Saudade

He drank two beers and four shots of whiskey before a crucial stage in the most important race of his life?! After a stage where he was generally acknowledged to be dehydrated?! No elite athlete would ever do this in an important race. Landis is either a liar or he is monumentally stupid.

He has all his excuses lined up doesn't he? The hip, the thyroid medication, the alcohol. Just a matter of time until he pulls the twin theory out of his ass.

Thulsadoom

I'm just jumping in here, but I wonder if someone could help me out real quick.

From what I understand, Floyds testosterone levels were not high, but his epitestosterone levels were abnormally low. So I don't get it, if he was taking testosterone(or a synthetic testosterone hormone, or whatever it's called), wouldn't he be taking it to jack up his testosterone? Isn't that the idea? How does this work? What is epitestosterone?

BluesDawg

Listening to NPR in the car today, a WADA official (not Dick Pound) was being interviewed about Floyd's T/ET test results. He said that a ratio above 4:1, confirmed if requested by a B sample test, was not definitive proof of external testosterone. That it called for another test to be performed which would distinguish between natural and artificially manufactured testosterone. He said that this test (can't remember the name) would provide the answer. Can anyone talk about this test? Is it a more conclusive test than the seemingly "not ready for prime time" T/ET urine test?

sunninho

SI.com: So what is Landis' next move?

Murphy: The next step he can take when he appeals is his last resort: a test called IRNS, or mass spectrometry. Wadler says this test doesn't care about whether or not your body produces extra amounts of testosterone. It's a chemical test that tells us whether or not this testosterone was either introduced from an outside source or if it is naturally occurring. If they go to it and the testosterone is determined to be of exogenous origin, Landis is toast. This test result is not a smoking gun; it's an irregularity.

One of the things I asked Floyd on Thursday was, "What was your ratio?" WADA recently reduced the acceptable ratio from six-to-one to four-to-one. Some argue that's so low and that it'll ultimately snag some innocent people because human variation is such that they'll get some false positives. Landis wouldn't say what his ratio was. If it was 11-to-one, he's got some explaining to do. If he tested four-to-one, that's within the realm of what is explainable, and he shouldn't be sanctioned. But no one has those numbers yet, so we're in a fog waiting for those numbers to come in.

There are still some pretty big questions and issues out there. We live in a society where we want resolution now, we want to celebrate him or damn him, and it's not going to happen right away. We won't have clarity today or this weekend.

JavaMan

This is the same lab that gave lance problems, and would not answer even simple questions about how the testing was conducted and who conducted it. Lance is skeptical, and so am I.

g3ck0

After showing such poor performance in the previous stage, I would not be surprised that he felt that a few drinks were in order. So, do you think that he bonked on purpose so that he could get to the beer so that he would have an excuse later on? Jeez. Please think first next time.

godspiral

11:1 is extremely high.
If he would of scored 3.5:1 without alcohool, even though he passed, it would look extremely suspicious.
A 200% increase over 3.5:1 would still be lower than 11:1 (10.5)

redden

A Pharmacist at work was certain that if the test were true it indicated juicing. My question was would testostone work that fast? A..No only offers a placebo effect in the short term.

Allen H

The IRMS test distinguishes between naturally occurring testosterone levels and artifically-induced levels. They count the differing types of carbon isotopes. If the one's high and the other is low, you're clearly doping, but if the one is low and the other is high, your own body is producing those high levels appearing in the T/E test. The test is expensive, unlike the T/E test, but conclusive, unlike the T/E test.

ken cummings

And why would France not use this conclusive test in the first place? Would it conflict with the results they wanted? Easier under the Napoleonic Code to accuse the suspect and get him to pay for it.

matagi

The IRMS test is more expensive and requires a little more technical expertise, so it is easier to do the simple test first and then, if necessary (ie. a positive) move to the next level.

The thing that I don't like about this whole affair is the leaking of the result by the laboratory which performed the initial analysis. This is a serious breach of confidentiality and if I were the UCI, WADA or whoever, I would immediately cease using them for testing.

Karlotta

There is no proof that the laboratory leaked anything here. Once the tests are done they are communicated to a variety of folks... any one of whom could have leaked... remember the laboratory doesn't know who it was by the vial of urine. It's got a coded number on it. Only UCI knows who it was... UCI announced that a rider had tested positive. That's what started the speculation in the media and on the net. The London Times said they had "sources in France"... that is not necessarily the laboratory. Indeed UCI said that the rider and his team and national federation had been notified. Within 2 days Phonak announced that it was Landis. Up to that point it was pure speculation.

The smearing of this laboratory is a distraction from the test result itself, and its implications. Let's investigate Landis first... and then the test... so far, the laboratory seems to be doing what it's supposed to do.

Univega

That is my point. I wa hoping someone could explain it to me.

blue_nose: I am not even hinting at French conspiracy. If you understand how steroids work, you understand that one shot does nothing. You need to take them over time then train and eat properly.
To me, it makes little sense that either

1) All his previous test were negative (are they tested daily?)
2) He took one massive dose when he fell behind.

trmcgeehan

By drinking a couple of beers and knocking back four shots of Jack Daniels the night before stage 17, this enabled Landis to become smarter than his TDF foes. This is like a wolf going after a herd of buffalo: the wolf goes after the weakest, sickest buffalo trailing the herd. Never goes after the strongest buffalo running up front. And so it is with alcohol: the alcohol attacked and destroyed Floyd's weakest brain cells, leaving him considerably smarter. The next day, on stage 17, Floyd was spectacular in outsmarting his and outcycling his competition. I have heard Jack Daniels is after Floyd to make some commercials. ;-)

cyclezealot

The way Europeans drink when they celebrate their food. It is so easy. Often at restaurants a local vin ordinare is automatically placed at your table without even being requested.
I know preparing for tomorrow's dive; often dive club members were totally careless with the booze. Unlike winning a race for a pro rider; a scuba only risks his/her life.

trmcgeehan

Of the 12 26 mile marathons I have completed, my fastest (3:29) was in California, where officials served Margaritas and beer every couple of miles. It was the only painless marathon I ever ran.

DMF 

There is no fixed "normal" ratio. It varies by circumstance.

EURO

You are here because you are fans of the Tour de France. The Tour de France is a UCI - accredited event. The doping tests at this event are part and parcel of the UCI accreditation.

Teams and riders taking part in this event do so in acceptance of the rules and regulations of said event, and they must stand by any decisions that are made according to these rules.

By dismissing any rule or test, you are dismissing the whole spirit and organisation of the race. The Tour de France and Pro Tour IS it’s rules.

By accepting the Tour de France, enjoying it as a viewer, or taking part in it as an athlete you are accepting every rule and regulation of the event.

The UCI and the anti-doping authorities are the people who DEFINE what a positive result is. Anyone can argue the merits or failings of any given test, but they must accept that if someone fails a doping test that is defined by the governing body, then by definition they have doped.

If Landis is found to have failed the test, by the definition of the UCI and the Tour de France, then you have to accept that he is no longer qualified to be considered the winner of the Tour de France.

iluvfreebeer

Failing a seriously flawed test is proof of nothing but that the test is flawed.

DMF 

Nope. I don't accept that.

No law or regulation is its own justification. Each exists to serve a purpose. The circumstances of each case must be evaluated to determine whether the purpose is being served. For instance, the against murder is absolute. Yet it may be overridden in particular cases, such as in self-defense. The purpose of the law is to protect life, but the fact that someone was killed does not automatically make the killer guilty of murder.

In this case, the purpose is to ensure that all riders are clean. Whether Floyd's test does that or not has yet to be determined. That's why judicial processes exist.

shokhead

Lets just wait for the b samples.

DMF 

Wrong! It proves nothing. Nothing at all.

In this case, you can't say that this test is inherently flawed. A test result shows only what the test was designed to show. What that means is an entirely different question. Again in this case, a T/E test *may* mean that doping has occurred. But it *may not* mean that, either. One must look for correlation with other facts to determine the actual meaning.

DMF 

Agreed, but you're missing one step. Someone - presumably in UCI - must have referenced the result to the rider (not incorrect), then informed the team (incorrect). The B sample is supposed to be tested first. That *anyone* outside UCI knew before the test was corroborated was a leak. The team thus, perhaps understandably, assumed that the news would break elsewhere if it didn't make a statement.

Walter

The UCI's president Pat McQuaid has admitted releasing the info about a positive or "irregular" test to essentially beat the lab to it. Since the UCI "knew" the lab would leak they decided to beat them to the punch so to speak. (the actual quote has appeared in other threads and is at Velonews).

I do not know if the lab improperly had names or if someone in the UCI gave that or as reporters began scouring Phonak released Landis' name to stop the inevitable. In any case the UCI uses a lab they know doesn't respect confidentiality.

The implications are just not about whether Floyd is embarrassed yesterday or next week.

1. It does raise questions about the overall trustworthiness of the lab even though the leaks are probably management not the techs.

2. At least one other MD hasa implied (I forget the source) that if Floyd is guilty he now has extra time to prepare a defense which might include making sure all blood/urine samples he gives later matches the ones from stage 17.

Nothing good comes from the early release of the A results.

cycletrips

I think the B test (or counter analysis as the UCI refers to it) must be requested by the rider (or his federation) and is not undertaken as a matter of course. Therefore the UCI must inform national federation and the rider's team of a positive A test first. The regulations are long but can be found at

https://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache...n&ct=clnk&cd=7
(try page 12-13, articles 78 and following)