MaryAnn

Did you read what I said? Yes, yes, yes, I think he may have won by cheating (although I hoped that he did not and that he wouldn't have to lose the title) but he was in a competition where they mostly ALL cheat (or at least the winners do) and MAYBE he cheated and just got caught. So if you engage in a competition you have to play by the rules or you don't win. IMHO he MAY HAVE BEEN playing by the rules which say if you don't dope you don't make it and he just got caught. Therfore he was playing by the rules and he won according to the secret rules of cycling. We don't know what those rules are because we aren't privy. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. I'm not talking about ETHICS her, Karlotta, I'm talking REALITY!!!!!!!:

Conundrum

[QUOTE=superslomo]
It's hard to realize that it was just a big joke. I feel like a complete sucker... even if "everyone" was doing it, it's still hard to have someone you pulled for get caught.

I gotta believe this is just a symantics mistake, but if he did cheat, the thing he did wrong was NOT getting caught, it was cheating.

As for feeling like a sucker, again if he's guilty, fool me once shame on you...

C.

Tom Pedale

A lot of people were cheated by this...not just the fans..the second place finisher Pereiro who won't get to celebrate his victory on the Champs-Elysees in front of the fans. Also, the future stars of the sport.
Will corporations continue to sponsor teams? If future sponsorship budgets are smaller rider's salaries are affected. Perhaps OLN won't broadcast the tour next year (one post has already stated they won't)
A cheater affects so many things by his selfish actions. We all suffer as a result.

In spite of this, I will watch next year and hope that the winner is not determined by a lab test..

redden

And of course you have evidence...if not please F*** off

robow

I've been following the tdf since the Lemond days, I must admit, I'm beaten, I can't take it anymore! After this up and down event, I wonder why I wasted so much time each and every day reading everything I could get my hands on, and for what? A kick in the stomach!

prendrefeu

Actually, to be fair Skyline_Dougie, earth dweller has a point. Regardless of capitalising Americans or not, you made a derogatory term. He or She could have easily used some terms that are often applied to Americans when abroad - but he or she didn't. That is, unless, you feel that 'Buckets of Lard' is not a derogatory term and in fact a compliment, too. Because, well, people who use that term also have based their statements on personal experiences.
Did you also know that in saying that you were 'gyped' in something, as in 'Man, I got gyped by so and so' is a derogatory term? If you feel you are respectful of other people's cultures and origins, then you would be aware of all use of terms in refering to people, regardless of personal experiences/how you were raised. 'Frogs' included.

PEACE!

G. Bucci

Wow. An American calling someone else stuck up. Perhaps another link would be a better place for you.
Floyd's samples tested positive. It's a fact. We all hate it. Basso (Italian), Ulrich (German), Vinikourov (Kazak), not him but his team, all got kicked out and nationality never came up.
Next years tour will be more exciting than this one.

Neil Young Fan

Skyline_Dougie

New Thread...

We can call it "I forgot to check my spelling and source documentation". I understand what you tried to say when you said gyped [sic](gypped), but no, I did not know it might be termed derogatory, but it seems few others know this as well (Webster's does not?).

Anyhow, back to the original subject - You assume I am American, and therefore proficient at blurting slurs at ones nationality without understanding what they mean. Having lived in more countries than most Americans can find on a map, I refer to others whom I have at least formal acquaintance with terms I know and understand. One term I use is Frogs, it is not derogatory in its context unless one makes it degrogatory. I have not. If you choose to misunderstand my meaning; that is your shortcoming - I will offer, however, posts have their limitations of context.

Just so we're square on one thing - Floyd Landis is a punk, period. Life ain't fair.

use_ur_granny

ok... may be i am still in denial that floyd is doped. i am still trying look for an evidence that the test result was not accurate. well... may be i am just curious what other people's opinions are based on his comments from his site.

"It is widely known that the test in question, given as a urine sample after my victorious ride on stage 17 of the Tour de France, returned an abnormal T/E ratio from the “A” sample. I want to be entirely clear about one point of the test that has not been fairly reported in the press or expressed in any statements made by international or national governing bodies; the T value returned has been determined to be in the normal range. The E value returned was LOW, thus causing the skewed ratio. This evidence supports my assertion that I did not use testosterone to improve my performance. I emphatically deny any claims that I used testosterone to improve my performance."

clearly, the statement above does not address the fact that the testosterone was found to be exogenous.

bugmenot

A few issues.

Who actually does the testing and how is the sample handled? Is it really just a couple of French guys? Just curious, because if the testing isn't monitored closely and the sample doesn't get handled with strict security, I wouldn't believe it's results, either positive or negative. In particular, the French have to much to gain from this to be solely trusted with the process.

Also how do we know that ratios of certain chemicals in one's body can't get wildly skewed after one has performed a multi-day endurance run? How do we know how that activity combines with weird food and legal drugs?

It seems to me that to get a true read on what "normal" is for a person, you'd have to lock them away somewhere and monitor their body chemicals as they exercise in known no-drug conditions.

That said, I guess one thing we know is that some tests were okay and only one wasn't, and that coincided with particularly good performance. I think that along with the fact that it was a low level of etesto rather than the presence of something makes it less likely that some frenchy added something nefarious.

Karlotta

1. The French have more to lose if their biggest atheletic event is shrouded in scandal and the whole race tainted becasue of this. So if there were motivation to fake the test, it would be to prevent it.

2. Weird food and legal drugs cannot produce the anomaly of exogenous testosterone in one's system. Unless you are claiming someone spiked his food. There is NO scientific evidence that would indicate that Mr. Landis' cortisone shots or thyroid medication has any effect on testosterone. One medical expert said, if anything, it would inhibit natural T production.

3. This is impractical. It would have to be done for every athlete. Sounds to me like you just want to let em keep juicing and stick your head in the sand.

bugmenot

1) Bull****

2) The issue is the ratio of different kinds of testosterone. Who knows what can mess with that.

3) Bull****. It should at least be tried once to get good data and see how much it varies. If you're gonna strip medals for this ****, then you have to do this to prove beyond any doubt that a positive means cheating.

rgerve

The positive test for synthetic testosterone and the (potential) dq of Flandis does more harm to the tour and French cycling than good. It would not make any sense for them to 'fix' the test. There is certainly a antiamerican feeling and some vindictive sentiment. Many people would have to be involved in the conspiracy. Almost as many as those used for the fake moon landings.

pathdoc

Floyd got exogenous testosterone intentionally or unintentionally (hard to come with an excuse for that one). The chain of custody arguement in the best defense but it sure looks like a long shot. This is a huge blow for US cycling and I'm already getting tired of seeing Landis.

dutret

Are you saying that the standards for stripping a doper of their winnings should be higher then those for the government to strip a citizen on their freedom? You've got to be kidding me.

Also your scenario for examining the validity of a doping test makes no sense at all. The current known normal values come from testing a large number of people and setting a somewhat arbitrary number over which only a small amount of people would naturally be above. Then the tests are done by seeing if people are grossly outside this range. If you assume that some of the original subjects are lying and actually doping during the study this would push the normal range higher and make for more false negatives not positives.

All of this of course completely ignores the even mre damning isotope test.

dutret

A very long shot since the B sample was positive too. The only two scenarios I can see in which the B smaple could be tampered with are.
1. The tour organizers and anti-doping officials colluded before the sample was given to contaminate the cup with synthetic T.
2. The Tour organizers broke the seal on the cup before it got to the lab and contaminated it THEN forged a replacement seal.

I think claiming the test is flawed is probably a better defense then either of those scenarios.

Albany-12303

This whole situation is keeping Phonak in the media well after the TDF, and firing Landis from the team puts Phonak in a better light.

I wonder if Phonak is basking in the extra media attention - this seems to be a lot of free advertising for this company.

robow

They may be getting publicity but definitely not the type they wanted, especially with their history.

Albany-12303

Yes - but people know that this scandal does not reflect poorly on Phonak itself (its not like a Enron -style business scandal). If this was, for instance, a start-up telecommunication company like Vonage here in the US, the extra publicity might, at least, get some brand recognition out there for free.

Zouf

The rider and his team are invited to witness the B sample test.

The limits on various ratios, etc, are the same for all riders, and determined by UCI and WADA - by people that know a whole lot more about effects of multi-day endurance runs, "normal" levels, etc, than you and I. The limits do not get involved with what is a "normal" value; they set what is abnormal. This is the only sample in the Tour that came up over limit, for any of the tests performed.

It remains to be demonstrated whether the positive test is linked directly with the good performance on that day; certainly he was tested because of his performance, through the testing protocol (first 3 of stage + MJ leader + random, I think, but not sure?); but nothing says that he (or any other riders) did not benefit from performance-enhancing drugs on other stages as well. In a scenario where a rider is doping, but taking a masking substance, the rider can benefit from doping even though he may test negative. A protocol error can throw him over-limit, but that does not make the doping more efficient that day compared to other days.

I think there is a simplistic tendency to say that Floyd's stage victory was obtained because he doped, or that the Tour was screwed up and made un-level because of his alleged doping. The probability of him being the only rider benefitting from performance-enhancing drugs on that stage is pretty low... The field is a lot more level than one would think, because everyone is playing with the same rules, and everyone tries to abide by the same limits. And some get caught once in a while.

The best analogy I can come up with is alcohol and driving. There are tons of variables influencing how the body metabolizes alcohol, the effect of a certain level of alcohol in one's blood vs the influence on judgement and driving performance, etc. In the end, the legislator says, so much alcohol in your blood is illegal. There are people who drink before they drive, some not, some should not be driving, some it's ok - but in the end, everyone that gets caught over the limit is guilty, and everyone that does not get caught is considered ok, the former with no consideration over how alcohol impairs or not their ability, the latter with no consideration over how much alcohol they actually drank.

shokhead

Dont you have to take testosterone over a long period of time for it to do anything vs a one shot and the next day i'm superman deal?

joeprim

As I understand what I've been reading lately: Yes for it to help build mussel, but if Floyd used it it might have helped recovery even if only used once.

Joe

Braveheart

Long shot here, but does anybody know if FL can request the isotope testing on the samples taken the day before and the day after? Could that bolster the argument that something went wrong with the testing procedure or on the stage 17 sample? Probably a long shot, but I haven't seen a real satisfactory explanation as to why the spike in the ratio on stage 17 but not on the day before or the day after. Or can testosterone be simply applied/ingested/whatever after stage 16, help recovery, and then be gone just as quickly prior to stage 18.

Helmet Head

I read somewhere the half life of the synthetic testosterone is one hour. That's very fast. Also, the theory is that while testosterone is known to be useful for muscle building in a long term high dosages, it can also be useful in small dosages, even one dose, for recovery.

Also, remember that a cyclist can effectively dope as long as his T/E ratio stay below 4:1. That means, practically speaking, they can all take small doses, or, take larger doses combined with epitestosterone. As long as their T/E stays below 4;1, the more expensive test for syn testosterone isn't done.

I suppose it's possible that Floyd took it just that once to recover from his especially bad day.

But it's also possible that he, along with everyone else, or most everyone else, doped every day (normally in an way that does not cause one to exceed the 4:1 T/E limit), and that particular day something went wrong. Maybe he left the patch on longer than normal, maybe the epitestosterone broke down faster than anticipated. Maybe each patch contains both T and E, and while he normally applies only one patch, in this case he decided to double up, but maybe the ratio synthetic T & E that you need to take is non linear, so doubling didn't work as anticipated? Who knows? Something went wrong...

EURO

Positive for Cortisone in 1999. Blind tests of urine from 1999 showed EPO.