Landis fails drug test

bicycle_disciple wrote:
wrote:
bicycle_disciple wrote:
Aaah, finally something interesting. Landis fails a drug test after
stage 17 for abnormally high Testosterone levels. Its all over the news
today.

I don't think it's precisely accurate to say that he has failed a drug
test. His urine sample for testosterone came back outside acceptable
levels. The result requires his suspension, but further medical
investigation is required before he is declared positive:


Well, he atleast failed the first set of tests by proving positive,
didn't he? Thats what I meant. More like this :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/othe...ng/5222142.stm

Personally, I think that anyone who can put out nearly twice the watts
at their LT I ever did at my best for roughly the same body type _must_
be doping.

However, according to the criteria, it is not a positive, it is an
abnormal result that requires further investigation. Testosterone is a
naturally occuring hormone, and the determination of a positive must
include evidence that the urine test does not reflect a natural
condition.

Well, while speculation is rampant it ain't worth much. I'll add to the
flurry of useless speculation.

The B sample has to be checked, and also compared to his other samples.
AFAIK if he tested within limit before and after this particular sample,
then it'd argue against doping. Other possibilities need to be
considered as well- lab error, sample handling error, actual sabotage
(if I was Floyd I'd request a DNA test on the sample to make sure it's
actually mine), medical conditions such as dehydration, etc. Also AFAIK
a shot of testosterone doesn't provide instant performance results and
wouldn't be worn off two days later.

Perhaps there's an endocrinologist in the newsgroup who can comment.

Or maybe Floyd's doped to the eyeballs along with the rest of 'em.

41 wrote:
There once was a rider named Landis
Who upon blowing a stage said "I can't stand this!"
To get back on a roll
He swallowed one testicle whole
And said "Ah, it feels good to ride the way Lance does!"

On NPR they just had an interview with Dick Pound. He was explaining
the many specific UCI policies that make it more difficult to catch
dopers. For example, between notice that one will be tested and the
actual test, there can be a one hour unsupervised time period, allowing
e.g. a transfusion to dilute hemoglobin levels. Likewise, between test
and competition, there can be a 5-6 hour unsupervised period allowing
new doping. He gave other examples. These are all specific to the UCI
and different from other sports, and he says he has been complaining
about them for years.

SSTW wrote, in part:
"The presence of a testosterone (T) to epitestosterone (E) ratio
greater than six (6) to one...

Actually, the threshold was reduced to 4:1 recently.

D'ohBoy

On 27 Jul 2006 15:20:25 -0700, "41" wrote:


41 wrote:
There once was a rider named Landis
Who upon blowing a stage said "I can't stand this!"
To get back on a roll
He swallowed one testicle whole
And said "Ah, it feels good to ride the way Lance does!"

On NPR they just had an interview with Dick Pound. He was explaining
the many specific UCI policies that make it more difficult to catch
dopers. For example, between notice that one will be tested and the
actual test, there can be a one hour unsupervised time period, allowing
e.g. a transfusion to dilute hemoglobin levels. Likewise, between test
and competition, there can be a 5-6 hour unsupervised period allowing
new doping. He gave other examples. These are all specific to the UCI
and different from other sports, and he says he has been complaining
about them for years.

Dick Pound is complaining that he isn't in charge of cycling.

Ron

In article . com,
wrote:

Are there further backup samples of the blood

i thought they were testing urine samples, not blood....

RonSonic wrote:
On 27 Jul 2006 15:20:25 -0700, "41" wrote:


41 wrote:
There once was a rider named Landis
Who upon blowing a stage said "I can't stand this!"
To get back on a roll
He swallowed one testicle whole
And said "Ah, it feels good to ride the way Lance does!"

On NPR they just had an interview with Dick Pound. He was explaining
the many specific UCI policies that make it more difficult to catch
dopers. For example, between notice that one will be tested and the
actual test, there can be a one hour unsupervised time period, allowing
e.g. a transfusion to dilute hemoglobin levels. Likewise, between test
and competition, there can be a 5-6 hour unsupervised period all owing
new doping. He gave other examples. These are all specific to the UCI
and different from other sports, and he says he has been complaining
about them for years.

Dick Pound is complaining that he isn't in charge of cycling.

That is, not in charge of checking for doping in cycling. Since he is
in charge of WADA and since the UCI is doing such poor job of it, and
since he can give very specific explanations of exactly what the UCI is
doing and not doing that is so suspicious, does he not have a point?
µ

- Bob - wrote:
I wasn't aware that we were all supposed to have even a basic
understanding of any particular church to cycle...

I wasn't aware that I suggested any such thing. In fact, I didn't.





-- Dave
==============================================
"It is impossible, or not easy, to do noble acts
without the proper equipment."
Aristotle, Politics, 1323a-b, trans Jowett
==============================================

On 27 Jul 2006 20:48:21 -0700, "41" wrote:


RonSonic wrote:
On 27 Jul 2006 15:20:25 -0700, "41" wrote:


41 wrote:
There once was a rider named Landis
Who upon blowing a stage said "I can't stand this!"
To get back on a roll
He swallowed one testicle whole
And said "Ah, it feels good to ride the way Lance does!"

On NPR they just had an interview with Dick Pound. He was explaining
the many specific UCI policies that make it more difficult to catch
dopers. For example, between notice that one will be tested and the
actual test, there can be a one hour unsupervised time period, allowing
e.g. a transfusion to dilute hemoglobin levels. Likewise, between test
and competition, there can be a 5-6 hour unsupervised period all owing
new doping. He gave other examples. These are all specific to the UCI
and different from other sports, and he says he has been complaining
about them for years.

Dick Pound is complaining that he isn't in charge of cycling.

That is, not in charge of checking for doping in cycling. Since he is
in charge of WADA and since the UCI is doing such poor job of it, and
since he can give very specific explanations of exactly what the UCI is
doing and not doing that is so suspicious, does he not have a point?
µ

I am not interested in hearing technical details from a blowhard like him.
Sorry. Don't really care what he might be right about because he is so
fundamentally wrong in his overall approach.

Nobody is doing an effective job of eliminating doping from any sport. Yet
thanks to the mutual incompetence of Dick Pound and the UCI the doping headlines
are bigger than the race results. Instead of eliminating doping they are
destroying the sport.

Take the present example: there apparently could be legitimate reasons why
Landis's T:E ratio was whacked. If that is proven to be the case, that there was
no foul play, the sport, it's sponsors and participants will have been harmed
almost as badly as if the tour winner is proven guilty. Could you imagine what
must be going through a sponsor's mind with this. The short version "We don't
need this ****." And that's if he's innocent!!!!!!!

While I agree that UCI is not doing the job effectively, Dick Pound is not the
answer.

Ron

In article .com,
"41" wrote:

That is, not in charge of checking for doping in cycling. Since he is
in charge of WADA and since the UCI is doing such poor job of it, and
since he can give very specific explanations of exactly what the UCI
is doing and not doing that is so suspicious, does he not have a
point? µ

On the other hand, the UCI seems to be doing a better job at trying to
control doping than, say soccer, baseball or American football. The
latter two sports commissions have basically chosen to collaborate with
doping athletes and to ignore, overlook, look the other way or to take
practically no disciplinary action whatsoever.