further Floyd exogenous...

"gabriel faure" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans
le message de news: [email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

RonSonic <[email hidden]> solemnly wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Keith said:

On 31 Jul 2006 05:42:01 -0700, "billb" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>Not good news for the "For Floyd" crowd.
>http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2351
>
>Best,
>Bill Black

"When a sample shows a testosterone:epitestosterone ratio of more than
1:4, an IRMS test is now used to check for the presence of exogenous
testosterone," Audran explained. "If Landis's 'A' sample was positive,
it means that exogenous testosterone must have been found."

That's what I've been trying to tell everyone since the beginning,
there is no way they would have put this out without the exogenous
test. Still one has to wonder why they didn't publicize it...maybe to
see what lies Floyd and his team would come up with.

What? They're curious? Playful?

No, this is all being handled very badly.

If this is science, the result of a valid, proven test, then you
release it clearly and without games like this.

This is medicine also. Therefore the French lab has followed a strict
chain of custody and a strict procedure. The French lab was given the
urine samples by the Tour organisation, without knowing whose samples
are these (there is only an identification number). The lab performed
the required tests, then delivered the results to the UCI. The French
lab is not allowed to communicate the results directly to the medias.
The UCI has all the information in its hands: which id number
corresponds to which racer, which tests were performed, which figures
are there.

The French lab is not responsible of all this communication problems. It
is like when you go to the lab to make blood tests: the lab has not the
right to communicate your blood test results to everybody. Same thing
for the French lab.

Oh Gabriel !

Try Google with "Landis Lance French Lab"
I am sure you will understand....

gabriel faure said:

RonSonic <[email hidden]> solemnly wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Keith said:

On 31 Jul 2006 05:42:01 -0700, "billb" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>Not good news for the "For Floyd" crowd.
>http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2351
>
>Best,
>Bill Black

“When a sample shows a testosterone:epitestosterone ratio of more than
1:4, an IRMS test is now used to check for the presence of exogenous
testosterone,” Audran explained. “If Landis’s ‘A’ sample was positive,
it means that exogenous testosterone must have been found.”

That's what I've been trying to tell everyone since the beginning,
there is no way they would have put this out without the exogenous
test. Still one has to wonder why they didn't publicize it...maybe to
see what lies Floyd and his team would come up with.

What? They're curious? Playful?

No, this is all being handled very badly.

If this is science, the result of a valid, proven test, then you
release it clearly and without games like this.

This is medicine also. Therefore the French lab has followed a strict
chain of custody and a strict procedure. The French lab was given the
urine samples by the Tour organisation, without knowing whose samples
are these (there is only an identification number). The lab performed
the required tests, then delivered the results to the UCI. The French
lab is not allowed to communicate the results directly to the medias.
The UCI has all the information in its hands: which id number
corresponds to which racer, which tests were performed, which figures
are there.

The French lab is not responsible of all this communication problems. It
is like when you go to the lab to make blood tests: the lab has not the
right to communicate your blood test results to everybody. Same thing
for the French lab.

Yet l'Equipe seems to get them.

Ron

"billb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Not good news for the "For Floyd" crowd.
http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2351

I wonder - what would make you believe that Landis would take a illegal
substance when he was sure to be tested? Do you actually believe that Landis
is too stupid to know that testosterone is easily detected and that the
ratio caculations were part of the testing?

I mean, you people are whacked out.

gabriel faure said:

RonSonic <[email hidden]> solemnly wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Keith said:

On 31 Jul 2006 05:42:01 -0700, "billb" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>Not good news for the "For Floyd" crowd.
>http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2351
>
>Best,
>Bill Black

"When a sample shows a testosterone:epitestosterone ratio of more than
1:4, an IRMS test is now used to check for the presence of exogenous
testosterone," Audran explained. "If Landis's 'A' sample was positive,
it means that exogenous testosterone must have been found."

That's what I've been trying to tell everyone since the beginning,
there is no way they would have put this out without the exogenous
test. Still one has to wonder why they didn't publicize it...maybe to
see what lies Floyd and his team would come up with.

What? They're curious? Playful?

No, this is all being handled very badly.

If this is science, the result of a valid, proven test, then you
release it clearly and without games like this.

This is medicine also. Therefore the French lab has followed a strict
chain of custody and a strict procedure. The French lab was given the
urine samples by the Tour organisation, without knowing whose samples
are these (there is only an identification number). The lab performed
the required tests, then delivered the results to the UCI. The French
lab is not allowed to communicate the results directly to the medias.
The UCI has all the information in its hands: which id number
corresponds to which racer, which tests were performed, which figures
are there.

The French lab is not responsible of all this communication problems. It
is like when you go to the lab to make blood tests: the lab has not the
right to communicate your blood test results to everybody. Same thing
for the French lab.

One of the news sources (I believe it was Velonews) referenced here on
rbr stated that l'Equipe's reporting seemed to have a source inside the
lab. But you make a good point: it doesn't have the right to
communicate test results to everybody. Yet it has apparently done so.
That would represent corruption on the part of the lab and would make
every result of the lab suspicious. You can't just say that one part of
the lab is corrupt but everything else about it is clean. The lab has
tainted itself and its work.

Tom Kunich said:

"billb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Not good news for the "For Floyd" crowd.
http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2351

I wonder - what would make you believe that Landis would take a
illegal substance when he was sure to be tested? Do you actually
believe that Landis is too stupid to know that testosterone is easily
detected and that the ratio caculations were part of the testing?

I mean, you people are whacked out.

Maybe because he didn't think he would actually win the stage? He might
have been thinking best-case realistic scenario would be that he would
power along a small break, then at the end sit up and let a few other guys
finish in front of him. In that case he'ld still get the minutes but lower
the chance of getting tested. Except his moved worked beyond his wildest
dreams, he dropped everyone, the peloton never got organized to run him
down, and he ended up winning. It was kind of an "oops" that lands you
under the searchlight of fame when really you were counting on anonymity.
Sort of like that woman who jumped into the Boston marathon way before she
meant to and ended up winning.

--
Bill Asher

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"billb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Not good news for the "For Floyd" crowd.
http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2351

I wonder - what would make you believe that Landis would take a illegal
substance when he was sure to be tested? Do you actually believe that
Landis is too stupid to know that testosterone is easily detected and that
the ratio caculations were part of the testing?

I mean, you people are whacked out.

We don't blame Floyd, but the physician.
I believe he will follow the T mobil Team fate....

<[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

gabriel faure said:

RonSonic <[email hidden]> solemnly wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:56:37 GMT, Keith <[email hidden]> wrote:

>On 31 Jul 2006 05:42:01 -0700, "billb" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>>Not good news for the "For Floyd" crowd.
>>http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2351
>>
>>Best,
>>Bill Black
>
>"When a sample shows a testosterone:epitestosterone ratio of more than
>1:4, an IRMS test is now used to check for the presence of exogenous
>testosterone," Audran explained. "If Landis's 'A' sample was positive,
>it means that exogenous testosterone must have been found."
>
>That's what I've been trying to tell everyone since the beginning,
>there is no way they would have put this out without the exogenous
>test. Still one has to wonder why they didn't publicize it...maybe to
>see what lies Floyd and his team would come up with.

What? They're curious? Playful?

No, this is all being handled very badly.

If this is science, the result of a valid, proven test, then you
release it clearly and without games like this.

This is medicine also. Therefore the French lab has followed a strict
chain of custody and a strict procedure. The French lab was given the
urine samples by the Tour organisation, without knowing whose samples
are these (there is only an identification number). The lab performed
the required tests, then delivered the results to the UCI. The French
lab is not allowed to communicate the results directly to the medias.
The UCI has all the information in its hands: which id number
corresponds to which racer, which tests were performed, which figures
are there.

The French lab is not responsible of all this communication problems. It
is like when you go to the lab to make blood tests: the lab has not the
right to communicate your blood test results to everybody. Same thing
for the French lab.

One of the news sources (I believe it was Velonews) referenced here on
rbr stated that l'Equipe's reporting seemed to have a source inside the
lab. But you make a good point: it doesn't have the right to
communicate test results to everybody. Yet it has apparently done so.

Apparently ? any source for your "apparently" or just what you hope to be ?

Quoted message said:

That would represent corruption on the part of the lab and would make
every result of the lab suspicious. You can't just say that one part of
the lab is corrupt but everything else about it is clean. The lab has
tainted itself and its work.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is medicine also. Therefore the French lab has followed a strict
chain of custody and a strict procedure. The French lab was given the
urine samples by the Tour organisation, without knowing whose samples
are these (there is only an identification number). The lab performed
the required tests, then delivered the results to the UCI. The French
lab is not allowed to communicate the results directly to the medias.
The UCI has all the information in its hands: which id number
corresponds to which racer, which tests were performed, which figures
are there.

The French lab is not responsible of all this communication problems. It
is like when you go to the lab to make blood tests: the lab has not the
right to communicate your blood test results to everybody. Same thing
for the French lab.

One of the news sources (I believe it was Velonews) referenced here on
rbr stated that l'Equipe's reporting seemed to have a source inside the
lab. But you make a good point: it doesn't have the right to
communicate test results to everybody. Yet it has apparently done so.

Sez who ? In all likelyhood L'Equipe got the info after it transited
through the UCI.

Quoted message said:

That would represent corruption on the part of the lab and would make
every result of the lab suspicious. You can't just say that one part of
the lab is corrupt but everything else about it is clean. The lab has
tainted itself and its work.

Quoted message said:

I wonder - what would make you believe that Landis would take a illegal
substance when he was sure to be tested? Do you actually believe that
Landis is too stupid to know that testosterone is easily detected and that
the ratio caculations were part of the testing?

I mean, you people are whacked out.

I don't think Landis is stupid, possibly just careless with steroid patches.
Just think back to the evening of stage 16, after totally bonking, maybe he
applied a patch (or patches), had a huge dinner, a few beers, some Jack
Daniel's, then drifted off to a deep sleep without removing you know what.
Then the next morning, after groggily getting out of bed, he starts to
scratch and says OH $!^#*%$!!!!...

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:53:12 -0400, "JessicaG" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I wonder - what would make you believe that Landis would take a illegal
substance when he was sure to be tested? Do you actually believe that
Landis is too stupid to know that testosterone is easily detected and that
the ratio caculations were part of the testing?

I mean, you people are whacked out.

I don't think Landis is stupid, possibly just careless with steroid patches.
Just think back to the evening of stage 16, after totally bonking, maybe he
applied a patch (or patches), had a huge dinner, a few beers, some Jack
Daniel's, then drifted off to a deep sleep without removing you know what.
Then the next morning, after groggily getting out of bed, he starts to
scratch and says OH $!^#*%$!!!!...

So he goes on the attack and knows that if he wins he will be caught,
and discredit the sport completely, now how stupid is that ?

"William Asher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

"billb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Not good news for the "For Floyd" crowd.
http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2351

I wonder - what would make you believe that Landis would take a
illegal substance when he was sure to be tested? Do you actually
believe that Landis is too stupid to know that testosterone is easily
detected and that the ratio caculations were part of the testing?

I mean, you people are whacked out.

Maybe because he didn't think he would actually win the stage?

And yet a lot of racers said that he told them in the morning that he
intended to win the stage and they didn't believe him.

"JessicaG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I wonder - what would make you believe that Landis would take a illegal
substance when he was sure to be tested? Do you actually believe that
Landis is too stupid to know that testosterone is easily detected and
that the ratio caculations were part of the testing?

I mean, you people are whacked out.

I don't think Landis is stupid, possibly just careless with steroid
patches.

In order to get an 11:1 ratio you'd have to be a LOT more than just
"careless" with a steroid patch.

Quoted message said:

Just think back to the evening of stage 16, after totally bonking, maybe
he applied a patch (or patches), had a huge dinner, a few beers, some Jack
Daniel's, then drifted off to a deep sleep without removing you know what.
Then the next morning, after groggily getting out of bed, he starts to
scratch and says OH $!^#*%$!!!!...

So then he tells everyone that he intends to win the stage and takes off
without ever looking back and rides strong all the way to the finish with 8
minutes on everyone. Well that sure does sound like someone that's guilty of
doping alright.

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"billb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Not good news for the "For Floyd" crowd.
http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2351

I wonder - what would make you believe that Landis would take a illegal
substance when he was sure to be tested? Do you actually believe that Landis
is too stupid to know that testosterone is easily detected and that the
ratio caculations were part of the testing?

I mean, you people are whacked out.

Some of us think:

1. Many, many professional riders dope, and have elaborate
doping programs managed by experts in the field of
medicine and endocrinology. The doping program is
specifically designed to evade detection by the tests in
place by the organizing bodies.

2. As in all human affairs, sometimes a slip is made, and
the rider's chemistry raises a red flag in a drug test.

--
Michael Press

In article <[email hidden]>,

JessicaG said:

Quoted message said:

I wonder - what would make you believe that Landis would take a illegal
substance when he was sure to be tested? Do you actually believe that
Landis is too stupid to know that testosterone is easily detected and that
the ratio caculations were part of the testing?

I mean, you people are whacked out.

I don't think Landis is stupid, possibly just careless with steroid patches.
Just think back to the evening of stage 16, after totally bonking, maybe he
applied a patch (or patches), had a huge dinner, a few beers, some Jack
Daniel's, then drifted off to a deep sleep without removing you know what.
Then the next morning, after groggily getting out of bed, he starts to
scratch and says OH $!^#*%$!!!!...

Or maybe his fraternity brothers slapped a couple patches
on him after he passed out from drink. Hilarity ensues. 🙂

--
Michael Press

[email hidden] solemnly wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

One of the news sources (I believe it was Velonews) referenced here on
rbr stated that l'Equipe's reporting seemed to have a source inside

the

Quoted message said:

lab. But you make a good point: it doesn't have the right to
communicate test results to everybody. Yet it has apparently done so.
That would represent corruption on the part of the lab and would make
every result of the lab suspicious. You can't just say that one part

of

Quoted message said:

the lab is corrupt but everything else about it is clean. The lab has
tainted itself and its work.

No, you do not understand how French labs work, and how journalists
work.

First, the UCI released the information that a top-racer (some official
said "if B sample is positive, I will be very angry) was tested positive
for testosterone during Stage 17.

Then the journalists called all the national cycling federations to
check which federation was concerned. Then under the pressure, Phonak
released the information that it was Landis (who did not take part to 2
races in Danmark and the Netherlands).

Then L'Equipe knows very well how the French national anti-doping lab
performs tests for testosterone. If not, l'Equipe called the lab. It is
a public information: although the French lab is not authorized to
release medical information, it is authorized to communicate on its
testing procedures. I repeat again it is a public information, not a
private/ secrete/ medical information.

So l'Equipe knows that for testosterone tests, the French lab always
performs the isotrope test. L'Equipe has better journalists than other
newspapers which speculated at that time on whether the isotrope test
had been performed or not.

Therefore there was no leak of private medical information from the
French lab. Maybe there were leaks from the UCI people who are not
constrained by medical secrecy.

Concerning the EPO tests on the TDF99 samples, they were a part of the
study the French national lab performed for its own records, for science
and for medical publications. Everything is public. In the study, only
anonym results were released. The French lab did not know whose urine
samples are they. It is just that l'Equipe has clever, smart journalists
who took the tests results, compared them to the results of the TDF99
(the Stage winner, the yellow jersey are always tested) and l'Equipe
came to the conclusion (after demonstration) that Armstrong took EPO.

in 519624 20060731 223750 William Asher said:

Tom Kunich said:

"billb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Not good news for the "For Floyd" crowd.
http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2351

I wonder - what would make you believe that Landis would take a
illegal substance when he was sure to be tested? Do you actually
believe that Landis is too stupid to know that testosterone is easily
detected and that the ratio caculations were part of the testing?

I mean, you people are whacked out.

Maybe because he didn't think he would actually win the stage? He might
have been thinking best-case realistic scenario would be that he would
power along a small break, then at the end sit up and let a few other guys
finish in front of him. In that case he'ld still get the minutes but lower
the chance of getting tested. Except his moved worked beyond his wildest
dreams, he dropped everyone, the peloton never got organized to run him
down, and he ended up winning. It was kind of an "oops" that lands you
under the searchlight of fame when really you were counting on anonymity.
Sort of like that woman who jumped into the Boston marathon way before she
meant to and ended up winning.

Too many people in this newsgroup are letting their heart rule their head.

"gabriel faure" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans
le message de news: [email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] solemnly wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

One of the news sources (I believe it was Velonews) referenced here on
rbr stated that l'Equipe's reporting seemed to have a source inside

the

Quoted message said:

lab. But you make a good point: it doesn't have the right to
communicate test results to everybody. Yet it has apparently done so.
That would represent corruption on the part of the lab and would make
every result of the lab suspicious. You can't just say that one part

of

Quoted message said:

the lab is corrupt but everything else about it is clean. The lab has
tainted itself and its work.

No, you do not understand how French labs work, and how journalists
work.

First, the UCI released the information that a top-racer (some official
said "if B sample is positive, I will be very angry) was tested positive
for testosterone during Stage 17.

Then the journalists called all the national cycling federations to
check which federation was concerned. Then under the pressure, Phonak
released the information that it was Landis (who did not take part to 2
races in Danmark and the Netherlands).

Then L'Equipe knows very well how the French national anti-doping lab
performs tests for testosterone. If not, l'Equipe called the lab. It is
a public information: although the French lab is not authorized to
release medical information, it is authorized to communicate on its
testing procedures. I repeat again it is a public information, not a
private/ secrete/ medical information.

So l'Equipe knows that for testosterone tests, the French lab always
performs the isotrope test. L'Equipe has better journalists than other
newspapers which speculated at that time on whether the isotrope test
had been performed or not.

Therefore there was no leak of private medical information from the
French lab. Maybe there were leaks from the UCI people who are not
constrained by medical secrecy.

Concerning the EPO tests on the TDF99 samples, they were a part of the
study the French national lab performed for its own records, for science
and for medical publications. Everything is public. In the study, only
anonym results were released. The French lab did not know whose urine
samples are they. It is just that l'Equipe has clever, smart journalists
who took the tests results, compared them to the results of the TDF99
(the Stage winner, the yellow jersey are always tested) and l'Equipe
came to the conclusion (after demonstration) that Armstrong took EPO.

It doesn't matter how clever Denis Ressiot is, it was someone at LNDD that
released private medical results to him in August last year (with or without
knowledge that they were Armstrong's.) No one at the lab was held
responsible for that leak, so that person still works at LNDD. And now by
coincidence, the samer Denis Ressiot who has a source inside LNDD is the
only reporter in the world to publish that the IRMS was done. And we're to
believe it's because he's smarter than the rest, or because the UCI likes
him and l'Equipe better than other reporters?

I find it easier to believe that the same person leaked him the results of
the IRMS.

trg said:

It doesn't matter how clever Denis Ressiot is, it was someone at LNDD that
released private medical results to him in August last year (with or without
knowledge that they were Armstrong's.) No one at the lab was held
responsible for that leak, so that person still works at LNDD. And now by
coincidence, the samer Denis Ressiot who has a source inside LNDD is the
only reporter in the world to publish that the IRMS was done. And we're to
believe it's because he's smarter than the rest, or because the UCI likes
him and l'Equipe better than other reporters?

I find it easier to believe that the same person leaked him the results of
the IRMS.

And that person has discovered that leaking test results can be
lucrative. This is why the leaking of results by the lab corrupts the
lab's entire output- someone has found they can unethically make money
with positive test results, so who's to say they aren't creating
positive results to make money? Everything the lab does is tainted.

<[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

trg said:

It doesn't matter how clever Denis Ressiot is, it was someone at LNDD
that
released private medical results to him in August last year (with or
without
knowledge that they were Armstrong's.) No one at the lab was held
responsible for that leak, so that person still works at LNDD. And now by
coincidence, the samer Denis Ressiot who has a source inside LNDD is the
only reporter in the world to publish that the IRMS was done. And we're
to
believe it's because he's smarter than the rest, or because the UCI likes
him and l'Equipe better than other reporters?

I find it easier to believe that the same person leaked him the results
of
the IRMS.

And that person has discovered that leaking test results can be
lucrative.

Blame UCI my friend, since the leaking test results came from UCI !!

This is why the leaking of results by the lab corrupts the

Quoted message said:

lab's entire output- someone has found they can unethically make money
with positive test results, so who's to say they aren't creating
positive results to make money? Everything the lab does is tainted.

Quoted message said:

And that person has discovered that leaking test results can be
lucrative. This is why the leaking of results by the lab corrupts the
lab's entire output- someone has found they can unethically make money
with positive test results, so who's to say they aren't creating
positive results to make money? Everything the lab does is tainted.

What makes it dangerously corrupt is when the leaking of results are
of value only when positive. If leaking the results are valuable
regardless of the outcome, then it is only the act of leaking (and to
whom) that is corrupted: when the leak is of value only when the test
is positive, then the danger of corruption that reaches back to the
results is more likely.

The failure to vigorously investigate the leaks earlier are not as
benign or only a question of 'when and to whom' as is suggested. Yes,
the person may not have a position to influence the testing and
perhaps there are safeguards in place to prevent one person
determining the results and then making money off of a leak; OTOH, he
or she may have made good money off of one positive set of results and
then decided to create another. Absent open air and bright light on
the process (and earlier leaks), we simply don't know.

Personally, I have no particular emotional investment in Landis and
will simply wait for the final outcome - after all, there is the third
possibility that has only been mentioned on occasion, that Landis is
innocent and will demonstrate it to all concerned, but not to the
point of overturning the clear dictates of a positive test.
Circumstantial innocence may not be enough, even if true.

But those that defend the actions of the lab and/or the leak more
fervently than those they so completely disdain for defending Landis
are also with their heads firmly in the sand. Separate from Armstrong
and Landis, it is important that the UCI identify the leaks and what
point it is coming from. A desk jockey leaking what he or she sees on
a result sheet is hugely different from a person performing the test
and making money from the leak of a specific result.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...