Professional Cycling For the Fans - Given that Floyd's Testosterone level normal (Epi low) does it change your opinion?

According to the reports released recently, Floyd's testosterone levels were actually within the normal range. The reason his ratio was so far off is that his epitestosterone was extremely low (something which all doctors involved have said offers no performance benefit). Does this change your opinion as to whether he doped?

(Also, he'd tested fine just two days before and two days after and apparently it takes a week for synthetic testosterone to leave your system.)

(See this for more info)
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115522290517032225-Fdk3SqD84q31fQN_mbm9_kTRRqU_20060909.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

How does that explain the presence of synthetic testosterone in his body?

(Also, he'd tested fine just two days before and two days after and apparently it takes a week for synthetic testosterone to leave your system.)

(See this for more info)
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115522290517032225-Fdk3SqD84q31fQN_mbm9_kTRRqU_20060909.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

Problem with this argument is the nature of the Testing Protocol. The first test is the T/E ratio. If that's within the accepted range, then no Isotope test for Synthetic Testosterone is done. So to say that his T/E ratio was normal 2 days before, tells you little about whether synthetic testosterone was present at that time.

According to the reports released recently, Floyd's testosterone levels were actually within the normal range. The reason his ratio was so far off is that his epitestosterone was extremely low (something which all doctors involved have said offers no performance benefit). Does this change your opinion as to whether he doped?

((See this for more info)
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115522290517032225-Fdk3SqD84q31fQN_mbm9_kTRRqU_20060909.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

Your source for this is a question/answer column where the questioner makes this assertion and asks if now epi gives an advantage. To date I have not seen any real source that said his testosterone level was normal. All there is is an argument from silence that it was within allowable levels (E.g. no report that testosterone levels were too high). Within allowable levels is NOT the same as normal.

To answer the question. This 'news' does not change anything as it is not a new revelation at all.

How does that explain the presence of synthetic testosterone in his body?If you read the technical appendices of the WADA Standards for labs, you'll discover that a positive for exogenous testosterone simply means "consistent with an exogenous source." That's a far cry from saying that the testosterone *is* from an exogenous source.

And yet it is enough to sanction him with.

To date I have not seen any real source that said his testosterone level was normal.

Actually, that was the 5th news article where it was mentioned as such. One other did quote a "source" with the UCI about that, but I can't remember which one it was. If anyone finds it please post it here.

interesting finding is that the level of epitestosterone was almost at the limits of undetectability by their machine and standard, and that the level of testosterone was normal to lowish. by absolute standards.

This could mean several things, that he has been on a synthetic patch so long at very low doses that his OWN testosterone production was suppressed, causing the self produced levels of epi and test to be very low and what was measured in the ratio ws virtually all synthetic. If this is true, you would expect the ratio of synthetic to endogenous to be very high in the isotope ratio

But there are not studies on this stuff because testosterone is a controlled substance and the only medical science has been done on people with muscle wasting disease like HIV/AIDS, and besides that the word of mouth body builder regimes and of course Jorg Jakcske's doctor...so its not like there's a bunck of stuff lying around for either side to use

Who knows!!

For all I know it means the urine was spiked

Until someone other than a Landis spokesman says it was in the normal range, I wouldn't even think about it. His lawyer won't even say it. The article you show a link to shows a serious ignorance about the widespread practice of testo patches for recovery in cycling.

If you read the technical appendices of the WADA Standards for labs, you'll discover that a positive for exogenous testosterone simply means "consistent with an exogenous source." That's a far cry from saying that the testosterone *is* from an exogenous source.

And yet it is enough to sanction him with.


That's the language of science. Plenty of people have been convicted of murder based on DNA left at the scene that was "consistent with" the suspect. No scientist can say it actually is from the suspect unless they saw it drip from their body.

You folks are really reaching here.

That's the language of science. Plenty of people have been convicted of murder based on DNA left at the scene that was "consistent with" the suspect. No scientist can say it actually is from the suspect unless they saw it drip from their body.

You folks are really reaching here.So if that's the language of science, why not let the hearing panel decide if "consistent with exogenous" (the scientific standard) establishes a doping violation "to their comfortable satisfaction" (the legal standard), instead of telling the hearing panel that the source *is* exogenous, and that they must decide "to their comfortable satisfaction" if a source that *is* exogenous establishes a doping violation?

Why not let the accused present evidence that the result is "consistent with" a food source, or is "consistent with" a physiological condition, instead of declaring it to mean that it *is* exogenous?

Talk about reaching.

For all I know it means the urine was spikedTaint the collection vessel with exogenous testosterone and what do you have? An A & B Sample with exogenous testosterone.

interesting finding is that the level of epitestosterone was almost at the limits of undetectability by their machine and standard, and that the level of testosterone was normal to lowish. by absolute standards.


For all I know it means the urine was spiked

Source any source other than waht someone said on a BBS.

And how can adding something to a sample create a LOW level of Epi? Spiking a sample can not make something in the sample disappear

No change in my opinion. The ratios nor absolute levels of T/E don't make a lick of difference in the face of a positive test for synthetic testosterone.

I guess we'll have to wait and see how this plays out but I think Floyd's been hurting his case by speaking "ill" of the UCI in public. If I were him, I'd have kept that private and said it during my case only (to the US cycling board).

I guess we'll have to wait and see how this plays out but I think Floyd's been hurting his case by speaking "ill" of the UCI in public. If I were him, I'd have kept that private and said it during my case only (to the US cycling board).If the UCI weren't in violation of the anti-doping rules by speaking out in public, rather than keeping it in private, as the anti-doping rules require, Floyd wouldn't have had to repond in public. Put another way, if Floyd said nothing, people would be using his silence as evidence of his "guilt."

The second the A sample came back bad, Landis was banned from racing. Even before his name was released, there was speculation that a positive test was why he pulled out of criteriums he was getting paid $100,000 a piece for. The cat was out of the bag either way. The press would have hounded him for an explanation. If he had given a health related excuse, it would have come back to bite him eventually.

You seem to be saying that it's OK to be in clear violation of the anti-doping rules as long as your name is Dick Pound, Pat McQuaid, or Jacques de Ceaurriz. But if your name is Floyd Landis, and you're suspected of being in violation the anti-doping rules...What? A disciplinary hearing? Banned as a cheat before there's been a hearing? Which double standard are you advocating here?

I'm saying there wasn't any damage done to him by the leaks. It doesn't have anything to do with LANDIS' POSITIVE TEST. He saying he should have had more time to formulate his defense like Gatlin did. Well, Gatlin used that valuable extra time to come up with the excuse of testo cream applied without his permission during a massage. There's not a lot you can do with a positive test. All you can do is attack the credibility of the testers which is what he's doing. The leaks didn't cause the positive test.

The leaks indicate corruption at the very core of the anti-doping movement. WADA, the UCI, and the French lab are all neck deep in the corruption. Assuming that they don't have an agenda-- and that's increasingly difficult to assume, given their behavior-- you can say that they had nothing to do with Landis' test results. I think the sport would be far better served by an anti-doping effort that is beyond reproach, and therefore above suspicion, so we can all focus on eliminating doping instead of wondering if there's some hidden agenda behind the leaks and smear tactics.

Yes. There is another opinion. It isn't looking good for Floyd, but I'm reserving judgement until everything's over.

oh - and Dick Pound needs to retire under an assumed name. Anything would be an improvement. :p

oh - and Dick Pound needs to retire under an assumed name. Anything would be an improvement. :p:roflmao:

Unless the leaks caused the failed test, it's irrelevant.

If the failed test was the result of a corrupt anti-doping organization, the corruption of the anti-doping organiztion is very relevant. A positive test from a corrupt lab means nothing. If you want to root out doping, you can't do it with a dirty lab and a dirtier WADA-- they have zero credibility, and make charges of a set-up credible.

Corruption normally stems from profit. Who would profit from setting up the Tour de France winner? The UCI? WADA? Oscar Perierro?

For your set-up scenario to play out, the people who administer, control, and test the samples would all have to cooperate. And the set-up would have to be kept secret so that nobody at the Tour, in the UCI, or at the lab would say anything about it. That's a lot of folks to keep quiet (pay off), especially when you consider the people at the lab probably don't give a rat's but about bicycle racing.

I'm not saying it's impossible, or that the system can't be improved. You are 100 percent correct, the dope control system should be beyond reproach, and it isn't.

I'm saying, come on - what is more likely? That an athlete had a banned substance in his urine, or that the entire governing system of the sport got together and decided to single out one popular athlete, who just came from behind to win the sport's flagship event, and destroy not only his career, but the reputation of the sport that they govern? Why would the UCI try to chase away every last sponsor from cycling? And why single out Floyd?

If the failed test was the result of a corrupt anti-doping organization, the corruption of the anti-doping organiztion is very relevant. A positive test from a corrupt lab means nothing. If you want to root out doping, you can't do it with a dirty lab and a dirtier WADA-- they have zero credibility, and make charges of a set-up credible.

(You are in) Denial. Not a river in Egypt. Time to get real.

I just heard that a Harris poll revealed that 34% of Americans believe the US government blew up the Twin Towers to precipatate the war with Iraq or for some other reason. And 42% believe that mostly Iraqis were piloting the jets that hit the towers. Just because lots of people believe in conspiracy theories, doesn't evidence a conspiracy. Jets hit the towers and destroyed them and 15 of 19 hijackers were Saudi.

A positive dope test for a Tour winner is a big deal and it isn't hard to understand there being a leak. But it is a big step across the Mississippi river there for somebody to spike his test. I too think the UCI ought to follow their own rules but equating leaking a test and returning a positive test - c'mon that is apples and oranges in scale. Saying you can't trust the lab because the leaked a result only proves that you desperately want Floyd to be innocent.

Floyd was a great winner - he won the race - BUT he did it doped.

He cheated. He destroyed his cycling career as well as his team. It's too bad. He is obviously a talented athlete.

The leaks indicate corruption at the very core of the anti-doping movement. WADA, the UCI, and the French lab are all neck deep in the corruption. Assuming that they don't have an agenda-- and that's increasingly difficult to assume, given their behavior-- you can say that they had nothing to do with Landis' test results. I think the sport would be far better served by an anti-doping effort that is beyond reproach, and therefore above suspicion, so we can all focus on eliminating doping instead of wondering if there's some hidden agenda behind the leaks and smear tactics.

And if there had been no leaks and we got no information until it was over you or someone like you would be saying the secrecy and doing this behind closed doors indicates corruption at the very core of the anti-doping movement.

And if there had been no leaks and we got no information until it was over you or someone like you would be saying the secrecy and doing this behind closed doors indicates corruption at the very core of the anti-doping movement.The closed doors are a procedural safeguard to protect the athlete's rights, and are required by the rules-- the same rules that say that doping is prohibited. When the anti-doping organizations embark on a campaign of smear tactics, in violation of the rules they're supposed to be enforcing, it exposes a corrupt organization. In contrast, an organization that pays scrupulous attention to required procedural safeguards of the athlete's rights could hardly be characterized as corrupt for doing so.

I would like to see doping eliminated from sports, but I have no faith in the results of tests in which the Rules have been so flagrantly discarded. What other Rules have been discarded in this process? Did the lab know they were testing Landis' sample? Did the lab follow testing protocols? Was there a violation of the chain of custody protocols? Did somebody spike his sample with testosterone? Is there a hidden agenda? These are the kinds of questions that get raised once you know that the anti-doping organizations have no regard for the rules they're required to follow in anti-doping enforcement. An organization that flagrantly violates the anti-doping rules has no legitimate role to play in eliminating doping from sports, and until they clean up WADA, the UCI, and LNDD, there will always be legitimate doubts raised about the integrity of the anti-doping effort.

(You are in) Denial. Not a river in Egypt. Time to get real.

I just heard that a Harris poll revealed that 34% of Americans believe the US government blew up the Twin Towers to precipatate the war with Iraq or for some other reason. And 42% believe that mostly Iraqis were piloting the jets that hit the towers. Just because lots of people believe in conspiracy theories, doesn't evidence a conspiracy. Jets hit the towers and destroyed them and 15 of 19 hijackers were Saudi.

A positive dope test for a Tour winner is a big deal and it isn't hard to understand there being a leak. But it is a big step across the Mississippi river there for somebody to spike his test. I too think the UCI ought to follow their own rules but equating leaking a test and returning a positive test - c'mon that is apples and oranges in scale. Saying you can't trust the lab because the leaked a result only proves that you desperately want Floyd to be innocent.

Floyd was a great winner - he won the race - BUT he did it doped.I never even heard of Floyd Landis until after the Tour. I didn't even watch the Tour because of the doping scandals. Interesting that you would think that I'm "desperate" for Floyd to be innocent.

Of course a positive test is a big deal, and therefore, the potential for a leak is there. But let's get real. An anti-doping organization that's beyond corruption wouldn't stoop to the temptation, and could therefore be trusted to return an honest result. A corrupt organization can't be trusted, because we don't know how far the corruption extends. The lab took money for a leak? What else did they take money for? WADA is smearing an athlete before he's been heard? What else is WADA willing to do?

A positive test isn't proof of anything until after the process has been completed. For example, the A Sample may test positive, while the B Sample tests negative. It would be a disaster for the Tour to have a false positive cast a pall over a clean race. Thus, it's important to follow the rules. Likewise, a postive B Sample which is leaked could indicate many things-- bacterial contamination being one example, an improperly conducted test being another example. Leaking the test results before the matter has been adjudicated casts a pall over the Tour that may not be justified by the facts, and destroys a rider's reputation and career before he's had the opportunity to be heard. Is that Justice? If so, why not just dispense with the hearing altogether and let the lab decide who gets sanctioned?

I'm still troubled by the okay results from the tests done before and after the positive test. Does it say that there was better masking done, or that there's something screwy in the lab? I remain very suspicious, though I want to believe Floyd. The last thing I'd be willing to do is take a strong stand either way.

I'm still troubled by the okay results from the tests done before and after the positive test. Does it say that there was better masking done, or that there's something screwy in the lab? I remain very suspicious, though I want to believe Floyd. The last thing I'd be willing to do is take a strong stand either way.

For about the 100th time. This is not a cocaine test. It is a test for a substance that occurs naturally in the human body. The test on stage 17 was out of the allowable range. Those before and after were within the allowable range. We have no idea how close to not allowable they were. It is NOT like testing clean for coke before and after.

(You are in) Denial. Not a river in Egypt. Time to get real.

I just heard that a Harris poll revealed that 34% of Americans believe the US government blew up the Twin Towers to precipatate the war with Iraq or for some other reason. And 42% believe that mostly Iraqis were piloting the jets that hit the towers. Just because lots of people believe in conspiracy theories, doesn't evidence a conspiracy. Jets hit the towers and destroyed them and 15 of 19 hijackers were Saudi.

A positive dope test for a Tour winner is a big deal and it isn't hard to understand there being a leak. But it is a big step across the Mississippi river there for somebody to spike his test. I too think the UCI ought to follow their own rules but equating leaking a test and returning a positive test - c'mon that is apples and oranges in scale. Saying you can't trust the lab because the leaked a result only proves that you desperately want Floyd to be innocent.

Floyd was a great winner - he won the race - BUT he did it doped.

So you're saying Al Queda slipped testosterone into the Missisissippi river and Landis then drank the water? NOW it all makes sense. Thanks for clearing it up.