TUE-ed tests and Cortisone
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
wschart

Columbia, MO

#21 Sep 16, 2006
pareader wrote:
I did some looking back at the Tour. Landis was in the yellow jersey and therefore tested after Stage 11, 12, 15, 19, and 20. He won stage 17 and was tested. I also believe every rider goes through blood work ups prior to the Tour. If that is true then we would know that he was definitely tested 7 times. He may have been tested as a random test on another occasion.
I have 2 questions concerning the testing selection protocals: i.e., test the yellow jersey, stage winner and 2 random riders.

Question 1: what if the YJ is also the stage winner? Is another rider tested, like maybe #2 GC or stage?

Question 2: Are the random riders truly random or do the powers that be have some discretion here? Is has been suggested that if Landis had allowed someone to finish first on stage 17, he could have had a great (2 out of ~170) of not being tested. Having some discretion in who to test could be used to test a rider who showed a strong rider, but failed to either win the stage or the YJ.
TrustButVerify

Santa Rosa, CA

#22 Sep 16, 2006
wschart wrote:
<quoted text>
I have 2 questions concerning the testing selection protocals: i.e., test the yellow jersey, stage winner and 2 random riders.
Question 1: what if the YJ is also the stage winner? Is another rider tested, like maybe #2 GC or stage?
Question 2: Are the random riders truly random or do the powers that be have some discretion here? Is has been suggested that if Landis had allowed someone to finish first on stage 17, he could have had a great (2 out of ~170) of not being tested. Having some discretion in who to test could be used to test a rider who showed a strong rider, but failed to either win the stage or the YJ.
Great info, thanks.

The 'random' is officially random, but seems in practice to be subject to the targeting mentioned in various other threads.

I've looked at this a few times, and concluded that if they were really serious about catching riders, they would do about 8 randoms on every stage. This would not be much more expensive than what they do now, and would pretty much gurantee everyone was tested twice, on unpredicatable days.

TBV
Zeek

Milton, WA

#23 Sep 16, 2006
wschart wrote:
<quoted text>
I have 2 questions concerning the testing selection protocals: i.e., test the yellow jersey, stage winner and 2 random riders.
Question 1: what if the YJ is also the stage winner? Is another rider tested, like maybe #2 GC or stage?
Question 2: Are the random riders truly random or do the powers that be have some discretion here? Is has been suggested that if Landis had allowed someone to finish first on stage 17, he could have had a great (2 out of ~170) of not being tested. Having some discretion in who to test could be used to test a rider who showed a strong rider, but failed to either win the stage or the YJ.


If he had waited to let someone else win the stage, he would not have gained enough time to win the Tour
pareader

Lititz, PA

#24 Sep 17, 2006
TrustButVerify wrote:
OK, I'm occasionally guilty of pursuing every branch of a tree of conjecture to see where it goes. Ignoring every from "if he does that and it is still not released" as a branch that is uninteresting to you, and just consider what the data could explain (or not) if it WAS released.
Don't you want to know if 7 of the 13 TUE-ed AAFs were Landis? That would mean there were 6 other ones in the tour, which says something about TUE abuse, which has bothered you in the past.
TBV
On this matter of TUE. First, the newspaper article I remember said that 12 other riders tested positive, but had TUE's. So the numbers you are using are inaccurate. Landis did not have 7 of the 13 positive tests. The 13 refers to the number of riders who tested positive.
pareader

Lititz, PA

#25 Sep 17, 2006
Will wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for your contribution, pareader; along similar lines, I posted this on Aug 20th in another thread:
Will Dundalk, MD Reply
|Flag for Review Sunday Aug 20
Here is a quote from a Landis interview article in VeloNews.com , dated 7/10/06:'..."Whatever happens, I am focusing on the race itself," Landis said."Racing is therapy for my hip. It consumes everything I think about. While I am racing, I have the least problems."
So far, he's refused to take pain medication, said Phonak team doctor Denise Demir, who also confirmed Landis received two cortisone injections into the joint area this year to help reduce the pain and inflammation....'
Here is another quote from a Landis interview article published 7/10/06 in the International Herald Tribune's online service:'...On my second day with Landis, we traveled with Kay to Chao's San Diego office for Landis's pretour cortisone shot in his hip.(Cortisone, a non-performance-enhancing hormone with a variety of anti-inflammatory and other beneficial effects, is a banned substance. Landis's condition, however, which his doctors have selectively described as "bursitis," has allowed his team to obtain a therapeutic use exemption from the Union Cycliste Internationale, cycling's governing body.)....'
DEPENDING ON WHETHER THERE IS ANY OVERLAP IN THE ACCOUNTS, LANDIS HAD 2 OR POSSIBLY 3 CORTISONE INJECTIONS TO THE HIP, WITH AT LEAST 1 OF THE INJECTIONS DECRIBED AS HIS "PRETOUR CORTISONE SHOT".
One question, If cortisone is a non-performance enhancing drug, why is it a banned substance? Interesting that the non-inflammatory and other benefits get it banned. Aleve also helps with inflammation, but I guess it is a short lived benefit.
wschart

Columbia, MO

#26 Sep 17, 2006
Zeek wrote:
<quoted text>
If he had waited to let someone else win the stage, he would not have gained enough time to win the Tour
Probably true enough, although it is hard to say what could have happened if Landis had worked with someone. But if the second place stage winner is more or less immune from testing (other than a true random), such a scenario could be a viable tactic: dope on one or more stages, attack with someone, let that person win the stage while you gain enough time to be in position to get the YJ on another stage, where you don't dope.
TrustButVerify

Santa Rosa, CA

#27 Sep 17, 2006
pareader wrote:
<quoted text>
On this matter of TUE. First, the newspaper article I remember said that 12 other riders tested positive, but had TUE's. So the numbers you are using are inaccurate. Landis did not have 7 of the 13 positive tests. The 13 refers to the number of riders who tested positive.
I am not sure we know this for fact; we were left with that implication at the time of that announcement. If true, then why didn't Landis's cortisone turn up in any of his other tests? It certainly seems like it /should/ have been detected, especially since there were cortisone positives in the other 12. It's hard to believe there were others who were taking more than Landis.

TBV
TrustButVerify

Santa Rosa, CA

#28 Sep 17, 2006
pareader wrote:
<quoted text>
One question, If cortisone is a non-performance enhancing drug, why is it a banned substance? Interesting that the non-inflammatory and other benefits get it banned. Aleve also helps with inflammation, but I guess it is a short lived benefit.
Cortisone is also a masking agent for other anabolics, I think.

TBV
pareader

Lititz, PA

#29 Sep 17, 2006
TrustButVerify wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not sure we know this for fact; we were left with that implication at the time of that announcement. If true, then why didn't Landis's cortisone turn up in any of his other tests? It certainly seems like it /should/ have been detected, especially since there were cortisone positives in the other 12. It's hard to believe there were others who were taking more than Landis.
TBV
If I read this article correctly, the 13 refers to the amount of riders that tested positive, not to the amount of positive tests. We do not know how many positive tests there were - only that 12 other riders + Landis tested positive. No where is there mention how many times the other 12 riders tested positive, only that 12 riders tested positive.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/08/spo...
We only know according to info given by Landis that he did not test positive on his other tests. We do not know if that includes cortisone or not.
TrustButVerify

Santa Rosa, CA

#30 Sep 17, 2006
pareader wrote:
<quoted text>
If I read this article correctly, the 13 refers to the amount of riders that tested positive, not to the amount of positive tests. We do not know how many positive tests there were - only that 12 other riders + Landis tested positive. No where is there mention how many times the other 12 riders tested positive, only that 12 riders tested positive.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/08/spo...
We only know according to info given by Landis that he did not test positive on his other tests. We do not know if that includes cortisone or not.
Hmmm. It seems to me like ambiguous statements that can be read multiple ways, so we may know less than we think we do. I don't believe Landis has said he didn't test positive for cortisone on other tests, because I don't think he would have been informed of it if it had been AAF-ed but cleared by the TUE.

TBV
pareader

Lititz, PA

#31 Sep 17, 2006
TrustButVerify wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm. It seems to me like ambiguous statements that can be read multiple ways, so we may know less than we think we do. I don't believe Landis has said he didn't test positive for cortisone on other tests, because I don't think he would have been informed of it if it had been AAF-ed but cleared by the TUE.
TBV
I am not arguing with your desire to explore the questions regarding how many AAF's there were. I am simply pointing out that we do not know how many AAF's there are.

I do not think there is any ambiguity regarding the statement in the article I attached. "Thirteen riders tested positive for drugs at the Tour de France this year, and all except winner Floyd Landis had medical certificates allowing them to take banned substances."

If, and I realize it is a big IF, the article is correct, then 13 riders tested positive for banned substances, but 12 had TUE's. For example, that means there was a minimum of 13 AAF's. We do not know how many more AAF's exist, ie if Floyd tested positive on all 8 of his tests for cortisone then there would be 12 other riders who had at least one AAF + 8 for Landis, making 20 total AAF's.

My point from an earlier point was in response to this statement, "Don't you want to know if 7 of the 13 TUE-ed AAFs were Landis? That would mean there were 6 other ones in the tour, which says something about TUE abuse, which has bothered you in the past."
TBV

I was merely pointing out we definitely know that Landis did not have 7 of the 13 AAF's. We only know that 13 riders tested positive at least once. I am not disputing or arguing with your right to raise questions about the reliability of the test for cortisone. I was simply pointing out the that we do not have enough info to say anything beyond 13 riders tested positive on at least one occasion.

For clarification purposes let me play out one possible scenarion. Landis tested positive 8 times. Riders 1-4 tested positive 1 time, riders 5-8 tested positive 2 times, and riders 9-12 tested positive 3 times. My math would add 8 + 4 + 8 + 12 = 32 AAF's. It is a minute point, but simply one of clarification. I have no ax to grind nor am I trying to side with Will in your debate about speculation. Of course my math is all speculation since we only know that 13 riders tested positive at least once.
Will

Baltimore, MD

#32 Sep 17, 2006
pareader wrote:
<quoted text>...I have no ax to grind nor am I trying to side with Will in your debate about speculation. Of course my math is all speculation since we only know that 13 riders tested positive at least once.
Gee, thanks, Pareader...I think? LOL. You may not have been trying to side with me in the "speculation debate", but you made my point nevertheless.
TrustButVerify

Santa Rosa, CA

#33 Sep 17, 2006
pareader wrote:
<quoted text>

I do not think there is any ambiguity regarding the statement in the article I attached. "Thirteen riders tested positive for drugs at the Tour de France this year, and all except winner Floyd Landis had medical certificates allowing them to take banned substances."

If, and I realize it is a big IF, the article is correct.
I am appreciative of the correction. Re-reading the Velonews article at http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10833.0.html ,
I see, "Sixteen samples taken from 13 riders tested positive", which says there were 16 total AAFs, one of which was the Landis T/E, leaving 15 among 12 other riders.

The article mentions that other riders had TUEs for corticosteroids, but very carefully does not mention if any AAFs for them were among the results.

I think the article is vague about whether Landis was one of the other AAFs for cortisone.

Going back to the very beginning,*should* some of Landis's tests have been positive for corisone? It seems like they ought to have been. The WADA proficiency standard says the lab should catch 90% of the substances in the test samples. Being zero for eight on Landis wouldn't pass.

They probably don't do IRMS on passed 'A' samples, but they did on Landis's B sample. Using this different test, should it not have identified his cortisone? But there have been no reports that corsisone was seen in the B sample either.

So I still don't understand what is going on with the cortisone test.

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

Washington, DC

#34 Sep 17, 2006
Thanks for the Velonews article.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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