Landis Testing Positive

Simon Brooke said:

But, Landis' ratio was allegedly 11:1, which is clearly anomalous. But,
the reason why it was anomalous was not that his T level was unusually
high - it wasn't (and reading between the lines it may even have been
low) but that his E level was very low indeed. Which you might get if
you'd been boosting your testosterone regularly for months and months
and months, but Landis hadn't - he'd been routinely tested the day
before (and on several occasions before that), because he was in yellow.

So there's something very odd about this.

Extreme glycogen replacement from the previous day?
Just a thought. Haven't managed to back it up with a reasonable
reference from PubMed.

regards,
d.

Quoted message said:

Many years ago the following statement was attributed to Hinault.

"You cannot cycle the Tour de France on Perrier"

Not Hinault. Anquetil I believe.

--
Arthur Clune

Tony Raven said:

a) not judging him guilty before the whole story has come out. There is

While I'd like to agree with you, I feel that I have been taken for a ride
too often by riders saying 'it wasn't be guv' and then subsequently being
proved to have doped to take this attitude.

Until people like Riis and Saiz are forced out as well, and not just the
riders, the sport will never clean itself up.

--
Arthur Clune

Arthur Clune wrote on 28/07/2006 10:50 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

a) not judging him guilty before the whole story has come out. There is

While I'd like to agree with you, I feel that I have been taken for a ride
too often by riders saying 'it wasn't be guv' and then subsequently being
proved to have doped to take this attitude.

And while agreeing with you, the anti-doping labs and people,
particularly this lab and WADA have been disingenuous enough recently
that I am prepared to suspend belief in their pronouncements until
someone I can trust confirms it. Remember [censored] Pound still insists that
Armstrong doped in 1999 on the basis of evidence that has been roundly
discredited, along with the performance of him and WADA, by an
independent official investigation. He and LNDD also refused to
cooperate with the investigation. Until people like Pound and LNDD are
also put out of business I don't know who to trust.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Tony Raven said:

cooperate with the investigation. Until people like Pound and LNDD are
also put out of business I don't know who to trust.

Sadly true. Mind, I don't know if I can trust Armstrong either.

I've come to the sad conculusion that we'll never know about most
of this stuff.

--
Arthur Clune

Arthur Clune wrote on 28/07/2006 12:19 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Sadly true. Mind, I don't know if I can trust Armstrong either.

And the saddest thing is what should have been a real boost for cycling
and a role model is mired instead in murky allegations and political
infighting where, as you say, we will likely never know the real truth.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:33:21 +0100, Simon Brooke
<[email hidden]> wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

But, Landis' ratio was allegedly 11:1, which is clearly anomalous. But,
the reason why it was anomalous was not that his T level was unusually
high - it wasn't (and reading between the lines it may even have been
low) but that his E level was very low indeed. Which you might get if
you'd been boosting your testosterone regularly for months and months
and months, but Landis hadn't - he'd been routinely tested the day
before (and on several occasions before that), because he was in yellow.

So there's something very odd about this.

FWIW I concur.
A former TdF competitor (sorry, don't remember the name but he was US
and not LeMond or Armstrong) interviewed on CNN this morning stated
that the ratio was anomalously high because Landis' E level *was* low.
He did not cite his authority for this view but went on to say that
Landis 'had low testosterone levels'.

I presume that his view arose from other tests that Landis underwent
during his cycling career. It may be possible that an examination of
Landis' historical testosterone/epitestosterone ratios might reveal
him to be an outlier in the normal distribution which I assume applies
(although a cynic might expect not to find a particularly normal
distribution of blood chemistry among TdF competitors).

Pete Connors

Pete Connors said:

(although a cynic might expect not to find a particularly normal
distribution of blood chemistry among TdF competitors).

Why a cynic? Competitors with a below average blood chemistry are less
likely to make it to the absolute top!

--
---
Marten Gerritsen

INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl

Tony Raven said:

And the saddest thing is what should have been a real boost for cycling
and a role model is mired instead in murky allegations and political
infighting where, as you say, we will likely never know the real truth.

So very true.

--
Arthur Clune

Pete Connors wrote on 28/07/2006 12:39 +0100:

Quoted message said:

FWIW I concur.
A former TdF competitor (sorry, don't remember the name but he was US
and not LeMond or Armstrong) interviewed on CNN this morning stated
that the ratio was anomalously high because Landis' E level *was* low.
He did not cite his authority for this view but went on to say that
Landis 'had low testosterone levels'.

So what is he being accused of - having his testosterone removed?

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

dannyfrankszzz said:

I can't believe this! Pro cycling has to be about the biggest joke
going.

And there was me cheering Landis on Stage 17.

God, I feel like such an idiot.

--
dannyfrankszzz

It is a mistake. He hasn't doped.

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

Simon Brooke wrote on 28/07/2006 09:14 +0100:

Quoted message said:

But you're absolutely right to pull me up for assuming guilt.

Will you stop agreeing with me dammit! ;-)

No! I shan't! So there! What are you going to do about it?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

' ' <------- this blank intentionally spaced left

MO said:

dannyfrankszzz said:

I can't believe this! Pro cycling has to be about the biggest joke
going.

And there was me cheering Landis on Stage 17.

God, I feel like such an idiot.

--
dannyfrankszzz

It is a mistake. He hasn't doped.

CyclingNews says - "Asked whether he had ever taken any performance
enhancing substances, Landis replied, "I'll say no. The problem I have
here again is that most of the public has an idea about cycling because
of the way things have gone in the past. So I'll say no, knowing that a
lot of people will assume I'm guilty before I've had a chance to defend
myself, but there you have it.""

So why didn't he just say "no" to the question? I'll say no is not
exactly the same as a denial...

Dicovery? Phonak? Santi Botero too.... Proved innocent by reputable
Doctor Fuentes over the same charges as Landis; but then did a runner
when the Puerto list appeared. I wonder why? He wasn't on it ...

:-((

Dan Gregory

Simon Brooke wrote on 28/07/2006 15:28 +0100:

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

Simon Brooke wrote on 28/07/2006 09:14 +0100:

Quoted message said:

But you're absolutely right to pull me up for assuming guilt.

Will you stop agreeing with me dammit! ;-)

No! I shan't! So there! What are you going to do about it?

That's better. Ladies and Gentlemen, normal service has been resumed ;-)

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

John said:

It seems a lot of people would rather that the drugs problem in cycling were
brushed under the carpet rather than sorted out.

I see other cyclists are choosing to empathise with riders (Landis) who give
a positive test rather than condemning drug use, that can't be right.

I would have preferred it if you had not posted this as a reply to my
post and that of Tony Raven - it seems unconnected with what either of
us said (you quoted our comments about loss of TV coverage).

--
Peter Headland

Tony Raven said:

not judging him guilty before the whole story has come out.

Arthur Clune said:

While I'd like to agree with you, I feel that I have been taken for a ride
too often by riders saying 'it wasn't be guv' and then subsequently being
proved to have doped to take this attitude.

Sorry, that doesn't justify the rush to condemn someone before due
process has been followed. What's the hurry?

--
Peter Headland

(Arthur Clune) said:

the sport will never clean itself up.

I can't see how it can when it's people who ride the bikes are leading
the charge.

I'm surprised nobody has made a reference to the phone-in on Radio 5
this morning [which I frequently can't abide], but it was about this
very issue of drug taking in sport, and I have to say very interesting
it was too. To anybody interested, here is the listen again link.
Thankfully it was Matthew Bannister and not Victoria Derbyshire in the
studio today. There's some Professer guy [sorry I didn't catch his
name] who appears about half-way through who, for me, hits the nail
perfectly. Typically, these phone-ins are set up with those for the
cause and those against,which offten leads not nothing informative,
but just entrenched opinions, but I'd say this is one of the better
ones. It's an hour program.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/programmes/morning.shtml

[If anybody reads this on Saturday it's the Friday link you want :-]

Garry

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

The more one reads about it the murkier it gets. Normally human males
produce roughly equal amounts of testosterone and epitestosterone.
Epitestosterone is a precursor hormone - the body produces it to tell
itself it needs more testosterone. So late in a stage race when the
body's been under stress for two weeks, normally a person's natural
testosterone levels would be low and their epitestosterone would be
higher.

If testosterone (T) is significantly higher than epitestosterone (E) it
suggests that testosterone has been boosted artificially, both because
artificial boosting increases T and because it suppresses E. Until
recently, the IOC and other drug testing bodies reckoned that a E:T
ratio of 6:1 was evidence of guilt. Even at that, there were a few
people who naturally triggered the test. Recently the UCI (and I'm not
sure whether this is actually the UCI or WADA or the IOC or some wider
collection of organisations) has reduced the trigger ratio to 4:1, so
naturally there will be a lot more false positives.

But, Landis' ratio was allegedly 11:1, which is clearly anomalous. But,
the reason why it was anomalous was not that his T level was unusually
high - it wasn't (and reading between the lines it may even have been
low) but that his E level was very low indeed. Which you might get if
you'd been boosting your testosterone regularly for months and months
and months, but Landis hadn't - he'd been routinely tested the day
before (and on several occasions before that), because he was in yellow.

So there's something very odd about this.

I am not a doctor, nor I have pretended to be one for the purposes of
joining an exclusive golf club, but a bloke on the telly last night said
that athletes taking testosterone did so to improve muscle build-up. As
Simon said, Landis had been in yellow before, ergo he /must/ have been
tested earlier in the race. The idea that a rider would take
testosterone for just one stage in the middle of the race is beyond
belief, not least because, if my understanding of the way these things
work is even in the same county as the truth, it would have no
performance-enhancing effect whatsoever.

Squarely in the Land of Odd indeed.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
I'm just a primitive creature of the heath, so pardon my savage
ignorance.

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:28:06 +0100, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Pete Connors wrote on 28/07/2006 12:39 +0100:

Quoted message said:

FWIW I concur.
A former TdF competitor (sorry, don't remember the name but he was US
and not LeMond or Armstrong) interviewed on CNN this morning stated
that the ratio was anomalously high because Landis' E level *was* low.
He did not cite his authority for this view but went on to say that
Landis 'had low testosterone levels'.

So what is he being accused of - having his testosterone removed?

If anything he is 'accused' of having his epistestosterone 'removed'.
AIUI this does not have the same physiological effect as whacking a
bit of t. into your system and it may well be an artefact of his
particular metabolism. Or sloppy lab technique.

Pete Connonrs

FWIW, in today's interviews this side of the pond, Landis was saying he
has "naturally high T levels". So the story that T was normal/low and E
was super-low doesn't seem to be true.

--
Peter Headland