Not looking good for Landis

Bronzie said the following on 31/07/2006 13:57:

Quoted message said:

I'm still hoping the B sample will be clear, as cycling needs this
latest drug scandal like another hole in the head, but I for one will
not be holding my breath.

I suspect the damage has been done already. "TdF winner is a druggy"
has already made the headlines. "Actually, he isn't" won't.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Boyd said:

Bronzie said the following on 31/07/2006 13:57:

Quoted message said:

I'm still hoping the B sample will be clear, as cycling needs this
latest drug scandal like another hole in the head, but I for one will
not be holding my breath.

I suspect the damage has been done already. "TdF winner is a druggy"
has already made the headlines. "Actually, he isn't" won't.

Yes, that's the sad thing. If he is found to be perfectly clean, many
folks will believe he just got away with it.

What really disturbs me is how ignorant the public is due to the scanty
coverage by the typical media. A lay person not used to sports probably
thinks that one can just take some drug and then win events.

The truth is that even heavily doped competitors work VERY hard. They
don't sit around watching TV and eating bon bons along with their drugs
to prep for an event.

-paul

Yes, you are right of course.

Why was the result announced before the B sample test? I presume it
was a leak (no pun intended) coupled with Landis' suspect behaviour in
missing two post-tour crits which he was supposed to ride.

Interesting to note that one respondent on the original thread
complained that the testing took too long. Compared to the test on
Gatlin (done in April!!!) and that of Heras (it took over a month),
this looks positively quick - maybe too quick.

Bronzie wrote on 31/07/2006 13:57 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Apparently, it is now standard procedure to perform an Isotope Ratio
Mass Spectometry test on any samples that show a T/E ratio of 1:4 or
higher (Landis' was supposedly 1:11). This test identifies the
presence of non-naturally occuring testosterone in the sample.
L'Equipe has apparently confirmed that the Chatenay-Malabry lab did
perform a IRMS test on the A sample and the presence of exogenous
testosterone was indicated.

Yet again I am very uncomfortable that the lab is feeding L'Equipe, as
it did in the Armstrong case and for which it was heavily criticised in
the Vrijman investigation. Why is this being allowed to go on?

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Paul Cassel said:

What really disturbs me is how ignorant the public is due to the scanty
coverage by the typical media.

Indeed. But that's the case for almost anything reported in "the
typical media". Actually, perhaps I didn't need "almost" in that
sentence. The object of reporters and sub-editors is to produce a
readable story that punters want to read. Scrupulous accuracy and
thorough explanation, particularly in respect of apparently arcane
technical detail, is most unlikely to meet those demands.

Quoted message said:

A lay person not used to sports probably
thinks that one can just take some drug and then win events.

Listening to and taking part in various conversations following sundry
meeja drugs-in-sport stories, I'd go further than that. The standard
reactions I've heard tend to be along the lines of "they're all at it"
and, as heard at the weekend: "there's no way of completing the TdF
within the time limits unless you DO take at least something somewhere
along the line anyway - he didn't manage to keep his dosing inside the
limits".

Quoted message said:

The truth is that even heavily doped competitors work VERY hard.

Obviously - the reason for drugging is to increase the maximum work
rate, or have I missed something? OK, there's pain-killing and
increasing competitive attitude and/or improving attention to relevant
detail, and/or improving recovery, but AIUI those are less important
than simply being able to go faster/farther than one would otherwise
manage.

As always, the ability of those-who-know on this group to provide the
technical detail in readily-assimilable form is much appreciated. Ta.

--
Tim Forcer [email hidden]
The University of Southampton, UK

The University is not responsible for my opinions

sothach said:

Anything heard anything new on this? My local rag had this at the end
of a report (my translation):

see
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/01/sports/othersports/01landis.html?ref=sports

:-((