Professional Cycling For the Fans - Synthetic testosterone found in Landis urine sample

July 31, 2006

NEW YORK (AP) -- Lab tests show that some of the testosterone in Floyd Landis' urine sample taken at the Tour de France was synthetic and not naturally produced by his body as he had claimed, according to a newspaper report.

:eek:

Link???

Old news. We've been discussing this in the Tests thread since at least oh 7/28... ;-)

I apologise... there's new information... from a source at the UCI...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/31/sports/othersports/31cnd-landis.html?hp&ex=1154404800&en=07a1b9cc5210daa3&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Looks bad for Floyd but I'll wait for the official word.

I'm not giving him a break or a pass and if he's guilty he needs to go but I'm tired of all this annonyous source stuff. I'm not saying the info is wrong, we'll find out for sure but the leaking is wrong. There's a process that's supposed to be followed that gives the accused athlete some confidentiality until the tests are officially confirmed and it appears, at least to me, that the UCI isn't even trying to follow their own procedure. To me that's very poor and makes me question the ethics of the people who run the sport.

(No, that's not a "Floyd was framed" conspiracy call just an observation about how a process has been ignored and that nothing good can come out of these leaks.

Gatlin is facing a lifetime ban but at least the USADA followed confidentiality guidelines in that case.

Gatlin is a bigger name than Landis too.

Question for chemists: Is this isotope testing black-or-white? I mean no room for other intrepretation?

The more info that comes up, the more hosed FLANDIS looks. Can't think of anything that sounds good so far except for his denial. But so far out of the last like 50 doping cases like 3 people have admitted it, so I'm not really sure that is even worth mentioning.

Old news. We've been discussing this in the Tests thread since at least oh 7/28... ;-)
Sorry, I had it dated wrong. It just came out this afternoon. 7/31/06

Sorry, I had it dated wrong. It just came out this afternoon. 7/31/06

Sorry for jumping to the gun in my initial response. The new bit of news with this report is the confirmation of the IRMS coming from the UCI (and not the beleaguered L'Equipe). Wonder when Landis will speak publicly next? Someone said he's going to be on the Leno on Thursday? I wonder if that will get re-scheduled given the scheduling of the B-Sample counter-analysis?

It looks REALLY bad for Floyd because he's been delaying the B sample test.

From the N Y Times:


Pat McQuaid, the president of the cycling body, which is known by its French acronym, U.C.I., said last night that the organization had contacted the French lab at 5 p.m. in Paris to see if Landis’s request had been received. When the lab said no, McQuaid said U.C.I. asked the lab to analyze Landis’s B sample, which he said was allowed under the organization’s rules. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/01/sports/othersports/01landis.html?hp&ex=1154491200&en=3f51b3d7def2bbea&ei=5094&partner=homepage

It looks REALLY bad for Floyd because he's been delaying the B sample test.

From the N Y Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/01/sports/othersports/01landis.html?hp&ex=1154491200&en=3f51b3d7def2bbea&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Delaying? His Spanish lawyer files the B sample test request in Paris 2 business days after the story of the test abnormallity broke, 3 from when he was notified-a story that according to procedures is not supposed to even be published. If I were his attorney and filed a paper the same day I wrote it, particularly when the deadline wasn't immediate, I'd be worrying about malpractice.

It looks REALLY bad for Floyd because he's been delaying the B sample test.
Dude, Floyd himself has said right from the start that he expects the B sample to also be positive.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601089&sid=a_Oqv2GM4OzU&refer=home

Landis' High Testosterone Wasn't Natural, NYT Says (Correct)
(Corrects type of test in first paragraph.)

July 31 (Bloomberg) -- Floyd Landis, winner of the Tour de France, had testosterone in his urine that came from an external source, the New York Times said, citing an unidentified person at the International Cycling Union who had knowledge of the results.

A carbon isotope ratio test, which can detect whether testosterone is natural or not, showed Landis had a synthetic hormone in his system, the Times said, citing the person. The test was run on the first of two urine samples Landis provided after his victory in Stage 17 of the Tour, it said.

Landis has maintained that his elevated testosterone was produced by his own body, the Times said.

The cyclist had an 11-to-1 ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone in his body, the newspaper said, citing Landis's doctor, Brent Kay. The normal range is between 1-to-1 and 2-to-1, and cycling regulators limit riders to a level of 4-to-1, the Times reported.

(NYT 7-31 online)

Dude, Floyd himself has said right from the start that he expects the B sample to also be positive.

Elevated and synthetic testosterone are two different findings. Elevevated allows some wiggle room in interpretation. Synthetic seems to be rather black and white.

Dude, Floyd himself has said right from the start that he expects the B sample to also be positive.

And he also said that his testosterone levels are naturally high and it's all endogenous. :rolleyes:

Landis testosterone synthetic: Report

http://torontosun.canoe.ca/Sports/OtherSports/2006/08/01/1712942-sun.html

That's what he gets for shaking hands at the start line with all those T-Mobile guys.
I guess some of it rubbed off.:D :D

Ok, we've known for some time that L'Equipe reported a positive Isotope test, that its standard WADA procedure to do the Isotope test on the A sample if the T/E is high, that Landis' lawyer was denigrating the isotope test. Yet, a number of posters thought it was a lie because the published sources traced back to those lying french bastards at l'Equipe. Feeling a little foolish now that the NY Times is reporting it from a source other than L'Equipe?

Oh hell, let's not wait for anything official. Let's go with the 'reports' of some scum bag journalists.
Let's just have a public stoning of Flandis right now!:rolleyes:



If he's really found to be guilty, then he should be banned forever. Until then, it's rumours and speculation.

-------------------------

My biggest problem is with all the leaks and lack of following protocol by the UCI, the lab, etc. In my mind it helps to discredit them. However, synthetic testosterone is synthetic testosterone. If that stuff is in the B sample, he deserves to be thrown out. Looks like my only hero is back to being Rocky.

Oh hell, let's not wait for anything official. Let's go with the 'reports' of some scum bag journalists.
Let's just have a public stoning of Flandis right now!:rolleyes:



If he's really found to be guilty, then he should be banned forever. Until then, it's rumours and speculation.

-------------------------
:rolleyes: no, but now we have a report sourced from the UCI itself. The rumors and speculation come from the UCI Anti-Doping department... when you say "found to be guilty" do you mean USADA, CAS... or do we have to have videotape?

He said he had nothing to lose before his epic stage 17 ride, so why not use the juice? If he gets caught, they take away something he knew he couldn't get anyway. Just my two cents...

Oh hell, let's not wait for anything official. Let's go with the 'reports' of some scum bag journalists.
Let's just have a public stoning of Flandis right now!:rolleyes:



If he's really found to be guilty, then he should be banned forever. Until then, it's rumours and speculation.

-------------------------


I could buy your post, if you deleted your signature "I believe in Floyd". You're asking us not to prejudge his guilt, while you're proclaiming his innocence. Obviously this is all somewhat speculative, till its run its course, but I find it somewhat surprising the number of people who steadfastly proclaim his innoncence when the available evidence makes it look very likely he's going down.

when you say "found to be guilty" do you mean USADA, CAS... or do we have to have videotape?

If the process of the UCI finds him guilty, then I'll tie the noose. I HATE cheaters.

I could buy your post, if you deleted your signature "I believe in Floyd". You're asking us not to prejudge his guilt, while you're proclaiming his innocence. Obviously this is all somewhat speculative, till its run its course, but I find it somewhat surprising the number of people who steadfastly proclaim his innoncence when the available evidence makes it look very likely he's going down.


I'm not selling my post. I don't give a damn if you 'buy' it or not.
I BELIEVE IN FLOYD merely means, until he's proven guilty, I'll believe him.
I believed Tyler might have been innocent, until the scientific evidence and MOUNTAIN of circumstantial evidence proved that he's a cheating dirtbag. Same for other cheaters.

If there's synthetic testosterone, as these unsubstantiated LEAKS are 'reporting', hang him.

We all need to have a basic mistrust of THE MAN.

He said he had nothing to lose before his epic stage 17 ride, so why not use the juice? If he gets caught, they take away something he knew he couldn't get anyway. Just my two cents...

Because if he gets caught he gets a 2 year ban altogether and then another 2 years from riding from a pro tour team which would effectively end his career.

As I posted elsewhere (in a now locked thread). This type of rumor spreading by news papers is sad. Why should we believe that the leaker actually knows anything more than we do? Some unidentified UCI person could be privy to better gossip than we and still not know the "truth." Additionally, I would tend to believe Phonak's press statement as they have more incentive not to lie (and thus anger the organization that threatened to withhold their license a few years ago) than to cover for Landis in such a stupid lie.

A stupid lie because upon the testing of the B sample the UCI and WADA will release what type of test Landis failed and everyone would know if Phonak lied. Phonak might then be held accountable by the UCI (not receiving another license?) for covering for a doper. Phonak has to think about next year as well as defending Landis.

Dude, Floyd himself has said right from the start that he expects the B sample to also be positive.

That means he is stripped of his tour victory. Will he be able to be reinstated if he somehow proves this all is BS?

Because it doesn't make sense. He had normal results 2 days before and 2 days after. It's not like you inject testosterone into your veins like liquid spinach and you're all of a sudden freekin Popeye. Then have no evidence in your system 2 days later.

That means he is stripped of his tour victory. Will he be able to be reinstated if he somehow proves this all is BS?

Because it doesn't make sense. He had normal results 2 days before and 2 days after. It's not like you inject testosterone into your veins like liquid spinach and you're all of a sudden freekin Popeye. Then have no evidence in your system 2 days later.

There are various methods of testosterone doping. Some involves low doses, that USUALLY don't show up in tests after the athletic event. Testosterone doping remains very popular for recovery purposes.

As I posted elsewhere (in a now locked thread). This type of rumor spreading by news papers is sad. Why should we believe that the leaker actually knows anything more than we do? Some unidentified UCI person could be privy to better gossip than we and still not know the "truth." Additionally, I would tend to believe Phonak's press statement as they have more incentive not to lie (and thus anger the organization that threatened to withhold their license a few years ago) than to cover for Landis in such a stupid lie.

A stupid lie because upon the testing of the B sample the UCI and WADA will release what type of test Landis failed and everyone would know if Phonak lied. Phonak might then be held accountable by the UCI (not receiving another license?) for covering for a doper. Phonak has to think about next year as well as defending Landis.

I don't see it this way. Categorizing it as gossip, and rumor-spreading is not entirely accurate. Some papers have a source for information. Now the same bit of information has been seen from two separate sources. That is useful information. Believe Phonak? What if you believed them before Tyler? Or before Botero? Or before Urweider? Believe them now, again? As our president has said:\



There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.

By definition to spread a rumor, rather than starting one, you must have a source. How do we know the sources are different- how many unethical people do you believe work for the UCI? I would believe Phonak, not because they are necessarily trustworthy, but because it would be such a stupid lie that would threaten the continued existence. The team motivation for releasing the truth is certainly more credible than a nameless UCI person blabbing to reporters under unknown circumstances and for unknown reasons.

This is a bigger than just the Landis case.

Is it not the case that synthetic testosterone is what one would expect to find if the sample had been tampered with, too? I'm not lobbying for or against any conclusion, but I don't like jumping to conclusions that aren't warranted by the evidence.

It seems to me that the evidence presented so far - 11:1 ratio, synthetic testosterone, one sample checked - are all completely consistent with tampering. That is, with someone adding testosterone to the sample. If that is not the case, I'd like to learn why not.

And again the B sample should clear this up. Even if someone were able to tamper with both samples, it would probably be virtually impossible to come up with the same ratio both times.

Once a sample(s) was tampered with all bets are off. This particular case however, would be a foolish way to tamper with the sample(s). It would be much easier to introduce typical cycling specific doping signs into the sample than to introduce testosterone (not a big cyclist-doper favorite). Additionally I fail to see possible motivation (other than external conspiracies) to tamper with only one sample (the other will clear the athlete) while the tamperer would be risking so much- job, lawsuits, criminal prosecutions, etc.

Ok, we've known for some time that L'Equipe reported a positive Isotope test, that its standard WADA procedure to do the Isotope test on the A sample if the T/E is high, that Landis' lawyer was denigrating the isotope test. Yet, a number of posters thought it was a lie because the published sources traced back to those lying french bastards at l'Equipe. Feeling a little foolish now that the NY Times is reporting it from a source other than L'Equipe?

First, I'd like to say that if Floyd is guilty then he's guilty. I have a problem with a French newspaper knowing of test results before anyone else including the UCI. Where's the credibility of the lab at this point? never thought it was a lie. We are getting leaks but nobody has yet to step up and officially say who's reporting the leaks. Why? because it's unprofessional. Who does the Times say is their source from the UCI? 1.Find hard evidence. 2. Follow protocol. 3. Convict. Why is there such a problem with that?

So if we assume this is true (for the moment before B results come out), then why wouldn't
Landis have tested positive for the same stuff before and after that stage??

They don't run the IRMS test if the T:E ratio is lower than 4:1. Doping programs for low-dosage testosterone are designed to BEAT the test. In other words, the dosage is low enough that by the time the event is done, the urine wouldn't show disproportionate levels.

By definition to spread a rumor, rather than starting one, you must have a source. How do we know the sources are different- how many unethical people do you believe work for the UCI? I would believe Phonak, not because they are necessarily trustworthy, but because it would be such a stupid lie that would threaten the continued existence. The team motivation for releasing the truth is certainly more credible than a nameless UCI person blabbing to reporters under unknown circumstances and for unknown reasons.

This is a bigger than just the Landis case.

Do you honestly believe that they didn't do an isotope test on the A sample? (setting aside arguments about whether it was done properly or is a valid test) There is a substantial amount of evidence that it was done, not the least of which is that it is the regular accepted protocol. If you don't think they did the test, its because you don't want to believe it, not because there is credible evidence to disbelieve the NYT story.

If I go to bed and there's no snow on the ground, and wake up to a foot of snow, there's pretty good reason to believe it snowed last night. At some point there is sufficient evidence that you can conclude something is probably true, even if you didn't see it for yourself.

Do you honestly believe that they didn't do an isotope test on the A sample? (setting aside arguments about whether it was done properly or is a valid test) There is a substantial amount of evidence that it was done, not the least of which is that it is the regular accepted protocol. If you don't think they did the test, its because you don't want to believe it, not because there is credible evidence to disbelieve the NYT story.

If I go to bed and there's no snow on the ground, and wake up to a foot of snow, there's pretty good reason to believe it snowed last night. At some point there is sufficient evidence that you can conclude something is probably true, even if you didn't see it for yourself.

Still you can't deny that it's not from the official source.

Because it doesn't make sense. He had normal results 2 days before and 2 days after. It's not like you inject testosterone into your veins like liquid spinach and you're all of a sudden freekin Popeye. Then have no evidence in your system 2 days later.
They are all using, pretty much every day. The Phonak doctors are just crappy and administer things badly, so they show up.

Do you honestly believe that they didn't do an isotope test on the A sample? (setting aside arguments about whether it was done properly or is a valid test) There is a substantial amount of evidence that it was done, not the least of which is that it is the regular accepted protocol. If you don't think they did the test, its because you don't want to believe it, not because there is credible evidence to disbelieve the NYT story.

If I go to bed and there's no snow on the ground, and wake up to a foot of snow, there's pretty good reason to believe it snowed last night. At some point there is sufficient evidence that you can conclude something is probably true, even if you didn't see it for yourself.


Don't put words in my mouth. I do believe they did the isotope test, I, however, am not privy to results yet (an unsubstantiated leak is gossip). I don't trust the NY Times on this because they quote a leaker (whom I cannot trust).

For your analogy, if my liar roommate tells me there is snow then I will seek a second opinion (my own eyes for this simple situation) and then using deductive reasoning I would believe that it snowed. Just because my hypothetical roommate routinely lies it does not make him always incorrect.

Are you saying there is sufficient evidence of anything an Landis' case and that you are privy to it?

Is it not the case that synthetic testosterone is what one would expect to find if the sample had been tampered with, too? I'm not lobbying for or against any conclusion, but I don't like jumping to conclusions that aren't warranted by the evidence.

It seems to me that the evidence presented so far - 11:1 ratio, synthetic testosterone, one sample checked - are all completely consistent with tampering. That is, with someone adding testosterone to the sample. If that is not the case, I'd like to learn why not.

And again the B sample should clear this up. Even if someone were able to tamper with both samples, it would probably be virtually impossible to come up with the same ratio both times.

The're consistent with tampering and consistent with doping. It'd be better if a different lab were testing the B sample. Shouldn't be difficult for a competent tamperer to come up with the same ratio if both samples were tampered with.

They are all using, pretty much every day. The Phonak doctors are just crappy and administer things badly, so they show up.

If that's true, why should Floyd be stripped of the title - b/c his doctors sucked? Isn't it STILL a "level playing field" if they ALL use?

My biggest problem is with all the leaks and lack of following protocol by the UCI, the lab, etc. In my mind it helps to discredit them. However, synthetic testosterone is synthetic testosterone. If that stuff is in the B sample, he deserves to be thrown out. Looks like my only hero is back to being Rocky.
]

Hopefully, Bullwinkle will earn your admiration.

Are you saying there is sufficient evidence of anything an Landis' case and that you are privy to it?

I'm saying there is sufficient evidence to conclude his A sample was positive for exogenous testosterone based on a carbon isotope, and the onus is on Landis to contest it. The evidence for this is reports from independent, respected news sources, the fact that it is accepted WADA procedure, and therefore very likely to be true, and the inference from Landis' lawyers' denigrating the test (why denigrate a test, that if it hasn't been done, has the potential to clear your client).
And if they did the isotope test, there is an extremely strong infrence its positive, because the procedure is to do it before they report the results. If it were negative, the case would be over.

The fact that his A sample appears to have been positive for exgenous testosterone, based upon an isotope test, is not the end of the inquiry, but at this point its silly to characterize the NY Times report as merely a rumor.

I'm not selling my post. I don't give a damn if you 'buy' it or not.
I BELIEVE IN FLOYD merely means, until he's proven guilty, I'll believe him.
I believed Tyler might have been innocent, until the scientific evidence and MOUNTAIN of circumstantial evidence proved that he's a cheating dirtbag. Same for other cheaters.

If there's synthetic testosterone, as these unsubstantiated LEAKS are 'reporting', hang him.

We all need to have a basic mistrust of THE MAN.

Hey, don't be so quick to dismiss sales opportunities. If there is a market for post sales and you have a buyer offering you a good price, use your marketable posts and become a capitalist.

Wall street, eat your heart out, the BF post exchange has arrived. :D

I'll wait for Saturday and the B test results. Unidentified source reporting in the New York Slimes doesn't get me over the hump yet even though the purported source is someone at the UCI. However if the B test confirms the A test and the Isotope whatever test indicates that it was an outside source, I'll be ready to Tyler Hamilton the guy.

How are you willing to believe an unnamed UCI person- the only source of your facts? We cannot evaluate the validity of the claims because we don't know the specifics of the source. The leaker may be correct but I refuse to honor their "contribution" to the discussion.

We know nothing except that a couple of major papers are reporting information gained from a leak (from an unidentified UCI person/official) and what Phonak reported. And while I do not trust Phonak I don't trust Newspapers that much more. Newspapers make mistakes all the time (and then retract them quietly). I absolutely don't trust leakers and am saddened by the idea that the UCI has one. Most other Newspapers are just reporting that news source X is reporting "_____" which is meaningless.

The fact is, that we are not privy to the test results yet (as WADA/UCI/Phonak/Landis are). I will withhold my judgment on the truthfulness of the reporting until the results are a) confirmed and b) officially reported. It is rumor to report unsubstantiated leaks and we should not pay attention to them. We do not for example, know that the same unidentified UCI source was used by L'equipe and by the NY Times. We also do not know if that person was some disgruntled idiot spreading gossip.

If it was not for sources in testing labs we would not know about Bonds and Giambi. I have no problem with people of authority talking to the press, as long as they are telling the truth.

I highly doubt that the NY Times, with the problems they have had in the past couple of years, would publish this info if they did not think it was reputable.

You probably took a while to acknowledge that Tyler Hamilton cheated too.

Denial is a normal human response to disappointing news. It's only natural to want to hold out for the possibility, however remote, that the bad news is wrong. Hey, we mistakenly gave up on Floyd before.. when he bonked. Or did we? Now we learn that we were right to give up on him... that the only way he could come back was the way he did: by cheating.

I'm seriously thinking of giving up on following cycle racing, which has been my favorite pasttime for years.

If it was not for sources in testing labs we would not know about Bonds and Giambi.

Yeah, but what good did that do? They'll vote Bonds into the Hall of Fame eventually. Different universe.