Let's see some numbers

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

Quoted message said:

I'm a numbers guy. Fractions don't mean anything unless you know the
numerator and the denominator and you have something to compare them to.
Floyd said today on ESPN radio that his testosterone was normal and his
epitestosterone was very low resulting in the offending test ratio of
11-1.

So I want to see the numerator and denominator of each of his tests.
Obviously, I don’t know what the numbers are or what the numbers should be
but, for simplicity let’s say in each of his six tests his testosterone
level was 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, and 11. Then let’s say his epitestosterone
in each of those tests was 10, 10, 10, *1*, 10 and 10.

What conclusion would you draw then?

Heck everything about this case has been leaked, how about leaking some
numbers!

Thanks for your time,

You got it.

pissedoffcpa said:

I'm a numbers guy. Fractions don't mean anything unless you know the
numerator and the denominator and you have something to compare them to.
Floyd said today on ESPN radio that his testosterone was normal and his
epitestosterone was very low resulting in the offending test ratio of 11-1.

So I want to see the numerator and denominator of each of his tests.
Obviously, I don’t know what the numbers are or what the numbers should
be but, for simplicity let’s say in each of his six tests his
testosterone level was 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, and 11. Then let’s say his
epitestosterone in each of those tests was 10, 10, 10, *1*, 10 and 10.

What conclusion would you draw then?

Someone forgot to write down one trailing 0 when they copied the T and E
numbers from the IMRS display to a sheet of paper to compute the ratio?

pissedoffcpa said:

I'm a numbers guy. Fractions don't mean anything unless you know the
numerator and the denominator and you have something to compare them to.
Floyd said today on ESPN radio that his testosterone was normal and
his epitestosterone was very low resulting in the offending test ratio
of 11-1.

So I want to see the numerator and denominator of each of his tests.
Obviously, I don't know what the numbers are or what the numbers should
be but, for simplicity let's say in each of his six tests his
testosterone level was 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, and 11. Then let's say his
epitestosterone in each of those tests was 10, 10, 10, *1*, 10 and 10.

What conclusion would you draw then?

Heck everything about this case has been leaked, how about leaking some
numbers!

Thanks for your time,
P.O.

And the presence of exogenous T fits in with this how? My understanding
is that if it was there and if wasn't produced by his body then he
doped. So... .

It is interesting that while this debate rages among those interested
in cycling there is no such debate elsewhere. No one outside of the
cycling arena seems to think there is any chance that there are any
open issues.

Quoted message said:

And the presence of exogenous T fits in with this how? My understanding
is that if it was there and if wasn't produced by his body then he
doped. So... .

It is interesting that while this debate rages among those interested
in cycling there is no such debate elsewhere. No one outside of the
cycling arena seems to think there is any chance that there are any
open issues.

Gary -
I, like many folks, just want to see how many other riders, including
Pereiro and Kloden, have exogenous testosterone in their samples. I'm
all for CIR testing the top daily finishers and the top daily GC
contenders.

Wouldn't that be sooo interesting?

Linda

gds said:

And the presence of exogenous T fits in with this how? My understanding
is that if it was there and if wasn't produced by his body then he
doped. So... .

Then I would think it would be present in each of the 5 other samples
because there was no measurable change in the T numbers. Test each of
those other 5 tests for exogenous T and if they come back positive, it's
done, I'm convinced. My point is I want to see the results of stage 17
test compared with the results of the other tests.

Quoted message said:

It is interesting that while this debate rages among those interested
in cycling there is no such debate elsewhere. No one outside of the
cycling arena seems to think there is any chance that there are any
open issues.

This would make sense to me, because we care. I didn't give 2 craps
about the head butt in the world cup, but I'm sure it was quite the
topic of discussion in the European football newsgroups.

Thanks,
Pat

pissedoffcpa said:

gds said:

And the presence of exogenous T fits in with this how? My understanding
is that if it was there and if wasn't produced by his body then he
doped. So... .

Then I would think it would be present in each of the 5 other samples
because there was no measurable change in the T numbers. Test each of
those other 5 tests for exogenous T and if they come back positive, it's
done, I'm convinced. My point is I want to see the results of stage 17
test compared with the results of the other tests.

Quoted message said:

It is interesting that while this debate rages among those interested
in cycling there is no such debate elsewhere. No one outside of the
cycling arena seems to think there is any chance that there are any
open issues.

This would make sense to me, because we care. I didn't give 2 craps
about the head butt in the world cup, but I'm sure it was quite the
topic of discussion in the European football newsgroups.

Thanks,
Pat

Fair enough! But isn't the protocol only to "announce" negative
results? That is lots of samples are taken and it never makes the news
unless a "violation" is discovered. So, since there are plenty of
samples and no other findings of exogenous T one is left to believe
that there were no other positive findings.

I imagine that if FL or his advisors really believe he is innocent they
will work hard to get the other samples tested for exogenous T and to
make the results know. So far I have heard nothing to this effect.

I think this is all very sad butI really have a hard time believing
that the lab is totally incompetent, that they are using a test that
does not have a high degree of reliability and validity, or that there
is a conspiracy against FL.

Linda Lou said:

I, like many folks, just want to see how many other riders, including
Pereiro and Kloden, have exogenous testosterone in their samples. I'm
all for CIR testing the top daily finishers and the top daily GC
contenders.

Wouldn't that be sooo interesting?

Linda

Yes, but isn't the test for exogenous T only run IF the screening test,
the ratio test comes back out of limits.
What you are proposing could cause mass panic. All those folks who
correctly figured out how to mask vs. the screenig test would now have
to go to the next level.

I still belive that these test do not divide the dopers from non dopers
but only those caught from not caught. I'm pretty cycnical on this.
There has to be some excuse why they are so much better than I am ;-)

gds said:

Fair enough! But isn't the protocol only to "announce" negative
results? That is lots of samples are taken and it never makes the news
unless a "violation" is discovered. So, since there are plenty of
samples and no other findings of exogenous T one is left to believe
that there were no other positive findings.

It was my understanding that the isotope test is only performed on
samples with an out-of-whack T/E ratio. So now we have one, I feel it
is incumbent upon the lab, WADA and UCI to test all the samples of the
offending rider to confirm the results... before releasing them.

Quoted message said:

I imagine that if FL or his advisors really believe he is innocent they
will work hard to get the other samples tested for exogenous T and to
make the results know. So far I have heard nothing to this effect.

I have no doubt, but these things take time and with the volume
information coming from leaks being what they are, the Landis camp is in
constant defend mode at this point. I mean come on, to release
information because you figure it's going to be leaked by the lab anyway...

Quoted message said:

I think this is all very sad butI really have a hard time believing
that the lab is totally incompetent, that they are using a test that
does not have a high degree of reliability and validity, or that there
is a conspiracy against FL.

Agreed, but to me there just isn't enough information out there to make
a decision and frankly we probably shouldn't even know anything about
this now. Landis hasn't had time to prepare his defense so he comes off
looking bad. I want to give the guy a chance to defend himself. He
hasn't had that opportunity but he's already convicted.

Pat

pissedoffcpa said:

gds said:

Fair enough! But isn't the protocol only to "announce" negative
results? That is lots of samples are taken and it never makes the news
unless a "violation" is discovered. So, since there are plenty of
samples and no other findings of exogenous T one is left to believe
that there were no other positive findings.

It was my understanding that the isotope test is only performed on
samples with an out-of-whack T/E ratio. So now we have one, I feel it
is incumbent upon the lab, WADA and UCI to test all the samples of the
offending rider to confirm the results... before releasing them.

Quoted message said:

I imagine that if FL or his advisors really believe he is innocent they
will work hard to get the other samples tested for exogenous T and to
make the results know. So far I have heard nothing to this effect.

I have no doubt, but these things take time and with the volume
information coming from leaks being what they are, the Landis camp is in
constant defend mode at this point. I mean come on, to release
information because you figure it's going to be leaked by the lab anyway...

Quoted message said:

I think this is all very sad butI really have a hard time believing
that the lab is totally incompetent, that they are using a test that
does not have a high degree of reliability and validity, or that there
is a conspiracy against FL.

Agreed, but to me there just isn't enough information out there to make
a decision and frankly we probably shouldn't even know anything about
this now. Landis hasn't had time to prepare his defense so he comes off
looking bad. I want to give the guy a chance to defend himself. He
hasn't had that opportunity but he's already convicted.

Pat

Pat

He isn't innocent until proven guilty. The Pro Tour Charter is very
clear, and ALL riders now this. Top Club membership is a privelage, not
birthright. Screw it up, and you are out the door. Instead of
complaining about it, Floyd should have not cheated. Or cheated
smarter.

Froid

Quoted message said:

Yes, but isn't the test for exogenous T only run IF the screening test,
the ratio test comes back out of limits.

That's my understanding, too.

Quoted message said:

What you are proposing could cause mass panic. All those folks who
correctly figured out how to mask vs. the screenig test would now have
to go to the next level.

They're always one step ahead so I'm sure they're already working on
this angle.

Quoted message said:

I still belive that these test do not divide the dopers from non dopers
but only those caught from not caught.

Obviously, the UCI isn't serious until they start digging deeper,
requiring samples from more riders and testing them thoroughly.

Quoted message said:

I'm pretty cycnical on this.

Aren't we all getting cynical.

Quoted message said:

There has to be some excuse why they are so much better than I am ;-)

I'm sure you sleep better at night.

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

Quoted message said:

And the presence of exogenous T fits in with this how? My understanding
is that if it was there and if wasn't produced by his body then he
doped. So... .

After claiming that you did mass spec or whatever you talk like this? You
aren't aware that peaks can run together and the materials can materially
effect the outcome of the mass spec?

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

Quoted message said:

Linda Lou said:

I, like many folks, just want to see how many other riders, including
Pereiro and Kloden, have exogenous testosterone in their samples. I'm
all for CIR testing the top daily finishers and the top daily GC
contenders.

Wouldn't that be sooo interesting?

Linda

Yes, but isn't the test for exogenous T only run IF the screening test,
the ratio test comes back out of limits.
What you are proposing could cause mass panic. All those folks who
correctly figured out how to mask vs. the screenig test would now have
to go to the next level.

I still belive that these test do not divide the dopers from non dopers
but only those caught from not caught. I'm pretty cycnical on this.
There has to be some excuse why they are so much better than I am ;-)

Another interesting comment regarding your position is this - testosterone
doesn't work the way it is being claimed. There's no chance whatsoever that
using testosterone after stage 16 could make him superman in stage 17. And
yet there you are assuming that.

pissedoffcpa said:

gds said:

Fair enough! But isn't the protocol only to "announce" negative
results? That is lots of samples are taken and it never makes the news
unless a "violation" is discovered. So, since there are plenty of
samples and no other findings of exogenous T one is left to believe
that there were no other positive findings.

It was my understanding that the isotope test is only performed on
samples with an out-of-whack T/E ratio. So now we have one, I feel it
is incumbent upon the lab, WADA and UCI to test all the samples of the
offending rider to confirm the results... before releasing them.

Either they (WADA & UCI) have procedures/protocols to follow, or they
are making this up as they go along (ok - or both, or neither. all are
possible).

In any event, posting here ain't gonna help a bit, unless posting links
to actual scientific and medical publications that have passed peer
review. Those links could help greatly.

-bdbafh

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I imagine that if FL or his advisors really believe he is innocent they
will work hard to get the other samples tested for exogenous T and to
make the results know. So far I have heard nothing to this effect.

I have no doubt, but these things take time and with the volume
information coming from leaks being what they are, the Landis camp is in
constant defend mode at this point. I mean come on, to release
information because you figure it's going to be leaked by the lab anyway...

Quoted message said:

I think this is all very sad butI really have a hard time believing
that the lab is totally incompetent, that they are using a test that
does not have a high degree of reliability and validity, or that there
is a conspiracy against FL.

Agreed, but to me there just isn't enough information out there to make
a decision and frankly we probably shouldn't even know anything about
this now. Landis hasn't had time to prepare his defense so he comes off
looking bad. I want to give the guy a chance to defend himself. He
hasn't had that opportunity but he's already convicted.

Pat

Everyone benefits from doping.

Spectators from epic rides
Promoters from big media deals
Media from big advertising contracts
Advertisers from big viewership
Riders from new records
Teams from high placings
Sponsors from increased brand awareness
Podium girls from enhanced exposure

So as long as the doping is properly managed its a win-win for everyone. No
one wants the sport truly clean, just the thought of it being clean. In the
end this is big business and the profit motive justifies the means

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

Quoted message said:

I'm a numbers guy. Fractions don't mean anything unless you know the
numerator and the denominator and you have something to compare them to.
Floyd said today on ESPN radio that his testosterone was normal and his
epitestosterone was very low resulting in the offending test ratio of
11-1.

So I want to see the numerator and denominator of each of his tests.
Obviously, I don’t know what the numbers are or what the numbers should be
but, for simplicity let’s say in each of his six tests his testosterone
level was 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, and 11. Then let’s say his epitestosterone
in each of those tests was 10, 10, 10, *1*, 10 and 10.

What conclusion would you draw then?

Heck everything about this case has been leaked, how about leaking some
numbers!

Thanks for your time,
P.O.

Tom Kunich said:

Another interesting comment regarding your position is this - testosterone
doesn't work the way it is being claimed. There's no chance whatsoever that
using testosterone after stage 16 could make him superman in stage 17. And
yet there you are assuming that.

Not only are they assuming that, but the UCI is also claiming Landis
can be a testosterone cheat even though he has his normal T level.

And on top of that T is not a proven performance enhancer.

And go one further, even if it is not in fact a performance enchancer,
because of the UCI 's rush to judgment even cycling kid has been
convinced by the UCI's claim that a T patch is the way to 8 minute
breakaways. That spell false UCI claim encourage "doping." Now if
that isn't dumbass.

in message <[email hidden]>, gds

(') said:

I really have a hard time believing
that the lab is totally incompetent, that they are using a test that
does not have a high degree of reliability and validity, or that there
is a conspiracy against FL.

Hear, hear. The lab is widely respected, the test procedure is
internationally agreed, the last thing either the UCI or ASO wanted was
further scandal attached to the Tour; and everyone liked Floyd, if only
because he wasn't Lance.

This result would never have been announced - certainly not in the way it
was - if there were any doubt about it.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

X-no-archive: No, I'm not *that* naive.

in message <[email hidden]>,

(') said:

Tom Kunich said:

Another interesting comment regarding your position is this -
testosterone doesn't work the way it is being claimed. There's no
chance whatsoever that using testosterone after stage 16 could make
him superman in stage 17. And yet there you are assuming that.

Not only are they assuming that, but the UCI is also claiming Landis
can be a testosterone cheat even though he has his normal T level.

This is stupid.

Landis was caught with exogenous testosterone in his system. That doesn't
prove that testosterone was the /only/ drug he took, it's merely the
only drug he was caught taking. As we know, performance-enhancing drugs
are commonly taken in bizarre cocktails (e.g. 'pot belge'😉. We also know
that Landis got through 70 bidons of water on stage 17. Obviously, he
didn't drink it all... but he drank a lot, and part of the effect
(intended or not) of throwing all that water over his head was that it
camouflaged how much he was drinking. He certainly [censored] a lot out of
his system, and if there were drugs in his system, who's to know[1]?

If Landis took banned drugs in advance of Stage 17 (and, from the
exogenous testosterone, I assume he did) then it's reasonable to assume
that it wasn't just testosterone he took.

[1] unless they confiscate the winners' shorts after each stage[2]
[2] in a solo breakaway, do you stop to [censored]?[3]
[3] who'd be a podium girl?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken. I found a rather battered tube of Araldite
resin in the bottom of the toolbag.

Linda Lou said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, but isn't the test for exogenous T only run IF the screening test,
the ratio test comes back out of limits.

That's my understanding, too.

Quoted message said:

What you are proposing could cause mass panic. All those folks who
correctly figured out how to mask vs. the screenig test would now have
to go to the next level.

They're always one step ahead so I'm sure they're already working on
this angle.

Quoted message said:

I still belive that these test do not divide the dopers from non dopers
but only those caught from not caught.

Obviously, the UCI isn't serious until they start digging deeper,
requiring samples from more riders and testing them thoroughly.

Quoted message said:

I'm pretty cycnical on this.

Aren't we all getting cynical.

I think it is just realistic. [censored] Voet (in "Breaking the Chain"😉 and
a few others have exposed the sport. Voet leaves the impression that
most of the older riders dope below the testing limits.

I can see a motive for Landis lying. If he says that he used T, the
the next question will be "Who gave it to you.". If he refuses to
answer, then he is publicly covering up for doping. If he answers
every question truthfully then its a wide ranging expose.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There has to be some excuse why they are so much better than I am ;-)

I'm sure you sleep better at night.

Dumbass said:

I can see a motive for Landis lying. If he says that he used T, the
the next question will be "Who gave it to you.". If he refuses to
answer, then he is publicly covering up for doping. If he answers
every question truthfully then its a wide ranging expose.

This makes a lot of sense as a motive. If he's guilty and continues to
stonewall, he will likely lose money, his title, and be banned from the
sport for years -- but at least 20 years from now the people he didn't
turn in probably won't spit at him if they see him in the street.