Landis nil; 12; nil;........WTF !!!!!!!!!

[montyzuma]

Bikemonster, so why didn't the exogenous testosterone show up in the test done 2 days prior to the positive test?

[bruce]

Does anyone know if the lab went back and tested the other "negative" samples for synthetic testosterone, or did they only test the one that had the 11:1 ratio?

[montyzuma]

Given the flak they've received I would be very surprised if they hadn't - a positive earlier result would vindicate them, and McQuaid would leak that PDQ to insulate his ass.

[bikemonster]

Bikemonster' date=' so why didn't the exogenous testosterone show up in the test done 2 days prior to the positive test?[/quote']

 

Because as long as the t/e ratio stays within allowed limits there is no call to do the (more expensive)  test for exogenous testosterone.

 

Remember also that because testosterone is metabolised pretty quickly, 24 hours later or earlier there may well be no more exogenous testosterone to detect.

[montyzuma]

Icycling, your superdrug theory has two small flaws. 1. Why didn't the superdrug cause the abnormal testosterone ratio to show up previously? and 2. This superdrug that causes the body to produce excess testosterone would cause it to produce ENDOGENOUS testosterone in physiological ratios.

[bruce]

Given the flak they've received I would be very surprised if they hadn't - a positive earlier result would vindicate them' date=' and McQuaid would leak that PDQ to insulate his ass.

[/quote']

 

I would think so too, which doesn't help the argument that they got his epitestosterone dose wrong.

 

There is an interesting posting on the cyclingforums site by a guy who used epo and testosterone, detailing what the drugs did for him.

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t-270701-15-1.html

 

bruce2006-10-05 08:33:49

[widget]

Widget' date=' your posts show a complete lack of understanding as to what the testosterone test measures. I find it fascinating that so many people have such dogmatic opinions when they don't even understand the underlying physiology.[/quote']

 

Okay............please enlighten us all.!

 

Coming from a medical standpoint I am overly interested.!

[montyzuma]

Which medical standpoint would that be?

[gianni]

Robert Hunter said on Supercyling last night that Floyd Landis recorded a zero testosterone reading on day 16' date=' on day 17 he recorded a testosterone level of 12 and on day 19 he recorded zero. If this is true not only is Floyd an exeptional Cyclist but he also has a superhuman metabolism that enables him to purge himself in 24 hours of an overdose of testosterone. I also need to add that these tests were done by the same FRENCH (who is suurgat because they do NOT produce race winning cyclists to win their most prestigeous event) who tried to discredit Lance Armstrong with a series of sensationalist and botched tests. Maybe that is why the tests show a testosterone NOT created in an human body....... With this I mean tampered tests!!!!!!. I am also mildly surprised that all the Troll suurtiete on this messageboard elected not to look at this sequence in the events surrounding Landis. Instead they spew forth fire and brimstone and found Landis guilty!!!!!!!![/quote']

 

yup sure everyone is agianst the Yanks...poor them.

 

 

The reason why the French haven't had much (BIG) success is that they have the most stringent doping controls and laws in cycling, together with an ever increasing fines etc for teams /riders that get caught doing anything illegal. SOmethig  which by the way mroe teams are adopitng (e.g T-Mobile who basically fired everyone in management and has a  "new" team)

 

Not sure if you get Cycle Sport magazine in SA but this month's issue (The Clean Issue) is very interesting and has a lot of interviews with the younger cycling generation. They have some choice words for Mr Landi's great breakaway, as well as very interesting ideas of what should happen to dopers.

 

 

gianni2006-10-05 10:54:07

[scotty]

Here is my theory! Landis did not take testosterone' date=' but he took a chemical (drug) which unfortunately for him altered his testosterone level. Probably something far better thatn EPO - the "new designer" drug for althetes. Unfortunately the designer did not realise that the drug would have this testosterone altering side efect! 

[/quote']

 

 You just looking for an excuse not to eat your words again.

[porky]

Hmm, interesting chat,it seems to me Montyzuma that contrary to your witch hunt, Bikemonster,Widget and Lbie are all saying the same thing, actually I think their argument and logic make perfect sense.

 

Montyzuma you have yet to make a point, yet you see perfectly fit to see fault in other reasonings without putting your point up for all to see - if you have one that is.

  

Testosterone is quickly used up, the ratios are of little real importance when you have such issues as a finding of synthetic testosterone and such a massive spike betwen tests.

As we are all phsyiological humans we all work on the same genetic principles which are carefully tabulated, anyone outside of these norms are either ill (not functioning correctly) or are ingesting drugs to change these norms or are genetic freaks - in which case this can be medically explained away.

 

Obviously Landis is not a genetic freak and I doubt he was ill, so where dos that leave us.?

 

Tests may or may not be 100% accurate - its immaterial - if these tests are good enough for the majority of the medical profession who know a lot more than us - its good enough for me.!!   

[montyzuma]

Porky, where's the witch hunt?

I'm simply pointing out that many people on this forum seem quite happy to condemn a man based on hearsay physiology which they don't fully understand. It's not the first time I've taken a similar stance.

Yes, testosterone is constantly produced and rapidly metabolised. Yes, finding exogenous testosterone makes ratios irrelevant. But testosterone (and all steroids) do not have a rapid onset of action and must be given for a sustained period to have an effect. Conversely, taking exogenous steroids significantly depresses natural steroid production for a prolonged period thereafter.

If he's a doper why no testosterone in the other 7 tests during the tour? He had a negative test the day prior to testing positive and a further negative test two days later. That means he could only have taken an oral, transcutaneous cream or transdermal patch preparation, all of which deliver testosterone which is rapidly metabolised, and might be out of his system 48 hours later, but WHY would he take an overnight dose when it would have no short-term effect, and potentially inhibit natural steroid production thereafter?

Where there is no logical explanation the question must be asked how else this exogenous testosterone could have ended up in the sample. There are enough inconsistencies and agendas in this whole episode to make that question very interesting indeed.

I have no saak with Bikemonster - he has given an accurate and balanced explanation of the testing procedure, but it fails to answer the logical question as to why tests before and after the positive test were normal.

I have absolutely no saak with LBie who makes the point "I think we are all just as guilty as those attention grabbing journos by discussing the posible guilt of a contender based on hearsay. Wait for the facts and hearings, then we are free to comment on the facts."

Hear Hear!

Cheats and doper must be caught and punished - I'll be first to cheer when its proven. But to tar every exceptional achievement with the "must be doping" brush and to condemn people on suspicion where the logic just doesn't fit  is suurtiet in the extreme.

 

montyzuma2006-10-05 20:47:08

[linnega]

... Sounds reasonable except that they were not performing a drug control. 

... There was nothing wrong with the science of what they were doing

... the process followed was not in line with WADA protocol for drug controls.

 

 

Firstly WADA accredited agencies have strict guidelines over and above generally accepted codes of ethics which are in place to ensure that the one process is not used in pursuit of the other i.e. process refinement and control. They ignored these ethics and guidelines completely in this case

 

Secondly' date=' the report shows that not only were processes not followed but that the scientific value of the tests were also completely undermined because the integrity of the samples were not maintained. Nor have the processes which they employed been verified by any one else or even properly explained by themselves.

 

So if a lab doesn't follow accepted codes (or just when it wants to) and the validity of the science that it conducts is under question then how can you state that there is NO possibility that it could be in the wrong??

 

This report is about the integrity of the lab - not the science behind the tests - that's it.

[/quote'] 

The point is the protocol is there to protect the athletes and maintain a chain of evidence.  That is a legal process and has nothing to do with science.  Scientific integrity is about proving/disproving an objective.  Since the objective was not to convict an athlete, there was no need to follow any legal protocols, nor to maintain the chain of evidence.  It was irrelevant.  WADA accredited agencies have strict guidelines and protocols for performing WADA accredited fucntions - since this process was not such a function, the WADA protocol is irrelevant.

 

I don't quite understand what your argument is when you say they could be "in the wrong" and the "report is about the integrity of the lab".  The report is flawed because it attempts to align a scientific process with irrelevant legalistic protocols that were not followed.  You simply can't test the validity of a process against a framework that was not used and is irrelevant to the tests that were being performed.  The conclusions that should be drawn is that the process followed is not adequate to take further action against LA (as it was never intended to be used for that purpose), that there is a possibility that the samples were mishandled (unlikely that all the LA samples were mishandled and incorrectly tested) and finally that no conclusion can be drawn on the integrity of the lab because it has not been tested (ie Vrijmen did not do his job).

linnega2006-10-06 01:28:04

[Cruxpearl]

You just don't get it, do you Monty???

the Doping in cycling is 3-5 years ahead of anti-doping tests, and most guys that gets caught, gets caught because of someone slipping up either with the dosage, or with miscalculation of expected effort to rid the body of excess doping materials... or some other miscalculation.

 

Roberto Herras also passed all his other test in last years Vuelta, and vehemently protested his innocence, and has subsequently also been exposed as an old systematic doper in Operation Puerta.

 

Landis's exceptional achievement hasn't been tarred with the "must be doping" brush and condemned where logic doesn't fit????

His performance was hailed as "the greatest comeback in the history of the TdF, and the saving grace of the TdF... that is until his test results returned a CONFIRMED POSITIVE Anti-Doping TEST RESULT

Now you just expect everyone to brush the positive results under the carpet because you think Landis is a "nice guy" and everyone else is "Suur Tiete"

Get a Life Dude!!!

[Windbreaker]

There is an interesting posting on the cyclingforums site by a guy who used epo and testosterone' date=' detailing what the drugs did for him.

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t-270701-15-1.html

 

[/quote']

 

Bruce, can you check that link. It looks broken.

Thanks

[Windbreaker]

The point is the protocol is there to protect the athletes and maintain a chain of evidence.  That is a legal process and has nothing to do with science.  Scientific integrity is about proving/disproving an objective.  Since the objective was not to convict an athlete' date=' there was no need to follow any legal protocols, nor to maintain the chain of evidence.  It was irrelevant.  WADA accredited agencies have strict guidelines and protocols for performing WADA accredited fucntions - since this process was not such a function, the WADA protocol is irrelevant.

 

I don't quite understand what your argument is when you say they could be "in the wrong" and the "report is about the integrity of the lab".  The report is flawed because it attempts to align a scientific process with irrelevant legalistic protocols that were not followed.  You simply can't test the validity of a process against a framework that was not used and is irrelevant to the tests that were being performed.  The conclusions that should be drawn is that the process followed is not adequate to take further action against LA (as it was never intended to be used for that purpose), that there is a possibility that the samples were mishandled (unlikely that all the LA samples were mishandled and incorrectly tested) and finally that no conclusion can be drawn on the integrity of the lab because it has not been tested (ie Vrijmen did not do his job).

[/quote']

 

The UCI took exception to trhe revelations made by Le Equippe and took a stance that the Lab and WADA (particularly Dick Pound) actions were "out of bounds".  That was the underlying basis for the investigation - nowhere was the UCI calling into question the testing protocols - although that does emerge in the report.

 

Here is an extract from the report outlining the Mandate clearly. His findings are also outlined just as clearly i.e. that the Lab failed in many aspects - both the actual "scientific work" and the processes governing the work whether for purely scientific purposes or doping control purposes.

 

I am not neccesarilly advocating the theory of "the evil lab" I am stating that they are NOT NEARLY AS PRISTINE AS EVERYONE IS INCLINED TO BELIEVE. If they get their act together the whole ani-doping process would be more credible.

Mandate of the independent investigator

1.1 The independent investigation of all facts and circumstances regarding the analyses of the urine samples of the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France conducted by the French WADA-accredited laboratory, the

?Laboratoire Nationale De D?pistage Du Dopage? (hereinafter: the ?LNDD?) in Ch?tenay-Malabry, France, was the result of allegations made in the newspaper article ?Armstrong?s lie?, published in the French newspaper L?Equipe on August 23, 2005, that the American cyclist and seven-time winner of the Tour de France, Lance Armstrong, had used the prohibited substance ?recombinant EPO? (hereinafter: ?r-EPO?) during the 1999 Tour de France. According to the article, six urine samples of Armstrong from the 1999 Tour de France allegedly tested positive for r-EPO when analysed by the LNDD as part of ongoing research to further improve the existing detection method for r-EPO. In addition, it was alleged that six other urine samples, from six other riders, had also tested positive for r-EPO.

1.2 In the course of the subsequent public debate, it was suggested by the ?World Anti- Doping Agency? (hereinafter: ?WADA?) ? a foundation or agency founded to promote and coordinate at international level the fight against doping in sport in all forms

1

? that the ?Union Cycliste Internationale? (hereinafter: ?UCI?), the International Federation responsible for the sport of cycling, was slow to act and apparently more interested in finding out how confidential information had become public, instead of determining whether or not the findings of the LNDD were correct, i.e. whether Armstrong had indeed used the prohibited substance

r-EPO when participating in the 1999 Tour de France. The UCI denied these suggestions and subsequently invited Mr. Emile N. Vrijman at that time practicing as an attorney specialised in sports law in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, to conduct an independent investigation. On October 6, 2005, the UCI issued a press release announcing its decision to ask Vrijman to conduct this independent investigation. On November 9, 2005, the UCI issued a ?Letter of Authority?, specifying Vrijman?s mandate and the conditions for conducting the independent investigation.

 

Windbreaker2006-10-06 02:03:56