have to take drug tests all the time. Who the fuck knows what they do w/ those samples once outta your sight? I think you should have a 3rd sample (your own) to be verified by a 3rd party

the B sample is securely closed and the athlete in question is present when it is opened for the follow on test.

What you described is a very plausible concern with the supposed Armstrong positives on the 1999 samples. No chain of custody ot real security was maintained, and the research in question intended to use some spiked samples.

What I'm saying. What happens to it between pt. A and B is anybodys guess

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

What I'm saying. What happens to it between pt. A and B is anybodys guess

Just like evidence in police matters, there is a very distinct and well established chain of events. It will now be up to Landis to prove that chain was not adhered to in his case.

[masterrig 1]

B test was positive.

Apparently not only a doper, but a liar as well who takes the fans for idiots.

[billvon 3,120]

>there was no problem with the other tests, then an 11:1, then normal again.

That's the oddest part of the whole thing. Either he's amazingly good at deceiving all his urine tests (and screwed up just that once) or that sample was not representative of his normal urine. Steroids don't give you an instant energy boost; they have to be taken over months to have the desired effect. Also, that amount could not possibly have been present one day and gone the next.

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

That's the oddest part of the whole thing. Either he's amazingly good at deceiving all his urine tests (and screwed up just that once) or that sample was not representative of his normal urine. Steroids don't give you an instant energy boost; they have to be taken over months to have the desired effect. Also, that amount could not possibly have been present one day and gone the next.

It is strange isn't it? Drug testing is random, I haven't been able to find out whether or not Landis was tested again during the tour after stage 17 (anyone know?), if he was that should have helped clear up the issue.

The timing of the positive test makes sense, the choice of drug less so. I have read that testosterone can help athletes in the short term to 'go longer' in a training session as well as the more long term effects but it still seems like a dumb drug to take for a one off.

It was definitely synthetic though so either the lab is lying, the UCI stitched him up or he took steroids.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[FreeflyChile 0]

I was wondering about that too...I heard somewhere that taking the testosterone the night before his dramatic comeback wouldnt have helped him so why would he do it?

The thing that I have been thinking about is that yes, the burden of proof is on him, but for a second think if some drug test at work turned up positive even though you know you haven't taken any drugs. what possible reaction from you would help your cause? Given all the crap with Armstrong and the accusations about doping with him, I don't hold the drug test results associated with cycling in a very high regard and though the burden is on Landis to prove foul play, I'm more inclined to believe him than to believe Gatlin or Palmeiro...

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

It is strange isn't it? Drug testing is random, I haven't been able to find out whether or not Landis was tested again during the tour after stage 17 (anyone know?), if he was that should have helped clear up the issue.

The top three overall, the top three in the stage and three more at random are tested.

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

The top three overall, the top three in the stage and three more at random are tested.

Thanks, I just found that myself as well.

So that means he would have been tested three days later, after the TT.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Remster 30]

Quote

It was definitely synthetic though

I dont know about that. I havent seen any official statement regarding this. In his statement Landis said it was misrepresented as synthetic. Apparently, the info came out early that thae ratio was unnatural, and that got twisted into synthetic.

Obviously, he would say that, but I do agree that the synthetic news came out before any offcial statement about it.

Anyone have any other info on that?

Remster

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

I dont know about that. I havent seen any official statement regarding this. In his statement Landis said it was misrepresented as synthetic. Apparently, the info came out early that thae ratio was unnatural, and that got twisted into synthetic.

Testing of the B sample apparently included testing the carbon-14 ratio of the testosterone, that can determine if it was produced by a living organism or by a lab.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/sports/national/2006/08/05/landis.html?ref=rss

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

The top three overall, the top three in the stage and three more at random are tested.

So that means he would have been tested three days later, after the TT.

sooner than that, since he was in second place after stage 17.

Unfortunately, those samples (and the Bs) were likely destroyed or frozen when there was no result.

[dorbie 0]

Hmmm, carbon-14, what if he regularly ingested synthetic legal products with a non-natural isotope ratio?

The real question I have is what benefit would a boost of testosterone have in the middle of the tour.

If it could have helped performance and/or aggressiveness over the short term then it's quite damning.

OTOH if it's only of long term benefit then there's something very strange going on that needs an explanation beyond simple doping. This was not the only test he'd had.

Does anyone know the short term effects of testosterone and/or whether it can be used to mask other crap?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I agree, but still two false positives. What are the odds against that.

Love your no doubt march to justice.

A random error causing a false positive is unlikely to repeat.

A bad procedure done by a lab (or a poorly trained tech) is repeatable.

A flaw in a testing mechanism is repeatable. People have legitamately exceeded the ratio. It puzzles me that along witjh the ratio there is no quantities given for the two. Was his testosterone level high, or is that just not measurable with urine?

[Steel 0]

Quote

I was wondering about that too...I heard somewhere that taking the testosterone the night before his dramatic comeback wouldnt have helped him so why would he do it?
...

Actually that depends on many things. what he took, if he had ever taken before are just two of the major factors. In anycase here is a website which has most of the steroid profiles. It goes into details about what one could expect with respect to sides effects as well as intended effects.
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/catsteroids.htm
,

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[Casurf1978 0]

Yeah I agree, quick march to justice when the evidence is present. There is synthetic testosterone present. Please explain how that is naturally produced. There will always be human error, I agree, but how many tests do you need. First one proved positive for elevated levels. Second test confirmed the first test and showed the presence of synthetic testosterone. What more proof do you need. This is an extremely accurate test based on carbon isotopes. It just doesn't spit out random results. The proof is there, people are just blind to it and wont accept the fact that he's a doper. Check this article out and look at the excuses his defense team is using. Drinking beer and whisky the night before, come on.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/more/08/05/landis.positive.ap/index.html