Landis Innocent! on CNN and Lance agrees!!!
- Thread starter bobke
- Start date
Gee Lim...to hear you say it, it all sounds so true. Too bad you talk out of your **** half the time. Saying it does not make it true. Nor does saying it and saying it and saying it. And no it's not denial in most cases here, it's due process that we seek. But apparently you threw that element out of your equation a long time ago. And this from the same guy who bashes the Bush administration for doing the thing. You're not only talking out of your ****, you're talking out of both sides of your ****. Impressive! 
If nothing else, read what you prescribe for others and see if you shouldn't be taking your own advice. You might actually learn something instead of being so closed minded.
If nothing else, read what you prescribe for others and see if you shouldn't be taking your own advice. You might actually learn something instead of being so closed minded.
What are you talking about? People in America hate it too. People hate Barry Bonds, Mark Maguire went from hero to bum....average people here are mostly only exposed to **** like Larry King so they believe the Lance story. You have to really be interested and following cycling to know all the stuff that goes on. Most people truly believe that if someone never tested postive than they are clean, and Lance has been tested more than anyone. I used to think that until I learned more about how it all works. And letting pro athletes into the Olympics is what ruined that...they are used to doing whatever they have to. The Olympics is just one more show. Athletes everywhere dope.whiteboytrash said:
Well said!! Maybe he can enlighten us to some of his sources so we too can know the truth. How about everyone ,including myself on this site start backing up our responses with factual literature links. I'm sure if this were mandatory half the responses would be gone! Medscape is a good place to startrule62 said:Gee Lim...to hear you say it, it all sounds so true. Too bad you talk out of your **** half the time. Saying it does not make it true. Nor does saying it and saying it and saying it. And no it's not denial in most cases here, it's due process that we seek. But apparently you threw that element out of your equation a long time ago. And this from the same guy who bashes the Bush administration for doing the thing. You're not only talking out of your ****, you're talking out of both sides of your ****. Impressive!
If nothing else, read what you prescribe for others and see if you shouldn't be taking your own advice. You might actually learn something instead of being so closed minded.
I dont think we know what the levels are, all we know is the ratio. It will all come out shortly.whiteboytrash said:
For those interested in finding out what FLoyd and his doctor said as opposed to just immediately trashing him, here is a link to the interview:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0607/28/lkl.01.html
And just as a clarification:
1.Floyd having his doctor on TV with him who knows him and is a respected medical professional-risking HIS professional reputation
2. saying they want all the urines form all his races this year analyzed and the results released, and that he wants the whole thing transparent
3. having a former teammate and 7 Time Tour winner come out and support you and serve as a character witness
...all of this is just a teeny bit different from Basso and Jan--just in case you hadnt noticed.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0607/28/lkl.01.html
I'm calling BS. His Testosterone levels were actucally BELOW normal. It's just that the E-test was even lower. The shots and patches theory can't explain why it was LOWER than normal. Besides, from what's been posted here, the T/E ratio is actucally a screen for anebolic steroids, not testosterone abuse itself.whiteboytrash said:
The REAL test is going to be a screering for artificial testosterone isotopes.
L
rule62 said:
It is true - sample A failed the test.
rule62 said:
It was the lab who said that the sample failed the test.
rule62 said:
Due process?
The guy took testosterone - it was in his sample.
The testing procedure is part of the due process.
The due process thus far says he doped.
Due process.
schwagger said:
In case you didn't notice : here is the news of Landis A sample which proved positive for testosterone.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/jul06/jul28news
Why???
If they can test for synthetic Test.. why the hell are they testing for some ratio that depends on many other variables??????
These guys seem to be idiots sometimes. They set up some rule based on a ratio that "apparently" can be affected by many other things.
The presence of synthetic Test would take out the guesswork.
That would be too cut and dry I suppose...and wouldn't keep the issue in question for several weeks as seems to be their desire.
If they can test for synthetic Test.. why the hell are they testing for some ratio that depends on many other variables??????
These guys seem to be idiots sometimes. They set up some rule based on a ratio that "apparently" can be affected by many other things.
The presence of synthetic Test would take out the guesswork.
That would be too cut and dry I suppose...and wouldn't keep the issue in question for several weeks as seems to be their desire.
HERE ARE A FEW LINKS WORTH READING ABOUT THE PROBLEMS AT FRANCES LAB AND OHTER STUFF:
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=96626
The report said tests on the samples were conducted improperly, and fell so short of scientific standards that it was "completely irresponsible" to suggest that the results "constitute evidence of anything."
http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/content/full/43/5/731
Dehennin (4) suggested that when a T/E ratio of 6 to 12 is found for the first time in subjects for whom no documentation of a previously normal ratio exists, some complimentary criteria should be examined. He found that the ratio of urinary T and E glucuronides to 5-androstene-3ß,17
-diol glucuronide was increased in the use of exogenous T and E use despite the T/E ratio being <6. These findings indicate a need for further study of additional markers for detecting the administration of T.
GREY AREA PART IS INTERESTING:
Many males will have a remarkably stable T/E over several months or years (31)(32)(33). For example, the volunteer in Fig. 5
has a stable T/E over the first 9 consecutive days (CV 3.5%) and in intermittent assays over 8 months (CV 35%). Donike et al. reported (32) that the CV (in normal males) will not exceed 30%; however, in a study of 796 athletes who provided at least 3 urines over 2 years, Baenziger and Bowers (30) showed (their Figs. 8 and 9) that about one-third had CVs >30%, and that the 90th percentile for the CV of T/E ratios was 58%. Further, in a study (29) of 28 athletes with at least one T/E >6, 17 (61%) had CVs <30%, but 10 (36%) had CVs of 31–43%; the authors regarded the former group as "not likely to be testosterone users," and the latter as being in a "grey area." In the only study that covers several months of sampling in females (2 samples a month for 12 months, 5 subjects), Mareck-Engelke et al. (33) reported CVs of 15%, 51%, 25%, 31%, and 30%. Thus, although CVs are a useful guideline to understanding the T/E–time profile of an athlete, various factors may influence the T/E (see below, and (34)); therefore, the interpretation of a profile that includes one sample with T/E >6 should take into account all the available information for the subject tested.
ENTIRE STUDY:
http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/content/full/43/7/1280
http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/AFP/2005/09/21/1021954
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=96626
The report said tests on the samples were conducted improperly, and fell so short of scientific standards that it was "completely irresponsible" to suggest that the results "constitute evidence of anything."
http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/content/full/43/5/731
Dehennin (4) suggested that when a T/E ratio of 6 to 12 is found for the first time in subjects for whom no documentation of a previously normal ratio exists, some complimentary criteria should be examined. He found that the ratio of urinary T and E glucuronides to 5-androstene-3ß,17
GREY AREA PART IS INTERESTING:
Many males will have a remarkably stable T/E over several months or years (31)(32)(33). For example, the volunteer in Fig. 5
has a stable T/E over the first 9 consecutive days (CV 3.5%) and in intermittent assays over 8 months (CV 35%). Donike et al. reported (32) that the CV (in normal males) will not exceed 30%; however, in a study of 796 athletes who provided at least 3 urines over 2 years, Baenziger and Bowers (30) showed (their Figs. 8 and 9) that about one-third had CVs >30%, and that the 90th percentile for the CV of T/E ratios was 58%. Further, in a study (29) of 28 athletes with at least one T/E >6, 17 (61%) had CVs <30%, but 10 (36%) had CVs of 31–43%; the authors regarded the former group as "not likely to be testosterone users," and the latter as being in a "grey area." In the only study that covers several months of sampling in females (2 samples a month for 12 months, 5 subjects), Mareck-Engelke et al. (33) reported CVs of 15%, 51%, 25%, 31%, and 30%. Thus, although CVs are a useful guideline to understanding the T/E–time profile of an athlete, various factors may influence the T/E (see below, and (34)); therefore, the interpretation of a profile that includes one sample with T/E >6 should take into account all the available information for the subject tested. ENTIRE STUDY:
http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/content/full/43/7/1280
http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/AFP/2005/09/21/1021954
schwagger said:
The ONLY information you present about the French Lab is from the highly suspect Vrijman report... again, another whitewash attempt by UCI to cover up the truth. Have you read the WADA analysis of the Vrijman report?
Still the term "France's Labs" figures prominently in your preface... yet it was more about other stuff and a lot less about France's Labs.
Sad.
DMF said:
We know the test result.
Sample A Ratio 11:1
Threshold is 4 :1.
Landis A sample is nearly three times in excess of the threshold.
schwagger said:
I would disagree that either link is worth reading.
A 1997 Testosterone study and a 2005 article posted on the 1999 Armstrong dope tests.
The 1997 testosterone report, if clinically validated, would have been incorporated throughout all accredited labs worldwide and would have been part of clinical criteria for establishing testosterone measurement in all subsequent 1997 testosterone clinical tests.
In other words these factors would have been taken in to account with the recent tests on all samples.
As for the Armstrong article : hogwash.
Of all the info in my post, you attack the first line of it,how many times has Chatenay-Malabry laboratory considered Lance positive and how many times has it stuck?take some time to READ the other stuff,it's not full of glossy pictures and small words so take your time but it is very interesting cas t doubt on the testing process and numbers.karlotta said:
