Floyds Testosterone Levels Below Normal? - Page 2

...without that professor from penn state to explain this to me, i have absolutely no idea what any of this means. don't they have "baseline" info on all riders from the pre-race physical? how can these samples be "hot" when all the others he had to submit as maillot jaune came out "clean"? something on velonews mentioned that mcquaid let landis' name out because the lab doing the test has leaked info to l'equipe in the past and he expected more of the same. are these samples handled in a truly anonymous fashion by lab personnel?

__________________
"Kick over the statues and the tyrants die. Wave bye bye to their heroes with a hammer."
--The Redskins, Kick Over the Statues

I guess to me, the "positive" side of this is at least we are dealing with naturally occuring bodily chemicals. The question "we" have to answer is why are they at the reported levels and is that "natural" or was it because of "manipulation"? At least it's not EPO or worse somebody else's blood.

L

__________________
Cheap, Strong and Light.
Pick any Two.

Interesting link about ratio's (scroll down page)

http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?...icp=1&.intl=us

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/tdf200...ory?id=2531677

Q: For a cyclist, what's the benefit of elevated levels of testosterone? Why would a cyclist use it?

A: (Dr. Gary Wadler) It's certainly not one of the first-line drugs one thinks of for racing. Steroids can increase strength and improve recovery time and prevent the breakdown of muscle, maybe make him more assertive and aggressive. All of those could have some positive attribute. But most steroids are given in cycles [6-12 weeks] and in context of working out in a gym with weights. It makes no sense to me why an athlete would take testosterone the day of a race when it doesn't work that way. It doesn't make sense in terms of the pharmacology of the drug, and it really doesn't have the attributes that would be attractive to a cyclist -- particularly one running the risk of violating anti-doping regulations.

Everybody knew the spotlight was on cycling. For eight years, the world has been watching cycling particularly closely. It would be the ultimate form of denial, or the ultimate sense of invincibility, to think you're going to evade that. And when the pharmacology of the drug doesn't really, in my judgment, seem like a drug of particular note to a cyclist, it doesn't really compute.

i still do not understand.

__________________
"Kick over the statues and the tyrants die. Wave bye bye to their heroes with a hammer."
--The Redskins, Kick Over the Statues

Again... his testosterone levels were not high, rather his epitestosterone levels were too low.

is there any logical explanation to why his epitest. levels were too low?

in comparison to his testorterone levels, which is used to determine if he has been supplementing his natural testosterone levels. we can assume he was putting the patch on his nutsack (or some similar means of delivery) and then removing it in time for his levels to come back down to normal when he had to piss.

so yes his test levels weren't high at that exactly moment, but the idea of doping would be to make them as high as possible while being able to have them return to normal for testing.

ALCOHOL will increase the Testosterone to Epitestosterone ratio from 30%-277% in healthy people. From following article written in 2001 by By Dr Simon Davis B.Sc., Ph.D.
Scroll half way down to (The Effect of Alcohol Consumption on the Urinary Testosterone / Epitestosterone Ratio)

http://www.crainsmuscleworld.com/new...news071601.htm

Well, just doing the math, if you were at a legal (yet very high) ratio of 4 to 1, and you increased the ratio 277%, you would end up with a ratio of exactly 11 to 1, which is what the reports on ABC were saying Landis' ratio was.

Far fetched to be sure, but interesting nonetheless.

Interesting information. Why havent we heard anything about this possible explanation from the Landis camp yet? From what I have read, they have consulted many doctors.

Why did he suddenly say today they were drinking whiskey the night before the test?

http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug...v=ap&type=lgns

not as farfetched as the vanishing twin

The issue of lower (than "normal") Testosterone to Epi (where Epi seems high) is often thought imply supplementation of Epi to lower (what would otherwise be) a higher than "normal" Testosterone ratio. ...So, that's the "irregularity". Unfortunately it really doesn't prove or disprove anything - just clouds everything. IMO one more reason such findings should be released in a more formal & professional manner.

The whole "Steroid related positive" just does not make sense!!!

No doctor, coach or trainer - not even inexperienced "dirty" one's would have reccomended/administered steroids to Floyd - in an attempt to help him recover from his bad day/improve his stage 17 performance. Its common knowledge even at the lowest of levels that THIS would not have helped either situation.

One needs to consider the stress Floyd's liver would already have been under from the previous day's "collapse" & glucose depletion. Forcing the liver to metabolize a concentrated steriod would have been VERY unwise. It would likely have impeded his performance/recovery.

The ONLY “desirable” effect - and its side effect (at best) would be adrenal function - to make Floyd "Rage" like a body-builder on a 'roid cycle'.

The test is most likely correct, but this still wouldn't explain a rider of this caliber, in THIS race testing positive for something so easily detected - which (again) in all likelihood wouldn't have helped him one lick!

Consider that Floyd was tested at the start of the race. He would have been tested again after the ITT, again when he took the yellow jersey on L'Alpe d’Huez, and again when he won stage 17. Possibly a few other times too. Had Floyd been doping or "masking" high testosterone by increasing his Epi levels this would've been apparent on any one of those occasions.

I'll be interested to see what endocrinologists have to say on the matter.

Were it EPO, or evidence of a blood transfusion or stimulant I'd say Floyd was more than likely guilty. But this positive just doesn't equate to a doping scenario.

What a long, strange trip it has been. Seven years ago, it was ethropoietin and hematocrit. Two years ago, it was the flow cytometry test and foreign red cells. Last year, it was sloppy EPO experiments and the magnet test. Before the Tour, it was reticulocyte to red cell ratio. Now it's test/epitest ratios and what happens when one downs a few drinks and thyroid medicine after bonking.

Who needs medical school? We have professional cycling.

This is from an interview done on July 19 after his Bonk in Stage 16. Maybe he drinks Shiner Bock and couldnt find any in France so he had to drink some Jack Daniels? If you had watched the Tour you would have known this.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2006..._landis_tdf306

Q: What do you do to deal with this at this point?
FL: Er... I don't know... drink some beers! (laughs) That's what I'm thinking about now!