DrPete, other MD's - what is the normal range of testosterone measurements? Lab

[billallbritten]

cutoff for abnormally high readings that flagged Landis? I came across a 2002 CS Monitor article which briefly discusses testosterone doping and the difficulty in determing whether doping has occurred given the wide naturally found variation in men.

Reference: http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0726/p12s02-alsp.html?s=widep

Thanks,

Bill

[pathdoc]

The Mayo Lab manual has its reference values for total testosterone, men 19-40 years at 300-950 ng/dL.

[flythebike]

There is an abstract on pubmed here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10732948&dopt=Abstract

Evidently this test isn't black and white.

[billallbritten]

There is an abstract on pubmed here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10732948&dopt=Abstract

Evidently this test isn't black and white.

That abstract is interesting. The CS Monitor also mentioned the wide variance within the normal (non-doping) male population.

Thanks for the info.

Bill

[alanbikehouston]

All humans have testosterone in their body. To detect possible cheating, WADA had instituted a standard based on the ratio of testosterone to a cousin found in the body. That ratio is the "T/E" ratio. Most guys have a "T/E" ratio of around 1:1, but for some guys their natural ratio might be as high as 4:1, and in rare cases, someone might have a natural T/E ratio as high as 6:1.

WADA had previously set a standard that tests showing a T/E ratio above 6:1 would be flagged for further testing. In 2005, WADA reduced its standard to 4:1. If a test shows a T/E ratio above 4:1, the "B" sample is tested. Then, the person tested is notified and allowed to present evidence that they had been granted a medical exemption for a medicine that might impact the T/E ratio, and may also present evidence that their natural T/E ratio sometimes is above 4:1.

So, if it turns out that the test results show that Landis had a T/E ratio of 5:1 after Stage 17, the "B" sample would also be tested. And, at that point, Landis would have the right to show that his T/E ratio was increased by approved medication, or is a level he sometimes naturally reaches during a race.

[forensicchemist]

For an adult the "normal" ratio of the 2 hormones is about 1:1 However, it's not uncommon for the ration to be somewhat higher. During puberty the ratio is higher.....it can also be higher due to several physiological reasons. The standard course is to take multiple, unannounced samples from the person over a period of the next few months to see what the ratio is. Additional medical tests can be done to determine if the unusual ratio is indeed a medical issue, or rather simply doping. If in subsequent test the ratio remains high, that would be an indicator that something medical is going on.....if the ratios fall back down to more "normal" values of 1:1, well then, as Ricky Ricardo would say: "someone has some 'xplaining to do".......

mark

[timmhaan]

if they take other random samples, but they aren't when he is competing at a high level can they really be compared? i'm sure the levels would be very different if he was just laying on the couch out of competition compared to when he was doing the ride of his life. i'm beginning to see why they have a hard time nailing anyone with this test.

[Ritterview]

A more recent article provides some background:

Br J Sports Med. 2006 Jul;40 Suppl 1:i21-4.

Testosterone and doping control.


Saudan C, Baume N, Robinson N, Avois L, Mangin P, Saugy M.

Swiss Laboratory for Doping Analyses, Institute of Legal Medicine, Lausanne, Switzerland. martial.saugy@chuv.ch

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Anabolic steroids are synthetic derivatives of testosterone, modified to enhance its anabolic actions (promotion of protein synthesis and muscle growth). They have numerous side effects, and are on the International Olympic Committee's list of banned substances. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry allows identification and characterisation of steroids and their metabolites in the urine but may not distinguish between pharmaceutical and natural testosterone. Indirect methods to detect doping include determination of the testosterone/epitestosterone glucuronide ratio with suitable cut-off values. Direct evidence may be obtained with a method based on the determination of the carbon isotope ratio of the urinary steroids. This paper aims to give an overview of the use of anabolic-androgenic steroids in sport and methods used in anti-doping laboratories for their detection in urine, with special emphasis on doping with testosterone. METHODS: Review of the recent literature of anabolic steroid testing, athletic use, and adverse effects of anabolic-androgenic steroids. RESULTS: Procedures used for detection of doping with endogenous steroids are outlined. The World Anti-Doping Agency provided a guide in August 2004 to ensure that laboratories can report, in a uniform way, the presence of abnormal profiles of urinary steroids resulting from the administration of testosterone or its precursors, androstenediol, androstenedione, dehydroepiandrosterone or a testosterone metabolite, dihydrotestosterone, or a masking agent, epitestosterone. CONCLUSIONS: Technology developed for detection of testosterone in urine samples appears suitable when the substance has been administered intramuscularly. Oral administration leads to rapid pharmacokinetics, so urine samples need to be collected in the initial hours after intake. Thus there is a need to find specific biomarkers in urine or plasma to enable detection of long term oral administration of testosterone.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16799097&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum

[acrafton]

Ok, but wouldn't they have a baseline of absolutes and ratios for Floyd since he has been tested a lot and specifically during the TDF. . .don't they test riders that are in the MJ every day and the 1, 2, 3 place finishers for each stage, in addition to some random tests? If so, it would seem easy to look back and see what his normal range was and if there was a sudden spike for stage 17 that would be indicative but not conclusive evidence.

[superdex]

He was approved for taking cortisone for his hip during the race, would that have an adverse effect on his testosterone?

[GGDub]

read the section on testosterone, particularly the bottom part:

http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol116/kraemer.htm

[DrPete]

No, it wouldn't...

Thanks for mentioning me in the title, and sorry I chimed in late. The real point is that the ratio is what's being measured, and with the recent change in the cutoff value there may be some "normal" variation.

At least that's what I'm hoping. I want to believe that people can still achieve great things without the juice.

[CyLowe97]

This was posted in another thread..... any validity, or is this bunk?

For all that talk about what kind of beer Floyd drank, and was it the beer that made floyd fast? Take a look at this: http://www.crainsmuscleworld.com/new...news071601.htm

Scroll down to the heading "The Effect of Alcohol Consumption on the Urinary Testosterone / Epitestosterone Ratio"

I'm not sure if the current tests still have this deficiency.


Could a couple of Amstels be to blame? My non-medical background makes me very skeptical...

[timmhaan]

what is the 'B' sample going to tell us? it's the same urine as the "A" sample, right? if so, then it still leaves the question of what is natural\unnatural still open. seems like the "A" and "B" sample just determines if there was a testing error or not.

[forensicchemist]

what is the 'B' sample going to tell us? it's the same urine as the "A" sample, right? if so, then it still leaves the question of what is natural\unnatural still open. seems like the "A" and "B" sample just determines if there was a testing error or not.


exactly...thats the reason to take a B sample. Scientists like to have duplicate samples....not only in the world of cycling, but in all areas too. Since we are dealing with exceedingly small amounts of a compound, we always have to be concerned with sample integrity. Hence the "B" sample. If "B" comes back with the same unusually high ratio, then it is confirmed to be high. Investigation proceeds forward.... If "B" ratio comes back drastically different, i.e., "normal" then we lean more towards a lab issue. Sadly, that would cloud all results from the lab designed to keep athletes clean.

mark

[dfrank]

Thanks for mentioning me in the title, and sorry I chimed in late. The real point is that the ratio is what's being measured, and with the recent change in the cutoff value there may be some "normal" variation.


But how to differentiate these scenarios:
1. Naturally high ratio and sample A happened to be within normal range of variation for Landis, but just over the line into "testing positive".
2. Doping aimed at keeping the ratio within legal ratio, but one sample slipped over the line.

If sample B comes back negative what does that automatically absolve him?

[DrPete]

If the A and B samples were drawn at the same time (which I'm pretty sure they are), it just serves to verify the A result. It'll be interesting to see what kind of evaluation Floyd will have to undergo if the B sample is positive.

I don't know the specific UCI/WADA/whoever rule, but I think he'd be off the hook with a normal B sample as I understand it.

[edmcnierney]

I'm replying here as this thread seems to be a little saner than some others:rolleyes:

It appears that most of the press is misrepresenting (at least in the headlines) the test by reporting Landis had "high levels of testosterone". That is not what the test said. It said he had a high ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone, which is presumed to be due to artificial introduction of testosterone into the body.

However, there is a mention in ESPN's coverage (at http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/tdf2006/news/story?id=2531225) from John Eustice claiming that Landis' testosterone level in the test was actually low. As forensicchemist correctly points out, it's hard to do a good job of accurately measuring the ratio between two small quantities, since it's hard to measure those quantities accurately.

This leaves me a little surprised that the UCI regs address only the ratio and not the levels. And it makes me wonder what possible benefit there would be from taking such tiny amounts of testosterone that you still end up with a "low level" afterwards!

I don't know whether Landis is clean or not and I'm trying to keep that particular speculative flame war out of this thread. But it is really disappointing to see such a serious error in the headlines reporting the problem (so go ahead and tell me I shouldn't be surprised:mad: )

[Baldanzi]

Is there any pysical reason that the ratio may be off due to his body responding to the constant pain of his hip? I think that is somewhat untested territory - combining the physical stress of the tour with the stress of his body respnding to pain from the hip injury? I find it very interesting that the UCI is talking about the ratio, while they are actually saying his actual testosterone levels are low.

Are testosterone or other hormone ratios messed up when a body trys to compensate for pain?

[Allen H]

If his actual testosterone level was low, would a high ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone even indicate any "advantage" was gained, assuming the test is accurate?

IOW, isn't the ratio test designed to "catch" high levels of testosterone - which would be indicative of doping? At low levels, what does this test actually "prove"?

[jackaninny]

good point allen h - what if landis had an very low level of epitestosterone due to his hip, thyroid, some other condition? that would throw the ratio out of wack. i will be EXTREMELY disappointed if his ratio is between 4:1 and 6:1 meaning that prior to the 2005 threshold lowering this is not even an issue.

[skinnyone]

To Z MDs..Presumably they got a sample from stage 15.. Say they test it and the levels are normal.. Is it possible that the human body can produce that much more Testosterone over the period of 2 days that you could trigger a positive test?.. In some sense how often is Testosterone produced.. What is the time constant of such a process and is the production isntantaneous or spread out over several days..

[Prince9931]

Okay ........ How many times has Floyd been tested and his elevated results weren't known before hand? If he is someone who has a naturally occurring high ratio then we can always back tract use his others results for a gauge and then go from there........ pretty simple stuff. But if his levels went from 1:5 then to 1:3 as the accpetable ratio's were trimmed then ....... well it looks like we may have been hood winked at best.

[Guest]

I thought he was being tested nearly every day since the win. Don't they test the top GC guy every day? If the other tests were negative and this test was the only positive one, how could it be doping? Does testosterone really clear the system that quickly anyway? I just don't think so.

Test all his samples since stage 17 and do a comparison. At least they'd get a clearer picture of what's going on with that one particular sample.

Koffee

[forensicchemist]

I thought he was being tested nearly every day since the win. Don't they test the top GC guy every day? If the other tests were negative and this test was the only positive one, how could it be doping? Does testosterone really clear the system that quickly anyway? I just don't think so.

Test all his samples since stage 17 and do a comparison. At least they'd get a clearer picture of what's going on with that one particular sample.

Koffee


actually depending on the actual type of testosterone, (there are several that are typically used, each differening only slightly in chemical structure) half life can be as little as 10-15 minutes. The primary use would be that it increases protein synthesis....i.e., muscle repair. SO yes, its very possible that all prior tests could be normal, then we have 1 that is positive.

What we have not seen anywhere, is the actual data. What were the actual values for the previous tests. What were the ratios for tests later in the tour? Historically, what is normal for Landis? As I mentioned in an earlier post, there are multiple conditions where one has elevated ratios between these 2 naturally occuring hormones. Before we, or the press, convict him of doping, there must be several other questions answered. Once those answers are in, then and only then will we be able to draw real conclusions.

mark

[DieselDan]

Coming from a diabetic who deals with injecting hormones on a regular basis: PAIN GREATLY AFFECTS HORMONE LEVELS, ALL OF THEM. Your body is producing more endorphins, more glucose to provide energy to fight the pain and heal the body. EVERYTHING is affected, including heart rate, blood pressure, respiration, and even how your reproductive system operates. With Landis' hip problem, not everything is operating normally in his body.

All this providing Landis is telling the truth.

[meb]

Ok, but wouldn't they have a baseline of absolutes and ratios for Floyd since he has been tested a lot and specifically during the TDF. . .don't they test riders that are in the MJ every day and the 1, 2, 3 place finishers for each stage, in addition to some random tests? If so, it would seem easy to look back and see what his normal range was and if there was a sudden spike for stage 17 that would be indicative but not conclusive evidence.

In the interview I heard from Pound on the Landis situation, he indicated the UCI doesn't run a full battery of tests on the selected samples. So while there might have been samples of Floyd due his 3rd in stage 11 or his days in the MJ, they may not have tested for testosterone those days.

[joeprim]

I thought you had to take that kind of stuff over a period of time for it to have any effect is that not true? Isn't Testosterone a steriod?

Thanks Joe

[voltman]

Test is a hormone.

[flythebike]

I thought you had to take that kind of stuff over a period of time for it to have any effect is that not true? Isn't Testosterone a steriod?

Thanks Joe

Evidently it helps with recovery. If you saw stage 16, Floyd needed some help with recovery. Hopefully he did not obtain it illegally.

[DMF]

Some more info, gleaned from the morning NPR segment and a WSJ article (http://online.wsj.com/wsjgate?subURI=%2Farticle%2FSB115410108601920455-email.html&nonsubURI=%2Farticle_email%2FSB115410108601920455-lMyQjAxMDE2NTI0ODEyMDgxWj.html) today:

Sample A result was 11:1. Sample B result will not be available for several days. (Doesn't this violate protocol? Isn't Sample B supposed to be tested before any announcement is made?) All other tests in the Tour were within the 4:1 allowable range.

Floyd got hammered the night of Stage 15. He remembers two draft ales in the bar, and "at least" four shots of Jack up in the room. He says he doesn't usually drink and it hit him hard, to the point that he doesn't remember much. Probably due to his raging metabolism, he claims to have had no ill effects the next morning.

An expert on the NPR segment suggested that there is no immediate physiological benefit from hitting testosterone. I have heard nothing to contradict that.

Btw, for you MD types out there, could elevated T be result of an intense emotional state?

[flythebike]

Btw, for you MD types out there, could elevated T be result of an intense emotional state?

I wonder about that too. But that kind of soft evidence won't prove persuasive to the UCI.

Here is a great article. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/28/sports/hormone.php from the International Herald Tribune.

[matagi]

In the interview I heard from Pound on the Landis situation, he indicated the UCI doesn't run a full battery of tests on the selected samples. So while there might have been samples of Floyd due his 3rd in stage 11 or his days in the MJ, they may not have tested for testosterone those days.

Logic would suggest they would now go back and test the earlier samples more thoroughly. Anyone know if this is how it's done?

[Braveheart]

Ok here's a dumb question - are a couple of Amstel Lights and four shots of JD considered banned substances/PED under UCI/TDF rules? Assuming not, but trying to understand why Floyd is emphasising the "natural" T/E variation argument.

[meb]

Logic would suggest they would now go back and test the earlier samples more thoroughly. Anyone know if this is how it's done?

Have they retained the earlier B samples if their corresponding A samples came out ok for what they were testing for that day?

[matagi]

Have they retained the earlier B samples if their corresponding A samples came out ok for what they were testing for that day?

Hmm, good point, I believe they discard the B sample if the A sample is negative. But perhaps they store the A sample for a period of time, otherwise how did they recently manage to find traces of EPO in one of Lance's old samples?

[JungleCat]

Is it me or is drinking that much alcohol during the tour irresponsible for a hopeful winner?

[air-phil]

I thought you had to take that kind of stuff over a period of time for it to have any effect is that not true? Isn't Testosterone a steriod?

Thanks Joe
Test is a hormone.

Testosterone is both, it's a steroid hormone. A steroid due to its 4-ringed carbon structure, a hormone because it's a chemical messenger. Testosterone is the most powerful natural anabolic androgenic steroid.

I wouldn't think that testosterone would be that helpful in as short a time span as one day. The benefits of taking testosterone I would think require relatively long periods of time for any substantial gain. It does aid in reducing recovery time though, by blocking the effects of cortisol, a stress hormone. Perhaps someone more qualified would know whether this boost in recovery time or muting of stress hormones would be of significant benefit to a cyclist on a day-to-day basis.

[forensicchemist]

...I wouldn't think that testosterone would be that helpful in as short a time span as one day. The benefits of taking testosterone I would think require relatively long periods of time for any substantial gain. It does aid in reducing recovery time though, by blocking the effects of cortisol, a stress hormone. Perhaps someone more qualified would know whether this boost in recovery time or muting of stress hormones would be of significant benefit to a cyclist on a day-to-day basis.


To give a purely test book type answer...YES, without a doubt, testosterone aids in recovery....NOW in the real world, would it REALLY make a difference to a cyclist in one day? I Don't know....to give an analogy: those of us with high speed internet connections.....if your download speed went from 6MB to 8MB, is it faster? Yes. Would you see any real difference? probably not......there you have it....clear as mud :)

[dschl]

actually depending on the actual type of testosterone, (there are several that are typically used, each differening only slightly in chemical structure) half life can be as little as 10-15 minutes. The primary use would be that it increases protein synthesis....i.e., muscle repair. SO yes, its very possible that all prior tests could be normal, then we have 1 that is positive.

What we have not seen anywhere, is the actual data. What were the actual values for the previous tests. What were the ratios for tests later in the tour? Historically, what is normal for Landis? As I mentioned in an earlier post, there are multiple conditions where one has elevated ratios between these 2 naturally occuring hormones. Before we, or the press, convict him of doping, there must be several other questions answered. Once those answers are in, then and only then will we be able to draw real conclusions.

Awesome questions that you'll never see raised in a mainstream media article, I'm afraid - most journalists have less understanding of science than the typical 10 year old nerd. Media (mis)reporting of science issues is unbearable in this case - the media are hanging him out to dry without having even a basic understanding of the relevance of the information they are reporting. I would add to your list the following:


what is the method detection limit, and how close were the numbers they obtained? In environmental testing, we simply don't expect results within about 5x the detection limit to be very reliable or reproducible. There is often a large (order of magnitude) difference between the lowest numbers an instrument can report, and the lowest numbers that you can rely upon. Because hormone levels are well down in the parts-per-bugger-all range, I would worry about reproducibility.
how well does the laboratory manage their chain of custody information, and maintain sample integrity? I recall some earlier reports that this lab has historically shown a lack of confidentiality in handling (Lance's) results, so I wouldn't trust how they handled samples either.
is the stability of both epi and testosterone the same? would something like failure to immediately cool the sample down after sample collection make a difference in the results?
along with the internal lab QA/QC data for the sample run, what were the results of the rest of the sample run compared to previous runs for that group of riders? For example, let's say that there were two samples run that day, one rider with a typical ratio of 1:1, and Floyd with an assumed "normal" ratio of 3.5:1. If the other rider's result returned 3:1 due to equipment error (still within the acceptable limit of 4:1), then Floyd's result on the same run would be around 11:1. For that matter, the internal standards (blanks, spikes, etc) used by the lab to calibrate the equipment should be verified externally in a case this important.
what would the A sample show at another lab, using other equipment, or possibly another, higher resolution method, if available (assuming that the test procedure only uses a small amount of the sample). Even better, how would the numbers compare from a re-run of the A sample at the same lab.
what's the big deal about presence of something that doesn't cause a performance increase in the short term anyways? I thought that even large amounts of testosterone would not have made a significant difference in his performance between Stage 17 and the end of the race, only days later, is that correct? If it wouldn't make a difference anyways, then finding something screwy with testosterone levels is about as irrelevant to his TdF win as his cholesterol levels would be.

As I tend towards the cynical side, I have to wonder whether there exists a currently undetectable / little known performance enhancing drug which has a side effect of altering your testosterone / epitestosterone levels.

I'd like to think Landis is clean. It is very upsetting to see the damage to his reputation, though, especially if he is clean, as he seems like a very down to earth kind of guy. I imagine that his experience would be similar to being accused of being something like a wife abuser or a child molester in a small town - even if you're innocent, your life is still basically over. it's too bad that the UCI reported the results of a preliminary, unconfirmed sample, and created this mess.

[forensicchemist]

dschl.....You are right on. First rule I learned in science was be sure of your results before you report them. Leaking lab reports to the media as has happened here before the B sample was examined is very unprofessional. I am constantly asked by media here in my town about results. No matter how scintilating, you just can't do it....we are talking about someones life and reputation. That applies to everyone, not just athletes.....

As for your other comments, detection levels, methods thing like that: I don't know. My lab doesn't normally look for hormone levels in our samples, so I'm not sure about stability or testing methods of either compound. I would surely HOPE that the lab doing this work is well qualified, and has their QA/QC ducks in a row.....but having been in the science profession some 20+ years now, I have been amazed at what some labs do and what they report out. I hope Landis is clean, I hope the lab didn't screw up. I hope there is a good, logical reason for all this....I hope the media give that story as much attention as they are giving sample A.......

Then again, most people say I'm an optimist.

mark

[air-phil]

is the stability of both epi and testosterone the same? would something like failure to immediately cool the sample down after sample collection make a difference in the results?

I could be wrong, but I think failure to immediately cool the sample would result in a lower testosterone reading, because then it would be given time to degrade. Immediate cooling slows these degradation processes.

I volunteer in a professor's plant molecular genetics lab, and its very important to keep most things in fridge or on ice to prevent degradation of the samples.

[dschl]

I could be wrong, but I think failure to immediately cool the sample would result in a lower testosterone reading, because then it would be given time to degrade. Immediate cooling slows these degradation processes.

I volunteer in a professor's plant molecular genetics lab, and its very important to keep most things in fridge or on ice to prevent degradation of the samples.
I've been looking around a bit since my previous post, and it looks like sample temperature is probably not an issue. This medscape article (http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/16470578?queryText=epitestosterone) indicates that temperature is not a problem. With the high temperatures, I know how challenging it is to keep samples cool (where I work, we have to pay for resampling client sites if the samples arrive at the lab over 8 degrees C ), but it doesn't appear to be a problem in this case.

Just noticed that koffee brown is trying to get all of Floyd's test results into a single thread. Nothing like a few chemists going back and forth to kill this thread, and help her in that goal.

[DMF]

testosterone ... does aid in reducing recovery time though, by blocking the effects of cortisol, a stress hormone. Alcohol has been known to relieve stress too. :p

[DMF]

Let's try to keep the technical discussion separate (here) so I don't have to read 8000 posts by morons to glean a little wheat.

[Guest]

I've been looking around a bit since my previous post, and it looks like sample temperature is probably not an issue. This medscape article (http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/16470578?queryText=epitestosterone) indicates that temperature is not a problem. With the high temperatures, I know how challenging it is to keep samples cool (where I work, we have to pay for resampling client sites if the samples arrive at the lab over 8 degrees C ), but it doesn't appear to be a problem in this case.

Just noticed that koffee brown is trying to get all of Floyd's test results into a single thread. Nothing like a few chemists going back and forth to kill this thread, and help her in that goal.

I don't know what you're implying, or why (don't care why), but I just spent the better part of today merging threads so we don't have 40 different threads on the same topic all over the forums. If you don't like this, please don't participate, and certainly don't insinuate that I'm trying to kill threads when I just wasted an entire day trying to get things organized around here. It's Saturday, my day off, and I've just wasted this whole day doing ONE thing.

I would appreciate it if people would confine comments about killing threads to a minimum.

Koffee Brown

Forum Moderator

[dschl]

I don't know what you're implying, or why (don't care why), but I just spent the better part of today merging threads so we don't have 40 different threads on the same topic all over the forums. If you don't like this, please don't participate, and certainly don't insinuate that I'm trying to kill threads when I just wasted an entire day trying to get things organized around here. It's Saturday, my day off, and I've just wasted this whole day doing ONE thing.

I would appreciate it if people would confine comments about killing threads to a minimum.
You can read what you want into what I said, but it was fairly clear. I would have to seriously twist what I wrote to come up with your interpretation.

Why not slow down, take a much-needed break, go outside for a quick ride, lose the defensive, hostile attitude, and re-read what I wrote before making replies such as the one above. Given that my previous posts were from one chemist to another, it might give you a chance to recognize self-deprecating humour for future reference.

[Guest]

I've taken time off. I don't know what your meaning is, except what I wrote. And I've had multiple people talking about thread killing. So whatever your meaning, if you're talking about thread killing, I'm not doing that- I'd appreciate it if you felt that way to ask before insinuating.

Moving all threads of the same topic into one thread is a good idea- it prevents repetition and keeps our members sane. We do it when we have topics that people get excited about all the time and post multiple times around the forums. If you can't handle it, then that's your problem. But it's not the forum's problem.

Koffee

Mod

[dschl]

I've taken time off. I don't know what your meaning is, except what I wrote. And I've had multiple people talking about thread killing. So whatever your meaning, if you're talking about thread killing, I'm not doing that- I'd appreciate it if you felt that way to ask before insinuating.

Moving all threads of the same topic into one thread is a good idea- it prevents repetition and keeps our members sane. We do it when we have topics that people get excited about all the time and post multiple times around the forums. If you can't handle it, then that's your problem. But it's not the forum's problem.

For the record, I don't care what other people wrote about thread killing, but I would suggest that you deal with them directly over what they wrote, and deal with me over what I wrote, not on the basis of other comments that evidently have gotten under your skin somehow. I could also care less if threads get merged. Deleting comments bothers me, organizing them with a clear purpose and a rationale does not.

Hopefully this will clear things up for you.

1) I am a chemist.
2) forensicchemist is also a chemist
3) most people get turned off by technical discussions about chemistry and tune them out. Maybe you're not one of those people, but trust me, it is a valid generalization for me to make.
4) we were steering the thread into a technical discussion about chemistry
5) I noticed (after posting in this Landis thread) that you were trying to consolidate these threads. I stated "Just noticed that koffee brown is trying to get all of Floyd's test results into a single thread." This statement is based on your thread title (Let's talk about Floyd's test results here) and your comment "I'm just trying to consolidate". I stated what you are doing - your goal is to merge the threads. I do not make a value judgement on your goal, or disparage you in any way.
6) I also stated (this is the self-deprecating humour, based on my points 1-4 above) "Nothing like a few chemists going back and forth to kill this thread, and help her in that goal".
7) If you parse the english text of the two sentences quoted in points 5 and 6, you will note the following:
7a) the chemist's discussion is what will kill the thread (inferred through boredom from point 3, see self-deprecating, above)
7b) the reference to "help her in that goal" clearly refers to your goal in the previous sentence - i.e., of consolidating threads. Nowhere do I state that you are killing threads, or supporting anyone in doing it.

I lost most of my respect for you on this one koffee. You jumped to a conclusion, and twisted what I said, stating that I was "insinuating" something about you when I did no such thing. Your statement about "handling it" is also rather juvenile.

You need to follow your own advice, as I too would "appreciate it if you felt that way to ask before insinuating." The policy of "shoot first, ask questions later" died in the old west.

[matagi]

Now all we need to do is post the synthetic pathway for steroid hormones and it will truly send the thread to the bottom the of the "must read" list. ;)