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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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.
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?

- 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.

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

- 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?

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

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.


--
you're never too old to have a happy childhood
"wilhelm" wrote in message
...
Cyclists are the dirtiest of the dirty
Aug. 6, 2006. 01:00 AM
GARTH WOOLSEY
SPORTS COLUMNIST

Mamas, don't let your sons grow up to be cyclists.

They cheat (well, some of them). And they lie.

Floyd Landis was upset that his mother, Arlene, got dragged into his
Tour de France doping scandal. She's a Mennonite, light years removed
from the heat of the chase and the chill of the laboratory that
yesterday made it official - her son's name will live on in infamy.

Test positive? Then there's only three things to do - deny, deny and
deny.

Test confirmed? Then jack up the defence and lie, lie, lie.

Which is the greater sin? To try to get a competitive edge by using a
banned substance? Or when caught, to lie about it?

It took no time at all for his team to dump Landis following
yesterday's confirmation that wherever that extra testosterone in his
system came from it wasn't from his own, in-house glands.

The Phonak folks said he'd violated their team's code of ethics
(unwritten Rule No. 1: "Whatever the hell you do, don't get caught.")
The Tour de France unofficially rescinded his title faster than you
can say "abnormally high testosterone to epitestosterone ratio."

Of all athletes, pro cyclists are the most likely to be tested because
it has been established that of all athletes pro cyclists are the
dirtiest of dirty, devious in the extreme. They'd lie to their own
mothers. It's been proven.

Cycling has left a trail of syringe-filled garbage bags, even some
corpses, across the landscape.

Landis and his supporters have claimed he produced the high juice
count naturally. The scientists and most experts say "hooey."

Maybe Landis really believes in his own innocence. Maybe he's not
lying. Maybe.

But you pee in a bottle and face the consequences. He peed, he pays.

Sabotage is always a handy defence. Although, by its very nature, it
is difficult to prove (if it happened at all). Sprinter Justin
Gatlin's coach continues to claim that a massage therapist with a
grudge somehow rubbed a testosterone-laced cream into his athlete's
legs just before a doping test. That's his story and he's sticking to
it. (Deny, remember? Deny, deny.)

It's almost - not quite, though - refreshing to hear one of this
conspiratorial crew come clean, as did the Norwegian sprinter Aham
Okeke when he was caught using for the third time; he may be banned
for life. He's 36, so the end was nigh anyway. Now that he's been
caught, he admits he went to a doctor for testosterone after he
injured his thigh in June. "It was a desperate attempt," Okeke says.
"I thought I would miss the European Championships after being
injured. I can only blame myself. I'm sorry for all my teammates, my
family and my friends."

But especially sorry for himself, no doubt.

In the U.S., the Landis debacle will be seen in some quarters as more
of the Euro-centric crusade to discredit American cyclists. Couldn't
get Lance Armstrong, so got his protégé, etc. But the problems,
clearly, run deep and cross all borders. Cyclists have for decades
been at the cutting edge of cheating and ridding their culture of the
anything-goes attitude won't be easy.

The cycling authorities sound a lot like their counterparts in
baseball. For years, they've reaped the dividends that come with
phenomenal performances, treating rumours of wrong-doing with a wink
here and a nod there and denials all-around.

We live in a drug-saturated society, from every-day painkillers to
concoctions that perform miracles. All these years later Ben Johnson
is a Cheetah.

In war and commerce just about anything goes. In sports, though, there
remains this central, Ned Flander-esque idea that competition should
be about fairness and level playing fields, rulebooks that matter.

Call the notion naïve if you like, old-fashioned, but its worth
hanging on to.

The survey says ... Floyd is a fink. No word of a lie.