Professional Cycling - NOW do you think Floyd doped?

So, NOW do you think Floyd doped?

NOW that I voted, his Sample B better come back positive this weekend :(

My vote is that he didn't.
The testing practices are not being done in anonymity and I'm leaning on the idea of the French Connection.

The knew which was Floyd's sample, added their own version of Vive La France...AKA Synthetic Testosterone and Viola...."no more American winning our race"

Frankly, I wouldn't put it past them. And in reality someone needs to review the testing practices as much as they need to review the doping practices.

If Floyd goes down, and we then find that there are major discrepancies in the way the Tour testing is done, I'm saying it's probably going to make it 100, but it will never be the same race on the same scale again.

In the end they may say that Floyd is guilty. But unless they can also prove that the testing was done in such a way that it's not possible for there to have been any foul play against him.. then it's all political as Oscar said. And such a shame and sham it will be...

Why on Earth would anyone in the French lab care about whether Floyd won the Tour enough to risk his career and freedom (probably would get prison for this) by intentionally putting some artificial testosterone in Floyd's samples just so some ex-Phonak Spanish guy could win the Tour instead of the American Phonak guy?

Isn't it much more likely that Floyd is just as guilty as Tyler Hamilton and the 2, 3, and #4 finishers from last year are likely to be shown to be after the Spanish scandal is resolved?

how about an option for "I'm still waiting on the b results" because I am.

IRMS probably is just about as bombproof of a test as is available for this sort of thing, but redundancy in testing is just good practice and I don't think anything should have been said about this without both being tested by two independent labs in as anonymous a fashion as possible, preferably with some kind of blind procedures being run.

if he is guilty, I think he should be subjected to public humiliation via matt stone and trey parker of southpark along with Ulrich and the others, just as they did to a few doping baseball players one episode.

Why on Earth would anyone in the French lab care about whether Floyd won the Tour enough to risk his career and freedom (probably would get prison for this) by intentionally putting some artificial testosterone in Floyd's samples just so some ex-Phonak Spanish guy could win the Tour instead of the American Phonak guy?

Isn't it much more likely that Floyd is just as guilty as Tyler Hamilton and the 2, 3, and #4 finishers from last year are likely to be shown to be after the Spanish scandal is resolved?

I agree, this "French Connection" business is a bit far-fetched. It's about like explaining to a police officer about to give you a ticket for speeding that some Unknown Bad Person tampered with your speedometer in a way that caused you to be able to go 80 in a 55 zone without noticing.

My heart wants to believe Floyd but my brain is saying, "the simplest explanation is usually the best" and considering the defeat in stage 16 and the amazing comeback in stage 17 and the coincidence of a (apparently) positive test for exogenous testosterone on the day of stage 17 that seems pretty simple. A lot simpler than some crazy conspiracy theories about "the French".

I'll reserve judgement on the matter until the authorities have made their own judgement, but It's hard to deny that the dark clouds are gathering pretty heavily over Mr. Landis right about now.

how about an option for "I'm still waiting on the b results" because I am.
Yeah, and I still have a dollar on a 40,000/1 bet. Keeping my fingers crossed!!

I'm sitting on the fence, my "Floyds a cheat" side balanced by blind faith.

I am curious as to why the details of the A sample are being leaked out so slowly instead of everything coming out at once last week.

Now that I've learned I have to share my TDF prediction title if Landis is positive, I have thought this over, and it is clear that Landis is the victim of a french conspiracy, the sample must have been altered, he naturaly produces a high level of testosterone, the results were thrown off by alcohol and dehydration, the isotope test is invalid, he was the victim of a spiked waterbottle, and/or his massuese rubbed "the clear" into his thigh without his knowledge.

I am more interested in the results from the A sample that will be released after the B sample testing. The leaks and rumors are annoying.

My vote is that he didn't.
The testing practices are not being done in anonymity and I'm leaning on the idea of the French Connection.

The knew which was Floyd's sample, added their own version of Vive La France...AKA Synthetic Testosterone and Viola...."no more American winning our race"

...

In the end they may say that Floyd is guilty. But unless they can also prove that the testing was done in such a way that it's not possible for there to have been any foul play against him.. then it's all political as Oscar said. And such a shame and sham it will be...
Yeah - let's trick it, so that a -oops - Spaniard can win. Damn. Ok, let's find something on the Spaniard, so that a - German can win. Damn. Ok, let's find... 6 of them have to be thrown out before you can finally get a Frenchman on top of the podium. Good theory.

If some time was spent looking at *all* the riders that receive doping sanctions in a year, instead of only Americans, one could see that Americans represent but a small fraction of all sanctions. But of course, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody's there to hear it, it makes no sound; and if anything happens to a non-American outside the US, it does not happen.

It's "voilà", not "viola" - unless you're into chamber music, of course.

I am more interested in the results from the A sample that will be released after the B sample testing. The leaks and rumors are annoying.
Take it up with Floyd, his team and his doctor, since that's who leaked:

that it was Floyd who failed a doping test
that his T/E ratio in the A sample was 11:1
that they expect the same results for the B sample
that he would ask for the B sample test on Friday
that he asked for the B sample test not until Monday (coincidentally only after the UCI asked for it too)


The only relevant leak that did not come from them was that the lab found artificial testosterone in the A sample.

The only relevant leak that did not come from them was that the lab found artificial testosterone in the A sample.

and Landis' personal physician confirmed that information

and Landis' personal physician confirmed that information
I missed that. First, l"Equipe reported it. Then the NY Times. But I never heard about a confirmation from Landis' doctor.
Got a link?

Why is a physician commenting on a patient?

Why is a physician commenting on a patient?
Because, out of desperation, the patient is asking him too.
Also, it may be that the physician is the one who screwed up the calculation on how much steroid to administer.

Yeah - let's trick it, so that a -oops - Spaniard can win. Damn. Ok, let's find something on the Spaniard, so that a - German can win. Damn. Ok, let's find... 6 of them have to be thrown out before you can finally get a Frenchman on top of the podium. Good theory.

I think most of the "French conspiracy theory" types are under the impression that 'the French' hate Americans as much as Americans apparently hate 'the French' and couldn't give a damn that it went to a Spaniard or a German or a Fijian or a Martian, as long as it didn't go to another American. Don't quote me on that though - it's just the vibe I've been getting locally about it.

"Those French bastards hate America and everything it stands for! They'd do anything to make sweet, honest, Christian mennonite Floyd seem like the devil!"

I seriously doubt an American doctor with a decent regular practice--as Floyd's doctor does-- would involve himself in doping for the reason that the California Licensing Board is very tough, for a variety of reasons, and I feel fairly sure the guy could lose his license or get suspended. Testosterone in this country is a controlled substance, because of the likelihood of abuse, so you could also fall afoul of the DEA, who gives doctors their rights to prescribe controlled substances. And if there is one thing I can assure you of, you do not want to mess with hte DEA.

Sometimes even respected pain specialists have issues with the DEA for prescribing large volumes of controlled substances, but thos guys document everything very very carefully so there is no funny business.

So Floyds doc may be a good guy taken in by someone doing something not so great. I believe that to be the most likely scenario

I missed that. First, l"Equipe reported it. Then the NY Times. But I never heard about a confirmation from Landis' doctor.
Got a link?

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

Because, out of desperation, the patient is asking him too.
Also, it may be that the physician is the one who screwed up the calculation on how much steroid to administer.


Dr. Brent Kay is an American doctor and cannot comment upon the case without the patients approval (or chance a ethics board and lawsuits). Commenting upon the case either happened a) illegally b) with Landis' approval (still questionable ethically) or c) it didn't happen- the only three possibilities. I would like to know which one. I hope, for the doctors sake, rather than Landis' that he confirmed the leak with permission (Landis is thus done for).

b) with Landis' approval (still questionable ethically) .


Explain the ethical question involved.

I'm starting to have serious doubts. I hate to think that a rider would be stupid enough to take something that, according to almost everything I've read, doesn't provide instant performance enhancement. Then be even more stupid and win the stage knowing that he'll be tested. But I'm beginning to think that's what happened.


Take it up with Floyd, his team and his doctor, since that's who leaked:

that it was Floyd who failed a doping test
that his T/E ratio in the A sample was 11:1
that they expect the same results for the B sample
that he would ask for the B sample test on Friday
that he asked for the B sample test not until Monday (coincidentally only after the UCI asked for it too)


Those weren't leaks. They were public statements from known sources. I have to agree with Trevor98 that I'm sick of the leaks from anonymous sources.

SB

So far they have all been confirmed by the Landis' people in this case so I don't see the problem.

Dr. Brent Kay is an American doctor and cannot comment upon the case without the patients approval (or chance a ethics board and lawsuits). Commenting upon the case either happened a) illegally b) with Landis' approval (still questionable ethically) or c) it didn't happen- the only three possibilities. I would like to know which one. I hope, for the doctors sake, rather than Landis' that he confirmed the leak with permission (Landis is thus done for).
Uh, they were both on Larry King, Landis practically begging Kay to explain everything.

When King asked Kay if Landis was the current best cyclist in the world, Kay answered something like "without a question".

I'm starting to have serious doubts. I hate to think that a rider would be stupid enough to take something that, according to almost everything I've read, doesn't provide instant performance enhancement.

http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/10613.0.html



"Its effects are felt almost immediately," Manzano wrote. "It gives you a lot of force and produces a sort of euphoria."

Explain the ethical question involved.

A person must trust their doctor in order to confide in them the details of their health- without this trust doctors are less efficient in treating patients. This relationship is paramount to treating a patient- any time one doctor betrays that trust it hurts all doctors abilities to treat patients. The AMA states: "A physician shall respect the rights of patients, colleagues, and other health professionals, and shall safeguard patient confidences and privacy within the constraints of the law." in its ethical standards.


Uh, they were both on Larry King, Landis practically begging Kay to explain everything.

When King asked Kay if Landis was the current best cyclist in the world, Kay answered something like "without a question".

I read the cnn transcripts of the interview and at no point did Dr. Kay talk about synthetic testosterone. Landis called on Kay to explain the T/E ratio issue and the testing procedures. Kay questioned the T/E testing but did not even bring up isotope ratio mass spectrometry testing.

Yes, he apparently did not do that until he was interviewed by the NY Times.
I never claimed he talked about syn testosterone on Larry King. I also said that he was on LK with Landis, obviously with Landis' blessing.

The fact that three days later he talked to a NY Times reporter... so what?

I am questioning the ethics of Kay's comments made to the NY Times and cannot figure out why you [Helmet Head] brought up the Larry King interview when that interview has nothing to do with the topic at hand. A doctor should not talk to anyone about a patient without the permission of that patient (doctor-patient confidentiality). Kay reportedly did talk to the NY Times and I would like to know if he did that with or without Landis' permission.

I dont think the tests are good enough. I tested *** for PCP when I was taking creatine once!!! It was for a job. Luckily they believed me. I quit taking the stuff and retested a few days later and I came back clean.

I am questioning the ethics of Kay's comments made to the NY Times and cannot figure out why you [Helmet Head] brought up the Larry King interview when that interview has nothing to do with the topic at hand. A doctor should not talk to anyone about a patient without the permission of that patient (doctor-patient confidentiality). Kay reportedly did talk to the NY Times and I would like to know if he did that with or without Landis' permission.

I think Helmet Head's point is that Kay been acting in a PR/ Expert role in Landis' defense in the media, as evidenced by his appearence on Larry King live. it would appear likely that Kay had permission to talk to the NY Times, given the role he'd taken on.

Well, Dr. Kay would be a very stupid doctor if he spoke to anyone without Floyd's permission.
So, for sure he had FLoyd's official permission.

Can you spell HIPPA?
Have you visited a doctor recently in the U.S.?
Every time you go they offer you their twenty page privacy policies?
Do you know why?
The Health Insurance Privacy and Portabilty Act made revealing any patient information, even inadvertently punishable by severe fines and other punishments.
Knowingly violating patient confidentiality flagrantly by speaking to the press would be a lawsuit and a half.
Besides the fact that patients have always been able to sue doctors for violation of confidentiality and damages, but HIPPA made it a federal offense.

Well, Dr. Kay would be a very stupid doctor if he spoke to anyone without Floyd's permission.
So, for sure he had FLoyd's official permission.

Can you spell HIPPA?

No, but I can spell HIPAA (Sorry, it doesn't detract from your point, but it's a pet peeve of mine.)

I think Helmet Head's point is that Kay been acting in a PR/ Expert role in Landis' defense in the media, as evidenced by his appearence on Larry King live. it would appear likely that Kay had permission to talk to the NY Times, given the role he'd taken on.
Exactly. Thank you.

Well, Dr. Kay would be a very stupid doctor if he spoke to anyone without Floyd's permission.
So, for sure he had FLoyd's official permission.

Can you spell HIPPA?
Have you visited a doctor recently in the U.S.?
Every time you go they offer you their twenty page privacy policies?
Do you know why?
The Health Insurance Privacy and Portabilty Act made revealing any patient information, even inadvertently punishable by severe fines and other punishments.
Knowingly violating patient confidentiality flagrantly by speaking to the press would be a lawsuit and a half.
Besides the fact that patients have always been able to sue doctors for violation of confidentiality and damages, but HIPPA made it a federal offense.


I think that was my point. I never said that Kay acted without permission only that that was a possibility (not a smart one on Kay's part but never the less a possibility). Laws do not prevent anyone from doing anything, they just threaten to punish you after the fact. Time will tell what actually transpired.

And yes I have visited a doctor in the US recently- and still do routinely while recovering from an aneurysm in April. I see the paperwork often.

A person must trust their doctor in order to confide in them the details of their health- without this trust doctors are less efficient in treating patients. This relationship is paramount to treating a patient- any time one doctor betrays that trust it hurts all doctors abilities to treat patients. The AMA states: "A physician shall respect the rights of patients, colleagues, and other health professionals, and shall safeguard patient confidences and privacy within the constraints of the law." in its ethical standards.
.

Yes, but your original post said:


b) with Landis' approval (still questionable ethically)

How, if Dr. Kay had Landis' approval (you neglect to even consider that the confirmation might have been done by Kay at Landis' behest), would there still be any ethical question?

I did indeed consider that the confirmation might have been done by Kay at Landis' behest by acknowledging that possibility.

However, is Dr. Kay Landis' PR agent? He is a doctor and should act with the proper respect towards his profession. Landis' wants are irrelevant, Kay must make his ethical decisions based on ethics not on Landis' wants. Kay undermines his (and by association all doctors') credibility by straying from his professional area of expertise. He should limit his comments to the press to his expertise (medical advice and information). As for an ethical system, how about Universalism- I wouldn't want every doctor copying this decision.

I did indeed consider that the confirmation might have been done by Kay at Landis' behest by acknowledging that possibility.

However, is Dr. Kay Landis' PR agent? He is a doctor and should act with the proper respect towards his profession. Landis' wants are irrelevant, Kay must make his ethical decisions based on ethics not on Landis' wants. Kay undermines his (and by association all doctors') credibility by straying from his professional area of expertise. He should limit his comments to the press to his expertise (medical advice and information). As for an ethical system, how about Universalism- I wouldn't want every doctor copying this decision.

Weak.


Dr. Brent W. Kay, MD is Board Certified in Sports Medicine and Internal Medicine. Dr. Kay is now the Executive Director of the OUCH Sports Medical Center which he co-founded with San Diego Chargers Team Physician Dr. Jerry Hizon.

As a former All-American and professional triathlete, Dr. Kay brings a combination of business know-how, practical sports knowledge and medical experience to the American Women's Track Cycling Fund.

In addition to directing the OUCH Sports Center, Dr. Kay now trains as an elite level cyclist and doubles as both personal physician and training partner to World Champion Sarah Hammer and Tour de France contender Floyd Landis.

I found that too and am wondering the relevancy of your response. I believe Kay to be a well established and proficient doctor- I have never posted otherwise. I did not know, however, that he is a PR guy as well.

To the 35% who voted that you still think FLoyd did not cheat, did you read the NY times article?

I found that too and am wondering the relevancy of your response. I believe Kay to be a well established and proficient doctor- I have never posted otherwise. I did not know, however, that he is a PR guy as well.

Some doctors are paid to be in the public arena. It's often part of the job in sports medicine for high-stakes patients. The relevant point is that the ethical question no longer exists, if the doctor has the permission of the patient to disclose medical information.

Still, I think it would have been better for all if the UCI hadn't announced anything, until the B test had been done. However, in that case, might not Landis still be racing now? Or does Phonak have an obligation to suspend a rider if the A-sample is positive? If he had been suspended, wouldn't the rumor mill be going anyway? I assume he would have still been seeking legal advice, though perhaps not in person. It is interesting to imagine how this could have happened differently.

I believe Dr. Kay is going for the master's hour record in the very near future.
So he does have credibility as a sports physician, he has not only examined and treated Floyd for his thyroid, but also ridden with him and knows him pretty well. I think it is fine for him to come out both as a physician and a character witness considering multiple rules of WADA and UCI have already been broken in FLoyd's case.

I am not saying I know FLoyd to be innocent. I am really not sure.

But given there have been multiple medical issues FLoyd already had, for his doctor to make himself available to me makes sense.

To look at the other side however, OLN interviewed the good doctor in the middle of the TdF when Dr. Kay was over there around the time of the announcement, so I am sure there was some plannin and media savvy on FLoyd's and the doctor's part to choose to be there and be part of the whole show. So I say, if he chose to be part of THAT show, the hip announcement, then he is even MORE ethically obliged to stand with Floyd during the tough part.

Any questions whether Dr. Kay will be tested after his hour attempt later this year?

As much as I want to believe he didnt...really really want to believe he didnt....

I think he took them to help the joint in his failing hip. One of the major benefits of steroids is the reduction of joint pain.

And it really sucks...man am I sad about all this. :(

Why on Earth would anyone in the French lab care about whether Floyd won the Tour enough to risk his career and freedom (probably would get prison for this) by intentionally putting some artificial testosterone in Floyd's samples just so some ex-Phonak Spanish guy could win the Tour instead of the American Phonak guy?

Isn't it much more likely that Floyd is just as guilty as Tyler Hamilton and the 2, 3, and #4 finishers from last year are likely to be shown to be after the Spanish scandal is resolved?

The French lab is the SAME lab name in the recent report clearing Armstrong as being involved in illegal, unethical procedures that led to results that are not reliable and untrustworthy. Two months ago, that lab suspended just one person, blaming that person for the misconduct in Armstrong's case.

Yet, once again, the lab is being named by various press sources as providing them "under the table" advance "leaks" of results from Landis' samples...precisely the sort of illegal, unethical conduct that the lab supposedly "cleaned up" just months ago.

The head of the WADA-certified lab in Montreal (a community that has left its permanent tongue marks on the rear-end of the city of Paris) said yesterday that the Paris lab could not be trusted for "complex" work, yet is reliable in routine work. Yet, the test that can tell for a "false positive" for synthetic testosterone, versus a reading caused by illegal doping is, according to its inventor, the most complex and difficult test used in cycling.

Justice requires that the chain of custody be fully established to show it was impossible for any contamination or doctoring of the sample to have occured, BEFORE leaking any results to friendly, but unethical members of the press. Not done. And, justice requires that a portion of the sample be tested by a second lab that has NOT been caught engaging in improper conduct. Not done.

But, this is "Bike Forums". So, the lying, the leaks, the improper conduct of the French lab will be condoned. All pro cyclists are criminals, according to many regulars on the Forum. So, criminal conduct on the part of the French lab will be applauded by those Forum members.

The French lab is the SAME lab name in the recent report clearing Armstrong as being involved in illegal, unethical procedures that led to results that are not reliable and untrustworthy. Two months ago, that lab suspended just one person, blaming that person for the misconduct in Armstrong's case.

Yet, once again, the lab is being named by various press sources as providing them "under the table" advance "leaks" of results from Landis' samples...precisely the sort of illegal, unethical conduct that the lab supposedly "cleaned up" just months ago.

The head of the WADA-certified lab in Montreal (a community that has left its permanent tongue marks on the rear-end of the city of Paris) said yesterday that the Paris lab could not be trusted for "complex" work, yet is reliable in routine work. Yet, the test that can tell for a "false positive" for synthetic testosterone, versus a reading caused by illegal doping is, according to its inventor, the most complex and difficult test used in cycling.

Justice requires that the chain of custody be fully established to show it was impossible for any contamination or doctoring of the sample to have occured, BEFORE leaking any results to friendly, but unethical members of the press. Not done. And, justice requires that a portion of the sample be tested by a second lab that has NOT been caught engaging in improper conduct. Not done.

But, this is "Bike Forums". So, the lying, the leaks, the improper conduct of the French lab will be condoned. All pro cyclists are criminals, according to many regulars on the Forum. So, criminal conduct on the part of the French lab will be applauded by those Forum members.

Landis has a right to have the B Sample tested while he, or his designee observes it. There are procedures in place to ensure the chain of custody. If there's a problem, then there are avenues to address it, including the International Court of Arbitration for Sport. How hard is it to believe that he jsut may be guilty? Rather people make tortured arguments of nefarious conduct, with zero evidence, to avoid the very likely reality that their hero has feet of clay.

And just out of curiousity (and because I'm too lazy to search) Did you thing Hamilton was innocent? Heras? Urweider? Botera? Pantani? Virenque?, Comnizido?, Millar? etc etc, etc, etc. There's a reason most of are willing to believe that when someone tests positive,odds are they were doping, and it wasn't the vanishing twin, or the Jack Daniels.

http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/10613.0.htmlI did say almost everything I've read. The article you point out is one of only two or three that say testosterone produces an immediate effect. Odd though, the people saying it doesn't are trainers, doctors and doping experts. The people saying it does are former riders.

SB

The French lab is the SAME lab name in the recent report clearing Armstrong as being involved in illegal, unethical procedures that led to results that are not reliable and untrustworthy. Two months ago, that lab suspended just one person, blaming that person for the misconduct in Armstrong's case.
6 of Armstrong's urine samples from the 1999 tour contained EPO. Most people in cycling would leak that information if they could.

Especially becuase unlike with the current leak that information would probably never have become public otherwise.

The main problem Landis has with the leaks is that they didn't come at the same time. Since they leaked the positive testo before the carbon results he thought he was okay on carbon. So he goes out and does this press conference that he now will never live down.

As far as the french lab, if you don't want to be tested by a french lab, then don't ride in a french race. If you don't want anything to do with L'Equippe, then don't ride in a race that they have always sponsored.

Landis never complained about testing before he failed. I would have respected him so much if he had questioned the rush to judgment on disallowing the favorites but instead he applauded it.

I see that Pereiro is now saying that the tour podium winners were second-tier riders. At least he's being honest.

It is amazing how much more important something is to a person once they have experienced it. I wouldn't read too much into his change of heart.

it breaks my heart a bit, but i really do think he did. and i could see it more as a scenario where it isn't an everyday occurrence with him, but he was so dejected after bonking, then this dr tells him that this will help and won't be noticeable and he bought it. because, as someone on another thread said - he's not a scientist and a scientist told him it was fine and he believed him. that sort of changed my opinion on the "he wouldn't be so stupid" front. that comment on here made me think, that could explain that question.

though i will qualify with the fact that as a scientist, i don't write my conclusion section until my data are all in and analyzed. :) i just think it isn't looking so good for floyd.