Professional Cycling For the Fans - Landis trial. Why in the $%^ is it taking so long?

He's not OJ, or Michael Jackson, or some other celebrity with some long ass trial, or so we thought?!!! The question was did he, or did he not use drugs? Simple....So why is the verdict taking so long? Is the defense still trying to discredit the French lab? Im confused and pissed that I still don't know who won the 2006 TDF. ****, we are going into September 2007.

He's not OJ, or Michael Jackson, or some other celebrity with some long ass trial, or so we thought?!!! The question was did he, or did he not use drugs? Simple....So why is the verdict taking so long? Is the defense still trying to discredit the French lab? Im confused and pissed that I still don't know who won the 2006 TDF. ****, we are going into September 2007.

Easy--they know they fracked up and are trying to figure out how to save face

If they find against Landis they are faced with the reality that they have found someone guilty without credible evidence. This could have terrible repercussions thoughout the sport. I think the evidence is not conclusive against Landis and that is why they are taking so long.

im not an expert on the situation, and not to bring up old news, but didn't the B sample come back positive too? aside from saying the french lab mishandled the samples, there is not much the defense can say.....

He's not OJ, or Michael Jackson, or some other celebrity with some long ass trial, or so we thought?!!! The question was did he, or did he not use drugs? Simple....So why is the verdict taking so long? Is the defense still trying to discredit the French lab? Im confused and pissed that I still don't know who won the 2006 TDF. ****, we are going into September 2007.

i hear ya and i'm kinda waiting for the other sidi to drop in the 2007 TDF :eek:.

ed rader

I think the USADA picked judge has voted guilty, Floyd's pick voted not, the third voted not also, and USADA is trying to influence him to change his finding before they have to announce.

It seems like there should be some sort of time limit for how long after the hearing closes before a verdict has to be announced. Otherwise they can impose their own unofficial 2 year ban on an athlete just by stalling long enough. This is ridiculous!!!

im not an expert on the situation, and not to bring up old news, but didn't the B sample come back positive too? aside from saying the french lab mishandled the samples, there is not much the defense can say.....

its not as simple as that. I was suprised to learn that the different labsa ll have different criteria for what constitutes a "positive" test. At his hearing scientists from a number of labs--including the labs in the USA testified that had they tested the sample, it would not have met the criteria for a positive.

its not as simple as that. I was suprised to learn that the different labsa ll have different criteria for what constitutes a "positive" test. At his hearing scientists from a number of labs--including the labs in the USA testified that had they tested the sample, it would not have met the criteria for a positive.

hmmm. interesting point. so who ultimately sets the standards for what constitues a positive test, WADA? the UCI....the whole thing is confusing to me.....concerning a time limit, it does seem like a more reasonable amount of time to handle these matters needs to be in place. anyway.......*head spinning*

hmmm. interesting point. so who ultimately sets the standards for what constitues a positive test, WADA? the UCI....the whole thing is confusing to me.....concerning a time limit, it does seem like a more reasonable amount of time to handle these matters needs to be in place. anyway.......*head spinning*

I could be wrong on this, but the way I understand itis that WADA sets the thresholds (in Landis' case, the 4:1 testosterone to epitosterone ratio) and then each individual WADA lab uses its own criteria to determine whether or not that threshold is met. Its not like taking a piss test for your employer and the doc saying, ohh geez, you've got THC in your system.

I believe WADA will certify the test, and several other labs did testify, during the hearing, that they would interpret that same data as a positive.

In theory the actual tests, and therefore the standards, are determined by peer review and scientific studies. WADA will then say "yes, this test is reliable" or "no, it's not good enough."

Some of these tests are highly interpretive. I may be wrong, but the isotope test isn't too interpretive though -- either you have the isotopes associated with synthetic testosterone in your blood, or you don't. Isotope signatures are fairly unique.

My recollection is that one or two of Landis' defense witnesses suggested the technicians did not operate the machine properly. I don't remember anyone saying that the standards themselves were moving targets.

Some of these tests are highly interpretive. I may be wrong, but the isotope test isn't too interpretive though -- either you have the isotopes associated with synthetic testosterone in your blood, or you don't. Isotope signatures are fairly unique.



Not quite. The isotope test depends on ratios of isotopes. So it is not a have any and it is positive. But it is not an out and out interpertive test either. The ratio is a hard number.

I believe WADA will certify the test, and several other labs did testify, during the hearing, that they would interpret that same data as a positive.

In theory the actual tests, and therefore the standards, are determined by peer review and scientific studies. WADA will then say "yes, this test is reliable" or "no, it's not good enough."

Some of these tests are highly interpretive. I may be wrong, but the isotope test isn't too interpretive though -- either you have the isotopes associated with synthetic testosterone in your blood, or you don't. Isotope signatures are fairly unique.

My recollection is that one or two of Landis' defense witnesses suggested the technicians did not operate the machine properly. I don't remember anyone saying that the standards themselves were moving targets.

I believe an expert from the US lab at UCLA testified that the test would not have been a positive at his lab. The ratio standard is "hard" 4:1--but it does require interpetation to determine what ratio the sample actually has.

Landis' defense also brought out several other "irregularities" such as that the lab techs had the wrong software loaded into the machines, were not properly trained as to how to use the machines (did not have user manuals), some machines utilizing magnets still had some of the metal carrying handles attached to them, there had been a bacterial contamination of other samples at the lab the same summer Landis' samples were tested, the lab techs knew it was his sample, they tested his A sample 3 times and it came back 4.9:1, 5.1:1, and 11:1---but utilized only the last number. They also did more tests on previous B samples that suppossedly came back as "positive" even though the original A samples had not.

Whether Landis actually doped or not, no one will ever know. However, based on the testimony at the hearing, there is no doubt that this lab in france is run by a bunch of incompetent beancounters who don't follow their own internal procedures and never bother to properly train people. I wouldn't trust any "test results" that came back from that lab

im not an expert on the situation, and not to bring up old news, but didn't the B sample come back positive too? aside from saying the french lab mishandled the samples, there is not much the defense can say.....

Yes, but one of the worlds leading authorities on the testing and several others have stated that the results are unreliable due to testing faults. The initial tests are so full of procedural errors that it cannot be said with assurance that the samples are indeed Landis'. The more accurate mass spectrometry tests were done as a follow-up and were the ones that were botched the most. The machines were not even set up correctly. Further, the testing method is destructive and destroys the samples so they can't be redone.

WADA has basically gone the route of character assassination because they don't have any good reliable lab testing and documentation.

One interesting tidbit that comes out in Landis' book is that apparently no WADA lab tech or director can criticize the work of another WADA lab. So the most Landis' defense was able to get witnesses to say was that "we wouldn't have done it that way."

Yeah, the looooong time it's taking makes me smell something.

All the authorities had to do was present the test results and show the tests were run correctly by a certified lab and bada-bing bada-boom the tribunal deliberates for 3 minutes and Landis swings. Now it's like three months and...what?

I also didn't get the whole attack on Landis' character at the hearing - what difference did that make if the tests were A-OK?

TCS

PS - Could they be waiting for Dick Pound to retire?

The most amazing testimony during the hearing was from the French tech. When she was asked why a certain phase of the testing took much longer than expected, she said in effect: "well, the machine is always giving bad answers...I knew the answers the machine was giving must be wrong, so I used pencil and paper to compute better answers..."

Later, when she was asked who the lab used to verify her work was done correctly, she said the lab selected HER to do the "B" sample to find out whether she had been correct when she did the "A" sample...she was in charge of "grading her own papers".

She could not explain how a French newsper got the results of the "A" sample test just three hours after she completed her work, even though she claimed she only discussed the result with the head of the lab.

If a jury had heard her testimony in a case involving $10 worth of cocaine, most of the jurors would have been laughing too hard to convict anyone.

Anybody know what Landis test results were the next day? Or does testosterone leave the body that quick?

Anybody know what Landis test results were the next day? Or does testosterone leave the body that quick?

I don't know that Floyd had a sample taken the following day. He wasn't wearing the yellow jersey until after the ITT, and he didn't win stage 18. LNDD did state that they found evidence of exogenous testosterone in all his other samples, but that doesn't carry a whole lot of weight as a factual statement with me.

Anybody know what Landis test results were the next day? Or does testosterone leave the body that quick?

He likely would not have been tested stage 18 as he was third overal behind Oscar and Carlos and well back of the breakaway so he wouldn't be tested for the stage. He would have been tested after stage 19 after he re-took the lead.

And yes, testosterone is metabolised quickly enough that if Floyd did use testosterone on stage 17 and those figures are correct, he was only about 40 minutes away from a negative test.

im not an expert on the situation, and not to bring up old news, but didn't the B sample come back positive too? aside from saying the french lab mishandled the samples, there is not much the defense can say.....

I would have much more confidence in the B sample if the same lab and the techs had not tested it. As such, I still think Landis' team provided enough doubt that it would be tough to find him guilty.

And didn't I see something that the TdF sent their samples to the Canadian lab this year?? Or was LNDD still doing it.

I would have much more confidence in the B sample if the same lab and the techs had not tested it. As such, I still think Landis' team provided enough doubt that it would be tough to find him guilty.

Based on the lab seems a flimsy case against Floyd.
Must say though, I'm wondering if maybe they weren't ready to find for Floyd but for the LeMond witness tampering incident. That incident doesn't look like the act of an innocent, so maybe they are pausing in the face of the flimsy physical evidence.

And didn't I see something that the TdF sent their samples to the Canadian lab this year?? Or was LNDD still doing it.

No-you are thinking of the French Open Tennis Tournament.

LNDD is still doing the Tour.

Based on the lab seems a flimsy case against Floyd.
Must say though, I'm wondering if maybe they weren't ready to find for Floyd but for the LeMond witness tampering incident. That incident doesn't look like the act of an innocent, so maybe they are pausing in the face of the flimsy physical evidence.

I always wondered why LeMond got himself looped into this. I mean I know there was the phone call back in July 06 and I like Greg, but as time goes by, he just seems to get more angry that other riders are getting more recognition and he just can't seem to handle that and tries to talk smack about them at any chance he can get. If they only look at the LeMond incident at the tribunal, then there are bigger problem within the WADA et al world that need to fixed.

No-you are thinking of the French Open Tennis Tournament.

LNDD is still doing the Tour.

That is still a huge slap at LNDD that one of the Grand Slam Tennis Tournaments is not using their home lab and shipping the stuff 3000 miles to Canada.

Based on the lab seems a flimsy case against Floyd.
Must say though, I'm wondering if maybe they weren't ready to find for Floyd but for the LeMond witness tampering incident. That incident doesn't look like the act of an innocent, so maybe they are pausing in the face of the flimsy physical evidence.

Just cause the guy's jacka$s for a friend did something stupid to try and "help" landis, doesn't mean landis actually doped. Granted it doesn't look good--but it is a non sequitur

I would have much more confidence in the B sample if the same lab and the techs had not tested it. As such, I still think Landis' team provided enough doubt that it would be tough to find him guilty.

Except that in all the "previous" B-samples they tested, the A-samples had come back negative. You are not even suppossed to get to the B-samples if the A-sample comes back negative

I always wondered why LeMond got himself looped into this. I mean I know there was the phone call back in July 06 and I like Greg, but as time goes by, he just seems to get more angry that other riders are getting more recognition and he just can't seem to handle that and tries to talk smack about them at any chance he can get.

Go back further. LeMond po-po'ed fellow American rider Andy Hampsten in Bicycling magazine after Hampsten helped him win the ToF in '86: "Hampsten will never win a major tour. He's just not a good enough all around rider."

As we all know, Hampsten subsequently won the 1988 Giro.

TCS

"I sent Greg LeMond for tacos."

Just cause the guy's jacka$s for a friend did something stupid to try and "help" landis, doesn't mean landis actually doped. Granted it doesn't look good--but it is a non sequitur

No, but it suggests he did.

That was clearly private information Lemond shared with Landis yet Landis revealed it to his flunkie and Landis had threatened to reveal that information if Lemond didn't keep quiet.

Even the next day after Floyd knew his flunkie made the call, the flunkie accompanied Floyd to the hearing.

If you guys have not yet, go buy his book, Positively False....its a great read. Explains most of what this thread discusses and more.

Go back further. LeMond po-po'ed fellow American rider Andy Hampsten in Bicycling magazine after Hampsten helped him win the ToF in '86: "Hampsten will never win a major tour. He's just not a good enough all around rider."

As we all know, Hampsten subsequently won the 1988 Giro.

TCS

"I sent Greg LeMond for tacos."

You could say that Greg was calling it as he saw it, and not trying to be mean and vindicative. Lance has never really heaped praise on fellow American riders, except for Hincappie. And he stated that although he couldn't have done as well w/o George, George was not his successor.

I always wondered why LeMond got himself looped into this. I mean I know there was the phone call back in July 06 and I like Greg, but as time goes by, he just seems to get more angry that other riders are getting more recognition and he just can't seem to handle that and tries to talk smack about them at any chance he can get. If they only look at the LeMond incident at the tribunal, then there are bigger problem within the WADA et al world that need to fixed.


LeMond has always had a degree of negativity following him that I believe is undesrved. He doesn't seek out attention, but having been the first greatest American cyclist, people seek him out for comments. Greg doesn't sugarcoat his remarks. He openly questioned why Armstrong would have Dr. Ferrari as his doctor back in the early 2000's. He didn't accuse Lance of anything. He was disappointed that the greatest cyclist of the time would cloud his reputation for dealing with a doctor known for helping other cyclists dope. So, how did he LeMond get 'looped' into this? He had a conversation on the phone with Landis after the test results, and after Greg talked about this conversation, he was called to testify. Greg did not, and was not going to 'talk smack' about Floyd. Not until Floyd's goon tried to scare LeMond off the night before testimony. Greg doesn't seek attention. He was a great cyclist; people seek him out.

And yes, testosterone is metabolised quickly enough that if Floyd did use testosterone on stage 17 and those figures are correct, he was only about 40 minutes away from a negative test.

Now hold on! The problem was not abnormally high T, but low EpiT. Remember, the test is for the ratio, not the level which can - and does - vary all over the place.

Besides, the test isn't designed to detect testosterone use. It's designed to detect steroids. Testosterone is a metabolic by-product of steroid use. The thing is, steroids don't have a short-term effect so it makes no sense to take them in the middle of a race.

LeMond has always had a degree of negativity following him that I believe is undesrved. He doesn't seek out attention, but having been the first greatest American cyclist...

Arthur A. Zimmerman, call your office!

TCS

Arthur A. Zimmerman, call your office!

TCS

I thought Major Taylor predated Greg, but now I'm not so sure. :p :D

Besides, the test isn't designed to detect testosterone use. It's designed to detect steroids.

Testosterone is a steroid. it's just a steroid that the body manufactures (men and women) rather than a 'designed' steroid. it can also be manufactured in a lab.


Testosterone is a metabolic by-product of steroid use.

well, not really in general terms. it might be a minor metabolite of some steroids, but its not a major metabolite of any that i know of. actually, if you regularly use steroids, your own level of testosterone production falls.


The thing is, steroids don't have a short-term effect so it makes no sense to take them in the middle of a race.

well, mostly true, but many athletes calim it improves recovery from exertion in the short term amongst some other short term effects. but you are right that it is normally used longer term, when the benefits sought are different to short term use.

I thought Major Taylor predated Greg, but now I'm not so sure. :p :D

You beat me to the punch.

Also, Phiney predated Lemond in that role very briefly.

... So, how did he LeMond get 'looped' into this? He had a conversation on the phone with Landis after the test results, and after Greg talked about this conversation, he was called to testify. Greg did not, and was not going to 'talk smack' about Floyd.

That's my point, what real point was it to bring LeMond to testify? What did taking to him on the phone have anything to do with him doping or not doping. From what I remember, Landis never told LeMond that he doped, but LeMond sure was quick to judge him and told him to say he did.

I can see it now,
FL: "Yea Greg I doped, but keep it a secret ok."
GL: "Sure Floyd, but just make sure you tell the world you doped so I will be the only rider from the 80's and 90's still claiming to be clean that L'Equipe actually believes and never questions cause I speak French like a true Frenchman."

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

Testosterone and doping control.


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

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Anabolic steroids are synthetic derivatives of testosterone, modified to enhance its anabolic actions (promotion of protein synthesis and muscle growth). They have numerous side effects, and are on the International Olympic Committee's list of banned substances. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry allows identification and characterisation of steroids and their metabolites in the urine but may not distinguish between pharmaceutical and natural testosterone. Indirect methods to detect doping include determination of the testosterone/epitestosterone glucuronide ratio with suitable cut-off values. Direct evidence may be obtained with a method based on the determination of the carbon isotope ratio of the urinary steroids. This paper aims to give an overview of the use of anabolic-androgenic steroids in sport and methods used in anti-doping laboratories for their detection in urine, with special emphasis on doping with testosterone. ...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m


well, not really in general terms. it might be a minor metabolite of some steroids, but its not a major metabolite of any that i know of.
Then the purpose of a T/EpiT test would be?



well, mostly true, but many athletes calim it improves recovery from exertion in the short term amongst some other short term effects. ..
And if it was used in that way in this instance (not long term), would not the T level show as high? Yet it didn't.

i just wanted to point out that testosterone IS a steroid, as some people seem to think that steroids are different to testosterone. it is in fact the prototypical androgenic anabolic steroid: it is masculinising (androgenic) and it is anabolic (building muscle mass). epitestosterone is made in the same ratio to testosterone by some alternative reactions of the testosterone synthesis pathway, and is an epimer of testosterone, meaning it has all the same bits but assembled in slightly the wrong order. a bit lke putting the left and right wing mirrors on a car on the wrong side. epitestosterone is not active, and is always in about the same ratio.

epitestosterone is also a very minor metabolite of testosterone, but not the other way around (well, maybe, but less than 0.1% of the amount of epi made from test). that was the original point. this is very old science (since even before the 1940s), see for example, http://www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/196/1/243.pdf
some people claim that epitestosterone is NOT a metabolite of testosterone at all. see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=8439522&dopt=AbstractPlus
also see for a review http://bjsm.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/40/suppl_1/i21

the purpose of a testosterone / epitestosterone ratio is to see if it is significantly higher than normal, which would generally indicate a recent input of testosterone. of course, if you also add epitestosterone at the same time, this ratio can be manipulated to remain normal. epi does nothing so its only purpose is to mask testosterone administration. see http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/content/full/48/4/629

there are no synthetic steroids that i know of that have testosterone as a major metabolite.

the isotope assay of testosterone composition will still reflect the presence of synthetic testosterone, regardless of the ratio. the ratio test is the first test performed as it is significantly cheaper than the isotope test, which is a real problem for the drug testing regime (many false negatives appear this way and doping cases get missed).

show me definitive evidence that the T was not high. is there any?. then again, maybe he forgot to add the epi that day....

That's my point, what real point was it to bring LeMond to testify? What did taking to him on the phone have anything to do with him doping or not doping. From what I remember, Landis never told LeMond that he doped, but LeMond sure was quick to judge him and told him to say he did.

LeMond allegedly told Landis to "fess-up" for the good of the sport. Landis did not respond by denying he doped but rather said something to the effect of "what would be the point of that."

The implication being that a normal person who was accused of something and was innocent would deny such an accusation.

i just wanted to point out that testosterone IS a steroid, as some people seem to think that steroids are different to testosterone. it is in fact the prototypical androgenic anabolic steroid: it is masculinising (androgenic) and it is anabolic (building muscle mass). epitestosterone is made in the same ratio to testosterone by some alternative reactions of the testosterone synthesis pathway, and is an epimer of testosterone, meaning it has all the same bits but assembled in slightly the wrong order. a bit lke putting the left and right wing mirrors on a car on the wrong side. epitestosterone is not active, and is always in about the same ratio.

epitestosterone is also a very minor metabolite of testosterone, but not the other way around (well, maybe, but less than 0.1% of the amount of epi made from test). that was the original point. this is very old science (since even before the 1940s), see for example, http://www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/196/1/243.pdf
some people claim that epitestosterone is NOT a metabolite of testosterone at all. see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=8439522&dopt=AbstractPlus
also see for a review http://bjsm.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/40/suppl_1/i21

the purpose of a testosterone / epitestosterone ratio is to see if it is significantly higher than normal, which would generally indicate a recent input of testosterone. of course, if you also add epitestosterone at the same time, this ratio can be manipulated to remain normal. epi does nothing so its only purpose is to mask testosterone administration. see http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/content/full/48/4/629

there are no synthetic steroids that i know of that have testosterone as a major metabolite.

the isotope assay of testosterone composition will still reflect the presence of synthetic testosterone, regardless of the ratio. the ratio test is the first test performed as it is significantly cheaper than the isotope test, which is a real problem for the drug testing regime (many false negatives appear this way and doping cases get missed).

show me definitive evidence that the T was not high. is there any?. then again, maybe he forgot to add the epi that day....


When testosterone levels are high, the body cuts back on testosterone-epitestosterone synthesis. The rational is low epitestosterone infers a reduction in the body's natural synthesis of testosterone & epitestosterone, so you would see low epitestosterone for a while after the testosterone had returned to normal levels. Also, the absolute levels vary much more from athlete to athlete than the ratios.

I thought the low epi level was briefly discussed in the hearing, but the absolute levels are essentially a triviality as far as positive test vs. exonderation.

So the real question is, what are the odds of a decision coming down before months end?

So the real question is, what are the odds of a decision coming down before months end?


50-50....it either will or it won't :eek:.

ed rader

I'm calling time on the USADA arbitration hearing. Floyd won.