# "Synthetic" testosterone found in Landis



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

NEW YORK, July 31 -- Tests show that some of the testosterone in Floyd Landis's system at the Tour de France was synthetic and not naturally produced by his body as he claimed, according to a newspaper report.

The French anti-doping lab testing the American cyclist's samples determined that some of the hormone came from an external source, the New York Times reported on its Web site Monday night, citing a person at the International Cycling Union (UCI) with knowledge of the result.

The finding undermines the defense that Landis has stood behind since he tested positive for an elevated ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone following the 17th stage of the Tour de France. In that stage, he had a stirring comeback in the Alps to make up for a poor performance the previous day.

Looking and sounding defiant, Landis said Friday that his body's natural metabolism -- not doping of any kind -- caused the result, and that he would undergo tests to prove it.

"We will explain to the world why this is not a doping case but a natural occurrence," Landis said at a news conference in Madrid.

But after determining that Landis's ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone was more than twice the limit of 4-1, the lab performed a carbon isotope ratio test on the first of Landis's two urine samples to determine whether it's natural or synthetic, the person told the Times.

Landis officially requested the testing of his backup urine sample Monday for an elevated testosterone ratio, and results were expected sometime this week. If the "B" test is negative, Landis would be cleared.

If it's positive, which Landis's lawyers say they expect, he could be stripped of his Tour victory and banned for two years.

But the result showing synthetic testosterone does not need to be confirmed with a second test, said Dr. Gary Wadler, a member of the World Anti-Doping Agency and a spokesman for the American College of Sports Medicine.

"The rules say that it is a violation, but if you can show that the athlete had no fault or no significant fault, there could be a mitigation of the sanction," Wadler told the Times. "No matter how it got there, the athlete has to show how it got into his or her body. It could have been sabotage or contaminated dietary supplements, or something else, but they have to prove how the testosterone got there."

The Times said Landis was in New York on Monday night and could not be reached for comment.

Oscar Pereiro of Spain, who finished second overall in the Tour de France, would be declared the winner if Landis loses the Tour de France title.

It would be the first time in the history of the Tour of France that the winner has been disqualified for doping.


I know it's not really news to people, but it was wired in AP today at 5:05am


----------



## gregario (Nov 19, 2001)

*Yup*



iliveonnitro said:


> NEW YORK, July 31 -- Tests show that some of the testosterone in Floyd Landis's system at the Tour de France was synthetic and not naturally produced by his body as he claimed, according to a newspaper report.
> 
> The French anti-doping lab testing the American cyclist's samples determined that some of the hormone came from an external source, the New York Times reported on its Web site Monday night, citing a person at the International Cycling Union (UCI) with knowledge of the result.
> 
> ...


He's done. Stick a fork in him. I guess there are no heros. I was one of the believers too. The presence of snythetic hormone pretty much seals it for me.

If I were a clean racer I would hit the roof and shout out to everyone that I was clean. It always makes me wonder when these guys, when they are caught, are relatively quiet while they line up their lawyers.


----------



## Alpedhuez55 (Jun 29, 2005)

gregario said:


> If I were a clean racer I would hit the roof and shout out to everyone that I was clean. It always makes me wonder when these guys, when they are caught, are relatively quiet while they line up their lawyers.


You mean like Tyler Hamilton?  

THey need to think of some defense. THeir best hope is for the lab to screw up the second test. He now needs a different result.


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

*Yeah...*



gregario said:


> He's done. Stick a fork in him. I guess there are no heros. I was one of the believers too. The presence of snythetic hormone pretty much seals it for me.
> 
> If I were a clean racer I would hit the roof and shout out to everyone that I was clean. It always makes me wonder when these guys, when they are caught, are relatively quiet while they line up their lawyers.


...and what makes me wonder even more is the lack of outrage from their fellow riders in the peloton when they are caught. This IS going to have a HUGE impact on pro cycling. I would bet we won't be getting daily live coverage of the Tour next year on OLN/Verses. And I have to say I don't think I'll care very much. I invested a lot of time into watching this year's Tour only to see the sporting event I watched (almost certainly going to) be "declassed" and the results I witnessed live be null and void. A big sham. 

And then there will be the circus of the appeal process ahead. Is it going to be Tyler Hamilton take two?


----------



## MLE (Jul 11, 2006)

iliveonnitro said:


> I know it's not really news to people, but it was wired in AP today at 5:05am


It came out last night. Repost!

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=68452


----------



## gregario (Nov 19, 2001)

*The thing is....*



zero85ZEN said:


> ...and what makes me wonder even more is the lack of outrage from their fellow riders in the peloton when they are caught. This IS going to have a HUGE impact on pro cycling. I would bet we won't be getting daily live coverage of the Tour next year on OLN/Verses. And I have to say I don't think I'll care very much. I invested a lot of time into watching this year's Tour only to see the sporting event I watched (almost certainly going to) be "declassed" and the results I witnessed live be null and void. A big sham.
> 
> And then there will be the circus of the appeal process ahead. Is it going to be Tyler Hamilton take two?


If these guys would just ADMIT it and take it like a man, like David Millar did (more or less) I'd have much more respect for them. Hamilton used to be my hero, now he's just a pathetic liar. I'm convinced they all dope. Look at Oscar Periero's reaction. He doesn't want to win the Tour this way. Gee, that tells me he's a doper too. If I were clean and was beaten by a doper I'd sure as hell demand my just rewards when the culprit was caught.


----------



## jason_haza (May 1, 2006)

*you're ALL fu*kin retards*

Those 'reports' are from anonymous sources...meaning they have no meaning. 

I swear, some of you are too stupid to be walking around in public.


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

*Yeah...*



jason_haza said:


> Those 'reports' are from anonymous sources...meaning they have no meaning.
> 
> I swear, some of you are too stupid to be walking around in public.


...You're the only towering intellect on this forum. 

NEWS FLASH: Presidents have fallen from power due in part to 'reports' from "anonymous sources"...meaning they (most often) have meaning.

But let's just see how this all plays out in the end. I'd love to be proven totally wrong in the way I'm begining to see this whole case. But right now Landis looks G-U-I-L-T-Y. Maybe the lab will screw up the B sample though....


----------



## mpetersen16 (Apr 26, 2006)

Lol, this is the kinda stuff that makes the public announcement of the possibility of doping a huge mistake, L'Equipe was the original writer of this rumor, they claimed that an unnamed source at the UCI had told them that an original IRMS test on the a sample, had show exogenous (synthetic) testosterone. This is a rumor as it has yet to be qualified by any reputable source, but now other newspapers and sources like the AP and the New York Times hear that someone else have published this and they don't want to be late to report anything so they publish it also, and it gains credibility to the majority of people who do not check this sort of thing, but simply take what is given to them. L'Equipe may have a source, but they don't exactly have an honest track record following their dealings in past years with Armstrong (regardless of whether you think he was guilty or not) they have become the tabloid of cycling. They may have thought the following on the contrary to actually having a source within the UCI, that hey there is a 50-50 chance that the test comes up exogneous and if we report it early and it is true then all th better for us, and if we are wrong we will disregard the issue or release a statement saying that our initial source was incorrect.
Matt


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

*Uh huh*



mpetersen16 said:


> Lol, this is the kinda stuff that makes the public announcement of the possibility of doping a huge mistake, L'Equipe was the original writer of this rumor, they claimed that an unnamed source at the UCI had told them that an original IRMS test on the a sample, had show exogenous (synthetic) testosterone. This is a rumor as it has yet to be qualified by any reputable source, but now other newspapers and sources like the AP and the New York Times hear that someone else have published this and they don't want to be late to report anything so they publish it also, and it gains credibility to the majority of people who do not check this sort of thing, but simply take what is given to them. L'Equipe may have a source, but they don't exactly have an honest track record following their dealings in past years with Armstrong (regardless of whether you think he was guilty or not) they have become the tabloid of cycling. They may have thought the following on the contrary to actually having a source within the UCI, that hey there is a 50-50 chance that the test comes up exogneous and if we report it early and it is true then all th better for us, and if we are wrong we will disregard the issue or release a statement saying that our initial source was incorrect.
> Matt


[sarcasm]I'm sure the NY Times is wrong on this report.[/sarcasm] And why hasn't the UCI come out with a denial of the report? Either way this certainly isn't good for cycling.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

mpetersen16 said:


> L'Equipe may have a source, but they don't exactly have an honest track record following their dealings in past years with Armstrong (regardless of whether you think he was guilty or not) they have become the tabloid of cycling.


I'm not sure what you mean by "honest" but I don't think there is any indication that the facts published by L'Equipe regarding the Armstrong case aren't accurate. Futhermore, their source is known to be inside the lab. NYT quotes a UCI source.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

Guilt or innocence aside, I dislike the way the media treats this. 

I heard this on the local TV morning show. When it was L'Equipe reporting on an anonymous source within UCI, apparently it was below-the-radar rumor and speculation. But when the mighty NYT mentions it, it becomes something Moses brought down on stone tablets, even though it's the same anonymous rumor from the same source with absolutely no additional verification. Fascinating how second-party heresay is rumor, but third-party heresay becomes fact.

This could be some loser secretary with an ax to grind and no facts, or it could be the head of the testing division himself with solid info. But the leak is as much a problem to the sport as the cheating, and the leaker should be suspended for at least as long as FL eventually is (provided that's the case, of course.)


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Oh puhlease!!! 

News Flash!!! It's called investigative journalism, not tabloid press, and it has led to the toppling of some of the world's most powerful and dishonest people (Richard Nixon, anyone -- Deep Throat!!!). Rather than to take the word of some ananymous internet poster who might feel qualified to judge a newspaper they have likely never read, I will trust someone who I <i>know </i>has a better feel for what is or isn't good sports journalism: Frank Deford, senior writer for Sports Illustrated who calls the Equipe "the most prestigious sports publication in the world"

Look, I don't like the fact that Floyd might be found out to have doped -- I was rooting for him live here in France and was thrilled with his ride into Morzine -- but just because I like Floyd does not mean that I view his potential downfall as the result of some wide-ranging conspiracy by the <i> gasp </i> French and their "propaganda" tool -- the Equipe! 

The United States has a long track (oooh, bad pun!) record of producing dopers on its own <i> without</i> the help of overseas governments.

Philippe


----------



## slamy (Mar 15, 2004)

The problem is that you hear no refuting this claim by the Landis group. If this was a false report, you would think a representative of Landis would come out and issue a statement saying no synthetic steriods were found and then release a copy of the A sample report. However, Landis camp says nothing, and then he cancels all his TV show rounds. I just think it is looking very grim for him now. If the first tests were accurate and there was a synthetic form of steriod in his system, then he better hope they screw up the B sample and it get's tossed (Like Hamilton and his 'gold' medal)


----------



## kokothemonkey (Jul 7, 2004)

I really don't know what to believe right now with Floyd. The thing that bothers me is that the lab that everyone is basing their beliefs on (Chatenay-Malabry) is repeatedly "leaking" information. With proper chain of custody and medical confidentiality, they seem to be doing some shoddy work. I would not base my entire belief on this one lab. I think after their fiasco with Lance's accusations and after all these news leaks that they should be the ones getting scrutinized through all of this.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

kokothemonkey said:


> I really don't know what to believe right now with Floyd. The thing that bothers me is that the lab that everyone is basing their beliefs on (Chatenay-Malabry) is repeatedly "leaking" information. With proper chain of custody and medical confidentiality, they seem to be doing some shoddy work. I would not base my entire belief on this one lab. I think after their fiasco with Lance's accusations and after all these news leaks that they should be the ones getting scrutinized through all of this.


I don't think any chain of custody or medical confidentiality comes into question. Afterall, it wasn't leaked by the lab that Floyd was positive. We found that out from Phonak initially. What's been leaked from the lab is information about the "sample", of course, once the public knows who the sample belongs to presumably everyone in the lab finds out as well.


----------



## ru1-2cycle (Jan 7, 2006)

*"UCI lab source"-I am concerned!*

Then, I question the ethics of a governing cycling body: their integrity is at stake, since a reputable organization should speak against such a breach of confidentiality. In fact, the UCI leadership should condemn this unacceptable behavior, that has and will tarnish the public perception of its ability (or lack of) to police itself. If in fact this "leak" of information to the media has occurred, be it to Le Equipe or to the New York Times, then how can the UCI reassure both the investors and the consumers of the great sports of professional cycling that it can also effectively monitor and enforce a clean sport without ilegal performance enhancing substances?


Dwayne Barry said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "honest" but I don't think there is any indication that the facts published by L'Equipe regarding the Armstrong case aren't accurate. Futhermore, their source is known to be inside the lab. NYT quotes a UCI source.


----------



## djg714 (Oct 24, 2005)

Forget the lab, the one telling the lies is Floyd. He should come out and take it like a man.
No Sosa, Palmeiro, Bonds and MacGuire crap.


----------



## kokothemonkey (Jul 7, 2004)

How can medical confidentiality not come into play when you are "leaking" information? Isn't this the same thing they did to Lance, they "leaked" the numbers from the test and then they were supposedly matched up later. I would hesitate to base the entire Tour on the results of this one lab who we know nothing about except that they seem to enjoy advertising lab results (the isotope test) to mass media.


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

kokothemonkey said:


> I really don't know what to believe right now with Floyd. The thing that bothers me is that the lab that everyone is basing their beliefs on (Chatenay-Malabry) is repeatedly "leaking" information. With proper chain of custody and medical confidentiality, they seem to be doing some shoddy work. I would not base my entire belief on this one lab. I think after their fiasco with Lance's accusations and after all these news leaks that they should be the ones getting scrutinized through all of this.


I don't get the whole claimed "...fiasco with Lance's accusations..." the lab did the tests as per UCI request to see if the test would work. They reported the results and someone along the way did some good investigative journalism and matched up the codes with the names and L'Equipe had their story. All of the anti-French lab bashing going on here on the boards is really founded on nothing more than rumor, speculation, lack of solid facts, and conspiracy theorizing. 

Furthermore, in light of Operation Puerto and the current Landis Affair I can't see how anyone can claim that LA somehow comes off looking better through all of this? Uh...the sport of cycling is being dragged throuh the mud in the media, the Tour is imploding with scandal, an epidemic of drug usage is being uncovered in the peloton and somehow this will benefit Lance's legacy? I don't see how the pieces go together that way.


----------



## atropos (Jul 7, 2006)

*the Times....*

is in the business of SELLING PAPERS... you know, making money. You make money apparently not by reporting only solid facts, but National Inquirer-esque 'he said-she said'.

It's be wisest to wait to pass judgement until an official statement is made.... though it seems most minds are made up already based on what Floyds cousins hairdressers mechanics sister found out.


----------



## gregario (Nov 19, 2001)

*kill the messenger*



philippec said:


> Oh puhlease!!!
> 
> News Flash!!! It's called investigative journalism, not tabloid press, and it has led to the toppling of some of the world's most powerful and dishonest people (Richard Nixon, anyone -- Deep Throat!!!). Rather than to take the word of some ananymous internet poster who might feel qualified to judge a newspaper they have likely never read, I will trust someone who I <i>know </i>has a better feel for what is or isn't good sports journalism: Frank Deford, senior writer for Sports Illustrated who calls the Equipe "the most prestigious sports publication in the world"
> 
> ...


I asked my French co-worker about L'Equipe and he said it's the equivalent of our Sports Illustrated. It's not any sort of "tabloid" publication, with all the negative implications that implies. To say these un-named sources are to be rejected out of hand is just naive. 

I'm with you, Philippe. I was thrilled with Floyd's performance, but it sure isn't looking good for him.


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

atropos said:


> is in the business of SELLING PAPERS... you know, making money. You make money apparently not by reporting only solid facts, but National Inquirer-esque 'he said-she said'.
> 
> It's be wisest to wait to pass judgement until an official statement is made.... though it seems most minds are made up already based on what Floyds cousins hairdressers mechanics sister found out.


The Times and the National Inquirer both make money from paper sales (though a lot more from advertising, at least in the case of the Times). Since when does that make the Times (or any other major paper) an illegitimate rag equivelent with the Inquirer in regards to lack of journalistic integrety? 

Yes, they (NYT) are "breaking" the story to the public. But on what grounds should we assume that it is wrong or based only on unreliable rumor rather than assume, based on the prestigeious(sp?) legacy of the NY Times, that it is legit and truthful reporting based on solid sources?


----------



## Alpedhuez55 (Jun 29, 2005)

danl1 said:


> This could be some loser secretary with an ax to grind and no facts, or it could be the head of the testing division himself with solid info. But the leak is as much a problem to the sport as the cheating, and the leaker should be suspended for at least as long as FL eventually is (provided that's the case, of course.)


Just a double standard. Some people think Linda Tripp is a hero and Mark Felt is a scumbag, others see it the other way. If a rider you do not like won and Floyd was in second, then you would probably call them a whistleblower and praise them for their courage. Instead they are the source of a leak who needs to be punished. And bbecause they leaked the information, the results should not be take seriously.

Like it or not, this is the biggest scandal in the history of cycling. The winner of the biggest race is very close to being dethroned. Even though only one cyclist is testing positive here, this is bigger that OP or 1998 Festina. Every cycling journalist is after this and wants to be the one to break this story.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

ru1-2cycle said:


> Then, I question the ethics of a governing cycling body: their integrity is at stake, since a reputable organization should speak against such a breach of confidentiality.


If an organization such as the CIA can't even prevent leaks how do you expect a sports governing body or a lab where any number of people are going to be privy to information to keep somebody from making a few bucks by selling their confidential info. to a newspaper?


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

djg714 said:


> ...the one telling the lies is Floyd.


Sadly this is beginning to more and more look like the case. Say it ain't so Floyd!


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

Guilty or innocent, a large part of the problem is the leak. Imagine if they had a decent set of information controls and meaningful lab standards where different labs matched the samples.

We wouldn't hear about this until the A and B had been isotope tested and confirmed. At that point, all of the excuses "bad lab", "poor chain of custody", "conspiracy" and so on would be done. The accused would be bumped, and that would be that. As that became the norm, fewer pros would roll the dice with being able to beat the test. This problem would not occur.

The leaks and half-witted sampling standards currently in place destroy all credibility in the testing process, leaving plenty of room for all sorts of 'reasonable doubt' silliness. Engage in reasonable standards and don't sully someone's reputation until the process has run its' appropriate course, and the 'crisis' never happens. Yeah, we'll still have cheats, and sooner or later one will be on a podium. But it will look like a freak occurance rather than the third ring at Barnum and Bailey.

BTW, I believe the leaked data to be accurate as it stands. It simply shouldn't have been leaked. It's also not my point. My gripe is that L'Equipe says something and nobody cares. NYT says that they said something - really, nothing more than shameless plagarism - and suddenly it's an irrefutable fact. I'm not talking about the accuracy of the information, but about the shift. L'Equipe appropriately reported it as anonymous information, allowing one to draw their conclusions. By the time it filtered through the NYT to the AP to the local hacks, you'd think the reporter was staring through the microscope personally. That's the part that hacks me off.


----------



## team_sheepshead (Jan 17, 2003)

The NY Times has been burned badly in the past few years by shody journalism. Anyone remember Jayson Blair and his 36 instances of journalistic fraud printed in the Times? My point is the NY Times is today probably the most careful newspaper in the U.S. when it comes to using unnamed sources and fact-checking.

In the article, the NY Times quotes Floyd's doctor, Brent Kay, explaning why Floyd's T:E ratio might be so out of whack. I'd call that fair and balanced.

Don't kill the messenger. This situation is adversarial, and it's not the media's fault. Floyd tested positive, the UCI and WADA are out to nail him. Floyd is denying he did anything wrong. I'm sure if one of Floyd's posse called the NY Times anonymously with an explanation, they'd print that, too.



zero85ZEN said:


> The Times and the National Inquirer both make money from paper sales (though a lot more from advertising, at least in the case of the Times). Since when does that make the Times (or any other major paper) an illegitimate rag equivelent with the Inquirer in regards to lack of journalistic integrety?
> 
> Yes, they (NYT) are "breaking" the story to the public. But on what grounds should we assume that it is wrong or based only on unreliable rumor rather than assume, based on the prestigeious(sp?) legacy of the NY Times, that it is legit and truthful reporting based on solid sources?


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

*Again...*



danl1 said:


> Guilty or innocent, a large part of the problem is the leak. Imagine if they had a decent set of information controls and meaningful lab standards where different labs matched the samples.
> 
> We wouldn't hear about this until the A and B had been isotope tested and confirmed. At that point, all of the excuses "bad lab", "poor chain of custody", "conspiracy" and so on would be done. The accused would be bumped, and that would be that. As that became the norm, fewer pros would roll the dice with being able to beat the test. This problem would not occur.
> 
> The leaks and half-witted sampling standards currently in place destroy all credibility in the testing process, leaving plenty of room for all sorts of 'reasonable doubt' silliness. Engage in reasonable standards and don't sully someone's reputation until the process has run its' appropriate course, and the 'crisis' never happens. Yeah, we'll still have cheats, and sooner or later one will be on a podium. But it will look like a freak occurance rather than the third ring at Barnum and Bailey.


...as I stated in response to another one of your posts, I can't dissagree with what you're saying here. Sounds like a reasonable and much more "streamlined" way of going about things.


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

gregario said:


> He's done. Stick a fork in him. I guess there are no heros. I was one of the believers too. The presence of snythetic hormone pretty much seals it for me.
> 
> If I were a clean racer I would hit the roof and shout out to everyone that I was clean. It always makes me wonder when these guys, when they are caught, are relatively quiet while they line up their lawyers.


yup...If they didn't find synthetic I was willing to believe him, but he either willingly or unwillingly doped. Why he would take the risk I have no idea. The odds of getting caught were pretty high if he placed. I still admire his efforts at the TDF, but I think it's pretty clear that he is guilty of ingesting banned substances. I hope he comes clean and tells all, but I'm doubting he will.


----------



## desmo13 (Jun 28, 2006)

Ask dan rather about sources always being right....


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

*One instance*



desmo13 said:


> Ask dan rather about sources always being right....


One instance in how many thousands of stories each year. 

And in that instance it was just what it was, a story. Dug up (or in that case fabricated) out of the blue. 
We're talking about a lab doing analysis of a urine sample and the results being leaked to the media unofficially. 

If you want an example of unofficial leaking that turned out to be all too true look at the whole Valery Plame affair. In fact, I'd bet that in the vast majority of cases where information leaks out it is CORRECT information that is leaked out.


----------



## desmo13 (Jun 28, 2006)

It probably will be true, but, the chance always exists. I just wont go around spouting it as fact until the UCI announces it. I wish the media was as careful as I. I understand they have a job to do, and getting it first makes them money. It is also an acceptable risk to getting it wrong. CBS is still on the air after all. Doesn't mean I have to like it.


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

You surrender here too hey?


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

desmo13 said:


> It probably will be true, but, the chance always exists. I just wont go around spouting it as fact until the UCI announces it. I wish the media was as careful as I. I understand they have a job to do, and getting it first makes them money. It is also an acceptable risk to getting it wrong. CBS is still on the air after all. Doesn't mean I have to like it.


I don't think many of us do like it. Speaking in regard to the way the media/lab/UCI/WADA has handled this whole mess AND the fact that we're in this mess to begin with based on the high likelihood that Floyd Landis used a PED on his way to winning the greatest event in the sport of pro cycling.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Bocephus Jones II said:


> The odds of getting caught were pretty high if he placed. I still admire his efforts at the TDF, but I think it's pretty clear that he is guilty of ingesting banned substances. I hope he comes clean and tells all, but I'm doubting he will.


Well Manzano and others have talked about doping with Testosterone in ways that prevent the tripping of a positive test. The smart doper takes a calculated risk to maximize perceived benefit while minimizing the chance of tripping a positive if tested.


----------



## 53T (Jul 20, 2002)

zero, Each of your recent posts repeates your pinion that he probably doped. It looks like a case of "say it enough and it is the truth".

Wahat happened to the leaked story about his Testosterone level being below normal, and the epi-T, correspondingly being way below normal, thus a hgh ratio. Was that an untrue leak? Why do we believe the latest leak? Because it is more recent?


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

53T said:


> zero, Each of your recent posts repeates your pinion that he probably doped. It looks like a case of "say it enough and it is the truth".
> 
> Wahat happened to the leaked story about his Testosterone level being below normal, and the epi-T, correspondingly being way below normal, thus a hgh ratio. Was that an untrue leak? Why do we believe the latest leak? Because it is more recent?


I'll wait to hear the final results to decide his guilt or not, but if it is indeed true that there was synthetic test in Floyd then it becomes much harder to believe he didn't dope. Whether he doped himself or whether someone doped him unknowingly is really the only issue at that point.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

53T said:


> zero, Wahat happened to the leaked story about his Testosterone level being below normal, and the epi-T, correspondingly being way below normal, thus a hgh ratio. Was that an untrue leak? Why do we believe the latest leak? Because it is more recent?


It very well may still be true. The new leaks are that synthetic testosterone was detected not excessive levels of testosterone.


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 22, 2005)

Alpedhuez55 said:


> You mean like Tyler Hamilton?
> 
> THey need to think of some defense. THeir best hope is for the lab to screw up the second test. He now needs a different result.


Even if the test does get screwed up, this Tour will always be in question. Landis will never be remembered for the great comeback, but rather the series of unfortunate events that followed the day after the tour. Personally, professional bicycle racing is wearing thin on me. I can't believe that after all the attention drawn to doping, that these riders are still doping. I am starting to wonder if I will even pay attention to any big time races in the future. I have better things to do with my time than watching and cheering for cheaters.


----------



## Dropped (Jan 22, 2003)

If the reports are true that Landis had synthetic testosterone in him, he's done.

I am crossing my fingers that it is just a lab mix up or a set-up job, but in my heart I fear that it is true. I will hold off final judgment until all is said and done, but it doesn't look good.

There is no Santa Claus.


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

> There is no Santa Claus.


 Now you ruined it for everyone!


----------



## snowman3 (Jul 20, 2002)

zero85ZEN said:


> ...and what makes me wonder even more is the lack of outrage from their fellow riders in the peloton when they are caught. This IS going to have a HUGE impact on pro cycling. I would bet we won't be getting daily live coverage of the Tour next year on OLN/Verses.


I don't know if it will have a HUGE impact. Look how baseball and track+field are surviving in the midst of turmoil. There was an interesting article from i-can't-remember-where that also said clean riders (they used LA as an example) should be whistle-blowing on teammates that dope. The conclusion was that doping was so perverse in baseball and cycling that they couldn't whistle-blow as just about everyone is on something. So everyone just accepts it as normal "training".

I agree though, it does de-class the sport and make it hard to keep rooting for someone.


----------



## mpetersen16 (Apr 26, 2006)

Dropped said:


> If the reports are true that Landis had synthetic testosterone in him, he's done.
> 
> I am crossing my fingers that it is just a lab mix up or a set-up job, but in my heart I fear that it is true. I will hold off final judgment until all is said and done, but it doesn't look good.
> 
> There is no Santa Claus.


If Landis is guilty, then it will be shameful, but your statement about no santa claus isn't right. We must believe that the spirit of a man can conquer such a race, that is what the tour is about, the greatness of man. To give up hope is to deny the possibility. If Landis, or Armstrong or anyone hadn't believed that they could comeback, they wouldn't. It is belief that makes these things happen.
Matt


----------



## grrrah (Jul 22, 2005)

what do we know for certain, and not from anonymous leaks.

UCI informs phonak of 'A' test results.
Phonak sends a representative to witness 'B' test
Floyd states at a press conference that he has naturally high testosterone levels.

I think its safe to assume that his press conference announcement would be related to the information UCI gave phonak. If they told phonak that he tested positive for exogenous testosterone, I think the press conference would have been slightly different.

I may be wrong, but this is what I am gonna believe until official statements are released.


----------



## Aceman (Jan 20, 2006)

WOW! I can't believe it took 9 posts before "Armstrong" or "Lance" was mentioned! You guys are getting better at this. Maybe one day his name won't even be mentioned in one of these posts?


----------



## team_sheepshead (Jan 17, 2003)

grrrah said:


> what do we know for certain, and not from anonymous leaks.
> 
> UCI informs phonak of 'A' test results.
> Phonak sends a representative to witness 'B' test
> ...


Floyd's doctor confirmed in today's NY Times that the A sample indicates exogenous testosterone. So it seems the NY Times' anonymous source at the UCI was right.

"The results of two types of tests have thrown Landis’s status into doubt. One of them, a sophisticated measure called a carbon isotope ratio test, will be difficult, if not impossible, for Landis to refute. The test examines the atomic makeup of testosterone in the urine and can determine if it is natural or synthetic.

"Landis failed that test, according to a person inside the International Cycling Union with knowledge of the results. Landis’s personal doctor, Brent Kay, confirmed the finding."


----------



## grrrah (Jul 22, 2005)

i noticed that. I guess I was wrong.. but knowing you tested positive for exogenous test., then announcing to the world that you naturally produce high levels, deny using PED, and say the B sample will probably yield the same results, is pretty lame.

off I go back into my hole..


----------

