gcl8a

So you could make Cat 3?

Duke of Kent

Others got to shoot flower out of rifles with a plastic extension hose for mouth-to-rifle barrel propulsion. I had all sorts of devious plans for what I could pack into the "blow gun" to shoot at the opposition. Wax pellets, spit balls, etc.

The actually "re-enacting" part was of little interest. Gettysburg cannot be accurately simulated in this part of Illinois.

ccrnnr9

+1...I know Floyd may not be innocent but Pereiro...come on you have got to be kidding me if you think that guy is innocent.
~Nick

ThinLine

It seemed inevitiable, but cycling will still be my sport regardless. There are those who don't take drugs and thats what the real cyclist appreciates.
It's not like I was going to sell everything and take up domino's anyway.
Bummer for him.

Hell, I take pain killers and ride. Although I would not call them performance enhancing.

iab

Isn't the lack of balls a sign of rampant steroid use? Is someone slipping you the juice without you knowing?

timmhaan

i don't blame anyone for not wanting to give a DNA sample. it would be low on my list of things to want to do as well.

roadwarrior

Rumor has it his mommy took away his computer privleges.

roadwarrior

This is where doc responds with .....

Of course, he thinks Vino tested positive for steroids in the Tour.

patentcad

So I could suck wheel more comfortably with the 35+ vets for whom Cat 3 is wussy.

Midnight Cyril

Wow. Without the artificial testosterone, you lack the testosterone to take the artificial testosterone.

howsteepisit

Well, I cannot say I am surprised. having worked in a lab, the lab results of multiple tests are rarely wrong. I recall many time where the operations people would come in and ask, are you sure this is right? And Yes, I was, but to make them happy we'd rerun the tests, and yep, the results were the same. That said, I am troubled by the statement of the the arbitrators that "if the problems continue it might be grounds for tossing out the results in the future." This is either an admission (and an invitation to appeal the decision) that the testing was done improperly and the verdict was toeing the party line, or just an incredibly stupid thing to say. It makes the decision suspect in my opinion, as they imply there is one standard for this case and a different standard for future cases.

kaisir42

I think he got screwed. This case was decided from the start. Whether he cheated or not we'll never know for sure, and I really don't care. What really bugs me is the lack of process. The lab made errors and did not follow WADA protocol (this was acknowledged in the decision) and he is still found guilty.

timmhaan

he's found guilty because all the other re-tests confirmed he had a positive sample. i don't know how to put it more clear than that. sure, the lab made mistakes, but that's why they retested the samples. positive test each time. floyd had an opportunity to present his case and he did. and even then, he was still found guilty.

how is he being screwed? at no point, that i'm aware of, did any of his samples test negative.

patentcad

Well put.

* jack *

patentcad

They call that a cul de suck.

asgelle

Interesting that someone in North Carolina has a picture of a street sign in Colorado Springs.

VT Biker

I do feel sad for Landis. I really do. He was caught doing what YOU have to do to compete in the current Tour, because the UCI, rather than put some teeth into the testing, has allowed so many loopholes that the culture still allows doping. But what the UCI and all the riders do not realize is that they are merely screwing themselves, because now they have to risk losing it all when getting caught.

I just hope Landis has some other career. I fear for the worst however, and Landis will end-up broke, working as a salesman an a local bike shop. It is so sad.

bbattle

He lifted it off Velonews.

erader

maybe he knows how to bowl ?

ed rader

asgelle

No way. No one would just take someone else's work and post it as their own without giving the true creator credit. People who post here are much more honrable than that and would never sink so low.

Rob944

Can someone answer a question for me? They said the first test was not done properly but the second, more extensive test was positive for synthetic testosterone. Somewhere in all of this I remember reading that the french lab "positive" would not have been positive at UCLA. Was this the first, easy test or the second, better test?
Thanks!

ElJamoquio

I believe it was the second that would not have been a positive. UCLA would've required four markers, and the most significant one was missing, or something along those lines.

* jack *

LOL - click the pic, and it links back to the freaking article.

Trevor98

Here is my understanding of the sequence of testing.
1) The A sample is tested for a routine list of substances. Landis' test clears all but t testosterone to epitosterone ratio test (recently changed from 6:1 to 4:1). His T:E ratio was 4.5:1. The A sample is then subjected to the IMRS test (an analysis of carbon isotope ratios) which is only routinely done on samples that fail the T:E ratio. This test looks for markers of synthetic testosterone. Landis' sample failed one of the four isotope ratio which is enough to call a positive in the LNDD lab but not in many other labs that require more failed isotopes to call the results positive of synthetic testosterone.
2) The results of the A sample were leaked by the UCI to the press and Landis and Co. held a press release to spin it their way.
3) Two weeks after the A sample was tested the B sample was tested by the same lab (LNDD) with almost the same results. The T:E ratio changed from 4.5:1 to 11:1 (a 144% increase). Tests showing a difference of greater than 30% are suspicious and should be thrown out in most science labs. Such an increase indicates a problem with something and violates the cardinal rule of repeatability in science.
4) Months later (in April) Landis' other B samples were tested for synthetic testosterone only. The results were the same. The corresponding A samples were tested originally and are typically thrown out. These were not tested for T:E ratio and they too were tested in the same LNDD lab in France. Landis and Co. wanted these tested in the UCLA lab but that idea was rejected. These tests are virtually meaningless as they were performed in the same lab and were only the B samples.

USADA had problems with the way the T:E testing was performed on the A sample and basically ignored it completely. They did validate the IMRS tests and used that test to come to their 2:1 vote finding against Landis. They decided that the second part was valid enough in spite of their problems with the other part of the test. An interesting choice. I hope that answers your question.