LANDIS! Lying?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Baka said:

Jeff Starr said:

Bill Baka said:

I don't even like to take Aspirin, although my doctor recommended
it after my Cholesterol came in at 201. Who is he kidding? 201 is
high? Bill Baka

Well, thanks for sharing.

Life is Good! Jeff

That wasn't meant in that context. If 201 is high and he wants me to
get the total down to 150, what comes next year? 150 will be high? I
just want to know if there are any opinions on what is good.

It depends. For people without known heart disease or major risk
factors, 150-200 is generally considered desirable. For people with
known heart disease or major risk factors, the current target is below
100.

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Baka said:

Jeff Starr said:

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 06:15:23 GMT, Bill Baka
<[email hidden]> wrote:

> I don't even like to take Aspirin, although my doctor recommended
> it after my Cholesterol came in at 201. Who is he kidding? 201 is
> high? Bill Baka
Well, thanks for sharing.

Life is Good! Jeff

That wasn't meant in that context. If 201 is high and he wants me to
get the total down to 150, what comes next year? 150 will be high? I
just want to know if there are any opinions on what is good.

It depends. For people without known heart disease or major risk
factors, 150-200 is generally considered desirable. For people with
known heart disease or major risk factors, the current target is below
100.

Whoa....
Isn't below 100 considered dangerous? The body needs cholesterol for
some things, such as brain function, so I don't know how low you can go.
I had 125 when I was about 27 years old and the doctor thought that was
a tad low, but that was back around 1975, so maybe it is a moving target.
?????
Bill Baka

"Tim McNamara" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Baka said:

Jeff Starr said:

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 06:15:23 GMT, Bill Baka
<[email hidden]> wrote:

> I don't even like to take Aspirin, although my doctor recommended
> it after my Cholesterol came in at 201. Who is he kidding? 201 is
> high? Bill Baka

Well, thanks for sharing.

Life is Good! Jeff

That wasn't meant in that context. If 201 is high and he wants me to
get the total down to 150, what comes next year? 150 will be high? I
just want to know if there are any opinions on what is good.

It depends. For people without known heart disease or major risk
factors, 150-200 is generally considered desirable. For people with
known heart disease or major risk factors, the current target is below
100.

Right, I developed a 70% blockage in one artery, my doctor wanted me to
lower my Cholesterol from 185 to 120 or less and the LDL to be below 70,
medication did the job easily. I don't understand Bill's doctor
recommending Aspirin to lower Cholesterol, maybe so, but never heard of
Aspirin for that.

di said:

"Tim McNamara" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Baka said:

Jeff Starr wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 06:15:23 GMT, Bill Baka
> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>
>> I don't even like to take Aspirin, although my doctor recommended
>> it after my Cholesterol came in at 201. Who is he kidding? 201 is
>> high? Bill Baka
> Well, thanks for sharing.
>
>
> Life is Good! Jeff
That wasn't meant in that context. If 201 is high and he wants me to
get the total down to 150, what comes next year? 150 will be high? I
just want to know if there are any opinions on what is good.

It depends. For people without known heart disease or major risk
factors, 150-200 is generally considered desirable. For people with
known heart disease or major risk factors, the current target is below
100.

Right, I developed a 70% blockage in one artery, my doctor wanted me to
lower my Cholesterol from 185 to 120 or less and the LDL to be below 70,
medication did the job easily. I don't understand Bill's doctor
recommending Aspirin to lower Cholesterol, maybe so, but never heard of
Aspirin for that.

If you got a 70% blockage with only 185, the question is how did you do
it? Were you a couch potato or is it genetic?
In my case I have no family history of heart attacks but mostly strokes.
Maybe my doctor thought that lower cholesterol would mean lower blood
pressure. I asked him about the Aspirin and he said it was cheap and
couldn't hurt, so I guess he was thinking about the stroke aspect.
Not sure.
Bill Baka

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Baka said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Baka said:

> On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 06:15:23 GMT, Bill Baka
>
>> I don't even like to take Aspirin, although my doctor
>> recommended it after my Cholesterol came in at 201. Who is he
>> kidding? 201 is high? Bill Baka

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That wasn't meant in that context. If 201 is high and he wants me
to get the total down to 150, what comes next year? 150 will be
high? I just want to know if there are any opinions on what is
good.

It depends. For people without known heart disease or major risk
factors, 150-200 is generally considered desirable. For people
with known heart disease or major risk factors, the current target
is below 100.

Whoa.... Isn't below 100 considered dangerous? The body needs
cholesterol for some things, such as brain function, so I don't know
how low you can go. I had 125 when I was about 27 years old and the
doctor thought that was a tad low, but that was back around 1975, so
maybe it is a moving target.

BIll, it is a moving target. As more data has become available from
longitudinal studies, the target for cholesterol and other blood lipids
has been progressively lowered in an attempt to prevent heart disease
and its consequences. But we may have been talking apples and oranges-
I was talking LDL; were you talking total cholesterol?

There was a *lot* of media coverage when the most recent set of
recommendations were released which pushed the target LDL level down to
100.

Checking the Surgeon general's Web site:

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/cholesterol/atp_iii.htm

"In all adults aged 20 years or older, a fasting lipoprotein profile
(total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, high density lipoprotein (HDL)
cholesterol, and triglyceride) should be obtained once every 5 years.
If the testing opportunity is nonfasting, only the values for total
cholesterol and HDL cholesterol will be usable. In such a case, if
total cholesterol is „200mg/dL or HDL is <40 mg/dL, a followup
lipoprotein profile is needed for appropriate management based on LDL.
The relationship between LDL cholesterol levels and CHD risk is
continuous over a broad range of LDL levels from low to high.
Therefore, ATP III adopts the classification of LDL cholesterol levels
shown in Table 2, which also shows the classification of total and HDL
cholesterol levels.

"Table 2. ATP III Classification of LDL, Total, and HDL Cholesterol
(mg/dL)

LDL Cholesterol
<100 Optimal
100-129 Near optimal/above optimal
130-159 Borderline high
160-189 High
„190 Very high
Total Cholesterol
<200 Desirable
200-239 Borderline high
„240 High
HDL Cholesterol
<40 Low
„60 High "

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Baka said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Bill Baka <[email hidden]> wrote:

>> On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 06:15:23 GMT, Bill Baka
>>
>>> I don't even like to take Aspirin, although my doctor
>>> recommended it after my Cholesterol came in at 201. Who is he
>>> kidding? 201 is high? Bill Baka

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> That wasn't meant in that context. If 201 is high and he wants me
> to get the total down to 150, what comes next year? 150 will be
> high? I just want to know if there are any opinions on what is
> good.
It depends. For people without known heart disease or major risk
factors, 150-200 is generally considered desirable. For people
with known heart disease or major risk factors, the current target
is below 100.

Whoa.... Isn't below 100 considered dangerous? The body needs
cholesterol for some things, such as brain function, so I don't know
how low you can go. I had 125 when I was about 27 years old and the
doctor thought that was a tad low, but that was back around 1975, so
maybe it is a moving target.

BIll, it is a moving target. As more data has become available from
longitudinal studies, the target for cholesterol and other blood lipids
has been progressively lowered in an attempt to prevent heart disease
and its consequences. But we may have been talking apples and oranges-
I was talking LDL; were you talking total cholesterol?

201 total, ~45 HDL, forgot the triglycerides.

Quoted message said:

There was a *lot* of media coverage when the most recent set of
recommendations were released which pushed the target LDL level down to
100.

Checking the Surgeon general's Web site:

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/cholesterol/atp_iii.htm

"In all adults aged 20 years or older, a fasting lipoprotein profile
(total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, high density lipoprotein (HDL)
cholesterol, and triglyceride) should be obtained once every 5 years.
If the testing opportunity is nonfasting, only the values for total
cholesterol and HDL cholesterol will be usable. In such a case, if
total cholesterol is „200mg/dL or HDL is <40 mg/dL, a followup
lipoprotein profile is needed for appropriate management based on LDL.
The relationship between LDL cholesterol levels and CHD risk is
continuous over a broad range of LDL levels from low to high.
Therefore, ATP III adopts the classification of LDL cholesterol levels
shown in Table 2, which also shows the classification of total and HDL
cholesterol levels.

"Table 2. ATP III Classification of LDL, Total, and HDL Cholesterol
(mg/dL)

LDL Cholesterol
<100 Optimal
100-129 Near optimal/above optimal
130-159 Borderline high
160-189 High
„190 Very high
Total Cholesterol
<200 Desirable
200-239 Borderline high
„240 High
HDL Cholesterol
<40 Low
„60 High "

It will be interesting to follow these numbers over the next decade or
so to see where they go next. During the peak of my bicycling and lowest
weight I had a total of 175 and an HDL of about 50. Without drugs that
is about the limit for me since I can't ride more than about 2 hours per
day on average. It sounds as if the Surgeon General would have us all
taking Lipitor or something along those lines. Since exercise and diet
determine Cholesterol in addition to family background, there is only so
much a person can do.
I think it may be age related, since the older I get the harder it is to
keep the numbers down, regardless of exercise. Perhaps I should plan on
becoming a 60 year old racer in a few years. Some battles you just can't
win.
Bill Baka

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Baka said:

It will be interesting to follow these numbers over the next decade or
so to see where they go next. During the peak of my bicycling and lowest
weight I had a total of 175 and an HDL of about 50. Without drugs that
is about the limit for me since I can't ride more than about 2 hours per
day on average. It sounds as if the Surgeon General would have us all
taking Lipitor or something along those lines. Since exercise and diet
determine Cholesterol in addition to family background, there is only so
much a person can do.

When I was 31 and 250 pounds, my total cholesterol was around 145 or so
and my non-fasting blood sugar was about 160. Oops. Family history of
diabetes and heart disease, better do something! I resumed bicycling
and cut out the junk food I was eating and dropped my weight down to 195
by 1992. I started racing and raced for 9 years, winning one race (the
state time trial championship. I was the only person entered in my
category. Showing up is 100% of success). In about 1995 my *total*
cholesterol was 99 on a nearly vegetarian diet and 200+ miles a week on
my bike; my doctor suggested getting it up a smidge. Since then my
total cholesterol has crept up to 113 a couple of years ago, along with
my weight which crept back up to 220 pounds. Now I'm back down to 210
with a target of 200 pounds. And, oddly enough, I am also back to a
mostly vegetarian diet as meat has really lost its appeal to me. So
it'll be interesting to see what the numbers are next time.

One of the things we can do is to opt out of the toxic food culture that
surrounds us. The highly processed, high fat high sugar low fiber
minimal nutrient diet that most Americans eat is, I am convinced, 50% of
the problem. The other 50% is our sedentary lifestyles. Yes, genetics
plays a role too but we can't control that factor, so I didn't include
it. Heck, my total cholesterol dropped 40-50 points with diet change,
regular exercise and weight loss.

Quoted message said:

I think it may be age related, since the older I get the harder it is to
keep the numbers down, regardless of exercise. Perhaps I should plan on
becoming a 60 year old racer in a few years. Some battles you just can't
win.

Like the ones with time and gravity. ;-) But I think you are indeed
right, that cholesterol tends to increase with age.

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Baka said:

It will be interesting to follow these numbers over the next decade or
so to see where they go next. During the peak of my bicycling and lowest
weight I had a total of 175 and an HDL of about 50. Without drugs that
is about the limit for me since I can't ride more than about 2 hours per
day on average. It sounds as if the Surgeon General would have us all
taking Lipitor or something along those lines. Since exercise and diet
determine Cholesterol in addition to family background, there is only so
much a person can do.

When I was 31 and 250 pounds, my total cholesterol was around 145 or so
and my non-fasting blood sugar was about 160. Oops. Family history of
diabetes and heart disease, better do something! I resumed bicycling
and cut out the junk food I was eating and dropped my weight down to 195
by 1992. I started racing and raced for 9 years, winning one race (the
state time trial championship. I was the only person entered in my
category. Showing up is 100% of success). In about 1995 my *total*
cholesterol was 99 on a nearly vegetarian diet and 200+ miles a week on
my bike; my doctor suggested getting it up a smidge.

I think your doctor was right on that call. I don't know how low you can
go and still be healthy, but under 100 seems to be pushing it.

Since then my

Quoted message said:

total cholesterol has crept up to 113 a couple of years ago, along with
my weight which crept back up to 220 pounds. Now I'm back down to 210
with a target of 200 pounds. And, oddly enough, I am also back to a
mostly vegetarian diet as meat has really lost its appeal to me. So
it'll be interesting to see what the numbers are next time.

Almost the same for me, except for the seafood / Chinese buffets that I
go to with a friend. I try to limit myself to Broccoli and white fish
with maybe some shrimp which should be good, but I think the stir fry
Wok oil ruins the low fat nature of the food. I definitely don't do
McFood places and never go out to dinner, much to my wife's dissent. I
try to only eat things that I can cook and control but due to having
kids around a certain amount of junk food gets through the door.

Quoted message said:

One of the things we can do is to opt out of the toxic food culture that
surrounds us. The highly processed, high fat high sugar low fiber
minimal nutrient diet that most Americans eat is, I am convinced, 50% of
the problem.

There was a lot of debate going on a while back about high fructose corn
syrup being the worst offender but it is still present in almost
everything you can buy. I worked for a while in a place that made
Nestles power bars under a contract arrangement and they used that stuff
for sweetener by the tons, literally.

The other 50% is our sedentary lifestyles.

Blame Pong and all the video games that have come with more computer
power. I am in the electronics industry and all the magazines are in
agreement that it is not business driving computing power, but gamers
who want more realism in their games. Hell, if they want realism, they
can get off their butts and go outside and do something.

Yes, genetics

Quoted message said:

plays a role too but we can't control that factor, so I didn't include
it. Heck, my total cholesterol dropped 40-50 points with diet change,
regular exercise and weight loss.

That works about the same with me. I find that at a particular weight I
can lower my cholesterol about 40 points by exercising even if I don't
lose weight. Losing weight for me is good up to a point, that being
where my wife tells me I look like a POW. That point, though, is where I
feel the best physically and it sure does not hurt when I take the bike
into the mountains.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think it may be age related, since the older I get the harder it is to
keep the numbers down, regardless of exercise. Perhaps I should plan on
becoming a 60 year old racer in a few years. Some battles you just can't
win.

Like the ones with time and gravity. ;-) But I think you are indeed
right, that cholesterol tends to increase with age.

No argument there, but I think it also has to do with the amount of
spontaneity that decreases with age. When I was 25 and someone suggested
something I would jump at the chance. Now it's more like "Let me check
my schedule.". I think part of the age thing is that you are always
having to balance out what you want to do with what you have to do.
Bill Baka

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Baka said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Baka said:

It will be interesting to follow these numbers over the next
decade or so to see where they go next. During the peak of my
bicycling and lowest weight I had a total of 175 and an HDL of
about 50. Without drugs that is about the limit for me since I
can't ride more than about 2 hours per day on average. It sounds
as if the Surgeon General would have us all taking Lipitor or
something along those lines. Since exercise and diet determine
Cholesterol in addition to family background, there is only so
much a person can do.

When I was 31 and 250 pounds, my total cholesterol was around 145
or so and my non-fasting blood sugar was about 160. Oops. Family
history of diabetes and heart disease, better do something! I
resumed bicycling and cut out the junk food I was eating and
dropped my weight down to 195 by 1992. I started racing and raced
for 9 years, winning one race (the state time trial championship.
I was the only person entered in my category. Showing up is 100%
of success). In about 1995 my *total* cholesterol was 99 on a
nearly vegetarian diet and 200+ miles a week on my bike; my doctor
suggested getting it up a smidge.

I think your doctor was right on that call. I don't know how low you
can go and still be healthy, but under 100 seems to be pushing it.

I think it is. For one thing, our bodies use cholesterol to build
cells. Some neurotransmitters like serotonin are made in part from
cholesterol. So yup, there's a minimum level necessary. Now, as a risk
factor for me, my HDL tends to be a bit below what's considered
desirable (34-38). Well, two or three years ago, anyway.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Since then my total cholesterol has crept up to 113 a couple of
years ago, along with my weight which crept back up to 220 pounds.
Now I'm back down to 210 with a target of 200 pounds. And, oddly
enough, I am also back to a mostly vegetarian diet as meat has
really lost its appeal to me. So it'll be interesting to see what
the numbers are next time.

Almost the same for me, except for the seafood / Chinese buffets that
I go to with a friend. I try to limit myself to Broccoli and white
fish with maybe some shrimp which should be good, but I think the
stir fry Wok oil ruins the low fat nature of the food. I definitely
don't do McFood places and never go out to dinner, much to my wife's
dissent. I try to only eat things that I can cook and control but due
to having kids around a certain amount of junk food gets through the
door.

Well, oils are generally less bad for you than fats that are solid at
room temperature- saturated fats and hydrogenated fats or "trans fats."
The latter may be the worst of all- ironically, margarine tends to be
high in trans fats and may be less healthy for you than butter. And of
course most packaged/processed foods use hydrogenated fats because they
are shelf stable and don't readily go rancid.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

One of the things we can do is to opt out of the toxic food culture
that surrounds us. The highly processed, high fat high sugar low
fiber minimal nutrient diet that most Americans eat is, I am
convinced, 50% of the problem.

There was a lot of debate going on a while back about high fructose
corn syrup being the worst offender but it is still present in almost
everything you can buy. I worked for a while in a place that made
Nestles power bars under a contract arrangement and they used that
stuff for sweetener by the tons, literally.

Quoted message said:

The other 50% is our sedentary lifestyles.

Blame Pong and all the video games that have come with more computer
power. I am in the electronics industry and all the magazines are in
agreement that it is not business driving computing power, but gamers
who want more realism in their games. Hell, if they want realism,
they can get off their butts and go outside and do something.

Absolutely! But also work life tends to be more sedentary, and getting
around is too- we sit in cars rather than use our legs. So we have
weird abominations like "health clubs" rather than just doing stuff to
have fun like sports and games and dancing. Heck, some of the best
"workouts" I've ever gotten were at Dead concerts. Three hours of
dancing like a madman (my wife is highly embarrassed to see me dance, by
the way. Probably rightly so).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, genetics plays a role too but we can't control that factor, so
I didn't include it. Heck, my total cholesterol dropped 40-50
points with diet change, regular exercise and weight loss.

That works about the same with me. I find that at a particular weight
I can lower my cholesterol about 40 points by exercising even if I
don't lose weight. Losing weight for me is good up to a point, that
being where my wife tells me I look like a POW. That point, though,
is where I feel the best physically and it sure does not hurt when I
take the bike into the mountains.

People can be skinny and have high cholesterol. I know a skinny vegan
who has high cholesterol. I know more overweight people that eat steaks
and twice baked potatoes with extra sour cream and who have high
cholesterol, though.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think it may be age related, since the older I get the harder it
is to keep the numbers down, regardless of exercise. Perhaps I
should plan on becoming a 60 year old racer in a few years. Some
battles you just can't win.

Like the ones with time and gravity. ;-) But I think you are
indeed right, that cholesterol tends to increase with age.

No argument there, but I think it also has to do with the amount of
spontaneity that decreases with age. When I was 25 and someone
suggested something I would jump at the chance. Now it's more like
"Let me check my schedule.". I think part of the age thing is that
you are always having to balance out what you want to do with what
you have to do.

The joys of "responsibility..." :-(

Jasper-but this is true of 94.3 percent of all tour riders. then
there's the runner who runs out of deathvalley to the top of uhuhuh.
reading rodale's Road rider book? of the rider who mastered training
for the continental race? the wild concept here is take a look at the
slobs in walmart! but are you gonna run out of death valley to uhuhuh?
keep this in mind at all times
NEVER BUY A HORSE FROM A MENNONITE

Cyclists are the dirtiest of the dirty
Aug. 6, 2006. 01:00 AM
GARTH WOOLSEY
SPORTS COLUMNIST

Mamas, don't let your sons grow up to be cyclists.

They cheat (well, some of them). And they lie.

Floyd Landis was upset that his mother, Arlene, got dragged into his
Tour de France doping scandal. She's a Mennonite, light years removed
from the heat of the chase and the chill of the laboratory that
yesterday made it official — her son's name will live on in infamy.

Test positive? Then there's only three things to do — deny, deny and
deny.

Test confirmed? Then jack up the defence and lie, lie, lie.

Which is the greater sin? To try to get a competitive edge by using a
banned substance? Or when caught, to lie about it?

It took no time at all for his team to dump Landis following
yesterday's confirmation that wherever that extra testosterone in his
system came from it wasn't from his own, in-house glands.

The Phonak folks said he'd violated their team's code of ethics
(unwritten Rule No. 1: "Whatever the hell you do, don't get caught."😉
The Tour de France unofficially rescinded his title faster than you
can say "abnormally high testosterone to epitestosterone ratio."

Of all athletes, pro cyclists are the most likely to be tested because
it has been established that of all athletes pro cyclists are the
dirtiest of dirty, devious in the extreme. They'd lie to their own
mothers. It's been proven.

Cycling has left a trail of syringe-filled garbage bags, even some
corpses, across the landscape.

Landis and his supporters have claimed he produced the high juice
count naturally. The scientists and most experts say "hooey."

Maybe Landis really believes in his own innocence. Maybe he's not
lying. Maybe.

But you pee in a bottle and face the consequences. He peed, he pays.

Sabotage is always a handy defence. Although, by its very nature, it
is difficult to prove (if it happened at all). Sprinter Justin
Gatlin's coach continues to claim that a massage therapist with a
grudge somehow rubbed a testosterone-laced cream into his athlete's
legs just before a doping test. That's his story and he's sticking to
it. (Deny, remember? Deny, deny.)

It's almost — not quite, though — refreshing to hear one of this
conspiratorial crew come clean, as did the Norwegian sprinter Aham
Okeke when he was caught using for the third time; he may be banned
for life. He's 36, so the end was nigh anyway. Now that he's been
caught, he admits he went to a doctor for testosterone after he
injured his thigh in June. "It was a desperate attempt," Okeke says.
"I thought I would miss the European Championships after being
injured. I can only blame myself. I'm sorry for all my teammates, my
family and my friends."

But especially sorry for himself, no doubt.

In the U.S., the Landis debacle will be seen in some quarters as more
of the Euro-centric crusade to discredit American cyclists. Couldn't
get Lance Armstrong, so got his protégé, etc. But the problems,
clearly, run deep and cross all borders. Cyclists have for decades
been at the cutting edge of cheating and ridding their culture of the
anything-goes attitude won't be easy.

The cycling authorities sound a lot like their counterparts in
baseball. For years, they've reaped the dividends that come with
phenomenal performances, treating rumours of wrong-doing with a wink
here and a nod there and denials all-around.

We live in a drug-saturated society, from every-day painkillers to
concoctions that perform miracles. All these years later Ben Johnson
is a Cheetah.

In war and commerce just about anything goes. In sports, though, there
remains this central, Ned Flander-esque idea that competition should
be about fairness and level playing fields, rulebooks that matter.

Call the notion naïve if you like, old-fashioned, but its worth
hanging on to.

The survey says ... Floyd is a fink. No word of a lie.

There are much sadder cycling tales
- Gwen Knapp
Sunday, August 6, 2006

Saturday was a sad day for cycling. It might even rank in the top 25.

That all depends on how many Dutch and Belgian cyclists died young
about 15 years ago because their hearts stopped in the middle of the
night. Nobody knows the exact figure, since the media can't track all
of the wannabes whose drug experimentation fatally thickened their
blood before they became recognizable names.

Floyd Landis' name, barely recognizable a month ago, will now be known
and tainted forever. Barring a legal performance that scales mountains
bigger than any rider has ever conquered, he will become the first
Tour de France champion stripped of his title. The great tragedy of
Landis' positive drug test, which a second sample confirmed Saturday,
is that it doesn't qualify as the greatest doping tragedy tied to a
man who wore the yellow jersey.

Marco Pantani, who won the race in 1998, died in a hotel in the
Italian coastal town of Rimini in 2004. He had overdosed on cocaine in
a room that contained a large stash of drugs and crazed notes that
suggested suicide.

Pantani, a wildly colorful figure who once wore a blond wig during a
race, had been implicated in doping more than once after his 1998 Tour
win. He was under investigation for much of the last four years of his
life, and organizers booted him from the 1999 Giro d'Italia because of
a failed blood test. The notes in his hotel room reportedly railed
against the officials who had investigated him.

It's not clear whether doping accusations or doping itself fueled the
breakdown that led to Pantani's death. But performance-enhancing
drugs, especially stimulants and hormones, can work like lighter fluid
on an unstable or addictive personality.

Pantani's death wasn't exactly an aberration among Tour riders. Since
the event started in 1903, war stoppages and repeat winners have
limited the list of champions to 54 names. Four have taken their own
lives.

Consider this disturbing passage from the book "Lance Armstrong's
War'' by Daniel Coyle.

Pantani's name would be listed alongside other Tour de France
champions who had killed themselves. ... Poor Rene Pottier, who won in
1906 and hanged himself from his bike hook in his garage a year later.
The handsome Luis Ocana, who won in 1973 and shot himself in 1994.
Elegant Hugo Koblet, who won in 1951 and intentionally drove his car
into a pear tree in 1961. Not to mention sad-eyed Thierry Claveyrolt,
who won the king-of-the-mountains competition in 1990 (but not the
Tour itself) and shot himself in 1999.

There are all sorts of background stories here. A marriage gone bad. A
financial crash. But why is it that many other people survive such
things, and some of the toughest men on the planet can't recover
emotionally? No doubt, the sport attracts the eccentric and
obsessive-compulsive. Who else would ride the 2,100 miles in 20 days
for the Tour de France?

Landis, who rode on a decaying hip, fits the profile perfectly. In
addition to debating whether his off-the-chart testosterone levels say
about the validity of his win, we might want to consider what the
excess hormone could do to him physically and psychologically.
Testosterone is powerful stuff, an upper when it's abundant, and a big
downer when it disappears. Using it synthetically can cause the body
to stop producing the natural kind.

To help him cope with the devastating news of his failed drug test,
Landis has hired prominent lawyers, who have aggressively started
spin-doctoring on his behalf. He could probably use a plain old
physician even more.

Landis' win was seen as a movement toward a cleaner sport. Anti-doping
reforms had already swept seven fishy contenders out of the Tour. A
new blood-doping test had knocked Olympic champion Tyler Hamilton, an
endearing personality, out of the game. Fans wanted someone they could
believe in. That's why Saturday and the test results were so hard to
take.

But Dec. 6, 2003, was much worse. Jose Maria Jimenez, a 32-year-old
former Spanish cyclist, died of a heart attack that day, just like
more than a dozen Dutch and Belgian cyclists in the late '80s and
early '90s. He was in a psychiatric hospital at the time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

wilhelm said:

That all depends on how many Dutch and Belgian cyclists died young
about 15 years ago because their hearts stopped in the middle of the
night. Nobody knows the exact figure, since the media can't track all
of the wannabes whose drug experimentation fatally thickened their
blood before they became recognizable names.

All those Dutch cyclists? Who then?

Ever heard of Brugada's syndrome btw?

Derk

Garth Woolsey of the Toronto Star wrote (followed by wilhelm violating
international copyright laws):

"Of all athletes, pro cyclists are the most likely to be tested because
it has been established that of all athletes pro cyclists are the
dirtiest of dirty, devious in the extreme. They'd lie to their own
mothers. It's been proven."

Sure looks like Floyd Landis cheated, doesn't it? And Marco Pantani,
Richard Virenque, Alex Zulle, Jan Ullrich just to name a few. I could
name more just on circumstantial evidence, not to mention those actually
caught by drug screening.

Yup, lots of pro cyclists are caught cheating. But in large measure
that is due to the fact that pro cycling is one of the sports that looks
the hardest for cheaters. Baseball, American football, soccer, tennis,
golf, auto racing, etc. mostly look the other way when it comes to the
question of doping. Even in small colleges, football players are doped
by the team doctors to make they bigger, stronger, faster and then to
take away the pain after the brutality is over on Sunday evening. It
literally took threat of Congressional action to get some American
sports governing bodies to even start looking at the doping problem.
Sports are a cash cow for the athletes, the owners and television
companies. They don't want to look the gift horse in the mouth, so they
collude to hide the problem.

Are pro cyclists dirtier than other professional athletes? We won't
know until they are all subject to equal scrutiny. When that happens,
we'll find that most if not all professional athletes cheat and lie
about it. Let's not forget East Germany's Olympic teams- professionals
in all but name, like most Olympic athletes- and Canada's own Ben
Johnson, after all.

Some antidotal evidence that cycling mirrors America

Three of the top club teams in this state are sponsored by law firms
who field fast masters racers. A few of these riders are lawyers by
profession. I heard one these masters racers the other day talking
about "getting off the juice". All rumors aside about who is juicing
and not, I find the lawyer/cyclist comparison interesting. My opinion
is the following:

Lawyers are: highly competitive, image conscious, elitist, willing to
break rules behind the scenes to win, will deny wrong doing to save
their careers.

Cyclists are: (see lawyers!)

--
rpm120

wilhelm said:

There are much sadder cycling tales
- Gwen Knapp
Sunday, August 6, 2006

Saturday was a sad day for cycling. It might even rank in the top 25.

That all depends on how many Dutch and Belgian cyclists died young
about 15 years ago because their hearts stopped in the middle of the
night. Nobody knows the exact figure, since the media can't track all
of the wannabes whose drug experimentation fatally thickened their
blood before they became recognizable names.

Floyd Landis' name, barely recognizable a month ago, will now be known
and tainted forever. Barring a legal performance that scales mountains
bigger than any rider has ever conquered, he will become the first
Tour de France champion stripped of his title. The great tragedy of
Landis' positive drug test, which a second sample confirmed Saturday,
is that it doesn't qualify as the greatest doping tragedy tied to a
man who wore the yellow jersey.

Marco Pantani, who won the race in 1998, died in a hotel in the
Italian coastal town of Rimini in 2004. He had overdosed on cocaine in
a room that contained a large stash of drugs and crazed notes that
suggested suicide.

Pantani, a wildly colorful figure who once wore a blond wig during a
race, had been implicated in doping more than once after his 1998 Tour
win. He was under investigation for much of the last four years of his
life, and organizers booted him from the 1999 Giro d'Italia because of
a failed blood test. The notes in his hotel room reportedly railed
against the officials who had investigated him.

It's not clear whether doping accusations or doping itself fueled the
breakdown that led to Pantani's death. But performance-enhancing
drugs, especially stimulants and hormones, can work like lighter fluid
on an unstable or addictive personality.

Pantani's death wasn't exactly an aberration among Tour riders. Since
the event started in 1903, war stoppages and repeat winners have
limited the list of champions to 54 names. Four have taken their own
lives.

Consider this disturbing passage from the book "Lance Armstrong's
War'' by Daniel Coyle.

Pantani's name would be listed alongside other Tour de France
champions who had killed themselves. ... Poor Rene Pottier, who won in
1906 and hanged himself from his bike hook in his garage a year later.
The handsome Luis Ocana, who won in 1973 and shot himself in 1994.
Elegant Hugo Koblet, who won in 1951 and intentionally drove his car
into a pear tree in 1961. Not to mention sad-eyed Thierry Claveyrolt,
who won the king-of-the-mountains competition in 1990 (but not the
Tour itself) and shot himself in 1999.

There are all sorts of background stories here. A marriage gone bad. A
financial crash. But why is it that many other people survive such
things, and some of the toughest men on the planet can't recover
emotionally? No doubt, the sport attracts the eccentric and
obsessive-compulsive. Who else would ride the 2,100 miles in 20 days
for the Tour de France?

Landis, who rode on a decaying hip, fits the profile perfectly. In
addition to debating whether his off-the-chart testosterone levels say
about the validity of his win, we might want to consider what the
excess hormone could do to him physically and psychologically.
Testosterone is powerful stuff, an upper when it's abundant, and a big
downer when it disappears. Using it synthetically can cause the body
to stop producing the natural kind.

To help him cope with the devastating news of his failed drug test,
Landis has hired prominent lawyers, who have aggressively started
spin-doctoring on his behalf. He could probably use a plain old
physician even more.

Landis' win was seen as a movement toward a cleaner sport. Anti-doping
reforms had already swept seven fishy contenders out of the Tour. A
new blood-doping test had knocked Olympic champion Tyler Hamilton, an
endearing personality, out of the game. Fans wanted someone they could
believe in. That's why Saturday and the test results were so hard to
take.

But Dec. 6, 2003, was much worse. Jose Maria Jimenez, a 32-year-old
former Spanish cyclist, died of a heart attack that day, just like
more than a dozen Dutch and Belgian cyclists in the late '80s and
early '90s. He was in a psychiatric hospital at the time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Tim McNamara" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Let's not forget East Germany's Olympic teams- professionals
in all but name, like most Olympic athletes- and Canada's own Ben
Johnson, after all.

Let's not be too judgemental about Ben Johnson. You can't possibly believe
that he was the only one using steroids.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Tim McNamara" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Let's not forget East Germany's Olympic teams- professionals in all
but name, like most Olympic athletes- and Canada's own Ben Johnson,
after all.

Let's not be too judgemental about Ben Johnson. You can't possibly
believe that he was the only one using steroids.

'Course not. But he's Canadian, just like the holier-than-thou Woolsey.
Hence referencing him specifically.

Tim McNamara said:

Yup, lots of pro cyclists are caught cheating. But in large measure
that is due to the fact that pro cycling is one of the sports that looks
the hardest for cheaters.

Good point.

First off, if you do some reading you'll find that the evidence is anything
but overwhelming. The fact that his A and B samples tested the same simply
means that the A sample wasn't independently tampered with and the tests
were excuted in a consistent manner, though that does not mean that the test
couldn't be flawed. This is the result one would expect of such tests. If
there had been a difference between the A and B samples, THAT would have
been unexpected.

Contrary to many reports from lazy news sources, Landis did NOT have a high
level of testosterone in his urine. What he had was a high
testosterone-epitestosterone ratio (a.k.a. T-E ratio). "Normal" ratios are
in the 1:1 - 3:1 range, though studies have found significant numbers of men
with natural T-E ratios in the 6:1 range and some as high as 13:1. The WADA
standard for doping is set at 6:1. The UCI used that limit up until this
year, when it dropped its acceptable ratio to 4:1 (I have no idea why).
Although Landis has been reported to have tested with a ratio of 11:1, there
has been no official confirmation of that yet AFAIK.

Testosterone doping is primarily used to build muscle and works over a long
period of time to do so. However, since cycling is not a sport that benefits
from large, bulky muscles, that type of testosterone use would be
counterproductive for a road cyclist (it might benefit a track sprinter).

There is another use for testoterone; it can be used to enhance short-term
recovery. A testosterone patch is place on the scrotum for up to 6 hours and
it will reduce recovery time, supposedly without boosting levels to the
point of exceeding the legal T/E ratio. As yet, there is no evidence that
Landis did this or even knew about the technique.

Urine tests are woefully innacurate, since they don't measure the level of
testosterone in the blood, they only measure how much was excreted by the
body. The UCI knows of the innacuracy, but insists on using urine tests
anyway, probably because they're cheaper than blood tests. To date, every
athlete that has challenged testosterone urine tests has won their case.
There are reports that there was synthetic testosterone in Landis' urine,
which would certainly be problematic for him. OTOH, his levels were legal
after the stages before and after the stage in question (17), which raises
serious questions about the testing. It seems unlikely that an athlete's T-E
ratio could go from legal levels to 11:1 and back to legal levels in 48
hours.

The lab used by the TDF has serious problems of its own. It has been
compromised by the French press (L'Equipe specifically) and information is
constantly leaked by an internal source. It was reviewed independently after
the most recent recent Lance Armstrong debacle and the report lambasted the
lab for inadequate/improper safeguards and procedures, essentially
discrediting it in the L.A. case. Why the TDF still uses the same lab is
anybody's guess, since one would think they'd want to use a lab that doesn't
have a history of problems.

Right now, there are far more questions than answers in this case.
Specifically:

- What is Floyd's natural T/E ratio?

- What was the actual T-E ratio in the tests?

- How much of a difference was there with the results after the previous and
subsequent stages. It makes a big difference if Floyd was 3.9:1 before and
after (just under the legal limit) and 4.1:1 in the tests (just over the
legal limit) vs. being 1:1 before/after and 11:1 in the tests.

- How much could his (legal) medication and self-medication (drinking after
stage 16) have influenced the test results?

- Were the A and B test results consistent (they were both high, but we
don't know if they were the same).

....and for the conspiracy theorists...

- Why does the UCI/TDF rely on urine tests when they KNOW they're
innacurate.

- Why did the UCI drop it's T-E ratio standard to 4:1 THIS year?

- Is it possible that the urine sample container given to Landis was
"spiked" with testosterone and is there any way to determine if that was the
case?

- Exactly how desperate are the French to have someone other than an
American win their beloved race?

It will be interesting to see how this plays out when the actual test data
is revealed and tests are conducted by another lab (assuming they are).
Landis has already been convicted in the press, by his team and by the
organizers of the TDF, but this case is far from over.

--
you're never too old to have a happy childhood
"wilhelm" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Cyclists are the dirtiest of the dirty
Aug. 6, 2006. 01:00 AM
GARTH WOOLSEY
SPORTS COLUMNIST

Mamas, don't let your sons grow up to be cyclists.

They cheat (well, some of them). And they lie.

Floyd Landis was upset that his mother, Arlene, got dragged into his
Tour de France doping scandal. She's a Mennonite, light years removed
from the heat of the chase and the chill of the laboratory that
yesterday made it official - her son's name will live on in infamy.

Test positive? Then there's only three things to do - deny, deny and
deny.

Test confirmed? Then jack up the defence and lie, lie, lie.

Which is the greater sin? To try to get a competitive edge by using a
banned substance? Or when caught, to lie about it?

It took no time at all for his team to dump Landis following
yesterday's confirmation that wherever that extra testosterone in his
system came from it wasn't from his own, in-house glands.

The Phonak folks said he'd violated their team's code of ethics
(unwritten Rule No. 1: "Whatever the hell you do, don't get caught."😉
The Tour de France unofficially rescinded his title faster than you
can say "abnormally high testosterone to epitestosterone ratio."

Of all athletes, pro cyclists are the most likely to be tested because
it has been established that of all athletes pro cyclists are the
dirtiest of dirty, devious in the extreme. They'd lie to their own
mothers. It's been proven.

Cycling has left a trail of syringe-filled garbage bags, even some
corpses, across the landscape.

Landis and his supporters have claimed he produced the high juice
count naturally. The scientists and most experts say "hooey."

Maybe Landis really believes in his own innocence. Maybe he's not
lying. Maybe.

But you pee in a bottle and face the consequences. He peed, he pays.

Sabotage is always a handy defence. Although, by its very nature, it
is difficult to prove (if it happened at all). Sprinter Justin
Gatlin's coach continues to claim that a massage therapist with a
grudge somehow rubbed a testosterone-laced cream into his athlete's
legs just before a doping test. That's his story and he's sticking to
it. (Deny, remember? Deny, deny.)

It's almost - not quite, though - refreshing to hear one of this
conspiratorial crew come clean, as did the Norwegian sprinter Aham
Okeke when he was caught using for the third time; he may be banned
for life. He's 36, so the end was nigh anyway. Now that he's been
caught, he admits he went to a doctor for testosterone after he
injured his thigh in June. "It was a desperate attempt," Okeke says.
"I thought I would miss the European Championships after being
injured. I can only blame myself. I'm sorry for all my teammates, my
family and my friends."

But especially sorry for himself, no doubt.

In the U.S., the Landis debacle will be seen in some quarters as more
of the Euro-centric crusade to discredit American cyclists. Couldn't
get Lance Armstrong, so got his protégé, etc. But the problems,
clearly, run deep and cross all borders. Cyclists have for decades
been at the cutting edge of cheating and ridding their culture of the
anything-goes attitude won't be easy.

The cycling authorities sound a lot like their counterparts in
baseball. For years, they've reaped the dividends that come with
phenomenal performances, treating rumours of wrong-doing with a wink
here and a nod there and denials all-around.

We live in a drug-saturated society, from every-day painkillers to
concoctions that perform miracles. All these years later Ben Johnson
is a Cheetah.

In war and commerce just about anything goes. In sports, though, there
remains this central, Ned Flander-esque idea that competition should
be about fairness and level playing fields, rulebooks that matter.

Call the notion naïve if you like, old-fashioned, but its worth
hanging on to.

The survey says ... Floyd is a fink. No word of a lie.

If Landis had been using synthetic testosterone, why did the
several earlier tests he took during this Tour de France turn out
negative? He also tested clean at other races this year. If taking
extra testosterone gives a benefit to long-distance bicycle racers, it
would occur after regular, longterm usage. Can anyone suggest why he or
others interested in his performance and welfare, would have put it into
his system with just two days of serious racing ahead?

Is it difficult to imagine that rivals might have wanted to
sabotage him and found a way to slip it to him? How trustworthy is the
drug lab and the chain of possession of his urine sample for the
positive test? This same lab was at the heart of the controversy last
year, regarding accusations against Lance Armstrong. And how valid is
the testosterone/epitestosterone ratio test? The distance runner Mary
Decker Slaney has been under what is essentially a lifetime ban from
competition, for testing at a higher than standard ratio of these two
testosterone factors. Her advocates have presented convincing arguments
than many people have natural fluctuations in this ratio, that go beyond
the allowable level, but they have been ignored by those who rule the
international governing organization for track and field. The obvious
fact that many athletes use synthetic hormones, needs to be considered
with balanced judgement, lest anti-doping campaigns become nothing but
witch-hunts and tools to destroy targeted individuals.

There has recently been news of an "innocence committee", that has
been doing work to exonerate people wrongly convicted of serious crimes.
I think we need an equivalent of this group to deeply examine sports
doping cases like the one in question here.

Steve McDonald