What's More Plausible...?

Landis is pretty sure that the B-probe will be positive as well (he said this in 2 diffrent interviews) and if so:

Landis is over and out. History and i hope the sport will recover of this major blow...

Powerful Pete said:

He doesn't have to. He does not have that 'doping' kind of look. He is innocent by default. He could not have taken EPO. He had cancer, people who had cancer never dope. It is simply a French fabrication. They wanted Virenque to have cancer and win the TdF seven times. It is simply jealousy.

LOL😄

I would much prefer Landis (or anyone of the rogues gallery) to tell us why they did what they did.

Not one of them has ever come out and admitted that they doped.

Of course, they don't see it as cheating which is the nub of the problem.

I said it before and I will say it again : bans for life, repayment of all prize money earned in their career on the basis that they cheat once, they cheat all the time (regardless of whether they claimed to be clean), and teams to be punitively fined.
That's the only way you'll clean up this sport.

limerickman said:

He has to explain how his testosterone level was three times higher than normal.

He has his work cut out.

You got some new information? I've been hearing the 11:1 ratio a lot, but not the "three times higher than normal" bit you mention. Most of the talk is that his epitestosterone level was low - not the other way around. That's why there are so many reports about how the flunked test doesn't make sense. The thing he's expected of cheating with wouldn't really have helped him that much.

Best outcome for him is that A sample was a spurious result (it happens often enough that this cannot be discounted) and B sample clears him.

Second best is that B sample confirms A a but he can show some believable explanation... long shot.

Third is that his lawyers and expert witnesses can create enough doubt at USADA and/or CAS that he gets cleared on a technicality.

DiabloScott said:

The thing he's expected of cheating with wouldn't really have helped him that much.

Yup. It does not make sense.

Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: (pulling down a diagram of Chewie) this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! (jury looks shocked)

Why would a Wookiee -- an eight foot tall Wookiee -- want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that have to do with this case? (calmly) Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!

Look at me, I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.

And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.

If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

DiabloScott said:

You got some new information? I've been hearing the 11:1 ratio a lot, but not the "three times higher than normal" bit you mention. Most of the talk is that his epitestosterone level was low - not the other way around. That's why there are so many reports about how the flunked test doesn't make sense. The thing he's expected of cheating with wouldn't really have helped him that much.

Best outcome for him is that A sample was a spurious result (it happens often enough that this cannot be discounted) and B sample clears him.

Second best is that B sample confirms A a but he can show some believable explanation... long shot.

Third is that his lawyers and expert witnesses can create enough doubt at USADA and/or CAS that he gets cleared on a technicality.

Johnny Watterson writing in the Irish Times this morning states "short of a urine specimen heist at the gates of the testing laboratory, the B sample is extremely likely to confirm what the A sample has shown, that Landis 's levels of testosterone were almost three times the level of what they were supposed to be".

limerickman said:

Johnny Watterson writing in the Irish Times this morning states "short of a urine specimen heist at the gates of the testing laboratory, the B sample is extremely likely to confirm what the A sample has shown, that Landis 's levels of testosterone were almost three times the level of what they were supposed to be".

If it does show that then Landis is off the hook. What the B test will show is that Landis' testosterone levels are below normal but his epitestosterone levels are about a tenth of normal.

Bro Deal said:

If it does show that then Landis is off the hook. What the B test will show is that Landis' testosterone levels are below normal but his epitestosterone levels are about a tenth of normal.

Are you sure that you have that correct - as to the readings?

limerickman said:

Are you sure that you have that correct - as to the readings?

Everything I have read so far says that Landis' testosterone levels were a little below normal values but his epitestosterone levels were extremely low, giving a ratio of test:epitest of 11:1. What a very low epitestosterone level means and how that relates to doping I do not know.

cyclingheroes said:

Landis is pretty sure that the B-probe will be positive as well (he said this in 2 diffrent interviews) and if so:

..

The report I heard (last night TV) from University Sports Trainer and Dr. is that Landis testosterone level were normal but his epitestosterone level was below the 4:1 ratio. He stated, if he were taking injectable Testosterone or patch, his Testosterone level would be high with a ratio over 4:1 and if he used the patch\scrotum scenario and took patch off several hours before the test or long enough for levels to come down to normal then so to would the ratio.

He felt like there might be something else going on in his system. He also stated that testosterone dosing would not have much of an effect on a 20-30 year old male athlete. The dosing would take several days to weeks to kick in and have minimal to negative effect for the endurance athlete.

The thing I found most interesting is he stated with utmost confidence that the "B" sample will come back negative. 😕

How could it be, aren’t the samples drawn at the same time ? Strange.

Thoughts?

lw

limerickman said:

Johnny Watterson writing in the Irish Times this morning states "short of a urine specimen heist at the gates of the testing laboratory, the B sample is extremely likely to confirm what the A sample has shown, that Landis 's levels of testosterone were almost three times the level of what they were supposed to be".

What's the name of the game where I whisper something to Jane and Jane whispers to Sean and Sean to Paddy (that one's for the Irish around here) and Paddy to Karen and so on and so on and by the time it gets back to me the statement is skewed.

I've heard and read, it's high, it's normal, it's low. I don't think any of us want this to be true so maybe our hearing is too sensitive. My ears hurt.

lw

lwedge said:

What's the name of the game where I whisper something to Jane and Jane whispers to Sean and Sean to Paddy (that one's for the Irish around here) and Paddy to Karen and so on and so on and by the time it gets back to me the statement is skewed.

I've heard and read, it's high, it's normal, it's low. I don't think any of us want this to be true so maybe our hearing is too sensitive. My ears hurt.

lw

The Telephone Game. But I guess it has to be changed now to The Internet Game.

Well i think Floyd is realistic, unlike a certain rider from Marbelhead who thought he had really won his case at each point he went down in burning flames.

The "B" sample is overwhelmingly likely to be exactly the same.
If its not, then the lab got some splaining to do...

The chances are like less than1/1,000- 1/10,000 they would be different I think

In every testosterone doping policy I could find there is the following:

[font=Arial]"In the case of T/E greater than 6, it is mandatory that the relevant medical authority conducts an investigation before the sample is declared positive. A full report will be written and will include a review of previous tests, subsequent tests and any results of endocrine investigations. In the event that previous tests are not available, the athlete should be tested unannounced at least once per month for three months. The results of these investigations should be included in the report. Failure to co-operate in the investigations will result in declaring the sample positive.[/font]"

It is like boilerplate. Maybe it comes from WADA.

What is does indicate is that there are a number of legitimate reasons for failing the test, but that brings up the the question why he has not failed tests in the past.

Bro Deal said:

In every testosterone doping policy I could find there is the following:

[font=Arial]"In the case of T/E greater than 6, it is mandatory that the relevant medical authority conducts an investigation before the sample is declared positive. A full report will be written and will include a review of previous tests, subsequent tests and any results of endocrine investigations. In the event that previous tests are not available, the athlete should be tested unannounced at least once per month for three months. The results of these investigations should be included in the report. Failure to co-operate in the investigations will result in declaring the sample positive.[/font]"

It is like boilerplate. Maybe it comes from WADA.

What is does indicate is that there are a number of legitimate reasons for failing the test, but that brings up the the question why he has not failed tests in the past.

Well, that's not what they're doing. They are saying if the B sample is the same, he's out, and then they'll do all that stuff. And who is the "relevant medical authority?"

DiabloScott said:

Yeah, I'm gonna have to call BS on that one too.

Oh, please. I have personal knowledge of one football player having his tests read to him. And the basketball players were probably the worst. They didn't even have to go to class. My roommate was seriously dating a guy that went pro. That was back in the 80's, when they (some Big 8 athletes) also raped and pillaged across the MidWest at will. 'Roid rage. Anyway, that is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand 🙂 .

lwedge said:

The report I heard (last night TV) from University Sports Trainer and Dr. is that Landis testosterone level were normal but his epitestosterone level was below the 4:1 ratio. He stated, if he were taking injectable Testosterone or patch, his Testosterone level would be high with a ratio over 4:1 and if he used the patch\scrotum scenario and took patch off several hours before the test or long enough for levels to come down to normal then so to would the ratio.

I found this interesting:

ergogenics.org410.htmlOpen ↗

A T/E (testosterone to epitestosterone) higher than 6:1 was considered evidence of a doping violation, yet we had cases of women who scored a T/E of 20, not because testosterone was present in high amounts, but because the epitestosterone was extremely low as a result of birth control pills.

And this:

washingtonpost.comshimer4.htmOpen ↗

Shimer and his representatives argued that Shimer's body chemistry resulted in an appearance of an elevated testosterone level when in fact, Shimer and U.S. bobsled officials say, Shimer has abnormally low levels of both testosterone and epitestosterone. They say his epitestosterone is so low that it blows up the ratio, making the testosterone appear to be higher than it really is. The evidence was examined by the FIBT and its medical commission.

SaxMan said:

I found this interesting:

ergogenics.org410.htmlOpen ↗

A T/E (testosterone to epitestosterone) higher than 6:1 was considered evidence of a doping violation, yet we had cases of women who scored a T/E of 20, not because testosterone was present in high amounts, but because the epitestosterone was extremely low as a result of birth control pills.

Floyd's taking birth control pills!! But TrekDedicated says he's pregnant! I'm so confused 😉 .

SaxMan said:

I found this interesting:

ergogenics.org410.htmlOpen ↗

A T/E (testosterone to epitestosterone) higher than 6:1 was considered evidence of a doping violation, yet we had cases of women who scored a T/E of 20, not because testosterone was present in high amounts, but because the epitestosterone was extremely low as a result of birth control pills.

Another case solved. Floyd was taking birth control pills.

All three grand tours "champions" are now implausible.

2005 Vuelta : Heras
2006 Giro : Basso
2006 TDF : Landis.

THAT IS IMPLAUSIBLE.

Is this the nadir?