Can anyone explain how Landis benefited?

[Colin Campbell]

What I have read seems to say that elevated levels of testosterone could
help an athlete build strength, which it seems to me could eventually
aid endurance. But this would likely take something on the order of
weeks to have an effect, rather than one day.

Also, I have read that epitestosterone has no effect on human strength
or performance. (It seems strange that the body would produce a
"useless" substance, though.)

The testing results say that Landis didn't have an elevated testosterone
level, but rather a depressed epitestosterone level. (Has there been
any theory advanced to explain how one depresses his epitestosterone
level for a day?)

Is there any performance benefit to having an out of whack ratio?

Is there any performance benefit to having a normal testosterone level,
compared to any other day?

I realize that this all ignores the "finding" of synthetic testosterone
in the testing. I wonder whether Landis would have had a 'normal'
finding (4:1 or less), if the synthetic T was factored out.

 

[RonSonic]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:59:11 -0700, Colin Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:

>What I have read seems to say that elevated levels of testosterone could
>help an athlete build strength, which it seems to me could eventually
>aid endurance. But this would likely take something on the order of
>weeks to have an effect, rather than one day.

Hence much wondering at wtf is going on.

>Also, I have read that epitestosterone has no effect on human strength
>or performance. (It seems strange that the body would produce a
>"useless" substance, though.)

it's a byproduct that does no harm and is not wasteful of materials. If you're a
man and have nipples, that'd be a comparable level of useless.

>The testing results say that Landis didn't have an elevated testosterone
>level, but rather a depressed epitestosterone level. (Has there been
>any theory advanced to explain how one depresses his epitestosterone
>level for a day?)

prolonged exertion suppressed T levels. If you supplement them back to normal
that's a benefit. Most everyone is smart enough to boost E to avoid failing a
test.

>Is there any performance benefit to having an out of whack ratio?
>
>Is there any performance benefit to having a normal testosterone level,
>compared to any other day?

Only if it would be otherwise low.

>I realize that this all ignores the "finding" of synthetic testosterone
>in the testing. I wonder whether Landis would have had a 'normal'
>finding (4:1 or less), if the synthetic T was factored out.

The doping tests don't care and all this information we have is partial and a
bit dubious, every bit of it "leaked" by a side that has an agenda.

Ron

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Kenny Labbé" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Who cares?

Apparently you do. I mean, what other coward would degrade someone else's
name in order to hide who he is?

 

[billb]

The violation is in the use of the banned substance not the benefit
realized, just as a burglar who breaks in but is chased off and is
unable to take anything has still violated/broken the law.
Best,
Bill Black

Colin Campbell wrote:
> What I have read seems to say that elevated levels of testosterone could
> help an athlete build strength, which it seems to me could eventually
> aid endurance. But this would likely take something on the order of
> weeks to have an effect, rather than one day.
>
> Also, I have read that epitestosterone has no effect on human strength
> or performance. (It seems strange that the body would produce a
> "useless" substance, though.)
>
> The testing results say that Landis didn't have an elevated testosterone
> level, but rather a depressed epitestosterone level. (Has there been
> any theory advanced to explain how one depresses his epitestosterone
> level for a day?)
>
> Is there any performance benefit to having an out of whack ratio?
>
> Is there any performance benefit to having a normal testosterone level,
> compared to any other day?
>
> I realize that this all ignores the "finding" of synthetic testosterone
> in the testing. I wonder whether Landis would have had a 'normal'
> finding (4:1 or less), if the synthetic T was factored out.

 

[Tere]

Colin Campbell wrote:
> What I have read seems to say that elevated levels of testosterone could
> help an athlete build strength, which it seems to me could eventually
> aid endurance. But this would likely take something on the order of
> weeks to have an effect, rather than one day.

One possiblity is that he was taking T through out the tour and also
taking E to keep the ratio in line. I thought taking T supresses
internal production of both T and E. But the Wikipedia asserts that is
not the case. Either way, taking T would increase the T:E ratio. So if
he forgot to take his E, his T would be normal, the the ratio would be
elevated.

> Also, I have read that epitestosterone has no effect on human strength
> or performance. (It seems strange that the body would produce a
> "useless" substance, though.)

The body does it all the time. 1) E may not have any sort of
performance enhancement effect, but if may serve another useful or
minor role. 2) Hormones are produced in a pathway with intermediate
steps and forms. E may be a precursor or by-product of T. According to
the Wikipedia, the priduction pathway(s) of E are still a subject of
research.

I know in the production of insulin (I have diabetes), there is a
precursor called pre-insulin (creative name, eh?) It is an insulin
molecule with a peptide attached. The final step is to break off the
peptide. So for evey insulin molecule produced, there is a C-peptide
produced as well. Testing for C-peptide is a way to tell if one is
still producing insulin and how much. That is useful for deteriming
how far along it is. Some Type 1's can produce insulin for as long as a
year after the initial onset of the disease. Some Type 2's can have
insulin resistance and be over-producing insulin (and C-peptide).

In addition to being useful for testing, there is some indications that
C-peptide, while not vital, may help prevent some long term
complication of diabetes.

So E may be a usless by-product, but it is not unusual for the body to
do that. Or it's role may not be known yet. I think mostlt it is just
unknown.

> The testing results say that Landis didn't have an elevated testosterone
> level, but rather a depressed epitestosterone level. (Has there been
> any theory advanced to explain how one depresses his epitestosterone
> level for a day?)

If the production pathway(s) of E are know (fully) known, then we can
only speculate. Perhaps E is supressed by exersion as well, but in a
different way. Maybe it suddenly cuts off after some maxim total effort
is reached. Maybe Landis reached that max diring stage 17. Or maybe he
just messed up his dope regime.

> Is there any performance benefit to having an out of whack ratio?

If T is elevated, then obviously yes.

> Is there any performance benefit to having a normal testosterone level,
> compared to any other day?

If exersion has reduced T production, taking T to compensate may have a
beneftial effect.

> I realize that this all ignores the "finding" of synthetic testosterone
> in the testing.

Yeah, that's the fly in the ointment...

> I wonder whether Landis would have had a 'normal'
> finding (4:1 or less), if the synthetic T was factored out.

As I undertand, thaking exogenous T reduces internal production. So it
would be likely that most of the T would be synthetic. Also there *may*
be another explaination for a high level of C12 (or is it C13?) Maybe a
vanishing twin or something.

He maybe innocent, but if so he has a LONG way to go to clear his name,
and probably won't be able to.

 

[Thomas A. Fine]

In article <[email protected]>,
Tere <[email protected]> wrote:
>Colin Campbell wrote:
>> I realize that this all ignores the "finding" of synthetic testosterone
>> in the testing.
>
>Yeah, that's the fly in the ointment...

GAH! Doesn't anybody read my postings? I can't say for sure that the
test was wrong, but I can say for sure that it can NOT definitively
"find" syntehtic testosterone in anyone ever at all period.

What people should be saying is, that it was detected that Floyd's
isotope ratio in his urinary testosterone was significantly different
from that of another natural chemical in the same urine.

To get back to the question here though, there is a common sense argument
that says since the body produces extra testosterone during competitions,
that it must do so for some reason. That's a sort of general argument.

More specifically, studies have shown that testosterone production is
linked to being more "pumped" or excited about an upcoming or ongoing
competition. Furthermore, winners get a testosterone boost, and losers
get a testosterone drop.

Some people think therefore that testosterone's primary short-term role
is psychological - it makes you more agressive, confident, and competitive,
and for these reasons it ultimately makes you more likely to win.

In fact one study showed that if you used testosterone levels to predict
the outcome of a competition, you'd do a lot better than you would with
blind guessing. In this sense, testosterone is a drug with the important
side-effect of victory. Not a bad choice if you're going to dope.

If some readers are wondering why I've changed gears, I haven't. I've
never been super pro-Floyd (or anti). This for me has been more about
a pure pursuit of the truth.

Ok, nobody believed that. Fine, I don't trust WADA, and THAT's what
my motivation is, not so much helping Floyd (although IF he is innocent
then I certainly want to help).

tom

 

[[email protected]]

Tere wrote:

> I know in the production of insulin (I have diabetes), there is a
> precursor called pre-insulin (creative name, eh?) It is an insulin
> molecule with a peptide attached. The final step is to break off the
> peptide. So for evey insulin molecule produced, there is a C-peptide
> produced as well. Testing for C-peptide is a way to tell if one is
> still producing insulin and how much. That is useful for deteriming
> how far along it is. Some Type 1's can produce insulin for as long as a
> year after the initial onset of the disease. Some Type 2's can have
> insulin resistance and be over-producing insulin (and C-peptide).

You nailed it. T and E are produced in concert with one another.
Unless Floyd develped an unknown genetic disease after stage 16 (that
just happens to create that exact circumstance).

The "I just can't believe-ers" keep asking why someone would take
testosterone on just one day. They do not hear (or do not want to
hear) that testosterone "L e v e l s" are not what is tested. There is
no standard for how much testosterone can be in the body (as each
person has different levels). The out-of-whack ratio is what triggers
suspicion.

The dopers know this, and administer both testosterone AND
epitestosterone to keep the ratio within the limit. Landis was likely
taking the juice all along. But he either missed his epitestosterone
dose, or he got an off-quality batch of it.

The question is not "Why would he take testosterone on just one day?"
The question should be: "Why would he NOT take epitestosterone on just
one day?"

I think Landis is perhaps being perfectly honest when he says it might
have to do with the whiskey. He drank too much, went to his room and
crashed, and forgot to take his epi. Hence the out-of-whack numbers.

 

[Tere]

Thomas A. Fine wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tere <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Colin Campbell wrote:
> >> I realize that this all ignores the "finding" of synthetic testosterone
> >> in the testing.
> >
> >Yeah, that's the fly in the ointment...
>
> GAH! Doesn't anybody read my postings? I can't say for sure that the
> test was wrong, but I can say for sure that it can NOT definitively
> "find" syntehtic testosterone in anyone ever at all period.
>
> What people should be saying is, that it was detected that Floyd's
> isotope ratio in his urinary testosterone was significantly different
> from that of another natural chemical in the same urine.

Still a fly. Uless Floyd can prove another explaination for the
finding, he is considered guilty. The quality or reliability of the
test is (mostly) not iportant. The fact that he failed it is. I'm not
defending that position, just stating the facts.

> To get back to the question here though, there is a common sense argument
> that says since the body produces extra testosterone during competitions,
> that it must do so for some reason. That's a sort of general argument.
>
> More specifically, studies have shown that testosterone production is
> linked to being more "pumped" or excited about an upcoming or ongoing
> competition. Furthermore, winners get a testosterone boost, and losers
> get a testosterone drop.
>
> Some people think therefore that testosterone's primary short-term role
> is psychological - it makes you more agressive, confident, and competitive,
> and for these reasons it ultimately makes you more likely to win.
>
> In fact one study showed that if you used testosterone levels to predict
> the outcome of a competition, you'd do a lot better than you would with
> blind guessing. In this sense, testosterone is a drug with the important
> side-effect of victory. Not a bad choice if you're going to dope.

Except none of that shows that *taking* T will give you the same boost.
Is the T the cause or the effect? Did they win because they had extra T
or because of some physiological process/condition that not only
elevated their T, but also gave them some other performance edge that
helped them win? Did they win because they had extra T, or did they
have extra T because they won? And what are "losers?" Do second and
third place finishers get a boost or a drop?

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that these studies. in and
of themselves, do not close the loop and indicate that therefore
*taking* T will provide that same short term benefit. Bearing in mind
that the mid- to long-term benefits of T are well known.

> If some readers are wondering why I've changed gears, I haven't. I've
> never been super pro-Floyd (or anti). This for me has been more about
> a pure pursuit of the truth.
>
> Ok, nobody believed that. Fine, I don't trust WADA, and THAT's what
> my motivation is, not so much helping Floyd (although IF he is innocent
> then I certainly want to help).

 

[Tere]

[email protected] wrote:
> Tere wrote:
>
> > I know in the production of insulin (I have diabetes), there is a
> > precursor called pre-insulin (creative name, eh?) It is an insulin
> > molecule with a peptide attached. The final step is to break off the
> > peptide. So for evey insulin molecule produced, there is a C-peptide
> > produced as well. Testing for C-peptide is a way to tell if one is
> > still producing insulin and how much. That is useful for deteriming
> > how far along it is. Some Type 1's can produce insulin for as long as a
> > year after the initial onset of the disease. Some Type 2's can have
> > insulin resistance and be over-producing insulin (and C-peptide).
>
> You nailed it. T and E are produced in concert with one another.
> Unless Floyd develped an unknown genetic disease after stage 16 (that
> just happens to create that exact circumstance).

I didn't nail it exactly. T and E maybe produced in concert, but
(appearently) taking exogenous T does not surpress E production. If
that's true, that mean one would have to take much less E to keep the
ratio in check. Would forgetting a exogenous E dose be enough to boost
the ratio to 11:1? Especially given that his T levels were not
(appearently) extremely high.

> The "I just can't believe-ers" keep asking why someone would take
> testosterone on just one day. They do not hear (or do not want to
> hear) that testosterone "L e v e l s" are not what is tested. There is
> no standard for how much testosterone can be in the body (as each
> person has different levels). The out-of-whack ratio is what triggers
> suspicion.

I don't know that. The normal range maybe pretty wide, maybe too wide
to be useful in detecting doping, but I'm pretty sure there IS a range
that is considered normal.

> The dopers know this, and administer both testosterone AND
> epitestosterone to keep the ratio within the limit.

I'll agree with that.

> Landis was likely
> taking the juice all along. But he either missed his epitestosterone
> dose, or he got an off-quality batch of it.
>
> The question is not "Why would he take testosterone on just one day?"
> The question should be: "Why would he NOT take epitestosterone on just
> one day?"
>
> I think Landis is perhaps being perfectly honest when he says it might
> have to do with the whiskey. He drank too much, went to his room and
> crashed, and forgot to take his epi. Hence the out-of-whack numbers.

Could be.

 

[Bob in CT]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:16:12 -0400, Thomas A. Fine
<[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tere <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Colin Campbell wrote:
>>> I realize that this all ignores the "finding" of synthetic testosterone
>>> in the testing.
>>
>> Yeah, that's the fly in the ointment...
>
> GAH! Doesn't anybody read my postings? I can't say for sure that the
> test was wrong, but I can say for sure that it can NOT definitively
> "find" syntehtic testosterone in anyone ever at all period.
>
> What people should be saying is, that it was detected that Floyd's
> isotope ratio in his urinary testosterone was significantly different
> from that of another natural chemical in the same urine.
>
> To get back to the question here though, there is a common sense argument
> that says since the body produces extra testosterone during competitions,
> that it must do so for some reason. That's a sort of general argument.
>
> More specifically, studies have shown that testosterone production is
> linked to being more "pumped" or excited about an upcoming or ongoing
> competition. Furthermore, winners get a testosterone boost, and losers
> get a testosterone drop.
>
> Some people think therefore that testosterone's primary short-term role
> is psychological - it makes you more agressive, confident, and
> competitive,
> and for these reasons it ultimately makes you more likely to win.
>
> In fact one study showed that if you used testosterone levels to predict
> the outcome of a competition, you'd do a lot better than you would with
> blind guessing. In this sense, testosterone is a drug with the important
> side-effect of victory. Not a bad choice if you're going to dope.
>
> If some readers are wondering why I've changed gears, I haven't. I've
> never been super pro-Floyd (or anti). This for me has been more about
> a pure pursuit of the truth.
>
> Ok, nobody believed that. Fine, I don't trust WADA, and THAT's what
> my motivation is, not so much helping Floyd (although IF he is innocent
> then I certainly want to help).
>
> tom
>
>

Does anyone trust WADA? I think I'm going to stop watching the Tours
(Giro, de France, Spain) and one day classics until the people at WADA can
get their heads out of their butts.

--
Bob in CT

 

"Bob in CT" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:16:12 -0400, Thomas A. Fine
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Tere <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Colin Campbell wrote:
>>>> I realize that this all ignores the "finding" of synthetic testosterone
>>>> in the testing.
>>>
>>> Yeah, that's the fly in the ointment...
>>
>> GAH! Doesn't anybody read my postings? I can't say for sure that the
>> test was wrong, but I can say for sure that it can NOT definitively
>> "find" syntehtic testosterone in anyone ever at all period.
>>
>> What people should be saying is, that it was detected that Floyd's
>> isotope ratio in his urinary testosterone was significantly different
>> from that of another natural chemical in the same urine.
>>
>> To get back to the question here though, there is a common sense argument
>> that says since the body produces extra testosterone during competitions,
>> that it must do so for some reason. That's a sort of general argument.
>>
>> More specifically, studies have shown that testosterone production is
>> linked to being more "pumped" or excited about an upcoming or ongoing
>> competition. Furthermore, winners get a testosterone boost, and losers
>> get a testosterone drop.
>>
>> Some people think therefore that testosterone's primary short-term role
>> is psychological - it makes you more agressive, confident, and
>> competitive,
>> and for these reasons it ultimately makes you more likely to win.
>>
>> In fact one study showed that if you used testosterone levels to predict
>> the outcome of a competition, you'd do a lot better than you would with
>> blind guessing. In this sense, testosterone is a drug with the important
>> side-effect of victory. Not a bad choice if you're going to dope.
>>
>> If some readers are wondering why I've changed gears, I haven't. I've
>> never been super pro-Floyd (or anti). This for me has been more about
>> a pure pursuit of the truth.
>>
>> Ok, nobody believed that. Fine, I don't trust WADA, and THAT's what
>> my motivation is, not so much helping Floyd (although IF he is innocent
>> then I certainly want to help).
>>
>> tom
>>
>>
>
> Does anyone trust WADA?

Yes I do and I am not alone.




I think I'm going to stop watching the Tours
> (Giro, de France, Spain) and one day classics until the people at WADA can
> get their heads out of their butts.
>
> --
> Bob in CT

 

[[email protected]]

Tere wrote:
(snip)
> >
> > You nailed it. T and E are produced in concert with one another.
> > Unless Floyd develped an unknown genetic disease after stage 16 (that
> > just happens to create that exact circumstance).
>
> I didn't nail it exactly. T and E maybe produced in concert, but
> (appearently) taking exogenous T does not surpress E production.

Abusing it over the long-term supresses it. The endocrine system gives
up. "Why bother making it?" says the body. The abuser becomes
dependent on it.


> If that's true, that mean one would have to take much less E to keep the
> ratio in check. Would forgetting a exogenous E dose be enough to boost
> the ratio to 11:1? Especially given that his T levels were not
> (appearently) extremely high.

If he took his usual daily dose of T, and forgot to take the E, I can
envision such a ratio. His T level might have simply been the result of
a "maintenance" dose. Without it, he'd not have ANY testosterone.
Remember, an abuser who loses natural production ability (perhaps years
earlier) is now using it just to be "normal". If this is the case, I
can see how he might not personally believe himself to be "doping".
Danny Bonaduce talked about this in a radio interview recently. He
took lots of steroids to help him bulk-up while weightlifting. No he
has to take the patch just to have a normal level of testosterone in
his body. Every day.

I've never had a hardened belief that Landis was doing anything for a
"performance effect" at the time of his positive test. Everyone seems
to be solely focused on that. This whole "what's the benefit?" angle.
I'm just arguing that it is damn possible that he was taking the
substances he is accused of taking. Might have been because of stupid
decisions he made years ago. Perhaps months ago. Perhaps weeks ago. He
may have a rock-solid belief that he's "no cheater" (and he might not
have been "cheating" on stage 17). But the rule he'll be charged with
violating won't be concerning cheating. It will be the rule prohibiting
the existence of certain substances in his body.

Landis may well be a currently "upstanding" rider who is trapped
indefinitely by things he did long ago.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Thomas A. Fine" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> In fact one study showed that if you used testosterone levels to predict
> the outcome of a competition, you'd do a lot better than you would with
> blind guessing. In this sense, testosterone is a drug with the important
> side-effect of victory. Not a bad choice if you're going to dope.

But that doesn't mean that the testosterone makes the difference. It means
that testosterone production is higher among men who are winners and believe
in their ability to win.

> If some readers are wondering why I've changed gears, I haven't. I've
> never been super pro-Floyd (or anti). This for me has been more about
> a pure pursuit of the truth.
>
> Ok, nobody believed that. Fine, I don't trust WADA, and THAT's what
> my motivation is, not so much helping Floyd (although IF he is innocent
> then I certainly want to help).

I no longer have any faith whatsoever in WADA and if the UCI is being led
about by WADA then there should be a change in the UCI management.

 

[Tom Kunich]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I think Landis is perhaps being perfectly honest when he says it might
> have to do with the whiskey. He drank too much, went to his room and
> crashed, and forgot to take his epi. Hence the out-of-whack numbers.

Just in case you're unaware of it - the patches have both.

 

[Tom Kunich]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Abusing it over the long-term supresses it. The endocrine system gives
> up. "Why bother making it?" says the body. The abuser becomes
> dependent on it.

I suppose there's never going to be the question in your head as to why
someone would take a hormone that tests have shown only to be effective in
long term as an overnight drug.

Of note - on that Bob Roll conversation noted yesterday we heard Bob Roll
saying that testosterone didn't have any short term effects. Do you suppose
Roll is lying or that in all his time in the peloton when testosterone was
readily available he never learned anything about it?

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>, "Bob in CT" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Does anyone trust WADA? I think I'm going to stop watching the Tours
> (Giro, de France, Spain) and one day classics until the people at WADA can
> get their heads out of their butts.

Well, if that's the standard, I think you can just forget about watching any big
races ever again.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> Danny Bonaduce talked about this in a radio interview recently. He
> took lots of steroids to help him bulk-up while weightlifting. No he
> has to take the patch just to have a normal level of testosterone in
> his body. Every day.

I do not think this is necessary. He can go cold turkey,
then allow his endocrine system to balance itself. When
you think about it `I take in exogenous testosterone every
day because I cannot produce it' is a self-serving, lame
excuse. People believe him, he knows it, they're idiots,
he knows that, and he likes treating people like idiots.
Just the kind of person who when somebody doubts his story
to his face immediately offers violence.

--
Michael Press

 

[[email protected]]

Tere wrote:


"I know in the production of insulin (I have diabetes), there is a
precursor called pre-insulin (creative name, eh?) It is an insulin
molecule with a peptide attached. The final step is to break off the
peptide. So for evey insulin molecule produced, there is a C-peptide
produced as well. Testing for C-peptide is a way to tell if one is
still producing insulin and how much. That is useful for deteriming
how far along it is. Some Type 1's can produce insulin for as long as a

year after the initial onset of the disease. Some Type 2's can have
insulin resistance and be over-producing insulin (and C-peptide). "

As a diabetic I am sure you are well aware of the significant effect
alcohol can have on hormones (insulin). T and E being hormones can
have their balances effected by alcohol also. Not surprisingly that
has been found to be the case, particularly E. See:
http://dirtragmag.com/forums/showpost.php?p=112477&postcount=13

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Colin
Campbell ('[email protected]') wrote:

> What I have read seems to say that elevated levels of testosterone
> could help an athlete build strength, which it seems to me could
> eventually
> aid endurance. But this would likely take something on the order of
> weeks to have an effect, rather than one day.

At the time he was tested - that is to say, at the end of a long ride in
very hot weather during which he'd drunk an abnormally large amount of
water - testosterone was the only substance which tests showed to be
above the permitted level in Landis' blood.

As you say, it's not a one-hit treatment. So probably, as others have
said, he'd been taking both testosterone and epitestosterone as a matter
of routine during the race, and on this day for some reason he hadn't
taken enough epitetosterone.

BUT, this doesn't mean testosterone was the only thing Landis was taking.
His performance on the day may, of course, just have been a superb act
of effort and will. Or it may have been aided by stimulants which had
been flushed out of his system by the time he was tested. There's no
means of knowing, but cyclists who take performance enhancing drugs
typically take cocktails of performance enhancing drugs; and I find it
hard to believe that someone who was prepared to cheat by taking
testosterone would refuse to cheat by take stimulants.

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

;; Good grief, I can remember when England won the Ashes.

 

[Tere]

[email protected] wrote:
> Tere wrote:
> (snip)
> > >
> > > You nailed it. T and E are produced in concert with one another.
> > > Unless Floyd develped an unknown genetic disease after stage 16 (that
> > > just happens to create that exact circumstance).
> >
> > I didn't nail it exactly. T and E maybe produced in concert, but
> > (appearently) taking exogenous T does not surpress E production.
>
> Abusing it over the long-term supresses it. The endocrine system gives
> up. "Why bother making it?" says the body. The abuser becomes
> dependent on it.

Taking T spresses T production, but not E. If he was taking
maintainence doses of T, his T:E shoul dnot be out of whack, even if he
doesn't take any E. It should only be out of whack if he taking a
boosting dose of T and no E. If he was boosting T and E to keep his
ratio in check, then his T levels would be high even if the ratio is
good. Haven't the T level come back "normal?"

Taking *any* any hormone would surpress internal production. But T and
E have seperate production pathways.

In early Type 1 diabetes, insulin is often administered, even though it
is not required to maintain blood glucose levels, in oder to preserve
the pancreatric function by surpressing internal insulin production.
However, once the exogenous administration is ceased, internal
production picks up again. I don't see why T would be any different,
why exogenous T would *permanently* surpress internal production.

>
> > If that's true, that mean one would have to take much less E to keep the
> > ratio in check. Would forgetting a exogenous E dose be enough to boost
> > the ratio to 11:1? Especially given that his T levels were not
> > (appearently) extremely high.
>
> If he took his usual daily dose of T, and forgot to take the E, I can
> envision such a ratio. His T level might have simply been the result of
> a "maintenance" dose. Without it, he'd not have ANY testosterone.
> Remember, an abuser who loses natural production ability (perhaps years
> earlier) is now using it just to be "normal". If this is the case, I
> can see how he might not personally believe himself to be "doping".

I believe the testes shrink while taking T, but is this a permanent
effect? I've been assuming that the T production bounces back.

Also, if he had a medically valid reason to be supplementing T, I think
he would have disclosed that and gotten a waiver. A low T level might
qualify. He wouldn't need to show *why* he has low T, therbye revealing
his doping. People who have natrually low T don't necessarly know why
it's low, just like I don't know why I became diabetic.

> Danny Bonaduce talked about this in a radio interview recently. He
> took lots of steroids to help him bulk-up while weightlifting. No he
> has to take the patch just to have a normal level of testosterone in
> his body. Every day.
>
> I've never had a hardened belief that Landis was doing anything for a
> "performance effect" at the time of his positive test. Everyone seems
> to be solely focused on that. This whole "what's the benefit?" angle.
> I'm just arguing that it is damn possible that he was taking the
> substances he is accused of taking. Might have been because of stupid
> decisions he made years ago. Perhaps months ago. Perhaps weeks ago. He
> may have a rock-solid belief that he's "no cheater" (and he might not
> have been "cheating" on stage 17). But the rule he'll be charged with
> violating won't be concerning cheating. It will be the rule prohibiting
> the existence of certain substances in his body.
>
> Landis may well be a currently "upstanding" rider who is trapped
> indefinitely by things he did long ago.