Landis and Doping in Sports
Slovenian Princess

Fruita, CO

#82 Sep 16, 2006
Zeek wrote:
My question may have seemed like it is from right field, but it is not. There is no standard concentration for urinary testosterone/metobolites. Urine varies greatly in the concentration of excreted substances based on many factors including the hydration status of the specimen submitter. The only way you can get at the amount of T being put in the submitters body from urine would be a 24 hour collection. You would then measure the quantity of t/metabolites. The whole T/E ratio is done to expose an abnormal amount of T metabolites relative to the E/metobolites. I do not think LNDD can make the extrapolation he is making with regards to FL abnormal T/E ratio.
interesting if this is known in the scientific/lab testing community that they would employ a single urine test as an indicator for doping at an event with the magnitude of the TDF, not doubting you or your info, but this does not make sense. also, for those of us will(ing) to look at the dark side of this affair, to me this is more evidence that his dehydration of the day before played havoc on his system...one does not totally recover from that kind of a bonk in a day, the body exhibits other symptoms...beyond lack of appetite, inability to sleep, headache/bodyache, a piss ass attitude (will, are getting dehydrated? smile) diarhea and other shit. if the body is shutting down like that (unable to perform), i cannot imagine what havoc is wreaked on the chemical makeup of the body, ratios of T/E levels and what not. potassium, sodium...whatever, it is a system that is so integrated/interrelated that if one aspect is in fluctuation, it is bound to affect everything it has a relationship with.
what i am getting at, just as they(the lab) adjust accordingly for dehydration (which is pretty good indicator of how important of a factor it is)if someone is doping/masking, would there not be similar adjustments that would need to occur? it could go both ways on this...his numbers were odd because of his dehydration, he messed up on his masking.
LNDD

Valley Stream, NY

#83 Sep 16, 2006
ok, let's get a reality check.

Will, I very hastily posted that refernce link as I was running late for dinner, and immediately noted I posted the wrong one. gloat if you like. have at it! It does not change the fact that there does exist a mediacally recognized, normal urinary T concentration range. IT does exist. YOu may find slighty varying values from study to study but it generally falls very close to my "CLAIM"

Zeek, when I mentioned "Normal" urinary T concentrations, I am speaking of a generalized average. In a scientific study, measures are done in a way to create consistency, from sample to sample...time of day, frequency, corrections for pH and specific gravity all being considered. without wasting a bunch of time to really only convince our ding-dong protagonist, I will let those surfing here prove it to themselves. Someone show me I am wrong about urinary T concentrations in healthy, caucasian males, age 18-30.

There have to be accepted standard ranges or zones of normality, or we'd have no reason to impose any threshold on any of the T, E, etc. that makes it into urine or any of the metabolites, whether a presursor or postcursor of T...that is why in the WADA spec, they cite the -3%delta OR a value of -28% or less, if the ratio values are too low to be measured.

Will, your transfusion info is fascinating. This must be what Saiz was using as a guide with Fuentes and clients. May I suggest you go back and take a look at Tyler's info and reconcile it with what you'd like to believe some Pro's employ as their transfusion techniques. The faster you realize that I understand and know a far bit more than you about all this, the faster you'll quit crying about a link that was wrong.

If my "stall" annoys anyone, tough. I was at Oakland's on Dune Rd. in Hampton Bay for a great meal with extended family from the city. Get over it.
LNDD

Valley Stream, NY

#84 Sep 16, 2006
AZZHAT WILL: here is your link...you are wrong.

http://www.aruplab.com/guides/clt/tests/clt_2...

BTW - owned? your really must have issues.
you'll still need the metric calculator....
TrustButVerify

Santa Rosa, CA

#85 Sep 16, 2006
Will wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're saying that a WRONG extrapolation is BETTER THAN NOTHING, huh? Amazing.
WHO ELSE OUT THERE THINKS THAT IT'S BETTER TO CONSIDER WRONG INFORMATION THAN TO CONSIDER NOTHING?
Yes, a best estimate with a range and known uncertainty is better than nothing at all. It gives you a starting point for discussion.

If you don't want to discuss anything, then having no number and throwing up your hands works fine.

TBV
Will

Baltimore, MD

#86 Sep 16, 2006
According to the information on the website ARUPLAB.COM , AVERAGE URINE CONCENTRATIONS OF TESTOSTERONE FOR THE MALE, IS 20 to 125 MICROGRAMS (designated by 'g')per DAY (designated by 'd'):

"For Testosterone, Urine (0070716):
Male: 20-125 g/d....."

THIS IS WHAT LNDD ORIGINALLY CLAIMED:

"...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. "

WHEN ZEEK QUESTIONED WHETHER LNDD'S NUMBERS REPRESENTED PLASMA CONCENTRATIONS OR URINE CONCENTRATIONS, THIS IS WHAT LNDD CLAIMED:

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.
LNDD replied: "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. "

WHEN I FURTHER CHALLENGED HIM ON USING PLASMA T NUMBERS AND PRESENTING THEM AS URINE T NUMBERS, HERE IS WHAT LNDD SAID:

Will wrote:
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!
LNDD replied: "I did answer Zeek's question and it appears Will still cannot read.

Here is a link for reference. http://www.selfhelpmagazine.com/qa/qasex/qase ...

To help Will with his metric conversions required to fully understand the measures in the article, here is a metric calculator:http://www.metric4u s.com/calculator.html "

ALL THE METRIC CONVERSIONS AND CALCULATORS IN THE WORLD COULD NEVER CONVERT "30-110 nanograms per milliliter" INTO "20-125 micrograms per DAY"!!!!

UNLESS, OF COURSE, THE "GENIUS" LNDD CAN DO WHAT I DON'T EVEN THINK EINSTEIN COULD DO -- AND THAT'S TO CONVERT A UNIT OF VOLUME (milliliter) INTO A UNIT OF TIME (day)!! PLEASE ENLIGHTEN US ON HOW YOU CAN DO THAT, LNDD!!
TrustButVerify

Santa Rosa, CA

#87 Sep 16, 2006
LNDD wrote:
The faster you realize that I understand and know a far bit more than you about all this, the faster you'll quit crying about a link that was wrong.
Hmmm. Any chance LNDD has been on the receiving end of some of this technology? You aren't Matt DeCanio are you?

TBV
Will

Baltimore, MD

#88 Sep 16, 2006
TrustButVerify wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, a best estimate with a range and known uncertainty is better than nothing at all. It gives you a starting point for discussion.
If you don't want to discuss anything, then having no number and throwing up your hands works fine.
TBV
TBV, I already know that you're full of $**T, that's why I threw the question out to others to comment on.
Will

Baltimore, MD

#89 Sep 16, 2006
LOL...maybe Einstein could do space-time, but LNDD is NO Einstein, not even CLOSE!
Zeek

Milton, WA

#90 Sep 16, 2006
I found the following to paragraphs on urine T screening useful. They support my contention that urine concentrations vary over a very wide range.

"Various approaches to prove T administration have been considered within the practical constraint that only one untimed urine is available for the screening test. Brooks et al.(18) pointed out that urine concentrations vary over a very wide range such that defining T doping as a concentration that exceeds an upper limit of normal would be difficult. Instead, they advocated measuring the ratio of T to luteinizing hormone (LH) in urine, because chronic administration of T inhibits the production of LH and lowers the urine concentration of LH. Detailed studies of urine T/LH ratios are available (19). Because the T/LH and other urine ratios are independent of urine volume and other factors that influence concentration, such ratios have been used extensively to detect doping with endogenous substances. One major drawback of T/LH is the lack of a reference method for LH (20).

Doping with T was reported in the 1950s (21), but not until 1982 did an effective test became available: Donike et al.(22) proposed to detect T doping by monitoring the T/E ratio. E is the 17 epimer of T and is present in urine in concentrations similar to T. T and E differ chemically only in the configuration of the hydroxyl group on C-17. T is not metabolized to E (23), and T/E increases after T administration. Subsequently, Dehennin and Matsumoto pointed out that T administration lowers the concentration of E (24); thus, the increase in T/E results from an increase in T and a decrease in E."

http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/content/full/43/7...
TrustButVerify

Santa Rosa, CA

#91 Sep 16, 2006
Will wrote:
LOL...maybe Einstein could do space-time, but LNDD is NO Einstein, not even CLOSE!
OK Feynmann, what estimates for the range are you willing to work through and throw out for discussion.

I don't even pretend to understand enough to begin,
so I'm at the mercy of guys who are willing to to the math and risk being shown wrong.

TBV
Raymond

Montpellier, France

#92 Sep 17, 2006
Lets face the facts, my friends. Certain substances are not allowed in cycling/sporting situations.

We have governing body's, who regulate this.

In our case the WADA/UCI. Also local anti doping agency's

We must respect thier rulings, otherwise, who else?

This is what international sport is all about. Following the rules. Simple.

The rules may not be perfect, however at a moment in time, these are the rules. I rest
Zeek

Milton, WA

#93 Sep 17, 2006
Raymond wrote:
Lets face the facts, my friends. Certain substances are not allowed in cycling/sporting situations.
We have governing body's, who regulate this.
In our case the WADA/UCI. Also local anti doping agency's
We must respect thier rulings, otherwise, who else?
This is what international sport is all about. Following the rules. Simple.
The rules may not be perfect, however at a moment in time, these are the rules. I rest

I do not respect their rulings. As I have said before the idea of using tests which have not been statistically validated as your primary mode of enforcement is wrong. This approach creates a sieve through which most of the dopers safely pass. The few positives they do obtain may well not be obtained from dopers. In other words innocent riders will be accused. I think that does more harm than good. I would much rather have more concrete proof of doping. The existing leadership of the doping bureacracy does not seem interested in truly dealing with the problem. They keep promoting testing that they know has not been statistically validated and inspite of that they are more than willing to impose punishment on individuals for which they have no corroberation of doping. The doping bureacracy needs to change regardless of whether Landis is found to have doped.
Raymond

Montpellier, France

#94 Sep 17, 2006
Zeek wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not respect their rulings. As I have said before the idea of using tests which have not been statistically validated as your primary mode of enforcement is wrong. This approach creates a sieve through which most of the dopers safely pass. The few positives they do obtain may well not be obtained from dopers. In other words innocent riders will be accused. I think that does more harm than good. I would much rather have more concrete proof of doping. The existing leadership of the doping bureacracy does not seem interested in truly dealing with the problem. They keep promoting testing that they know has not been statistically validated and inspite of that they are more than willing to impose punishment on individuals for which they have no corroberation of doping. The doping bureacracy needs to change regardless of whether Landis is found to have doped.
OK M8, But who else can make these choises. Thats what we have! Have you any other suggestions?
Will

Baltimore, MD

#95 Sep 17, 2006
Zeek wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not respect their rulings. As I have said before the idea of using tests which have not been statistically validated as your primary mode of enforcement is wrong. This approach creates a sieve through which most of the dopers safely pass. The few positives they do obtain may well not be obtained from dopers. In other words innocent riders will be accused. I think that does more harm than good. I would much rather have more concrete proof of doping.
The existing leadership of the doping bureacracy does not seem interested in truly dealing with the problem. They keep promoting testing that they know has not been statistically validated and inspite of that they are more than willing to impose punishment on individuals for which they have no corroberation of doping. The doping bureacracy needs to change regardless of whether Landis is found to have doped.
Zeek--

1) I apologize for the past name-calling;

2) however, I reserve the right to strongly disagree with you on many, if not most, of your comments. For example, you keep referring to WADA et al. as "the doping bureaucracy" -- they are NOT, they are the ANTI-DOPING bureaucracy, perhaps; the DOPING bureaucracy is comprised of the dope doctors, trainers, team management, and the rest of the supply-side support network which make sports-doping the widespread problem that it is.

3) I agree with you that testing isn't a perfect solution to the sports-doping problem, but I would echo Raymond's recent comments that indeed nothing IS perfect.

4) Finally, I'd point out that the anti-doping approach involves MORE than just testing -- it also involves this multi-level REVIEW process that Landis is currently undergoing and that others have undergone, some successfully. I'd like to hear your critique of the review process as part of the anti-doping approach -- do you not respect the multi-level review process as a backstop against faulty testing?
LNDD

United States

#96 Sep 17, 2006
Will wrote:
To help Will with his metric conversions required to fully understand the measures in the article, here is a metric calculator:http://www.metric4u s.com/calculator.html "
ALL THE METRIC CONVERSIONS AND CALCULATORS IN THE WORLD COULD NEVER CONVERT "30-110 nanograms per milliliter" INTO "20-125 micrograms per DAY"!!!!
UNLESS, OF COURSE, THE "GENIUS" LNDD CAN DO WHAT I DON'T EVEN THINK EINSTEIN COULD DO -- AND THAT'S TO CONVERT A UNIT OF VOLUME (milliliter) INTO A UNIT OF TIME (day)!! PLEASE ENLIGHTEN US ON HOW YOU CAN DO THAT, LNDD!!
Dolt...I re-posted the corect reference and you still must harp about the error. Wow.
Ok, re-check the other reference....you ned to calculator to go from ng/dl to ng/ml...
If I have to hold your hand through everypoint I make, my wife will be very jealous.
Unless you'd like to get back on topic, address the points being put forth, I'm afraid I just don;t have the time or inclination to address you directly any longer. the choice is yours.
...and also, I did post an entry right after Zeek's question that confirmed I was speaking about unrinary concentrations. look it up if you like.
Will

Baltimore, MD

#97 Sep 17, 2006
LNDD wrote:
<quoted text>
Dolt...I re-posted the corect reference and you still must harp about the error. Wow.
Ok, re-check the other reference....you ned to calculator to go from ng/dl to ng/ml...
If I have to hold your hand through everypoint I make, my wife will be very jealous.
Unless you'd like to get back on topic, address the points being put forth, I'm afraid I just don;t have the time or inclination to address you directly any longer. the choice is yours.
...and also, I did post an entry right after Zeek's question that confirmed I was speaking about unrinary concentrations. look it up if you like.
IT SEEMS THAT YOU'RE THE ONE WHO CAN'T READ (SPELL) OR ANSWER A DIRECT QUESTION -- HOW DO YOU CONVERT A UNIT OF VOLUME (milliliter) INTO A UNIT OF TIME (day), AS YOU HAVE SUGGESTED?
Will

Baltimore, MD

#98 Sep 17, 2006
LNDD wrote:
<quoted text>
Dolt...I re-posted the corect reference and you still must harp about the error. Wow.
Ok, re-check the other reference....you ned to calculator to go from ng/dl to ng/ml...
If I have to hold your hand through everypoint I make, my wife will be very jealous.
Unless you'd like to get back on topic, address the points being put forth, I'm afraid I just don;t have the time or inclination to address you directly any longer. the choice is yours.
...and also, I did post an entry right after Zeek's question that confirmed I was speaking about unrinary concentrations. look it up if you like.
SO LNDD, DO YOU AGREE WITH ZEEK'S STATEMENT THAT HE MADE ABOUT YOUR "BACKWARDS CALCULATION" OF LANDIS' URINE T CONCENTRATIONS, BASED UPON HIS REPORTED T/E RATIOS?:

ZEEK replied: "...I do not think LNDD can make the extrapolation he is making with regards to FL abnormal T/E ratio."
TrustButVerify

Santa Rosa, CA

#99 Sep 17, 2006
Great, pretend LNDD didn't do anything. Can someone come up with a plausible approximation?

TBV
Robin Maguire

Sydney, Australia

#100 Sep 17, 2006
Will wrote:
LOL...maybe Einstein could do space-time, but LNDD is NO Einstein, not even CLOSE!
I think Dr Emmet Brown was working on that algorithm,
but you need a plutonium powered Delorean and a Flux Converter to work it out!!
Zeek

Milton, WA

#101 Sep 17, 2006
Will wrote:
<quoted text>
Zeek--
1) I apologize for the past name-calling;
2) however, I reserve the right to strongly disagree with you on many, if not most, of your comments. For example, you keep referring to WADA et al. as "the doping bureaucracy" -- they are NOT, they are the ANTI-DOPING bureaucracy, perhaps; the DOPING bureaucracy is comprised of the dope doctors, trainers, team management, and the rest of the supply-side support network which make sports-doping the widespread problem that it is.
3) I agree with you that testing isn't a perfect solution to the sports-doping problem, but I would echo Raymond's recent comments that indeed nothing IS perfect.
4) Finally, I'd point out that the anti-doping approach involves MORE than just testing -- it also involves this multi-level REVIEW process that Landis is currently undergoing and that others have undergone, some successfully. I'd like to hear your critique of the review process as part of the anti-doping approach -- do you not respect the multi-level review process as a backstop against faulty testing?

1)Accepted and Thanks
2)symantics I was trying to save space, but hence forth I shall refer to them as the ADB.
3)Right, but it can be improved as I have outlined
4)When the review is of evidence such as the Operation Puerto on Tyler Hamliton, it is good. But, when the foundation of the case is tests without statistical validation, and those hearing the case refuse to recognize the lack of statistical validation, then it is bad.

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