Road Bike Racing - Scinetific american article about isitope testing and Landis

in the november scientific american, there is a good article about the isitope test that is used to show if an athlete is using synthetic compounds.

it explains that all the food we eat (since it was all recently other living organisms) has a pretty similar and narow ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 13. once your body digests that food and starts turning it into bilogical compounds (fats, cells, hormones, whatever) they will ALL have the same ratio.

syntheticly produced hormones have different ratios (less carbon 13 IIRC) than organically produced hormones because the chemistry and devices used to make them "sort out" the carbon 13 in ways that your body doesnt.

so in the test they look at the carbon 12/13 ratio of several compounds in your urine. if one (in floyd's case testosterone) has a different ratio than all the others (like cholesteral and such that no one would dope for), its a smoking gun that that compound was synthetically derived. it seems pretty air tight.

the expert they interveiwed did give one possible out for landis. he said that his only chance would be to argue that the synthetic cortisone he injected was some how metabilized and turned into a disproportionate amout of testosterone compared to the other compounds look at in the test, which could make floyd's natural testosterone look synthetic. but he didnt seem to put much faith in that possiblity.

ill try to find a link, but it was an intersting read, give it a look if you see it on the news stand.

Thanks for the heads up. I believe my one Prof. gets that mag. and I will see if I can get a copy of the article.

Only thing is, I think only 1 "expert" in 10 would say that taking testosterone the day of an athletic event would be a performance enhancing activity . . . so what would be the point. It makes more sense to believe that the testers need to be tested, not the testees !

weather or not it helped him is a moot point. if he broke the rules is all that matters.

i do agree that the lab should be scrutinized though. considering how much it probobly hacked off the french that another american won their race, sabotage shouldnt be ruled out, and i honestly think its floyds best deffense at this point. if nothing else they appear to have a history of leaking results.

but assuming the urine was his and untampered with, its pretty hard to make any excuses IMO.

Only thing is, I think only 1 "expert" in 10 would say that taking testosterone the day of an athletic event would be a performance enhancing activity . . . so what would be the point. It makes more sense to believe that the testers need to be tested, not the testees !


The "word on the street" is that he didn't purposely take testosterone during that race. But rather he blood-doped using a batch of blood that was tainted from testosterone use earlier in the season.

Not that anyone can prove that btw.

The "word on the street" is that he didn't purposely take testosterone during that race. But rather he blood-doped using a batch of blood that was tainted from testosterone use earlier in the season.

Not that anyone can prove that btw.

The street is an idiot. His ratio was about 11 to 1. Way out of line. If one or even 2 units of blood accounted for that those units must have been at 40 to 1 or more. Same kind of thing for any other ratio based test, which is what all the tests in question are. No way you could get that through blood doping.

Something is rotten in Denmark, I mean France. No one would throw away their career on something guaranteed to be found and equally guaranteed to
be of no immediate benefit.

The street is an idiot. His ratio was about 11 to 1. Way out of line. If one or even 2 units of blood accounted for that those units must have been at 40 to 1 or more. Same kind of thing for any other ratio based test, which is what all the tests in question are. No way you could get that through blood doping.

I guess that proves that there are not alot of MDs on the street.:rolleyes:

I've read at least one similar article from this summer. The isotope test is very strong; it's nowhere near as interpretive as, say, the EPO test.

I concur the lab should be held to a high standard of professionalism. The lab's work might turn out to be sloppy (that's Landis & co's assertion), but even they are not arguing that the samples are not Landis'. So I think he's in big trouble.

The idea that someone spiked Landis' sample is absurd. Everyone, including the French and the other racers, were overwhelmed and overjoyed by what seemed to be an incredible comeback. The amounts required to spike a sample without going way off the scale are excruciatingly precise. And why spike with testosterone, instead of something more obvious like EPO or amphetamines?

If Landis is lucky, his hip will be in shape to ride pro in 2008 but no one knows if he'll reach his current level again. And if he was doping, it was probably just routine for him and he thought the risks were minimal or manageable. Landis literally had nothing to lose. He knew it, his peers know it, his team knows it, and now you know it.

If he did dope, he'd be smart to pull a David Millar: fess up right now, take a 2-year ban, express contrition and get back to racing. Somehow I don't see that happening.

The street is an idiot. His ratio was about 11 to 1.
I've also read it was 4.5 to 1.

The street is an idiot. His ratio was about 11 to 1. Way out of line. If one or even 2 units of blood accounted for that those units must have been at 40 to 1 or more. Same kind of thing for any other ratio based test, which is what all the tests in question are. No way you could get that through blood doping.

Huh? Being that epitestosterone is a degradation product of testosterone I'd have to think it would totally depend on when the blood was drawn with respect to the last testosterone dose. As to the pharmacokinetics of testosterone in stored blood, I'll leave that to someone who knows.

The "ratio" test isn't just about dilution. As the body sees testosterone it degrades it to epitestosterone, so the ratio is constantly changing. The ratio isn't talking about concentration. You could have an 11:1 T:E ratio with a testosterone level of 400 or 1000. It all depends on the other level.

You need to check out the Daily Peloton Forums (http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/index.php?showforum=17) before we start preparing the rope to hang Floyd. There are a few very intelligent people over there detailing the testing process. They raise many interesting questions about Floyd's results.

And then wasn't there something about how the lab's definition of a "positive" test was under suspicion too?

You need to check out the Daily Peloton Forums (http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/index.php?showforum=17) before we start preparing the rope to hang Floyd. There are a few very intelligent people over there detailing the testing process. They raise many interesting questions about Floyd's results.

Yeah, I hang out there more and more...I was a member and it was pretty dead, but it's picked up.

BTW...Landis posts there. Really.

...the testers need to be tested, not the testees !

"testees"...."testes"....

I like it. Clever pun.

:p

Bob

Huh? Being that epitestosterone is a degradation product of testosterone I'd have to think it would totally depend on when the blood was drawn with respect to the last testosterone dose. As to the pharmacokinetics of testosterone in stored blood, I'll leave that to someone who knows.

The "ratio" test isn't just about dilution. As the body sees testosterone it degrades it to epitestosterone, so the ratio is constantly changing. The ratio isn't talking about concentration. You could have an 11:1 T:E ratio with a testosterone level of 400 or 1000. It all depends on the other level.

Pete, your missing the point. If the bad result is caused by a transfusion, yet the rest of the blood is 'good' the result, actually any result aside from a simple yes/no test, is going to be 'diluted'. Well there is one exception. In a ratio test if there is NONE of either in the blood then the result will be just that of transfused blood. Otherwise it is an average of the amounts of each in the blood in the body and the transfused blood. If I recall correctly it is about 8 units that people have on average, the amounts af any substance (and thus usually the ratios) will be dominated by those 8 units, not the one unit of a transfusion.

So again for anything except a yes/no type test the amount or ratio in any transfused blood would have had to be off the charts to cause a positive test result.

The WADA testing rules ban the use of "white out" on the lab's testing records. Yet, when Floyd's lawyer was allowed to look at HIS testing data, it was clear that someone at the lab had "whited out" the original information, and added new data.

The "Scientific American" is dealing with theory. In "real life", the results of a lab test are no better than the ethics and professionalism of the lab and its personnel. The lab that released Floyd's results to the press WEEKS before allowing Floyd's lawyers access to the actual test data has repeatedly shown that no one on its staff, from the director on done has a clue as to "ethics" or "professionalism".

We had a similar problem here in Houston with the police lab. Both with DNA tests used in murder cases and sexual assault cases and in intoxilizer exams used in DWI cases, the results were consistently wrong. And, they were always "wrong" in favor of the prosecutor and "wrong" against the person that was arrested and charged.

The Houston police lab says the mistakes were simply the result of a few poorly trained and poorly supervised lab techs. Yet, if the mistakes were "random", why were the mistakes ALWAYS in favor of the accuser?

Don't forget the 1999 incident with Lance . . . it was leaked that LA's test data showed positive for a banned substance. Only the French press ran with the accusations.

LA's data showed that the measure was just 0.2. That compares to the allowable amount of the substance which was 6.0. For that reason, it was against the rules for LA's 0.2 level to even be be released. Of course, it was not possible to show that a hundred other cyclists had tested higher--legally higher.

LA was asked if he had taken anything and he said he had not because he had not taken pills or received shots. The fact is, he had used a cortisone cream on saddlesores. However, this is perfectly permissible for any rider, and this fact had even been disclosed beforehand.

The takeaway message is that the 0.2 level should not have been leaked; the 0.2 was well below the 6.0 allowable level which was the point where the data is deemed to show a possible use of a banned substance; the French press will print the b.s. (they kept with the story because LA said he had not used anything so he should have measured 0.0 not 0.2).

In his press conference, LA was very generous to the French press in saying that he did not believe that the French press was just out to get him. Rather, LA said he thought they were really out to get the sport. He noted that there were 1,500 French reporters there that had never followed the sport before and were only there to find a story about drugs. But there was no drug story. It was a story about skin cream.

:)

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=5&articleID=000F21CC-682D-152E-A2EC83414B7F0000

OK Yankees, hold your horses. :D

I don't have any problems about all the statements and possible facts made by some of you.
And therefore I respect everyone opinion on this topic although I believe most of it is bull****.

But guys please take your self a little bit more serious!

Stop blaming this Floyd saga on the French press.
I know they are a bunch of incompetent snckers which when there is a change will try to bring down every non-French athletic.
If you are well informed by your press as the French are by theirs the name Richard Virenque and the year 1998 must ring a bell.
He is the only one of the doped group of 98 who won several prizes in the TDF after he was accused and pleated guilty.

What I mean to say is that you both should get hold of better news sources and not always believe what your news source is telling you.

Use the internet and explore “the world”

I suggest you folks go the the Daily Peloton, go to the new forums and lurk and read a thread in the doping section called "Floyd's test digested (for dummies)" by a poster called "rational head"...not only will you get some gret info, you will also get some insight into what happens at more elite levels with testing. How it's all done.

Here's a link directly to the thread. There's a lot there, but it's worth reading and factual. (http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/index.php?showtopic=1607) No press hype by people that do not understand.

The "science" is pretty much meaningless as evidence for a drug conviction. Finding synthetic substances in a cyclist's samples does not prove use of a banned substance. Case dismissed........

If the UCI, [WADA] wants to prosecute cyclists based on current testing protocols, then they had better figure out how to implement a "no exception" clause regarding all synthetic substances.

You need blind testing by a non-French lab staffed by people with patient-type medical ethics that know what "private" and "confidential" means. The way it is now, it's just irresponsible hammering of certain riders, by media with certain animosities, based on knowlingly working with a corrupt testing establishment, publishing inferences and making accusations that just as easily may be based only on corrupted data. The French officials should be tested too. And test samples should be run through the mix to check the credibility of the system.

You need blind testing by a non-French lab staffed by people with patient-type medical ethics that know what "private" and "confidential" means. The way it is now, it's just irresponsible hammering of certain riders, by media with certain animosities, based on knowlingly working with a corrupt testing establishment, publishing inferences and making accusations that just as easily may be based only on corrupted data. The French officials should be tested too. And test samples should be run through the mix to check the credibility of the system.

+100

You need blind testing by a non-French lab staffed by people with patient-type medical ethics that know what "private" and "confidential" means. The way it is now, it's just irresponsible hammering of certain riders, by media with certain animosities, based on knowlingly working with a corrupt testing establishment, publishing inferences and making accusations that just as easily may be based only on corrupted data. The French officials should be tested too. And test samples should be run through the mix to check the credibility of the system.

And we wonder why Amreicans have a bad reputation with the rest of the world. Only we would want the host country of a sporting event to ship lab work out.

And in this case there is absolutely no issue at all of a conflict of interest, at least not against Landis. The riders who will benefit are not French and the Tour which is quite clearly French will be hurt badly if the winner doped. (Of course they would be hurt even worse if he doped and they turned a blind eye to it).

weather or not it helped him is a moot point. if he broke the rules is all that matters.

i do agree that the lab should be scrutinized though. considering how much it probobly hacked off the french that another american won their race, sabotage shouldnt be ruled out, and i honestly think its floyds best deffense at this point. if nothing else they appear to have a history of leaking results.

but assuming the urine was his and untampered with, its pretty hard to make any excuses IMO.
Whether he broke the rules or not is moot if no one can prove that he did.


The street is an idiot. His ratio was about 11 to 1. Way out of line. If one or even 2 units of blood accounted for that those units must have been at 40 to 1 or more. Same kind of thing for any other ratio based test, which is what all the tests in question are. No way you could get that through blood doping.


I've also read it was 4.5 to 1.Wrong test. These two ratios (11:1 and 4.5:1) are apparently the results from the TE tests during the A and B samples. Neither has much to do with the carbon isotope testing discussed in the OP. As a side matter, 11:1 is not that high DDR athletes had ratios greater than 100:1.

As for the carbon isotope testing, it doesn't matter how great a test is or how valid the theory is if the quality controls on actual testing are not observed. Landis' case is not going to be decided on the validity of a theory or even the reality of what a test can detect but his case will instead be decided on the accused (by him and his attorney) inconsistencies and sloppiness of the lab work.