| RotoGuru Politics Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: Floyd Landis is a Champion! Posted by: Seattle Zen - [46315247] Sun, Jul 23, 2006, 23:16  Hurricane Floyd Not Lance, Landis Lance Armstrong's conquering cancer is widely known and praised, but what Floyd Landis did in this year's race is incredible. The man has a bum leg, his hip socket is going to be replaced this year, he suffered a horrible spill in 2003 that has left one of his legs an inch longer than the other. He rides in pain every day, without a team of all-stars like Lance had. Morzine, Stage 17 Many are calling this stage one of the classics of all time. Less than 18 hours after Floyd Landis lost the yellow jersey, a rumor started circulating through the peloton that the upstart American was going to go on a desperate, race-busting solo breakaway. Weary riders begged him not to do it, but he just laughed and told them to drink a Coke because he going to attack on the day's first climb. By the time the favorites organized a chase late in the five-climb march across the Alps, it was too late. Landis held a six-minute gap over the punishing Joux-Plane climb and soared into Morzine to become America's ninth Tour stage winner. In one audacious attack, Landis jumped back into contention at just 30 seconds back. A legend was born. The guy is from Amish country, he's not a media whore like Big Tex. His win was awe inspiring. | |||||||
| 39 | Perm Dude ID: 1973359 Sat, Aug 05, 2006, 10:42 |
Second sample also shows synthetic testosterone Looks like that's it for Landis. | ||||||
| 40 | sarge33rd ID: 575352217 Sat, Aug 05, 2006, 10:48 | 11:1 ratio this time around. Was the "fat lady" I just heard? | ||||||
| 41 | Boldwin ID: 46651516 Sat, Aug 05, 2006, 10:55 | That was an awful lot of pain for nothin if true. | ||||||
| 42 | sarge33rd ID: 575352217 Sat, Aug 05, 2006, 11:14 |
I am admittedly, so far remived from knowing a valid test/procedure from an invalid one in this case, it isnt even funny. But heres what I simply cannot "comprehend"; From all I've mnanaged to read on this, some 8 or so samples taken and tested during the 3 weeks prior to Sample "A", all came in clean. Then "A" comes in "slightly" dirty. (Above the new allowance but below the previous ones.) Now, Sample "B" comes in, at nearly twice the ratio of the old allowances and almost 3 times the level of the current definition of a positive test. As I understand it, it takes about 2-3 weeks AFTER taking testerone, to "realize" any physical benefit from it. If thats true, then surely Landis would fully know this. Meaning he would have to have been taking it while the previous 8 samples were tested. This would cause one or more of those to test positive. Yes? There is no logical reason, for taking testerone either by injection or pill or any other means, between legs of the tourney, as no benefit would be derived until after the ride was over and the samples would still be collected. I mean, this whole thing simply defies logic. (Based on my currently limited understanding of the science behind it.) | ||||||
| 43 | Perm Dude ID: 1973359 Sat, Aug 05, 2006, 11:17 |
Well, there certainly appears to be some grounds for appeal. But no slam dunks. His previous negatives are certainly in his favor. Plus the fact that the same lab tested both samples. But even if he "wins" it will still be a tainted victory. | ||||||
| 44 | Sludge ID: 45541422 Sat, Aug 05, 2006, 12:37 |
(Above the new allowance but below the previous ones.) I don't understand where this misconception is coming from. The old rule was 6:1. New rule is 4:1. Everything I've heard from the beginning was that it was more than double 4:1 or it was 11:1 (which is, not coincidentally, more than double 4:1, and which the B sample matches with). | ||||||
| 45 | Sludge ID: 45541422 Sat, Aug 05, 2006, 12:40 |
But yes, it does defy logic as to why Landis would take testosterone in the middle the the Tour knowing full well it would have no tangible benefit to him. Maybe he forgot to take his masking agent? | ||||||
| 46 | Perm Dude ID: 1973359 Sat, Aug 05, 2006, 13:01 |
Maybe. Or maybe the same lab is making the same mistake, after a series of negative tests. Seeing how the French have gone to the media first on this and previous test results against Armstrong, this all appears a little fishy to me. | ||||||
| 47 | nerveclinic ID: 10526140 Sat, Aug 05, 2006, 13:36 |
Maybe. Or maybe the same lab is making the same mistake, after a series of negative tests. Seeing how the French have gone to the media first on this and previous test results against Armstrong, this all appears a little fishy to me. Well even Landis hasn't made that charge PD, he's just trying to tell everyone that his testostrone is naturally high. I haven't heard him say yet the "lab rigged it". If the French wanted Armstrong so badly why didn't they rig his urine if it's so easy? | ||||||
| 48 | Perm Dude ID: 1973359 Sat, Aug 05, 2006, 13:50 |
It isn't about rigging. It is about process. And Landis hasn't made the charge (yet) because he is probably naive enough to thing being innocent is enough. We seem to have switched out natural positions here, nerve. | ||||||
| 49 | sarge33rd ID: 575352217 Sat, Aug 05, 2006, 17:45 |
I'll have to do some digging Sludge to see if I can find some of the original articles I read on this. They said (IIRC), that Landis sample "A", tested out at 4:1. Within the allowed tolerance before the change, but now defined as a positive test result. It still seems utterly inconceiveable, that 8 samples over 3 weeks tested negative leading into the Tour, then 2 samples test out as positive. Logic, reason and common sense all indicate to me, that it would be highly unlikely that a wordl-class athlete, knowing he woulkd be tested, would take a banned substance while knowing that the timing of it would provide no benefit. Tantamount to removing the magazine and bayonet from a rifle, then standing up and yelling charge. | ||||||
| 50 | Perm Dude ID: 1973359 Sat, Aug 05, 2006, 17:51 | I believe those previous 8 samples were during the Tour, sarge. | ||||||
| 51 | nerveclinic ID: 10526140 Sat, Aug 05, 2006, 19:41 |
PD We seem to have switched out natural positions here, nerve. So you are saying you think there's a conspiracy behind this PD? What about "the process" are you suggesting is the problem? There were two samples for the very purpose of making sure if the first one was tested improperly, it would show up in the second test. * Would you feel the same way if he wasn't an American? * Have you felt that about any other athletes in the past who have tested positive? * Do you think the company who tested him is in on the conspiracy? * What is gained by those involved in the conspiracy? * Do you assume that the second place finisher was somehow involved? * Do you think the French Government was involved? * Do you think the tour de France officials were involved and wanted an American to look bad for some reason? If you think there's something fishy it would be interesting to know what some of your theories might be on who and why. You have been very vague in your implications. Whenever I discuss a conspiracy, I can always see a clear reason that the conspirator would gain something substantial. The company who tested the urine earns their lively hood by testing for banned substances, if they were somehow involved with improper testing and were caught, not only would it destroy their company, they would be liable for both criminal charges and lawsuits. Seems pretty risky for a company that tests athletes for a living. | ||||||
| 52 | Perm Dude ID: 1973359 Sat, Aug 05, 2006, 20:30 |
I'm not saying there is a conspiracy. I think there is a strong French anti-American bias (so I guess I would not feel the same way if it wasn't an American--neither would the French). As the Armstrong case has shown, the French have a history of relying upon false information, bad science, and playing it all in the media first. This particular case has all the earmarks of the same witchunt as came out of the LNDD allegations just last year. LNDD earned their livelihood as well. The fact that people earn enough to live off something doesn't make them ethical just on that basis. | ||||||
| 53 | nerveclinic ID: 10526140 Sun, Aug 06, 2006, 03:23 |
OK but again you are being vague and answered almost none of the questions. For those of us not up to speed what were the "earmarks" of the LNDD witchhunt. I don't even know what the LNDD is. You said that you and I had switched natural positions so I jumped to the conclusion you meant you think there's a conspiracy since that's what I am known for. If you think there's something "fishy" going on, can you just spell out what that might be in clear English? I'm just honestly curious. I have an open mind I promise. | ||||||
| 54 | Boldwin ID: 46651516 Sun, Aug 06, 2006, 08:50 | Perhaps I am not following this story carefully enuff, but when they use the term 'synthetic' testosterone are they genuinely saying they can tell chemically that it was beyond a shadow of a doubt produced in a test tube, or are they simply still relying on the ratio to call it synthetic? | ||||||
| 55 | Motley Crue ID: 2192327 Sun, Aug 06, 2006, 09:00 |
Once the ratio results came back out of whack, they did some sort of isotope testing and the results of that showed it was a synthetic testosterone, Baldwin. Which logically means that Landis ingested it somehow. It's not impossible that the urine sample could have been tampered with. I suppose that is very unlikely, but it would explain why Landis is floundering for an explanation, while the test results appear so decisively indicative of cheating. | ||||||
| 56 | nerveclinic ID: 10526140 Sun, Aug 06, 2006, 13:04 |
This is amazing but I agree with everything MC said in post 55. I didn't think it was possible...8-} | ||||||
| 57 | Boldwin ID: 46651516 Sun, Aug 06, 2006, 18:44 | If that isotope is impossible to occur naturally under any set of circumstances he's busted but I'm still leary of this process. | ||||||
| 58 | sarge33rd ID: 76442923 Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 00:16 | That he ingested it, may not be in question. I dont see how else a synthetic could have been ofund in his urine, when 3 days ago ro so, it wasnt there. The question becomes...did he knowingly ingest it, or was he "spiked" somehow. I'd be inclined to think, it was done to him, vs by him. | ||||||
| 59 | Motley Crue Dude ID: 439372011 Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 08:33 |
Sarge, the other possibility is that it was added to his urine after he provided the sample. But then I would think that experienced lab technicians or scientists would be able to detect that it hadn't bonded with any of the metabolic waste he'd produced, and that would have set off some alarms. As much as we want to think all of the French hate him, I'm sure most if not all of the lab employees take their livelihoods and integrity more seriously than their personal feelings about an American winning their big race. Hypothetical: if it could be shown that an individual spiked something Landis ingested with the testosterone before the stage in question, do you still think he ought to be penalized? After all, the rules likely are written in such a way that they outlaw the presence of the stuff in one's body. I'm sure it is irrelevant, where the rules are concerned, how the stuff got there. I wouldn't be surprised to eventually hear Landis go with the Raffy Palmeiro defense. "Miguel Tejada did it!" | ||||||
| 60 | sarge33rd ID: 76442923 Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 10:47 | The how it got there needs to be answered. I doubt though, it will make any difference re his retaining is title as Tour de France victor. That I think, is not gonna happen. If he indeed took the stuff himself, then he's one of the biggest dummies walking the face of the earth. I just find it hard to believe, knowing he'd be tested, knowing it would do him no good to take the stuff at that point, that he'd take it. Of course, we've all known supposedly intelligent people to do some truly stupid sh*t. | ||||||
| 61 | Seattle Zen ID: 46315247 Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 12:39 | I don't think that injesting testosterone orally could cause your test/epi levels to spike - it has to be injected or the liver will metabolize it, rendering it useless. No "slipping a mickey" into his drink, they'd have to slip a mickey into his muscle with a syringe. Not likely. | ||||||
| 62 | Perm Dude ID: 37879 Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 12:47 | How would that metabolize it through his liver? | ||||||
| 63 | Seattle Zen ID: 46315247 Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 13:10 | I'm not a bio-chemist, but you inject test into the muscles to avoid the liver. | ||||||
| 64 | Perm Dude ID: 37879 Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 13:14 | Ah--OK. I'd misread your post as indicating that metabolism needed to occur--but you were saying the opposite. | ||||||
| 65 | boikin ID: 400291013 Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 13:18 | Can you not rub it into the skin, is that not what gatlin claimed happened. I do relize he made that up but it was still thought as of resonable way to get high levels. Even if he did not knowingly cheated he can not win it would not be fare though reputation should be clean. | ||||||
| 66 | Seattle Zen ID: 46315247 Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 13:23 | Topical applications also avoid the liver. | ||||||
| 67 | boikin ID: 400291013 Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 13:40 | Ok that is what i thought and would theoritcally you could 'spike' his message oil if not his drink. | ||||||
| 68 | sarge33rd ID: 76442923 Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 13:54 |
OK, topical would seem the most likely then. But still, I have found nothing to address the over-riding question I have: Assuming Landis knows that it takes multiple days for test to be of benefit, knowing that the previous test all came back clean, it is incomprehensible that Landis would have taken (injection or topical) the testosterone himself. (A) It would provide zero benefit and (B) it would certainly be found in his test sample. Logic to me dictates one of 4 plausible scenbarios then: (1) Someone else slipped him the stuff somehow. ------unlikely I'll concede. (2) The test results are wrong. ------equally unlikely I'd imagine. (3) Landis took the stuff, got caught and now hes grasping at straws. ------Again, unlikely that a world class athlete would not know the way in which the "goods" work. (4) The sample got contaminated. ------leaves this as the "least improbable" and thus most probable. | ||||||
| 69 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader ID: 01629107 Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 14:00 |
unlikely that a world class athlete would not know the way in which the "goods" work. What about Sludge's suggestion in post 45? | ||||||
| 70 | boikin ID: 400291013 Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 14:12 | nice call there sarge in 45, which makes you think that they must all be cheating then and only landis got caught. | ||||||
| 71 | sarge33rd ID: 76442923 Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 19:20 | is there such a thing as a "masking agent" that would/could fool an isotopic test? (not that I know what the frick an isotopic test amounts to. But it sure as hell sounds thorough.) | ||||||
| 72 | bibA Sustainer ID: 261028117 Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 19:50 |
I have believed all along that he probably took something, and figured he wouldn't be caught. Either a masking agent, something he felt the test wouldn't detect, or something that wouldn't be detectable until days after the race. I have heard that the bicycle racing people, who have been inundated with these problems for years, are making an aggressive attempt to clean up their sport. Landis certainly isn't the only one recently getting caught. Why should I assume he is the only one being jobbed or the victim of some mistake? | ||||||
| 73 | sarge33rd ID: 76442923 Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 20:14 | didnt the "expel" a number of racers the week nefore this last running? Seems I remember reading of a whole slew of riders getting sent home. | ||||||
| 74 | Sludge ID: 45541422 Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 20:32 |
is there such a thing as a "masking agent" that would/could fool an isotopic test? I doubt it, but it's more likely there may be one that would help to bring the ratio of test/epi within acceptable limits. The test for the type of testosterone (natural or manufactured) was only performed after the ratio was outside limits. didnt the "expel" a number of racers the week nefore this last running? Seems I remember reading of a whole slew of riders getting sent home. Yes, but not due to any positive tests. It was because they were linked with some doctor that was under investigation. (If memory serves.) | ||||||
| 75 | Sludge ID: 45541422 Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 20:32 | Oops... forgot to close my < i >'s. | ||||||
| 76 | sarge33rd ID: 76442923 Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 21:51 | OK, since the test is to measure the ratio; is it "safe" to assume that taking both epitestosterone AND testosterone in combination, would fail to yied the increased stamina/energy compared to taking just testosterone? If thats not a valid assumption, then it would beg the question...why not take them in combo? Control the ratios, avoid scrutiny. Or is there a detrimental affect, to having elevated levels of epi in the system? | ||||||
| 77 | Boldwin ID: 46651516 Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 22:08 | Unlike Sarge I am not willing to entertain the unlikely prospect he was tampered with unbeknownst to himself, however I would like to learn more about the reasoning behind what constitutes an artificial isotope of testosterone. | ||||||
| 78 | sarge33rd ID: 76442923 Mon, Aug 07, 2006, 23:15 |
Unlike Sarge I am not willing to entertain the unlikely prospect he... Just cant resist taking cheap little pot-shots, even when you're wrong, can you? Reread my post 68. That he was somehow spiked, I said to be unlikely. Or are you upsaet that I didnt say laughable? | ||||||
| 79 | Boldwin ID: 46651516 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 00:25 |
Sarge #58That he ingested it, may not be in question. I dont see how else a synthetic could have been ofund in his urine, when 3 days ago ro so, it wasnt there. The question becomes...did he knowingly ingest it, or was he "spiked" somehow. I'd be inclined to think, it was done to him, vs by himSounds like you entertained the notion. Downright poked and tickled it. | ||||||
| 80 | sarge33rd ID: 76442923 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 00:49 | entertained all possibilities, disposed of the least likely. Thats what you do when your analyzing things. | ||||||
| 81 | Boldwin ID: 46651516 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 23:03 |
Alright, drop the issue Sarge. I've entertained way stranger ideas. If figure skaters go at each other with lead pipes why not cyclists rubbing banned substances on the competition. I just didn't feel like even thinking about it. I am way more interested in the suppositions that go into the 'synthetic isotope' signature. In my experience reading about such things they aren't as open and shut as it sounds like. How many assumptions gointo the calculations, how many conceivable ways of getting it wrong are there. I want to hear how airtight the case is. | ||||||
| 82 | Tree ID: 2410261518 Wed, Nov 15, 2006, 21:25 |
re: sarge, post 68: (2) The test results are wrong. ------equally unlikely I'd imagine. and now it gets really interesting... Landis lab made 'administrative error' now, this doesn't prove they made a mistake in the testing results, but it does show some rather sloppy work, in a place where there really can be no room for error. | ||||||
| 83 | sarge33rd ID: 76442923 Thu, Nov 16, 2006, 00:39 |
In its report, the lab wrote that the "B" sample tested was number 994,474, while the actual number was 995,474, Le Monde said. Sooooo, was sample 995,474 even Landis sample to begin with? Landis Atty seems to think not; Landis' attorney, Howard Jacobs, has already alleged that the French lab made repeated errors in its analyses, including mismatched sample code numbers. | ||||||
| 84 | Perm Dude ID: 3710341523 Thu, Nov 16, 2006, 00:40 | Sounds like the attorney is simply trying to raise reasonable doubt. No more and no less. | ||||||
| 85 | sarge33rd ID: 76442923 Thu, Nov 16, 2006, 09:29 | Entirely possible, maybe even probable. But the fact that the tested sample isnt the one they had indicated in their report, makes plenty of room to wonder. | ||||||
| 86 | Seattle Zen ID: 49112418 Fri, Feb 23, 2007, 12:03 |
He just may be a champion after all. Lapse may jeopardize case against Landis According to the report, two technicians who conducted the "A" sample on Landis were involved in tests on the second "B" sample, which is used to confirm the first test. International lab standards do not allow the same technicians to work on both tests to prevent them from attempting to validate their original findings. | ||||||
| 87 | Seattle Zen ID: 49112418 Mon, Apr 23, 2007, 13:24 |
Follow-up tests on backup urine samples by Tour de France champion Floyd Landis found traces of synthetic testosterone, the lab is the same one that revealed Landis' positive test for elevated testosterone to epitestosterone levels after he won the 17th stage of last year's Tour. Landis spokesman Michael Henson said Monday the head of the French lab prevented the cyclist's expert, Paul Scott, from entering the lab Sunday to witness the testing. This seems fishy to me... | ||||||
| 88 | Perm Dude ID: 1135236 Mon, Apr 23, 2007, 13:58 | Yeah--the USADA didn't show up, so they exclude the rider's rep and run the test anyway? | ||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?) | ||||||||