Manzano: ‘Testosterone effects almost immediate'



House said:
Which is contrary to 90% of the actual scientific studies that have been done. I prefer a real study over, "I tried it and this is how it works."

Yet you post an article about someone who never provides any of that info and then defend it.

Now you really are sounding like those guys. Do I question every test, accusation and person who posts a "particle of information." Of course. Only a fool would not...or someone who wants it to be true. You should question these things. If nobody does then the doping agencies can run roughshod over the athletes. To use an extreme example, people were afraid to question ****** so he did what he wanted. What you are telling me is that it's ok to question an athlete giving a reason for his test result but not to question the lab or the agency. It makes no sense unless you have a vested stake in the lab or the agency or in proving a certain person doped.
Ah, I see your bias now. And the minute someone brings up ****** in a discussion on the Internet, it's a sure sign that the THREAD SHOULD BE CLOSED.
 
karlotta said:
Ah, I see your bias now. And the minute someone brings up ****** in a discussion on the Internet, it's a sure sign that the THREAD SHOULD BE CLOSED.
Thanks for proving you really can't have an intelligent discussion and are in the same boat as Flyer, whiteboytrash, Limerick and the others who don't believe in people getting a fair chance. What a fool I was to believe anything else about you. I guess it's easier for people like yourself to make comments like this rather then actually try to intelligently argue out of the corner you have been backed into.
 
karlotta said:
Ah, I see your bias now.

And we've all seen yours. Cyclists are guilty until proven innocent...

(Of course, even if they CAN prove they're innocent, their reputation is destroyed in the public's mind anyway...)
 
wineandkeyz said:
And we've all seen yours. Cyclists are guilty until proven innocent...

(Of course, even if they CAN prove they're innocent, their reputation is destroyed in the public's mind anyway...)
No. But if they test positive, the burden of proof is on them. I've stated elsewhere what proof would be required in my mind to exonerate Mr. Landis.

Yet none of the apologists like you and House will state what exactly will convince you that Landis doped...
 
karlotta said:
No. But if they test positive, the burden of proof is on them. I've stated elsewhere what proof would be required in my mind to exonerate Mr. Landis.

Yet none of the apologists like you and House will state what exactly will convince you that Landis doped...
I am an apoligist because I want actual proof? More then just the A sample. More then "this one guy tried it and says it works." Using your method of labeling, you are against human rights. What else can it be if you refuse to allow athletes to have their rights as specified by their sport federation and WADA?
 
SaintAndrew said:
what if he took a blood transfusion like i say in my thread and it had test in it from the off season?

i know guys who use prop through their ncaa season, so i think either prop or patches/creams/suspension would be used during training.
That is an interesting point and I hope my experience wasn't taken as "there's no way Landis could have benefited from taking test the night of his bonk." Just my experience.
 
wineandkeyz said:
I acknowledge the possibility that Landis could have doped, although I deplore his being tried and convicted in the court of public opinion before all the facts are before us.
Why? because they are popular, with this popularity they earn money but sometimes they have to do with the bad side.
I am sorry for FL, it was a beautiful winner, but i am sure (98%) he is guilty.
May be his lawyer can save him, a fault in procedure, ...

wineandkeyz said:
Do YOU acknowledge the possibility that the doping agencies and L'Equipe could also have a hidden agenda?
yes, there is O,01% chance... but why?

To sell more newspapers? if German TV do'nt buy TDF next year, ASO will lost much more money than L'Equipe can earn.

To clean TdF? In France, Laws are present and strong, if you are taken with PED, fresh blood for risers or athletes, you go to jail!

May be you have better ideas?
 
poulidor said:
Why? because they are popular, with this popularity they earn money but sometimes they have to do with the bad side.
I am sorry for FL, it was a beautiful winner, but i am sure (98%) he is guilty.
May be his lawyer can save him, a fault in procedure, ...
So you believe he should be convicted before all the facts are in, even the B sample, even any medical testing that could prove true innocence? I am not even sure how to reply to someone who thinks a person should not have the chance to use the agreed upon avenues to prove his/her innocence before being convicted.
 
Maybe people should be put to death and then tried in a court of law?

Perhaps we've had it wrong all along...
 
poulidor said:
Why? because they are popular, with this popularity they earn money but sometimes they have to do with the bad side.
I am sorry for FL, it was a beautiful winner, but i am sure (98%) he is guilty.
May be his lawyer can save him, a fault in procedure, ...

yes, there is O,01% chance... but why?

To sell more newspapers? if German TV do'nt buy TDF next year, ASO will lost much more money than L'Equipe can earn.

To clean TdF? In France, Laws are present and strong, if you are taken with PED, fresh blood for risers or athletes, you go to jail!

May be you have better ideas?

Why should I assume LF is innocent until proven guilty? Suppose I accuse you of being a child molester... Would you mind if we all assume you're guilty until you can prove that you're not?
 
azdroptop said:
Guys I used Test many years ago in my bodybuilding days and the very first time I had an injection the only thing I noticed immediately was an increase in hunger. The feeling of strength, euphoria etc took a few weeks to come on. When you consider what happened to Floyd, i.e. completely bonked one day, and then came back to ride so strong, testosterone just doesn't make sense to me. How amesome was his ride really? The group did let him go expecting him to bonk, he obviously didn't. What makes the break so impressive is the condition he was in the day before-and as far as I know we still don't know exactly what happened right? So some how he managed an amazing recovery between 16 and 17...Maybe it was test? I am definately interested in the outcome.
I made nearly the exact statement on another thread.
I have a lot of personal experience and a lot of experience with observing other users as well.

If someone can get results that quickly off of such a small single dose I would be interested as well because in all my experience I have never ever seen it.
 
azdroptop said:
That is an interesting point and I hope my experience wasn't taken as "there's no way Landis could have benefited from taking test the night of his bonk." Just my experience.
no, i've had similar experiences with test. test e is the only one i've taken alone, but with prop as well i didn't feel much until like a wee and a half. had you ever used suspension? my friends who have say the effects really are like immediate in terms of mood etc., and they can put on close to 10lbs. the first week (mostly water retention but...).
 
Felt_Rider said:
I made nearly the exact statement on another thread.
I have a lot of personal experience and a lot of experience with observing other users as well.

If someone can get results that quickly off of such a small single dose I would be interested as well because in all my experience I have never ever seen it.

And I've made nearly the exact same statement on another thread. Testosterone? Doesn't make sense. I think it's possible ole boy was using everything under the sun like Barry Bonds and this is what they got him for.

Or maybe he does produce high levels of test. The evidence is still out. From what I've read so far, I'm leaning towards doper.
 
wineandkeyz said:
Why should I assume LF is innocent until proven guilty? Suppose I accuse you of being a child molester... Would you mind if we all assume you're guilty until you can prove that you're not?
LF is not innocent because the first sample is positiv, so he is guilty
but he can use a second chance with second sample. Someone can say after the first positiv sample: "ok I am guilty" and the second sample is not used.

It's no the same to accuse me of being a chid molester with no proof.

In Landis' case, there is a very little chance to have second sample negativ, may be to lost, to crash the bottle with urine, or ...
 
poulidor said:
LF is not innocent because the first sample is positiv, so he is guilty
but he can use a second chance with second sample. Someone can say after the first positiv sample: "ok I am guilty" and the second sample is not used.

It's no the same to accuse me of being a chid molester with no proof.

In Landis' case, there is a very little chance to have second sample negativ, may be to lost, to crash the bottle with urine, or ...
But the rules state that he is not guilty, unless their is an admission, until the B sample confirms the A sample.
 
House said:
But the rules state that he is not guilty, unless their is an admission, until the B sample confirms the A sample.
I do'nt know exactly the rule in this case, but here after the first sample, just one technical fault in second test can save him!
The first sample was positiv, the second should be too, there is no technical reason to failed it, only bad procedure...
So if it will happened, it will be a bad chance for cyclism, because FL were on paper "not guilty", but technical guilty and fans will be "lost" again.
(FL knows that)

Now if he can prove (like very very difficult too) that his body can product this T, but that is no the question.

It will be better to have just one sample for this case, less ambiguous for all (riders, cyclist, and press).
 
poulidor said:
I do'nt know exactly the rule in this case, but here after the first sample, just one technical fault in second test can save him!
The first sample was positiv, the second should be too, there is no technical reason to failed it, only bad procedure...
So if it will happened, it will be a bad chance for cyclism, because FL were on paper "not guilty", but technical guilty and fans will be "lost" again.
(FL knows that)

Now if he can prove (like very very difficult too) that his body can product this T, but that is no the question.

It will be better to have just one sample for this case, less ambiguous for all (riders, cyclist, and press).
So you are saying someone is guilty without actually knowing the rules?!?!?! Thanks for proving everything I have been saying on these forums.
If you are so sure that the testing is 100% accurate then why did all sides agree to the B sample rule? A rider is not considered officially guilty until the B sample confirms the A sample. That's the way it is.
 

Similar threads