T value was NORMAL. E was LOW

[Chris]

It seems the question, could be T positives during a grand tour race? I
don't recall any.

Also, do the B samples from his other test exist, and will they be tested
now to learn more?


<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Sandy wrote:
> [email protected] a écrit :

> > When this self-righteous obsession was directed against
> > LANCE, I thought it had to do with LANCE's sometimes
> > obnoxious persona. But now that it's directed against
> > Floyd, whom nobody hated before, I'm thinking it has
> > deeper roots. We want our heroes to be perfect to
> > compensate for our own inadequacies; it looks like Floyd
> > pays the price for the fans' own nagging feelings
> > that they might not be morally perfect.
> >
> > Kill 'em all and let **** Pound sort them out.
> >
> > Ben
> > Judge Natty Dread
>
> 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.

I don't either. I could offer various explanations, for example:
(1) there is only one user of doping in the race (which I
don't believe). (2) there are a number of users of doping,
carefully regulated so as not to test positive under most
circumstances, but that the extreme stress of the Tour can
create unusual circumstances that alter a rider's hormone
levels and mess up their programs. (3) the conspiracy theory,
that whether any doping test is revealed has to do with
the face-off between WADA, UCI, and ASO (which I think
has something to do with _how_ the test is revealed
but not the actual positive).

But there is also a more prosaic effect, which is that the
122.5th placed rider may never or hardly ever be tested
during the Tour. The UCI vampires regularly sample
the riders' hematocrits, but to my understanding there
are only about 5-6 pee tests per day: the top 3 of the stage,
the yellow jersey, and a few randoms. (Maybe the other
jersey holders also?) So if there is a positive, it is most
likely to be a sprinter (frequently in the top 3) or a GC
contender (frequent high finish, MJ wearer).

How many positives have there been during recent
Tours? I would guess 1 or 0. The last couple I can
remember are riders who got popped for high HCT
or EPO in the tests before the start and never actually
started. That also makes this result unusual.

Ben

 

[Chris]

Cute.

The pres of phonak has admitted this has been good for his firm's brand
recognition.

"Stu Fleming" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Nev Shea wrote:
> nother explanation -- Phonak sabotaging their own riders for
>> the publicity. Having already made the decision to end their sponsorship,
>> it looks like Floyd is now delivering maximum bang for the buck!
>
> None of Phonak's potential customers will have heard anything about the
> scandal.

 

[RonSonic]

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 01:00:07 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

>"Stu Fleming" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Nev Shea wrote:
>> nother explanation -- Phonak sabotaging their own riders for
>>> the publicity. Having already made the decision to end their sponsorship,
>>> it looks like Floyd is now delivering maximum bang for the buck!
>>
>> None of Phonak's potential customers will have heard anything about the
>> scandal.
>
>I don't know what you're getting down at the tail end of the earth, but
>EVERYONE that knows I ride bikes has mentioned it including the guy
>installing my granite counter tops who could go one on one with any plumber
>on earth for ass crack showing.

Don't bother ducking, that one went by you way overhead.


Ron

 

[Tom Kunich]

"RonSonic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 01:00:07 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Stu Fleming" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> Nev Shea wrote:
>>> nother explanation -- Phonak sabotaging their own riders for
>>>> the publicity. Having already made the decision to end their
>>>> sponsorship,
>>>> it looks like Floyd is now delivering maximum bang for the buck!
>>>
>>> None of Phonak's potential customers will have heard anything about the
>>> scandal.
>>
>>I don't know what you're getting down at the tail end of the earth, but
>>EVERYONE that knows I ride bikes has mentioned it including the guy
>>installing my granite counter tops who could go one on one with any
>>plumber
>>on earth for ass crack showing.
>
> Don't bother ducking, that one went by you way overhead.

Actually it went well under you.

 

[ST]

On 8/6/06 9:36 AM, in article [email protected], "Joe King"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Athletes worried about failing a urine test because of low levels of
> epitestosterone may find that using a dose of 500iu of Human Chorionic
> Gonadotropin (HCG) will increase epitestosterone levels.
>
> Perhaps the Phonak pharmacists forgot to add the HCG.
>
> Evil exists.
>
>
> "pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> If this can be substantiated as the cause for the high ratio, it
>> points to Floyd's innocence, doesn't it?
>>
>
>

BAH HAH HAH HAH!!!!

You said gonad........

 

[[email protected]]

> For a material that breaks down so rapidly in the system that he would almost
> have to have doped on the road.
>
> It is truly a strange case.
>
> Ron

It is not a strange case at all. An explaination:

Assume Floyd is correct his T level was normal for him and let's put a
number on it 100.

And of E let's assume 30. Put the T/E ratio away for the time
being.

Now, one other factoid. Alcohol effects E, it can metabolize it.
See:

http://dirtragmag.com/forums/showpost.php?p=112477&postcount=13

When E is consumed by the effect of alcohol, its level drops, in the
Floyd hypo above say from 30 to 5. As the effect of the alcohol wore
off, the body slowing began to produce more E and by time he was tested
after stage 17, it had come up to say 9. Resulting in the 11/1 ratio
even though his T level was normal, 100.

Why is this difficult. It sure should not be. It takes awhile for
the body to replace E.

And yes, the IRMS found some EX T, so what, he wore a patch regularly
and that was part of his normal "T" level of 100. So the UCI should
use the IRMS test everyone's urine from the tdf for Ex T and see
whether everyone in the race had been patching T. But that might be
fair.

 

[Frank Drackman]

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>> But let's get down to brass tacks - the studies DO NOT show testosterone
>>> to be helpful in endurance recovery regardless of what the rumors about
>>> it are. Testosterone, like all steroids, builds muscle and can be used
>>> to rebuild muscles damaged by overuse. But this isn't an overnight
>>> process.
>>>
>>
>> During the period of late 60s through the later 90s experts thought that
>> steroids would have a negative effect on baseball players so baseball
>> didn't have to test...
>
> You really believe that? Baseball was committed to breaking records.
> That's what has sustained the audience and little else. Look at the front
> line on football teams. Do you think that's natural? I knew a natural
> giant and he tried out for the Raiders and he was TOO SLOW, TOO SMALL and
> TOO WEAK. Basketball players used to be reasonably sized guys because the
> really tall guys couldn't move fast enough. Suddenly they were moving
> FASTER than the little 6'4" guys.
>
> There isn't ANY sport whether it's cross country skiing, Shot putting or
> target shooting, that isn't doping in a large percentage of the top end of
> the competition.
>
> You pass rules against it and you test. But if you get overzealous and you
> invent "accuracy" where none exists you simply destroy the sports you
> claim to be protecting. That's what's happening to cycling at the moment.
>

Your reply seems to respond to something other than what I said, or I just
did a poor job of making my point.

You said that studies show that using testosterone is not helpful in
endurance recovery. I responded by saying that the experts used to say the
same thing about steroids helping baseball players.

In fact many experts said that a baseball player using steroids could become
muscle-bound and would have a negative effect on performance. As baseballs
started going out of the park in record numbers and distances, some of the
experts revised their views and said that steroids could help the power
hitters but not pitchers or positions players. Well the experts were wrong!
It seems that pitchers had found out a long time ago about the recovery
effect that steroids had and were not using them to bulk up but to recover
from injuries and normal wear and tear in a short period of time. The
players were way out in front of the experts and their studies. They were
using chemicals in ways that the experts had never thought of I expect that
there will be numerous studies in the next few years on effects of
testosterone and endurance athletes.

 

[[email protected]]

Frank Drackman wrote:
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >>> But let's get down to brass tacks - the studies DO NOT show testosterone
> >>> to be helpful in endurance recovery regardless of what the rumors about
> >>> it are. Testosterone, like all steroids, builds muscle and can be used
> >>> to rebuild muscles damaged by overuse. But this isn't an overnight
> >>> process.
> >>>
> >>
> >> During the period of late 60s through the later 90s experts thought that
> >> steroids would have a negative effect on baseball players so baseball
> >> didn't have to test...
> >
> > You really believe that? Baseball was committed to breaking records.
> > That's what has sustained the audience and little else. Look at the front
> > line on football teams. Do you think that's natural? I knew a natural
> > giant and he tried out for the Raiders and he was TOO SLOW, TOO SMALL and
> > TOO WEAK. Basketball players used to be reasonably sized guys because the
> > really tall guys couldn't move fast enough. Suddenly they were moving
> > FASTER than the little 6'4" guys.
> >
> > There isn't ANY sport whether it's cross country skiing, Shot putting or
> > target shooting, that isn't doping in a large percentage of the top end of
> > the competition.
> >
> > You pass rules against it and you test. But if you get overzealous and you
> > invent "accuracy" where none exists you simply destroy the sports you
> > claim to be protecting. That's what's happening to cycling at the moment.
> >
>
> Your reply seems to respond to something other than what I said, or I just
> did a poor job of making my point.
>
> You said that studies show that using testosterone is not helpful in
> endurance recovery. I responded by saying that the experts used to say the
> same thing about steroids helping baseball players.
>
> In fact many experts said that a baseball player using steroids could become
> muscle-bound and would have a negative effect on performance. As baseballs
> started going out of the park in record numbers and distances, some of the
> experts revised their views and said that steroids could help the power
> hitters but not pitchers or positions players. Well the experts were wrong!
> It seems that pitchers had found out a long time ago about the recovery
> effect that steroids had and were not using them to bulk up but to recover
> from injuries and normal wear and tear in a short period of time. The
> players were way out in front of the experts and their studies. They were
> using chemicals in ways that the experts had never thought of I expect that
> there will be numerous studies in the next few years on effects of
> testosterone and endurance athletes.

At the risk of putting my two cents in where it doesn't belong, I
would venture to say that there may be a mistaken premise. It is my
current understanding that the role T pay in recovery is a little
complex.

After a strong workout the body needs to recover. The old rule might
be a day of rest was needed or else further workout would be counter
productive. My understanding of current thinking, is that the counter
productive element arises because further workout causes the body to
produce compounds which consume existing muscle. T comes into the
picture because in increase in T (say overnight) inhibits the body's
produce these undesirable compounds (themselves a type of naturally
occurring steroid. Thus "recovery" is aided by stopping the body
tearing itself down.

For example, the comparison was made of how Roger Bannister trained (an
hour a day during lunch time and with rest days) and the current mile
record holder (five hours a days virtually continuously). It was
suggested that the only reason he was able to train this hard it that
he was taking substances, T, to prevent his body's production of
compounds which would tear up the muscles he was trying to develop.
By virtue of using drugs, he was able to train harder and performance
improves though the T did not aid his performance directly.

Sounds like something virtually made to order for anyone in the tdf.
I would be interested in the results of a IMRS test on ALL the urine
samples taken during the tdf. I suspect almost everyone was taking a
little T to help themselves out and the tests would certainly resolve
the issue

 

[Donald Munro]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> There isn't ANY sport whether it's cross country skiing, Shot putting or
> target shooting, that isn't doping in a large percentage of the top end of
> the competition.
>
> You pass rules against it and you test. But if you get overzealous and you
> invent "accuracy" where none exists you simply destroy the sports you claim
> to be protecting. That's what's happening to cycling at the moment.

Please stop making sense. You're going to ruin your rbr reputation.

 

[Jeff Jones]

Frank Drackman wrote:

>
> You said that studies show that using testosterone is not helpful in
> endurance recovery. I responded by saying that the experts used to say the
> same thing about steroids helping baseball players.
>
Similarly, "experts" back in the early 90s also used to say that EPO
would not be helpful in endurance sports. But eventually everyone came
around to the idea that it did make you go faster. And several years
later, it was scientifically shown as well.

Jeff

 

[RonSonic]

On 6 Aug 2006 22:11:56 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>
>> For a material that breaks down so rapidly in the system that he would almost
>> have to have doped on the road.
>>
>> It is truly a strange case.
>>
>> Ron
>
>It is not a strange case at all. An explaination:
>
>Assume Floyd is correct his T level was normal for him and let's put a
>number on it 100.
>
>And of E let's assume 30. Put the T/E ratio away for the time
>being.
>
>Now, one other factoid. Alcohol effects E, it can metabolize it.
>See:
>
>http://dirtragmag.com/forums/showpost.php?p=112477&postcount=13
>
>When E is consumed by the effect of alcohol, its level drops, in the
>Floyd hypo above say from 30 to 5. As the effect of the alcohol wore
>off, the body slowing began to produce more E and by time he was tested
>after stage 17, it had come up to say 9. Resulting in the 11/1 ratio
>even though his T level was normal, 100.
>
>Why is this difficult. It sure should not be. It takes awhile for
>the body to replace E.
>
>And yes, the IRMS found some EX T, so what, he wore a patch regularly
>and that was part of his normal "T" level of 100. So the UCI should
>use the IRMS test everyone's urine from the tdf for Ex T and see
>whether everyone in the race had been patching T. But that might be
>fair.

It might also give them the research data the need to recognize actual cheating
when they see it.

Ron

 

[[email protected]]

Tom Kunich wrote:

> There isn't ANY sport whether it's cross country skiing, Shot putting or
> target shooting, that isn't doping in a large percentage of the top end of
> the competition.
>
> You pass rules against it and you test. But if you get overzealous and you
> invent "accuracy" where none exists you simply destroy the sports you claim
> to be protecting. That's what's happening to cycling at the moment.


Your right to a large measure, but what is the to be done. The game
the UCI is playing is with the word "doping". There was a time when
doping was condemn because it was life threatening. And authority to
control the threat was merited. How does one get from life safety to
the matter of outlawing mountain tents?

There was a time when the participants made up the rules for their
games. Bike racing is one of the few places where to any degree that
still takes place and, that it does, adds to event. The peloton
should be permitted to determine the competitive rules including what
constitutes substance abuse and unfair competition. The UCI
authority needs to be replaced with by a democratic revolution.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"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.

 

[Frank Drackman]

"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.

 

[Michael Press]

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

> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > There isn't ANY sport whether it's cross country skiing, Shot putting or
> > target shooting, that isn't doping in a large percentage of the top end of
> > the competition.
> >
> > You pass rules against it and you test. But if you get overzealous and you
> > invent "accuracy" where none exists you simply destroy the sports you claim
> > to be protecting. That's what's happening to cycling at the moment.
>
>
> Your right to a large measure, but what is the to be done. The game
> the UCI is playing is with the word "doping". There was a time when
> doping was condemn because it was life threatening. And authority to
> control the threat was merited. How does one get from life safety to
> the matter of outlawing mountain tents?
>
> There was a time when the participants made up the rules for their
> games. Bike racing is one of the few places where to any degree that
> still takes place and, that it does, adds to event. The peloton
> should be permitted to determine the competitive rules including what
> constitutes substance abuse and unfair competition. The UCI
> authority needs to be replaced with by a democratic revolution.

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.

--
Michael Press

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

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.

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

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[Donald Munro]

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> I wonder if the French have a word for laissez-faire?

Just look in the Bush dictionary.

 

[benjo maso]

"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.

Benjo

 

[[email protected]]

RonSonic wrote:
> On 6 Aug 2006 22:11:56 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >> For a material that breaks down so rapidly in the system that he would almost
> >> have to have doped on the road.
> >>
> >> It is truly a strange case.
> >>
> >> Ron
> >
> >It is not a strange case at all. An explaination:
> >
> >Assume Floyd is correct his T level was normal for him and let's put a
> >number on it 100.
> >
> >And of E let's assume 30. Put the T/E ratio away for the time
> >being.
> >
> >Now, one other factoid. Alcohol effects E, it can metabolize it.
> >See:
> >
> >http://dirtragmag.com/forums/showpost.php?p=112477&postcount=13
> >
> >When E is consumed by the effect of alcohol, its level drops, in the
> >Floyd hypo above say from 30 to 5. As the effect of the alcohol wore
> >off, the body slowing began to produce more E and by time he was tested
> >after stage 17, it had come up to say 9. Resulting in the 11/1 ratio
> >even though his T level was normal, 100.
> >
> >Why is this difficult. It sure should not be. It takes awhile for
> >the body to replace E.
> >
> >And yes, the IRMS found some EX T, so what, he wore a patch regularly
> >and that was part of his normal "T" level of 100. So the UCI should
> >use the IRMS test everyone's urine from the tdf for Ex T and see
> >whether everyone in the race had been patching T. But that might be
> >fair.
>
> It might also give them the research data the need to recognize actual cheating
> when they see it.
>
> Ron

Yes, and in the same vein, it would seem that the UCI ought to be
responsible for educating riders. The UCI's doping experts ought to
have been aware that there were five (5) studies done demonstrating
alcohol consumption could lower the E level and thus imperil a rider's
ability to pass the T/E ratio test. Where the hell were the UCI's
doping experts when the peloton needed them? Need them to inform them
of the danger alcohol created? Aaaahhh, the UCI is obsessed catch
cheaters to the degree their own test creates them. The UCI is denial
of mind its duty to prevent violations through education.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"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.