Jump to content

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

Guest Big H

Recommended Posts

the Truth is there in plain view for anyone to see... unless of course you choose not to believe it, then everyone is trying to screw everyone else, Especially the bitter old Froggies fabricating false positives and all that crap cause the winner is not a Frog!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

And your point is???


In case you missed my position on the issue


Remember that WADA and the testing institutions subscribe to certain rules & regulations so as to avoid "technicality based acquitals" in the first place. They can't just ignore them when they feel like it. They have done so regularly in the past few years.


I don't have an opinion (yet) on whether FL is guilty or not - I am trying to build a balanced view of the whole picture.


Like others though I guess that I am hoping that he is innocent - for the sake of our sport & the spirit that he represented on that day.


But I must say your contribution is so compelling that you have absolutely won me over to the side of "Truth".


Long live Truth!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And just when you thought thought that there couldn't be any more boring information to challenge the "Truth" Confused


I got this off a forum which appears to be frequented by the scientific community ...


For those not wanting to plough through it all - It is a discussion onthe validity of the "synthetic testosterone test". It uses cortizone based hormones as a reference which could easilly have clashed with the prescribed cortisone that FL was taking legally.


mmm... makes you think (... nah only some of us I guess)


" I?ve seen a few discussions of the Landis case lately where the participants were unsure whether CIR refers to Carbon Isotope Ratio or Carbon Isomer Ratio. There?s quite a difference between isotopes and isomers, so let?s go over what each one is.

An isotope is a variant of an element, such as carbon. The most common form of carbon, carbon12, contains 6 protons and 6 neutrons. The number of protons in an element determines which one it is. Carbon has 6 protons, so it is element #6 in the ?Periodic Table? familiar to physicists, chemists and other scientists. But there are a couple of variants of carbon that have one or two extra neutrons. Still chemically the same, but the atoms are a bit heavier than the most common form. Those variants are carbon13 and carbon14, respectively.

Carbon14 is somewhat radioactive and is used in determining the age of materials, because it breaks down to carbon12 at a known rate. This means that over time, there is less carbon14 than when the compound was new, and the amount of the difference can be used to get an approximation of the age. Carbon14 dating is very useful for archaeologists in determining the age of items discovered at archaeological dig sites.

An isomer is a compound that has the same chemical formula as another compound, but it has a different shape. Propanol and Isopropanol, which are both alcohols, would be good examples. They both have the same chemical formula: C3H8OH. The part that makes these compounds alcohols is the OH group, an oxygen atom attached to carbon atom, where the oxygen atom has a hydrogen atom attached as well.

This group can be attached at either end of the three-carbon chain or it can be attached to the middle carbon. Propanol (CH3CH2CH2OH) has the OH attached to the end, and Isopropanol (CH3CH(OH)CH3) has the OH attached to the middle. This gives the two compounds some slightly different properties and also different shapes.

Hopefully, I haven?t lost anyone yet.

So, back to CIR, which is it: isotope or isomer? The answer is isotope. CIR (also called IRMS) measures the relative amount of carbon13 in a compound compared to a reference compound. The idea is that when compared to a reference hormone, the hormone you?re testing should have a certain difference in the percentage of carbon13, and if the difference exceeds a certain threshold, the hormone you?re testing is believed to come from outside the body.

In theory, hormones made within the body will have a certain percentage of carbon13 and that percentage is consistent. Synthetic hormones made outside the body will have a different percentage of carbon13. We?ll get back to this in a moment.

Now here?s where it gets tricky for the Landis case. The reference hormones used in the WADA protocols are materials created by the breakdown of cortisone in the body. If you recall, Floyd Landis had a therapeutic use exemption (TUE) for cortisone due to his hip condition.

But what that means is that the reference hormones for Landis, in part, contained material that was produced synthetically. And this is a very important consideration, because when measuring the relative difference between the percentage of carbon13 in the reference and the percentage of carbon13 in the testosterone from Landis? urine sample, the variation could be different than had he not been taking cortisone.

The picture gets complicated a bit further (what else is new?) because it turns out that WADA themselves have research indicating that diet can have an effect on the amount of carbon13 in compounds produced within the body. Compounds like, say, testosterone.

OK, so there?s a number of variables at play here that could explain the Landis result. Rumor has it that Landis? test result was 3.9, where a positive result is deemed to be anything exceeding a difference of 3. That doesn?t necessarily mean it?s a true positive, just that WADA thinks it?s so.

The factors affecting the amount of carbon13 in the reference hormones, combined with factors that may affect the amount of carbon13 in Landis? testosterone (factors like diet, alcohol intake, and so on) may account for his result. It?s hard to say. Perhaps this will be part of the defense whenever the arbitration hearing is held.

But let?s loop back to the isotope versus isomer question in regard to testing. There appear to be a number of mitigating factors that can affect the amount of carbon13 in various hormones, which perhaps makes the current testing inadequate or unable to reliably tell whether a person is doping.

There is another way. And that involves isomers, of a sort. You see, when the body makes hormones, it makes them in specific shapes so that they will combine with the appropriate receptors and do whatever it is they?re supposed to do. And because it builds these hormones from the same compounds in the same ways, it produces the same shapes very consistently.

And that?s important for the following reason: The hormones fit the receptors the same way a key fits a lock. Use the wrong key, the lock won?t open. Wrong shape for the hormone and it doesn?t fit the receptor, which makes the hormone useless.

Now when hormones are made synthetically, you wind up with some that are the right shape and some that are different shapes. The reasons are complicated, so I won?t go into them here. And often, it is very hard (or too expensive) to separate the different forms.

So with synthetic testosterone, some of what is in there is of a shape that doesn?t fit the testosterone receptors. If there were a method for testing the shapes of the testosterone, you would have a more reliable test. Not perfect, because it?s still possible that the body could create some isomers of the hormone that don?t fit the receptors, but determining the natural rate of that production could be part of the testing process (if necessary by creating a bank of normal values for each individual). The test then could be used to see if the athlete had too much of these isomers, which would perhaps be a better indicator of doping than the CIR/IRMS test.

So to bring this full circle, the people asking about whether the test was of isotopes or isomers were on the right track, they just didn?t know it. Why hasn?t an isomer test been developed? Well, to go back to yesterday?s discussion, my guess is that it would not be cheap and would require highly skilled personnel ? exactly the opposite of what WADA wanted to accomplish with the test for testosterone.

Is this something that WADA should look into? Absolutely. To make testing ?foolproof? they need to develop tests that can truly differentiate between naturally occuring hormones and synthetically manufactured hormones. Right now the testing process (as someone else observed) might better be called ?fools proof.?


Windbreaker2006-10-06 08:03:25
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And for those that claimed that the test are done by highly qualified specialists everyday and they can't be wrong blah blah , then here is another extract about what WADA themselves say regarding who should be doing the test that damned Landis.


"This will enable us to screen large number of samples within a short time at relatively low cost and without the need for highly skilled personnel."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I promise that this is the last!!Wink


Back when I lived in Ann Arbor there used to be a morning show that had a character named ?Dick the Bruiser? (real name: George Baer) who used to do a segment around 8 a.m. called ?Meet The Bruiser? which was a parody of certain news shows, like Nightline.

Bruiser had some hilarious lines, oftentimes puns and double-entendres. And you knew you were going to get a good skewering of someone or something whenever Bruiser asked, ?What does this mean??

Looking at the numbers from some documents emailed to TBV by one M. Ferret an interesting picture emerges. What, you might ask? That Floyd Landis is telling the truth. (You can skip the ?science? stuff, if you want to jump to the conclusion. ? Pun intended.)

If you?re not inclined to look at the documents (or just don?t have time), I?ll break it down for you:

On page 2, there are two T/E ratios written: 4.9 and one that?s either 14.4 or 11.4

On page 3, we get the raw data behind the second of the two possible values. Testosterone = 45.4 and Epitestosterone = 3.9 for a ratio of (let me bang this out on my handy dandy HP-25) 11.6 and some change. Interestingly, if the T = 44.5, then the ratio would work out to (what do you know?) 11.4 and some change.

So now we have an idea of what the actual data might be and where the T/E ratio comes from. So ? what does this mean? (You can probably guess who?s going to get skewered, but I?ll leave that for later.)

There?s another important discussion to have here rather than the math of it all, and that?s what the numbers mean. By the rules, this T/E ratio looks pretty damning. After all if the max allowed is 4:1, we have a result here that?s almost three times that. Certainly that?s clear evidence of wrong-doing, right?

Not so fast. Let?s take a look at what a normal level of T in a urine test would be. According to Dr. Olivier Rabin, the Chief Science Officer for WADA in an interview published at Medscape,

You can look at testosterone itself, and if you find values way above, say, 100 to 200 ng/mL, then it?s quite suspicious.

So now we have an idea of where the upper limit for normal in WADA?s eyes is: somewhere less than 100 ng/ml. So Floyd?s T is less than half that. Let?s delve further.

Taking a look at WADA?s own document that describes reporting procedures for the T/E ratio, these statements can be found:

It should be borne in mind that there is significant variation between individuals. A normal level for one individual may in another be elevated and be consistent with doping. ? The concentration of urinary steroids such as testosterone and epitestosterone varies greatly between individuals and also depends upon the specific gravity of the urine Sample; only values corrected for a specific gravity value of 1.020 can be compared.

The procedure goes on to say:

It is recommended that a urine Sample in which any one of the following criteria is met during the Screening Procedure, be routinely submitted to the IRMS analysis:

i) T/E value equal or greater than 4;

ii) concentration of testosterone or epitestosterone ? greater than 200 ng/mL;

iii) concentration of androsterone or etiocholanolone ? greater than 10,000 ng/mL;

iv) concentration of DHEA ? greater than 100 ng/mL

And further:

Any result that will be used to support an Adverse Analytical Finding shall be confirmed and quantified.

Confirmation of elevated T/E values, concentration of testosterone, epitestosterone or any other steroid metabolite under consideration is to be performed in triplicate.

The documents M. Ferret provided don?t show the confirmation in triplicate, at least as best as I can tell. But perhaps that?s detailed in other pages of the lab?s report.

So let?s circle back to Dr. Rabin?s statement in the Medscape interview. According to the actual protocol, someone whose testosterone level is between 100 and 200 ng/ml wouldn?t automatically get tested unless the T/E ratio exceeds 4:1. This implies that an E value of up to 200 could be considered normal, as it is is possible to have a T/E ratio of 1:1 where both values are equal to 200 ng/ml.

Let?s talk about the amount of mass being measured here. A nanogram (ng) is one billionth of a gram. That?s a pretty small amount. Landis? E value is 3.9 ng/ml, or 3.9 billionths of a gram per ml of liquid. That is exceptionally small, which perhaps accounts for the greater range of uncertainty in the forms, but also makes me wonder: Just how sensitive are these tests? Can they reliably detect such a small concentration? And, of course, it raises the question of what, physiologically, would cause such a low reading.

Here?s an interesting tidbit from another WADA document, describing how they chose to develop the testing protocol methods:

This will enable us to screen large number of samples within a short time at relatively low cost and without the need for highly skilled personnel.

So we have a lot to chew over, including this last little tidbit, that the test they developed was designed to be cheap and easy to perform. But the idea that it wouldn?t need to be performed by highly skilled personnel is disturbing. People?s reputations and livelihoods are on the line here. If it were me being tested, I?d want the person doing the work to be very highly skilled, to ensure the accuracy of the results.

In researching what a normal value for T in a urine sample would be, I?ve not found a simple statement that it?s X or Y or Z. What I have seen in various charts and graphs of a number of manufacturers of these types of tests (and I have someone who?s a microbiologist very well versed in endocrinology looking further ? I?ll update this post when the information comes in) suggests that a normal reading for testosterone in urine falls at about 60 - 80 ng/ml. That means a normal E (for a 1:1 ratio) would fall in the same range.

OK, so after all this science stuff, let?s put it into common English. Landis? T was 45.4 according to the documents, and is not suspicious in and of itself. From what I gather, normal falls from around 60 - 80. And WADA itself doesn?t consider T by itself to be suspicious until it?s at least 100 or more (200 as listed in their procedure).

So, on this count, Floyd is telling the truth. His T was normal (actually, perhaps even a little below normal). And the E value is much lower than normal. To remain within the 4:1 range, a sample with a T of 200 (remember, this isn?t by itself suspicious), E would be as high as 50 and be considered normal. Landis? E value is much lower than the expected value. So Landis was telling the truth on that one, too.

But WADA leaves themselves some wiggle room in the statement about reporting procedures, above. Otherwise, someone using a bit of critical thinking might look at the Landis numbers and determine that he?s not cheated. Clearly, those who wrote the procedures and those who are charged with implementing them aren?t using any critical thinking in how these tests are supposed to be applied. Landis? results suggest that they need to look at why the E was low in order to determine why the ratio was high. What?s going on now is a perfect illustration of the phrase, ?A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.?

WADA?s statement says, in effect, that the science behind the T/E standards is not good enough to determine who is a cheat and who isn?t. And, although it?s been well documented that the natural variation in T/E values in men can go as high as 10:1, they?ve chosen to tighten their threshold to 4:1 (down from 10:1 and then 6:1) to use for further testing. So they use the IRMS test in order to determine whether someone has really doped with testosterone. Now, we haven?t seen the data on the IRMS test, but I wouldn?t be terribly surprised if the results are a little less certain than has been portrayed up to now.

And I wouldn?t be surprised if the IRMS test itself has more uncertainty to it than has been commonly portrayed up to now. But I?ve got to ask, what kind of Mickey Mouse organization is this, if they can?t find tests that are more reliable than the ones they?re currently using? The statement that there?s a wide range of variation in results says that what they?re testing for ? or the way they?re testing for it ? isn?t a good indication of whether or not a person is cheating. They need to do better.

If the Ferret documents are real (M. Ferret left a comment over at TBV that the interpretations of his material were accurate) and if the data within them is real, then Floyd Landis? T value really does fall into the normal range for a test result from a urine sample. And he was telling the truth when he said that the E value was abnormally low.

Now, we don?t know who M. Ferret is, or what his agenda is, or whether these documents are in fact part of the lab report that came from LNDD. And we don?t have any documentation from the IRMS studies done on either the A or B sample. Assuming the documents are real, then from where I see it, Landis? case is much stronger than certain wind-bags and certain organizations would lead us to believe.

What all this points to, is that the procedure itself needs some revision. And WADA, itself, may need an overhaul. Or perhaps they just need change of leadership. It?s too late for Floyd Landis, but it?s not too late to prevent further travesties from being committed.

It?s a damn shame that none of this is being reported in the mainstream media. They?re dropping the ball on this story, big time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So....windbraker.....Seeing that you are a chemist of note, do you think it is fair that Landis used "legally" cortisone?  Fair to his competitors?  Fair to the riders that does not have "a condition".....? <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />


Just asking.......


So, if I can organise a condition (and I am not mocking Landi's hip problems.....Don't get me wrong....) and legally be able to use a medicine that I know (Don't tell me the doctor did not tell him what the complications will be using banned substance!!!!) will clash and pump me full of testosterone, I will win a race or two....or give me an edge.....and all will be fine?  And my fellow cyclists must just accept it..??


He should have stayed at home like any other "hip replacee" should have and not use cortisone that would give him an unfair advantage!!!  He was not naturally fit to race the TdF!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Now THAT was interesting....first interesting thing you have written! 

Opens a lot of questions........


Why then the endogene Testosterone that they have found?  Views on that please!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spidy, the argument is that the testosterone levels are too low, not too high, so Floyd (according to the above argument) has unnaturally low levels of epitestosterone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Yes I understand that.....Why Endogene........Out of the body produced?  Why was that found in him?  Will you find it in us, as normal people? 


All questions and Windbrakes seems to have the knowledge and would like his expert oppinion on it.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spinnekop, you have as much "knowledge" as I do right at your fingertips.


The difference between us is that I question things and then look for the answers - as opposed to just accepting everone elses version of the "Truth". Long live the truth!!


Google is really amazing if you are happy to sift through some of the junk but there is information on EVERYTHING if you really want the answers.


The E/T ratios are mooted to be as a result of FL having low levels of both E and T. Exceptionally low levels of T - ok?

The synthetic testosterone results is mooted as possibly being caused by the test itself. The test relies on cortisone in some manner (I forget the exact details but go back and read it if you like). They are saying that it is possible that because FL was taking cortisone LEGALLY that this impacted on the tests. I know nothing more than I have read and which I have made available for you followers of the Truth to read too.


I am not saying that any of this is what actually transpired - I am just stating that until it has all been properly tested in the correct forums (not Le Equipes court of sensation) it is just as feasible as the allegations themselves.


Got it?


Windbreaker2006-10-06 13:33:41
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So....windbraker.....Seeing that you are a chemist of note' date=' do you think it is fair that Landis used "legally" cortisone?  Fair to his competitors?  Fair to the riders that does not have "a condition".....? <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />


Just asking.......


So, if I can organise a condition (and I am not mocking Landi's hip problems.....Don't get me wrong....) and legally be able to use a medicine that I know (Don't tell me the doctor did not tell him what the complications will be using banned substance!!!!) will clash and pump me full of testosterone, I will win a race or two....or give me an edge.....and all will be fine?  And my fellow cyclists must just accept it..??


He should have stayed at home like any other "hip replacee" should have and not use cortisone that would give him an unfair advantage!!!  He was not naturally fit to race the TdF!!!!!



Spinnekop, from this post I would say that you really don't need to organise any condition, you have one already .... Wink


The argument is that the cortisone that he was using legally did not "pump him full of of testosterone" but it clashed with the stuff that they use in the test making it look like he had external/synthetic testosterone.


If the cortisone that he was taking was a stimulant then I am sure that it would have been disallowed. But I don't think that anyone is saying that it gave him an unfair advantage.


Windbreaker2006-10-07 01:24:08
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, time to move on from the lab debate, because clearly you believe there was some valid basis for the work done by Vrijmen.  My contention is simple the basis of the report was flawed and he certainly did not act like an independant investigator (he never investigated the UCI involvement - Verbruggen actually handed over the signed test cards to l'Equipe if you remember).


There have been a few from the scientific community that have theorised that it is possible that cortisone metabolises somehow to testosterone and that is what caused the positive test.  The argument against the value of the "exogenous" test largely rests with the belief that the test is unreliable.  It does still seem to have the majority support in the medical community, as does the contention that testosterone levels were affected by other factors.  But as you say, this is all irrelevant until it is proven in some sort of hearing or arbitration which will only happen next year.


There is a lot of noise about the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", but the reason those that test positive are treated as pariahs is simply because in 99.9% of cases they are found guilty.  Personally, I believe the riders have created a community that is not trusted by the general public and so they are rightly viewed with skepticism.  Until there is some level of transparency they will always be treated as guilty unless they can demonstrate their innocence.  Perhaps if Floyd is innocent, his treatment would be different if he had been open and honest about his knowledge of teammates that were using a variety of drugs.  It is worrying that the three current holders of the Grand Tours (Basso,Landis/Periero,inokourov) are all conspicious in their failure to take a stand on the drugs issue.  That breeds suspicion in the mind of the public.


On the value of testosterone, it is widely believed in the peloton that there is benefit for short term recovery.  Whether this is scientifically valid has no real impact on the riders who often revert to old wives tales and tradition, rather than science.  Personally, I don't think Floyd ingested or took a patch.  I believe he was on a comprehensive doping program and in the madness that happened following his spectacular blow-out on La Tousuirre, he missed a step in the program and got caught out.  It would seem that the same happened with Hamilton and Heras.  Armstrong, I believe was too meticulous.  If he had an inkling that his urine samples would be tested for EPO 6 years after the 1999 race, I bet he would have taken adequate precautions.


It is interesting the view you have on l'Equipe - it is pretty common.  I agree they have a torch to burn with Armstrong, but I don't believe that makes them lesser journalists - it just means they had more material to work with when it came to LA.  Perhaps you should discuss l'Equipe with a few French speaking readers to understand what the newspaper is about and how good a publication it is.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "innocent until proven guilty" stance is actually quite an interesting one.  It actually applies to criminal law and not civil law.  In essence, the basis on being found guilty in criminal law is "beyond reasonable doubt",  whereas in civil law it becomes the "balance of probabilities" i.e. was it most likely to have happened.

So, in criminal law, the accused is guilty until proven innocent beyond reasonable doubt, but in civil law the defendent is guilty if the balance of probabilities is not in his favour.

This is the reason why OJ was found "not guilty" of murder, but was successfully sued by the family.

I would assume that currently doping matters fall under a civil type of law, and hence the defendent is found guilty by balance of probabilities.
bruce2006-10-07 01:12:31
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to have you back linega - some sensible debate again.


a) I think that there is enough evidence that the lab is not above scrutiny b) and WADA themselves declare that the specific T test should be cheap and simple - to be perfomed by relatively unskilled people.


So all I am saying on that issue is that the opinion that there is no possibility that they are wrong is blown out the water.


As you say - enuff with the lab


Now for the test tself


There have been a few from the scientific community that have theorised that it is possible that cortisone metabolises somehow to testosterone and that is what caused the positive test. 


That is not what is being said. The theory is that the control/reference substance used in the test is cortisone based and it is possible that the legitimate cortisone in LF urine might have reacted/clashed with the cotisone derived reference substance causing unpredictable results.


IMHO I think that it is a plausible theory but it would obviously have to be backed up by tests. - Lets see.


All the other statements about high levels of T are also incorrect. His levels were actually belown normal as are his E levels.


Values here are for demonstration purposes only!!!


T = 1000 divided by E = 1000 (high values) would yield low ratio of 1 - PASS

In his case they were both very low

T=200 divided by E = 10 would yield high ratio of 20 - FAIL


I believe he was on a comprehensive doping program and in the madness that happened following his spectacular blow-out on La Tousuirre' date=' he missed a step in the program and got caught out. 



Possibly, but everyone of us could have a theory of our own and we would write off anyone that ever won a race without an ounce of proof. You would have to back up that argument with a plausible scenario which in turn is backed up by some evidence at least. Otherwise it is just that speculation and you can't strip anyone of their achievements or carreers on speculation alone.


I am not saying that he is guilty or innocent, yet. I am waiting for the evidence to be properly tested.

Windbreaker2006-10-07 10:09:58
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Settings My Forum Content My Followed Content Forum Settings Ad Messages My Ads My Favourites My Saved Alerts My Pay Deals Help Logout