# Landis notified by UCI



## chuckice

From Phonak:

The Phonak Cycling Team was notified yesterday by the UCI of an unusual level of Testosteron/Epitestosteron ratio in the test made on Floyd Landis after stage 17 of the Tour de France.

The Team Management and the rider were both totally surprised of this physiological result.

The rider will ask in the upcoming days for the counter analysis to prove either that this result is coming from a natural process or that this is resulting from a mistake in the confirmation.

In application of the Pro Tour Ethical Code, the rider will not race anymore until this problem is totally clear.

If the result of the B sample analysis confirms the result of the A sample the rider will be dismissed and will then pass the corresponding endocrinological examinations.

Please understand that we cannot at this time give you more detailed comments


----------



## bas

chuckice said:


> From Phonak:
> 
> The Phonak Cycling Team was notified yesterday by the UCI of an unusual level of Testosteron/Epitestosteron ratio in the test made on Floyd Landis after stage 17 of the Tour de France.
> 
> The Team Management and the rider were both totally surprised of this physiological result.
> 
> The rider will ask in the upcoming days for the counter analysis to prove either that this result is coming from a natural process or that this is resulting from a mistake in the confirmation.
> 
> In application of the Pro Tour Ethical Code, the rider will not race anymore until this problem is totally clear.
> 
> If the result of the B sample analysis confirms the result of the A sample the rider will be dismissed and will then pass the corresponding endocrinological examinations.
> 
> Please understand that we cannot at this time give you more detailed comments


Someone else on phonak tested postive this year for testosterone.

http://www.eurosport.com/cycling/paris-nice/2006/sport_sto849857.shtml


----------



## Argentius

Somebody tell me this is NOT happening...


----------



## chuckice

Argentius said:


> Somebody tell me this is NOT happening...


I almost threw up when I got the email. Who wants a Phonak musette signed by all the riders?


----------



## culdeus

It's happening.


----------



## weltyed

did you see that ride? anyone woulda tested positive for testosterone after that.

is there a link to that source? the phonak site is gettin slammed right now and i cant get it to open.


----------



## DIRT BOY

If this is true, what a BLOW to cycling! Even the nicest and best of guys can be cheaters too!

Let's hope it's not true! I will be really sad for the TDF so have it's winner found guilty of doping.

Does anyone know if any WINNER was found to be doping after the race was over?


----------



## FondriestFan

Good thing they don't test for estrogen, or we'd have no French riders.


----------



## jankty

They probably calibrated the test after a typical French male. My wife would probably test positive. (okay....I'm just angry and venting).


----------



## chuckice

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/jul06/jul27news3


----------



## chuckice

FondriestFan said:


> Good thing they don't test for estrogen, or we'd have no French riders.


Now that was funny.


----------



## bas

DIRT BOY said:


> If this is true, what a BLOW to cycling! Even the nicest and best of guys can be cheaters too!
> 
> Let's hope it's not true! I will be really sad for the TDF so have it's winner found guilty of doping.
> 
> Does anyone know if any WINNER was found to be doping after the race was over?



Roberto Heras/Veulta last year?


----------



## DIRT BOY

Testosterone based steroids are usally used for muscle building. BUT yes, test injections will boost your energy levels for quite some time like 8-24hrs after initial injection.

This is why andro was popular before a rump in the sack and was almost approved as female ******.....but not as an acutal muscle building altgernative to test based steriods.


----------



## weltyed

DIRT BOY said:


> Does anyone know if any WINNER was found to be doping after the race was over?


you do mean the tour, right? cause didnt heras' test come back positive *after *the vuelta last year.


----------



## DIRT BOY

Ahh! I forgot about that one. But what about the TDF?


----------



## weltyed

How long till the B sample comes back?

and does anyone have a small freezer handy?


----------



## zeytin

Oh I wasn't even rooting for Floyd when the race started and I am praying this isn't what it sounds like. Innocent until proven guilty right? Let's not all jump on a wagon until we find out what's what.


----------



## DIRT BOY

They do acutally. To get yout test score, they measure the ratio of test to estrogen. There is a ratio for males and females of test to est.

I forgot what the ratio is for an average male. This varies among men. But if your levels are out of wack, that is a way they can find out if your are doping with test. Even by adding estogen (HCG) to balance it out, your levels will come up abnormal.


----------



## DIRT BOY

Yes, I meant TDF winner.


----------



## carb850

zeytin said:


> Oh I wasn't even rooting for Floyd when the race started and I am praying this isn't what it sounds like. Innocent until proven guilty right? Let's not all jump on a wagon until we find out what's what.


I'm with you.


----------



## bmp956

With all the scrutiny in the wake of the Ullrich and Basso disqualification scandal before the tour how could any rider possibly think they could get away with doping? I just don't get it. Any chance these tests need to be refined? Is the science on them ironclad? Devastating news if true. Wonder if he's cancelling his Leno appearance in the wake of this.


----------



## DIRT BOY

His postive test DID come after stage 17!


----------



## topflightpro

weltyed said:


> did you see that ride? anyone woulda tested positive for testosterone after that.
> 
> is there a link to that source? the phonak site is gettin slammed right now and i cant get it to open.



The Associated Press just put out a news alert saying Phonak was notified Floyd's test came back positive.


----------



## DIRT BOY

I think the test tests are pretty accurate and used widly for years by many sports associations and the medical field.

It takes some crazy things for this test to be wrong.


----------



## Einstruzende

DIRT BOY said:


> If this is true, what a BLOW to cycling! Even the nicest and best of guys can be cheaters too!...


People were saying the same thing about Tyler Hamilton two years ago...

Funny how three former teammates have now seemingly been busted for doping.


----------



## DIRT BOY

That's true. makes your really wonder who IS really clean....

I know a guy I loved in baseball was DIRTY. "Big Mac!"
Everyone know Bonds is as well, as Sammy...

mark and sammy, 2 great guys and two dopers. BUT in baseball it's not against the rules at that time.


----------



## wzq622

zeytin said:


> Oh I wasn't even rooting for Floyd when the race started and I am praying this isn't what it sounds like. Innocent until proven guilty right? Let's not all jump on a wagon until we find out what's what.



One would think/hope so, but relative to Ullrich's case the doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply


"Ullrich claims that there are no grounds for a process, and that his guilt must first be proven. 'That is nonsense," Walter said in Bild. "The presumption of innocence applies for those in normal courts. But we are dealing with a disciplinary procedure. The WADA code applies, and the athlete must prove his case.' " (Cyclingnews, _Swiss ready to move quickly on Ullrich case _ 7/27).


This could be the same case for Landis if the B sample is positive, or more simply Landis would be suspended and it would make matters for WADA simpler.


----------



## bas

Einstruzende said:


> People were saying the same thing about Tyler Hamilton two years ago...
> 
> Funny how three former teammates have now seemingly been busted for doping.



Armstrong was their teacher.


----------



## barry1021

-With all the scrutiny in the wake of the Ullrich and Basso disqualification scandal before the tour how could any rider possibly think they could get away with doping? I just don't get it.-

Sadly it appears the answer is that it it has become so institutionalized and refined that teams and riders believe thaey can do it and remain JUST below disqualification levels. But sometims it just doesnt't work out that way......

B21


----------



## pwagle

If this terrible news proves to be true, I can't help but think about Lance and the potential doping he may have gotten away with. I'm a LA fan (not the attitude), but sh*t like this with all the top riders and now Landis... it really makes you wonder, ya know? What a shame for pro-cycling.


----------



## philippec

Oh please -- the French aren't the one's testing positive here (not since Philippe Gaumont/Cofidis). And many people seem to like the race we put on every year -- it takes more major Cajones to put up the smallest little route arrow in this race than it ever will to sit behind the computer dissing the French!

I'm p!ssed about Floyd's A sample being positive (I really like the guy)and you are *not* helping my mood!


----------



## ttug

*uhhh no*



DIRT BOY said:


> Testosterone based steroids are usally used for muscle building. BUT yes, test injections will boost your energy levels for quite some time like 8-24hrs after initial injection.
> 
> This is why andro was popular before a rump in the sack and was almost approved as female ******.....but not as an acutal muscle building altgernative to test based steriods.



Test injections? Can you say placebo? As to performance in the sack and their relation to usage.........are you sure you want to use bad science? You are going up a very slippery slope here.......


----------



## JohnHemlock

A rider tested positive last year but was exonerated when it was determined he had naturally elevated levels. With the exertion displayed by Floyd on Stage 17, it is possible he would've had naturally elevated levels. I'm not going to convict him yet.


----------



## gambo2166

ESPN 1st and 10 are ripping Landis and the Tour saying that thay are all dopers and that cycling is a bunk sport. This is soo bad its not even confermed with the b sample yet.


----------



## bmp956

Wonder what LeMond is saying now? Feet-omelette for breakfast, Greg?


----------



## cyclodawg

*can't be right*

But...but...Greg Lemond said Floyd was clean...that finally a "clean rider" had won the TdF...


----------



## ttug

*yup*



bmp956 said:


> Wonder what LeMond is saying now? Feet-omelette for breakfast, Greg?


You mean Lemond and the squeaky clean 1980's group will have top STFU and wonder why the could not nail Lance. Man, this is a beer on the patio conversation if ever


----------



## Wookiebiker

Well, at least he finally made the main story of CNNSi.com. He wins the tour and he is basically a second page story, he turns up for a possible "Positive" on a drug test and he's front page.

Gotta love the media....


----------



## gregario

*Lemond*



chuckice said:


> From Phonak:
> 
> The Phonak Cycling Team was notified yesterday by the UCI of an unusual level of Testosteron/Epitestosteron ratio in the test made on Floyd Landis after stage 17 of the Tour de France.
> 
> The Team Management and the rider were both totally surprised of this physiological result.
> 
> The rider will ask in the upcoming days for the counter analysis to prove either that this result is coming from a natural process or that this is resulting from a mistake in the confirmation.
> 
> In application of the Pro Tour Ethical Code, the rider will not race anymore until this problem is totally clear.
> 
> If the result of the B sample analysis confirms the result of the A sample the rider will be dismissed and will then pass the corresponding endocrinological examinations.
> 
> Please understand that we cannot at this time give you more detailed comments


Looks like Lemond *may* have been wrong when he made his comments about Floyd winning clean. Say it ain't so Floyd!

Guess I'll have to change my signature.


----------



## randyg

Why does the UCI release info on the "A" test results if it is only the first step in the process? Cycling already has a suspect reputation and to release this information before it's confirmed with the "B" sample is crazy. 

Now, the whole world will think that Landis is a doper even if his "B" sample comes back clean and he is exonerated. The press is going to have a field day and certainly has already convicted him. No one will care what the B sample says at this point.


----------



## MB1

*LOL, I love this stuff.*



chuckice said:


> The Team Management and the rider were both totally surprised of this physiological result.


I haven't been so entertained in years, you couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:


----------



## gambo2166

randyg said:


> Why does the UCI release info on the "A" test results if it is only the first step in the process? Cycling already has a suspect reputation and to release this information before it's confirmed with the "B" sample is crazy.
> 
> Now, the whole world will think that Landis is a doper even if his "B" sample comes back clean and he is exonerated. The press is going to have a field day and certainly has already convicted him. No one will care what the B sample says at this point.



Yep.. Thay said nothing about a b sample on the news or ESPN it realy sucks..


----------



## pr0230

*Its NOT happening!*



Argentius said:


> Somebody tell me this is NOT happening...


Not Happening!


----------



## bmp956

It's like they lined up Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and Tooth Fairy for the firing squad. I'm personally crossing my fingers hoping the B sample will exonerate him. We still believe in innocent until proven guily, right? Would that kind of extreme physical exertion cause testosterone levels to be elevated naturally? I'm no scientist, just a guy who got punched in the stomach this morning. Ouch!


----------



## DIRT BOY

*What is the hormone is responsiable for sex drive?*

testosterone. If you raise your levels, your sex drive goes up as the willingness for sex. I did not say your will have "better performance."

yes they are many studies and andro was almost and still might be approved as female ******. It helps women with low sex drive and appetite espically after menopause.



ttug said:


> Test injections? Can you say placebo? As to performance in the sack and their relation to usage.........are you sure you want to use bad science? You are going up a very slippery slope here.......


----------



## ttug

*really?*



DIRT BOY said:


> testosterone. If you riase your levels, your sex drive goes up as the willingness for sex. I did not say your will have "better performance."
> 
> yes they are mnay studies ans andro was alomst and still might be approved as female ******. It helps women with low sex drive and appetite espically after menopause.



Provide a link for the studies. I use the NEJM.


----------



## Mad Clown

Here is a quote from Dr. James McBride Dabbs; Department of Psychology; Georgia State University:

"The very high testosterone male is likely to be lean and balding, oriented toward action rather than contemplation, combative and a bit wild."

This seems to fit Floyd, he has been wearing a hat is just about every interview, and the rest goes without saying.


----------



## RD-Man

*Isn't it possible...*

that after a ride like that, that his levels might have gotten boosted naturally??? Can this actually be determined? I know someone said this earlier, and I am hoping that this is true. Not knowing the man at all except through the press, this seems somehow out of character. It's true that you never know what's happening behind the scenes, but maybe--just maybe-- there's a natural explanation here. Let's hope so!!


----------



## Oldin Sloe

A short thought process.

Before the Tour a bunch of guys get popped for doping.

You blow up on a stage and lose your chance of winning the Tour.

Next day you make the ride of a couple of decades.

Would you not know you would be tested at the finish?

Could it have been done without you knowing?

Are they all on some sort of "program"? 

Lance was a super control freak about EVERYTHING. IE no mistakes in his program.

Just random thoughts.......I am not liking this situation at all. AND hope for a plausable explenation.

Rob


----------



## Shockee

What a crazy year. First Operacion Puerto breaks - the biggest scandal and tragedy in cycling history. Now an even worse drug scandal deeply taints the best Tour in decades! 

How can it possibly get any worse?  

Oh and I believe in innocent until shown guilty by suitable evidence, but I'm not gonna rely on the courts - after all they let OJ walk.


----------



## KenS

*Could Landis be that stupid?*

He had to know that a performance on Stage 17 like he did would lead to close scrutiny.


----------



## Belgian biker

JohnHemlock said:


> A rider tested positive last year but was exonerated when it was determined he had naturally elevated levels. With the exertion displayed by Floyd on Stage 17, it is possible he would've had naturally elevated levels. I'm not going to convict him yet.


You're talking about a Belgian tri athlete, Rutger Beke, who tested positive for epo ...
He's back in competition and sued the WADA.
Then there's the case of Danilo Hondo as well.


----------



## DIRT BOY

if I can find it, I will. It was about 2-3 yrs ago when the whole adro thing hit the fan.
About females or sex drive?

Not sure about the NEJM. That is one of the best puiblications and I know that.


----------



## CraigH

weltyed said:


> is there a link to that source? the phonak site is gettin slammed right now and i cant get it to open.


A slightly different version of the release is here:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/jul06/jul27news3


----------



## desurfer

If this turns out to be as bad as it sounds, then I'm washing my hands of pro cycling. I'll continue to have fun riding my bike and completely ignore these so-called 'athletes' who seem to be more into doping than pedaling. 
I'm so sick of all this! Be a man and train hard and ride to the best of your ability instead of trying to drug yourself to the next level.


----------



## Belgian biker

FondriestFan said:


> Good thing they don't test for estrogen, or we'd have no French riders.


No lack of testosterone here ..., human intelligence on the other hand.


----------



## DIRT BOY

I know it's stuff, but youmight as well give up watching ALL sports!
even swimmers and platform divers are doping.....

Drug use is rampant is every sport...


----------



## JohnHemlock

Through the early 90s, blood testosterone levels in potentially hypogonadal cases were actually tested "resting" and after significant exertion, the idea being that something like running stairs would elevate your testosterone levels significantly and reveal your high-end capacity to produce. As testing has gotten more sophisticated, this component of testosterone testing has largely gone by the wayside, but I think the science is stilll fairly solid.

I am not trying to play Johhny Cochran here, just trying to make sure the guy isn't convicted in a kangaroo court of internet gapers and TV media hacks.


----------



## rocco

gambo2166 said:


> ESPN 1st and 10 are ripping Landis and the Tour saying that thay are all dopers and that cycling is a bunk sport. This is soo bad its not even confermed with the b sample yet.



Perhaps it's their way of elevating their favorite American sports such as baseball and football which we all know are totally clean.


----------



## randyg

RD-Man said:


> ...but maybe--just maybe-- there's a natural explanation here. Let's hope so!!


It doesn't matter at this point what the B sample says or what explanation anyone comes up with. The process to convict Landis in the public's eye is already well down the road, thanks to the UCI for releasing the information. What a goofed up system. It's like they are their own worst enemy. 

If the B sample comes back negative, let's see them put that cat back in the bag.:mad2:


----------



## stevesbike

why does every forum devolve into a Lemond/Armstrong bashing? Lemond is a fan watching the tour like the rest of us-no official ties, no hidden incentives (not like he made any gains from Landis winning). Who didn't think if you can't believe a former mennonite who could you trust, especially after he looked human in stage 16

Floyd was the "everyman" the guy you could identify with. If this turns out to be confirmed, it is going to be the end of any trust in this sport. Personally, I wouldn't believe anyone again if this is confirmed.


----------



## DIRT BOY

LOL! That's right Football, baseball and even swimming is clean .

Ff there is money or glory to be had, drugs might/will come into play.


----------



## rocco

*Maybe it have it wrong but....*



Einstruzende said:


> People were saying the same thing about Tyler Hamilton two years ago...
> 
> Funny how three former teammates have now seemingly been busted for doping.


Are you saying that Hamilton and Landis were teammates? I think Hamilton was well on his way out of Phonak when Landis was coming on. I'm pretty sure Hamilton had left Postal before Landis joined Postal also.


----------



## tom_o

From cyclingnews:

Recovery products such as growth hormone and testosterone can be used with little risk of detection, at least with the current methods. Growth hormone is undetectable at the moment anyway, while testosterone can be injected as long as the athlete stays below the 4:1 testosterone:epitestosterone ratio. If his normal ratio is 2:1, that gives him a wide range to work within.

There is no cast-iron test to detect use of testosterone. Rather, a limit is applied to the ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone in a person's urine.

Most people have a ratio of between 1.5-2:1, but the limit - like the blood hematocrit limit of 50 percent - is 4:1 (for men) to allow for those with naturally high testosterone levels. If it's greater than this level, then it's considered a positive unless an athlete can prove that he is always this high.


----------



## rocco

DIRT BOY said:


> That's true. makes your really wonder who IS really clean....
> 
> I know a guy I loved in baseball was DIRTY. "Big Mac!"
> Everyone know Bonds is as well, as Sammy...
> 
> mark and sammy, 2 great guys and two dopers. BUT in baseball it's not against the rules at that time.



That ain't even close to naming all of the juiced players who were or are in MLB.


----------



## HokieRider

I have basically zero knowledge of if this is possible, but could his cortizone injections for his hip effect these results at all? Just curious. Hope it was just elevated because of his herculean effort, but with the state of cycling today, who knows but Floyd.


----------



## MikeBiker

It must have been a doped beer that Floyd had the evening before.


----------



## bonkmiester

MikeBiker said:


> It must have been a *doped beer* that Floyd had the evening before.


...should of had an Amstel _*Lite*_ ......

I am sorry, this isn't really funny, just nervous tension release.....i'll head for the rollers now......
b0nk


----------



## rocco

HokieRider said:


> I have basically zero knowledge of if this is possible, but could his cortizone injections for his hip effect these results at all?



I've been asking the same questions over in the other thread.


----------



## Ryano42

Exactly.

The UCI should have not let out names until the B test. 

At the moment, in non-Cycling circles, Landis is tried and convicted. 

And for the elevated levels, either natural or injected Floyd could have bench-pressed a Renault Le Car with one hand at the finish in Morzine...


----------



## 24Hours

FondriestFan said:


> Good thing they don't test for estrogen, or we'd have no French riders.


That's great!! 



weltyed said:


> How long till the B sample comes back?
> 
> and does anyone have a small freezer handy?


Yeah, that's what I was thinking. But freezing the sample wouldn't alter the testosterone levels unlike way that Tyler's test sample from the Olympics was ruined since it was the blood cells that were being analyzed. 

Floyd, WTF were you thinking???

:cryin:


----------



## Brad2021hk

I would like to assume their is a good explanation. It could still turn out okay. If it doesn't, I don't know. I am generally fairly cynical about a lot of things, but I really got behind Floyd this year. I just felt crushed watching stage 16. Couldn't even watch the last 10 minutes. The stage 17 comeback was so spectacular. For days, I went around enthusiastically telling people (non-cycling fans) about this epic performance. Roommates, family, friends, coworkers. Maybe it seems sort of selfish, but I would feel embarrassed. What happens when everyone starts asking about this result? Might have to adopt the common "No comment" stance.

As it might be a while until this resolves, I want to understand the science a little better. Is the testosterone test a blood test or a urine test? I'm guessing urine. Anyone know the popular methods for covering testosterone use? I hope one of them is not drinking a lot of water before the test.


----------



## bas

desurfer said:


> If this turns out to be as bad as it sounds, then I'm washing my hands of pro cycling. I'll continue to have fun riding my bike and completely ignore these so-called 'athletes' who seem to be more into doping than pedaling.
> I'm so sick of all this! Be a man and train hard and ride to the best of your ability instead of trying to drug yourself to the next level.



We might find our champions won't ride very well after age 30 ... careers shortened..


----------



## Dwayne Barry

desurfer said:


> Be a man and train hard and ride to the best of your ability instead of trying to drug yourself to the next level.


What if the top-level is only obtainable via drug use b/c "everyone" is taking PED?


----------



## tom_o

Doubtful that the cortisone shot would raise your test levels (but I'm not dr) as cortisone isn't an anabolic steroid.

Anyone smarter than me wanna chime in?


----------



## rocco

Tomakit said:


> Doubtful that the cortisone shot would raise your test levels (but I'm not dr) as cortisone isn't an anabolic steroid.
> 
> Anyone smarter than me wanna chime in?



To be specific I'm pretty sure he A tested positive for testosterone not necessarily anabolic steroids.


----------



## Bocephus Jones II

damn. I'm hanging out in the Lounge and PO from now on.


----------



## Dropped

C'mon, we all know Landis has enormous balls. No wonder he has raised levels of testosterone.

Seriously, though. If this is true, it's pretty messed up.


----------



## JohnHemlock

To add some levity to this thread. . . 

My father-in-law proposed marriage to a crack ***** this weekend. This is 100% the truth.


----------



## carlos

if you guys put the emotional side aside, you could see clearly that landis "performance" on that day was not "normal" by anymeans. this should be not surprise for anyone except people who believes in santa claus and mr.Bush.


----------



## DIRT BOY

Correct, there in nothing to detect HGH and why it it used my thousands and thousands of athletes.

testostertone test are farliy accurate. If you go over the ratio, it can be something naturally causing this or drugs. But the actual test is reliable.


----------



## DIRT BOY

if you test positive for testosterone, it's probaly anobolics.
Unless naturally your hormones got all out of wack.


----------



## Guest

Heart says I hope Landis is clean. The kid in me wants to believe in super human efforts and heros.

Mind questioned how anyone could perform the comeback Landis did.on that stage. Adult in me wants to beleive too, but has lived long enough to know that professional sports of all types are about winning.

Like many here, I was in awe of Landis' reversal over two days. Come out and re-assure us, Floyd. Unfortunately, I won't be shocked if you're stripped of your title, just disappointed (and being a Hamilton fan - I don't want to get used to this feeling again).

Time will tell.


----------



## kyler2001

rocco said:


> I've been asking the same questions over in the other thread.


As somebody noted, if it was the shots, why did it only show up after stage 17 and not any of the others? Not looking good...but who knows?


----------



## ridefar

*I am hesitant*

to judge my new hero until the "B" sample is tested and confirmed.

I will say though, that if it is positive, it will be the end of my interest in "pro" cycling.

I'm thinking the only clean sport left may in fact be curling.

:cryin:


----------



## Bocephus Jones II

DIRT BOY said:


> Correct, there in nothing to detect HGH and why it it used my thousands and thousands of athletes.
> 
> testostertone test are farliy accurate. If you go over the ratio, it can be something naturally causing this or drugs. But the actual test is reliable.


don't many of the drug companies put markers in their product as well that would show up in a test?


----------



## tom_o

rocco said:


> To be specific I'm pretty sure he A tested positive for testosterone not necessarily anabolic steroids.


His A tested positive that his epi-test/test ratio was out of whack, ie, higher than 4:1. This can be caused by two things:

1) His body naturally produces more testosterone
2) He supplied his body w/ exogenous testosterone

Any anabolic steroid will raise test levels, as they are all derivatives of testosterone.

What I was referring to, was another poster's question about whether the cortisone he was taking could lead to a false positive. And to my understanding, as it's not an anabolic steroid, it couldn't.

FYI - I hope Landis is innocent.


----------



## FatTireFred

Tomakit said:


> Doubtful that the cortisone shot would raise your test levels (but I'm not dr) as cortisone isn't an anabolic steroid.
> 
> Anyone smarter than me wanna chime in?



depends on the specificity of the assay, but they should be using something pretty specific


----------



## weltyed

*i dont think the UCI named names...*



Ryano42 said:


> Exactly.
> 
> The UCI should have not let out names until the B test.
> 
> At the moment, in non-Cycling circles, Landis is tried and convicted.


wasnt it phonak who made the first move to throw out the name? people on this board were putting two and two together all morning long and it boiled down to landis. i think phonak decided to make a public statement rather than hiding out and not answering phone calls.
and as far as being tried and convicted in non-cycling circles, the reason for that is the lack of the american press knowledge in this sport. heck, when OP went public, most american sport shows were claiming ullrich and basso were found guilty of doping and the tour kicked them out. neither had been proven guilty and the tour didnt refuse them, their DS wouldn't let them compete.


----------



## nzou

Does anyone have information on the assay used in this urine test, the sensitivity & specificity of the test, any drugs that may interfere, e.t.c.?


----------



## zeytin

Ryano42 said:


> Exactly.
> 
> The UCI should have not let out names until the B test.
> 
> At the moment, in non-Cycling circles, Landis is tried and convicted.
> 
> And for the elevated levels, either natural or injected Floyd could have bench-pressed a Renault Le Car with one hand at the finish in Morzine...


H3ll! even in Cycling circles he is tried and convicted read the postings!


----------



## DuGast

What an utter prick Landis is. Hope he burns in hell


----------



## MarkS

Abraham Lincoln best described how I feel right now when he told a story about a boy who stubbed his toe: He was too big to cry, but it hurt too much to laugh.


----------



## rocco

kyler2001 said:


> As somebody noted, if it was the shots, why did it only show up after stage 17 and not any of the others? Not looking good...but who knows?



Clearly we don't know because we don't have the expertise. It could be a combination of things for all we know.


----------



## bmp956

Ok, wiseguy, then who's eating the cookies and leaving presents under my tree? And don't all of us USers feel..so much... safer now.... since 9/11??? Gee, thanks for the reality check. Life does suck!


----------



## ttug

*ok, your wrong*



DIRT BOY said:


> Correct, there in nothing to detect HGH and why it it used my thousands and thousands of athletes.
> 
> testostertone test are farliy accurate. If you go over the ratio, it can be something naturally causing this or drugs. But the actual test is reliable.


If you do a thead search, you will find that the Hgh BS, total load of steamy fecal matter claims are pretty much false.

In fact, most of the evidence that was presented, on folks who were using Hgh (HIV and some athletes), use or overuse of Hgh actually lead to a decline in performance/muscular development. As to oh yeah, they all use it because it cant be detected, well, thats a whopper too.

While at this point the testing for Hgh is not there, it is not something if you doped to use as even now, there are no known associated performancer benefits. OF COURSE, we do lack those brave souls to come forth and say, sure I use it and test me.

There are several external factors which can lead to an increase in testosterone levels, excess seroid use leads to a decline in testosterone production, andf the placebo huge energy etc etc, yeah, thats pretty much in decline once use is discontinued or abuse prevails etc etc etc

SO, why are you spreading this stuff around? Are you just trtying to get stupid younger athletes killed by perpetuating the myth? So far, consider a new hobby, like, ever wonder what the occurence rate of rare blood diseases and cancers will be in athletes in the next 10 years? I just have this feeling......


----------



## Asiago

*curling*



ridefar said:


> I'm thinking the only clean sport left may in fact be curling.


Oh yeah, I'll watch the American women's team any day!


----------



## DIRT BOY

correct. Cortizone is NOT an anobloic steroid. Not all steroids are anobolic.


----------



## DIRT BOY

I don't think so. This is why HGH use is prevelent in Baseball and Football.
they can not detect it right now.


----------



## Alpedhuez55

chuckice said:


> I almost threw up when I got the email. Who wants a Phonak musette signed by all the riders?


I will trade you my signed Tyler Hamilton Jersey for it :mad2: 

THis really stinks. You have the last three grand tour winners all being implicated in Doping/Drug scandals. As much as I love the sport, I am getting tired of this crap. You hope it is some sort of false result. But the timing of it was right after the 17th stage. So that fantastic effort he put in may not have been clean.


----------



## ttug

*welcome*



DIRT BOY said:


> I don't think so. This is why HGH use is prevelent in Baseball and Football.
> they can not detect it right now.


Hey, you are making this up and this is what kills the athletes. Have you figured that out yet? You have no facts, the science as we know it says otherwise but your gut feeling is about as useful as balls on a priest or a screen door on a submarine.

I hope you figure that out one day, but until then, please, dont drive.


----------



## DIRT BOY

from what i read HGH is not detectable at this time. yes there is no specific SPORTS PERFORMANCE enhancements, but it's does have effects that athelets look for. Fat loss, and recvovery are some. Adbuse of ANY drug can be bad!

Now there are MANY BAD side effects to HGH use. 

There are many usefull benefits to HGH use and as the years go by, more info will come around.


----------



## DIRT BOY

Ok, you know everything right? Do you work with any athletes that are under Dr supervision? 

I think it was the 1992 Olympic(?) that the Chinese Womens swim team was busted for HGH use!
Word got by one of the swimmers.


----------



## trailertrash

maybe he felt he had no choice, he was basically out of the race. he came to win and he gambled on the test. at that point what did he have to loose when anything other that winning is loosing.


----------



## DIRT BOY

You realize that barry Bonds is accused of using HGH right? Are you aware that his scull actually grew larger and he wears a larger cap size?

Your are aware that HGH use can cause bone growth in adults? Like sculls, jaws, fingers, etc?


----------



## rocco

*I don't understand...*



Tomakit said:


> His A tested positive that his epi-test/test ratio was out of whack, ie, higher than 4:1. This can be caused by two things:
> 
> 1) His body naturally produces more testosterone
> 2) He supplied his body w/ exogenous testosterone
> 
> Any anabolic steroid will raise test levels, as they are all derivatives of testosterone.
> 
> What I was referring to, was another poster's question about whether the cortisone he was taking could lead to a false positive. And to my understanding, as it's not an anabolic steroid, it couldn't.
> 
> FYI - I hope Landis is innocent.


Cortisone is not a derivative of testosterone?


----------



## ttug

*so?*



DIRT BOY said:


> Ok, you know everything right? Do you work with any athletes that are under Dr supervision?
> 
> I think it was the 1992 Olympic(?) that the Chinese Womens swim team was busted for HGH use!
> Word got by one of the swimmers.


They used it? So? Were they tested for it? No. It was a rumor and so, once again, although we know that there are cases iof decreased aerobic capacity in populationsd where Hgh is "abused" we "know" all of the benefits as to recovery etc etc etc? Actually, no we dont. In fact, we know there is no 100% accurate way to say, wow this stuff is great and here is what it does. At this point, its bad science abd at best science fiction.

I know enough to know that I look at the science and what I can get before I screw around with my body. I have done enough sports to know that guess what? If you dont have the talent, the dope will not work. OOOOOPS another myth gone, doping will not give you the performance like Popeye and the Spinach. You have to have talent and you derive the benefits from the ability to train way above what you could normally. You derive a performance benefit from just that. NOT, hey here is a hard course, give me the dope Doc. Thats stupid crazy talk among 20 year olds on a group ride..


----------



## dagger

*LoL*



FondriestFan said:


> Good thing they don't test for estrogen, or we'd have no French riders.


I needed a good laugh.


----------



## culdeus

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 410 (240 members and 170 guests)


----------



## snowman3

Oh, what a wonderfull way to wake up on the west coast. At least I can get the news out of the way before starting the day. Total bummer. 

FYI this article on Fox news has a nice summary of other fox articles on the TdF.

http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/5822020?FSO1&ATT=HCP&GT1=8393


----------



## rocco

DIRT BOY said:


> correct. Cortizone is NOT an anobloic steroid. Not all steroids are anobolic.



So cortisone is a steroid but not an anobilic steriod? I still don't understand why cortisone wouldn't trip a positive test for testosterone. 

The RBR server is melting down right now....


----------



## kyler2001

Tomakit-"His A tested positive that his epi-test/test ratio was out of whack, ie, higher than 4:1. This can be caused by two things:

1) His body naturally produces more testosterone"

Is there a way to test for this? Has it been documented that certain people have the natural ability to produce an abnormal amount of testo under stressful/physical situations? Not daily, but when faced with certain situations, could it happen?


----------



## tom_o

rocco said:


> Cortisone is not a derivative of testosterone?


It is.

From Wiki:

# Anabolic steroids are a class of steroids that interact with androgen receptors to increase muscle and bone synthesis. There are natural and synthetic anabolic steroids. These are the "steroids" used by athletes to increase performance.
# Corticosteroids include glucocorticoid and mineralocorticoids:

Coritsone is a Corticosteroid. And from my understanding of the subject (however limited) it cannot raise your testosterone levels.


----------



## Shockee

*Lancaster parish Pastor's sermon*

... and let that serve as a lesson about leaving your brothers and sisters to live 'among the English' in their worldly corruption!


----------



## tom_o

kyler2001 said:


> Is there a way to test for this? Has it been documented that certain people have the natural ability to produce an abnormal amount of testo under stressful/physical situations? Not daily, but when faced with certain situations, could it happen?


From cyclingnews:

Most people have a ratio of between 1.5-2:1, but the limit - like the blood hematocrit limit of 50 percent - is 4:1 (for men) to allow for those with naturally high testosterone levels. If it's greater than this level, then it's considered a positive unless an athlete can prove that he is always this high.


And from Landis's mom:

"I didn't talk to him since that (s)hit the fan, but I'm keeping things even keel until I know what the facts are," she told The Associated Press in a phone interview from her home in Farmersville, Pennsylvania. "I know that this is a temptation to every rider but I'm not going to jump to conclusions ... It disappoints me."

<-- trying to keep an even keel until we know all the facts.


----------



## DIRT BOY

Did I EVER say that GHGH or any other steriod will make you a better athlete?
*NO!
*Correct, you must have the talent and ability to be a GREAT athlete.

Yes, there are NO studies showing that steriods will specially make you faster, hit a ball farther or sprint faster and there is not testing for this as they are Illegal unless pesrcribed by a doctor.

BUT we know all the effects of steriods and HGH on by body. Those effects* DO *make you stronger, muscular or leaner. Now how this translates to performance on the field, court or road is debatable.

Let's say someone who can hit a baseball very well and has power now, becomes more muscluar and stronger and can retain his hitting, bat speed (or increase it) and still hit the ball correctly. Would that extra strength not increase his ability to hit homeruns farther and more often?

Why are sprinters always being busted for steriods? You muscles become faster and you produce more power, which make you run faster.

Have your ever watched the Olympics? Wonder why in the 60's during the Olympics the Eastern Block countires became so dominant?

Do you ever talk to kids and adults from staying away from steriods? Well I do, as it's part of the nature in my profession about drugs use to make me stronger, look better, perform better on the field, etc. I use what knowlegde, experience dr's advice/experience/knowledge and reading that I have to present the case in a netrual stand point and let adults makes their own decisions. being a Fitness professional, i get numerous questions about steriods and supplements from all walks of life, and do my BEST to give them Accurate information, based on reading and studies and NOT on my personal opinions most of the time.

I have NEVER adivicated to any non-adult to use or consider steriods for any reason. So know i am not poisioning kids like you suggested, but the opposite.

I agree with you. NEVER put anything in your body unless you knw every pro and con of the supplement or drugs, OTC or illegal!!


----------



## mtbykr

*ok*

I posted this in another thread:



> I heard on ESPNEWS (ya ya i know they suck) than Landis was approved by the UCI for cortizone shots during the tour. If this is correct then it makes sense because cortizon shots are known to elevate testosterone levels in the body. IF this is true, it really looks dumb-----the UCI approve this knowing the "sideeffects" and then say he test positive
> 
> IF it's true! I guess we will see




First of all let's not jump the gun with the "well look at his stage 17 performance, it's obvious" crap. Look at the facts---his powertap numbers are right down the middle with his normal output--nothing special. He just went at the right time and then maintained. Also let's remember that the testosterone test is at best "subjective". Don't forget also that 100% of all riders who have appealed a positive testosterone test throughout history have been cleared----*100%*


----------



## Der Kranz

of all the "dopers", i still would've rather seen ulle win.


----------



## surista

God. You know that pit in the bottom of your stomach you get when you get sucker-punched in the gut? That's what this feels like. I wrote a blog essay about Landis being my new hero, since my old hero (Agassi) was retiring. That the amazing, jaw-dropping performance of stage 17 could have been tainted...I can only pray that the B test comes back false, and/or there's a natural explanation for the false positive. Still, I'm glad I didn't pre-order the 2006 TdF DVD...

BTW, I would have sworn that the first three finishers of every stage were routinely tested as a matter of course at the TdF. My impression was that Landis had to have known that he'd be tested. 

And since by law every thread has to have a Lance connection - I personally think that every time a big name is caught, it makes Lance's position _better_. If big guns like Basso, Ulrich, Hamilton, (and maybe Landis?) can get caught, how in the heck could LA not get caught, especially when he was tested so much more often? I can't believe that LA's team somehow had this fantastic technology available only to them.


----------



## JHawkWX

The AP story reads like Landis mysteriously disappeared into the shadows, not showing up for the 2 races today and yesterday. Meanwhile, there's no effort made to show casual readers that this is cycling protocol at work, rather than Landis ducking the country because he's guilty. Of course, the AP has the journalistic integrity of the police scanner chasers on my local news....


----------



## Guest

I actually heard an interesting tid-bit on the radio yesterday, whether true or not I don't know, but what they reported.

In the NFL, the Player's have a clause in their CBA requiring that they receive a minimum of 43 days notice of any request for or appointment for drug testing, etc.

May explain why relatively few of the NFL players are actually found out. If they can't be tested without warning and they have 43 days to drink lots of water ..............


----------



## tom_o

Does anyone, with I dunno, say a medical degree, and/or firsthand knowledge of this subject know FOR SURE that cortisone administration could lead to a whacky epitest/test ratio?


----------



## brianmcg

mtbykr said:


> I posted this in another thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all let's not jump the gun with the "well look at his stage 17 performance, it's obvious" crap. Look at the facts---his powertap numbers are right down the middle with his normal output--nothing special. He just went at the right time and then maintained. Also let's remember that the testosterone test is at best "subjective". Don't forget also that 100% of all riders who have appealed a positive testosterone test throughout history have been cleared----*100%*



I heard that about the testosterone test today also.


----------



## waterloo

I'm not already assuming that FLandis is guilty, but the only chance of putting an end to doping in the pro peloton is a lifetime ban if someone is found guilty. Otherwise these guys are willing to take the chance of getting caught and only facing a four year ban.

I guess in FLandis' mind, it might have been different because he may be thinking this was his last Tour due to the hip, so why not. But in every other rider's case, a lifetime ban is the only way to even hope for an end of doping.

In any case, here's to FLandis' B test being negative, a sucessful hip replacement and another Tour win next year, even if he's riding a recumbent.


----------



## trailertrash

*just currious*



mtbykr said:


> Look at the facts---his powertap numbers are right down the middle with his normal output--nothing special.


where can i look at these numbers?



mtbykr said:


> Don't forget also that 100% of all riders who have appealed a positive testosterone test throughout history have been cleared----*100%*


where is this documented?


----------



## coreyb

surista said:


> I personally think that every time a big name is caught, it makes Lance's position _better_. If big guns like Basso, Ulrich, Hamilton, (and maybe Landis?) can get caught, how in the heck could LA not get caught, especially when he was tested so much more often? I can't believe that LA's team somehow had this fantastic technology available only to them.


Any theoretical technology would not have helped Basso & Ullrich-they didn't test positive


----------



## ttug

*wrong again*



DIRT BOY said:


> Did I EVER say that GHGH or any other steriod will make you a better athlete?
> *NO!
> *Correct, you must have the talent and ability to be a GREAT athlete.
> 
> Yes, there are NO studies showing that steriods will specially make you faster, hit a ball farther or sprint faster and there is not testing for this as they are Illegal unless pesrcribed by a doctor.
> 
> BUT we know all the effects of steriods and HGH on by body. Those effects* DO *make you stronger, muscular or leaner. N


They do not. There is not a 100% proven course of taking Hgh or Ghgh where the benefits you state take place. It is false. It is invalid. Seriod use will NOT make you leaner, (in general). WEant to break laws of physics and tell me how gains in mass make you leaner? I await with baited breath.....

Additionally, referring to the posts on Barry Bonds and his hat size etc etc You know his hate size? He wears the same maufacturer of the hat, he did gain weight, but rather, his skull acquired actual bone mass huh? This is freak on a leash stuff man. You need to go get high and start making sense OK?


----------



## surista

coreyb said:


> Any theoretical technology would not have helped Basso & Ullrich-they didn't test positive


True - but the still left enough evidence to be closely linked. LA never did. So, either he was just smarter, luckier...or cleaner.


----------



## mtbykr

*ok*



trailertrash said:


> where can i look at these numbers?
> 
> 
> 
> where is this documented?



I heard the powertap numbers form his coach during an interview. Both of these claims i put on here were also posted by John Eustice of ESPN. He is the "cycling expert". He even said this on ESPNNEWS around 11.30 this morning.


----------



## Brad2021hk

waterloo said:


> I'm not already assuming that FLandis is guilty, but the only chance of putting an end to doping in the pro peloton is a lifetime ban if someone is found guilty. Otherwise these guys are willing to take the chance of getting caught and only facing a four year ban.


4 years seems about like a lifetime ban to me. We have data to show people are coming back from 2 year bans -- but are they successful? Seems 4 years of one's prime years might as well be a lifetime. Who was the first big name to take a 4 year ban?


----------



## rogger

FondriestFan said:


> Good thing they don't test for estrogen, or we'd have no French riders.



Can we get a round of applause? He'll be here all night.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Tomakit said:


> It is.


It is not. All steroids are derived from cholesterol. Testosterone and Cortisol have common precursors. See this diagram:

http://www.yourmenopausetype.com/steroidpathway/steroidpathway.htm


----------



## tom_o

ttug said:


> Additionally, referring to the posts on Barry Bonds and his hat size etc etc You know his hate size? He wears the same maufacturer of the hat, he did gain weight, but rather, his skull acquired actual bone mass huh? This is freak on a leash stuff man. You need to go get high and start making sense OK?



On Hgh and acromegaly: 

Features that result from high level of hGH or expanding tumor include:

* Soft tissue swelling of the hands and feet
* Brow and lower jaw protrusion
* Enlarging hands
* Enlarging feet

Now, can we see this in Barry Bonds? Some would say no. I say yes.


----------



## philq76

*UCI : Universal Corruption Institute?*

Let's not forget that the UCI is a French organization. If you are French on this forum, I hate to generalize, but they hate Americans. Not all French, but lots of them do, esp. those at the UCI. They were so glad Lance was gone and that maybe they could finally rebound from the 21 year drought of a French rider winning the Tour, that when Landis won, it drove them mad. Landis had the yellow jersey several times throughout the Tour and there was never any inkling about doping or testing positive or anything, and he would have been tested before Stage 17 I am sure. Just because he came back in Stage 17 doesn't mean he cheated. He certainly would have known that coming back from a 10 minute deficit to win the stage would draw some scrutiny, so I don't think he would have done something that stupid. Landis went thru 71 water bottles on Stage 17, how were there any nutrients in his urine. Dumb Americans who don't know anything about cycling in the mainstream media are all too happy to report on a cheater and throw someone under the bus without the full story. Who's doing this story? Dan Rather? I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised that the UCI knew that cortisone boosted testosterone levels, approved it for Landis to use, and kept that in their back pocket as an ace in case he won the Tour. I really don't want to believe that the sport is this crooked, but again I won't be surprised. I have go on long enough, but this is ridiculous. Landis won the Tour. Deal with it UCI, better luck for the French riders next year.


----------



## tom_o

Dwayne Barry said:


> It is not. All steroids are derived from cholesterol. Testosterone and Cortisol have common precursors. See this diagram:
> 
> http://www.yourmenopausetype.com/steroidpathway/steroidpathway.htm


Right, that much I know.

What I didn't know is how cortisone would affect the epi-test/test ratio, as that's what's being questioned here, by the UCI.


----------



## Sintesi

JohnHenry said:


> Here we go.
> 
> Didn't Phonak have some doping issues last year?
> 
> Can Floyd use the chimera defense?


He has vanishing triplets.


----------



## distinct

If one were to take an estrogen suppressing supplement, such as zinc, would it do enough to make it look like you're abusing test, or would it do anything at all? Who knows...


----------



## ttug

*hmmm*



Tomakit said:


> On Hgh and acromegaly:
> 
> Features that result from high level of hGH or expanding tumor include:
> 
> * Soft tissue swelling of the hands and feet
> * Brow and lower jaw protrusion
> * Enlarging hands
> * Enlarging feet
> 
> Now, can we see this in Barry Bonds? Some would say no. I say yes.


So you have his genetic profile on disk somewhere?

Again, this is a potential, NOT oh man, look at that he must be abusing Hgh etc etc etc etc This is comical at best and at worst, ignorant.


----------



## Alpedhuez55

surista said:


> And since by law every thread has to have a Lance connection - I personally think that every time a big name is caught, it makes Lance's position _better_. If big guns like Basso, Ulrich, Hamilton, (and maybe Landis?) can get caught, how in the heck could LA not get caught, especially when he was tested so much more often? I can't believe that LA's team somehow had this fantastic technology available only to them.


It could be a lot of things. They could be clean. They could be that they use better masking agents. THey could be using experimental drugs that are not tested for yet. It could be they have their Team Doctors shred everything or are more careful with their record keeping than the ones involved in Poeration Puerto were.

When your three highest profile defections all get caught for something after leaving your team, you have to wonder if there is something that could come back to implicate you.


----------



## stevesbike

sure, they would like nothing better than to dismantle one of the biggest stories in years in the tour..a superb "comeback" ride after a tour that started with a big dopping scandel. I'm sure the tour organizers secretly love it too-sure. Think what this means for the sport, for sponsors-if you're ishares would you want to touch this team now??? This is like the 4th rider from the squad testing positive...if true this is going to bring down the whole sport...


----------



## tom_o

ttug said:


> So you have his genetic profile on disk somewhere?
> 
> Again, this is a potential, NOT oh man, look at that he must be abusing Hgh etc etc etc etc This is comical at best and at worst, ignorant.


No, I do not, and have not claimed to have his genetic profile on disc anywhere. What I was doing was responding to your post about hgh where you stated - "He wears the same maufacturer of the hat, he did gain weight, but rather, his skull acquired actual bone mass huh? This is freak on a leash stuff man."

I came back with, "yeah, if he administered enough hgh, he could have induced acromegaly. And in my opinion, he has."

How did we get so off track?


----------



## Guest

toomanybikes said:


> In the NFL, the Player's have a clause in their CBA requiring that they receive a minimum of 43 days notice of any request for or appointment for drug testing, etc.


What a freaking joke! 43 days!!!?


----------



## benInMA

Not much chance of a good explanation for this positive IMO.

The test already allows the cyclist to have 4x the normal Testosterone:Epitestosterone ratio. How on earth does any natural process cause it to spike that badly? 

The reason other guys don't get caught and Floyd shouldn't have got caught is they usually supplement with an equal amount of epitestosterone to keep the ratio within the limits.. Floyd could have been using it the entire tour and there was just a screw up in his doping regime that caused him to fail the test.

The test doesn't attempt to keep the riders clean, just keep them cheating equally within a given limit that far exceeds the normal limit so that it doesn't get false positives with the occasional rare athlete who has a naturally elevated ratio. Testosterone is like hGH the testers can't differentiate natural testosterone from synthetic so they have to use a different tactic. This is the same thing as use the hematocrit limit before the EPO test was invented.

People pointing at lance all these years can use this argument... given a smart enough doping regime the test limits leave plenty of room to dope without testing positive. If you believe the conspiracy theory that all pro cyclists are dopers you just have to tell yourself the guys who get caught are just the guys who screw up.


----------



## mtbykr

*well*

something is funny here.... Every rider that has ever appealed/refuted the positive testosterone test has won their case. WHY? Because the test is so subjective. Even if the "B" sample is positive, then most likely floyd will win his appeal. However the damage will be done as most people will still associate floyd's win with a positive test. The UCI knows this...that coupled with the cortizone shots (if it is true that he was allowed to have then during the tour) really raises some interesting questions as to why they are killing him like this right now.


----------



## DIRT BOY

ttug said:


> They do not. There is not a 100% proven course of taking Hgh or Ghgh where the benefits you state take place. It is false. It is invalid. Seriod use will NOT make you leaner, (in general). WEant to break laws of physics and tell me how gains in mass make you leaner? I await with baited breath.....


Well, I have read that studies in the past show that HGH can promote fat loss and general recovery. 
Pleanty of other uses for cancer pateints and others. Read your NMJ again.

*Functions of GH*

Effects of growth hormone on the tissues of the body can generally be described as anabolic (building up). Like most other protein hormones GH acts by interacting with a specific receptor on the surface of cells.
Height growth in childhood is the best known effect of GH action, and appears to be stimulated by at least two mechanisms. 1. GH directly stimulates division and multiplication of chondrocytes of cartilage. These are the primary cells in the growing ends (epiphyses) of children's long bones (arms, legs, digits). 2. GH also stimulates production of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1, formerly known as somatomedin C), a hormone homologous to proinsulin. The liver is a major target organ of GH for this process, and is the principal site of IGF-1 production. IGF-1 has growth-stimulating effects on a wide variety of tissues. Additional IGF-1 is generated within target tissues, making it apparently both an endocrine and an autocrine/paracrine hormone.
Although height growth is the best known effect of GH, it serves many other metabolic functions as well. GH increases calcium retention, and strengthens and increases the mineralization of bone. It increases muscle mass. It induces protein synthesis and growth of many different organ systems of the body, resulting in a "positive nitrogen balance".
GH stimulates the immune system.
GH plays a role in fuel homeostasis. GH reduces liver uptake of glucose, an effect that opposes that of insulin. GH also contributes to the maintenance and function of pancreatic islets. It tends to promote lipolysis, which results in some reduction of adipose tissue (body fat) and rising amounts of free fatty acids and glycerol in the blood.
[edit]

*Clinical problems: too much and too little*

[edit]

*Growth hormone excess: (acromegaly and pituitary gigantism)*

The most common disease of GH excess is a pituitary tumor comprised of somatotroph cells of the anterior pituitary. These somatotroph adenomas are benign and grow slowly, gradually producing more and more GH. For years, the principal clinical problems are those of GH excess. Eventually the adenoma may become large enough to cause headaches, impair vision by pressure on the optic nerves, or cause deficiency of other pituitary hormones by displacement.
Prolonged GH excess thickens the bones of the jaw, fingers and toes. Resulting heaviness of the jaw and increased thickness of digits is referred to as acromegaly. Accompanying problems can include pressure on nerves (e.g., carpal tunnel syndrome), muscle weakness, insulin resistance or even a rare form of type 2 diabetes, and reduced sexual function.
GH-secreting tumors are typically recognized in the 5th decade of life. It is extremely rare for such a tumor to occur in childhood, but when it does the excessive GH can cause excessive growth, traditionally referred to as pituitary gigantism.
Surgical removal is the usual treatment for GH-producing tumors. In some circumstances focused radiation or a GH antagonist such as bromocriptine or octreotide may be employed to shrink the tumor or block function.
[edit]

*Growth hormone deficiency (GHD)*

Deficiency of GH produces significantly different problems at various ages. In children, growth failure and short stature are the major manifestations of GH deficiency. In adults the effects of deficiency are more subtle, and may include deficiencies of strength, energy, and bone mass, as well as increased cardiovascular risk.
There are many causes of GH deficiency, including mutations of specific genes, congenital malformations involving the hypothalamus and/or pituitary gland, and damage to the pituitary from injury, surgery or disease.
Diagnosis of GH deficiency involves a multiple step diagnostic process, usually culminating in GH stimulation test(s) to see if the patient's pituitary gland will release a pulse of GH when provoked by various stimuli.
GH deficiency is treated by replacing GH. All GH in current use is a biosynthetic version of human GH, manufactured by recombinant DNA technology. As GH is a large protein molecule, it must be injected into subcutaneous tissue (or muscle) to get it into the blood. When the patient has had a long-standing deficiency of GH, benefits of treatment are often dramatic and gratifying and side effects of treatment are rare. Increased growth in childhood can result in dramatically improved adult height.
GH is used as replacement therapy in adults with GH deficiency of either childhood-onset (after completing growth phase) or adult-onset (usually as a result of an acquired pituitary tumor). In these patients, benefits have variably included reduced fat mass, increased lean mass, increased bone density, improved lipid profile, reduced cardiovascular risk factors, and improved psychosocial well-being.
This topic is treated more fully in the articles growth hormone deficiency and growth hormone treatment.
[edit]

*Other GH uses and treatment indications*

Many other conditions besides GH deficiency cause poor growth, but growth benefits (height gains) are often poorer than when GH deficiency is treated. Examples of other causes of shortness often treated with growth hormone are Turner syndrome, chronic renal failure, Prader-Willi syndrome, intrauterine growth retardation, and severe idiopathic short stature. Higher ("pharmacologic") doses are required to produce significant acceleration of growth in these conditions, producing blood levels well above physiologic. Despite the higher doses, side effects during treatment are rare, and vary little according to the condition being treated.
Sometimes GH is used for other benefits than height. GH treatment improves muscle strength and slightly reduce body fat in Prader-Willi syndrome, benefits more important to these children than increased height. It has also been shown to help maintain muscle mass in AIDS wasting. GH can also be used in patients with short bowel syndrome to lessen the requirement for intravenous parenteral nutrition.
Uses that are controversial include
GH treatment to reverse effects of aging in older adults
GH treatment to enhance weight loss in obesity
GH treatment for fibromyalgia
GH treatment for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis
GH treatment for idiopathic short stature
GH treatment for bodybuilding or athletic enhancement
[edit]

*Risks of GH treatment*

Risks of treatment are quite rare when GH is given in replacement doses to deficient children and adults. Risks are uncommon even when used in "pharmacologic doses" for other reasons, but there are more unanswered questions about risk:benefit ratios for other uses.




> Additionally, referring to the posts on Barry Bonds and his hat size etc etc You know his hate size? He wears the same maufacturer of the hat, he did gain weight, but rather, his skull acquired actual bone mass huh? This is freak on a leash stuff man. You need to go get high and start making sense OK?


Yes, reporters from SF have gotten and posted information on barry bond's hat size when he was younger and now. This was all over talk radio. Did I see the hat size in person? 
No, but going on what was reported. There is a differnce that is not normal. Your head does not grow nautrally at his age.

Most with any type of eye can see the structual difference in Barry Bond's head and face. Ask a Dr with experience in HGH use ....

The hat size has been in plenty of speculation on him getting bigger over the years. And no you can not convict him because his head is bigger. even if he did admit to it, HGH and along with anobolic Steriods is NOT against the law if perscribed by DR for legitimate medical use.


----------



## coreyb

philq76 said:


> Let's not forget that the UCI is a French organization.


I thought they were an international organization based in switzerland. Did I miss something?


philq76 said:


> If you are French on this forum, I hate to generalize, but they hate Americans. Not all French, but lots of them do, esp. those at the UCI.


An often cited claim that is very rarely based on any factual evidence


philq76 said:


> He certainly would have known that coming back from a 10 minute deficit to win the stage would draw some scrutiny, so I don't think he would have done something that stupid.


How exactly would the comeback draw any more scrutiny than normal as it relates to drug testing? And given your UCI anti american conspiracy, why would it matter how he won?


philq76 said:


> Landis went thru 71 water bottles on Stage 17, how were there any nutrients in his urine.


What?


philq76 said:


> I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised that the UCI knew that cortisone boosted testosterone levels, approved it for Landis to use, and kept that in their back pocket as an ace in case he won the Tour.


If it can be documented that it does raise testosterone, his appeal should easily be won. 


philq76 said:


> this is ridiculous.


Yes, yes it is.


philq76 said:


> Landis won the Tour.


Potentially as a result of PED. Deal with it


Incidentally, who are the French riders they are trying to help by taking Phloyd down? Even with him knocked off the podium, Dessel still won't even be top 5. Perhaps you think we will here of a handful of other announcements soon?


----------



## James OCLV

mtbykr said:


> something is funny here.... Every rider that has ever appealed/refuted the positive testosterone test has won their case. WHY? Because the test is so subjective. Even if the "B" sample is positive, then most likely floyd will win his appeal. However the damage will be done as most people will still associate floyd's win with a positive test. The UCI knows this...that coupled with the cortizone shots (if it is true that he was allowed to have then during the tour) really raises some interesting questions as to why they are killing him like this right now.


_They_ are killing him? _They_ aren't the ones that relased his name. It was Phonak.


----------



## waterloo

Brad2021hk said:


> 4 years seems about like a lifetime ban to me. We have data to show people are coming back from 2 year bans -- but are they successful? Seems 4 years of one's prime years might as well be a lifetime. Who was the first big name to take a 4 year ban?


Seems ABOUT, but not totally. You think if Basso is found guilty, he's not going to try and come back? Why even leave a guilty rider a chance to ever come back? Get rid of them, enough!


----------



## DIRT BOY

Correct, maybe he was using something similar to Barry Bonds and other baseball players were using called "The Clear."

Who knows! they are undetectable steriods on the market as we speak.

We will never know. we can only go by his testing and his word.


----------



## coreyb

benInMA said:


> The test already allows the cyclist to have 4x the normal Testosterone:Epitestosterone ratio. How on earth does any natural process cause it to spike that badly?


I thought they allowed up to a 4:1 ratio, which is roughly 2-2.5 average-though somee people have normally high ratios that approach this level.


----------



## tom_o

coreyb said:


> I thought they allowed up to a 4:1 ratio, which is roughly 2-2.5 average-though somee people have normally high ratios that approach this level.


That was my understanding also.

That's also what cyclingnew.com reported: Most people have a ratio of between 1.5-2:1, but the limit - like the blood hematocrit limit of 50 percent - is 4:1 (for men) to allow for those with naturally high testosterone levels. If it's greater than this level, then it's considered a positive unless an athlete can prove that he is always this high.


----------



## Alpedhuez55

ttug said:


> So you have his genetic profile on disk somewhere?
> 
> Again, this is a potential, NOT oh man, look at that he must be abusing Hgh etc etc etc etc This is comical at best and at worst, ignorant.


Bonds does not abuse HGH or steroids. His head just looks bigger because he shaved his mustache.










It is a crime that all of the Balco people (Bonds, Giambi, Sheffield) are still playing.

You have to give Cycling some credit for trying to clean up it's act. It is just sad when the winners last three Grand Tours are all under suspicion.


----------



## jason_haza

*You called it dude...*



randyg said:


> Why does the UCI release info on the "A" test results if it is only the first step in the process? Cycling already has a suspect reputation and to release this information before it's confirmed with the "B" sample is crazy.
> 
> Now, the whole world will think that Landis is a doper even if his "B" sample comes back clean and he is exonerated. The press is going to have a field day and certainly has already convicted him. No one will care what the B sample says at this point.



The best and sanest observation on this board


----------



## tom_o

Alpedhuez55 said:


> Bonds does not abuse HGH or steroids. His head just looks bigger because he shaved his mustache.


Clearly it's the camera angle/distance to the monster 'noggin that's making his head look so large


----------



## mtbykr

*come on*



James OCLV said:


> _They_ are killing him? _They_ aren't the ones that relased his name. It was Phonak.


Use some common sense here. Phonak was notified, and they knew his name was going to come out sooner than later--not to mention the fact that he had to leave and not do the races until this was taken care of. It was obvioius who it was and Phonak just came out with it to show that they had nothing to hide.

Common sense goes a long way


----------



## rocco

mtbykr said:


> something is funny here.... Every rider that has ever appealed/refuted the positive testosterone test has won their case. WHY? Because the test is so subjective. Even if the "B" sample is positive, then most likely floyd will win his appeal. However the damage will be done as most people will still associate floyd's win with a positive test. The UCI knows this...that coupled with the cortizone shots (if it is true that he was allowed to have then during the tour) really raises some interesting questions as to why they are killing him like this right now.



I have a hunch that the cortisone is a player in this situation but the strange thing is that cortisone suppresses the creation of natural testosterone. Perhaps he was taking anabolic steriods to counterbalance his suppressed natural testosterone level due to the cortisone? Perhaps his bad day had something to do with his high cortisol level? ...or perhaps his testosterone level was shooting up as his cortisone level was droping?

Gee whiz, I don't know.... tooo much information and not enough knowledge.


----------



## DIRT BOY

They have standards set for athletes. If you go ever your second sample is checked. if you go over again, you must prove this happend naturally or is come across as drug use. No I have NO idea how they show it's natural.


----------



## DIRT BOY

if he was taking anobolics to level things out, this would have not be approved by the UCI and TDF right?
I guess time will tell......


----------



## tom_o

DIRT BOY said:


> if he was taking anobolics to level things out, this would have not be approved by the UCI and TDF right?
> I guess time will tell......


O boy.

Correct, whether it be in-competition or out of competition, under UCI rules, you cannot administer anabolic steroids. They are, what we commonly refer to them as, banned substances.


----------



## philq76

*Not a conspiracy theory*

I am not saying that it is a conspiracy, and I am not saying that it is specific French riders and/ or teams. I am saying that the UCI, which has an HQ in France, that they showed during the Tour, hates Americans and they are pissed that another American won and that it is suspect that though Landis was in yellow several times, early in the Tour, that no positive "doping" tests came out. Testosterone is not doping, so there is no messup in the doping regime. Landis' coach, Robbie Ventura, said Landis went through 71 bottles on Stage 17, if you were watching the OLN coverage of the race the next day. He sat in a was talking about his recovery, etc. Anyway, I don't believe that he cheated and hopefully the facts will bear that out. That's my opinion.


----------



## philq76

*Not a conspiracy theory*

I am not saying that it is a conspiracy, and I am not saying that it is specific French riders and/ or teams. I am saying that the UCI, which has an HQ in France, that they showed during the Tour, hates Americans and they are pissed that another American won and that it is suspect that though Landis was in yellow several times, early in the Tour, that no positive "doping" tests came out. I am also saying that Landis went out with the intention of winning the stage, so winning the stage automatically subjects you to testing, that is what is meant by "more scrutiny" Testosterone is not doping, so there is no messup in the doping regime. Landis' coach, Robbie Ventura, said Landis went through 71 bottles on Stage 17, if you were watching the OLN coverage of the race the next day. He sat in a was talking about his recovery, etc. Anyway, I don't believe that he cheated and hopefully the facts will bear that out. That's my opinion.


----------



## philippec

philq76 said:


> Let's not forget that the UCI is a French organization. If you are French on this forum, I hate to generalize, but they hate Americans. Not all French, but lots of them do, esp. those at the UCI. They were so glad Lance was gone and that maybe they could finally rebound from the 21 year drought of a French rider winning the Tour, that when Landis won, it drove them mad. Landis had the yellow jersey several times throughout the Tour and there was never any inkling about doping or testing positive or anything, and he would have been tested before Stage 17 I am sure. Just because he came back in Stage 17 doesn't mean he cheated. He certainly would have known that coming back from a 10 minute deficit to win the stage would draw some scrutiny, so I don't think he would have done something that stupid. Landis went thru 71 water bottles on Stage 17, how were there any nutrients in his urine. Dumb Americans who don't know anything about cycling in the mainstream media are all too happy to report on a cheater and throw someone under the bus without the full story. Who's doing this story? Dan Rather? I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised that the UCI knew that cortisone boosted testosterone levels, approved it for Landis to use, and kept that in their back pocket as an ace in case he won the Tour. I really don't want to believe that the sport is this crooked, but again I won't be surprised. I have go on long enough, but this is ridiculous. Landis won the Tour. Deal with it UCI, better luck for the French riders next year.


Man oh man, you are not doing youself any favors by posting such drivel that will turn around and bite your azss more quickly than the internet search you could have undertaken to avoid yourself the embarrassment you are about to face.

A. News Flash!-- there is this internet utility called "Google" that can help ensure that you don't make a fool of yourself in a public forum. It's use would have made up for your seemingly monumental lack of cycling knowledge and would have revealed to you that the UCI is not a "french" organisation, as you contend incorrectly, but an international organisation operated under the aegis of the general rules of the international olympic committee.

B. Not only is the UCI not french, it is not even located in France! Aigle is in Switzerland -- a country located in the center of Europe although it itself is not part of the EU (I'll let you look up the EU on Google...)

C. Not only is the UCI not French, nor is it located in France, it is headed by an Irishman -- himself having taken over from a Dutchman.

D. The French do not "hate" Americans. Nor do the French "Hate" Americans winning the TDF. How do I know this -- I have spent the past 40 years living between France and the States and have watched more TDF's <i>live</i> than I suspect you have read second-hand news sources substantiating your grossly ill-informed assertion. Yes, you can probably find some hack piece in the US media supporting this whole "the french are out to get the US riders" myth -- but be aware that it is just that -- a myth that lives on because most of the people who repeat it have no direct experience in what they assert!

E. The whole tenor of your post leads me to believe that you are 13 years old -- in which case I wish you luck with the rest of your life and sincerely hope that you enjoy maturity (if ever it comes to grace you!) -- or that you are a Troll -- in which case I congratulate you for getting me to answer.

This whole Floyd thing has got me p!ssed and dissapointed and so I have little tolerance for such flagrant displays of ignorance -- as amusing as they might be in other circumstances!

Philippe


----------



## DIRT BOY

Well I guess than lance was not under UCI watch when we has recovering from cancer. Steriods, HGH among other drugs were used in recovery and is normal.

My thought over the years is that cancer treatment and survival made this humna freak even stronger and better after his about with cancer.

He came back lighter and more muscle and power before cancer.


----------



## ttug

*awww man*



DIRT BOY said:


> Well, I have read that studies in the past show that HGH can promote fat loss and general recovery.
> Pleanty of other uses for cancer pateints and others. Read your NMJ again.
> 
> *Functions of GH*
> 
> Effects of growth hormone on the tissues of the body can generally be described as anabolic (building up). Like most other protein hormones GH acts by interacting with a specific receptor on the surface of cells.
> Height growth in childhood is the best known effect of GH action, and appears to be stimulated by at least two mechanisms. 1. GH directly stimulates division and multiplication of chondrocytes of cartilage. These are the primary cells in the growing ends (epiphyses) of children's long bones (arms, legs, digits). 2. GH also stimulates production of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1, formerly known as somatomedin C), a hormone homologous to proinsulin. The liver is a major target organ of GH for this process, and is the principal site of IGF-1 production. IGF-1 has growth-stimulating effects on a wide variety of tissues. Additional IGF-1 is generated within target tissues, making it apparently both an endocrine and an autocrine/paracrine hormone.
> Although height growth is the best known effect of GH, it serves many other metabolic functions as well. GH increases calcium retention, and strengthens and increases the mineralization of bone. It increases muscle mass. It induces protein synthesis and growth of many different organ systems of the body, resulting in a "positive nitrogen balance".
> GH stimulates the immune system.
> GH plays a role in fuel homeostasis. GH reduces liver uptake of glucose, an effect that opposes that of insulin. GH also contributes to the maintenance and function of pancreatic islets. It tends to promote lipolysis, which results in some reduction of adipose tissue (body fat) and rising amounts of free fatty acids and glycerol in the blood.
> [edit]
> 
> *Clinical problems: too much and too little*
> 
> [edit]
> 
> *Growth hormone excess: (acromegaly and pituitary gigantism)*
> 
> The most common disease of GH excess is a pituitary tumor comprised of somatotroph cells of the anterior pituitary. These somatotroph adenomas are benign and grow slowly, gradually producing more and more GH. For years, the principal clinical problems are those of GH excess. Eventually the adenoma may become large enough to cause headaches, impair vision by pressure on the optic nerves, or cause deficiency of other pituitary hormones by displacement.
> Prolonged GH excess thickens the bones of the jaw, fingers and toes. Resulting heaviness of the jaw and increased thickness of digits is referred to as acromegaly. Accompanying problems can include pressure on nerves (e.g., carpal tunnel syndrome), muscle weakness, insulin resistance or even a rare form of type 2 diabetes, and reduced sexual function.
> GH-secreting tumors are typically recognized in the 5th decade of life. It is extremely rare for such a tumor to occur in childhood, but when it does the excessive GH can cause excessive growth, traditionally referred to as pituitary gigantism.
> Surgical removal is the usual treatment for GH-producing tumors. In some circumstances focused radiation or a GH antagonist such as bromocriptine or octreotide may be employed to shrink the tumor or block function.
> [edit]
> 
> *Growth hormone deficiency (GHD)*
> 
> Deficiency of GH produces significantly different problems at various ages. In children, growth failure and short stature are the major manifestations of GH deficiency. In adults the effects of deficiency are more subtle, and may include deficiencies of strength, energy, and bone mass, as well as increased cardiovascular risk.
> There are many causes of GH deficiency, including mutations of specific genes, congenital malformations involving the hypothalamus and/or pituitary gland, and damage to the pituitary from injury, surgery or disease.
> Diagnosis of GH deficiency involves a multiple step diagnostic process, usually culminating in GH stimulation test(s) to see if the patient's pituitary gland will release a pulse of GH when provoked by various stimuli.
> GH deficiency is treated by replacing GH. All GH in current use is a biosynthetic version of human GH, manufactured by recombinant DNA technology. As GH is a large protein molecule, it must be injected into subcutaneous tissue (or muscle) to get it into the blood. When the patient has had a long-standing deficiency of GH, benefits of treatment are often dramatic and gratifying and side effects of treatment are rare. Increased growth in childhood can result in dramatically improved adult height.
> GH is used as replacement therapy in adults with GH deficiency of either childhood-onset (after completing growth phase) or adult-onset (usually as a result of an acquired pituitary tumor). In these patients, benefits have variably included reduced fat mass, increased lean mass, increased bone density, improved lipid profile, reduced cardiovascular risk factors, and improved psychosocial well-being.
> This topic is treated more fully in the articles growth hormone deficiency and growth hormone treatment.
> [edit]
> 
> *Other GH uses and treatment indications*
> 
> Many other conditions besides GH deficiency cause poor growth, but growth benefits (height gains) are often poorer than when GH deficiency is treated. Examples of other causes of shortness often treated with growth hormone are Turner syndrome, chronic renal failure, Prader-Willi syndrome, intrauterine growth retardation, and severe idiopathic short stature. Higher ("pharmacologic") doses are required to produce significant acceleration of growth in these conditions, producing blood levels well above physiologic. Despite the higher doses, side effects during treatment are rare, and vary little according to the condition being treated.
> Sometimes GH is used for other benefits than height. GH treatment improves muscle strength and slightly reduce body fat in Prader-Willi syndrome, benefits more important to these children than increased height. It has also been shown to help maintain muscle mass in AIDS wasting. GH can also be used in patients with short bowel syndrome to lessen the requirement for intravenous parenteral nutrition.
> Uses that are controversial include
> GH treatment to reverse effects of aging in older adults
> GH treatment to enhance weight loss in obesity
> GH treatment for fibromyalgia
> GH treatment for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis
> GH treatment for idiopathic short stature
> GH treatment for bodybuilding or athletic enhancement
> [edit]
> 
> *Risks of GH treatment*
> 
> Risks of treatment are quite rare when GH is given in replacement doses to deficient children and adults. Risks are uncommon even when used in "pharmacologic doses" for other reasons, but there are more unanswered questions about risk:benefit ratios for other uses.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, reporters from SF have gotten and posted information on barry bond's hat size when he was younger and now. This was all over talk radio. Did I see the hat size in person?
> No, but going on what was reported. There is a differnce that is not normal. Your head does not grow nautrally at his age.
> 
> Most with any type of eye can see the structual difference in Barry Bond's head and face. Ask a Dr with experience in HGH use ....
> 
> The hat size has been in plenty of speculation on him getting bigger over the years. And no you can not convict him because his head is bigger. even if he did admit to it, HGH and along with anobolic Steriods is NOT against the law if perscribed by DR for legitimate medical use.


Helpful hints

1)Wikipedia: NOT a reputable scientific source......

2)The populations you post are radically different as to what they would present versus a "normal healthy adult or elite athlete".

3)Where have you read that heads dont grow at a certain age? Do you have a chart? The man probably did dope, no doubt, but, I think its a reach to start with axioms on human head growth, just a thought here......There are many far more feasiable reasons as to why the mans head is fatter. Heres one, he is larger now. So, that means he abuses Hgh? Gee, I would say no. 

4)I didnt need to know what HGH or anything else was, I believe we were discussing the "iron clad " assertion on head size and well he must be abusing Hgh......

5)I read the NEJM for knowledge, as you have yet to post anything other than speculation and use Wikipedia which I could edit at this moment; I tend to have weird reliance on scientific papers and folks with lots of letters in their manes who spend well, their career studying medicine.....

So, taking the above into consideration, I have to say, this is whacked and your a troll......


----------



## danl1

mtbykr said:


> something is funny here.... Every rider that has ever appealed/refuted the positive testosterone test has won their case. WHY? Because the test is so subjective. Even if the "B" sample is positive, then most likely floyd will win his appeal. However the damage will be done as most people will still associate floyd's win with a positive test. The UCI knows this...that coupled with the cortizone shots (if it is true that he was allowed to have then during the tour) really raises some interesting questions as to why they are killing him like this right now.


I don't go for the conspiracy theory... Better for the UCI that it be kept quiet until the B results were in, IMO. Then again, I've never accused them of being smart.

After the stage I said Floyd busted a nut on that ride. Maybe it all leaked out. That's the theory I'm sticking with.  

I never knew testosterone was used as a performance enhancer. I mean, I thought it might be used in an attempt to build muscle during training, but not as a way to boost an individual event. Maybe I'm just hopeful, because that would seem to increase the odds that the A is a false positive.


----------



## DIRT BOY

ttug said:


> It is false. It is invalid. Seriod use will NOT make you leaner, (in general). WEant to break laws of physics andtell me how gains in mass make you leaner? I await with baited breath.....


Oh I forgot, some steriods are primarly used for leaning you out like winstrol.
Not all anobolics steriods are specifically used for mass building.



> tell me how gains in mass make you leaner?


 If you don't know that answer to that, you have NO business arguing with me.
There more muscle mass one obtains or gains, will natural lead to a thermogenic effect. The more muscle you have, the more naturally the body will burn fat at rest or execise! More muscle burn more calories! So unless you are ingesting more calories than you will burn, you will get leaner and that is a FACT and your NEMJ should tell you that!!

Adding muscle is one of the best way to combat fat gain and promote fass loss!!


----------



## ttug

*the fire burns!!!!!*



DIRT BOY said:


> if he was taking anobolics to level things out, this would have not be approved by the UCI and TDF right?
> I guess time will tell......


Well, we call that doping as its on a list provided by UCI as a banned substance. I doubt they would approve of doping as they have stated in rather clear terms they are against it. I do not believe they test to see who is not doping and kick them out, rather its if you dope, then your out. Got it?


----------



## tom_o

DIRT BOY said:


> Well I guess than lance was not under UCI watch when we has recovering from cancer. Steriods, HGH among other drugs were used in recovery and is normal.
> 
> My thought over the years is that cancer treatment and survival made this humna freak even stronger and better after his about with cancer.
> 
> He came back lighter and more muscle and power before cancer.


What's your point?

Here: http://www.uci.ch/imgArchive/Road/Health/prohibited%20list%202006_1.pdf

UCI's list of banned substances.


----------



## coreyb

philq76 said:


> Testosterone is not doping, so there is no messup in the doping regime.


What?


philq76 said:


> Landis' coach, Robbie Ventura, said Landis went through 71 bottles on Stage 17, if you were watching the OLN coverage of the race the next day.


I know that...but how is that germane to the matter of this test?


----------



## DIRT BOY

I used that for basic infomation. see you have No idea what your are talking about in general. Sorry but look in the mirror if you wnat to see a troll!


----------



## tom_o

ttug said:


> Helpful hints
> 
> 1)Wikipedia: NOT a reputable scientific source......


How do you explain this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm

"The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.

The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy. "

Now, I'm not claiming that Wikipedia is a peer reviewed scientific journal, the likes of which you can find on pub-med. But I do think Wiki has its merits, and is surely accurate enough for this discussion.


----------



## ttug

*false yet again*



DIRT BOY said:


> Oh I forgot, some steriods are primarly used for leaning you out like winstrol.
> Not all anobolics steriods are specifically used for mass building.
> 
> If you don't know that answer to that, you have NO business arguing with me.
> There more muscle mass one obtains or gains, will natural lead to a thermogenic effect. The more muscle you have, the more naturally the body will burn fat at rest or execise! More muscle burn more calories! So unless you are ingesting more calories than you will burn, you will get leaner and that is a FACT and your NEMJ should tell you that!!
> 
> Adding muscle is one of the best way to combat fat gain and promote fass loss!!


Uhhhhh, wrong again.I said IN GENERAL, there are exceptions.

Please describe what a natural thermogenic effect is in relation to the specifics of an individuals metabolism which will vary from person to person. Are you just reading stacker pro labels and posting the stuff here........More muscle mass does NOT equate to being leaner. It just means you have more muscle mass. Thats it. If you burn more calories than you ingest, you will lose muscle mass, but you will not get leaner. In fact, prolonged caloric defecits will cause your body to eventually slow down metabolically and start to basically go into starvation mode and do anything possible to hold fat. You will actually have an increase in overall fat % in your body weird huh? Thats why we survived and evolved from Hunter Gatherer societies from over 10,000 years ago. Its kind of well....human.

Trust me, I think I am qualified to speak with a person of you expertise, in fact, I think we can all handle it. Really, its OK.


----------



## DIRT BOY

I know that! One poster was mentioning that maybe he was taking anobolics to level his hormones out. Which from my knowledge whould be against the rules. The reason for the question mark is this thought. if the cortizone was effecting his test levels, could test be administerd by a doctor to get his levels back to HIS normal level under UCI supervision.
taking excess test would be for doping purposes.
My thoughts is NO. If you need the cortizone, then you must suffer the side effect will no medical help.

When i said let's see, I meant the test results!


----------



## UTdave

James OCLV said:


> _They_ are killing him? _They_ aren't the ones that relased his name. It was Phonak.


The whole process of letting it out that there was a failed A without releasing a name is ridiculous. They should have kept quiet until the B result was known and then have released both results. What choice did Phonak have with all the speculation? They may not have released the name but they knew it would come out after they released the info they did. They also knew Landis would be crucified in the press. Saying that they had no knowledge it would go down this way is naive.


----------



## BenWA

To quote Kerry Irons' post from another thread:



> A recent German study analyzed 600 samples of nutritional supplements and found anabolic steroids in 20% at levels that could result in a positive dope test. None of these supplements were labeled as containing steroids. In the US, supplements are not tested or regulated, and need not be labeled as containing steroids.


Is it a possibility that Landis may have been using some funky "legal" nutritional supplement from his local GNC such as stated above, not realising the hidden ingredients?

I have such a difficult time believing that he would have had the audacity to have intentionally taken something illegal knowing that he would've been scrutinized to the nth degree following such a remarkable performance in 17.


----------



## ttug

*hmmm*



Tomakit said:


> How do you explain this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm
> 
> "The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.
> 
> The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy. "
> 
> Now, I'm not claiming that Wikipedia is a peer reviewed scientific journal, the likes of which you can find on pub-med. But I do think Wiki has its merits, and is surely accurate enough for this discussion.


"Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica"

Bad food smells about as bad as my feet.
Ugly people are about as lovely as a dead cat.

It just isnt any better than this....Really.


----------



## philippec

*Double What!!??!*



philq76 said:


> I am saying that the UCI, which has an HQ in France,


Please go to www.google.com and look up "UCI" and then tell us what you find re. the UCI's location. I'm sure the Swiss will be interested to find out that you have declared Aigle to be in France! Who would'of thunk???



philq76 said:


> Testosterone is not doping, so there is no messup in the doping regime.


Now I understand that you are on full-bore "the truth is not what it appears to be mode" here and I can respect that coming from someone your age. So rather than downloading the banned substance list from the UCI -- why don't you go to good'ol USACycling and get their list. Not only is it the same, but you will also find it instructive that they also view Testosterone as a performance-enhancing substance and have it on the "banned" list... Who would'of thunk squared!!

Philippe


----------



## bigpinkt

philippec said:


> Man oh man, you are not doing youself any favors by posting such drivel that will turn around and bite your azss more quickly than internet search you could have undertaken to avoid yourself the embarrassment you are about to face.
> 
> A. News Flash!-- there is this internet utility called "Google" that can help you ensure that you don't make a fool of yourself in a public forum. It's use would have made up for your seemingly monumental lack of cycling knowledge and would have revealed to you that the UCI is not a "french" organisation, as you contend incorrectly, but an international organisation operated under the aegis of the general rules of the international olympic committee.
> 
> B. Not only is the UCI not french, it is not even located in France! Aigle is in Switzerland -- a country located in the center of Europe although it itself is not part of the EU (I'll let you look up the EU on Google...)
> 
> C. Not only is the UCI not French, nor is it located in France, it is headed by an Irishman -- himself having taken over from a Dutchman.
> 
> D. The French do not "hate" Americans. Nor do the French "Hate" Americans winning the TDF. How do I know this -- I have spent the past 40 years living between France and the States and have watched more TDF's <i>live</i> than I suspect you have read second-hand news sources substantiating your grossly ill-informed assertion. Yes, you can probably find some hack piece in the US media supporting this whole "the french are out to get the US riders" myth -- but be aware that it is just that -- a myth that lives on because most of the people who repeat it have no direct experience in what they assert!
> 
> E. The whole tenor of your post leads me to believe that you are 13 years old -- in which case I wish you luck with the rest of your life and sincerely hope that you enjoy maturity (if ever it comes to grace you!) -- or that you are a Troll -- in which case I congratulate you for getting me to answer.
> 
> This whole Floyd thing has got me p!ssed and dissapointed and so I have little tolerance for such flagrant displays of ignorance -- as amusing as they might be in other circumstances!
> 
> Philippe


Thank you Philippe for opening a can of "SHUT THE HELL UP" on philq76, dude must be the most clueless guy on this board.

This whole thing is making me ill, yes I know they dope I just don't want to be reminded of it every week.

Pro Cycling is like sausage, I like it but I don't want to know how it is made.


----------



## tom_o

BenWA said:


> Is it a possibility that Landis may have been using some funky "legal" nutritional supplement from his local GNC such as stated above, not realising the hidden ingredients?


I doubt it as he's passed every other drug test/control he's been subject to. Even those races he won earlier in the year: Paris-Nice, Cali, TdG...etc.

I'm pretty confident this all boils down to the cortisone he was cleared to use...


----------



## tom_o

ttug said:


> "Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica"
> 
> Bad food smells about as bad as my feet.
> Ugly people are about as lovely as a dead cat.
> 
> It just isnt any better than this....Really.


You lost me there.  

Let's take an example. Photosynthesis. That'd be a scientific entry, no?

Are you stating that both the Encyclopedia Britannica AND Wikipedia would get this wrong?

Again, I don't understand where you're going, unless you've run out of tangible arguments and want to share w/ the world how bad your feet smell...


----------



## DIRT BOY

> Thats it. If you burn more calories than you ingest, you will lose muscle mass


Also FAT LOSS! yes you will lose some muscle mas to a certain extent, but it will not be drastic muscle loss with a proper diet!

Your are talking about extreme diets and famine!

it only takes a small reduction in calories to promote fast loss.

Having more muscle mass aids in fat loss. So I get bigger and more muscle, my BF goes down and I maintain my weight what's going on then?

hmm. have you ever beeen on a diet desgined lose BF and retain muscle?
During a BB cometiotion, you must restrict calories and brun fat without losing too much muscle. yes, when you get your BF down by execerice and dieting, you will lose some muscle, but not as extreme as you say.

That's dilaing your body in!

Yes everyones metobolisim is differnet and this will vary among other factors.

I did NOT say more muscle mass will automatically make you leaner! have your seen those strongman contest with those fat guys?

Increased muscle mass CAN lead to fat loss and leaning out of one figure.
So NO ONE agains muscle mass and fat loss at the same time right? That's one of the reasons anobolic steriods work so well!

Again you have NO idea what your are talking about!


----------



## ttug

*WADA doping list*

The World Anti-Doping Code

THE 2006 PROHIBITED LIST
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD 

The official text of the Prohibited List shall be maintained by WADA and shall be published in English and French. In the event of any conflict between the English and French versions, the English version shall prevail.

THE 2006 PROHIBITED LIST
WORLD ANTI-DOPING CODE 

Valid 1 January 2006


The use of any drug should be limited to medically justified indications

SUBSTANCES AND METHODS PROHIBITED AT ALL TIMES
(IN- AND OUT-OF-COMPETITION)

PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES

S1. ANABOLIC AGENTS

Anabolic agents are prohibited.

1. Anabolic Androgenic Steroids (AAS)
a. Exogenous* AAS, including: 
1-androstendiol (5α-androst-1-ene-3β,17β-diol ); 1-androstendione (5α-androst-1-ene-3,17-dione); bolandiol (19-norandrostenediol); bolasterone; boldenone; boldione (androsta-1,4-diene-3,17-dione); calusterone; clostebol; danazol (17α-ethynyl-17β-hydroxyandrost-4-eno[2,3-d]isoxazole); dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (4-chloro-17β-hydroxy-17α-methylandrosta-1,4-dien-3-one); desoxymethyltestosterone (17α-methyl-5α-androst-2-en-17β-ol); drostanolone; ethylestrenol (19-nor-17α-pregn-4-en-17-ol); fluoxymesterone; formebolone; furazabol (17β-hydroxy-17α-methyl-5α-androstano[2,3-c]-furazan); gestrinone;
4-hydroxytestosterone (4,17β-dihydroxyandrost-4-en-3-one); mestanolone; mesterolone; metenolone; methandienone (17β-hydroxy-17α-methylandrosta-1,4-dien-3-one); methandriol; methasterone (2α, 17α-dimethyl-5α-androstane-3-one-17β-ol); methyldienolone (17β-hydroxy-17α-methylestra-4,9-dien-3-one); methyl-1-testosterone (17β-hydroxy-17α-methyl-5α-androst-1-en-3-one); methylnortestosterone (17β-hydroxy-17α-methylestr-4-en-3-one); methyltrienolone (17β-hydroxy-17α-methylestra-4,9,11-trien-3-one); methyltestosterone; mibolerone; nandrolone; 19-norandrostenedione (estr-4-ene-3,17-dione); norboletone; norclostebol; norethandrolone; oxabolone; oxandrolone; oxymesterone; oxymetholone; prostanozol ([3,2-c]pyrazole-5α-etioallocholane-17β-tetrahydropyranol); quinbolone; stanozolol; stenbolone; 1-testosterone (17β-hydroxy-5α-androst-1-en-3-one); tetrahydrogestrinone (18a-****-pregna-4,9,11-trien-17β-ol-3-one); trenbolone and other substances with a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s).
b. Endogenous** AAS: 
androstenediol (androst-5-ene-3β,17β-diol); androstenedione (androst-4-ene-3,17-dione); dihydrotestosterone (17β-hydroxy-5α-androstan-3-one) ; prasterone (dehydroepiandrosterone, DHEA); testosterone
and the following metabolites and isomers:

5α-androstane-3α,17α-diol; 5α-androstane-3α,17β-diol; 5α-androstane-3β,17α-diol; 5α-androstane-3β,17β-diol; androst-4-ene-3α,17α-diol; androst-4-ene-3α,17β-diol; androst-4-ene-3β,17α-diol; androst-5-ene-3α,17α-diol; androst-5-ene-3α,17β-diol; androst-5-ene-3β,17α-diol;
4-androstenediol (androst-4-ene-3β,17β-diol); 
5-androstenedione (androst-5-ene-3,17-dione); 
epi-dihydrotestosterone; 3α-hydroxy-5α-androstan-17-one; 3β-hydroxy-5α-androstan-17-one; 19-norandrosterone; 19-noretiocholanolone.
Where an anabolic androgenic steroid is capable of being produced endogenously, a Sample will be deemed to contain such Prohibited Substance where the concentration of such Prohibited Substance or its metabolites or markers and/or any other relevant ratio(s) in the Athlete’s Sample so deviates from the range of values normally found in humans that it is unlikely to be consistent with normal endogenous production. A Sample shall not be deemed to contain a Prohibited Substance in any such case where an Athlete proves that the concentration of the Prohibited Substance or its metabolites or markers and/or the relevant ratio(s) in the Athlete’s Sample is attributable to a physiological or pathological condition.
In all cases, and at any concentration, the Athlete’s sample will be deemed to contain a Prohibited Substance and the laboratory will report an Adverse Analytical Finding if, based on any reliable analytical method (e.g. IRMS), the laboratory can show that the Prohibited Substance is of exogenous origin. In such case, no further investigation is necessary.
If a value in the range of levels normally found in humans is reported and the reliable analytical method (e.g. IRMS) has not determined the exogenous origin of the substance, but if there are serious indications, such as a comparison to reference steroid profiles, of a possible Use of a Prohibited Substance, further investigation shall be conducted by the relevant Anti-Doping Organization by reviewing the results of any previous test(s) or by conducting subsequent test(s), in order to determine whether the result is due to a physiological or pathological condition, or has occurred as a consequence of the exogenous origin of a Prohibited Substance. 
When a laboratory has reported a T/E ratio greater than four (4) to one (1) and any reliable analytical method (e.g. IRMS) applied has not determined the exogenous origin of the substance, further investigation may be conducted by a review of previous tests or by conducting subsequent test(s), in order to determine whether the result is due to a physiological or pathological condition, or has occurred as a consequence of the exogenous origin of a Prohibited Substance. If a laboratory reports, using an additional reliable analytical method (e.g. IRMS), that the Prohibited Substance is of exogenous origin, no further investigation is necessary and the Sample will be deemed to contain such Prohibited Substance. 
When an additional reliable analytical method (e.g. IRMS) has not been applied and a minimum of three previous test results are not available, the relevant Anti-Doping Organization shall test the Athlete with no advance notice at least three times within a three-month period. If the longitudinal profile of the Athlete that is subject to the subsequent tests is not physiologically normal, the result shall be reported as an Adverse Analytical Finding. 
In extremely rare individual cases, boldenone of endogenous origin can be consistently found at very low nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL) levels in urine. When such a very low concentration of boldenone is reported by a laboratory and any reliable analytical method (e.g. IRMS) applied has not determined the exogenous origin of the substance, further investigation may be conducted by a review of previous tests or by conducting subsequent test(s). When an additional reliable analytical method (e.g. IRMS) has not been applied, a minimum of three no advance notice tests in a period of three months shall be conducted by the relevant Anti-Doping Organization. If the longitudinal profile of the Athlete who is subject to the subsequent tests is not physiologically normal, the result shall be reported as an Adverse Analytical Finding. 
For 19-norandrosterone, an Adverse Analytical Finding reported by a laboratory is considered to be scientific and valid proof of exogenous origin of the Prohibited Substance. In such case, no further investigation is necessary.
Should an Athlete fail to cooperate in the investigations, the Athlete’s Sample shall be deemed to contain a Prohibited Substance.

Other Anabolic Agents, including but not limited to:

Clenbuterol, tibolone, zeranol, zilpaterol.

For purposes of this section:
* “exogenous” refers to a substance which is not ordinarily capable of being produced by the body naturally.
** “endogenous” refers to a substance which is capable of being produced by the body naturally.

S2.	HORMONES AND RELATED SUBSTANCES

The following substances, including other substances with a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s), and their releasing factors, are prohibited:
1. Erythropoietin (EPO); 
2. Growth Hormone (hGH), Insulin-like Growth Factors (e.g. IGF-1), Mechano Growth Factors (MGFs);
3. Gonadotrophins (LH, hCG), prohibited in males only;
4. Insulin;
5. Corticotrophins.
Unless the Athlete can demonstrate that the concentration was due to a physiological or pathological condition, a Sample will be deemed to contain a Prohibited Substance (as listed above) where the concentration of the Prohibited Substance or its metabolites and/or relevant ratios or markers in the Athlete’s Sample so exceeds the range of values normally found in humans that it is unlikely to be consistent with normal endogenous production.
If a laboratory reports, using a reliable analytical method, that the Prohibited Substance is of exogenous origin, the Sample will be deemed to contain a Prohibited Substance and shall be reported as an Adverse Analytical Finding.
The presence of other substances with a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s), diagnostic marker(s) or releasing factors of a hormone listed above or of any other finding which indicate(s) that the substance detected is of exogenous origin, will be deemed to reflect the use of a Prohibited Substance and shall be reported as an Adverse Analytical Finding.

S3.	BETA-2 AGONISTS
All beta-2 agonists including their D- and L-isomers are prohibited. 
As an exception, formoterol, salbutamol, salmeterol and terbutaline, when administered by inhalation, require an abbreviated Therapeutic Use Exemption. 
Despite the granting of any form of Therapeutic Use Exemption, a concentration of salbutamol (free plus glucuronide) greater than 1000 ng/mL will be considered an Adverse Analytical Finding unless the athlete proves that the abnormal result was the consequence of the therapeutic use of inhaled salbutamol.

S4.	AGENTS WITH ANTI-ESTROGENIC ACTIVITY
The following classes of anti-estrogenic substances are prohibited:
1. Aromatase inhibitors including, but not limited to, anastrozole, letrozole, aminoglutethimide, exemestane, formestane, testolactone.
2. Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (SERMs) including, but not limited to, raloxifene, tamoxifen, toremifene.
3. Other anti-estrogenic substances including, but not limited to, clomiphene, cyclofenil, fulvestrant.


S5.	DIURETICS AND OTHER MASKING AGENTS
Masking agents include but are not limited to: 
Diuretics*, epitestosterone, probenecid, alpha-reductase inhibitors (e.g. finasteride, dutasteride), plasma expanders (e.g. albumin, dextran, hydroxyethyl starch).
Diuretics include:
acetazolamide, amiloride, bumetanide, canrenone, chlorthalidone, etacrynic acid, furosemide, indapamide, metolazone, spironolactone, thiazides (e.g. bendroflumethiazide, chlorothiazide, hydrochlorothiazide), triamterene, and other substances with a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s) (except for drosperinone, which is not prohibited).
*	A Therapeutic Use Exemption is not valid if an Athlete’s urine contains a diuretic in association with threshold or sub-threshold levels of a Prohibited Substance(s). 


PROHIBITED METHODS

M1. ENHANCEMENT OF OXYGEN TRANSFER
The following are prohibited:
a. Blood doping, including the use of autologous, homologous or heterologous blood or red blood cell products of any origin. 
b. Artificially enhancing the uptake, transport or delivery of oxygen, including but not limited to perfluorochemicals, efaproxiral (RSR13) and modified haemoglobin products (e.g. haemoglobin-based blood substitutes, microencapsulated haemoglobin products). 

M2. CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL MANIPULATION
a. Tampering, or attempting to tamper, in order to alter the integrity and validity of Samples collected during Doping Controls is prohibited. These include but are not limited to catheterisation, urine substitution and/or alteration.
b. Intravenous infusions are prohibited, except as a legitimate acute medical treatment.
M3. GENE DOPING
The non-therapeutic use of cells, genes, genetic elements, or of the modulation of gene expression, having the capacity to enhance athletic performance, is prohibited. 

SUBSTANCES AND METHODS
PROHIBITED IN-COMPETITION

In addition to the categories S1 to S5 and M1 to M3 defined above, the following categories are prohibited in competition:

PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES

S6.	STIMULANTS
The following stimulants are prohibited, including both their optical (D- and L-) isomers where relevant:
Adrafinil, adrenaline*, amfepramone, amiphenazole, amphetamine, amphetaminil, benzphetamine, bromantan, carphedon, cathine**, clobenzorex, cocaine, cropropamide, crotetamide, cyclazodone, dimethylamphetamine, ephedrine***, etamivan, etilamphetamine, etilefrine, famprofazone, fenbutrazate, fencamfamin, fencamine, fenetylline, fenfluramine, fenproporex, furfenorex, heptaminol, isometheptene, levmethamfetamine, meclofenoxate, mefenorex, mephentermine, mesocarb, methamphetamine (D-), methylenedioxyamphetamine, methylenedioxymethamphetamine, p-methylamphetamine, methylephedrine***, methylphenidate, modafinil, nikethamide, norfenefrine, norfenfluramine, octopamine, ortetamine, oxilofrine, parahydroxyamphetamine, pemoline, pentetrazol, phendimetrazine, phenmetrazine, phenpromethamine, phentermine, prolintane, propylhexedrine, selegiline, sibutramine, strychnine and other substances with a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s)****.
* Adrenaline associated with local anaesthetic agents or by local administration (e.g. nasal, ophthalmologic) is not prohibited.
** Cathine is prohibited when its concentration in urine is greater than 5 micrograms per milliliter. 
*** Each of ephedrine and methylephedrine is prohibited when its concentration in urine is greater than 10 micrograms per milliliter. 
****	The following substances included in the 2006 Monitoring Program (bupropion, caffeine, phenylephrine, phenylpropanolamine, pipradol, pseudoephedrine, synephrine) are not considered as Prohibited Substances.

S7. NARCOTICS
The following narcotics are prohibited:
buprenorphine, dextromoramide, diamorphine (heroin), fentanyl and its derivatives, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, oxymorphone, pentazocine, pethidine.

S8.	CANNABINOIDS
Cannabinoids (e.g. hashish, marijuana) are prohibited.

S9. GLUCOCORTICOSTEROIDS
All glucocorticosteroids are prohibited when administered orally, rectally, intravenously or intramuscularly. Their use requires a Therapeutic Use Exemption approval.
Except as indicated below, other routes of administration require an abbreviated Therapeutic Use Exemption. 
Topical preparations when used for dermatological, aural/otic, nasal, buccal cavity and ophthalmologic disorders are not prohibited and do not require any form of Therapeutic Use Exemption.

SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED IN PARTICULAR SPORTS

P1. ALCOHOL
Alcohol (ethanol) is prohibited in-competition only, in the following sports. Detection will be conducted by analysis of breath and/or blood. The doping violation threshold for each Federation is reported in parenthesis.
 Aeronautic (FAI) (0.20 g/L) 
 Archery (FITA, IPC)	(0.10 g/L)
 Automobile (FIA)	(0.10 g/L)
 Billiards (WCBS)	(0.20 g/L)
 Boules (CMSB, IPC bowls)	(0.10 g/L) 
 Karate (WKF) (0.10 g/L)
 Modern Pentathlon (UIPM)	(0.10 g/L) for disciplines
involving shooting
 Motorcycling (FIM)	(0.10 g/L)
 Powerboating (UIM)	(0.30 g/L)

P2. BETA-BLOCKERS
Unless otherwise specified, beta-blockers are prohibited in-competition only, in the following sports. 
 Aeronautic (FAI)
 Archery (FITA, IPC) (also prohibited out-of-competition)
 Automobile (FIA)
 Billiards (WCBS)
 Bobsleigh (FIBT)
 Boules (CMSB, IPC bowls)
 Bridge (FMB)
 Chess (FIDE)
 Curling (WCF)
 Gymnastics (FIG)
 Motorcycling (FIM)
 Modern Pentathlon (UIPM) for disciplines involving shooting
 Nine-pin bowling (FIQ)
 Sailing (ISAF) for match race helms only 
 Shooting (ISSF, IPC) (also prohibited out-of-competition)
 Skiing/Snowboarding (FIS) in ski jumping, freestyle aerials/halfpipe and snowboard halfpipe/big air
 Wrestling (FILA)
Beta-blockers include, but are not limited to, the following:
acebutolol, alprenolol, atenolol, betaxolol, bisoprolol, bunolol, carteolol, carvedilol, celiprolol, esmolol, labetalol, levobunolol, metipranolol, metoprolol, nadolol, oxprenolol, pindolol, propranolol, sotalol, timolol.


----------



## rocco

DIRT BOY said:


> if he was taking anobolics to level things out, this would have not be approved by the UCI and TDF right?
> I guess time will tell......


It was a rhetorical question regarding a possible motive to cheat. Of course taking anobolics to level things out wouldn't be legal but that might have been a motive to take them.

EDIT: I would assume taking anobolics to level things out wouldn't be within the rules. Unless they allow a medical waiver that I'm not aware of.


----------



## ttug

*yes, its permanent*



Tomakit said:


> You lost me there.
> 
> Let's take an example. Photosynthesis. That'd be a scientific entry, no?
> 
> Are you stating that both the Encyclopedia Britannica AND Wikipedia would get this wrong?
> 
> Again, I don't understand where you're going, unless you've run out of tangible arguments and want to share w/ the world how bad your feet smell...


I used the same logic of the statement applied it to the real world and you know, it atill made no sense. When you start to use almosty or about and you are actually trying to use a scientific tact, uhhhhh, its a nice way to say, your a loser with no clue.


----------



## DIRT BOY

If that was the case, which I doubt, then tuff luck buddy!
Athletes MUST and NEED to know everyhting they ingest!

Tha't like BArry Bond saying we did not know what he was taking with the clear and old Rafeal saying he thought we was taking b-12 antead of stanzadol!


----------



## sirthx

danl1 said:


> I don't go for the conspiracy theory... Better for the UCI that it be kept quiet until the B results were in, IMO. Then again, I've never accused them of being smart.
> 
> After the stage I said Floyd busted a nut on that ride. Maybe it all leaked out. That's the theory I'm sticking with.
> 
> I never knew testosterone was used as a performance enhancer. I mean, I thought it might be used in an attempt to build muscle during training, but not as a way to boost an individual event. Maybe I'm just hopeful, because that would seem to increase the odds that the A is a false positive.


"Busted a nut on 17 and it all leaked out". First time I've smiled today!


----------



## DIRT BOY

I meat to say would it be legal, if not used to again an advantage and under UCI doctors. 
I again I highly doubt it.

i thought i have seen somewhere else that an athlete got caught with a banned substanxce, but it was determined it was not PE, so i could be taken under the right opportunity.

I guess cycling is way stricter. I don't know and this is why I asked


----------



## tom_o

ttug said:


> I used the same logic of the statement applied it to the real world and you know, it atill made no sense. When you start to use almosty or about and you are actually trying to use a scientific tact, uhhhhh, its a nice way to say, your a loser with no clue.


This goes back to the hgh and bonds, correct?

Where you said that hgh causing the head to gain additional bone mass was nuts. In fact, I think you said "He wears the same maufacturer of the hat, he did gain weight, but rather, his skull acquired actual bone mass huh? This is freak on a leash stuff man."

Then I posted about acromegaly, citing Wikipedia's definition as a cause to why Bonds's head looks so much larger than it has earlier in his career, right?

Now, what's the problem? Is my definition of acromegaly incorrect? Is Wiki's definition correct? Would you like to stop arguing now cause you're wrong, and have been for quite some time now?

O, and thanks for reposting the UCI list of banned substances that I linked to about an hour ago.


----------



## rocco

DIRT BOY said:


> They have standards set for athletes. If you go ever your second sample is checked. if you go over again, you must prove this happend naturally or is come across as drug use. No I have NO idea how they show it's natural.



You mean they have a standard set of control results on file for each athlete on file to compare the random test results to? I wonder how often or when they test/record those standards for each rider? If they are making a comparison to the riders own results then the fact he has been getting intermittent bursts/doses of cortisone might have causes his standard or control sample to be misleading assuming that those cortisone shots cause his natural testosterone levels to fluctuate. No?


----------



## DSR

Two things come to mind...

1) Why would he do it?! This is most likely his last TDF with the pending hip surgery - realistically. He's got one shot. He's in 11th and down almost 10 minutes. Roll the dice. Seems stupid. It is stupid. But after however many thousands of miles and having just lost yellow and your dream, someone may do something stupid.

2) Conspiracy theory. The TDF director warned Lemond to watch his bottles way back when he was head butting with Hinault. Can you spike an h2o bottle (or any other consumable) with steroids? Don't know. 

This is sad. We shouldn't have to be having these discussions... S


----------



## ttug

*wow*



DIRT BOY said:


> Also FAT LOSS! yes you will lose some muscle mas to a certain extent, but it will not be drastic muscle loss with a proper diet!
> 
> Your are talking about extreme diets and famine!
> 
> it only takes a small reduction in calories to promote fast loss.
> 
> Having more muscle mass aids in fat loss. So I get bigger and more muscle, my BF goes down and I maintain my weight what's going on then?
> 
> hmm. have you ever beeen on a diet desgined lose BF and retain muscle?
> During a BB cometiotion, you must restrict calories and brun fat without losing too much muscle. yes, when you get your BF down by execerice and dieting, you will lose some muscle, but not as extreme as you say.
> 
> That's dilaing your body in!
> 
> Yes everyones metobolisim is differnet and this will vary among other factors.
> 
> I did NOT say more muscle mass will automatically make you leaner! have your seen those strongman contest with those fat guys?
> 
> Increased muscle mass CAN lead to fat loss and leaning out of one figure.
> So NO ONE agains muscle mass and fat loss at the same time right? That's one of the reasons anobolic steriods work so well!
> 
> Again you have NO idea what your are talking about!


I have competed in power lifting and after killing my knees took up cycling to drop my weight. I dropped 110 pounds and oh yeah basically watched from the 1980's on up become an absolute joke in my former sport and now in cycling. Ever here of the unlimited league. Hey guess why they are UNLIMITED. I can say with no doubt that strength sports and possibly most endurance sports are a total let down from what they are meant to be. All the hype you post, man I am LMAO. Its the same stuff from the 80's, but you have been conned and think its all good. LMAO. Genius, oh man its genius!!!!

YOU and the other fools who try to con young kids with total utter BS about what these meds really do, what a joke. Such cowards, everyone of you. You can look like you have a clue AND bethe reason this sport and others are really becoming a side show. Of course you need freaks in a side show. So, freak, how many kids did you mis-educate today???? Hey loooks like you have a career after all..


----------



## Kennedy

Why do they test urine? Why not blood? I would suspect that drinking 70 bottles of water, even over a 5 hour period, will dilute anything in your urine. I know that when I'm dehydrated, my urine looks like dark like gatorade, and when I am properly hydrated, it can be almost completly clear. Now, I'm not a doctor or a scientist, so it may be that the things for which they test are not affected by the amount of water in the urine. I don't know.

It may also be that what they are testing for does not appear in blood (though I find that hard to beleive).

While Wikipedia may not be accurate, the article on Floyd stated that there is a debate about enviromental factors that influence the testosterone/epitestosterone ratio. It cited to the following article listed on pubmed:

Evaluation of testosterone/epitestosterone ratio influential factors as determined in doping analysis.

van de Kerkhof DH, de Boer D, Thijssen JH, Maes RA.

Utrecht Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Department of Human Toxicology, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands. [email protected]

The ratio of the concentration of testosterone glucuronide to the concentration of epitestosterone glucuronide (T/E ratio) as determined in urine is the most frequently used method to prove testosterone abuse by athletes. A T/E ratio higher than 6 has been considered as proof of abuse in the past; however, cases of naturally occurring higher T/E ratios have been described. Since the introduction of the T/E ratio in doping analysis, the parameters that may or may not influence the T/E ratio, possibly leading to false-positive results, have been debated. To achieve more insight on the influencing circumstances, an overview is given to obtain an objective view on the merits of the urinary T/E ratio. Relevant analytical aspects of the T/E ratio, potential parameters of endogenous and exogenous origins, as well as some alternative methods to determine testosterone abuse, such as the urinary testosterone/luteinizing hormone ratio, gas chromatography-combustion-isotope-ratio mass spectrometry, hair analysis, and high-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry, are discussed.

Publication Types: 

Now, i haven't read it, and even though I like to think I'm a pretty smart dude, I probably wouldn't understand it. Just throwing out there that could be an explanation. 

Also, the body does strange things when compensating for a serious injury. Maybe its a reaction to the pain. There are scientific stuides that suggest that pain treshold is related to testosterone levels. Maybe, in certain persons with a high pain threshold, the body produces more testosterone to compensate.

I am not willing to pass judgment just yet.


----------



## ttug

*thanks*



Tomakit said:


> This goes back to the hgh and bonds, correct?
> 
> Where you said that hgh causing the head to gain additional bone mass was nuts. In fact, I think you said "He wears the same maufacturer of the hat, he did gain weight, but rather, his skull acquired actual bone mass huh? This is freak on a leash stuff man."
> 
> Then I posted about acromegaly, citing Wikipedia's definition as a cause to why Bonds's head looks so much larger than it has earlier in his career, right?
> 
> Now, what's the problem? Is my definition of acromegaly incorrect? Is Wiki's definition correct? Would you like to stop arguing now cause you're wrong, and have been for quite some time now?
> 
> O, and thanks for reposting the UCI list of banned substances that I linked to about an hour ago.


Its the WADA list genius. The UCI list is fine too. What a swell guy you think you are......


----------



## FatTireFred

JohnHenry said:


> sorry. that's a bit of a reach.



isn't that what Scott Moninger used as his defense? contamination of vitamins/supplements or something like that


----------



## funknuggets

well,Landis had 6 hours to drink 70 bottles or whatever... in retrospect... it WAS hot. Or, was he tring to dilute his urine...


----------



## tom_o

ttug said:


> Its the WADA list genius. The UCI list is fine too. What a swell guy you think you are......



Totally correct. Cheap shot on my part and I missed.

I stand by the rest of what I said though.


----------



## wipeout

DIRT BOY said:


> You realize that barry Bonds is accused of using HGH right? Are you aware that his scull actually grew larger and he wears a larger cap size?
> 
> Your are aware that HGH use can cause bone growth in adults? Like sculls, jaws, fingers, etc?


Uhhhh, you believe that fairy-tale? Yer funny, Dirt Boy.


----------



## ttug

*wow....*



Tomakit said:


> Totally correct. Cheap shot on my part and I missed.
> 
> I stand by the rest of what I said though.


You admit to a cheap shot. You understand that you just called yourself cheap? Look, I kind of feel sorry for you at this point. You have character to stand by what you post, fine. BUT, you then say, yeah, cheap shot......Man, you gotta get out more. 

Im going to ride my bike now. Take care now, and oh yes, get some confidence huh? :thumbsup:


----------



## tom_o

ttug said:


> You admit to a cheap shot. You understand that you just called yourself cheap? Look, I kind of feel sorry for you at this point. You have character to stand by what you post, fine. BUT, you then say, yeah, cheap shot......Man, you gotta get out more.
> 
> Im going to ride my bike now. Take care now, and oh yes, get some confidence huh? :thumbsup:


But then I reiterate that I'm standing by my timeline of our argument and the validity of my point of view. Which you've so wisely chosen to talk around.

Enjoy your ride.


----------



## badder2

Surely Floyd was tested more than once during the tour.

How does his failed testosterone test compare against the others?


----------



## Chase15.5

yes..


----------



## sirthx

It keeps coming up that he drank 70 bottles on stage 17. I'm not positive but I did watch the 4 hour version on OLN and my guess is that 50 of those bottles were squeezed over his head to keep cool. He 'went through' 70 bottles perhaps, but I don't think he drank close to that many. I can't imagine it even being remotely possible.


----------



## danl1

The test is for a ratio of two substances, so the concentration in the urine wouldn't matter, it would only make it harder to test for. 

Guilty or innocent in fact, that could provide a basis for appeal: if the concentrations are low enough, the statistical variance can be small enough that the validity of the test is called into question. Basically, if you flip a coin twice, you can't tell if heads or tails are more common. Flip it a few thousand times, and you'll have a pretty good idea. 

Can't say why it's not a blood test. They probably need to be relatively stingy with how much blood they pull, and it's needed for other testing.


----------



## ajoc_prez

I thought Floyd poured most of that water over his head? I didn't see him drinking an excessive amount of it, he seemed to be always pouring it over his helmet and down his back. That wouldn't dilute his urine.

I hope this is not true.


----------



## rocco

badder2 said:


> Surely Floyd was tested more than once during the tour.
> 
> How does his failed testosterone test compare against the others?



There several ways it could happen... if you go back and read certain posts here you can figure out some of them.


----------



## rocco

sirthx said:


> It keeps coming up that he drank 70 bottles on stage 17. I'm not positive but I did watch the 4 hour version on OLN and my guess is that 50 of those bottles were squeezed over his head to keep cool. He 'went through' 70 bottles perhaps, but I don't think he drank close to that many. I can't imagine it even being remotely possible.



He drank about 1 out of every 3 bottles and dumped the rest over his head and body.


----------



## Kennedy

If one assumes those bottles contained a pint of water, then:

2 pints per quart
4 quarts per gallon
8 pints per gallon.

That would mean he drank 8.5 gallons of water.

If one assumes those bottles were 1l each, then

70l of water = 18.492 gallons.

Either way, its not humanly possible.


----------



## Asiago

*Perfect. And sad at the same time.*



bigpinkt said:


> Pro Cycling is like sausage, I like it but I don't want to know how it is made.


This is classic, and if it weren't so depressing at the same time I might actually have laughed out loud. Big Pink I will be quoting you on this one.


----------



## rocco

Kennedy said:


> If one assumes those bottles contained a pint of water, then:
> 
> 2 pints per quart
> 4 quarts per gallon
> 8 pints per gallon.
> 
> That would mean he drank 8.5 gallons of water.
> 
> If one assumes those bottles were 1l each, then
> 
> 70l of water = 18.492 gallons.
> 
> Either way, its not humanly possible.


He drank about 3 gallons because he dumped about 5.5 over his head and body.


----------



## DIRT BOY

I also PL and BB for years!

So let's see, you are saying it's NOT possible to increase muscle tissue and fat loss that the same time?

Ok, Let's see. I gain 18 lbs in 3 months, my BF goes down in the proccess and I am not leaner?

If one increase ther muscle mass, and put on NO BF in the process that are not leaner?

God your dumb...


----------



## lonebikeroftheapocalypse

ttug vs dirtboy

I got money on dirtboy. His posts are slightly less garbled and his spelling is a little better. I didn't realize there would be some entertainment in this thread.


----------



## Spunout

DIRT BOY said:


> God your dumb...


Absolutely priceless.


----------



## txzen

nzou said:


> Does anyone have information on the assay used in this urine test, the sensitivity & specificity of the test, any drugs that may interfere, e.t.c.?



I'm not sure if this is the method they used this time, but one test uses mass spec:



> One of the lab's research achievements is a method for spotting testosterone abuse. Unlike synthetic steroids, testosterone and its breakdown products are naturally present in the urine of dopers and non-dopers, whether they are male or female. The standard test for testosterone doping looks for an elevated ratio of the hormone relative to its cousin epitestosterone. These are normally present at equal levels in the urine, and the IOC has set a ratio of 6:1 as the cut-off for declaring a positive test. This is bad news for the rare athlete with a naturally elevated ratio. And the test is not hard to beat: athletes can, for instance, take epitestosterone as well as testosterone.
> 
> Catlin's group hit on the idea of using carbon isotope ratios to distinguish between natural testosterone and its lab-made counterpart. Synthetic testosterone contains less of the heavy isotope carbon-13 compared with the natural compound. This is because the hormone's manufacturers begin their synthesis with an extract from yams, which happens to contain a compound with the same four-ring structure as steroids. Plants incorporate carbon-13 — present at low levels in the atmosphere — much less efficiently than do animals. Although the isotope test is expensive and not always used, it has made a difference. Once athletes became aware of the test in the late 1990s, many stopped using testosterone, Catlin says.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v426/n6963/full/426114a.html


----------



## DIRT BOY

I agree with you DRUGS is ruining the sports! I don't know if us the fans that push these guys over the edge or the money.

PW is not litterd with drugs as BB and they have been for years and years and it's why I LEFT those sports behind. I had NO way of competing unless I kept up with the Jones'!

Again you say it's immpossible to gain muscle mass and not lose body fat?
Your also going to tell me you can't gain strenght wihtout putting on muscle mass?

Your are aware "science' is not perfect right?

Did I say I have all the answers?

No, I told you what facts I know and my educated opinion.

All I can say to you is.....


----------



## DIRT BOY

wipeout said:


> Uhhhh, you believe that fairy-tale? Yer funny, Dirt Boy.


Not sure. But make you wonder.....


----------



## zero85ZEN

*I think "level heads" need to previal regarding this matter.*

As information comes out it is being revealed that Floyd apparently didn't have HIGH amounts of Testosterone in his urine, just out of proprotion ratios. From ESPN:

Cycling analyst John Eustice thinks Floyd Landis' testosterone test could be a false positive. Landis' testosterone levels were low; just the ratio was off. Landis' cortisone shots or beer drinking could affect that, Eustice said on The Dan Patrick Show. 

Living in the age of instant information is interesting to say the least. Folks everywhere are being quoted talking about this and they certainly do not have all the information.
(Perhaps Eustice as well....) All I know is that I only know what is being leaked out through the media and then wildly and often ignorantly speculated upon in this forum.

And as some former cyclists have pointed out; it makes no sense to use testosterone when there are so many more undetectable "products" that can be used.... 

I'm going to wait and see how this whole circus plays out. I hope Floyd is cleared but clearly even if that happens a LOT of damage has been done to him, the Tour and cycling in general!
If it is "proven" that he cheated I think I'll pretty much give up on not only pro cycling but most pro sports as well.


----------



## DIRT BOY

LOL! I have been accused of horrible spelling and crazy babble myself!


----------



## DIRT BOY

beer effect test levels?? I guees I should get drunk before working out?


----------



## rocco

zero85ZEN said:


> As information comes out it is being revealed that Floyd apparently didn't have HIGH amounts of Testosterone in his urine, just out of proprotion ratios. From ESPN:
> 
> Cycling analyst John Eustice thinks Floyd Landis' testosterone test could be a false positive. Landis' testosterone levels were low; just the ratio was off. Landis' cortisone shots or beer drinking could affect that, Eustice said on The Dan Patrick Show.
> 
> Living in the age of instant information is interesting to say the least. Folks everywhere are being quoted talking about this and they certainly do not have all the information.
> (Perhaps Eustice as well....) All I know is that I only know what is being leaked out through the media and then wildly and often ignorantly speculated upon in this forum.
> 
> And as some former cyclists have pointed out; it makes no sense to use testosterone when there are so many more undetectable "products" that can be used....
> 
> I'm going to wait and see how this whole circus plays out. I hope Floyd is cleared but clearly even if that happens a LOT of damage has been done to him, the Tour and cycling in general!
> If it is "proven" that he cheated I think I'll pretty much give up on not only pro cycling but most pro sports as well.


Would the cortisone for his hip cause this? I know I keep asking this same basic question but I just have a hunch that it plays a part in the picture.


----------



## mtbykr

*well*



funknuggets said:


> well,Landis had 6 hours to drink 70 bottles or whatever... in retrospect... it WAS hot. Or, was he tring to dilute his urine...



Not to nitpick,,,but the majority of those 71 waterbottles ended up being poured over his head to help keep his core temp low. If he drank 71 bottles he would still be lying next to the road


----------



## tom_o

DIRT BOY said:


> beer effect test levels?? I guees I should get drunk before working out?


Beer negatively affects test levels...


----------



## DIRT BOY

Whoops! I read that wrong, sorry!


----------



## zero85ZEN

*Perhaps....*



rocco said:


> Would the cortisone for his hip cause this? I know I keep asking this same basic question but I just have a hunch that it plays a part in the picture.


...I'm not a scientist. (But in light of this whole episode I am thinking of going back to school and getting a PhD relating to Media Studies.) 

I think this story MAY prove to be a case where the test revealed a possible false positive. If the B sample proves inconclusive OR there is some pretty creditable evidence that other factors played a part in the testosterone ratios being off then the Media is going to have a lot of egg on it's face over this. How sad is it that when Floyd won the Tour ESPN.com covered it as a side story to Tiger's win and now that a doping scandle is in the offing he is put on the front page of ESPN.com and is the first talking point on most ESPN shows. Sad, sad, sad commentary on our modern culture IMHO.


----------



## coreyb

lonebikeroftheapocalypse said:


> ttug vs dirtboy
> 
> I got money on dirtboy. His posts are slightly less garbled and his spelling is a little better.


Sarcasm does not translate well on the internet


----------



## Henry Porter

zero85ZEN said:


> I'm going to wait and see how this whole circus plays out. I hope Floyd is cleared but clearly even if that happens a LOT of damage has been done to him, the Tour and cycling in general!
> If it is "proven" that he cheated* I think I'll pretty much give up on not only pro cycling but most pro sports as well. :*(


This was my first TdF and I'm feeling the same way. But was does it mean to those of you who have pledged to give it up? Stop attending events, watching at all? I'm really disappointed but am feeling a bit better with the ESPN info.


----------



## txzen

mtbykr said:


> Don't forget also that 100% of all riders who have appealed a positive testosterone test throughout history have been cleared----*100%*


[/quote]
Switzerland's Phonak cycling team has suspended rider Sascha Unweider following a positive A-test for high levels of testosterone. According to a statement put out by the team on Monday, the 25-year-old Swiss was tested by his national cycling association on February 14.[/quote]



http://www.eurosport.com/cycling/paris-nice/2006/sport_sto849857.shtml



His B sample came back positive too.


----------



## mtbykr

*ok*

-1-1John Euclous (sp?) on ESPNEWS right now saying that landis's testosterone levels were lower than normal--the problem is his eutost (sp?) levels were extremely low making the test higher than 4-1.


----------



## rocco

zero85ZEN said:


> ...I'm not a scientist. (But in light of this whole episode I am thinking of going back to school and getting a PhD relating to Media Studies.)
> 
> I think this story MAY prove to be a case where the test revealed a possible false positive. If the B sample proves inconclusive OR there is some pretty creditable evidence that other factors played a part in the testosterone ratios being off then the Media is going to have a lot of egg on it's face over this. How sad is it that when Floyd won the Tour ESPN.com covered it as a side story to Tiger's win and now that a doping scandle is in the offing he is put on the front page of ESPN.com and is the first talking point on most ESPN shows. Sad, sad, sad commentary on our modern culture IMHO.



It reflects some sad realities about sports and the media in America. Imagine what doping sespool American football and baseball are.


----------



## rocco

mtbykr said:


> -1-1John Euclous (sp?) on ESPNEWS right now saying that landis's testosterone levels were lower than normal--the problem is his eutost (sp?) levels were extremely low making the test higher than 4-1.



What the hell does this mean! ...getting frustrated over here.


----------



## tom_o

mtbykr said:


> -1-1John Euclous (sp?) on ESPNEWS right now saying that landis's testosterone levels were lower than normal--the problem is his eutost (sp?) levels were extremely low making the test higher than 4-1.


Once again, from cyclingnews:

There is no cast-iron test to detect use of testosterone. Rather, a limit is applied to the ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone in a person's urine.

Most people have a ratio of between 1.5-2:1, but the limit - like the blood hematocrit limit of 50 percent - is 4:1 (for men) to allow for those with naturally high testosterone levels. If it's greater than this level, then it's considered a positive unless an athlete can prove that he is always this high.



What I think is coming to light is the fact that Landis's levels were so low that they were throwing the ratio out of whack.

Which isn't terribly suprising as many male endurance athletes suffer from low testosterone.


----------



## rocco

Tomakit said:


> Once again, from cyclingnews:
> 
> There is no cast-iron test to detect use of testosterone. Rather, a limit is applied to the ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone in a person's urine.
> 
> Most people have a ratio of between 1.5-2:1, but the limit - like the blood hematocrit limit of 50 percent - is 4:1 (for men) to allow for those with naturally high testosterone levels. If it's greater than this level, then it's considered a positive unless an athlete can prove that he is always this high.
> 
> 
> 
> What I think is coming to light is the fact that Landis's levels were so low that they were throwing the ratio out of whack.
> 
> Which isn't terribly suprising as many male endurance athletes suffer from low testosterone.



So the test is bunk?


----------



## zero85ZEN

Henry Porter said:


> This was my first TdF and I'm feeling the same way. But was does it mean to those of you who have pledged to give it up? Stop attending events, watching at all?


Invest a LOT less of my time watching on TV or following on the Internet. ESPN, etc., etc,
I just sold off all my pro team jerseys on eBay. I just have a hard time indulging my time on what is appearing more and more a spectacle and less and less a "level field" sporting event. Sad to say the current environment in cycling had me thinking to myself as Floyd finished stage 17, "now he just needs to prepare for and pass the doping control". How frickin' sad is that? I WANT to believe. I really REALLY want to. But it's getting SOOOOooo hard....


----------



## mtbykr

*ok*

According to ESPNEWS the cortizone injections that he was apparently receiving on a regular basis---WOULD effect the testosterone levels. Now i don't know if that means raising testosterone, lowering eutosterone (sp?) or just throwing the system out of whack. Either way it goes, it looks like Floyd isn't guilty (from what i have seen) of "cheating":thumbsup:


----------



## spin150

*agreed*



lonebikeroftheapocalypse said:


> ttug vs dirtboy
> 
> I got money on dirtboy. His posts are slightly less garbled and his spelling is a little better. I didn't realize there would be some entertainment in this thread.


Dirtboy is coherent, ttug is not. Hard to understand what ttug means. Therefore dirtboy wins.


----------



## Asiago

*if true*



mtbykr said:


> According to ESPNEWS the cortizone injections that he was apparently receiving on a regular basis---WOULD effect the testosterone levels. Now i don't know if that means raising testosterone, lowering eutosterone (sp?) or just throwing the system out of whack. Either way it goes, it looks like Floyd isn't guilty (from what i have seen) of "cheating":thumbsup:


Hope this is true, but unfortunately for Floyd, I think the damage is done. 

I find it sad that he can return a "positive" test because some chemical in his body is _too low._


----------



## rocco

mtbykr said:


> According to ESPNEWS the cortizone injections that he was apparently receiving on a regular basis---WOULD effect the testosterone levels. Now i don't know if that means raising testosterone, lowering eutosterone (sp?) or just throwing the system out of whack. Either way it goes, it looks like Floyd isn't guilty (from what i have seen) of "cheating":thumbsup:



During this whole conversation I've figured out that cortisone would lower the testosterone level.


----------



## zero85ZEN

spin150 said:


> Dirtboy is coherent, ttug is not. Hard to understand what ttug means. Therefore dirtboy wins.


LMAO!


----------



## tom_o

mtbykr said:


> According to ESPNEWS the cortizone injections that he was apparently receiving on a regular basis---WOULD effect the testosterone levels. Now i don't know if that means raising testosterone, lowering eutosterone (sp?) or just throwing the system out of whack. Either way it goes, it looks like Floyd isn't guilty (from what i have seen) of "cheating":thumbsup:


If that turns out to be true, it's great news :thumbsup:


----------



## lonebikeroftheapocalypse

*Yes!*



spin150 said:


> Dirtboy is coherent, ttug is not. Hard to understand what ttug means. Therefore dirtboy wins.


Now I have to figure out whether to spend my winnings on a Campy or Shimano equipped bike.


----------



## mtbykr

*well*



rocco said:


> So the test is bunk?




Basically yes.... Look at it this way (i have previously posted this, but it bears repeating). All of the athletes (according to ESPNEWS) that have disputed the positive testosterone test in the past, have won the appeal. --the test is that subjective. So I would guess that even if the "B" sample comes back positive he will end up cleared.


----------



## Brad2021hk

mtbykr said:


> According to ESPNEWS the cortizone injections that he was apparently receiving on a regular basis---WOULD effect the testosterone levels. Now i don't know if that means raising testosterone, lowering eutosterone (sp?) or just throwing the system out of whack. Either way it goes, it looks like Floyd isn't guilty (from what i have seen) of "cheating":thumbsup:


ESPN puts a damning story prominently on the website with a huge picture. The other story with data that could blunt the effect of the main story is for paying INsider members only. Weak.

I would definitely like to hear more on these low levels of testosterone. I wonder if they are low enough to cause a quantization problem when doing a ratio. If you take two samples of something, and find one is negative and one is positive, it would look like a 1:1 ratio. As you increase the sample count, a more "true" ratio may be found. It coudl be 99:1.


----------



## rocco

mtbykr said:


> Basically yes.... Look at it this way (i have previously posted this, but it bears repeating). All of the athletes (according to ESPNEWS) that have disputed the positive testosterone test in the past, have won the appeal. --the test is that subjective. So I would guess that even if the "B" sample comes back positive he will end up cleared.


I think you and I and everyone else should be carefull about how they are interpreting all of this and should hold off on the big pronouncements. Everyone.... Including LeMond, the German public TV network, and so on and so forth. This whole thing is moving so fast that I think that key facts, words and details are being blown away and overlooked. I think a lot of people, average people and important people/organizations are going to end up with an omelette on their face. The only thing that remains to be seen is who those people will be.


----------



## Rsix

Brad2021hk said:


> I would like to assume their is a good explanation. It could still turn out okay. If it doesn't, I don't know. I am generally fairly cynical about a lot of things, but I really got behind Floyd this year. I just felt crushed watching stage 16. Couldn't even watch the last 10 minutes. The stage 17 comeback was so spectacular. For days, I went around enthusiastically telling people (non-cycling fans) about this epic performance. Roommates, family, friends, coworkers. Maybe it seems sort of selfish, but I would feel embarrassed. What happens when everyone starts asking about this result? Might have to adopt the common "No comment" stance.
> 
> As it might be a while until this resolves, I want to understand the science a little better. Is the testosterone test a blood test or a urine test? I'm guessing urine. Anyone know the popular methods for covering testosterone use? I hope one of them is not drinking a lot of water before the test.


I did exactly the same thing. I just can't believe this. I hope and pray that there's a reasonable explanation for this, or that it's a mistake, or the French are cheating, or something. 

(@#*$^#@([email protected]~!!


----------



## DIRT BOY

I agree. We all need to just step back and wait to see what happens!
But you must admit this is fun!

The RBR and MTBR might crash before we know!


----------



## mtbykr

*well*



rocco said:


> I think you and I and everyone else should be carefull about how they are interpreting all of this and should hold off on the big pronouncements. Everyone.... Including LeMond, the German public TV network, and so on and so forth. This whole thing is moving so fast that I think that key facts, words and details are being blown away and overlooked. I think a lot of people, average people and important people/organizations are going to end up with an omelette on their face. The only thing that remains to be seen is who those people will be.



I agree that noone should jump to conclusions and we should let this all settle down and see where everyone stands. I am not making a big pronouncement--just stating that from everything i have seen (tests being low, cortizone, ect..) that it looks like he will be eventually cleared of this. There has been a precident set as everyone that has ever appealed their "positive" testosteone test has come out on top. Who knows what will happen, but it looks better now than it did 4 hours ago--both for landis and the sport


----------



## Circlip

Talk about overlooking the obvious. Obviously Eddy had Axel spike some of Floyd's bidons after stage 16 so that Eddy and Axel could split his winnings from the bookmaker on stage 17.

I can see the black 'copters starting to circle.


----------



## rocco

Tomakit said:


> Once again, from cyclingnews:
> 
> There is no cast-iron test to detect use of testosterone. Rather, a limit is applied to the ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone in a person's urine.
> 
> Most people have a ratio of between 1.5-2:1, but the limit - like the blood hematocrit limit of 50 percent - is 4:1 (for men) to allow for those with naturally high testosterone levels. If it's greater than this level, then it's considered a positive unless an athlete can prove that he is always this high.
> 
> 
> 
> What I think is coming to light is the fact that Landis's levels were so low that they were throwing the ratio out of whack.
> 
> Which isn't terribly suprising as many male endurance athletes suffer from low testosterone.



Isn't epitestosterone the same as anabolic steroids? If the ratio of testosterone is low compaired to epitestosterone doesn't that indicate that he probably doped?

This isn't looking like good news judging by these: 

http://www.fpnotebook.com/URO39.htm

http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/reprint/43/5/731

http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/content/full/48/4/629


----------



## coreyb

mtbykr said:


> There has been a precident set as everyone that has ever appealed their "positive" testosteone test has come out on top.


Since you keep bringing this up-

can you please provide more information regarding this than just 'well, espn says it is so'


----------



## bmp956

Got a funny feeling that workplace productivity has taken a nosedive since 11 am edt.


----------



## mtbykr

*what?*

-


coreyb said:


> Since you keep bringing this up-
> 
> can you please provide more information regarding this than just 'well, espn says it is so'




That's where i heard it----ESPN has it's bias, ect... but i tend to believe one of the largest (if not the largest) sports networks in the world. They have said it every 30 min since i started paying attention at 11.00 am. Their cycling analyist keeps repeating it time and time again---so i am guessing he has a pretty credible source. ESPN isn't "saying it's so" -- they are reporting it as fact...there is a big difference.

This is a pretty big part of the story, so i figure they got it right. If not then prove them wrong.....all i am doing is repeating what they have reported and comenting that, if true, it's a big deal!


----------



## coreyb

Actually...rereading the comment now, it seems to make some sense. The precendent does not necessarily say anything about the end result for Floyd. The key question, to me, is 'how many of those who have tested positive have gone on to appeal?' 

Perhaps it is the case that nobody(or very few, even) go on to appeal-in which case, while the statistic is true, it is essentially meaningless in considering Floyds future.


----------



## WampaOne

I hate to post quotes from papers before I actually get hold of them and read then but based on my discussions with a collegue (oncologist so not quite his area of expertise) and a few papers it looks as if his cortizone injectios will lower testosterone levels: "In hydrocortisone-treated patients, plasma androgen decreased to normal levels: testosterone from 3.05 +/- 1.45 to 1.46 +/- 0.42 nmol/L and delta 4-androstenedione from 13.6 +/- 4.1 to 6.33 +/- 1.47 nmol/L."


Now onto other points:
Drinking a lot of water should have little to no effect on the test. If he were to have been overly hydrated when he took the test his T level would be low as would his ET but the ratio would be roughly the same. Low does not mean no doping just a less concentrated sample (unless ET is at a normal level). The test measures the ratio of ET to T using GC-MS based off of both retention time and selected ion monitoring. This eliminates the possibility that a coeluting compound artificially elevates one of the 2. The only way a low T level woudl matter would be if it or ET were below the limit of quantitation. Which in this test is unlikly ar a typical MS is accurate over 3 (or more) orders of magnitude. 

The beer defense would also be highly suspect. The article that everyone site on this was based on a sample set of 4. However if you wish to believe that this study would be reavlent then he would need to consume about 170mL of ethanol (assuming a weight of 65kg) to see the effects that were noticed. That would be 4.5 12oz beers at 10% alcohol (~36mL ethanol per 12oz). Perhaps he did drink this much. However, the study in question also shows that alcohol consumption had little effect on T and ET levels in males. "In males, no significant differences were found in any parameters measured even after the higher dose of alcohol (experiment 2)." -> exp 2 was the 2g/kg treatment


----------



## James OCLV

Something just doesn't seem right about this to me.... I can't imagine for the life of me, that ANY rider would take this risk given the outcome of "operation puerto", the dejection of riders from the Tour, and the increased scrutiny around doping this year.

Furthermore, Landis just doesn't strike me as that kind of guy... And, I can't believe that he would be that stupid to not think that his ride on Stage 17 and the over all win would put him under the magnifying glass. 

It just doesn't make any sense....


----------



## rocco

James OCLV said:


> Something just doesn't seem right about this to me.... I can't imagine for the life of me, that ANY rider would take this risk given the outcome of "operation puerto", the dejection of riders from the Tour, and the increased scrutiny around doping this year.
> 
> Furthermore, Landis just doesn't strike me as that kind of guy... And, I can't believe that he would be that stupid to not think that his ride on Stage 17 and the over all win would put him under the magnifying glass.
> 
> It just doesn't make any sense....


How many people said that about Hamilton? ...note that I hope that you are right.


----------



## mhollenbeck

Quote:
Originally Posted by FondriestFan
Good thing they don't test for estrogen, or we'd have no French riders. 


That's too funny!


----------



## desmo13

Just going to add my name to the record thast I think Landis is clean. Just read the SI interview he did today (in another thread), I am taking him for his word.


----------



## svend

James OCLV said:


> It just doesn't make any sense....


If the glove don't fit, you must acquit.......look at the monkey

Bunch of BS, releasing info prior to B sample confirmation.....this whole thing smells rotten......Prediction: Landis keeps the yellow


----------



## rocco

WampaOne said:


> I hate to post quotes from papers before I actually get hold of them and read then but based on my discussions with a collegue (oncologist so not quite his area of expertise) and a few papers it looks as if his cortizone injectios will lower testosterone levels: "In hydrocortisone-treated patients, plasma androgen decreased to normal levels: testosterone from 3.05 +/- 1.45 to 1.46 +/- 0.42 nmol/L and delta 4-androstenedione from 13.6 +/- 4.1 to 6.33 +/- 1.47 nmol/L."
> 
> 
> Now onto other points:
> Drinking a lot of water should have little to no effect on the test. If he were to have been overly hydrated when he took the test his T level would be low as would his ET but the ratio would be roughly the same. Low does not mean no doping just a less concentrated sample (unless ET is at a normal level). The test measures the ratio of ET to T using GC-MS based off of both retention time and selected ion monitoring. This eliminates the possibility that a coeluting compound artificially elevates one of the 2. The only way a low T level woudl matter would be if it or ET were below the limit of quantitation. Which in this test is unlikly ar a typical MS is accurate over 3 (or more) orders of magnitude.
> 
> The beer defense would also be highly suspect. The article that everyone site on this was based on a sample set of 4. However if you wish to believe that this study would be reavlent then he would need to consume about 170mL of ethanol (assuming a weight of 65kg) to see the effects that were noticed. That would be 4.5 12oz beers at 10% alcohol (~36mL ethanol per 12oz). Perhaps he did drink this much. However, the study in question also shows that alcohol consumption had little effect on T and ET levels in males. "In males, no significant differences were found in any parameters measured even after the higher dose of alcohol (experiment 2)." -> exp 2 was the 2g/kg treatment


Can you translate please? I think you're saying that the water and beer aren't a real issue but that the cortizone injections could be the culprit but I'm not sure. Landis said in a just released SI article that he also takes a daily does of med. for a thyroid condition. What about that?


----------



## 867-5309

*Guilty Guilty Guilty*

Man, I want to believe....but testosterone is the drug of choice in a situation like this. It isn't like he tested high for any other. cnnsi had an article on it.

Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit


----------



## Henry Porter

rocco said:


> Can you translate please? I think you're saying that the water and beer aren't a real issue but that the cortizone injections could be the culprit but I'm not sure. Landis said in a just released SI article that he also takes a daily does of med. for a thyroid condition. What about that?


I would imagine the thyroid would have a significant difference as well as it is a large part of the hormonal system. However, I'm still pre-med and not anywhere near a source you should quote. Hopefully someone else responds whom is better qualified.


----------



## James OCLV

rocco said:


> How many people said that about Hamilton? ...note that I hope that you are right.


True, but the circumstances here are different. It's not so much about Landis' character as it is about the likelihood of him cheating given all of the circumstances surrounding ths TdF.


----------



## merckxman

*New York Times of July 16th*

"On my (writer DANIEL COYLE) second day with Landis, we traveled with Kay to Chao’s San Diego office for Landis’s pretour cortisone shot in his hip. (Cortisone, a non-performance-enhancing hormone with a variety of anti-inflammatory and other beneficial effects, is a banned substance. Landis’s condition, however, which his doctors have selectively described as “bursitis,” has allowed his team to obtain a therapeutic use exemption from the Union Cycliste Internationale, cycling’s governing body.)"


----------



## ttug

DIRT BOY said:


> I also PL and BB for years!
> 
> So let's see, you are saying it's NOT possible to increase muscle tissue and fat loss that the same time?
> 
> Ok, Let's see. I gain 18 lbs in 3 months, my BF goes down in the proccess and I am not leaner?
> 
> If one increase ther muscle mass, and put on NO BF in the process that are not leaner?
> 
> God your dumb...


Actually, I prefer, experienced. Since you have not provided a definition for lean, and you claim to add nearly 18 pounds of muscle in 3 months, I think you have been reading the Muscle mags and started believing them. This is where people sell you things....Hint hint

Your body fat goes down, are you leaner, yes, sure, You claimed you gained muscle. So? You can gain muscle and maintain a high BF. Wow, what a thought. In fact, you could get lots and lots of muscle and be obese, wow, another thought.Please dont tell me your a freak gym rat who thinks duh, me gain muscle, me lose fat duhhhhh. Calling the moron mothership, calling the moron mothership, one of your people is here, come and get them!!!! His name is Dirt Boy, come quick please.

THEN you use some term I used to read on Stacker labels and pretty much all the other BS you find in a Muscle and Fitness mag. THEN you think, wow, I must be a moron because you assume that ghee, gaining muscle must mean you are leaner. DUH. No genius, you are very wrong. Brainiac! Oh Brainiac! Take a look at power sports. Lots of muscle and lots of mass. Some of these folks have a gut that spills over the belt and could probably be an unborn twin. NOT what you call lean. 

Its like your this 20 something who just never thought out the fact that people cant read your mind. Thats because, you are either too slow or dim to communicate what exactly you want. As your sloth like mentality arrives at frustration central, you say: (because people cant read your mind and you are a [email protected] communicator), THEY are stupid. Yeah, it has been an error on my part chatting with Dirt bag boy.

Gargle my balls, you have also achieved the status of self important bag of SUCK ME OFF.


----------



## WampaOne

rocco said:


> Can you translate please? I think you're saying that the water and beer aren't a real issue but that the cortizone injections could be the culprit but I'm not sure. Landis said in a just released SI article that he also takes a daily does of med. for a thyroid condition. What about that?


Basically, I am saying that none of the suposed explanations people on here have come up with thus far qould provide a reason for a positive test. The cortizone, if it had any effect, would result in a lower level of testosterone and therefore would aid in passing the test. Unless thye view an unusually high ET as a sign of a masking agent.
I dont know about the thyroid drugs but it would be possible that one of them could have an effect, it would just depend on what it was.


----------



## GarbanzoBeanSnafu

FondriestFan said:


> Good thing they don't test for estrogen, or we'd have no French riders.



heheheh!:thumbsup:


----------



## the spyder

*New title Song For Floyd and his ilk*



desurfer said:


> If this turns out to be as bad as it sounds, then I'm washing my hands of pro cycling. I'll continue to have fun riding my bike and completely ignore these so-called 'athletes' who seem to be more into doping than pedaling.
> I'm so sick of all this! Be a man and train hard and ride to the best of your ability instead of trying to drug yourself to the next level.



Song is by the band Queen no, not we are the champions But "ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST":mad2: :idea:


----------



## rocco

WampaOne said:


> Basically, I am saying that none of the suposed explanations people on here have come up with thus far qould provide a reason for a positive test. The cortizone, if it had any effect, would result in a lower level of testosterone and therefore would aid in passing the test. Unless thye view an unusually high ET as a sign of a masking agent.
> I dont know about the thyroid drugs but it would be possible that one of them could have an effect, it would just depend on what it was.



Now the story is that his epi level was low but it's not clear what his epi concentration was. It's been reported on the ABC network that his ratio was 11:1. That's wild. Why would he want his testo. level to be 11x the norm and almost 3x what's allowed? Wouldn't that require a massive dose and why wouldn't it have turned up in the sample from before stage 17 and the one after? So many questions....


----------



## bigbill

rocco said:


> Now the story is that his epi level was low but it's not clear what his epi concentration was. It's been reported on the ABC network that his ratio was 11:1. That's wild. Why would he want his testo. level to be 11x the norm and almost 3x what's allowed? Wouldn't that require a massive dose and why wouldn't it have turned up in the sample from before stage 17 and the one after? So many questions....


I hope that he is innocent. I was listening to NPR at work today and they had a french guy on there talking like he was already convicted. He was so factually wrong in his report, ie that Floyd took the yellow after stage 17 etc. Lets don't hate Landis, lets hate the french, if it wasn't for their tour..... 

I also wanted to be a part of what may be the largest thread ever.


----------



## rash

FWIW
Some possible "experts" explanations on how his t:e ration could exceed acceptable values...http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206001,00.html


----------



## DIRT BOY

*Read what I said you dummy!*

You are such a moron and full of it! Just because I know my crap and you don't you calim I am reading it of a stacker label and Muscle Mag. I wouln't wipr your butt with Muscle Mag.
I know guys who wrote thier "routines" for these mags and they were lies and full of it!

You don't think you can gain 18lbs of muslce in 2 months with proper training, rest and nutrition? I had clients on drugs gain 25-30 lbs in 2-3 months!

I guess you the greatest and most knowledgebale fitness expert to roam this earth and nothing I said is vaild .

So I call your crap, then you resort to calling me name? Yah, that's it.'

I am just amazsed at the idiots on this board the last week and the crap that is posted!

thermogenisis does not exist. Adding muscl;e mass does not increase your metabolisim, sterios cannot not help imporve your sports performance and you cannot reduce calories, ganin muscle and lose fast at the same time according to you!

No wonder you lost a 100lbs! You were a fat ass and have no idea about nutrition or fitness. Myabe you should stay away from Kripsy Kream in between sets!

Funny about I was a pretty good PL at only 150lbs and my a had an incredible Schwartz Formula (?) for someone at my weight.

Yah, I know nothing about fitness and this is why I can make a job of it, appear on television and train athletes and tv stars....

Ok, You are a troll as I should jahve suspected and you got me into a nice little argument.

Sure I am not the cycling god as others pointed out earlier, but I know my fitness....


----------



## ttug

*wow*



DIRT BOY said:


> You are such a moron and full of it! Just because I know my crap and you don't you calim I am reading it of a stacker label and Muscle Mag. I wouln't wipr your butt with Muscle Mag.
> I know guys who wrote thier "routines" for these mags and they were lies and full of it!
> 
> You don't think you can gain 18lbs of muslce in 2 months with proper training, rest and nutrition? I had clients on drugs gain 25-30 lbs in 2-3 months!
> 
> I guess you the greatest and most knowledgebale fitness expert to roam this earth and nothing I said is vaild .
> 
> So I call your crap, then you resort to calling me name? Yah, that's it.'
> 
> I am just amazsed at the idiots on this board the last week and the crap that is posted!
> 
> thermogenisis does not exist. Adding muscl;e mass does not increase your metabolisim, sterios cannot not help imporve your sports performance and you cannot reduce calories, ganin muscle and lose fast at the same time according to you!
> 
> No wonder you lost a 100lbs! You were a fat ass and have no idea about nutrition or fitness. Myabe you should stay away from Kripsy Kream in between sets!
> 
> Funny about I was a pretty good PL at only 150lbs and my a had an incredible Schwartz Formula (?) for someone at my weight.
> 
> Yah, I know nothing about fitness and this is why I can make a job of it, appear on television and train athletes and tv stars....
> 
> Ok, You are a troll as I should jahve suspected and you got me into a nice little argument.
> 
> Sure I am not the cycling god as others pointed out earlier, but I know my fitness....


You do not add muscle genius. Thats pre determined at birth. Then yoiu sing oh its hypertrophy, yeah thats it. Liar.

Yeah, you know your crap all right. It is indeed crap.


----------



## volklskier89

*Just throwin this out there*

Is there any possible way that because of how badly landis had bonked the day before that his body may have tried to recover by overproducing certain chemicals? i mean that doesnt seam like an unreasonable explaination, but there isnt any science behind it either. that is just an idea that i though i might throw out there and see what you guys think of it.


----------



## Bryan

zeytin said:


> Oh I wasn't even rooting for Floyd when the race started and I am praying this isn't what it sounds like. Innocent until proven guilty right? Let's not all jump on a wagon until we find out what's what.


Innocent untill proven guilty doesn't play in France. If it did, Basso would have won this years Tour and Floyd would be retiring with a new hip.


----------



## rocco

bigbill said:


> I also wanted to be a part of what may be the largest thread ever.



Welcome to the tour.... now step this way and piss in this cup.


----------



## DIRT BOY

*You know what mean...*

Marshmellow Man.

DONE with the troll.....


----------

