Good news on Landis

Dumbass said:

Looks like Landis had a low E reading, rather than a high T reading.

The ratio is 11.

I don't know what the explanation is, but that sounds like good news,
relatively speaking.

I heard this on NPR. The 11 is from the grapevine.

This was from a interview with the editor of velonews.com

Dumbass said:

Looks like Landis had a low E reading, rather than a high T reading.

The ratio is 11.

I don't know what the explanation is, but that sounds like good news,
relatively speaking.

I'd guess they are using the ratio and not the absolute numbers for a
reason.

http://www.buckminster.info/Index/N/Numbers.htm

Dumbass said:

Looks like Landis had a low E reading, rather than a high T reading.

The ratio is 11.

I don't know what the explanation is, but that sounds like good news,
relatively speaking.

I heard this on NPR. The 11 is from the grapevine.

According to this source:

http://www.bcf.org.uk/national/2001/fideantidoping2.htm

low epitestosterone is one of the conditions that can cause a 6+ ratio
in the absense of doping.

I think this is very good news for us Landis fans, relatively speaking.

Dumbass said:

Dumbass said:

Looks like Landis had a low E reading, rather than a high T reading.

The ratio is 11.

I don't know what the explanation is, but that sounds like good news,
relatively speaking.

I heard this on NPR. The 11 is from the grapevine.

According to this source:

http://www.bcf.org.uk/national/2001/fideantidoping2.htm

low epitestosterone is one of the conditions that can cause a 6+ ratio
in the absense of doping.

I think this is very good news for us Landis fans, relatively speaking.

Yes...very relative, it's most unlikely anything would have come out
before the second test if they hadn't been absolutely positive he had
doped...no one needed that [censored].

Keith said:

Dumbass said:

Dumbass said:

Looks like Landis had a low E reading, rather than a high T reading.

The ratio is 11.

I don't know what the explanation is, but that sounds like good news,
relatively speaking.

I heard this on NPR. The 11 is from the grapevine.

According to this source:

http://www.bcf.org.uk/national/2001/fideantidoping2.htm

low epitestosterone is one of the conditions that can cause a 6+ ratio
in the absense of doping.

I think this is very good news for us Landis fans, relatively speaking.

Yes...very relative, it's most unlikely anything would have come out
before the second test if they hadn't been absolutely positive he had
doped...no one needed that [censored].

I am not sure of that. The T/E ratio > 6 alone has never considered to
be definitive, just look it up. But there is a tradition of suspending
the rider based on the first round of testing so the first round has to
be public.

I think the system is a very screwed up.

Dumbass said:

I think this is very good news for us Landis fans, relatively speaking.

Doping with testosterone in the middle of a TDF that already had a big
drug scandal strikes me as about as smart as whipping out a pint of
Vodka and chugging it when you're driving up to a DUI barricade.
Plus, they recently lowered the permissible limit. Could Landis (or his
trainer) really be that stupid?

This reminds me of the time Garzelli was DQed in the Giro for using a
virtually worthless masking agent that was easily detected.

It's true that people do dumb things that get them caught all the time.
But I tend to be more skeptical when otherwise intelligent people are
accused of doing incredibly stupid things that guarantee that they will
be busted, thereby destroying any reward they hoped to gain.

Zeno

Zeno said:

Dumbass said:

I think this is very good news for us Landis fans, relatively speaking.

Doping with testosterone in the middle of a TDF that already had a big
drug scandal strikes me as about as smart as whipping out a pint of
Vodka and chugging it when you're driving up to a DUI barricade.
Plus, they recently lowered the permissible limit. Could Landis (or his
trainer) really be that stupid?

This reminds me of the time Garzelli was DQed in the Giro for using a
virtually worthless masking agent that was easily detected.

It's true that people do dumb things that get them caught all the time.
But I tend to be more skeptical when otherwise intelligent people are
accused of doing incredibly stupid things that guarantee that they will
be busted, thereby destroying any reward they hoped to gain.

Zeno

But there are reasons for this test to test "positive" yet no drugs were
taken. Personally, I'm giving Floyd (and any other cyclist, including
Basso and Ullrich) a benefit of a doubt.

--
Bob in CT

Bob in CT said:

But there are reasons for this test to test "positive" yet no drugs were
taken. Personally, I'm giving Floyd (and any other cyclist, including
Basso and Ullrich) a benefit of a doubt.

--
Bob in CT

While growing up in Chicago (long ago) there was a huge police scandal
in the Summerdale District. Bob Gibson and Bob Camp wrote and performed
and song about that episode and one line in it went something like "...
it's a shame how one good apple can spoil the whole rotten barrel.."

Innocent until proven otherewise is a good principle. But at some point
you can't have everyone implicated and still believe they are all
innocent.

Dumbass said:

Looks like Landis had a low E reading, rather than a high T reading.

The ratio is 11.

I don't know what the explanation is, but that sounds like good news,
relatively speaking.

I heard this on NPR. The 11 is from the grapevine.

A follow-up oral test to check one of the legitimate reasons for such a
ratio:

http://joe.endocrinology-journals.org/cgi/content/abstract/142/2/353

Wayne

Zeno wrote:> This reminds me of the time Garzelli was DQed in the Giro
for using a

Quoted message said:

virtually worthless masking agent that was easily detected.

He didn't "use it". It was in the chicken that some of the team ate at
dinner. This was proven. The chicken came from, I forget which country,
and Germany I think it was, had already banned chicken imports from
that country because of the use of probenecid by the chicken farmers.

Even some managers and soigneurs felt the effects (increased urination)
and people were asking why the Mapei guys kept stopping by the side of
the road during the next stage.

But you're right, the probenecid no longer masked the steroids it was
orginially used for because the testing was able to see the use of
those steroids even if probenecid had been used.

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

Quoted message said:

Dumbass said:

Looks like Landis had a low E reading, rather than a high T reading.

The ratio is 11.

I don't know what the explanation is, but that sounds like good news,
relatively speaking.

I heard this on NPR. The 11 is from the grapevine.

A follow-up oral test to check one of the legitimate reasons for such a
ratio:

http://joe.endocrinology-journals.org/cgi/content/abstract/142/2/353

Wayne

Good information. Thanks for the link.

Dumbass said:

Dumbass said:

Looks like Landis had a low E reading, rather than a high T reading.

The ratio is 11.

I don't know what the explanation is, but that sounds like good news,
relatively speaking.

I heard this on NPR. The 11 is from the grapevine.

According to this source:

http://www.bcf.org.uk/national/2001/fideantidoping2.htm

low epitestosterone is one of the conditions that can cause a 6+ ratio
in the absense of doping.

I think this is very good news for us Landis fans, relatively speaking.

Quoted message said:

From the medical literature:

"Epitestosterone has for a long time been considered as a biologically
inactive steroid. However, recently a distinct antiandrogenic activity
of this naturally occurring endogenous epimer of testosterone has been
demonstrated. Epitestosterone plays a role in the control of doping
with testosterone, since an arbitrary ratio of testosterone to
epitestosterone in urine has been accepted as a marker for testosterone
abuse. For this reason, its urinary excretion has been examined
intensively by several authors. On the other hand, its concentration in
the blood of men was reported only randomly in a few cases. In the
present study the epitestosterone level in human plasma was determined
by a specific radioimmunoassay and the concentration of epitestosterone
was established in age groups of males of 6 to 65 years of age. There
is a clear age dependence of epitestosterone plasma concentration in
males. In young boys before puberty, antiandrogenic epitestosterone
prevails over testosterone, in adults a striking decline of the ratio
epitestosterone:testosterone can be observed."

J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 1995 Dec;55(3-4):405-8.

"By 1982, the International Olympic Council had developed a test for
the detection of excess levels of testosterone in athletes, known as
the "Testosterone: Epitestosterone test". In this test, levels of
testosterone vs/ epitestosterone are measured, and if the testosterone
level is 6x that of the epitestosterone level, it can safely be
concluded that some form of testosterone has been used by the athlete.
This is because **testosterone is commonly no more than 6x the natural
level of epitestosterone found naturally in the body**. Thus, if there
were more than that ratio, it was not naturally occurring, in all
probability. The IOC was, as usual, one step behind the athletes. The
GDR had already done a study on their athletes using a form of
testosterone which would leave the body quickly, and thus they would be
ready for the IOC test within three days of their last injection (6).
They then developed a protocol to allow their athletes to continue
steroid use, ceasing it only long enough to pass the drug test. In
addition, the German firm Jenapharm, who had been supplying the
government with steroids for their athletes, developed an
epitestosterone product to administer to athletes to bring the ratio
back to normal without discontinuing steroid use."

Clinical Chemistry. 43, No7, 1997.

Dumbass said:

Looks like Landis had a low E reading, rather than a high T reading.

The ratio is 11.

I don't know what the explanation is, but that sounds like good news,
relatively speaking.

I heard this on NPR. The 11 is from the grapevine.

If only the one sample failed, they should be able to compare it to the
various samples from earlier in the tour and determine whether the
difference is higher T or lower E. If it is lower E, would that be
proof of innocence or just an indication that a masking agent failed?

Bret

Bret said:

Dumbass said:

Looks like Landis had a low E reading, rather than a high T reading.

The ratio is 11.

I don't know what the explanation is, but that sounds like good news,
relatively speaking.

I heard this on NPR. The 11 is from the grapevine.

If only the one sample failed, they should be able to compare it to the
various samples from earlier in the tour and determine whether the
difference is higher T or lower E. If it is lower E, would that be
proof of innocence or just an indication that a masking agent failed?

Bret

If it's masking agent failure I guess they can see that too by looking
at the trends. In all likelihood they have already done all the
checking before dropping a bomb like that.

Keith said:

Bret said:

Dumbass said:

Looks like Landis had a low E reading, rather than a high T reading.

The ratio is 11.

I don't know what the explanation is, but that sounds like good news,
relatively speaking.

I heard this on NPR. The 11 is from the grapevine.

If only the one sample failed, they should be able to compare it to the
various samples from earlier in the tour and determine whether the
difference is higher T or lower E. If it is lower E, would that be
proof of innocence or just an indication that a masking agent failed?

Bret

If it's masking agent failure I guess they can see that too by looking
at the trends. In all likelihood they have already done all the
checking before dropping a bomb like that.

If he had low T it's not a masking agent failure. A high T:E ratio
should be disregarded if it's because the E level is low. Someone with a
T level of say, 300 ng/dL isn't shooting up test prop.

--
Scott Johnson / johnson dot sa at comcast dot net

Keith said:

Dumbass said:

I think this is very good news for us Landis fans, relatively speaking.

Yes...very relative, it's most unlikely anything would have come out
before the second test if they hadn't been absolutely positive he had
doped...no one needed that [censored].

Completely consistent with maintaining the image of cycling as the most
aggressively tested sport, and therefore the closest to "clean."

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,