# Landis Testosterone level actually BELOW normal



## jakerson (Jun 15, 2004)

The positive test was the ratio test. 

The ratio is testosterone to epitestosterone. according to UCI: "an unusual level of testosterone/epitestosterone"

According to John Eustice on ESPN, his actual Testosterone was below normal.
He said that they are looking into why the ratio was above normal.

If his Testosterone was below normal, his epitestosterone must have been WAY below normal. 

SO - given the huge amount of water he drank in stage 17 to avoid a repeate of the stage 16 bonk - I would think that all of those chemicals could have been depleted/diluted. 

Any thoughts on that?


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

jakerson said:


> The positive test was the ratio test.
> 
> The ratio is testosterone to epitestosterone. according to UCI: "an unusual level of testosterone/epitestosterone"
> 
> ...



Are you sure? ...and why would they care if it was low anyway? I don't understand.

The cortisone he's taking for his hip would lower his testosterone level.


----------



## i82frogs (Mar 4, 2006)

Hmmm... Let's hope so.

Are these hormones water soluble? I think Testosterone is suspended in an oil in its injectable form.


----------



## brock (Sep 8, 2005)

It's an interesting thought - I know that for pre-employment drug testing, showing up with a diluted sample (drinking a few water bottles before the test) is considered a failure. They test for creatine concentration to tell if it is too dilute.


----------



## cyclodawg (Jul 1, 2003)

brock said:


> It's an interesting thought - I know that for pre-employment drug testing, showing up with a diluted sample (drinking a few water bottles before the test) is considered a failure. They test for creatine concentration to tell if it is too dilute.


Yikes. I usually down a few liters of water beforehand just to make sure I can produce a sample on demand.


----------



## Allez Rouge (Jan 1, 1970)

I have been wondering about exactly this point, all day. It's reasonable, although not necessarily correct, to assume Landis' test result showed a _high_ level of testosterone, as virtually all the stories I've read have put it.

However, the first paragraph of the official Phonak statement reads:

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

"Unusual" does not necessarily equate to "high;" nor is the word "high" used anywhere in the Phonak statement.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

Allez Rouge said:


> I have been wondering about exactly this point, all day. It's reasonable, although not necessarily correct, to assume Landis' test result showed a _high_ level of testosterone, as virtually all the stories I've read have put it.
> 
> However, the first paragraph of the official Phonak statement reads:
> 
> ...



Well that's totally clear and not confusing...


----------



## mtbykr (Feb 16, 2004)

*well*

Tough to keep up with all the threads From everything i have heard; a cortizone injection (which apparently landis got during the tour a couple times) would throw his testosterone system out of whack. (supposidly raising the testosterone) Now we knwo his testosterone level was low, however the eutosterone (sp?) level was so low that it threw the 4-1 ratio out of whack. This CAN be attributed to the cortizone shot. One thing to note though is that if he had been "cheating" his testosterone level would have been high (which they were not) -- this test is also very subjective in that all riders who have appealed a positive testosterone test have won the appeal in the past.

It should all blow over for floyd, however the damage is done (whether intentional or not) regarding the average person who doesn't pay attention. they will always remember floyd's win and think he cheated--which is truly sad


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

deleted


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

mtbykr said:


> Tough to keep up with all the threads From everything i have heard; a cortizone injection (which apparently landis got during the tour a couple times) would throw his testosterone system out of whack. (supposidly raising the testosterone) Now we knwo his testosterone level was low, however the eutosterone (sp?) level was so low that it threw the 4-1 ratio out of whack. This CAN be attributed to the cortizone shot. One thing to note though is that if he had been "cheating" his testosterone level would have been high (which they were not) -- this test is also very subjective in that all riders who have appealed a positive testosterone test have won the appeal in the past.
> 
> It should all blow over for floyd, however the damage is done (whether intentional or not) regarding the average person who doesn't pay attention. they will always remember floyd's win and think he cheated--which is truly sad



Actually if they got it wrong I think this one could blow up in their faces. If he's cleared there will be a plenty of press about how the media moved too fast and got it wrong - something that the 24 hr media has been doing more and more of. We'll see...


----------



## Sao (Jul 31, 2003)

This is ridiculous. Is there a "definitive" test for this? Do all scientists agree? Has WADA, et al, been 100% accurate in the past? Was LeBlanc right when he claimed Lance doped, even though no proof ever surfaced? 

And on and on. 

The worst is that this has gotten more ink in the American press than Landis' victory did - of course. 

I mean, with THAT many variables involved, how can anyone say, definitively, that he or anyone else did or did not "dope"? And is an "unusual" testosterone level the *same* as testing "positive" for EPO, much as the US government considers pot and heroin the *same* Class A drug? 

And then, of course, the usual great timing of the announcement itself and the immediate team suspension, etc. 

I think the dog chases its tail on this story over and over - riders dope as much as the reporters love breaking and telling the story.


----------



## coreyb (Aug 4, 2003)

Sao said:


> Is there a "definitive" test for this? Do all scientists agree? Has WADA, et al, been 100% accurate in the past?


Can you demonstrate anything to the contrary?


Sao said:


> I mean, with THAT many variables involved, how can anyone say, definitively, that he or anyone else did or did not "dope"?


What variables?


Sao said:


> And then, of course, the usual great timing of the announcement itself and the immediate team suspension, etc


What about the timing of the announcement? The immediate suspension, iirc, is a matter of the protour code of ethics.


----------



## BenWA (Aug 11, 2004)

mtbykr said:


> It should all blow over for floyd, however the damage is done (whether intentional or not) regarding the average person who doesn't pay attention. they will always remember floyd's win and think he cheated--which is truly sad


I tend to agree with you here. Comparing it to Lance's situation when all that l'Equipe and Dick Pound stuff went down, I think all that seriously undermined Lance's reputation among the public psyche even after it turned out that they had nothing on him. Right after Lance won the Tour last year, it seemed as though the world viewed him as a god...then the allegations and accusations started and suddenly everyone had new associations with Lance's name. I think those associations have stuck even though the smoke has long since cleared. I hate to say it but I see something similar happening here, even if Landis is let off the hook.


----------



## wzq622 (Aug 3, 2004)

ALLEZ FLOYD!

Bring down WADA and discredit their institutions and burn those witchhunters at their own stakes!!!


----------



## Reynolds531 (Nov 8, 2002)

*NPR news story confirms problem was low epi not high testosterone*

Here's a link

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5586696

According to the story low levels of the testosterone metabolite made the ratio high


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

*hallelujah..*



Sao said:


> This is ridiculous. Is there a "definitive" test for this? Do all scientists agree? Has WADA, et al, been 100% accurate in the past? Was LeBlanc right when he claimed Lance doped, even though no proof ever surfaced?
> 
> And on and on.
> 
> ...


I never knew there were so many experts in testosterone on the RBR...
fact is, even the experts aren't even experts...drug testing: its a science of probabilities and predictive positive values and specificity...the test accuracy of a test. there are NO tests available on the market today with 100% accuracy (not even birth control, boys). sad, but true when people's lives are compromised. these tests are highly faulty (80% accuracy being the standard acceptance rate), there are too many variables and confounding factors for: 1) the PRESS to jump all over the subject and 2) for Landis to be strung out and expelled from the world of cycling. Did he do it? that's only opinion at this point. there are believers and nonbelievers of human capability, recovery efforts. Do I believe cycling is clean? NO. 
too many carrots dangled in front of too many noses (I mean $100,000 appearance fees?)
Do I believe his show on Stage 17 seemed suspicious? Yes. Do I think doping products can induce dramatic comebacks like that? I don't know, I've never done it...have you?


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

rocco said:


> Actually if they got it wrong I think this one could blow up in their faces. If he's cleared there will be a plenty of press about how the media moved too fast and got it wrong - something that the 24 hr media has been doing more and more of. We'll see...


It could blow up in UCI's faces. The buried anouncement because of Floyd's news is that the 5 Astana members closed out of the Tour have been cleared. That would have put Vino (who wasn't otherwise implicated) into the tour. Now, I'm not saying Vino had the goods for the podium, but there's a chance that "witchhunt destroying the sport" will be heard more often than "cheaters destroying the sport." That'd be a shame to have happen, because there'd never be any sense of clarity or trust to either side of the equation - not that there's much now.


----------



## slamy (Mar 15, 2004)

I pulled this off the espn website. They interviewed a WADA member, Dr. Gary Wadler:


Q: For a cyclist, what's the benefit of elevated levels of testosterone? Why would a cyclist use it? 

A: It's certainly not one of the first-line drugs one thinks of for racing. Steroids can increase strength and improve recovery time and prevent the breakdown of muscle, maybe make him more assertive and aggressive. All of those could have some positive attribute. But most steroids are given in cycles [6-12 weeks] and in context of working out in a gym with weights. It makes no sense to me why an athlete would take testosterone the day of a race when it doesn't work that way. It doesn't make sense in terms of the pharmacology of the drug, and it really doesn't have the attributes that would be attractive to a cyclist -- particularly one running the risk of violating anti-doping regulations. 

I keep thinking, this just doesn't make sense. Again, Phonak said that the results were unusual, not that he had high levels of steriods as the media now have proclaimed. I think Landis is innocent and is getting railroaded.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

jakerson said:


> The positive test was the ratio test.
> 
> The ratio is testosterone to epitestosterone. according to UCI: "an unusual level of testosterone/epitestosterone"
> 
> ...



How do you figure that his epitestosterone must have been way below normal form this?

epitestosterone = dope No?

If the amount of testosterone is low in proportion and the amount of epitestosterone is high proportion then this would equal a positive for doping. No?


----------



## Ribble (Jul 27, 2006)

jakerson said:


> The positive test was the ratio test.
> 
> The ratio is testosterone to epitestosterone. according to UCI: "an unusual level of testosterone/epitestosterone"
> 
> ...



ESPN website doesn't appear to mention this. And while Eustice says his testosterone was low, why does it stand that "his epitestosterone must have been WAY below normal. 
". I don't claim to have any useful knowledge re doping, but perhaps his epitestosterone level is high, as this website http://www.fpnotebook.com/URO39.htm would suggest. It is after all a ratio, so it doesn't matter what the testosterone level is, if the epitestosterone is raised in comparison, that is suspiscious.


----------



## mtbykr (Feb 16, 2004)

*good post*



slamy said:


> I pulled this off the espn website. They interviewed a WADA member, Dr. Gary Wadler:
> 
> 
> Q: For a cyclist, what's the benefit of elevated levels of testosterone? Why would a cyclist use it?
> ...



Good post, and i am starting to think the same way!


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

Ribble said:


> ESPN website doesn't appear to mention this. And while Eustice says his testosterone was low, why does it stand that "his epitestosterone must have been WAY below normal.
> ". I don't claim to have any useful knowledge re doping, but perhaps his epitestosterone level is high, as this website http://www.fpnotebook.com/URO39.htm would suggest. It is after all a ratio, so it doesn't matter what the testosterone level is, if the epitestosterone is raised in comparison, that is suspiscious.



Yeah that's how I'm reading this too.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

What I don't understand is that I think cortisone lowers the testosterone level and if that's the case then wouldn't that increase the ration epitestosterone to testosterone?


----------



## almccm (May 3, 2003)

If normal is about 1:1 (t:e) and violation is over 4:1 then if testosterone (t) is low and he was in violation epitestosterone (e) had to be way low by over a factor of 4.

I think he's innocent.


----------



## BenWA (Aug 11, 2004)

Sao said:



> The worst is that this has gotten more ink in the American press than Landis' victory did - of course.


Seriously. That is perhaps the most shameful thing about this, IMO.


----------



## FatTireFred (Jan 31, 2005)

Ribble said:


> ESPN website doesn't appear to mention this. And while Eustice says his testosterone was low, why does it stand that "his epitestosterone must have been WAY below normal.
> ". I don't claim to have any useful knowledge re doping, but perhaps his epitestosterone level is high, as this website http://www.fpnotebook.com/URO39.htm would suggest. It is after all a ratio, so it doesn't matter what the testosterone level is, if the epitestosterone is raised in comparison, that is suspiscious.



it's the ratio that was reportedly high... that in conjunction with low testosterone means that epitestosterone MUST be way low.

there are complex feedback mechanisms, so it is conceivable that exogenous steroid threw things 'out of whack'

apparently an SI reporter had a conversation with FL today:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/austin_murphy/07/27/landis.react/index.html


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

mtbykr said:


> Good post, and i am starting to think the same way!


They are starting to get a reputation for shooting first, then apologizing to the corpse.


----------



## Allez Rouge (Jan 1, 1970)

rocco said:


> How do you figure that his epitestosterone must have been way below normal form this?
> 
> epitestosterone = dope No?
> 
> If the amount of testosterone is low in proportion and the amount of epitestosterone is high proportion then this would equal a positive for doping. No?


All right, now I'm confused (never a long trip for me). I've always seen testosterone mentioned first, and epitestosterone second, with the ratio limit expressed as 4:1 or 6:1. To me that implies that the first number is T, the second is E, and that more than four times as much T as E would produce a positive (i.e., failing) result. Is it actually the other way around?


----------



## Asiago (Jan 28, 2004)

*4:1/t:e*



Allez Rouge said:


> All right, now I'm confused (never a long trip for me). I've always seen testosterone mentioned first, and epitestosterone second, with the ratio limit expressed as 4:1 or 6:1. To me that implies that the first number is T, the second is E, and that more than four times as much T as E would produce a positive (i.e., failing) result. Is it actually the other way around?


No, you have it, 4:1/T:E

That's why if his T was low, the E must have been very low to generate the "positive"


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

rocco said:


> How do you figure that his epitestosterone must have been way below normal form this?
> 
> epitestosterone = dope No?
> 
> If the amount of testosterone is low in proportion and the amount of epitestosterone is high proportion then this would equal a positive for doping. No?


No. Both are naturally occuring. Epi is a metabolite of testosterone - something it naturally turns into in the body. Hence, a high ratio of test/epi suggests that the athlete injected testosterone. 

But if the testosterone levels were low, and very low epi levels are what caused the positive, it would tend to suggest that this was a false positive. But it's a simplification to say that's anywhere near the end of the tale.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

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

Normal: Epitestosterone to Testosterone Ratio = 2-3 to 1

Abnormal: Epitestosterone to Testosterone Ratio = 6-9 to 1

Conditions with abnormal ratio
1. Growth Hormone abuse by athletes
2. Anabolic Steroid use by athletes


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

brock said:


> It's an interesting thought - I know that for pre-employment drug testing, showing up with a diluted sample (drinking a few water bottles before the test) is considered a failure. They test for creatine concentration to tell if it is too dilute.


They use specific gravity.


----------



## Robb.Astro (Apr 15, 2006)

his testosterone levels could have been low, but perhaps it was a swing in the other direction. ie a ratio where the epi levels are higher than the T levels.

something like 1:2 or 1:4 t:e.


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

I think there are a lot of dynamics at work here, the least of which is "another American won the Tour". UCI and the Grand Tours have been in turmoil since the changes the UCI insisted on for the Pro Tour classifications. WADA needs to continue to justify themselves. The Euro media need a villian to chase.

I hope when this is over Floyd is cleared. I was really excited for him - besides I won't be able to collect my bets if he is DQd :cryin:

Edit: seeing the European press's reaction to this makes me believe thise whole thing is related to Puerto, but in a vindictive way since no American was linked or suspended. "Let's sling a little mud on the Americans after their eighth victory!"


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

I have been researching this today and posted a separate post reviewing the WADA docs. I hope it helps with this a bit--it is incredible how fast the media is to get out a story with sloppy sloppy fact checking


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

stevesbike said:


> I have been researching this today and posted a separate post reviewing the WADA docs. I hope it helps with this a bit--it is incredible how fast the media is to get out a story with sloppy sloppy fact checking



So what are your conclusions?


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

here's the post

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The WADA procedures document for T/E testing is available online (link below) and raises a number of questions. The critical piece of information that is floating around is John Eustice's report that Landis returned low values for testosterone. Does anyone know whether there is any independent/official statement confirming this? This seems unlikely, as it would undermine the significance of the finding (which is after all to see whether athletes have raised levels of testosterone by steroid use). disclaimer: although I am a PhD in science and familiar with lab methods, I am no expert in this area so welcome corrections-I"m just really trying to make sense of this event and trying to find some information in what appears to be an extraordinary rush to guilt among officials and slpppy media. 


The WADA document states:

"The T/E value is usually measurable regardless of the concentration of both steroids. Whether measured from the Screening Procedure or the Confirmation Procedure, it must be corrected using an appropriate standard (e.g. calibration curve, quality control sample(s) or authentic standard solutions of both testosterone and epitestosterone).The concentration of testosterone and epitestosterone (equivalent to the glucuronide) should be estimated but should not be used to determine the T/E value. In the case of high T/E values, the concentration of epitestosterone is frequently low and it may not always be possible to measure epitestosterone precisely. In such cases, only the concentration of testosterone (equivalent to the glucuronide) is to be determined." 

One scenario being floated (Eustice's claim of low testosterone) is that the ratio was reported abnormal due to low epitestosterone concentrations. If that were the case, it would appear that the concentration of testosterone would be used. There, the adverse finding would require:

"concentration of testosterone or epitestosterone (equivalent to the glucuronide) greater than 200 ng/mL1;:

Which would be inconsistent with the report of low testosterone. The critical piece of information is the concentration of testosterone. I take it the T/E ratio test at least at the screening phase is used to ESTIMATE the concentration of testosterone relative to control samples where these concentrations are known. 

DOES THE SCREENING PROCEDURE QUANTIFY CONCENTRATION OF TESTOSTERONE? If control samples are used to estimates these levels, is it possible that at the screening step (a sample), the T/E ratio could be reported abnormal despite the possibility of within range testosterone? 

It appears this is quantified in the confirmation step (on the b sample). 

Confirmed elevated concentration of steroids will be reported as such together with the value adjusted for the specific gravity of the urine Sample using the following formula:
Concentration1.020 ng/mL = (1.020 – 1) / (Specific gravity of the Sample– 1) • Concentration measured ng/mL

So, here's the questions: 

what has been tested and what do we know about quantification of testosterone?
Do we wait until the b sample tests to know these values?
Is there any official source for Eustice's claim of low concentrations of testosterone?

In terms of background, in 2005, according to WADA steroids accounted for the most positive tests: 1,864 or 48 percent, so it's not like these are only rarely dealt with or arbitrated. 

WADA document:
http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/d...ids_aug_04.pdf


----------



## jlfbogey (Aug 18, 2004)

here is a decent link to what may clarify the testing principle:

http://www.asada.gov.au/substances/facts/testosterone.htm 


Hopefully a re-test will clear Floyd--we need a pro cycling hero right about now.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

stevesbike said:


> here's the post
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...



I haven't seen anything official that backs Eustice's claim so at this point I'm not so sure I'm buying it. NPR has reported that his Epi level was low. It seems that could be interpreted different ways. How can tell whether this means that his Epi level was truely low as compared to the norm or if it low compared to a high level of T? I don't know if this is about semantics or not. What could cause a low Epi as compared to the norm?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5586696


----------



## txzen (Apr 6, 2005)

Sao said:


> This is ridiculous. Is there a "definitive" test for this? Do all scientists agree? Has WADA, et al, been 100% accurate in the past? Was LeBlanc right when he claimed Lance doped, even though no proof ever surfaced?


While I think the EPO test has issues, the testosterone one is better.

The EPO test concentrates the protein in the urine and uses a pretty delicate test to see minute differences in sugar chains on natural vs. recombinant forms. It's a bit dicey. They run it on a gel, and a certain percentage of the protein in a region of the gel is considered positive. 

The testosterone test has been around since the 80's and involves taking the sample and running it though mass spectroscopy, which will give "peaks" that correspond to the two forms of testosterone - the active form and the (natural) precursor. More fullproof.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

jlfbogey said:


> here is a decent link to what may clarify the testing principle:
> 
> http://www.asada.gov.au/substances/facts/testosterone.htm
> 
> ...



I think the site says that the epitestosterone level is unaffected by testosterone or related preparation taken or some pathological condition because it is made through a different bio-synthetic pathway. In other words a testosterone related preparation (steroids) or some pathological condition only effects the testosterone level and not the testosterone level. On the other hand it seems hard to believe that nothing effects the epitestosterone level. NPR reported that it is his epitestosterone level was low not that his testosterone was high. I don't know if this is a case of semantics or what.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5586696


----------



## txzen (Apr 6, 2005)

jlfbogey said:


> Hopefully a re-test will clear Floyd--we need a pro cycling hero right about now.


Even Floyd doesn't think the retest is going to be any different. They will have to come up with a medical reason for the lowered "E", or a higher "T". Even if they do, the asterisk that was attached to this win will now be all the larger.


----------



## ari (Jan 25, 2005)

*Maybe he was trying to "get back to normal"?*

Perhaps his testosterone was low, so he decided to dope to get it "back to a normal level" ... but in doing so, the ratio was thrown off? This is like the pros who have below-normal hematocrit, and decide to use EPO to "level the playing field." They justify it to themselves by saying, "Hey, I'm not *boosting* my levels above normal, I'm just *correcting* a deficiency." But doping is doping, however you try to convince yourself that you're not cheating.

Cheers,
Ari


----------



## Armchair Spaceman (Jun 21, 2003)

*Epitestosterone*

From:

http://www.680news.com/news/sports/article.jsp?content=s072755A


"Suspicions for improper steroid use arise when the ratio climbs above 4 parts testosterone over 1 part epitestosterone, Wadler said. Officials have not said what ratio Landis' test showed.

Athletes who use performance-enhancing anabolic steroids often also take synthetic epitestosterone to equalize the ratio, said Charles Yesalis, a recently retired Pennsylvania State University professor and doping expert.

There is no medical use for synthetic epitestosterone; it is used "to cheat drug tests," Yesalis said.

Some men have naturally occurring high levels of testosterone and/or epitestosterone, but there is a sophisticated lab test called a carbon isotope ratio test that is often used to detect synthetic forms.

Landis said in an interview during the Tour de France that he has had injections of cortisone, a medically used steroid drug to treat pain from a degenerating arthritic hip, but doctors said that would not affect his test results."

Perhaps a qualified expert's view?


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

if he took something to raise his testosterone level, one procedure that is done is to also take epistestosterone to keep the ratio constant. The T/E screening includes under the list of criteria not just the ratio but concentrations:

i) T/E value equal or greater than 4;
ii) concentration of testosterone or epitestosterone (equivalent to the glucuronide) greater than 200 ng/mL1;


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

stevesbike said:


> if he took something to raise his testosterone level, one procedure that is done is to also take epistestosterone to keep the ratio constant. The T/E screening includes under the list of criteria not just the ratio but concentrations:
> 
> i) T/E value equal or greater than 4;
> ii) concentration of testosterone or epitestosterone (equivalent to the glucuronide) greater than 200 ng/mL1;



Knowing the concentrations seems to be what this whole thing hinges on. A low epitestosterone ratio means nothing in itself and it's not clear whether these reports of a low epitestosterone level means a low ratio or a low concentrations.


----------



## brewser123 (Sep 14, 2004)

anyone know anything about the relationship between thyroid conditions and testosterone levels? The mention of thyroid suppliments seem to have been swept under the rug.

I have a hypothyroid condition and was reading up on all this stuff in the past, just never understood it.

I have heard mentions that hypothyroidism could effect the amount of testosterone produced or used, of course thats just from random forums and websites that have little medical backing and could be totally incorrect...

So of course this strikes my interest if there are any experts out there who can set it straight..


----------



## FatTireFred (Jan 31, 2005)

11:1... abc news just reported the ratio as 11:1


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

*Seems fishy*



FatTireFred said:


> 11:1... abc news just reported the ratio as 11:1



I wonder what their source is. ...and isn't that so high as to be suspicious? How could he or why would want his T ratio to be 11x the norm or almost 3x the limit?


----------



## rickkkus (Jun 4, 2006)

Excellent analysis and discussion, but I still think the best thing to hold on to for those (such as me) hoping and believing that there is some artifact to this and that he'll be clear, is simply that T-boosting makes minimal sense, of all the things he could have done if he wanted to roll the dice that day. Right?


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

rocco said:


> I wonder what their source is. ...and isn't that so high as to be suspicious? How could he or why would want his T ratio to be 11x the norm or almost 3x the limit?


Well just maybe he didn't take any extracurricular testosterone and it has to due with some interplay between the cortizone, the extreme exertion, naturally low levels etc. etc

So many willing to pull the trigger before all the information comes out.......


----------



## Robert M. (Mar 24, 2004)

If his levels were below normal and that is what is throwing the ratio off, shouldn't the lab doing the tests know what his normal levels are? Don't they have files on all the riders with their medical info? I would think looking at the numbers would prove he didn't dope.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

Robert M. said:


> If his levels were below normal and that is what is throwing the ratio off, shouldn't the lab doing the tests know what his normal levels are? Don't they have files on all the riders with their medical info? I would think looking at the numbers would prove he didn't dope.



The key is the concentration.


----------



## MikeBiker (Mar 9, 2003)

I would expect that Floyd is conferring with his doctors to come up with a viable (and testable) explanation for whatever the failing results were.


----------



## footballcat (Jul 8, 2004)

roids will not work that fast, only one roid works this fast its dbol, all other drugs take a few weeks to start working, such at a test prop will take a week.

So he would have had to be using the drugs prior to this. In less he took the drugs after the day he bonked, but they wouldnt have helped that quickly.


----------



## PullThrough (Jun 12, 2006)

rocco said:


> Actually if they got it wrong I think this one could blow up in their faces. If he's cleared there will be a plenty of press about how the media moved too fast and got it wrong - something that the 24 hr media has been doing more and more of. We'll see...



Well, I could see it blowing up in the UCI's face, but not the media's! Nothing ever blows up in the media's face, you know why? Newsflash: Because they're the ones reporting everything!


----------



## PullThrough (Jun 12, 2006)

One more thing... Think of these riders like you think of their bikes. The UCI has a weight limit. The teams, riders, manufacturers do whatever it takes to get down to within a gram (well, maybe not that close) of the UCI's minimum weight limit. The riders do the same thing with their bodies. They want to be as close to the legal limits and test numbers as possible. Let's speculate that two riders use a testosterone patch for recovery. One fails a test because their levels are slightly too high, the other doesn't. Who's the cheater?


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

PullThrough said:


> Well, I could see it blowing up in the UCI's face, but not the media's! Nothing ever blows up in the media's face, you know why? Newsflash: Because they're the ones reporting everything!



Tell that to the New York Times.


----------



## tubafreak (Apr 24, 2006)

With such a high ratio (11:1) is it possible that maybe there was a testing error? Such a radical result on a doping test certainly does raise a few red flags. Even if someone did take some form of testosterone (which I don't think Floyd did), I don't think they'd take so much as to triple the accepted ratio. That would seem quite excessive, especially for a drug that has no documented history of suppplementing the necessary values for cycling (endurance, VO2, hematocrit, etc...). I'm not saying this is exactly what happened (as I have no firsthand knowledge of any of this) but logically it's very possible that the lab workers who ran the samples screwed up.


----------



## DriftlessDB (Jul 29, 2005)

tubafreak said:


> With such a high ratio (11:1) is it possible that maybe there was a testing error? Such a radical result on a doping test certainly does raise a few red flags. Even if someone did take some form of testosterone (which I don't think Floyd did), I don't think they'd take so much as to triple the accepted ratio. That would seem quite excessive, especially for a drug that has no documented history of suppplementing the necessary values for cycling (endurance, VO2, hematocrit, etc...). I'm not saying this is exactly what happened (as I have no firsthand knowledge of any of this) but logically it's very possible that the lab workers who ran the samples screwed up.


It does seem odd, he had to have been tested multiple times during the tour. What was the ratio of those tests? Obviously within the norms. Then on this one test he is off the charts. He had to have been tested 2 days later when he took the yellow back right? In that test he is back within the norms. How fast would excess testosterone leave the body? Fast enough to bring him back within the 4:1 ratio? Lots of questions, but no answers. 

I am waiting for some lab guy to review the results and say - Crap, we forgot to carry the one. 

Dave


----------

