# Landis's B sample confirms...



## gizzard (Oct 5, 2005)

From cyclingnews.com: 

"The UCI has announced the official results of the analysis of Floyd Landis' B sample, which has confirmed the A sample result of a high testosterone:epitestosterone ratio. The sample was taken after Landis won the 17th stages of the Tour de France in Morzine, after a 130 km breakaway. The analysis was performed by the laboratory of Chatenay-Malabry in Paris over the last two days. 

"In accordance to the Anti-doping rules, the Anti-doping Commission of the UCI will request that the USA Cycling Federation open a disciplinary procedure against the rider," said the UCI in a statement."


No surprises there then...


----------



## Castagere (Jul 23, 2006)

Not surprised at all. The sport is becoming an advert. for drug companys. When they strip him of the title,the race will not recover for a long time.


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

Now let him defend himself. According to the UCI release it is an adverse analytical finding. Nothing about synthetic testosterone or a high testosterone level. Until we see OFFICIAL results from the tests, everything we read in the press or hear on the news is hearsay.

I have followed Floyd's career since his MTB days and have really become a fan since his switch to the road. I felt the same way about Tyler, but have accepted the fact the he doped. I hope I do not have to do the same with Floyd.


----------



## Spunout (Aug 12, 2002)

*The Whole Text*



> The UCI has announced the official results of the analysis of Floyd Landis' B sample, which has confirmed the A sample result of an "adverse analytical finding" in Landis' urine. The news of the A sample was reported last week, with Phonak announcing that Landis had a high testosterone:epitestosterone ratio, and a UCI source confirming that an Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry test (IRMS) had also been done, revealing the presence of exogenous testosterone (contained within, but originating from outside the body) in the sample.
> 
> The sample was taken after Landis won the 17th stages of the Tour de France in Morzine, after a 130 km breakaway. The analysis was performed by the laboratory of Chatenay-Malabry in Paris over the last two days.
> 
> ...


It looks solid.


----------



## James OCLV (Jun 4, 2002)

Spunout said:


> It looks solid.


So, it's OK for the lab to defend their test, but not OK for Floyd to defend himself? It's OK for the lab to say, "our test is conclusive" but not OK for Floyd to say "I didn't do it?"....

We take the "experts" word that their test is solid at face-value, and slam the athlete for questioning it.... end of story.

Like I said, I'm just thankful that the criminal justice system doesn't operate under the same premise.

I just don't understand.


----------



## Spunout (Aug 12, 2002)

This isn't a criminal case. It is an athletic sanction.

There is recourse available in the Court of Arbitration.


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

Spunout said:


> It looks solid.



What is the source?

Here is a link to the UCI release: http://www.uci.ch/modello.asp?1stlevelid=Q&level1=0&level2=0&idnews=4309


----------



## James OCLV (Jun 4, 2002)

Spunout said:


> This isn't a criminal case. It is an athletic sanction.
> 
> There is recourse available in the Court of Arbitration.


Why do people keep making that _excuse_?

This battle will ultimately be fought in a court of law... the only distinction between civil court and criminal court (at least in the U.S.) is the burden of proof.

You say that there is recourse availalble... so let this play out before calling Floyd guilty. If he could be found guilty based on the evidence alone, there would be no need for a Court of Arbitration, would there?


----------



## OneGear (Aug 19, 2005)

mmm look at it this way, its science over someone's word. in matters such as these you tend to veer towards the more reliable source. 

i'm sad for landis, i had become a real fan, but i'm going to wait for his defense before turning my back on him. though I do not think there will be another st17 escape.


----------



## James OCLV (Jun 4, 2002)

OneGear said:


> mmm look at it this way, its science over someone's word. in matters such as these you tend to veer towards the more reliable source.
> 
> i'm sad for landis, i had become a real fan, but i'm going to wait for his defense before turning my back on him. though I do not think there will be another st17 escape.


Hey, "science" can be refuted, too.... why is "science" deemed to be more reliable here?

Didn't "scientists" once say that the sun revolved around the earth? Point is, scientists and tests are not infalible... and furthermore, the tests performed on Floyd's samples are far from conclusive. The ratio found in the CI test is so close that findings could be construed as a "false positive" according to some "experts".


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

OneGear said:


> its science over someone's word. in matters such as these you tend to veer towards the more reliable source.


No such thing as an exact science.


----------



## Plank (Apr 23, 2006)

He always said that he believed that the B sample would be the same as the A sample. What I have a problem with is that the same lab is doing the testing. The testing should be performed by another lab.


----------



## OneGear (Aug 19, 2005)

James OCLV said:


> Hey, "science" can be refuted, too.... why is "science" deemed to be more reliable here?
> 
> Didn't "scientists" once say that the sun revolved around the earth? Point is, scientists and tests are not infalible... and furthermore, the tests performed on Floyd's samples are far from conclusive. The ratio found in the CI test is so close that findings could be construed as a "false positive" according to some "experts".


sure science can be refuted, but the testosterone and exogenous substances cannot. unless he can do a dna test on that exogenous testosterone and prove it's HIS, then the science cannot be refuted.

i see your point. however this (endorcine systems) are something we already know about, and is not on the scale of the sun and earth relativity. But yes, I see your point.

Math is an exact science, and you need math to count testosterone ratios :thumbsup: 

I'm pulling for Landis to get out of this but my point is nobody is going to believe Floyd unitl the science shows it. There is a difference between real science and the facts they are showing us. I of course mean when we see the Real science and interpretations are revealed, not this bullshit l''equipe super indepth scoop from the alley ways of the test center ****. you can blame science all you want but its the media and the ignorant who are giving us the wrong intrepreations of the results.. or not.


----------



## peter1 (Apr 10, 2002)

*Floyd has really bungled...*

...his response to the postive tests. Despite what he has posted on his web site, he has offered nothing but lame "excuses" -- i.e., the UCI bungled notification protocol, I had too much to drink, i'm naturally testosterone-heavy etc. 

But what bothers me is that he hasn't offered a few logical explanations, the most solid being:

A) Before Stage 17, I passed a half-dozen tests during the Tour, therefore I was riding clean.
B) Stage winners and Tour leaders are ALWAYS tested on EVERY stage.
C) If I was riding dirty on Stage 17, knowing B, why would I have attacked and gone for the win? 
D) Therefore, either I was handed a contamined bidon or water bottle, or the test was sabotaged. 

What I now suspect, unfortunately, is that Floyd was doping with something he believed wouldn't be detected. It's really hard to believe that when he stretched his lead out to 9 minutes on that stage, if he was dirty, he didn't think that it might be a good idea to fall back to the peloton and finish outside the top 3 to avoid the doping controls.

As someone from East-Central Pa., I really want to believe that he's innocent or the victim of sabotage.But his statements are sounding more and more like Tyler Hamilton's. 

I wish him luck in his defense but not my sympathy at this point. I just don't see him getting off except on a t echnicality. I do hope that he can afford hip replacement surgery, since I'm guessing that he's got no insurance now.


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

OneGear said:


> testosterone and exogenous substances cannot. unless he can do a dna test on that exogenous testosterone
> 
> not this bullshit l''equipe super indepth scoop from the alley ways of the test center ****. you can blame science all you want but its the media and the ignorant who are giving us the wrong intrepreations of the results.. or not.


It is the media that is reporting the exogenous testosterone. To my knowledge, the UCI has not confirmed it.


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*So tell us...*



James OCLV said:


> Hey, "science" can be refuted, too.... why is "science" deemed to be more reliable here?
> 
> Didn't "scientists" once say that the sun revolved around the earth? Point is, scientists and tests are not infalible... and furthermore, the tests performed on Floyd's samples are far from conclusive. The ratio found in the CI test is so close that findings could be construed as a "false positive" according to some "experts".


Other than the statements released by Landis' team on this case, tell us what is incorrect or refutable with these tests that were carried out. I'd like to know your more than knowledgable opinion on how these tests are flawed, or is that just the first straw that every doper who gets busted grabs on to? I think that it is, because if you go back and look at all of the doping cases in the last bunch of years, only a couple of times can I remember an athlete just coming out and saying that they did it, and then got sanctioned. Everyone else, first thing they say is the test is flawed, and yet, they can't seem to prove how the testing is flawed. So do some research, get back to me when you have your PhD in biochemistry, and let me know how the test is flawed.

This will NOT be fought in a court of law, because no laws have been broken. Landis might bring a civil suit against people if he is found and proven himself to not been doped, but this will never see the inside of a real courtroom. He'll first make his case to USA Cycling, which will uphold the sanction, and then he'll appeal to the CAS, and they'll sanction him to.

I'm sad to say, it's pretty much over for Mr. Landis. Right now we have his word that he didn't take anything compared to what was found in his results.

But yes, science is falible, which is why they do the B sample, to make sure they got it right. It appears that they did.


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

peter1 said:


> But what bothers me is that he hasn't offered a few logical explanations


Why does he need to explain it immediately? Let him get his ducks in a row and submit his defense in a timely manner. The testing has been completed now the defense can start.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

What this shows is that the same lab, the same personnel, and the same equipment can do the same thing twice in a row. 

Not much news there. 

And wacky conspiracy theories aside, this shows that there WAS something amiss with Floyd's blood chemistry. 

It doesn't show how that happened. Maybe there's an odd medical circumstance that we don't know about. Maybe there was some accidental exposure. Maybe he's been a doper all along.

None of that matters. According to the rules, he has been found to have a banned substance on board while racing, and so he's in trouble. Guilt or innocence simply doesn't matter. 

At this point, the best he can say is "I didn't mean to cheat." Heck, he might even mean it. But according to the rules, it doesn't matter.


Analogy time: Let's assume that BMC made a crazy-light five pound bike. To meet the minumum weight limit, they then had to bolt on 10 pounds of lead. The race is going along, a dead heat. As they start up the col, the bolts break and the weight falls off. Floyd flies up the hill, takes the win. Result: He won, but outside the rules. Whether it was 'accidental' or not, the playing field wasn't level, and he doesn't deserve the win. Now, something like that wouldn't trigger a suspension, just a forfeiture of the race. But if they looked at the bike and found a release trigger, he'd be busticated. 

Same principal applies here. The title is effectively gone, because the field wasn't level. Now, all he reasonably can argue is that it was an extraordinary circumstance, and stay in the sport. He could (and likely will) try to show that this result isn't reliable, that this science isn't reliable. And there is some room for the argument, if the numbers are close to the cutoff. But I don't think they're that close. 

Did he do it? I'd like to think no, but I've dug deep in my suitcase of naivete, and have come up short.


----------



## The Armagh (Apr 23, 2006)

Ummm, now that the results are out, I bet you can get a great deal on these tshirts:

http://www.freelandis.com/

(Text beside the tshirt for sale - notice the price)

Buy the shirt that makes a statement!

Hanes Heavyweight 100% Pre Shrunk Cotton
Sizes: L and XL
Color: Black
Price: Sorry - Discontinued


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

*Let's remember a few things...*

Now the FACTS are out:
His testosterone was NOT elevated. His epitestosterone was lower than normal.
The more relaible and positve carbon isotope(?) was not done yet. If it's done and comes back positive, he is DONE!
This lab is the same lab that screwed up sprinter's Butch Johnson career with false and in accurate testing.
They are very close to le Euipe who leaked possible fasle info on EPO testing on Lance.
Now if the crabon testing comes back and proves the testosterone in Landis' system is synthetic, he is guilty! I don't care how it got in him. he should NOT allow it to happen, unless it was tainted by te lab.

One of the top professors in the US on Steriods in Sports Charles Yersalis(?) thinks something is fishy/wrong with the test/findings.

But it does not look good for him and it's sad to see it happen. I am just glad that the UCI system does not run the justice system in the US







.
Doping testing is so flawed so somethimes it hard to get the truth out. The lab is always procalimed right and the athlete is always lying.....


----------



## The Armagh (Apr 23, 2006)

Where are the "facts" being reported by UCI? ESPN is just reporting that they are noting a adverse analytical finding. Are the actual results anywhere? And how do we know the isotope test wasn't performed yet?


----------



## Alpedhuez55 (Jun 29, 2005)

peter1 said:


> A) Before Stage 17, I passed a half-dozen tests during the Tour, therefore I was riding clean.


He has already stated that one. But says he never tested posative in his entire career,



> B) Stage winners and Tour leaders are ALWAYS tested on EVERY stage.
> 
> C) If I was riding dirty on Stage 17, knowing B, why would I have attacked and gone for the win?


Why would I do something that stupid? It that were a valid excuse, then every cyclist would win their appeal. They all know they are going to be tested at some point. Maybe he thought he could get away with it if it was a small enough dose.



> D) Therefore, either I was handed a contamined bidon or water bottle, or the test was sabotaged.


But look at the stage, the team car was right behind him the whole way. He did not drink any outside water on the stage. Plus the burdon of proof is on Floyd for that. He would need to prove that that was the case. 

His defense has to be scientific. And his lawyer is going to have to come up with something better than he did for Tyler.


----------



## FTF (Aug 5, 2003)

BikinCO said:


> No such thing as an exact science.


That is why there is a A and a B sample......


----------



## Dave Riley (Sep 22, 2005)

The exogenous testosterone question is the real problem for Floyd, and I still don't know the source for that "finding." Can someone identify where that information came from ?


----------



## MidPack (Jul 30, 2006)

*A Simple Solution from Typical Employer-Employee Practices*

It's very common protocol for testing employee's for drugs and/or alchol that three samples are taken. The first two are tested at the medical provider selected by the employer. If positive, the employee has the option of having the third sample tested at a lab agreeable to both the employer and the employee. Why can't, or more interestingly, why hasn't Landis taken this approach if he is not guilty?

Both samples were tested by the same lab. Odds are they are credible, but they could have an agenda, not unheard of. If the Landis camp was not guilty, why would they not have insisted on having the sample tested at another mutually agreed to lab - surely one could be found that both had confidence in. They would provide T and epiT as well as how much (if any) synthetic. This whole thing stinks, just don't know which way the wind is blowing.

What am I missing, is it just cycling bureaucracy?


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

Dave Riley said:


> The exogenous testosterone question is the real problem for Floyd, and I still don't know the source for that "finding." Can someone identify where that information came from ?


agree...if that is indeed true I think it's the final nail in the coffin for Floyd


----------



## cdaddy (Jun 27, 2006)

*Floyd vs. OJ*

_"I will fight these charges with the same determination and intensity that I bring to my training and racing. It is now my goal to clear my name and restore what I worked so hard to achieve."_ 
-Floyd Landis

Floyds comments remind me of another athletes vows to seek "the truth". Can anyone say OJ Simpson. Although I would never equate doping/cheating with double murder, the tone of his comments has an all too familiar feel. Just like OJs defense, the only "possible" explanation at this point seems to be a sinster plot (unlikely) or lab error (more unlikely) face it Floyd, you're toast. 

How long do you suppose Floyd will spend looking for the real culprit? Maybe he and OJ can find him while searching the woods for an errant shot off the 9th tee. 

Ironically, maybe OJ summed it up best (if not very eloquently)
_"The day you take complete responsibility for yourself, the day you stop making any excuses, that's the day you start to the top." _
-OJ Simpson


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

cdaddy said:


> _"I will fight these charges with the same determination and intensity that I bring to my training and racing. It is now my goal to clear my name and restore what I worked so hard to achieve."_
> -Floyd Landis
> 
> Floyds comments remind me of another athletes vows to seek "the truth". Can anyone say OJ Simpson. Although I would never equate doping/cheating with double murder, the tone of his comments has an all too familiar feel. Just like OJs defense, the only "possible" explanation at this point seems to be a sinster plot (unlikely) or lab error (more unlikely) face it Floyd, you're toast.
> ...


People who come up with conspiracy theories to explain why Floyd is innocent need to ask themselves a simple question - what if instead of Floyd it was someone else - say Pereiro or Kloden? Would you maintain their innocence and defend them too? Somehow I don't think so. 

I liked Floyd, picked him to win TdF and was really excited to watch his breakaway. But if someone thinks that just because an athlete looks like the nicest guy, it is impossible for them to dope, well, haven't we learned that lesson with Tyler?

If beer or dehydration were the causes for positive test, I am sure plenty of athletes would test positive. Reminds me of "beer and sex" defense of track star Dennis Mitchell a few years back. Landis should talk to him.


----------



## eyebob (Feb 3, 2004)

*"busticated?"*



danl1 said:


> What this shows is that the same lab, the same personnel, and the same equipment can do the same thing twice in a row.
> 
> Not much news there.
> 
> ...


Fantastic!!!

BT


----------



## Pedro (Feb 25, 2006)

Dave Riley said:


> The exogenous testosterone question is the real problem for Floyd, and I still don't know the source for that "finding." Can someone identify where that information came from ?



Well.. this is from Velonews this morning (doesn't look promising for F.L.):


According to various sources, Landis's "A" sample showed signs that some of the testosterone came from an outside source. Pierre Bordry, who heads the French anti-doping council, said Saturday that the lab found evidence of testosterone from exogenous sources in Landis' urine.

"I have received a text message from Chatenay-Malabry lab that indicates the *'B' sample* of Floyd Landis' urine confirms testosterone was taken in an exogenous way," Bordry told The Associated Press.

Jacques De Ceaurriz, head of the Chatenay-Malabray lab, called the testing procedure totally reliable.

"It's foolproof. This analysis tells the difference between endogenous and exogenous," he told the AP. "No error is possible in isotopic readings."

Landis spokesman Michael Henson disputed that.

"There is no conclusive evidence that shows that this test can show definitively the presence of exogenous testosterone," Henson said.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

NO! None has done that carbon test yet. these are just rumors and speculation. The TEST must be done at a netural lab. if it confrims sythetic tes, he is done! The crabon isotope test is pretty darn accurate. Also Charles Yearlsis(?) of the most respected people on drugs in sports says something does not seem right. he has wriitten more about drugs/doping in sports than anyone!

Also the facts are his test levels are NORMAL, but his Epitest is not.
If he indeed took Sythetic test, his overall test levels would not be normal.

This is what I don't get! Either some legit medical thing lowerd his epitest or a making agent did it and he is guilty!


----------



## The Armagh (Apr 23, 2006)

New breaking news - again confirms that a synthetic source has been found, according to MSNBC. They are just quoting a "French official". This was in addition to the news this morning of the positive test.

In other news: Landis is going to be on Leno Monday. LET'S START A POOL ON THE EXCUSES / EXPLANATIONS USED THEN!!


----------



## desmo13 (Jun 28, 2006)

I think confirmation would have to go from an official UCI release.

Lab head Jacques De Ceaurriz said the isotope testing procedure was "foolproof."

"No error is possible in isotopic readings," he told the AP.

He kinda sounds like Bahgdad Bob


----------



## The Armagh (Apr 23, 2006)

“I have received a text message from Chatenay-Malabry lab that indicates the ‘B’ sample of Floyd Landis’ urine confirms testosterone was taken in an exogenous way,” Bordry told The Associated Press.

(MSNBC)


----------



## desmo13 (Jun 28, 2006)

is that supposed to be official?


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

FTF said:


> That is why there is a A and a B sample......


The test just confirm what not why. I have analyzed test results for 23 years, cause is not always what you think it might be. I agree that it does not look good for Floyd, but give him and his team a chance to explain what caused the readings.


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

That is not the UCI press release. That is from where? This is the official release!


> _The UCI communicates that the analysis of the sample B of Floyd Landis’s urine has confirmed the result of an adverse analytical finding notified by the Anti-doping laboratory of Paris on 26th July, following the analysis of the sample A.
> 
> In accordance to the Anti-doping rules, the Anti-doping Commission of the UCI will request that the USA Cycling Federation open a disciplinary procedure against the rider.
> 
> ...


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

The UCI has made no official staement about 'exogenous sources'. That, to date, has just been inuendo. The only official statement has been a skewed ration that exceeded the limits.


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

> According to the rules, he has been found to have a banned substance on board while racing, and so he's in trouble.


No such statement of 'banned substances' has been alleged. He just exceeded the permissable ratio. That in and of itself is not proof of doping if it can be explained scientifically. Again, there is no official statement of 'exogenous testosterone' from the UCI. Not on their web site.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

MidPack said:


> It's very common protocol for testing employee's for drugs and/or alchol that three samples are taken. The first two are tested at the medical provider selected by the employer. If positive, the employee has the option of having the third sample tested at a lab agreeable to both the employer and the employee. Why can't, or more interestingly, why hasn't Landis taken this approach if he is not guilty?
> 
> Both samples were tested by the same lab. Odds are they are credible, but they could have an agenda, not unheard of. If the Landis camp was not guilty, why would they not have insisted on having the sample tested at another mutually agreed to lab - surely one could be found that both had confidence in. They would provide T and epiT as well as how much (if any) synthetic. This whole thing stinks, just don't know which way the wind is blowing.
> 
> What am I missing, is it just cycling bureaucracy?


What you argue makes sense. It's just not the way the rules are written. UCI insists that the same lab does both tests. It's bad science and iffy evidence that way, but it's good for PR. One of the problems is that if done at two separate locations, the results _will_ be different. Not enough to matter, and statistically the difference will mean nothing, but they will not be identical. And that will let the crazy defenses and conspiracy theories begin.

One of the other difficulties is that you cannot definitively tell the difference between endogenous and exogenous testosterone. No chemical difference exists. The only 'difference' is that in synthetic testosterone, slightly more of it is "left handed" than "right handed," as compared to a sample of natural stuff. Both have left and right handed molecules (actually, both carbon 12 and carbon 13 -containing molecules) but the ratio for the synthetic is _slightly _higher. So if that C-12/C13 ratio is higher than that person's natural ratio (as measured by testing the cholesterol in the sample, as I understand it) it is presumed that some of the testosterone came from an outside source. 

Sounds a little shaky, but it is good science, and they set the pass/fail parameters fairly wide to compensate for any inaccuracy. BTW, it's the same basic science behind carbon dating, although the ratio comparisons there are very much smaller. Unless you fall into camp with the flat-earthers who insist that the earth is 3600 years old, it's tough to find fault with this testing method. Then again, with the tolerances set as wide as they are to get a positive in the testosterone testing, you'd only need to prove that a wooly mammoth was at least a couple of hundred years old to have the same sort of accuracy. So even that's not a good excuse.


----------



## BigPiece (May 18, 2004)

Still wondering where posters are getting any idea of numbers included in the ratio. I haven't seen this posted and wonder how anyone knows that his epitestosterone was low and testosterone level was actually not above an abnormal level. Officially I only read and seen info on the ratio and no report on actual numbers, unless anyone has proof otherwise.


----------



## desmo13 (Jun 28, 2006)

What I see too often in these threads, are the people who dismiss american mainstream media as catering to idiots... becomeing the people they cater to.

the UCI has made their statement, now I believe, the next official statements will come from the USCF.

_The UCI communicates that the analysis of the sample B of Floyd Landis’s urine has confirmed the result of an adverse analytical finding notified by the Anti-doping laboratory of Paris on 26th July, following the analysis of the sample A.

In accordance to the Anti-doping rules, the Anti-doping Commission of the UCI will request that the USA Cycling Federation open a disciplinary procedure against the rider. _

1st tier information; UCI, USCF 
2nd tier information, what Landis himself says; Blog, Larry King, Spanish Press conference.
3rd Tier: Lawyers
4th, even below lawyers, L'Equipe, NYT and anyone else trying to sell papers.. including the guy who said he got a text message from the lab 

In the case of Landis, I will hold 1st tier to be true, weigh 2nd teir information in relation to the 1st tier. I will completley disregard 3rd and 4th tier.


----------



## The Armagh (Apr 23, 2006)

desmo13 said:


> What I see too often in these threads, are the people who dismiss american mainstream media as catering to idiots... becomeing the people they cater to.
> 
> the UCI has made their statement, now I believe, the next official statements will come from the USCF.
> 
> ...



One important thing you left out. The papers, who are just trying to sell ads, have been CORRECT. Not sure, based on past history of riders or just athletes in general, why Landis doesn't actually belong in tier 4. Is he any more credible than the papers, or lawyers who have tried to cast every excuse known to man out there? Afterall, its his friggin urine.


----------



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

cdaddy said:


> _"I will fight these charges with the same determination and intensity that I bring to my training and racing. It is now my goal to clear my name and restore what I worked so hard to achieve."_
> -Floyd Landis
> 
> Floyds comments remind me of another athletes vows to seek "the truth". Can anyone say OJ Simpson. Although I would never equate doping/cheating with double murder, the tone of his comments has an all too familiar feel. Just like OJs defense, the only "possible" explanation at this point seems to be a sinster plot (unlikely) or lab error (more unlikely) face it Floyd, you're toast.
> ...


Well, I didn't want to bring this up, but Floyd DID live down the street from Ron Goldman. Floyd was also the one who wrote the report on the Yellowcake Uranium exported from Niger to Saddam. There is a receipt that shows he was taking flying lessons in 2001. And I'm pretty sure he slept with my college girlfriend, which was fine by me. She ran up my credit cards and cut up my clothes with a box knife.


----------



## desmo13 (Jun 28, 2006)

The Armagh said:


> One important thing you left out. The papers, who are just trying to sell ads, have been CORRECT. Not sure, based on past history of riders or just athletes in general, why Landis doesn't actually belong in tier 4. Is he any more credible than the papers, or lawyers who have tried to cast every excuse known to man out there? Afterall, its his friggin urine.


Landis isnt in tier 4, because despite what some people in this world have became, I still value a persons word until proven otherwise.

Sure papers have been correct, they have also been wrong. retractions are printed weekly. But in these cases, what the paper is printing doesnt have to be true, they just have to show they have a source. I do not question the paper per se, just the source. I also will not convict a person on a "source" or a "leak". I will convict on official statements. 

To some of you out there.. why the rush? Why the cold, callous hand on Landis neck. Why report 3rd party sources as fact? Why not just follow the story, seperate fact and official word from mass media journalism, Lawyers spin and conspiracy theory.


----------



## The Armagh (Apr 23, 2006)

Well Pereiro feels Landis is Tier 4....

http://velonews.com/news/fea/10650.0.html


----------



## racerXX (Oct 18, 2005)

OneGear said:


> sure science can be refuted, but the testosterone and exogenous substances cannot. unless he can do a dna test on that exogenous testosterone and prove it's HIS, then the science cannot be refuted.
> 
> -You cant do a DNA test on a chemical like testosterone.


----------



## OneGear (Aug 19, 2005)

racerXX said:


> OneGear said:
> 
> 
> > sure science can be refuted, but the testosterone and exogenous substances cannot. unless he can do a dna test on that exogenous testosterone and prove it's HIS, then the science cannot be refuted.
> ...


interesting. i can see how that would make sense, since it's not cellular, but how else do they tell testosterone is exogenous?


----------



## El Caballito (Oct 31, 2004)

peter1 said:


> ...his response to the postive tests. Despite what he has posted on his web site, he has offered nothing but lame "excuses" -- i.e., the UCI bungled notification protocol, I had too much to drink, i'm naturally testosterone-heavy etc.
> 
> But what bothers me is that he hasn't offered a few logical explanations, the most solid being:
> 
> ...


I too have been playing with the idea that Floyd might have been:

* given a contaminated water bottle or someone put something in his pee.

It might have been an inside job.


----------



## Alpedhuez55 (Jun 29, 2005)

El Caballito said:


> I too have been playing with the idea that Floyd might have been:
> 
> * given a contaminated water bottle or someone put something in his pee.
> 
> It might have been an inside job.


That sounds like you are in denial to me. Inside job? Was it a teamate or team manager who did it? Would the French Tour Director who called Floyds ride the greatest tour ride of all time suddely have the French Anti Doping Crowd taint his final Tour? Is the UCS out to destroy all of pro cycling? Or are they just trying to destroy it in the biggest consumer market in the world?

It would be virtually impossible to put something in the two pee samples after the fact without getting results. Where can you get a small enough dose of fake testosterone that would show up on two tests, but not cause the level of testosterone in your urine to be within normal ranges? If you were adding it, the levels would be much higher.

And he was getting all of his water from the team car on that stage. It is safe to say that someone on his team would have given him the contaminated bottle. Granted his team has a long history of being a dirty team, but they are not going to risk doing that to their leader.

Unless you want to claim some fan poured exogenius testosterone laced water on him during one of the early climbs on stage 17.

His only defense can be scientific and will need to be very convincing.


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*I love the conspiracy theories...*



Alpedhuez55 said:


> That sounds like you are in denial to me. Inside job? Was it a teamate or team manager who did it? Would the French Tour Director who called Floyds ride the greatest tour ride of all time suddely have the French Anti Doping Crowd taint his final Tour? Is the UCS out to destroy all of pro cycling? Or are they just trying to destroy it in the biggest consumer market in the world?
> 
> It would be virtually impossible to put something in the two pee samples after the fact without getting results. Where can you get a small enough dose of fake testosterone that would show up on two tests, but not cause the level of testosterone in your urine to be within normal ranges? If you were adding it, the levels would be much higher.
> 
> ...


I love the conspiracy theories that keep coming up to explain away his positive test results.

How about this people?

He did it. He's guilty. He's a doper, and a cheater. It's not really out of the question. Look at his team's history. Hamilton, Perez, Camenzind, and so on. It's not as if Phonak has been a aqueaky clean team as far as pro cycling goes. They're dirtier than all of the rest combined during their short existence. 

Why is it so hard for people to believe that he did this thing? The test results are there. Just the mere fact that he had synthetic testosterone in his system says a lot. That doesn't happen "naturally". And for those who think the testing is flawed and that false positives are rampant; where are all of the other false positives? There aren't any. As the previous poster mentioned, his only defense is scientific right now. That's his only hope really. And I don't know how he's going to explain away synthetics in his system.


----------



## volklskier89 (Jul 29, 2004)

*Just Wondering*

Does anyone know how long it takes for synthetic testosterone to leave the body? because landis would have been tested again after stages 19 and 20 and if it takes longer than 2 days for the synthetic testosterone to leave his body wouldn't he have tested positive on stages 19 and 20 also?


----------



## desmo13 (Jun 28, 2006)

magnolialover said:


> I love the conspiracy theories that keep coming up to explain away his positive test results.
> 
> How about this people?
> 
> ...


Why not look at the possibility of anything and everything? Surely you are not condoning a society/organization that reaches judgement based on the quickest most conveinent evidence.

Why take a look at other possibilities? Well, because the system is set up for that. If it wasn't, Landis would not be allowed to make a case at the USCF, he would be guilty and stripped the moment his "A" test came back.
Do you get bored on Jury duty, having to listen to all the testimony, evidence etc. Do you find yourself ready to reach your verdict after the prosecutions opening argument?


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

magnolialover said:


> I love the conspiracy theories that keep coming up to explain away his positive test results.
> 
> How about this people?
> 
> ...


Just out of curiosity, if he were going to dope, why wouldn't he have used something that would help him? Take testosterone, and in a few weeks time you'll have bigger muscles and perform better- so he takes it on day 17 of a 20 day race? That alone fuels conspiracy theories. It doesn't prove them. Maybe Floyd's just dumb.

If Floyd wanted to dope, get a boost, and not get caught, he should have blood doped, taken EPO, or even amphetamines, then intentionally not won the stage and hope he didn't draw a random test. Again, this assumes a Floyd of reasonable mental capacity who wants to use drugs to help him improve. 

Now, look at it from the perspective of someone trying to sabotage him-

If you give him a real performance booster (Speed, EPO) maybe he moves up but doesn't win the stage and you've shot yourself in the foot because he doesn't get tested. If you give him something banned that won't help him, then it becomes insurance against a turn around. If he does well, you haven't helped him, but you do get him DQ'd. 

As for who would do it? Anyone who didn't want him to win for any reason. How? Waiter in a restaurant, bartender, bottle washer, teammate, mechanic, etc. Anyone with an axe to grind or a bill to pay. 

Of course that assumes it wasn't a misguided attempt to help him. He falls apart on stage 16, somebody decides he needs help, doesn't know that testosterone won't do much, and slips it to him, same method and suspects as above, hoping he won't win the stage and get tested, but that he does move up enough to snatch victory in the time trial.

P.S. I believe in UFOs, too. I don’t necessarily believe they are spacecraft not of this earth, just that there are things in the sky that can’t be identified.


----------



## desmo13 (Jun 28, 2006)

I think ther best argument against someone slipping him something is why do it after stage 16? oh, I know..... new theory coming up... He was slipped something before stage 16, explaining his bonk, it was still in system in stage 17. Remember, the T/E ratio is off, nothing saying he was doping T.

Sadly, I do not think everyone, will ever be 100% confident in whatever outcome.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2006)

An isotope test has been done on the A sample

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10627.0.html


----------



## KATZRKOL (Mar 4, 2004)

*Say what??*



BikinCO said:


> The test just confirm what not why. I have analyzed test results for 23 years, cause is not always what you think it might be. I agree that it does not look good for Floyd, but give him and his team a chance to explain what caused the readings.


IT'S SYNTHETIC HORMONE IN HIS BODY. . .That doesn't get there by mistake. Put a fork in ole' Floyd, as he is done. There is no chance it was an error. .Not twice.


----------



## desmo13 (Jun 28, 2006)

No chance there was an error.. Testing is fool proof. Ask James Calvin Tillman.


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

KATZRKOL said:


> IT'S SYNTHETIC HORMONE IN HIS BODY.


There is nothing official that states that.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

KATZRKOL said:


> IT'S SYNTHETIC HORMONE IN HIS BODY. . .That doesn't get there by mistake. Put a fork in ole' Floyd, as he is done. There is no chance it was an error. .Not twice.


Let's be clear: There is no way to tell definitively between synthetic and natural testosterone. Both types contain both C-12 and C-13 isotopes of carbon. The only difference is that the synthetic contains a slightly higher ratio of C-13. If there is a mixture of the two in the blood, the ratio will be _slightly _higher than the same ratio in a reference steroid (cholesterol is normally used) from the same sample. 

What we are left with is not "there is synthetic testosterone in his system," but "there is a xxx likelyhood that there is synthetic testosterone in his system." And with questions of concentrations, sample sizes, and the statistics they all wind up at, we can't say it's cooked until we get more numbers and less second-hand gossip.

That said, I've seen reported that FL's personal doctor has reported that he's been told that the resulting ratio is 3.99, against a 3.0 cutoff. If those are the numbers, he's got some tough math to work out.


----------



## dallas (Aug 6, 2006)

*slightly different question*

Now that both of his samples have sadly been positive I was wondering if he still gets to keep that stages win?
I know it's not a big picture question but was curious .

thanks


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*How's that?*



desmo13 said:


> No chance there was an error.. Testing is fool proof. Ask James Calvin Tillman.


How is the test in error? Please, tell us all the ways that the isotope test could be wrong. I'm thinking, you don't know. Might just be parroting the Floyd line, and that's OK. Keep up the hope. We'll discuss again in 6 months when he's still on the sidelines for the next few years.


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

magnolialover said:


> How is the test in error? Please, tell us all the ways that the isotope test could be wrong.


Scientific results are inherently provisional. Scientists can never prove conclusively that they have described some aspect of the natural or physical world with complete accuracy. In that sense all scientific results must be treated as susceptible to error.


----------



## desmo13 (Jun 28, 2006)

magnolialover said:


> How is the test in error? Please, tell us all the ways that the isotope test could be wrong. I'm thinking, you don't know. Might just be parroting the Floyd line, and that's OK. Keep up the hope. We'll discuss again in 6 months when he's still on the sidelines for the next few years.


If you read my post, you would see it was in reply to katz, who said there was no chance of error. I did not say the test results were a result of error. But there is always the possibility of error. Are you saying that there is no chance of error?


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

magnolialover said:


> How is the test in error? Please, tell us all the ways that the isotope test could be wrong. I'm thinking, you don't know. Might just be parroting the Floyd line, and that's OK. Keep up the hope. We'll discuss again in 6 months when he's still on the sidelines for the next few years.


Not that it is wrong, but...

The isotope test is a ratio test. There is no way to distinguish between endongenous and exogenous testosterone, other than that exogenous testosterone has a slightly higher ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 as compared to endogenous testosterone. Thus, there are two possible (though extremely unlikely) scenarios under which it could be wrong:

1) Something in the events of those days caused the amount of C13-rich testosterone that reached his urine to be higher than the C12. It's all his, but something boogered up how it went through his kidneys, and caused a false positive. No such mechanism is known to exist, but we'll hear some theory.

2) The sample was dilute, and there were only x number of testosterone (and cholesterol for the reference ratio) molecules present for the sample. While the sample itself showed a certain ratio, it was not statistically representative of FL. Two samples knock a huge hole in that one, but they'll try. If the A and B results are similar, toastville. If they are significantly different, we'll have a fun (but mathematically silly) argument ahead of us. 

So, that's how it 'can' be wrong. Not that it is. I'm looking forward to seeing the numbers (if they become available,) just so I can see exactly how outLandis(h) the theories are.

Edit: I wrote this bit backwards. Synthetic testosterone has a slightly _lower_ ratio of C-13 as compared to natural testosterone. Apparently less than 1% difference, for those who want to play with the algebra and statistics as the numbers become available.


----------



## hooper (Jul 22, 2006)

California L33 said:


> Just out of curiosity, if he were going to dope, why wouldn't he have used something that would help him? Take testosterone, and in a few weeks time you'll have bigger muscles and perform better- so he takes it on day 17 of a 20 day race? That alone fuels conspiracy theories. It doesn't prove them. Maybe Floyd's just dumb.
> 
> 
> Testosterone makes for rapid recovery. It seems everyone thinks Test. is only for big muscles. Get to know you steroids and their actual effects before calling a professional doper like Landis dumb.


----------



## crossracer (Jun 21, 2004)

Ok here are the choices.

1. he cheated, no if's ands or buts

2. He was given something he did not know about. possible with a team
desperate to win. 

3. he really did have a unusual day and produced the results naturally.

I have to say this whole thing smacks of contriditions. If he naturally produces that level, than it should have shown up in the previous samples. He rode his heart out on the final time trial, shouldnt the blood possibly reflect this?
His ride was so epic, whos to say what that would do to a persons body?

I think that a "poisioned" bottle could have been given to him at the finish line. However would it be enough time for the body to absorb it and show in a test sample.?

My gut instinct is that Floyd was the victim of his team possibly "slipping him a mickey" The compitiion had no reason to do it, he was out of the race being 8 Minutes back. Till i learn more i am willing to give the benifit of the doubt to floyd until i hear more. Also it would be interesting to see if any of the rest of the team tested positive for the same thing. If it was a cheat, and it worked so well, why not have the rest of the team use it to help out? 

Just my 2 cents, working the night shift at the firehouse and planning my ride for tommrrow. 
Bill


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2006)

To suddenly have a higher than normal concentration of C13 in his system is just rediculous. The IRMS results show he had synthetic testosterone in his system, period. If he get's off, it'll be on some technicallity. Sucks being the one who gets caught, even if it's a nice guy.

As far as Andy Rihs and ARcycling AG, I hope they just go away - too many of their riders have been bagged. The team is a laughing stock at this point, IMO.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

hooper said:


> California L33 said:
> 
> 
> > Just out of curiosity, if he were going to dope, why wouldn't he have used something that would help him? Take testosterone, and in a few weeks time you'll have bigger muscles and perform better- so he takes it on day 17 of a 20 day race? That alone fuels conspiracy theories. It doesn't prove them. Maybe Floyd's just dumb.
> ...


----------



## Armchair Spaceman (Jun 21, 2003)

*Amen*



magnolialover said:


> I love the conspiracy theories that keep coming up to explain away his positive test results.
> 
> How about this people?
> 
> ...



C'mon Floyd...it's MILLAR time!!


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

magnolialover said:


> I love the conspiracy theories that keep coming up to explain away his positive test results.
> 
> How about this people?
> 
> ...


Exactly right...but you have complete idiots like Bob Roll (who I actually used to like before this) spewing garbage on TV how TMobile is dirty and likely cheated their way to a TT win yet a week later writes that he refuses to believe Floyd cheated on one of the dirtiest teams around (with other riders that have been busted for the same thing) until he hears Floyd say "I did it". It's no wonder the conspiracy theory crap won't go away when the leader of the movement is Roll. 

The funny thing in all of this is the most sensible answer to all of it is he simply cheated and got busted. Dehydration, too much whiskey, cortizone, "natural occurring", the "French Connection", etc...


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

hooper said:


> Testosterone makes for rapid recovery. It seems everyone thinks Test. is only for big muscles. Get to know you steroids and their actual effects before calling a professional doper like Landis dumb.



_Testosterone creams, pills and injections can build muscle and strength and improve recovery time after exertion when used over a period of several weeks, *according to Dr. Gary Wadler, a member of the World Anti-Doping Agency and a spokesman for the American College of Sports Medicine.*

*But if Landis had been a user, earlier urine tests during the Tour would have been affected, too, Wadler said.* Landis' first reported abnormal result was last Thursday, after his amazing come-from-behind performance in stage 17 of the race. _

Maybe Dr. Wadler needs to get to know his steroids as well.


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

AJL said:


> To suddenly have a higher than normal concentration of C13 in his system is just rediculous. The IRMS results show he had synthetic testosterone in his system, period.


I slept last night, has something changed? Has there been an official release that there was synthetic testosterone in FLoyd's tests? Not a text message and not something from the press, something from the UCI? Like a press release. 


*Latest news*

*Press release : The adverse analytical finding from Floyd Landis is confirmed* 

_The UCI communicates that the analysis of the sample B of Floyd Landis’s urine has confirmed the result of an adverse analytical finding notified by the Anti-doping laboratory of Paris on 26th July, following the analysis of the sample A. 

In accordance to the Anti-doping rules, the Anti-doping Commission of the UCI will request that the USA Cycling Federation open a disciplinary procedure against the rider. 


UCI Press Service_


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2006)

from cyclingnews.com said:


> Landis' legal team criticised the UCI for announcing the results of the A sample without knowing the B sample result, believing that Landis' rights had been violated. They have also claimed that his high T:E ratio arose from natural causes, _and that the IRMS test, that showed exogenous tesosterone, is "unreliable_". However, anti-doping experts such as Christiane Ayotte, director of the anti-doping lab in Montreal, Canada, have strongly defended their testing methods.


His legal team thinks that the IRMS showed exogenous testosterone, I'm sure they have the results. Stick your head in the sand if you want to, but he was doped up. Of course, if OJ Simpson can beat a murder rap, I guess anything is possible (if you have the money).


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

Live Steam said:


> No such statement of 'banned substances' has been alleged. He just exceeded the permissable ratio. That in and of itself is not proof of doping if it can be explained scientifically. Again, there is no official statement of 'exogenous testosterone' from the UCI. Not on their web site.


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=landis+exogenous+testosterone

If nothing happens in your world unless there's a press release, it follows that if it's in a press release, it must have happened.


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

AJL said:


> His legal team thinks that the IRMS showed exogenous testosterone, I'm sure they have the results. Stick your head in the sand if you want to, but he was doped up. Of course, if OJ Simpson can beat a murder rap, I guess anything is possible (if you have the money).


Landis's team thinks the _IRMS test, that showed exogenous tesosterone, is "unreliable"._ 


_However, anti-doping experts such as Christiane Ayotte, director of the anti-doping lab in Montreal, Canada, have strongly defended their testing methods._

If the anti-doping lab in Montreal can defend their position, why can"t Floyd.


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2006)

BikinCO said:


> Landis's team thinks the _IRMS test, that showed exogenous tesosterone, is "unreliable"._
> 
> 
> _However, anti-doping experts such as Christiane Ayotte, director of the anti-doping lab in Montreal, Canada, have strongly defended their testing methods._
> ...


Nice strawman argument  Hey, believe what ever you want dude, it's a free country.


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

AJL said:


> Nice strawman argument  Hey, believe what ever you want dude, it's a free country.


You don't believe that he should have the the chance to defend himself? The UCI does, that is why there is an appeals process. Like I said before, the test results reveal what not why.


----------



## volklskier89 (Jul 29, 2004)

*Still wondering*

Again, I am still wondering How long would it take for the Synthetic testosterone to leave his body? I have heard that it fades over time and would not just dissapear immediately if this is true then isnt there a good chance that it should have shown up in his stage 19 and 20 drug tests also? So if any one out there knows could you please tell me how long would it take for synthetic testosterone to fade to a negligable or unnoticable amount in a persons body?


----------



## battaglin (Apr 19, 2002)

*what about masking agents?*

does that come to play here anymore? it could probably explain why he didnt test positive before but somehow they bungled it or his drinking session might have neutralized the effects of the masking agents. just asking.


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

So your World revolves around Google? Again, there have been no, I repeat no official release of information from WADA or the UCI that exogenous testosterone was found. The French Director for the anti-doping agency claimed he 'received a text message from the labe'. Well why would they send him a text message to begin with? He was not the party who contracted for the tests to be performed. Why would they give that information to an uninvolved third party? Why hasn't the UCI stated this finding on their web site or made an official announcement? Something ain't right in gay Paris.


----------



## bikejr (Jul 30, 2004)

James OCLV said:


> the only distinction between civil court and criminal court (at least in the U.S.) is the burden of proof.


Not quite.. Never heard of anyone getting sentenced to jail in the US for losing a civil case.. Quite a difference..


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

chuckice said:


> Exactly right...but you have complete idiots like Bob Roll (who I actually used to like before this) spewing garbage on TV how TMobile is dirty and likely cheated their way to a TT win yet a week later writes that he refuses to believe Floyd cheated on one of the dirtiest teams around (with other riders that have been busted for the same thing) until he hears Floyd say "I did it". It's no wonder the conspiracy theory crap won't go away when the leader of the movement is Roll.
> 
> The funny thing in all of this is the most sensible answer to all of it is he simply cheated and got busted. Dehydration, too much whiskey, cortizone, "natural occurring", the "French Connection", etc...



That he cheated is the most plausible answer. But that's not the question. The question is what happens when _you_ test positive and you didn't cheat. How would you want it handled? Would you simply want your victory taken from you because the easy answer is you cheated and are lying to cover it up, or would you want every avenue examined, even if they seem far fetched? Wouldn't you try and come up with any reasonable explanation?

To take Floyd's victory there should be criteria based on some simple logic-

-if it can be shown he knowingly took a banned substance, then yes, strip his title.

-if it can be shown that he benefited from a banned substance enough to change the outcome, even if he didn't knowingly take it, then yes, strip his title.

So far nobody has come forward and said, "I saw him take drugs," or, "I supplied the drugs," and there's no scientific agreement that one massive dose of testosterone does anything, even if there are old wives' tales that it speeds recovery. 

What I find interesting is that people quick to condemn won't play Devil's Advocate for even a minute. If you wanted to dope a grand tour cyclist without him knowing it, what would you choose? I'd choose testosterone. Why? Because it's banned, because it's unlikely to provide any real boost, because it's readily available through the farming industry, and because it's the easiest to administer. (Even when administered therapeutically, it's done through the skin.) Since it's an accepted practice to throw liquid on cyclists as they ride by you don't even need to get to his food or beverage. (Frankly, I'm surprised it didn't happen to Lance. Watching his last TT when he got hit several times I just kept telling myself, "There could be anything in those bottles.")

Would anyone do that? Of course not. There's no money in being a Tour winner, so no rival, or rival team, or rival team sponsor, would have any reason to do it, right? And to suggest that a crazed fan might do it so his favorite guy wins is as ridiculous as... as to suggest that some crazed tennis fan would stab a woman in the back so his favorite player would win a match.


----------



## Peter R. (Jul 11, 2006)

I may have my wires crossed, but :

The 'A' sample returned a ratio of 11/1
The 'B' sample returned 3.99/1

Is it just me, or is someone at the lab having a larf ?

Peter R.


----------



## desmo13 (Jun 28, 2006)

Pete, I believe, 11/1 is the T/E ratio (was it ever confirmed?)
3.99 is number representative of the isotope c13 to c12 molecules (referring the synthetic or natural Testosterone)


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

volklskier89 said:


> Again, I am still wondering How long would it take for the Synthetic testosterone to leave his body? I have heard that it fades over time and would not just dissapear immediately if this is true then isnt there a good chance that it should have shown up in his stage 19 and 20 drug tests also? So if any one out there knows could you please tell me how long would it take for synthetic testosterone to fade to a negligable or unnoticable amount in a persons body?


Testosterone (natural or synthetic doesn't matter, as they're chemically identical) has a half-life in the body of approximately one hour. 1 hour, 1/2 of original dose. 2 hours, 1/4. 3 hours, 1/8, and so on. It doesn't take long for this to get to a really, really small number. Considering the small isotopic difference between natural and synthetic testosterone, no subsequent test would be useful for proving either guilt or innocence.

It also means that this needs (practically speaking) to have been the result of a pretty stinkin' high dose. Not something 'accidental' or that would have easily been slipped in unnoticed. Any notion that the team would have doped him without his knowledge and consent is beyond rationality.

Most reasonable assumption at this point is that he doped for recovery (whether it works for that or not doesn't matter) and whatever scheme they had to mask the effort or to avoid testing failed. The other 'long shot' is that the unique circumstances of the day created unanticipated results, either for the testing or the masking. But they've pretty much worked those issues out, methinks.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

Live Steam said:


> So your World revolves around Google? Again, there have been no, I repeat no official release of information from WADA or the UCI that exogenous testosterone was found. The French Director for the anti-doping agency claimed he 'received a text message from the labe'. Well why would they send him a text message to begin with? He was not the party who contracted for the tests to be performed. Why would they give that information to an uninvolved third party? Why hasn't the UCI stated this finding on their web site or made an official announcement? Something ain't right in gay Paris.


Come on, LiveStream. You are obviously in a very deep state of denial. You are like the Black Knight from Monty Python. You can close your ears and chant "la-la-la" claiming you won't trust any unofficial reports (aka "leaks") about exogenous testosterone sources, but all your attempts to undermine "gay Paris" lab won't change facts, unfortunately. 

I'll bet you even after the official statement about exogenous source finally comes out, you won't trust it. Even when Landis admits doping, you will be arguing that evil french coerced him or hypnotized him into doing this.

[after slicing one of the Black Knight's arms off]
King Arthur: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
Black Knight: 'Tis but a scratch.
King Arthur: A scratch? Your arm's off.
Black Knight: No it isn't.
King Arthur: What's that, then?
Black Knight: [after a pause] I've had worse.
King Arthur: You liar.
Black Knight: Come on ya pansy.


----------



## James OCLV (Jun 4, 2002)

bikejr said:


> Not quite.. Never heard of anyone getting sentenced to jail in the US for losing a civil case.. Quite a difference..


LOL.... Quite. 

That's PRECISELY WHY the burden of proof is _less_.... 

The burden of proof in a civil case is "by a preponderance of the evidence".... but, the defense is allowed the opportunity to _refute_ said evidence, an opportunity which many on this forum seem to want to deny Floyd.


----------



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

I like Floyd but if you get caught with high T-E ratios you are disqualified. Thems the rules. I think it makes sense to apply Occam's Razor here - the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Introducing other complexities just seems farfetched, as much as I want to believe them. 

One time a rare animal escaped from the zoo. Authorities fielded reports of sightings from all over the country, some of them quite plausible and reliable. In the end, it was discovered that the animal had been hit and killed by a car almost immediately after escaping the zoo. Thereby rendering all the "reliable" sightings as fancy and fictional. Proof that people believe what they want to believe.


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

Very mature argument you make here 51x14.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

I am not sure how to read this excalty, but here is a picture of some differnt test compositions


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

JohnHemlock said:


> I like Floyd but if you get caught with high T-E ratios you are disqualified. Thems the rules. I think it makes sense to apply Occam's Razor here - the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Introducing other complexities just seems farfetched, as much as I want to believe them.
> 
> One time a rare animal escaped from the zoo. Authorities fielded reports of sightings from all over the country, some of them quite plausible and reliable. In the end, it was discovered that the animal had been hit and killed by a car almost immediately after escaping the zoo. Thereby rendering all the "reliable" sightings as fancy and fictional. Proof that people believe what they want to believe.


Or it may be that there are more rare animals out there than the experts want you to believe. (The same experts who didn't happen to notice a squished rare animal on the road leading to their zoo)


----------



## desmo13 (Jun 28, 2006)

I wonder when we will get official test results, that include the ratio, isotopic numbers etc.

I really want to form an opinion  But based on all the leaked reports, Lawyer spin, too many articles without sources, it is very difficult. The only solid information I can gather is.

UCI released info in violation of the proceedures because they didnt trust the labs collaberation with L'Equipe

Landis has adverse T/E ratio's in A and B sample.

Landis, his own words, interviews, press conference etc.

Anyting else official?


----------



## txzen (Apr 6, 2005)

The isotope ratio test HAS been done - on both the A and the B sample. His ratio of 13C:12C on the A was 3.99 as confirmed by his own doctor in a NYT piece last week. The isotope ratio test is done whenever the ratio is above the limit to confirm the finding. 

Doper. Liar. Hate to say it, but it's true.


----------

