Road Cycling · Public discussion

LANDIS! Lying?

Started by Email address hidden · · Last activity · 64 posts · 1,574 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Road Cycling
Published
29 July 2006
Last activity
8 August 2006
Original author
Email address hidden
Posts
64
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,574
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 61–64 of 64
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. In article <[email hidden]>,

    dan said:

    First off, if you do some reading you'll find that the evidence is
    anything but overwhelming. The fact that his A and B samples tested
    the same simply means that the A sample wasn't independently tampered
    with and the tests were excuted in a consistent manner, though that
    does not mean that the test couldn't be flawed. This is the result
    one would expect of such tests. If there had been a difference
    between the A and B samples, THAT would have been unexpected.

    Actually, if the test is flawed one would expect to see variation in the
    test results, not consistency. A flawed test has a higher error of
    measurement, and thus has lower reliability and validity.

    Quoted message said:

    Contrary to many reports from lazy news sources, Landis did NOT have
    a high level of testosterone in his urine. What he had was a high
    testosterone-epitestosterone ratio (a.k.a. T-E ratio). "Normal"
    ratios are in the 1:1 - 3:1 range, though studies have found
    significant numbers of men with natural T-E ratios in the 6:1 range
    and some as high as 13:1. The WADA standard for doping is set at 6:1.

    Read WADA's own document on the subject, their standard is 4:1 and has
    been for quite some time.

    Quoted message said:

    The UCI used that limit up until this year, when it dropped its
    acceptable ratio to 4:1 (I have no idea why). Although Landis has
    been reported to have tested with a ratio of 11:1, there has been no
    official confirmation of that yet AFAIK.

    Testosterone doping is primarily used to build muscle and works over
    a long period of time to do so. However, since cycling is not a sport
    that benefits from large, bulky muscles, that type of testosterone
    use would be counterproductive for a road cyclist (it might benefit a
    track sprinter).

    There is another use for testoterone; it can be used to enhance
    short-term recovery. A testosterone patch is place on the scrotum for
    up to 6 hours and it will reduce recovery time, supposedly without
    boosting levels to the point of exceeding the legal T/E ratio. As
    yet, there is no evidence that Landis did this or even knew about the
    technique.

    Since this is not a new discovery, it is reasonable to expect that the
    team doctor is aware of this and knows how to use it.

    Quoted message said:

    Urine tests are woefully innacurate, since they don't measure the
    level of testosterone in the blood, they only measure how much was
    excreted by the body. The UCI knows of the innacuracy, but insists on
    using urine tests anyway, probably because they're cheaper than blood
    tests. To date, every athlete that has challenged testosterone urine
    tests has won their case. There are reports that there was synthetic
    testosterone in Landis' urine, which would certainly be problematic
    for him.

    Written like someone coaching Floyd's defense team. Urine tests are
    fine since clearance rates through urinary excretion are consistent
    except in the presence of a pathological condition. Doing venipuncture
    carries health risks and shouldn't be done unless there is no other way
    to obtain the necessary information (e.g., hematocrit), so urine tests
    are used for as many things as is reasonable.

    Quoted message said:

    OTOH, his levels were legal after the stages before and
    after the stage in question (17), which raises serious questions
    about the testing. It seems unlikely that an athlete's T-E ratio
    could go from legal levels to 11:1 and back to legal levels in 48
    hours.

    Actually, that's entirely reasonable. The half life of testosterone is
    short and it is mostly excreted within six hours, according to the
    information I was able to find.

    Quoted message said:

    The lab used by the TDF has serious problems of its own. It has been
    compromised by the French press (L'Equipe specifically) and
    information is constantly leaked by an internal source. It was
    reviewed independently after the most recent recent Lance Armstrong
    debacle and the report lambasted the lab for inadequate/improper
    safeguards and procedures, essentially discrediting it in the L.A.
    case. Why the TDF still uses the same lab is anybody's guess, since
    one would think they'd want to use a lab that doesn't have a history
    of problems.

    Right now, there are far more questions than answers in this case.

    Only questions from the perspective of the public, since the answers to
    many of the questions you pose are known- just not released.

    Quoted message said:

    Specifically:

    - What is Floyd's natural T/E ratio?

    - What was the actual T-E ratio in the tests?

    - How much of a difference was there with the results after the
    previous and subsequent stages. It makes a big difference if Floyd
    was 3.9:1 before and after (just under the legal limit) and 4.1:1 in
    the tests (just over the legal limit) vs. being 1:1 before/after and
    11:1 in the tests.

    - How much could his (legal) medication and self-medication (drinking
    after stage 16) have influenced the test results?

    Not at all. Indeed, if anything the excessive fluid use was an attempt
    to keep his urine dilute and thus to keep the testosterone level in the
    sample as low as possible.

    Quoted message said:

    - Were the A and B test results consistent (they were both high, but
    we don't know if they were the same).

    ...and for the conspiracy theorists...

    - Why does the UCI/TDF rely on urine tests when they KNOW they're
    innacurate.

    Because they are not inaccurate as you claim. Stop spreading the FUD
    defense.

    Quoted message said:

    - Why did the UCI drop it's T-E ratio standard to 4:1 THIS year?

    Probably to be consistent with the WADA standard, which has been 4:1 for
    quite some time. Not that the decrease is relevant to the case, as only
    a small fraction of people have T:E ratios above 4:1.

    Quoted message said:

    - Is it possible that the urine sample container given to Landis was
    "spiked" with testosterone and is there any way to determine if that
    was the case?

    Yeah, if his ratio was about 7000:1. In order to plausibly spike the
    sample, the spiker would need to have known Floyd's normal ratios, the
    level of concentration of his urine, the volume of urine that would be
    in the sample jar, etc. This is just grasping at straws- just like
    floyd is doing.

    Quoted message said:

    - Exactly how desperate are the French to have someone other than an
    American win their beloved race?

    Finally you get down to it. The American can't be guilty, it must be
    the damned French. But they'd have had to spike the samples of a few
    riders to get a French winner, eh?

    Quoted message said:

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out when the actual test
    data is revealed and tests are conducted by another lab (assuming
    they are). Landis has already been convicted in the press, by his
    team and by the organizers of the TDF, but this case is far from
    over.

    [censored]. The legal dance isn't over, but Floyd's career probably is.
    The reported presence of synthetic testosterone in his sample is the
    last nail in the coffin. The fat lady is warming up in the green room.

  2. Tim McNamara said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,
    "dan" <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    OTOH, his levels were legal after the stages before and
    after the stage in question (17), which raises serious questions
    about the testing. It seems unlikely that an athlete's T-E ratio
    could go from legal levels to 11:1 and back to legal levels in 48
    hours.

    Quoted message said:

    Actually, that's entirely reasonable. The half life of testosterone is
    short and it is mostly excreted within six hours, according to the
    information I was able to find.

    Assuming you're right about the half life (I don't have the first clue
    if that's reasonable), and assuming that Floyd was taking on
    testosterone, then one of two things would have to be true to
    get an 11:1 ratio:

    a) He was doped *to the gills* prior to the race. If the
    epitestosterone level stayed constant, the T:E ratio would have been
    22:1 six hours earlier, which was early in the stage. Since his T levels
    were reported to be "normal" at the time of the test, he would have had

    Quoted message said:

    2x normal levels prior to the race.

    or

    b) He was getting testosterone during the race.

    Any other possibilities I'm overlooking?

    --
    Dave
    dvt at psu dot edu

    Everyone confesses that exertion which brings out all the powers of body
    and mind is the best thing for us; but most people do all they can to
    get rid of it, and as a general rule nobody does much more than
    circumstances drive them to do. -Harriet Beecher Stowe, abolitionist and
    novelist (1811-1896)

  3. In article <[email hidden]>, dvt <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    Tim McNamara said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,
    "dan" <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    OTOH, his levels were legal after the stages before and after the
    stage in question (17), which raises serious questions about the
    testing. It seems unlikely that an athlete's T-E ratio could go
    from legal levels to 11:1 and back to legal levels in 48 hours.

    Quoted message said:

    Actually, that's entirely reasonable. The half life of
    testosterone is short and it is mostly excreted within six hours,
    according to the information I was able to find.

    Assuming you're right about the half life (I don't have the first
    clue if that's reasonable), and assuming that Floyd was taking on
    testosterone, then one of two things would have to be true to get an
    11:1 ratio:

    From the FDA regarding the Androgen testosterone patch:

    http://www.fda.gov/medWatch/SAFETY/2006/May_PIs/Androderm_PI.pdf

    "Upon removal of the Androderm systems, serum testosterone
    concentrations decrease with an apparent half-life of approximately 70
    minutes. Hypogonadal concentrations are reached within 24 hours
    following system removal."

    Now this is, like all such clinical studies, a set of non-normal
    subjects. That may affect the excretion half-life of the drug. Note
    also that other types of testosterone administration apparently result
    in half-lives from 1-12 days (e.g., depot injections).

    Quoted message said:

    a) He was doped *to the gills* prior to the race. If the
    epitestosterone level stayed constant, the T:E ratio would have been
    22:1 six hours earlier, which was early in the stage. Since his T
    levels were reported to be "normal" at the time of the test, he would
    have had > 2x normal levels prior to the race.

    or

    b) He was getting testosterone during the race.

    I'm guessing that a) is the answer. The purpose was to help him recover
    so that he could attack on Stage 17 (or perhaps even just recover well
    enough to carry on, and attacking was a bonus), and that they screwed up
    the math or Floyd's clearance rate is lower than expected.

    Of course, this is all blind conjecture. Floyd could be innocent
    somehow.

  4. "Steve McDonald" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    There has recently been news of an "innocence committee", that has
    been doing work to exonerate people wrongly convicted of serious crimes.
    I think we need an equivalent of this group to deeply examine sports
    doping cases like the one in question here.


    Don't they usually work with people who are on death row?
    http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/wrongful/History.htm

    Things aren't THAT bad for Landis.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.