T value was NORMAL. E was LOW

[Tom Kunich]

"benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> If the one and only positive test related to some rider who finished
>> 122.5th, this entire thread would not exist. It still rattles me that
>> the single positive result was this one. I still don't know how to
>> evaluate that.
>
> Neither do I. But what rattles me is that it seems a perfect demonstration
> of the effectiviness of the anti-doping policy of the WADA. First of all,
> all the rotten apples - the riders linked to dr. Fuentes - had to be
> removed. Then, it could be pretended we were having a really "clean" Tour.
> Even the riders who had not yet seen the light, didn't dare anymore to
> take illicit products. And than we had a really exceptional exploit. But
> lo and behold! - it turned out that the man who seemd to be a new hero had
> taken a performance enhancing product! Which paradoxally only confirmed
> how clean the Tour had been. He was proven that the only reason why he
> could show himself better than all the others, was because - and obviously
> contrary to all his competitors - he had doped himself! At first sight
> there could hardly been a more convincing proof how effective the WADA is.
> Of course, it;s bogus, but most people are not interested enough to wonder
> how it was possible that the average speed was the third highest of all
> time, that l'Alpe d'Huez was climbed in more or less the the same time as
> the years before, that taking a dose of testerone for an exceptional
> effort is complete ineffective, etc.
> Landis has said that he doesn't discount some kind of conspiracy by the
> UCI or WADA. I don't really believe it, but I hope he is right and I don't
> exclude it 100%. I think he is wrong about the UCI, but the WADA? Fanatics
> are capable of everything.

I would feel a whole lot better about this if it were a substance that could
conceivably be of some help in the way of performance enhancement. But
testosterone simply isn't that sort of material.

 

[trg]

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...
| "benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| news:[email protected]...
| >
| > "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| > news:[email protected]...
| >
| >> If the one and only positive test related to some rider who finished
| >> 122.5th, this entire thread would not exist. It still rattles me that
| >> the single positive result was this one. I still don't know how to
| >> evaluate that.
| >
| > Neither do I. But what rattles me is that it seems a perfect
demonstration
| > of the effectiviness of the anti-doping policy of the WADA. First of
all,
| > all the rotten apples - the riders linked to dr. Fuentes - had to be
| > removed. Then, it could be pretended we were having a really "clean"
Tour.
| > Even the riders who had not yet seen the light, didn't dare anymore to
| > take illicit products. And than we had a really exceptional exploit. But
| > lo and behold! - it turned out that the man who seemd to be a new hero
had
| > taken a performance enhancing product! Which paradoxally only confirmed
| > how clean the Tour had been. He was proven that the only reason why he
| > could show himself better than all the others, was because - and
obviously
| > contrary to all his competitors - he had doped himself! At first sight
| > there could hardly been a more convincing proof how effective the WADA
is.
| > Of course, it;s bogus, but most people are not interested enough to
wonder
| > how it was possible that the average speed was the third highest of all
| > time, that l'Alpe d'Huez was climbed in more or less the the same time
as
| > the years before, that taking a dose of testerone for an exceptional
| > effort is complete ineffective, etc.
| > Landis has said that he doesn't discount some kind of conspiracy by
the
| > UCI or WADA. I don't really believe it, but I hope he is right and I
don't
| > exclude it 100%. I think he is wrong about the UCI, but the WADA?
Fanatics
| > are capable of everything.
|
| I would feel a whole lot better about this if it were a substance that
could
| conceivably be of some help in the way of performance enhancement. But
| testosterone simply isn't that sort of material.
|

Well, in that case, this should make you feel a whole lot better-

Testosterone can be used to back up cortisone. Cortisone has pain-killing
and mood-lifting effects, but it also reduces muscle tissue. Testosterone
fixes on cortisone receivers and prevents muscle shrinkage.

Landis was taking cortisone.

 

[bob sullivan]

trg wrote:

> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> [email protected]...
> | "benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> | news:[email protected]...
> | >
> | > "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> | > news:[email protected]...
> | >
> | >> If the one and only positive test related to some rider who finished
> | >> 122.5th, this entire thread would not exist. It still rattles me that
> | >> the single positive result was this one. I still don't know how to
> | >> evaluate that.
> | >
> | > Neither do I. But what rattles me is that it seems a perfect
> demonstration
> | > of the effectiviness of the anti-doping policy of the WADA. First of
> all,
> | > all the rotten apples - the riders linked to dr. Fuentes - had to be
> | > removed. Then, it could be pretended we were having a really "clean"
> Tour.
> | > Even the riders who had not yet seen the light, didn't dare anymore to
> | > take illicit products. And than we had a really exceptional exploit. But
> | > lo and behold! - it turned out that the man who seemd to be a new hero
> had
> | > taken a performance enhancing product! Which paradoxally only confirmed
> | > how clean the Tour had been. He was proven that the only reason why he
> | > could show himself better than all the others, was because - and
> obviously
> | > contrary to all his competitors - he had doped himself! At first sight
> | > there could hardly been a more convincing proof how effective the WADA
> is.
> | > Of course, it;s bogus, but most people are not interested enough to
> wonder
> | > how it was possible that the average speed was the third highest of all
> | > time, that l'Alpe d'Huez was climbed in more or less the the same time
> as
> | > the years before, that taking a dose of testerone for an exceptional
> | > effort is complete ineffective, etc.
> | > Landis has said that he doesn't discount some kind of conspiracy by
> the
> | > UCI or WADA. I don't really believe it, but I hope he is right and I
> don't
> | > exclude it 100%. I think he is wrong about the UCI, but the WADA?
> Fanatics
> | > are capable of everything.
> |
> | I would feel a whole lot better about this if it were a substance that
> could
> | conceivably be of some help in the way of performance enhancement. But
> | testosterone simply isn't that sort of material.
> |
>
> Well, in that case, this should make you feel a whole lot better-
>
> Testosterone can be used to back up cortisone. Cortisone has pain-killing
> and mood-lifting effects, but it also reduces muscle tissue. Testosterone
> fixes on cortisone receivers and prevents muscle shrinkage.
>
> Landis was taking cortisone.

I thought I remembered reading that he'd gotten permission to take
cortisone injections for his hip. Or am I misremembering?

~bob

 

[Frank Drackman]

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Frank Drackman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "Frank Drackman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> In fact many experts said that a baseball player using steroids could
>>>> become muscle-bound and would have a negative effect on performance.
>>>
>>> And in fact that was correct to the particular types of steroids
>>> available at that time. The effects of testosterone hasn't changed. But
>>> they've found other steroids that cause different kinds of body
>>> responses.
>>
>> Not true, baseball players were using steroids in the 70's, including
>> pitchers for recovery.
>
> 1) Was it testosterone?
> 2) Why hasn't lab tests shown "recovery" to be true for testosterone?
>
> Do you REALLY believe that people who are using drugs know the precise
> actions of drugs? As I pointed out before, people have been using all
> sorts of drugs and claiming all sorts of bogus value to them throughout
> history.
>
>

What I am trying to say is that sometimes the cheaters are way ahead of the
experts. The experts are sometimes constrained by their knowledge of
intended uses of a substance but the cheaters are constantly looking for new
ways to use drugs. The fact that baseball pitchers were using steroids in
the 70's is a great example of the cheaters being way ahead. As I said
before, I expect that there will be new studies to determine the effects of
Testosterone on endurance athletes.

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
Curtis L. Russell <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 18:46:10 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >You think you can put it over us this easily, blinding us
> >by bringing in democracy? What you propose is no less than
> >anarchy! Oooh, wait until I tell **** Pound.
>
> Anarchy is when each individual cyclist chooses whether he or she
> races clockwise or counter-clockwise. Since this largely appears to be
> a motor official problem, I'll take a laissez-faire attitude toward
> the whole thing.

The dictionary definition of anarchy is lack of order. The
etymology is very different: the absence of a leader.
Anarchy as a political philosophy is not about willful
behavior, but reaching a consensus. Sorry for getting
serious.

> I wonder if the French have a word for laissez-faire?

Doubt it.

--
Michael Press

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Frank Drackman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> What I am trying to say is that sometimes the cheaters are way ahead of
> the experts.

Indeed but not usually. Idiots are usually idiots and not the Rain Man in
disguise.

> The experts are sometimes constrained by their knowledge of intended uses
> of a substance but the cheaters are constantly looking for new ways to use
> drugs. The fact that baseball pitchers were using steroids in the 70's is
> a great example of the cheaters being way ahead. As I said before, I
> expect that there will be new studies to determine the effects of
> Testosterone on endurance athletes.

Tests are constrained by the fact that legal research cannot purposely put
test subjects at notable risk. Testosterone is NOT something that can be
used lightly as everyone here seems to think. It is one of the most powerful
hormones in the body in its effect. Testing is difficult at best.

 

[[email protected]]

Howard Kveck wrote:

> I once read the phrase "organize for anarchy." And the writer of said phrase was
> dead serious.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Never take a tenant with a monkey.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

If you use the original concept of anarchy, it is a reasonable usage.
Early anarchists believed that people, communities, could organized
themselves through custom and tradition without the need for
government.

It the present context, it would be expressing the belief that the
peloton could organize itself, as it indeed has, through customs and
traditions of the participants. The interference of the UCI is an
unnecessary government intrusion.

The word has come to mean those who would eliminate the government by
force. This is a shame because the concept applies quite well to
sports controlled by the participants rather than the soccer mommies.

 

[Frank Drackman]

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Frank Drackman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> What I am trying to say is that sometimes the cheaters are way ahead of
>> the experts.
>
> Indeed but not usually. Idiots are usually idiots and not the Rain Man in
> disguise.
>

In this thread we have identified that steroids and EPO were successfully
used by the cheaters before the experts thought that they had any value to
specif sports, I bet there are many other examples.

On the other hand, you are correct that many substances were thought to be
performance enhancing but actually hurt performance. Alcohol and tobacco
are the first two that I can think of.

>> The experts are sometimes constrained by their knowledge of intended uses
>> of a substance but the cheaters are constantly looking for new ways to
>> use drugs. The fact that baseball pitchers were using steroids in the
>> 70's is a great example of the cheaters being way ahead. As I said
>> before, I expect that there will be new studies to determine the effects
>> of Testosterone on endurance athletes.
>
> Tests are constrained by the fact that legal research cannot purposely put
> test subjects at notable risk. Testosterone is NOT something that can be
> used lightly as everyone here seems to think. It is one of the most
> powerful hormones in the body in its effect. Testing is difficult at best.
>
>

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> Howard Kveck wrote:
>
> > I once read the phrase "organize for anarchy." And the writer of said
> > phrase was
> > dead serious.

> If you use the original concept of anarchy, it is a reasonable usage.
> Early anarchists believed that people, communities, could organized
> themselves through custom and tradition without the need for
> government.

Yeah, that's true, although I think the only people who realistically believed
that could work were the anarchists themselves. Even back then, the media (such as
it was) and others tended to push the concept of "anarchy" as simply a chaotic mess
of people doing what they wanted. They also provided a convenient scapegoat at
times. I should have explained further that the person who wrote that was one who
advocated a variety of positions that I could only describe as self-indulgent chaos.
Very much a "community of one" kind of thing.

> It the present context, it would be expressing the belief that the
> peloton could organize itself, as it indeed has, through customs and
> traditions of the participants. The interference of the UCI is an
> unnecessary government intrusion.

It would be interesting to see how the racers and teams would organize things. I
think that WADA would be even less welcome than the UCI.

> The word has come to mean those who would eliminate the government by
> force. This is a shame because the concept applies quite well to
> sports controlled by the participants rather than the soccer mommies.

I'll agree with that.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Ernst Noch]

Frank Drackman wrote:
>
> In this thread we have identified that steroids and EPO were successfully
> used by the cheaters before the experts thought that they had any value to
> specif sports, I bet there are many other examples.
>
> On the other hand, you are correct that many substances were thought to be
> performance enhancing but actually hurt performance. Alcohol and tobacco
> are the first two that I can think of.

And it shows that it doesn't make any sense to skim scientific
literature in order to get arguments why an athlete couldn't possibly
use substance X for doping.

 

[RonSonic]

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 00:27:44 -0700, Howard Kveck <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Howard Kveck wrote:
>>
>> > I once read the phrase "organize for anarchy." And the writer of said
>> > phrase was
>> > dead serious.
>
>> If you use the original concept of anarchy, it is a reasonable usage.
>> Early anarchists believed that people, communities, could organized
>> themselves through custom and tradition without the need for
>> government.
>
> Yeah, that's true, although I think the only people who realistically believed
>that could work were the anarchists themselves. Even back then, the media (such as
>it was) and others tended to push the concept of "anarchy" as simply a chaotic mess
>of people doing what they wanted. They also provided a convenient scapegoat at
>times.

The occasional bombing (yep, there was a horse drawn car bomb) and assassination
sorta contributed to that.

> I should have explained further that the person who wrote that was one who
>advocated a variety of positions that I could only describe as self-indulgent chaos.
>Very much a "community of one" kind of thing.

"Question authority until I'm in charge."

>> It the present context, it would be expressing the belief that the
>> peloton could organize itself, as it indeed has, through customs and
>> traditions of the participants. The interference of the UCI is an
>> unnecessary government intrusion.
>
> It would be interesting to see how the racers and teams would organize things. I
>think that WADA would be even less welcome than the UCI.

I'd be very much in favor of the riders writing the rules.

Ron

>> The word has come to mean those who would eliminate the government by
>> force. This is a shame because the concept applies quite well to
>> sports controlled by the participants rather than the soccer mommies.
>
> I'll agree with that.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Ernst Noch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Frank Drackman wrote:
>>
>> In this thread we have identified that steroids and EPO were successfully
>> used by the cheaters before the experts thought that they had any value
>> to specif sports, I bet there are many other examples.
>>
>> On the other hand, you are correct that many substances were thought to
>> be performance enhancing but actually hurt performance. Alcohol and
>> tobacco are the first two that I can think of.
>
> And it shows that it doesn't make any sense to skim scientific literature
> in order to get arguments why an athlete couldn't possibly use substance X
> for doping.

So you're telling us that EVEN THOUGH the literature shows that testosterone
isn't an endurance sport drug, because someone uses it for such that's proof
in your eyes that it actually works.

OK.

 

[JessicaG]

> So you're telling us that EVEN THOUGH the literature shows that
> testosterone
> isn't an endurance sport drug, because someone uses it for such that's
> proof in your eyes that it actually works.
>
> OK.

I'm confused, what are you implying? What should they do if a non
performance enhancing but illegal substance is detected?

 

[Ernst Noch]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Ernst Noch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Frank Drackman wrote:
>>> In this thread we have identified that steroids and EPO were successfully
>>> used by the cheaters before the experts thought that they had any value
>>> to specif sports, I bet there are many other examples.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, you are correct that many substances were thought to
>>> be performance enhancing but actually hurt performance. Alcohol and
>>> tobacco are the first two that I can think of.
>> And it shows that it doesn't make any sense to skim scientific literature
>> in order to get arguments why an athlete couldn't possibly use substance X
>> for doping.
>
> So you're telling us that EVEN THOUGH the literature shows that testosterone
> isn't an endurance sport drug, because someone uses it for such that's proof
> in your eyes that it actually works.
>
> OK.

No, I didn't say this at all.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"JessicaG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>> So you're telling us that EVEN THOUGH the literature shows that
>> testosterone
>> isn't an endurance sport drug, because someone uses it for such that's
>> proof in your eyes that it actually works.
>>
>> OK.
>
> I'm confused, what are you implying? What should they do if a non
> performance enhancing but illegal substance is detected?

If it is illegal it is illegal. But we can't be sure that it was detected as
I've pointed out already. At the point at which the A sample was positive
and the results were leaked the B sample should have been removed from their
possession immediately and sent to another lab.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Ernst Noch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> "Ernst Noch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Frank Drackman wrote:
>>>> In this thread we have identified that steroids and EPO were
>>>> successfully used by the cheaters before the experts thought that they
>>>> had any value to specif sports, I bet there are many other examples.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, you are correct that many substances were thought to
>>>> be performance enhancing but actually hurt performance. Alcohol and
>>>> tobacco are the first two that I can think of.
>>> And it shows that it doesn't make any sense to skim scientific
>>> literature in order to get arguments why an athlete couldn't possibly
>>> use substance X for doping.
>>
>> So you're telling us that EVEN THOUGH the literature shows that
>> testosterone isn't an endurance sport drug, because someone uses it for
>> such that's proof in your eyes that it actually works.
>
> No, I didn't say this at all.

But that's the implication of your statements Ernst. It DOES make sense to
read scientific literature on something as commonly used in scientific tests
such as testosterone, EPO and the like. You appear to be thinking that
because some new and mostly unknown materials might be mistakenly ignored,
that EVERYTHING is that way is simply incorrect.

 

[Ernst Noch]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Ernst Noch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> "Ernst Noch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Frank Drackman wrote:
>>>>> In this thread we have identified that steroids and EPO were
>>>>> successfully used by the cheaters before the experts thought that they
>>>>> had any value to specif sports, I bet there are many other examples.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand, you are correct that many substances were thought to
>>>>> be performance enhancing but actually hurt performance. Alcohol and
>>>>> tobacco are the first two that I can think of.
>>>> And it shows that it doesn't make any sense to skim scientific
>>>> literature in order to get arguments why an athlete couldn't possibly
>>>> use substance X for doping.
>>> So you're telling us that EVEN THOUGH the literature shows that
>>> testosterone isn't an endurance sport drug, because someone uses it for
>>> such that's proof in your eyes that it actually works.
>> No, I didn't say this at all.
>
> But that's the implication of your statements Ernst. It DOES make sense to
> read scientific literature on something as commonly used in scientific tests
> such as testosterone, EPO and the like. You appear to be thinking that
> because some new and mostly unknown materials might be mistakenly ignored,
> that EVERYTHING is that way is simply incorrect.
>

No it isn't the implication. Stop putting words in my mouth. There is
plenty of evidence that athletes *do* try stuff which is not
scientifically proven. And this is not only restricted to illegal stuff.
Sometimes hindsight shows that the "early adopters" were right,
sometimes it shows they were wrong. And in the case of Testosterone, I
already cited for instance one doctor (Jaksche's) who told about the
"patch practice" in the field.

OTOH, the fact that there is mainly scientific literature proving in
what way T helps long term doesn't mean that it doesn't also have short
term effects - only in different ways. I.e. that something different
than the muscle growth effect kicks in short term.

By the way - and without me wanting to discuss this further:
There *is* scientific literature showing that for instance stress will
in (relatively) short term drop the T level. If there is a short term
effect in this direction, there might also be short term effects on the
body / soul from a higher T level.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Ernst Noch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> No it isn't the implication. Stop putting words in my mouth. There is
> plenty of evidence that athletes *do* try stuff which is not
> scientifically proven. And this is not only restricted to illegal stuff.
> Sometimes hindsight shows that the "early adopters" were right, sometimes
> it shows they were wrong. And in the case of Testosterone, I already cited
> for instance one doctor (Jaksche's) who told about the "patch practice" in
> the field.

Testosterone has been pretty thoroughly researched. What Jaksche's DOCTOR
had to say doesn't make it so. And the idea is to catch someone who is
achieving an unfair advantage, not someone who THINKS they're getting an
unfair advantage.

> OTOH, the fact that there is mainly scientific literature proving in what
> way T helps long term doesn't mean that it doesn't also have short term
> effects - only in different ways. I.e. that something different than the
> muscle growth effect kicks in short term.

One thing is absolutely certain - Landis wasn't obtaining any advantage of
doping on stage 16 and testosterone doesn't work fast enough for him to have
obtained any specific help from it in state 17 EVEN IF IT WORKED THAT WAY.

And furthermore, you've seen all sorts of claims that testosterone only
stays in the body for a couple of hours and you saw Landis drinking tons of
water. He had to be taking a whizz as well. Explain how he could have had
testosterone levels that high if he'd applied a patch the night before.

> By the way - and without me wanting to discuss this further:
> There *is* scientific literature showing that for instance stress will in
> (relatively) short term drop the T level. If there is a short term effect
> in this direction, there might also be short term effects on the body /
> soul from a higher T level.

Eh? Stress slows testosterone production in the gonads. What the heck does
that have to do with INCREASING testosterone?

 

[mimoso]

> One thing is absolutely certain - Landis wasn't obtaining any advantage of
> doping on stage 16 and testosterone doesn't work fast enough for him to
> have obtained any specific help from it in state 17 EVEN IF IT WORKED THAT
> WAY.
>
> And furthermore, you've seen all sorts of claims that testosterone only
> stays in the body for a couple of hours and you saw Landis drinking tons
> of water. He had to be taking a whizz as well. Explain how he could have
> had testosterone levels that high if he'd applied a patch the night
> before.

It's simple: a refreshing beverage called Synthetic T

 

[Mark]

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "RonSonic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Dude, Phonak makes hearing aids, their customers won't have HEARD
>> anything about
>> it. Get it, nyuck nyuck.
>
> Err, Phonak is also a big time maker of cell phones. You know - the kind
> with news updates sent to them automatically?

Can you provide a link? I went to their Swiss web site and all I could see
devices like smart link. No mention that they make cell phones.