Landis and Doping in Sports
TrustButVerify

Redwood City, CA

#41 Sep 15, 2006
In terms of the cyclists, I think they want to ride and do as well as they can. Some fraction of them are willing to cheat by doping, and some aren't. I have no idea what the proportions are either way.

I don't have any reason to think the American cyclists are any different than those of any other nationality in these regards, except that they may be entertaining dreams of Lance-like money that Euro-pros probably wouldn't think of.

The US population is probably as xenophobic any other, maybe more so than some, and less than others. It's certainly not hard to find people who will say that this is a French conspiracy against an American rider, but that seems simplistic to me. If there is any French conspiracy, it's probably against Lance, not Floyd, though Floyd might be collateral damage. And I don't think Lance is particularly disliked because he's an American, but because he's a non-French arrogant EXPLETIVE. Well, there's probably some anti-americanism there, I guess. Still I think it is all more about securing other agendas anyway.

Like: nail a cheating non-native we don't like.
Like: get a pelt to validate our existance.
Like: get a lever to force our view on the unwilling.
Like: get more sales by hyping a scandal.

The only ones with no voice or power are the riders. Athletes are notoriously (and naively) libertarian in outlook, without realizing they are an exploited class.

This is also reflected in Bob Roll's insight that the intellegenstia media elite in Europe and France tends to look down on pro cyclists as part of the working class, to be targets of condescention and to be sniffed at.

Floyd is a pawn in much bigger games.

TBV
Slovenian Princess

Hotchkiss, CO

#42 Sep 15, 2006
TrustButVerify wrote:
<quoted text>
"Frogmen" is Dick Pound's term, and I think I've only ever used it in the context of his dismisall of all conspiracy theories as being "nazi frogmen" spiking samples.
I am saying that within France and Europe (UCI), there are political agendas that pressure institutions into behaving different ways. I hope I state clearly that I don't think Landis personally or Americans generally fall in the purview of those agendas.
It's possible to me that some of the agendas result in calcification of support for the LNDD that might not be justified by its actual performance.
Countering that, the UCI might be perfectly happy to have LNDD discredited as part of its ProTour campaign against ASO.
And over all this is WADA, looking for pelts.
None of this has anything to do with France per se, but with the encompassing dynamics of why some organizations are behaving the way they are.
If anybody took what I wrote about agendas as French bashing, my apologies. It seems like "normal" organizational behaviour to me, with nothing to do with nationality.
TBV
i was wondering where that nazi frogman thing was coming from...did not seem congruent with your posts.
i have stated this before on one of these posts...that the organiztions and their behaviours, yes are "normal", but not all organizations act in that manner. for me, it is more comprehensible that a single individual acting under extreme "duress" would choose to do something out of character. my point being, there is much debate concerning the questionable behaviour/agendas surrounding the UCI/WADA and such, yet the reason we are here on this post is the blood of landis exhibited synthetic testosterone and an odd T/E ratio, twice. why are we not willing to speculate why and how landis might have doped?(might is operative here, just as the UCI/WADA might have agendas and tainted the info....)
TrustButVerify

Redwood City, CA

#43 Sep 15, 2006
And finally, I don't think its really worth paying much attention to the other agendas. Discussing them, or bringing them up does nothing to affect the results of the immediate case against Floyd, so I'm going to stop unless someone drags me back into it.

TBV
TrustButVerify

Redwood City, CA

#44 Sep 15, 2006
I think the two plausible "how he did it" theories are well known, but I'll list 'em here for newcomers:

1. He was on a long term doping plan to build up fast twitch muscles to be able to respond to and make attacks, and messed up his 'E' masking agent.

2. He blood doped after S16 and got a bag that was tainted with metabolites of his long term doping program.

If anyone wants to speculate how he carried bags of dope around, or bags of blood, I don't think I have any ideas.

TBV
TrustButVerify

Redwood City, CA

#45 Sep 15, 2006
C/SP: did the border move when we weren't looking and leave your place in a different country?

TBV
Zeek

Tacoma, WA

#46 Sep 15, 2006
SP: FL blood has not tested positive for anything. He tested positive for the presence of metabolites of testosterone in his urine.

TBV: item 2. On another thread I explained this to be extremely unlikely as the blood for tranfusion could not have contained enough testosterone to affect the amount in his body. He may have blood doped but it did not cause his AAF.
Wayne

United States

#47 Sep 15, 2006
Slovenian Princess wrote:
..........yet the reason we are here on this post is the blood of landis exhibited synthetic testosterone and an odd T/E ratio, twice. why are we not willing to speculate why and how landis might have doped?(might is operative here, just as the UCI/WADA might have agendas and tainted the info....)
I hereby declare you free to speculate on any of the above;

HOWEVER

1. It wasn't Floyd's blood, it was his urine

2. The claim about " synthetic testosterone" was from selectively leaked information and is therefore suspect; The recent filing by Floyd's attorney claims that 3 out of 4 suspected metabolites tested negative, and that the fourth was positive as was the result of an unknown lab error.

3. The purported T/E ratio of 11:1 was leaked..but they did not leak the values for T and E, so it is not possible for us peons to know if T was unusually high or E was unusually low ( or both..) The relevant WADA document specifically discusses the possibility that E may be too low to measure.

4. I take issue with the characterization that Floyd failed TWICE. The A and B samples were from a one-time contribution of urine from Floyd, and both resulting jars were tested by the same lab.( What good is having an A and B sample if they don't use an A and B lab??????)

---Salem, Oregon---
TrustButVerify

Santa Rosa, CA

#48 Sep 15, 2006
For whatever it is worth, the A and B samples are considered separate tests, and are processed two separate Adverse Anayltical Findings for tracking purposes. While its annoying to some people to have these bites at the same real apple treated as it it were different apples, that is the way it is.

Otherwise, I think Salem has captured the essence of the defense argument we've heard so far.

TBV http://trustbut.blogspot.com for Landis news, research and comment.
Slovenian Princess

Hotchkiss, CO

#49 Sep 15, 2006
TrustButVerify wrote:
C/SP: did the border move when we weren't looking and leave your place in a different country?
TBV
something messed up on the server and i had to come up with a new name. just playing off the idea that LNDD was really ricky rider or something. blood/urine, i understand the difference, choose the wrong term. on the failing twice issue, because of space and such, twice as TBV pointed out, is referenced to the second test on the same urine utilized to protect the athlete from false positive in the A sample...didn't explain it because thought we were all on the same page...ummmm, understand the presence and such, does not confirm doping but because of the results initiates the procedures of UCI/WADA and such in regards to the possibility of doping.
my position was and is still that many of you on this thread are willing to look at the mistakes/issues concerning the labs and maintain that you are open minded while accusing others of being judgemental, yet attack the labs and pound and UCI and guys endlessy as being incompetent, rant when anyone suggests the possibility that floyd is guilty, and will not investigate or speculate as to anything that you deem "negative" concerning floyd...then attack anyone who does.
i think there is much in the way of missed opportunity in discussing/speculate what might have happened on floyds side of things, might give you all a different perspective and understanding in regards to the labs and others.
Alan Painter---Arizon a

Tortilla Flat, AZ

#50 Sep 16, 2006
ricky rider wrote:
You make some interesting points regarding people having the right to ingest anything they want. But governments have been charged by the people to enact and enforce drug laws to protect them. It is clear that drugs like cocaine, heroin, tobacco, alcohol, pot, speed, etc. all take a toll on the quality of life and the majority of the people want these substances controlled or banned. Performance enhancing drugs like EPO can also be dangerous to a person's health and in my opinion should be banned. Of course a line has to be drawn somewhere.
I would prefer to watch athletes do their best without the aid of performance enhancing drugs, but the line between what should and should not be permitted is fuzzy. Should caffeine be banned? How about alcohol? How about all those goofy energy drinks?
First, I am not so sure that it's the people's charge that governments are acting upon when they enact and enforce drug laws. I suspect that governments are acting of their own accord, as they so often do in reference to other subjects. They say they are acting on our behalf, but they are only mouthing the words.

Second, if other drugs over a period of time are shown to negatively affect athletes, then athletes, as intelligent human beings, should be able to decide for themselves that they want to take the risk. Then doping would be self-regulating. I would prefer to allow adults to be adults.

Third, we wouldn't be talking about performance enhancing drugs if the discussion weren't forced down our throats on a regular basis. All this testing and reporting serves to keep the issue alive in our minds creating grist for the mill. I would rather just pay attention to sport itself.

Fourth, we need to look at this idea that athletes are under contract and are subject to the rules their sport. Generally, that is valid. Yet, there is a point of reason that is regularly passed. Rules regulating the game or event itself and some of those regulating conduct outside the game or event may be reasonable, but those regulating what one puts in one's body are outside of that framework. It is one thing for a team to encourage good nutrition (including food supplements), but the Gestapo and concentration-camp mentality, mandating urine and blood samples by the sporting drug police, the stopping the cars and searching of hotel rooms, etc. by governments, is way overboard and entirely invasive. The contract that athletes sign is with their teams or sports venues, not with governments. Thus, governments are interlopers. But then, what else is new?

We simply must stop this Gestapo mentality. It has invaded our entire lives. Sports drug testing is but one example.
LNDD

Verbank, NY

#51 Sep 16, 2006
Wayne wrote:
<quoted text>

3. The purported T/E ratio of 11:1 was leaked..but they did not leak the values for T and E, so it is not possible for us peons to know if T was unusually high or E was unusually low ( or both..) The relevant WADA document specifically discusses the possibility that E may be too low to measure.

---Salem, Oregon---
The ratio of 11:1 was confiremd by FL's doctor on Larry King.

FL.com states in an 8/4 entry:
"the T value returned has been determined to be in the normal range. The E value returned was LOW, thus causing the skewed ratio. This evidence supports my assertion that I did not use testosterone to improve my performance. I emphatically deny any claims that I used testosterone to improve my performance."

The general info out there is that normal T concentratons in men age 18-30 are in the 30-110 ng/ml range.

In a generalized view we see:

Working the numbers in reverse, a T/E within the WADA/USADA limit (4/1) would be: 40/10 to 80/20.

Working the numbers with the FL.com info and his doctor's statement on larry king, FL's T/E could be:
40/3.6 to 80/7.2.
Zeek

Milton, WA

#52 Sep 16, 2006
The T concentration you are stating is that a urinary metabolite concentration or serum? Remember the urinary metabolite amount is a measure of testosterone eliminated through urinary excretion. A smaller amount is lost in the feces.
Robin Maguire

Sydney, Australia

#53 Sep 16, 2006
LNDD wrote:
<quoted text>

"I did not use testosterone to improve my performance. I emphatically deny any claims that I used testosterone to improve my performance."
Here we go again, playing with words - as Lance did.
The Testosterone ratio is only a side issue, although it was the undoing of Landis. The BIG picture is that "Yes, he DID NOT take Testosterone to enhance his performance after Stage 16 - it was a transfusion of BLOOD which had an askew T/E ratio he took to improve his performance, help him recover, etc".
God give me strength!!!
Wayne

United States

#54 Sep 16, 2006
Zeek wrote:
The T concentration you are stating is that a urinary metabolite concentration or serum? Remember the urinary metabolite amount is a measure of testosterone eliminated through urinary excretion. A smaller amount is lost in the feces.
You seem to know a lot about this......Here is my question:

I assume T/E of urine would be an indicator of that in the blood. Of course, the T in the blood would be the important number.

So....how well does the T concentration in urine correlate with that in blood? Have studies been done on this ?

thanks.......

---Salem, Oregon---
LNDD

Valley Stream, NY

#55 Sep 16, 2006
If you dig for info about blood transfusions (in general, not just for performance) you will find that a transfusion excludes the plasma...only red blood cells. This means that there is no place (carrier) for the T to be introduced. When hey measure SERUM T, that is on whole blood (including plasma). That is how blood is used to measure T (among other things).

Robin, your idea is flawed but creative. The science just does not work that way.
LNDD

Valley Stream, NY

#56 Sep 16, 2006
Zeek wrote:
The T concentration you are stating is that a urinary metabolite concentration or serum? Remember the urinary metabolite amount is a measure of testosterone eliminated through urinary excretion. A smaller amount is lost in the feces.
I am referring to urinary concentrations.

Blood serum concentrations are measured differently. Additionally, since the urine test is the most common/least invasive it is the one referenced most often in the published studies on this topic.
Will

Baltimore, MD

#57 Sep 16, 2006
Zeek wrote:
The T concentration you are stating is that a urinary metabolite concentration or serum? Remember the urinary metabolite amount is a measure of testosterone eliminated through urinary excretion. A smaller amount is lost in the feces.
You notice that LNDD did not answer Zeek's question, about whether the normal testosterone concentration figures that LNDD cited were PLASMA concentratins or URINE concentrations, of the kind that were measured in Landis' URINE sample? As Zeek rightly points out, there is a very substantial difference between the measures of plasma concentrations of T and the urine measures of T; the difference is IMPORTANT because LNDD purports to make "backwards calculations" and compare Landis' URINE T/E ratio to a PLASMA TESTOSTERONE standard -- in effect, he's comparing APPLES to ORANGES!
Will

Baltimore, MD

#58 Sep 16, 2006
It would be VERY helpful (and VERY simple) to clarify any dispute about LNDD's reference if he would just CITE HIS SOURCES, by hyper link or otherwise -- that way we would ALL know that we are comparing apples to apples!
Will

Baltimore, MD

#59 Sep 16, 2006
One doesn't have to be an expert in bloodbanking to know that WHOLE BLOOD transfusions include the PLASMA, so that a WHOLE BLOOD transfusion TO ONESELF would include any performance enhancers that may have been in one's system at the time the blood was banked.
TrustButVerify

Santa Rosa, CA

#60 Sep 16, 2006
Will wrote:
<quoted text>
You notice that LNDD did not answer Zeek's question, about whether the normal testosterone concentration figures that LNDD cited were PLASMA concentratins or URINE concentrations, of the kind that were measured in Landis' URINE sample? As Zeek rightly points out, there is a very substantial difference between the measures of plasma concentrations of T and the urine measures of T; the difference is IMPORTANT because LNDD purports to make "backwards calculations" and compare Landis' URINE T/E ratio to a PLASMA TESTOSTERONE standard -- in effect, he's comparing APPLES to ORANGES!
Seems like a mountain over a molehill to me. The T/E tests and all the doping literature refer to excreted urinary amounts. The only mention of serum amounts is by Zeeks question, which seems to come from right field.

Do we really need to beat this to death?

TBV

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Floyd Landis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Not Even Lance Deserves This (Dec '13) Jan '17 Phoenix 43
News Greg Lemond demands 'corrupt' cycling czars resign (Oct '12) Aug '16 Bikers 7
News Lance Armstrong's doping drugs (Jan '13) Jan '16 Fart news 189
News Can Armstrong ever be forgiven? (Sep '14) Oct '14 stefanbed53 5
News Opinion: Should we just stop asking about doping? (Jul '13) Apr '14 Carly Jane 2 31
News Lance Armstrong doping documentary contrasts be... (Oct '13) Apr '14 Carly Jane 2 4
Trick or Treat! (Oct '13) Nov '13 My Opinion_El Pas... 5
More from around the web