Reply With Quote
Exactly...
...i am withholding judgement until the second test. however, it is important to note, as already listed above, that it is just an elevated level of testosterone RATIO, not really failing a drug test. the media are jumping all over this and making it appear to be something it is not.
Exactly...
I heard the same thing this morning on the radio...one of the local hosts is a cycling nut...This was my first thought as well. They did everything they could to taint Armstrong's name. You just know that another American winning the tour had many smelly Frenchies (and a lot of other Europeans for that matter) ready to jump off the nearest bridge. They just can't stand the fact that Americans find the sport of cycling boring, yet still manage to dominate its biggest event.
ESPN's cycling reporter was on the radio a couple of days ago. According to his report, Landis' testosterone was not high at all. It was the ratio of his testosterone to his epitestosterone. The guy said if that is all it was, it would probably go to the world doping court and Landis would probably be vindicated. He said this because this test is highly controversial and really shows no evidence of drugs or wrong doing.
If his testosterone level was high that is another story but it was completely normal and actually a bit low. The day of his collapse he said he drank beer which can cause a jump in the ratios. Anyway, he said this test is nothing like testing positive for a banned drug. Completely different.
Just repeating what I heard. Don't know if what he said is 100% correct or not. He thought Landis would keep the le.
I'm withholding judgement until everything plays out. Apparently, the reason this test is so controversial is because there are several natural things that can cause "unusual testosterone ratios."
Unlike a lot of other cylclists who are accused of cheating, Landis has said that he will undergo any test neccessary to clear his name. If he really was cheating, they should find traces of artificial testosterone in his blood.
What really sucks is that even if he is innocent he's not going to be able to celebrate his victory as he should be able to. He's already cancelled his appearance on Leno and will probably have to cancel more events. It's like the victory is tainted now.
Typical French s, can't stand an American winning. 'em.
When are the second results supposed to come out?
I don't need to see the 2nd results to know this is bull yet again. Dude, what is it with the French and getting so pissed at American's winning their stupid event? Seriously.
Amen, Manny.
, I got elevated testosterone levels when the women of Spurstalk had their bravatar campaign going on.
Doesn't mean I was doping
I posted this on a biking forum that I semi-frequent. Here's my take:
Of course, this is just one of the many facets on arguement against the test. He could have a naturally high testosterone level, much in the same way my doctors believe I have a naturally low one; the alcohol he consumed the night before, in the quan ies of "two beers and at least four shots of whiskey" (his words), has been scientifically proven to elevate testosterone, though they have not developed a sufficient ammout of data to prove precisely how high; the actual lab that did the tests was the same one that was famously proven both wrong and suspecious of other agendas in Lance Armstrong's L'Equipe ordeal, etc.Today I read the news in the paper, and almost wet myself laughing when I read the specifics. My situation, in the testing-sense, is almost identical, albeit with different cir stances, to Floyd's. I beg you, please, someone point out a flaw in this logic. I will be happy to admitt I am wrong.
About a week ago I was given both a blood and a urine test for testosterone. The reason I was being tested for this revolved around bone density (or rather, lack thereof), which is a direct product of testosterone levels. The night before the appointment, and subsequent test, I had taken an over-the-counter steroid, which used testosterone, for lifting. I was unaware the test would take place the following day, and as such I asked the doctor if this previous dose of testosterone would have any effect on my test results. He told me that it wouldn't, and that I would have had to have a history of consistent consumption of the extra testosterone for it to show on the tests.
So here's the parallel:
Previous tests did not show high levels of testosterone. Now, this is working under the assumption that these tests occured more recent than a time period that would allow a "history of consistent consumption," but logic and understanding of race procedures leads me to believe that if there was a "history of consistent consumption," it would have shown on prior tests. Ok, so we have established that he would have had to taken it either a few days, or imediately, prior to the stage in question. And let's, for the sake of arguement, say that he did. Given this shortened time period, his body would not have had time to register and develope a thoroughly higher level of testosterone, i.e. it's not going to show up on the test if he took it only immediately before, which would be the only possibly scenario given that past tests did not have possitive results. In addition, if he did have a consistently higher level of testosterone, it would have showed up on tests AFTER the test in question as well. In order to prove a possitive result, there would have to be a consistent string of possitive tests, because the very nature of testosterone says that it does not immediately enter then leave your body.
Or in shorter terms, Floyd's test is either faulty, or the prior tests were faulty, because there is no way he could take a small ammount of dosages and have it show up on only one test. The entire logic to the allegations revolves around a series of blatant contradictions.
Nevermind what is "good for the sport," or any personal bias one might have. The understood facts do not add up. And unless someone points out a flaw in my logic, which I acknowledge there might be (much in the same way one should acknowledge there will be flaws in drug testing), I am not going to believe any of this.
This entire thing wreaks of a French bias. This isn't the Salem Witch Trials. This is 2006, and we have enough data and scientific studies to backup that data to prove, at least for the time being, that this is a gross overreaction. You are innocent until proven guilty. Or at least here, in United States.
Just one of the many reasons I am proud to be an American.
Although Stephen Colbert has an interesting take.
well you have a point, but sudden e could be the result of blood doping (swaping blood).
I don't think there is Franch bias here. The rules are set by the UCI, which isn't even based in France. They can't take any positive test lightly because doping has been rampant thoughout the sport. It looks like there are enough mitigating reasons for the UCI to allow Floyd to keep his le; my best guess is that's what will happen.I guess that's possible, but I thought blood swapping was done to boost red blood cell levels.
Actually it's come out today that the lab that all of a sudden came up with a positive test on Landis is the same one that was playing circle jerk with L'Equipe back when they claimed Lance tested positive.
Kind of an interesting trend, but a pathetic one.
Yep. This lab already has a shady history when it comes to American cyclists. How anyone cannot be suspect about them being involved in this Landis situation is suprising. Here's an interesting piece that I found.
I'm usually not a conspiracy theorist. But when it comes to the French and their labs, my bull detector starts working overtime.J'accuse !
by
Ilan Vardi
Version française de cet article
The accusations brought against Lance Armstrong in L'Equipe on August 23, 2005, have no scientific or legal merit. In particular, The protocol of anonymity of samples and the requirement to test an A and B sample was designed to
· Maintain scientific correctness
· Protect the rights of athletes
In this case, the protocol was not followed which means that the test reported by L'Equipe has no scientific validity and that the disclosure of the results violates the rights of the athlete in question. Everyone agrees with this, since it has been acknowledged that no legal or sporting sanction can be pursued. Therefore, the L'Equipe article and its general acceptance in the French press is simply a precedent for disregarding scientific principles as well as disregarding athletes' rights. An in depth look at the ethical consequences of this incident is given in this article by Tim Maloney. Therefore, there are no facts to discuss here, only illegal methods used to tarnish the reputation of the most dominant Tour de France rider of all time.
Since no charges can be brought against Armstrong, it is clear that he has no need to defend himself against these spurious accusations. However, one can surely believe in his complete innocence. For example, it would be very risky to use EPO during the post Festina Affair Tour de France, when police raids were considered inevitable, as was expressed by his team mate Jonathan Vaughters. As he has shown in his Tour de France victories, Lance Armstrong has left very little to chance. Another reason was given by Armstrong himself: After beating cancer and making cancer research and recovery his number one goal in life, it would be ridiculous to once again put his health in danger.
If one does believe in Armstrong's innocence, then what is one to make of the positive EPO tests reported in L'Equipe? After some thought, the O.J. Simpson case comes to mind, in which the possibility of tampering with evidence was a key point leading to acquittal. However, in the O.J. Simpson case, there was so much evidence that a large number of otherwise trustworthy individuals would have had to independently decide to frame O.J. Simpson. In this case, the number of people required to tamper with the evidence is much smaller, and the possibility of wrong doing much greater, since the procedure by which L'Equipe obtained their evidence was itself fraudulent. In particular, the informant who gave them the correspondence between anonymous samples at the Chatenay Malabry laboratory is already guilty of serious breach of ethics, as is the person who allowed them to examine the Chatenay Malabry do entation, which was guaranteed anonymity for all scientific and legal purposes. Therefore, there are two people who are already guilty of serious misconduct and either one could have easily tampered with evidence in order to frame Lance Armstrong.
My su ions about tampering in order to frame Armstrong were first raised by purely phenomenological issues: The L'Equipe article was immediately accepted as fact by the French media, indicating to me that the climate was ripe for this information to be believed without further scrutiny. As every forger knows, one sells fakes to people who desperately want to believe them real. The second element is that the revelations happened just after Armstrong's retirement, considerably decreasing the possibility of legal action on his part or by other organisations finding fault with the articles. Finally, the publication of the articles just a month after Armstrong's retirement assured that the object of the attack would not be a faded memory. In other words, the article came at a time when it would get the most attention with the least amount of formal scrutiny.
Since the testing protocol involving A and B samples and anonymity was designed to eliminate the possibility of tampering, one can no longer exclude tampering in this case, where the protocol was not followed. Moreover, tampering with a cyclist's drug sample is a distinct possibility given the fact that it has recently occured in France. In 2004, French cyclist Cedric Vasseur proved that his positive test for cocaine performed at the request of the French police was false and that his signature on a police report while in custody was forged by the police.
If one believes that tampering occurred then the natural question is the iden y of the perpetrator or perpetrators. In my opinion, there is one outstanding candidate, the person who has shown the least amount of professional ethics in a profession requiring the highest standard of ethics, that is, Jacques de Ceaurriz, director of the Anti Doping laboratory of Chatenay Malabry. Indeed, he has never expressed any objection that confidential research material from his ins ute was surrep iously examined by newspaper reporters. Nor has he brought up any objection that the scientific and legal protocol for proving a doping offence, in which his ins ute plays the central role, was totally violated. On the contrary, he provided a statement to L'Equipe that was published alongside their original articles, confirming their findings. Even this statement runs contrary to scientific ethics -- he gives a subjective opinion about the validity of the ins ute's EPO test on frozen samples, without having any scientific basis (no study of the validity of EPO testing on long term frozen samples exists) and without qualifying his opinion as being devoid of empirical basis. Such qualification is important in order to maintain a scientific standard of rigour and also to communicate uncertainty to laymen who might otherwise take a scientist's word as fact. However, any such qualification would completely negate the impact of his assertion that his EPO test is 100% reliable even on long frozen samples. This assertion of perfection is itself ludicrous, since it contradicts the use of a protocol involving multiple samples established exactly for the purposes of minimising the inevitable possibility of false results. Note that a scientist can be reasonably expected to give his opinion on matters which he does not fully understand, if the issues are innocuous, but not when his opinion directly harms a public personality and is stated as if it had full scientific value.
As the previous paragraph shows, Jacques de Ceaurriz has validated a newspaper article which violates the very principles on which the ins ute's research is based and has passed off his personal opinion as scientific fact. Therefore, I do not find it such a stretch of the imagination that he was somehow involved in tampering with samples. At the very least, I now believe it quite likely that he gave personal permission to the L'Equipe reporters to examine the privileged do ents belonging to his ins ute. Already, this would be such a breach of ethics that it would require his immediate dismissal as director (I believe that his lack of interest in the misconduct that has occurred at his laboratory should already be grounds for disciplinary action against him). It also seems possible that he is aware of the person who gave the correspondence between the anonymous sample numbers and the athletes, probably someone at the French Cycling Federation, which is one of the only places where the correspondence between the anonymous samples and the athletes could be known.
If any one of the above conjectures is correct, then one must wonder how the director of a respected ins ute could get involved in such mischief. I believe that the answer, as usual, comes down to human weakness, and that the director fell victim to exactly the same temptations as the dopers he has made his living trying to catch. In particular, the director of a French research ins ute makes somewhere in the vicinity of $100,000 a year, a paltry figure compared to his American counterparts who make ten times as much, and laughable compared to Lance Armstrong who makes on the order of one hundred times as much. Surely this difference in finances can bear heavily on someone coming close to retirement and an investigation into his private life might provide some surprises and clues. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the Ins ute's EPO test has been his life's work, even though he himself did not do the research, and his laboratory gained world wide notoriety with the acceptance of its test as the standard for finding EPO doping as these articles attest
However, even here his ethical standards are found wanting. Indeed, another laboratory in Lyon has accused Jacques de Ceaurriz and his laboratory of illegally appropriating the EPO test for themselves. The research leading to the EPO test was done by Francoise Lasne first at the Hopitaux de Lyon and then at the Chatenay Malabry laboratory. However, the Lyon laboratory applied for a patent in 1998 and Christian Collombel, the director of the Laboratoire des Ho e Civils de Lyon, has accused Jacques de Ceaurriz of appropriating the test for himself by manipulating the media. A full article is given here. Manipulation of the media in order to steal an EPO test along with the his unethical stance in the L'Equipe affair (and subsequent media attention) certainly opens the door to even more serious misconduct.
I hope that Jacques de Ceaurriz reads this article. I am certain that his reaction would be outrage at being accused without there being any tangible proof. At the very least, if he is innocent of the more serious charges I bring up, he would realise the difficult position Armstrong has been put in as a result of the L'Equipe articles, which de Ceaurriz has supported against all the principles of his profession. Moreover, he would realise that any defence he brings up could be used to defend Lance Armstrong, since any procedural gaps in my accusations are already present in the L’Equipe articles which he supports.
When I first saw the L'Equipe article, my reaction was that France had found a new Dreyfus. Indeed, over a century ago, France was not ready to believe that a Jew could have a successful and honest military career, and in 2005 France cannot accept an American with a successful and honest Tour de France career. Even when he was completely disgraced, Dreyfus still declared “Vive la France !” just as Armstrong himself, in response to his media critics, declared “Vive le Tour !” just one month ago. No, what France needs now is a new Zola.
Man the bike homers in this thread are embarrassing. Yeah the French hate us but they can't and won't make up failed drug tests. The tests are there to be had and the truth that this scrub was a cheater will be official soon.
Landis talks like a liar when he's sitting there trying to explain it away. He cheated, he got caught, game over.
For us in the US, it's better this scrub got caught than them every able to catch Lance.
We'll see. But I'll wait for all the facts to come out if that's OK with you. Just because you call "game over" doesn't make it so.
And as far as this particular French doping lab being above corruption or human error, try telling that to Lance Armstrong.
And for the record, I'm not a "cycling homer." There's just nothing better to talk about.
I agree completely. I actually thought he was being railroaded until I heard his lame ass explanation. He's either a bad liar or he got some abysmal advice on what to say. At least he finally gave the country of France and Greg Lemond what they wanted.
What "lame ass explanation" was that? Care to elaborate? All I heard him say is that his body naturally produced this "unusual testosterone ratio." If you think that qualifies as a "lame ass explanation", I suggest you educate yourself a little more on testosterone.
If Floyd is found guilty (after the usual barrage of tests), I'll be the first to condemn him. Part of me believes that he probably is guilty. Cycling has to be the dirtiest sport on the planet the way everyone always talks about the doping problem it has. But the fact still remains that this is the same lab that leaked and/or doctored Armstrong's old test samples. I can't help but raise an eyebrow in their direction as well.
Last edited by IceColdBrewski; 07-30-2006 at 02:24 PM.
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/or...21231401.shtml
In a Sports Illustrated interview, Landis is quoted as saying that the test results reflect a naturally high level of testosterone or were caused by medications he is taking for a degenerated hip condition.
That there flies right in the face of what you claim to have heard about an "unusual testosterone ratio" . Therefore, since Landis is claiming something that is completely unrelated to what flagged his test in the first place, it sounds lame to me. You are welcome to withhold judgment; I'm sure Landis is grateful for that. I'll keep expressing my opinion, if it's all the same to you.
The problem with the "UTR" explanation is that it should have shown up in all the tests, not just the one on the day he did so amazingly well. If his body has this problem it should be fairly consistent, not 11:1 one day and 2:1 the next ...
Pisses me off because I would love this not to be true, but it seems really unlikely. For crying out loud he also said he had a beer that day which would have made things worse. Only one beer the entire tour?
I am not a Floyd Landis homer. I am a Team Discovery homer. And as such, I am generally required to hate Landis due to the ill will in the past between him and Armstrong. Part of me hopes he is caught doping, and part of me believes it is true. His explanation sounds a bit shaky. If it weren't for one issue:
You CANNOT take testosterone the day before X Event and have unusually high testosterone levels in a test immediately after X Event. You CANNOT take steroids or anything else that may increase testosterone, especially to the given extreme, and NOT have it show up in a series of tests. I know this because, as of right now, I am currently being tested for testosterone levels. And the day before, not knowing I had a test the next day, I took a steroid that boosts testosterone levels. And guess what? It changes nothing.
The ONLY plausible explanation is that the test they were doing was looking for abnormalities to indicate a different form of doping, and a high testosterone level was one of the indicators. For example, let's say Doping Method Q is undetectable, directly, by tests, but as a side effect, the Vitamin D and calcium levels in the urine rise noticably (this is all hypothetical). So in order to test for Doping Method Q, the WADA looks for abnormal Vitamin D and calcium levels as an indicator. This is a good indicator that the athlete in question has doped/juiced, but it is not proof. In order to find a solution (possitive test results), you first need to have proof of a problem.
Landis has plenty of ways, both historical and hypothetical, to validate a legal jump in testosterone. Too many factors work in his favor. My hope, as a Team Disco fan, is that he did dope. But logic tells me it's something else.
Samr, looks like you may have gotten your wish:
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cyclin...ory?id=2535787
Landis reportedly had synthetic testosterone in system
Associated Press
NEW YORK -- Tests show that some of the testosterone in Floyd Landis' system at the Tour de France was synthetic and not naturally produced by his body as he claimed, according to a newspaper report.
The French antidoping lab testing the American cyclist's samples determined that some of the hormone came from an external source, The New York Times reported on its Web site Monday night, citing a person at the International Cycling Union with knowledge of the result.
The finding undermines the defense that Landis has stood behind since he tested positive for an elevated ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone following the 17th stage of the Tour de France, where he staged a stirring comeback in the Alps to make up for a poor performance the day before.
Looking and sounding defiant, Landis said Friday that his body's natural metabolism -- not doping of any kind -- caused the result and that he would undergo tests to prove it.
"We will explain to the world why this is not a doping case but a natural occurrence," Landis said at a news conference in Madrid, Spain.
But after determining that Landis's ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone was more than twice the limit of 4:1, the lab performed a carbon isotope ratio test on the first of Landis's two urine samples, the person told the Times.
That test determines whether the testosterone it is natural or synthetic.
Landis officially requested the testing of his backup urine sample Monday for an elevated testosterone ratio. If the "B" test is negative, Landis would be cleared. If it's positive, which Landis' lawyers say they expect, he could be stripped of his Tour victory and banned for two years.
The Times reported that Landis was in New York on Monday night and could not be reached for comment.
Well, I would say that he was ed but then again I wouldn't be surprised if the French framed him either. He's ed either way.
After those results, apparently written with no journalistic bias, and by a neutral party, I am now erring more on the side of guilt, though nothing yet has been proven.
If the tests can detect the PRESENCE of synthetic testosterone, but not necessarily or consequently the ammount, as was suggested, then Landis can go to as far as I'm concerned. IF the tests were conducted as suggested.
Don't get me wrong, I love to win, at almost all costs. But there is no joy in winning if you don't win within the rules. I'd rather finish last and fair than first by cheating.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
