A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Marketplace
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

LANDIS! Lying?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old August 6th 06, 07:18 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.marketplace,rec.bicycles.racing,austin.general
Tim McNamara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default Cyclists are the dirtiest of the dirty

Garth Woolsey of the Toronto Star wrote (followed by wilhelm violating
international copyright laws):

"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."

Sure looks like Floyd Landis cheated, doesn't it? And Marco Pantani,
Richard Virenque, Alex Zulle, Jan Ullrich just to name a few. I could
name more just on circumstantial evidence, not to mention those actually
caught by drug screening.

Yup, lots of pro cyclists are caught cheating. But in large measure
that is due to the fact that pro cycling is one of the sports that looks
the hardest for cheaters. Baseball, American football, soccer, tennis,
golf, auto racing, etc. mostly look the other way when it comes to the
question of doping. Even in small colleges, football players are doped
by the team doctors to make they bigger, stronger, faster and then to
take away the pain after the brutality is over on Sunday evening. It
literally took threat of Congressional action to get some American
sports governing bodies to even start looking at the doping problem.
Sports are a cash cow for the athletes, the owners and television
companies. They don't want to look the gift horse in the mouth, so they
collude to hide the problem.

Are pro cyclists dirtier than other professional athletes? We won't
know until they are all subject to equal scrutiny. When that happens,
we'll find that most if not all professional athletes cheat and lie
about it. Let's not forget East Germany's Olympic teams- professionals
in all but name, like most Olympic athletes- and Canada's own Ben
Johnson, after all.
Ads
  #42  
Old August 6th 06, 09:34 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.marketplace,rec.bicycles.racing,austin.general
Tom Kunich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,456
Default Cyclists are the dirtiest of the dirty

"Tim McNamara" wrote in message
...
Let's not forget East Germany's Olympic teams- professionals
in all but name, like most Olympic athletes- and Canada's own Ben
Johnson, after all.


Let's not be too judgemental about Ben Johnson. You can't possibly believe
that he was the only one using steroids.


  #43  
Old August 6th 06, 11:03 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.marketplace,rec.bicycles.racing,austin.general
Tim McNamara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default Cyclists are the dirtiest of the dirty

In article ,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

"Tim McNamara" wrote in message
...
Let's not forget East Germany's Olympic teams- professionals in all
but name, like most Olympic athletes- and Canada's own Ben Johnson,
after all.


Let's not be too judgemental about Ben Johnson. You can't possibly
believe that he was the only one using steroids.


'Course not. But he's Canadian, just like the holier-than-thou Woolsey.
Hence referencing him specifically.
  #44  
Old August 7th 06, 08:37 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.marketplace,rec.bicycles.racing,austin.general
Bucky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default Cyclists are the dirtiest of the dirty

Tim McNamara wrote:
Yup, lots of pro cyclists are caught cheating. But in large measure
that is due to the fact that pro cycling is one of the sports that looks
the hardest for cheaters.


Good point.

  #45  
Old August 7th 06, 11:27 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.marketplace,rec.bicycles.racing,austin.general
dan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default Cyclists are the dirtiest of the dirty

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.



  #46  
Old August 7th 06, 03:01 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.marketplace,rec.bicycles.racing,austin.general
Tim McNamara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default Cyclists are the dirtiest of the dirty

In article ,
"dan" wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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?

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.


Bull****. 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.
  #47  
Old August 7th 06, 03:16 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.marketplace,rec.bicycles.racing,austin.general
David Kerber
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 158
Default Cyclists are the dirtiest of the dirty

In article ,
says...
In article ,
"dan" wrote:

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.


That depends on the type of flaw. It is perfectly possible to have a
systematic flaw which might give consistent but still incorrect analysis
results. A bad batch of reagents, or a calibration error in equipment
are just two which come to mind. Of course, those particular examples
are less likely when the samples are analyzed at different times, but
there are possibilities as well.


The rest of your discussion makes sense, though...

.....

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).
  #48  
Old August 7th 06, 09:30 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.marketplace,rec.bicycles.racing,austin.general
dvt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 435
Default Cyclists are the dirtiest of the dirty

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,
"dan" wrote:


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.


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
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)
  #49  
Old August 7th 06, 10:57 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.marketplace,rec.bicycles.racing,austin.general
Tim McNamara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default Cyclists are the dirtiest of the dirty

In article , dvt
wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,
"dan" wrote:


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.


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/2...droderm_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).


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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LANDIS! Lying? [email protected] Techniques 78 August 27th 06 09:53 PM
LANDIS! Lying? [email protected] General 64 August 8th 06 04:20 AM
Absurd Landis "analysis" in media Mike Jacoubowsky Racing 28 July 30th 06 11:50 AM
Eddy, Landis Crescentius Vespasianus Racing 5 July 21st 06 03:04 PM
Will Lance LeMond Landis? Callistus Valerius Racing 1 July 18th 06 04:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.