Please! Help me answer these questions.

i can't really answer every question, but i'll help you on the ones i know:

henpen9699 said:

So, I feel like I am getting a grip on the legal perspective of the Landis case. I am, also, beginning to understand UCI anti-doping rules (including possible violations in thier reporting standards. However, I still don’t know the medical side of it. Would someone please answer these questions?

1. Is it true that testosterone does not help a riders’ performance in stage races. This is an argument that I seen reported from respectable sources on the web. In fact, it might even hurt it because it could cause his body to retain water.

1. if you've ever taken testosterone, you wouldn't have to ask. it is the ultimate anti-depressant. it amkes you feel good. riding 150 miles a day for 3 weeks makes you feel bad. also it is not only androgenic and anabolic, but also anti-catabolic. it keeps your muscles from wasting away. for water retaention it depends what kind he was taking. he was prolly taking patches which i believe would cause water retention (testosterone suspension is infamous for it). however when you're losing about 5bs. of water a weight a day that's nto such a bad thing. also there are things like letrozole and arimadex (sp?) that can combat the water retention if it's an issue.

2. If Landis truly took something to improve his performance, couldn’t he have chosen at least twenty better illegal substances?

2. who the eff knows? i remember in the late nineties those who claimed to know were saying that EPO was passe. guess what mid 00's and riders are still taking it- big riders like heras and museauw. testosterone i don't think would give the masive results of EPO (nor would GH) yet we all know what fuentes was giving his patients: GH, test, and EPO. test is a feel-ggod hormone, easy to adminster, gets out of your system fast, naturally-occurs is relatively large amounts in your body, doesn't metabolize into exotic, tell-tale compounds... it's good stuff for any athlete basically.

3. Does official report does not mention the existence of exogenesis testosterone. I heard (again on the web) that it did not.

3. don't know. maybe they didn't test the b sample yet.

4. How is it possible that a rider can test positive for testosterone one day and not two days later? As a college athlete, when I took a test, they told me that they could detect artificial testosterone for several weeks.

4. that guy was prolly pulling your cack. testosterone suspension has a half life of 24 hours. powerlifters, bodybuilders, etc. take it 3 times a day because it leaves your system so fast. he might have been referring to something like testosterone enanthate or testosterone cypionate, both of which keep your levels elevated for about 2 weeks (you start to take recovery hormones 2 weeks after your last shot). i personally know college athletes who took testosterone propianate throughout the season and never got caught (it't a shorter acting blend that gets out of your system in 3 days). you can be pretty sure they do the test:epitest ratio though. simply testing for exogenous is much more expensive and i don't believe many labs have the capability. it's also very new technology.

5. Is the ratio test used to test Landis’s sample reliable? I have heard from numerous sources, most recently Paul S., that it is not.

5. prolly. prolly the lawyers will say otherwise. so will "expert medical witnesses." but keep in mind the defense lawyers and "expert medical witnesses" argued that DNA fingerpriniting was inaccurate in the mid-nineties.

6. Finally, do any technologies exist that would lead Floyd to believe that he could take exogenesis testosterone without detection?

6. i guess. there is the "vindictive masseur rubbed test gel on me" excuse ala justin gatlin. the "i got a bad batch of animal pack" excuse. none stand up to common sense or reasonablility but yes they're technically possible in the same way science can never prove the dinosaurs existed absolutely.

henpen9699 said:

So, I feel like I am getting a grip on the legal perspective of the Landis case. I am, also, beginning to understand UCI anti-doping rules (including possible violations in thier reporting standards. However, I still don’t know the medical side of it. Would someone please answer these questions?

1. Is it true that testosterone does not help a riders’ performance in stage races. This is an argument that I seen reported from respectable sources on the web. In fact, it might even hurt it because it could cause his body to retain water.

2. If Landis truly took something to improve his performance, couldn’t he have chosen at least twenty better illegal substances?

3. Does official report does not mention the existence of exogenesis testosterone. I heard (again on the web) that it did not.

4. How is it possible that a rider can test positive for testosterone one day and not two days later? As a college athlete, when I took a test, they told me that they could detect artificial testosterone for several weeks.

5. Is the ratio test used to test Landis’s sample reliable? I have heard from numerous sources, most recently Paul S., that it is not.

6. Finally, do any technologies exist that would lead Floyd to believe that he could take exogenesis testosterone without detection?

Can't answer all, but you might want to take a look at these posts in the doping section.
cyclingforums.comt270701.htmlOpen ↗

My two cents worth:

1. Testosterone is perfect for Tours/multi stage races because it allows for quick recovery. A rider is much less likely to have those dreaded "bad days" when significant time can be lost.

2. There is nothing to suggest that he wasn't using 20 other substances, dopers always use a multi-faceted regimen of drugs for various purposes. Drugs for recovery, performance (EPO for example), and masking are taken on a carefully orchestrated schedule.
He was caught on the t/e ratio but was effective in concealing the rest.

3.The "official" report is not available for all and sundry, but as far as I have read, exogenous testosterone was identified and is consistent with Floyd's latest excuse that he somehow ingested synthetic testosterone.

4. Half life varies depending on what is used and also the concentration.
Nandrolone 30-40 minutes
Nandrolone phenylpropionate 1 day
Nandrolone decanoate 6 days
Nandrolone laurate 10 Days
Discovery depends on masking agents. Why was he caught once and not several times - has been addressed and debated elsewhere, but the consensus seems to be stupidity or carelessness.

5.The test is reliable, lawyers and dopers will tell you not to trust your mother if it will help them beat the rap. Tyler Hamilton went back to the womb and hauled out his long lost twin to try to beat the system. I must say that there is nothing like doping charges to bring out the creativity in people.

6.Doctors and chemists are always working feverishly to try and stay one step ahead of anti-doping tests, however in the case of testosterone, epitestosterone injections to balance the testosterone/epitestosterone ratio will work fine.

Hope this helps.

cynic said:

4. Half life varies depending on what is used and also the concentration.
Nandrolone 30-40 minutes
Nandrolone phenylpropionate 1 day
Nandrolone decanoate 6 days
Nandrolone laurate 10 Days

just to clarify with nandrolone; the half life is shorish, but it produces metabolites that are detectable for months. nandrolen decanoate (deca- most popular anabolic-androgenic steroid) can be detectable for over a year. i don't know how if unestered nandrolone would have a significantly shorter detection time, but then again i've never ever heard of someone using it (i know one guy that tried to make a nadrolone gel but it crystalized and he had to toss it).

didn't wanna unermine you or anything- just clarify that one little issue.

Well, Bummer. I was really hoping that I could find some reason to doubt these results. This makes three grand tour champions in a row who's victory is in doubt or has already been revoked!

I am watching the 204 Giro right now. Those were the days! When we thought that the entire peleton was clean.

SaintAndrew said:

just to clarify with nandrolone; the half life is shorish, but it produces metabolites that are detectable for months. nandrolen decanoate (deca- most popular anabolic-androgenic steroid) can be detectable for over a year. i don't know how if unestered nandrolone would have a significantly shorter detection time, but then again i've never ever heard of someone using it (i know one guy that tried to make a nadrolone gel but it crystalized and he had to toss it).

didn't wanna unermine you or anything- just clarify that one little issue.

All the chemistry involved in high level doping is mind boggling.
In terms of synthetic testosterone detectability, I don't think that a lab will do isotope testing (to look for exogenous testosterone) unless it needs to - such as when the t/e ratio is outside of 4:1.
Could be wrong - but that's why I have a disclaimer - "my two cents worth" - you get what you pay for. 🙂
I definitely don't know what the top riders are using because they are not exactly forthcoming with that information. Manzano seems to have provided the most exhaustive list, although it also appears that he didn't really know what he was taking half the time.

Here is an excerpt from a link below on the battle between dopers and those looking to bust them - not an enviable position - playing catch up.

"But the battle continues. Just how far ahead are drug-using athletes and their suppliers? No one knows for sure, although part of the answer may lie in a slim binder tucked away on a shelf in the spectral analysis room at Catlin's lab.
In this room, Yuliya Kucherova pores over gas-chromatography traces and mass spectrograms, looking for the signatures of steroids. In some cases, the steroid shows up as a distinct peak by gas chromatography, which separates compounds based on their volatility. In others, confirmation by mass spectrometry is essential. This involves breaking molecules into fragments and determining their molecular weights.
Kucherova, after reading dozens of spectra a day for years, has no trouble spotting banned compounds. But occasionally a new peak shows up that doesn't correspond to any known drug, prescription or otherwise. Is it a new synthetic steroid? A Chinese herb? A rare prescription medication? These mystery peaks wind up in the special binder, and several dozen are awaiting further investigation.
Once in a while, Catlin and his colleagues get lucky. Kucherova last year spotted a peak she had actually seen previously. It was the synthetic steroid norbolethone, first made in 1966 as a possible treatment for short stature. But it proved too toxic and was scrapped by its maker, the pharmaceutical company Wyeth. It has not been made commercially since.
Although only one athlete tested positive for norbolethone, that result was a turning point for the lab. It helped Catlin to convince the sporting authorities that the underground market for steroids was being served by clandestine chemists and manufacturers. He made the case that to keep ahead of the game, the testers needed to work in secret on what the next underground drug might be"

nature.com426114a.htmlOpen ↗

crazy. when i saw that list of substances alleged to be ulle's doping schedule i hadn't heard of jack. i was also reading yesterday (i think it was the guy in outside who doped and rode paris-brest-paris) that some german skiier used a designer EPOesque drug in salt lake city and kept 2 of his medals because the substance wasn't banned yet.

yeah i believe you're right about the exogenous test. it sure would be interesting if some wealthy anti-doper were to put up the bill for a large amount of samples being tested though lol😄

anybody have bill gates' or paul allen's email? would be a drop out of their buckets.

slovakguy said:

anybody have bill gates' or paul allen's email? would be a drop out of their buckets.

Warren Buffett recently donated $30 billion to Bill Gate's charity. That ought to cover it.

henpen9699 said:

So, I feel like I am getting a grip on the legal perspective of the Landis case. I am, also, beginning to understand UCI anti-doping rules (including possible violations in thier reporting standards. However, I still don’t know the medical side of it. Would someone please answer these questions?

1. Is it true that testosterone does not help a riders’ performance in stage races. This is an argument that I seen reported from respectable sources on the web. In fact, it might even hurt it because it could cause his body to retain water.

From everything I have read about atheletes who take testosterone, I think it would certainly prevent muscle loss, and help recovery from day to day... significantly. Furthermore, other hormones can offset the water retention problem.

2. If Landis truly took something to improve his performance, couldn’t he have chosen at least twenty better illegal substances?

Most likely he was taking twenty other illegal substances that were also helping his performance. They can't test every sample for every substance... just because he got caught for testosterone doesn't mean he had nothing else in his system.

3. Does official report does not mention the existence of exogenesis testosterone. I heard (again on the web) that it did not.

haven't heard this, but not sure.

4. How is it possible that a rider can test positive for testosterone one day and not two days later? As a college athlete, when I took a test, they told me that they could detect artificial testosterone for several weeks.

Testosterone levels will fluctuate from day to day, for both natural reasons, and because of the doping schedule. It is my understanding that the testosterone RATIO test was done each time the sampels were tested - it is very possible that his testosterone ratios were only above the 4:1 threshhold on stage 17, which triggered them to test for exogenous testosterone. I don't believe they tested any of the other samples from other stages for exogenous testosterone because they were all below 4:1 using the ratio test. Perhaps if they tested for artifiical testosterone, they might find it there too.

5. Is the ratio test used to test Landis’s sample reliable? I have heard from numerous sources, most recently Paul S., that it is not.

I think it is reliable in the sense that it provides an accurate result of testosterone to epitestosterone. It is probably not reliable in the sense that some people have naturally high testosterone levels above 4:1, so I'm sure there can be a fair number of false positives if they assume that a ratio of 4:1 means that illegal products were used. However, other circumstances confirm that this was probably not a false positive - a.) the fact that his ratio was FAR above the threshhold (11:1), and b.) the fact that the subsequent test for exogenous testosterone was positive.

6. Finally, do any technologies exist that would lead Floyd to believe that he could take exogenesis testosterone without detection?

Certainly - all riders know that they can take exogenous testoserone without concern provided they don't allow their ratio to exceed 4:1. Only if they fail this ratio test will a test ever be conducted for exogenous testosterone. The riders know these procedures and can dope accordingly. A rider would certainly believe that with a proper doping schedule, staying below this threshhold should be managable. Obviously floyd screwed something up somewhere along the way, but nonetheless, the fact remains that the primary test is the ratio test which does not test for whether a testosterone hormone is exogenous.

My take, for what it's worth.