Landis's ratio was 11

Dumbass said:

But it was due to a low epitestosterone not high testosterone. This is
what velonews.com's editor said on NPR.

Low epitestosterone is one of the conditions that can result in a high
ratio in the absense of doping.

Low epi happens because the body produces less epi when there is lots
of testosterone in the body. It's the trigger hormone that starts the
production of testosterone. Which the body doesn't produce when it has
lots, as when one dopes with testosterone. That's why they do the test
as a ratio.

www.thecemeteryproject.com/Graves/barnum-pt.htm

mtb Dad said:

Dumbass said:

But it was due to a low epitestosterone not high testosterone. This is
what velonews.com's editor said on NPR.

Low epitestosterone is one of the conditions that can result in a high
ratio in the absense of doping.

Low epi happens because the body produces less epi when there is lots
of testosterone in the body. It's the trigger hormone that starts the
production of testosterone. Which the body doesn't produce when it has
lots, as when one dopes with testosterone. That's why they do the test
as a ratio.

No, there is no truth to anything you said.

Epitestosterone and testosterone production is unrelated in any way.

Quoted message said:

From the Australian Sports Anti Doping Authority:

"Testosterone is a naturally occurring hormone responsible for the
development of male reproductive organs and secondary sexual
characteristics.

Epitestosterone is a chemically similar natural steroid that is
produced independently of testosterone.

The normal testosterone (T) to epitestosterone (E) ratio in urine
varies from individual to individual and on average is one to one.

This ratio does not vary significantly within an individual unless a
testosterone or related preparation is taken or some pathological
condition exists. In such cases, the testosterone level can increase.
The epitestosterone level will remain unaffected because it is made
through a different bio-synthetic pathway. "

The ratio is tested because, under normal circumstances, the ratio
stays pretty much normal regardless of circumstances affecting the
athlete. But, if you take testosterone, the level of testosterone goes
up while the epitestosterone stays the same, thus the change in the
ratio. The high ratio is what tips them off to the presence of
unnatural testosterone levels.

Quoted message said:

From what I understand in Landis' case, his base testosterone levels

are within normal levels and his epitestosterone level was abnormally
low, which in turn skewed the ratio.

There is absolutely no mechanism by which an athlete could artificially
lower his epitestosterone in order to gain a performance advantage.

Fred

Quoted message said:

The ratio is tested because, under normal circumstances, the ratio
stays pretty much normal regardless of circumstances affecting the
athlete. But, if you take testosterone, the level of testosterone goes
up while the epitestosterone stays the same, thus the change in the
ratio. The high ratio is what tips them off to the presence of
unnatural testosterone levels.

Quoted message said:

From what I understand in Landis' case, his base testosterone levels

are within normal levels and his epitestosterone level was abnormally
low, which in turn skewed the ratio.

There is absolutely no mechanism by which an athlete could artificially
lower his epitestosterone in order to gain a performance advantage.

Fred

Other than forgetting to inject epitestosterone to make the intake of
testosterone...

Keith said:

Quoted message said:

The ratio is tested because, under normal circumstances, the ratio
stays pretty much normal regardless of circumstances affecting the
athlete. But, if you take testosterone, the level of testosterone goes
up while the epitestosterone stays the same, thus the change in the
ratio. The high ratio is what tips them off to the presence of
unnatural testosterone levels.

Quoted message said:

From what I understand in Landis' case, his base testosterone levels

are within normal levels and his epitestosterone level was abnormally
low, which in turn skewed the ratio.

There is absolutely no mechanism by which an athlete could artificially
lower his epitestosterone in order to gain a performance advantage.

Fred

Other than forgetting to inject epitestosterone to make the intake of
testosterone...

That MIGHT make sense, IF the athlete had a high testosterone level and
a normal epitestosterone level. But, you're talking about the ratio.
I was referring to the epitestosterone level, alone.

Sure, you can lower the RELATIVE level by raising the level of
testosterone, but you CAN'T artificially lower the level of
epitestosterone.

Fred

Quoted message said:

Keith said:

Quoted message said:

The ratio is tested because, under normal circumstances, the ratio
stays pretty much normal regardless of circumstances affecting the
athlete. But, if you take testosterone, the level of testosterone goes
up while the epitestosterone stays the same, thus the change in the
ratio. The high ratio is what tips them off to the presence of
unnatural testosterone levels.

>From what I understand in Landis' case, his base testosterone levels
are within normal levels and his epitestosterone level was abnormally
low, which in turn skewed the ratio.

There is absolutely no mechanism by which an athlete could artificially
lower his epitestosterone in order to gain a performance advantage.

Fred

Other than forgetting to inject epitestosterone to make the intake of
testosterone...

That MIGHT make sense, IF the athlete had a high testosterone level and
a normal epitestosterone level. But, you're talking about the ratio.
I was referring to the epitestosterone level, alone.

Sure, you can lower the RELATIVE level by raising the level of
testosterone, but you CAN'T artificially lower the level of
epitestosterone.

Well you could go ride 100+ miles a day in the heat, surely that
wouldn't cause a collapse of hormonal levels.....

--
Scott Johnson / johnson dot sa at comcast dot net

Dumbass said:

But it was due to a low epitestosterone not high testosterone. This is
what velonews.com's editor said on NPR.

Low epitestosterone is one of the conditions that can result in a high
ratio in the absense of doping.

Dude, even if you say it 50 more times, it won't make it true.

Stu Fleming said:

Dumbass said:

But it was due to a low epitestosterone not high testosterone. This is
what velonews.com's editor said on NPR.

correction, that was velanews.com

You can hear the inteview here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5587194

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Low epitestosterone is one of the conditions that can result in a high
ratio in the absense of doping.

Dude, even if you say it 50 more times, it won't make it true.

Dude, goog "low epitestosterone" and you will find numerous
anti-doping rulebooks for sports from badmiton to bodybuilding that
say:

"* The presence of a testosterone (T) to epitestosterone (E) ratio
greater than six (6) to one (1) in the urine of a competitor
constitutes an offence unless there is evidence that this ratio is due
to a physiological or pathological condition, e.g. low epitestosterone
excretion, adrogen producing tumour, enzyme deficiencies."

In article said:

Dumbass said:

But it was due to a low epitestosterone not high testosterone. This is
what velonews.com's editor said on NPR.

Low epitestosterone is one of the conditions that can result in a high
ratio in the absense of doping.

Dude, even if you say it 50 more times, it won't make it true.

What if he types it slower and louder?

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard Kveck said:

Stu Fleming said:

Dumbass said:

But it was due to a low epitestosterone not high testosterone. This is
what velonews.com's editor said on NPR.

Low epitestosterone is one of the conditions that can result in a high
ratio in the absense of doping.

Dude, even if you say it 50 more times, it won't make it true.

What if he types it slower and louder?

This one goes to 11.

Nobody quite knows yet. There are all kinds of circumstances.
Some better, and some worse.
Here's an old, old one:
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/504f738311b9ea49/9c2fe5596b2da7bd?#9c2fe5596b2da7bd>

Dumbass said:

Dude, goog "low epitestosterone" and you will find numerous
anti-doping rulebooks for sports from badmiton to bodybuilding that
say:

"* The presence of a testosterone (T) to epitestosterone (E) ratio
greater than six (6) to one (1) in the urine of a competitor
constitutes an offence unless there is evidence that this ratio is due
to a physiological or pathological condition, e.g. low epitestosterone
excretion, adrogen producing tumour, enzyme deficiencies."

None of which can arise overnight.

Stu Fleming said:

Dumbass said:

Dude, goog "low epitestosterone" and you will find numerous
anti-doping rulebooks for sports from badmiton to bodybuilding that
say:

"* The presence of a testosterone (T) to epitestosterone (E) ratio
greater than six (6) to one (1) in the urine of a competitor
constitutes an offence unless there is evidence that this ratio is due
to a physiological or pathological condition, e.g. low epitestosterone
excretion, adrogen producing tumour, enzyme deficiencies."

None of which can arise overnight.

Why is that important, if and the velanew.com editor claims his
testosterone levels were not high?

Stu Fleming said:

Dumbass said:

Dude, goog "low epitestosterone" and you will find numerous
anti-doping rulebooks for sports from badmiton to bodybuilding that
say:

"* The presence of a testosterone (T) to epitestosterone (E) ratio
greater than six (6) to one (1) in the urine of a competitor
constitutes an offence unless there is evidence that this ratio is due
to a physiological or pathological condition, e.g. low epitestosterone
excretion, adrogen producing tumour, enzyme deficiencies."

None of which can arise overnight.

Here, argue with the experts:

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/sports/15140372.htm

Stu Fleming said:

Dumbass said:

Dude, goog "low epitestosterone" and you will find numerous
anti-doping rulebooks for sports from badmiton to bodybuilding that
say:

"* The presence of a testosterone (T) to epitestosterone (E) ratio
greater than six (6) to one (1) in the urine of a competitor
constitutes an offence unless there is evidence that this ratio is due
to a physiological or pathological condition, e.g. low epitestosterone
excretion, adrogen producing tumour, enzyme deficiencies."

None of which can arise overnight.

I think the assertion would be that it happened over two nights-
between his previous day in yellow and his stage victory.

Assuming that his ratio was within limits 2 days earlier, and, that the
claim that his low epitestosterone level was the cause of the test
result is true, then:

Yes, it can happen over two nights.

I don't know whether Landis dopes or not, but I can't conceive of any
reason why he would take a useless drug (at that point) and then go out
and win a stage that would ensure that he would be caught doing it.

OTOH, if this was all explainable purely by a low E value, why isn't he
already cleared and back racing again? If the T level was essentially
constant and normal and only his E level varied, it would be a cruel
bureaucratic trick to strip his tdf title.

Quoted message said:

Stu Fleming said:

Dumbass said:

Dude, goog "low epitestosterone" and you will find numerous
anti-doping rulebooks for sports from badmiton to bodybuilding that
say:

"* The presence of a testosterone (T) to epitestosterone (E) ratio
greater than six (6) to one (1) in the urine of a competitor
constitutes an offence unless there is evidence that this ratio is due
to a physiological or pathological condition, e.g. low epitestosterone
excretion, adrogen producing tumour, enzyme deficiencies."

None of which can arise overnight.

I think the assertion would be that it happened over two nights-
between his previous day in yellow and his stage victory.

Assuming that his ratio was within limits 2 days earlier, and, that the
claim that his low epitestosterone level was the cause of the test
result is true, then:

Yes, it can happen over two nights.

I don't know whether Landis dopes or not, but I can't conceive of any
reason why he would take a useless drug (at that point) and then go out
and win a stage that would ensure that he would be caught doing it.

OTOH, if this was all explainable purely by a low E value, why isn't he
already cleared and back racing again? If the T level was essentially
constant and normal and only his E level varied, it would be a cruel
bureaucratic trick to strip his tdf title.

The process seems to be bureaucratic. Landis will have a chance to
challenge any ruling in a court of arbitration. He would not be the
first to get a high T/E ruled in his favor in arbitration. So,
ultimately, he will not be stripped of the title till he loses or
waived arbritration.

Quoted message said:

Stu Fleming said:

Dumbass said:

Dude, goog "low epitestosterone" and you will find numerous
anti-doping rulebooks for sports from badmiton to bodybuilding that
say:

"* The presence of a testosterone (T) to epitestosterone (E) ratio
greater than six (6) to one (1) in the urine of a competitor
constitutes an offence unless there is evidence that this ratio is due
to a physiological or pathological condition, e.g. low epitestosterone
excretion, adrogen producing tumour, enzyme deficiencies."

None of which can arise overnight.

I think the assertion would be that it happened over two nights-
between his previous day in yellow and his stage victory.

Assuming that his ratio was within limits 2 days earlier, and, that the
claim that his low epitestosterone level was the cause of the test
result is true, then:

Yes, it can happen over two nights.

I don't know whether Landis dopes or not, but I can't conceive of any
reason why he would take a useless drug (at that point) and then go out
and win a stage that would ensure that he would be caught doing it.

OTOH, if this was all explainable purely by a low E value, why isn't he
already cleared and back racing again? If the T level was essentially
constant and normal and only his E level varied, it would be a cruel
bureaucratic trick to strip his tdf title.

Which is not a thing we can rule out.

I very badly want some real info here.

Ron

Dumbass said:

Stu Fleming said:

Dumbass said:

Dude, goog "low epitestosterone" and you will find numerous
anti-doping rulebooks for sports from badmiton to bodybuilding that
say:

"* The presence of a testosterone (T) to epitestosterone (E) ratio
greater than six (6) to one (1) in the urine of a competitor
constitutes an offence unless there is evidence that this ratio is due
to a physiological or pathological condition, e.g. low epitestosterone
excretion, adrogen producing tumour, enzyme deficiencies."

None of which can arise overnight.

Why is that important, if and the velanew.com editor claims his
testosterone levels were not high?

Because the test on stage 17 wasn't the only one he had during the Tour.

Quoted message said:

Stu Fleming said:

Dumbass wrote:

OTOH, if this was all explainable purely by a low E value, why isn't he
already cleared and back racing again? If the T level was essentially
constant and normal and only his E level varied, it would be a cruel
bureaucratic trick to strip his tdf title.

On the news wires just after you posted this is that Landis'
testosterone is indeed normal, but the epitestosterone is low. Exactly
the cruel bureaucratic trick you mention.

Landis should keep the trophy/medal for the TDF.

RL

raylopez99 said:

Quoted message said:

Stu Fleming said:

Dumbass wrote:

OTOH, if this was all explainable purely by a low E value, why isn't he
already cleared and back racing again? If the T level was essentially
constant and normal and only his E level varied, it would be a cruel
bureaucratic trick to strip his tdf title.

On the news wires just after you posted this is that Landis'
testosterone is indeed normal, but the epitestosterone is low. Exactly
the cruel bureaucratic trick you mention.

Landis should keep the trophy/medal for the TDF.

RL

Godamn,

get it in your head that they are looking at the ratio between tes and
epites for a reason!