Archive for justcycling.myfastforum.org Just Cycling
 


       justcycling.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> BBC Old Threads
naspa

LANDIS CASE ISSUES

Message 1 - posted by ihasch1 (U4874499) , Aug 7, 2006

I think this follows what others have written on this board, but still no one has explained how his other tests came up clean. How for example was exogenous testosterone detected after stage 17 but not afterward when he was retested? Maybe there is a lucid explanation, such as a masking agent, but no one has addressed this issue. This plus the limitations of testosterone as a short term performance enhancer has to raise questions.
This is not to say that Landis is innocent, but it reflects how incomplete this process has been. I mean, we have leaks about exogenous testosterone, but no official word that this was in fact present. We don't know when the tests were performed and how they were supervised.
One of the things that the UCI report on the Armstrong affair revealed is that there was no small level of collusion between WADA, the French ministry and the lab. Beyond extreme abnormalities in testing procedure, the lab also could not account in any fashion for what had happened to the samples, and could not rule out whether these samples had previously been injected with EPO for research purposes, none of which stopped the story from appearing a newspaper owned by the Tour organizers. While the presumption that an accredited lab is beyond reproach seems sacrosanct on this board, anyone who recalls scandals such as one involving the FBI lab or who has studied the history of science knows this faith can easily be misplaced. Science will always be as fallible or corrupt as the people practicing it. After all, the French Ministry and WADA had just gone to some length to pin a doping charge on Armstrong. Now here comes another American rider winning the national event. One can envision a plausible scenario. Admittedly all silly conspiracy theories share a quality of surface plausibility. Still, one can remember years ago the attempt to frame Merck for doping during the Giro to realize that crazier things have happened.
As for me, I think Landis is probably guilty if only because I think all the riders today are doping. Still it is possible to frame a guilty man. Unfortunately other guilty riders like the great resurrectionist Periero are still at large. So I guess I will jadedly just reserve judgment.

Message 2 - posted by Nuvolari1 (U1731570) , Aug 8, 2006

I wish I can believe what you are saying. I would like to believe any conspiracy theory regardless how wild, but I simply cannot.
Yes the test may not make sense, but it is positive even for the B sample (which was opened in the presence of Floyd representative. What you are implying is somebody contaminated the containers for both samples. Highly unlikely.

This is a reply to this message


Message 3 - posted by alanmcn1 (U2948131) , Aug 8, 2006

What hes implying is ridiculous, and extremely infuriating. The comparisons between Armstrongs samples and landis' cannot be drawn. Armstorngs samples were stored and then tested 6 years later, with his permission. It was not proven that the samples were spiked (please research before posting) The smaples were positive, but the judge could not prove beyond doubt that they COULDNT have been tampered with in that time. very different statement. Landis A test was performed as a blind routine sample immediately, and the B test confirmed in presence of various mediators. Your US FBI labs may be corrupt, but European science labs are exemplory in their practices, and unless you can PROVE otherwise I suggets you put stop to that right away!!!

And in answer to your question about how can it only be positive on that day, i can only presume you have chosen to ignore the several posts on here quoting Jesus Manzano on the Phonak team administering him tetsosterone and its short term benefits, as well as Jorg Jackshes doctor on how it can be administered the night before and be cleared within 24 hours!!!!

This is a reply to this message


Message 4 - posted by alanmcn1 (U2948131) , Aug 8, 2006

AND PS. Landis legal delegation confirmed they had been told there was exogenous testosterone in his sample..............and what makes it ok to suggest Perreiro is a cheat when he hasnt failed a test, but same cant be said of Armstrong???? Antoher small mined ill-informed US poster!
This is a reply to this message


Message 5 - posted by spiritualwolf (U1953527) , Aug 8, 2006

The more Landis whinges, the clearer it is quite how guilty he is.

The tragic thing is that it's all but impossible for a guilty person to admit it. What do they have to gain by honesty? Greg LeMond had it right when asked Landis to do what's good for the sport, rather than just for himself. Will he do it? Of course not...
This is a reply to this message


Message 6 - posted by mootaineer (U4580504) , Aug 8, 2006

A bit harsh alan, isn't it?
Not everyone (including myself) has time to read every single post!

I suppose what people want is a finalisation of what's going on.
Heras didn't contest his EPO results after the Vuelta.
Landis is strongly denying the claims against him.

I think many of us are waiting for:
- either something big to come out that we don't know about already
or
- for Landis to come clean

If...(and it's only an if) the test procedures are somehow flawed in some way (and I'm not implying any conspiracy theory) then it could become interesting.

On a similar note, neither Basso nor Ullrich seem to be making much noise to protest their innocence anymore. Have they given up or being told by their lawyers to keep quiet?
This is a reply to this message


Message 7 - posted by alanmcn1 (U2948131) , Aug 8, 2006

It may be harsh, but am sick of posters coming on and alsgging off my profession questioning us, when its clearly the cheat bike riders with questionable ethics.

I fail to see how you can defend the man. Now he is blaming the fact the test may not have been anonymous (??) on his positive!!!!!! he sickens me, its like hamilton all over again. He was puere than the driven snow according to his legal team. he makes me sick. Give us a real reason for being 3 times over the ratio limit, with exogenous steroid, or shut up and take the punishment.
This is a reply to this message


Message 8 - posted by ventoux (U4677503) , Aug 8, 2006

"I think many of us are waiting for:
- either something big to come out that we don't know about already
or
- for Landis to come clean"

.. could be a long wait....

The history of doping in many sports suggests that those who are caught immediately enter a process of denial, and get their lawyers involved. A range of possible reasons why the test might be faulty/inaccurate follow. Then we get criticism of the procedures followed by the governing bodies. Then comes the inevitable suspension. After that, in some cases, an admission of guilt. This is rare, however, as it is in the interests of the athlete to continue protesting innocence, however tight the evidence is against him/her... I can only think of one high profile athlete (Diana Modahl) who successfully appealed against the findings (although I'm sure you lot will dig up some more names for me!!)

I don't think it helps for the "this doesn't add up" brigade to keep on about how unfair it all is to poor Floyd.... (especially when they didn't bang on quite so much about how unfair it was to Ullrich, Basso, Vino, etec., etc...


This is a reply to this message


Message 9 - posted by koustaki (U5079599) , Aug 8, 2006

Protesting your innocence doesn't mean anything. Hamilton has been doing it for ages and it hasn't made him an inch cleaner to my eyes and to most cycling fans with two eyes and a brain. He possibly hopes to win us all by exhaustion, the same as some posters in this board, who keep on repeating over and over again these fabulous conspiracy ideas. But I am not impressed really. I prefer facts over faith.

By the way, you say Heras didn't deny claims of doping against him after the vuelta? Hum, you better check your sources mate.
This is a reply to this message


Message 10 - posted by mootaineer (U4580504) , Aug 8, 2006

koustaki...apologies...

I didn't write down what I had in mind.
Yes, Heras pleaded innocence right after it was announced that EPO was found in his sample - but after his B sample, I don't remember him saying much - and he has since pretty much retired.

Also...can't remember who mentioned other successful athletes (in court).
Greg Rusedski comes to mind (IIRC). Can't think of many more though.
This is a reply to this message


Message 11 - posted by mootaineer (U4580504) , Aug 8, 2006

alanmc1 are you a pro rider?

To anybody that finds that I don't have my facts straight.
Feel free to point it out.

However, I don't come to this blog because I know that my facts are 100% accurate or that my spelling is always perfect.

I'm here as a cycling fan...that's all...and that's what counts. I love riding and I enjoy watching cycling.
This is a reply to this message


Message 12 - posted by alanmcn1 (U2948131) , Aug 8, 2006

Christ i wish........no I am a scientist and have my own research lab. And I was referring to the "facts" presented by the first poster, not your good self
This is a reply to this message


Message 13 - posted by Cannonboy (U3785845) , Aug 8, 2006

Alan...I appreciate your profession and the high degree of professionalism that you and your colleagues bring every day. I had been a banker for a number of years before retiring from banking. The overwhelming number of people I work with are good, decent and honest people. In fact, they do their jobs so well that you and others trust us with your money. BUT, this does not mean that there are not bad apples in banking just as there are also bad apples in the labs.

I personally do not think that the people working in the labs are the problem, but I do not think that we can also claim that every single person working in the labs are "lily white" either! The potential exists for some form of conspiracy, but I think the more rational person will also recognize that the probability of this occuring is incredibly small. And, when compared to the motivation to cheat by the rider or tamper with a rider's preparation and recovery, is even smaller.
This is a reply to this message


Message 14 - posted by alanmcn1 (U2948131) , Aug 8, 2006

of cousre the possiblity exists. But to support it would need a to come away from cycling (ie Dr Hwang in korea with his cloned stem cells, he blamed his researchers for the fake results, but he has total control on what comes ut the lab). In short, the lab manager oversees all tests and signs off all results. maybe he is corrupt, but whatever, that lab isnt to blame for landis being a cheat..........to get back to the crux of the weak argument
This is a reply to this message


Message 15 - posted by Robinson_Crusoe (U4741572) , Aug 8, 2006

I wish I'd read this thread before posting on the other one. In MY scientific experience, scientists are prone to make mistakes and too many of them are loathe to admit them. That often leads to cover ups, just as it does in other walks of life.

Look what happened to Diane Modahl - lab screwed up her test and ruined her career. Take a step back and look at WADA/LNDD's case against Armstrong this year - they had a great chance to pin him down for doping (if he did), but they blew it.

This is a reply to this message


Message 16 - posted by williecatchet (U1689863) , Aug 8, 2006

I think the whole testing procedure needs to be looked at in order to eliminate any opportunity for a sample to be tampered with.
How about this, when a rider gives a sample, it should be divided into three separate containers, all immediately sealed in tamper proof bottles, and labelled in some annonymous way.
The main sample goes to one lab, the second to a different independent lab, and the third kept by the riders own doctor.
If the main sample tests negative, end of story, but if it tests positive then the second sample should be tested by a different scientist at the independant lab, if the results exactly match the first, the rider either has to admit doping or offer up his own sample for testing. This way, all three samples, kept by three different labs would have to tampered in exactly the same way. Highly unlikey if not impossible.
This is a reply to this message


Message 17 - posted by mootaineer (U4580504) , Aug 8, 2006

Hi alanmc1...

I wasn't having a go at you either.
It's a pain having to post a reply to each person in turn so often my points get "bundled up" into one blog.

Is it a doping (dope testing) lab or some other sort of lab that you run?

Anyway...tonight I have to go home to check that the "click click" noise on my bike isn't a damaged frame either. Could be very expensive if that's the case!
This is a reply to this message


Message 18 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 8, 2006

How can you vouch for every lab worker Alan? Are you saying that everybody in your honorable profession is beyond reproach???

You don't think some lab rat with bills (and extreme french taxes too) to pay could be corrupted by the lure of 50 or 100 thousand euros?

Anybody in any profession can be corrupted if the circumstances and price are right!

I don't think anybody can deny that a strong anti-american sentiment exists today in France and the whole of Europe...When you combine the Armstrong era with the Bush Administration, its not a major stretch to imagine there being people(certain fish wraps) out there willing to pay a price to defame an American.

When you feed on peoples hatred and combine the lure of money, its not hard for me to believe lab "professionals" being corrupted.
This is a reply to this message


Message 19 - posted by MAILLOT JAUNE (U1932045) , Aug 8, 2006

Hope it isn't a cracked frame if it's a Trek. An American who I met at the TdeF a few years back, said he found his new bike had a crack in what he, at first, thought was the paint but found that the frame was cracked. Trek wouldn't do anything about it - needless to say he wasn't pleased...
This is a reply to this message


Message 20 - posted by Zyclist (U2392870) , Aug 8, 2006

I had a fellow at a bike shop spot a dent in a bike I'd been riding around on for months, a dent on the down tube about an inch away from where it merges with the head tube. It would never hurt to ask for an opinion from a bike shop; perhaps even a telephone call.

If it is a 531 lugless frame, I'd like to be clued in on the manufactuer.
naspa

Message 21 - posted by Besonders (U3969514) , Aug 8, 2006

What I don't understand is, if the carbon-isotope test is such a clincher, why don't they do it on all the samples? Does it cost a million Euros a pop or summat?

Why do they only do it if the t/e ratio is high? They could measure the carbon-isotope level in all of Landis' samples, and it'd put an end to questions about why he only tested positive once.

Wouldn't it?
This is a reply to this message


Message 22 - posted by ihasch1 (U4874499) , Aug 8, 2006

Regarding Armstrong you didn't read the UCI report, or didn't read it very well.
Regarding Landis, who told them? Again it may very well have been present, but it shows the limitations of jumping to conclusions based on leaks.
Regarding Pereiro, "he hasn't failed a test" just summarized cycling's whole sorry problem. When a rider does something that is too good to be true, especially in the same race, it usually is. As to being ill-informed and smallminded (mined?) look in the mirror.

This is a reply to this message


Message 23 - posted by tiggertoo (U3045751) , Aug 8, 2006

I would like to think Landis won by his own physical and mental endeavours and not assisted by any external agent. I like the chap, he seems decent and a hard worker.

Having said that, I'm not being pollyannish and am willing to accept the judgment of an impartial jury. But the cynic in me doesn't believe we have seen that yet.

If there are no samples left to be sent all over the globe for independent testing, I'm not sure what the next step can be. As it is, there is no reason at all to trust the ICU or any French controlled labs to play it straight.

And as for God-like labs, please!! The Houston, Texas police labs screwed up hundreds of tests before it was shut down. Labs are no different than any other entity, they make mistakes they cheat, it happens, get over it.
This is a reply to this message


Message 24 - posted by crash48 (U3987106) , Aug 8, 2006

A lot of posters are saying they are cynical and therefore, can't trust the labs. That is fair enough, and I can see how they come to this.

But we are talking pro cycling here. Surely past experiences would also bring out the cynical side in people and would make them equally think that cheating is just as likey to be the case here rather than dodgy labs.
This is a reply to this message


Message 25 - posted by tommie81 (U1654932) , Aug 8, 2006

"...and would make them equally think that cheating is just as likey to be the case here rather than dodgy labs."

How often have you heard about a lab making a mistake? The Modahl case stands out as one of very few.

How often have we heard of sportsstars having taken drugs? Lots of times.

I think its fair to say that the chances of the problem being with the lab are incredibly small, practically zero, and that the real people doing dodgy things are the sportsstars themselves.
This is a reply to this message


Message 26 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 8, 2006

I'm not saying we shouldn't be cynnical of Landis and the rest of the peleton...but its not like everybody in a white fricken lab coat is automatically angellic...All it takes is one lab rat with questionable character...

I don't know much for sure at this point, but I do know there were plenty of people on this board, in France and Europe who were NOT happy about Landis and another American winning...
This is a reply to this message


Message 27 - posted by mike - Valverde WILL eventually win Tour - Selig (U2239560) , Aug 9, 2006

All it takes is one lab rat with questionable character...
Quoted from this message





NO it doesn't, it also needs somebody in the UCI to release whose sample is whose (testing is anonymous), and the rat in question has to have access to both the A and B sample of Landis.

If you remember nearly everybody with any knowledge of cycling on this board was suspicious of how Landis had managed that ride after being bonked the previous day. In that respect when I saw someone had tested positive (and it was Phonak who named the rider BTW) I immediately thought it was Landis. Not that this has anything to do with this thread, but surely if straight after the ride people were questionning it, then why is it hard to believe he took drugs?

BTW I'm also a qualified biochemist and can confirm everything Alan has said. I would like to stress that NO testing procedure is foolproof (but the average would be 99.99% exact), and if that's the basis for your argument then you can use it for ANY athlete who has tested positive and denied it.
This is a reply to this message


Message 28 - posted by alanmcn1 (U2948131) , Aug 9, 2006

yeh, there seesm to be alot of personal attacks in the absence of actual solid arguments for the Landis is innocent case (including one on my dyslexic typing). And the lab didnt leak, they presented their results to UCI, who leaked. But when you are dealing with a low IQ, what can you do.

Also interesting that it is possible for a lab worker to be crokked and break the rules, but not holy snow white Floyd............kinda sums up the US foreign policy that one.
This is a reply to this message


Message 29 - posted by sabcarrera (U4768395) , Aug 9, 2006

Message posted by spiritualwolf
<<The more Landis whinges, the clearer it is quite how guilty he is.>>

So if he IS innocent he should admit that he is guilty.

We ought to introduce an amendment to all judicial processes assuming confessions as evidence of innocence.
This is a reply to this message


Message 30 - posted by fillyjonk (U5049278) , Aug 9, 2006


If we don't have faith in the labs then we might as well give up testing altogether, if every positive test is going to be disputed or blamed on the lab screwing up.

As for the X-files crusaders here saying that the lab techies or managers are corrupt enough to take payments for churning out dodgy anti-Landis results...how about another wild accusation that they might be equally susceptible to bribes from, say, high-profile, very rich, several-time Tour winners to come up with clean results? Or does conspiracy thory only work one way? Please!
This is a reply to this message


Message 31 - posted by bridgework (U1652282) , Aug 9, 2006

alan i am sorry you are feeling attacked as a professional. i suppose i would be ticked off if the attack on urban planners followed.

indeed, if UCI was the leaker, then you and your lab pals [who you do not know more than you know me but would never ever break protocol just because all people who work in labs never ever break protocol] should not be held responsible for the demise of the pro peloton.

it is unfortunate for everyone - we would not have such discussions if the sample was split three ways, with the A and B samples sent to independent labs and a C sample kept by the team. this is an idea from a poster, and it is a good one - one the UCI/WADA should consider.

such protocol would serve well in keeping honest people honest. now if we can find a way to keep the riders honest, because for sure that is the big challenge.
This is a reply to this message


Message 32 - posted by stof3345 (U1683406) , Aug 9, 2006

I work an accredited lab and the idea that all lab workers are beyond reproach is ridiculous. Like in every profession you get good workers and bad workers. Additionally, no test is 100% accurate and mistakes do get made regularly (even in accredited labs).

There is definitely something fishy going on with the whole testing procedure in this case with the leaks and all.
This is a reply to this message


Message 33 - posted by alanmcn1 (U2948131) , Aug 9, 2006

hang on, you are telling me you work in an acredited lab, and that you know of workers who have deliberatly botched samples or tampered with them?? If so you should be talking to your boss not us!!!!!!! I did not say every lab worker was beyond reproach, but some peple are too lazy to go back throuhg all the posts. I am saying how would a lab worker spike a sample in a lab????Could you do that, then get the same reuslt while performing the B in the presence of assesors. Why would the worker spike a sample, for all they know it was a ring trial sample???

And for the final time, the leaks DID NOT come from chatenay, they cam from UCI, in response to ridiculous claims from landis camp.
This is a reply to this message


Message 34 - posted by koustaki (U5079599) , Aug 9, 2006

Considering the current events surrounding teams and DS, I don't think it's a good idea to have a C sample kept by the team. They have real interests in the rider coming out clean (unlike the labs), so the chances of having that sample spiked would just skyrocket in cases like Landis' positive.
This is a reply to this message


Message 35 - posted by alanmcn1 (U2948131) , Aug 9, 2006

Theres no need for a C, if the separate and sealed B sample is opened and tested in the presence of representatives for the accused person, as was conducted??????
This is a reply to this message


Message 36 - posted by dave_muggle111 (U3522874) , Aug 9, 2006

Alan,

McQuaid seems to be suggesting that WADA played a far greater role in releasing the information about Landis prematurely:

In the interview, McQuaid also accused the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) of keeping news of athletics 100 meter world record holder's Justin Gatlin's positive doping tests under wraps.

"WADA is not beyond reproach. I'll remind you that it knew about Gatlin's doping since April and didn't say anything."

velonews.com/news/fe...


This is a reply to this message


Message 37 - posted by alanmcn1 (U2948131) , Aug 9, 2006

Thats quite possibly true, though WADA is simply an organisation put together to oversee testing and collate results etc. They have no say in the running of labs and certainly dont have any employees in labs. Dick Pound hates cycling so it certainly makes sense. Point is (and listen carefully some people) the argument that the lab is dodgy and to blame cant be confounded by the suggestions that the lab leaked results.
This is a reply to this message


Message 38 - posted by dave_muggle111 (U3522874) , Aug 9, 2006

A "C" sample would not be needed, lest the idea is that it be sent to a neutral, out of country lab that is accredited and can be tested simultaneously as a "B" sample.

This would eliminate the issue/complaint that the French lab has an axe to grind.


This is a reply to this message


Message 39 - posted by alanmcn1 (U2948131) , Aug 9, 2006

In fact, to get back to the very original point......non of this leaking of results shenanigans has any bearing on the fact that he has failed 3 separate doping tests????? Even lanids is now being quoted as saying "I cant be certain a banned substance didnt enter my body"
This is a reply to this message


Message 40 - posted by alanmcn1 (U2948131) , Aug 9, 2006

This would eliminate the issue/complaint that the French lab has an axe to grind.


As one excellent post said today, why would the french want to destroy the reputation of the Tour (and please dont use the old anti-american argument, try something with substance)
naspa

Message 41 - posted by dave_muggle111 (U3522874) , Aug 9, 2006

I don't think that the French lab "wishes" to destroy the credibility or tarnish the TdF.

However, when designing a system of checks and balances in a situation like this, one needs to keep in mind that the "appearance" of fairness and/or impartiality is as important as "actual" fairness/impartiality.

It seems to me, though perhaps costly and ultimately prohibitive, is that a C sample could also be collected and forwarded to a proper, additionally accredited lab.

Eg: TdF samples would also go to the lab in Montreal, NHL and similar samples would go to France, etc...

I do tend to agree though, that the underlying cause is far more likely to be Landis taking something or having someone from him or his circle of masseurs, physicians, or team personnel than it is for a lab employee on the take.
This is a reply to this message


Message 42 - posted by bridgework (U1652282) , Aug 9, 2006

a C sample would elliminate all possibilities of a team using the spiked defense. the independent lab could test both the B and C. i just do not want to ever hear again the claim of a spiked sample - or any of the other things Landis babbles.
This is a reply to this message


Message 43 - posted by bridgework (U1652282) , Aug 9, 2006

i should add to the prior note:

the C sample would be sealed in front of the team rep, and then possessed by the team rep.
This is a reply to this message


Message 44 - posted by alanmcn1 (U2948131) , Aug 9, 2006

For that alone it would be worth it, thoigh i do think the same lab is ok to carry out testing on A and B. I'm still not sure how he was arguing the sample was spiked, when his lawyers observed the B test? Although that was before today........now he may have ingested a banned substance..........
This is a reply to this message


Message 45 - posted by spiritualwolf (U1953527) , Aug 9, 2006

Message posted by spiritualwolf
<<The more Landis whinges, the clearer it is quite how guilty he is.>>

So if he IS innocent he should admit that he is guilty.
Quoted from this message





That's not what I meant at all - I didn't say 'the more Landis proclaims his innocence', I said the more he whinges. There's a big difference between the kind of thing he's coming out with and genuine claims of innocence. There ARE people who are unfairly accused of taking drugs - Landis isn't one of them.

If he was innocent, he might show some kind of humility, surprise, and genuine attempts to investigate what is going on, rather than what he has done, which is effectively accuse everyone else of conspiracies. It's pathetic - and if you took an objective look at it you might see that. Take off the patriotic blinkers for just a second....

....he's no more innocent than Indurain was (or indeed than Lance Armstrong, that other bastion of purity)...
This is a reply to this message


Message 46 - posted by tonymcf (U2005503) , Aug 9, 2006

smarauder, I happen to discuss cycling with a lot of Europeans and French in particular for most of the day and I must point out that Landis was a very popular winner. Was he booed when he stepped on the podium? No, this American was quite popular.

This conspiracy talk, this talk about the lab trying to frame Landis etc needs to stop because it's all nonsense. The lab would not have known which samples were Landis' because they do not have the information. Every sample is coded. Before anyone starts with the Lance business from last year, L'Equipe made those connections having had the list given to them by a member of the UCI, the lab had zip all to do with it.
This is a reply to this message


Message 47 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 9, 2006

In a perfect world, all that you say is true...And in a perfect world the road map for peace plan for the middle east would have sorted itself out by now too...

Point being, we don't really know where the sample went and how many people came into contact with it.

To your point about Landis being popular, I disagree....there were many on this site who were immediately suspicious of Landis during and after the stage 17 ride...perhaps the miraculous comeback on stage 17 is what prompted somebody with an agenda to spike the sample...maybe it gave the spiker the idea.

I won't be convinced by the results unless Landis admits to having cheated...
This is a reply to this message


Message 48 - posted by dave_bloggs (U1668566) , Aug 9, 2006

>But when you are dealing with a low IQ, what can you do.

don't let it get to you Alan.. i thought we were having an interesting discussion/argument.. don't take it so personally as an afront to your profession <beer>

p.s. you're not the only PhD on here mate..
This is a reply to this message


Message 49 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 9, 2006

Having a PhD doesn't guarentee a high IQ but it does seem to be a precursor for arrogance.
This is a reply to this message


Message 50 - posted by mike - Valverde WILL eventually win Tour - Selig (U2239560) , Aug 9, 2006

there were many on this site who were immediately suspicious of Landis during and after the stage 17 ride
Quoted from this message





I don't get it, this to you suggests that Landis is unpopular? I think had anybody else made the ride the reactions would have been the same. THis just shows that people on here mostly know what they're talking about.


we don't really know where the sample went and how many people came into contact with it.
Quoted from this message





No, but we DO know that whoever was in contact with it didn't know what it was.


I won't be convinced by the results unless Landis admits to having cheated
Quoted from this message





THAT is obvious, I hope you have the same stance on Hamilton, Botero, Heras etc, all of whose samples could equally as easy been spiked as Landis'...
This is a reply to this message


Message 51 - posted by dave_bloggs (U1668566) , Aug 9, 2006

heh.. i'm staying out of this one
This is a reply to this message


Message 52 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 9, 2006

"No, but we DO know that whoever was in contact with it didn't know what it was."

How do you know they didn't know???

How many riders were tested after stage 17?

If somebody wanted to spike a sample it wouldn't be hard to orchastrate...We're not talking about Fort Knox type security...


This is a reply to this message


Message 53 - posted by mike - Valverde WILL eventually win Tour - Selig (U2239560) , Aug 9, 2006

The arguments you're using could equally be applied to any cyclist who has ever failed a drugs test though. The basis for your argument seems to be "well someone could have spiked the samples" well yes they could have, providing they could spike the sealed B sample as well, without unsealing it, or spiking it in the presence of Floyd's representatives... Errors in the anlalysis of the A sample (be it spiking or genuine mistakes) are always possible in each and every case. That's why there's a B sample. Duh!

There is NOTHING different about Landis's positive test to say Heras's (both came when the riders were fighting for the tour win, and both were followed by amazing rides to give them the tour), except the nature of the drugs found, and that is irrelevant since Landis now seems to accept that there was synthetic Testosterone in his sample (the "naturally produced" theory has gone out the window). If you believe Landis's samples could have been tampered with then you have to believe every single other athlete's samples can be tampered with, in which case there is no longer any point to testing athletes for drugs.
This is a reply to this message


Message 54 - posted by SaddleSore (U5152923) , Aug 9, 2006

alanmc1,

I want to address some of the things that you have been saying. Through your posts, you appear very angry.

First off, you might want to separate American foreign policy from American pro-cyclists. American cyclists do not carry the banner of the idiocy that is American foreign policy under the Bush administration. They are cyclists and nothing else - with the exception of Amstrong.

Most Americans do not believe there is a conspiracy against Floyd Landis - I know this might be hard to believe. Most Americans that pay attention (and most of those do not care about cycling) to sports assume he is guilty. That's right, they do not see it as a conspiracy against Landis or against Americans in general.

With respect to the Hamilton case, no-one believes he is innocent; after all, he was caught with someone else's blood coarsing through his body. Most believe he should have been stripped of his gold medal in Athens - too bad the lab screwed up. Hamilton, before Landis, was the only high profile American rider to test positive for doping. Other American riders have tested positive but few of those have ever raced in Europe.

As for Americans dominating the Tour de France, that is actually untrue. The US has had only two winners. It only seems that Americans dominate it due to the 7 year run by Armstrong (a one trick pony). I think a lot of your misconceptions are due to Armstrong and the polemics that follow him. Armstrong is perhaps the most competitive person I have ever seen. He wins (whether at the Tour or in court protecting his name). Also, Armstrong is a transcendental figure in the US. He is a true cultural icon around which we have united. American society is very fractured at the moment, however, Armstrong is almost universally loved. He has done a lot for a lot of people. He has given hope to the hopeless. Even my mother knows who Lance Armstrong is and she does not care one wit about sports.

In the end, with the exception of Armstrong and the special place he holds in US society, there are few that believe in conspiracies against Landis or any other American rider. As I said, most see Landis as guilty and that is the end of it.

As for Bush, I dislike him and his minions as much as you do. Hopefully, he is emasculated in the congressional elections in November.

Sincerely,

Nathan
This is a reply to this message


Message 55 - posted by bergaretxebe (U4486432) , Aug 9, 2006

so, if there is a conspiracy and the sample was spiked, which I pressume to do it you need to open it, so break the seal, that I guess would have signatures etc... why his lawyers havenīt said anything about it?????

As I am aware the lawyer that he was using was an Spaniard that was and expert in testosterone positive cases, etc... and he was confident that he producced the levels naturally and bla bla bla, where is he??? what kind of lawyer doesnīt fight for his client when they know is innocent??? or maybe the french have bribe him too??? the synthetic testosterone was a vegetable type, mnaybe he ate to many spinachs???

This is a reply to this message


Message 56 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 9, 2006

I'm willing to bet that if you looked at recent sales of "L'Equipe" and compared them with sales at the same time last year, you'd find a "spike"(no pun intended) this year, since the rumors and leaks of a positive test first started circulating.

Not only does the increase in circulation and sales add more to the paper's coffers, but it also means they get to charge more for future add space.

There's your motive...Its a bit fishy for me when the lead sponsor of the tour stands to profit from scandal...combine that with a strong anti-american sentiment and you've got more than enough motive...it can be argued further that the sport as a whole stands to profit from the scandal...ever hear the expression, "any press is good press?"
This is a reply to this message


Message 57 - posted by dave_bloggs (U1668566) , Aug 9, 2006

fascinating theory..

ooh and there's motive.. heh

i must admit i was suprised that the number of spectators at the side of the road was UP not down as i had anticipated..
some of us love a good conspiracy don't we .. i've been watching too much CSI


This is a reply to this message


Message 58 - posted by Zyclist (U2392870) , Aug 9, 2006

news.bbc.co.uk/sport...

70 Athletes missing tests; astounding figure.
This is a reply to this message


Message 59 - posted by bergaretxebe (U4486432) , Aug 9, 2006

so your conspiracy theory is to increase the newspaper sales??? that is a good one.

First of all the LīÉquipe, I donīt know if you alerady know, is in french, so unless you can read french, you are ....,so they have a limited market, and as you already suggested all the french are anti-american, so they already are, they donīt need to buy the newspaper to be anti-american.

and if you go to www.lequipe.fr you can read it for free, which funny enough it doeīsnīt mention anything about landis on the cover of the digital edition, so that shows you how much they hate him, they donīt even talk about him
This is a reply to this message


Message 60 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 9, 2006

You know NOT what u speak about Bergerboy...Nothing in life is free anymore...lol...ever hear of internet advertising????????????????????

You think they might be able to charge a bit more if they're getting more and more hits on their websites???????????????
naspa

Message 61 - posted by tommie81 (U1654932) , Aug 9, 2006

smarauder, how many fing times do we have to tell you:

L'EQUIPE DOES NOT SPONSOR THE TOUR DE FRANCE.

Get it into that silly little head of yours. Don't believe me? Look here:

www.letour.fr/2006/T...

So stop whinging about L'Equipe, also as I think your claim in the "spike" in sales of the daily sportsnewspaper is utter rubbish too.
This is a reply to this message


Message 62 - posted by bergaretxebe (U4486432) , Aug 9, 2006

I think itīs hilarious, like Landis defence.

We donīt know anything about his lawyers, do we??? They have 10 days to appeal, do we know if they are preparing anything???? time is running out......
This is a reply to this message


Message 63 - posted by Zyclist (U2392870) , Aug 9, 2006

No ads on the BBC, that's why they are the best.
This is a reply to this message


Message 64 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 9, 2006

Own, sponsor...choose your term...either way, they paid Mr LeBlanque and Prudhomme's salary.
This is a reply to this message


Message 65 - posted by Zyclist (U2392870) , Aug 9, 2006

The advertisers no one forgets is Aquarel; always having their ads over the road; and for all the Tours I can remember.
This is a reply to this message


Message 66 - posted by mike - Valverde WILL eventually win Tour - Selig (U2239560) , Aug 9, 2006

I read l'Equipe from time to time (I live in France) and although I have no idea about their sales since the Landis positive sample, all the newspaper did about it was to report it, which is their job! There was certainly no gleefull anti-americanism, in fact 3 days after the positive was confirmed to be Landis (not by the equipe/tour directors/any other french, but by Phonak, again all l'Equipe did was run a story on it, which is its purpose as a sports newspaper) the news was relegated to the back 2 pages...
This is a reply to this message


Message 67 - posted by claytonseymour (U3927055) , Aug 9, 2006

Just read that Floyd Landis is taking a vacation. He will be staying at Liars Lair in Dopers Paradise.
This is a reply to this message


Message 68 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 9, 2006

I guarentee one of their so-called top journalists is working on full Landis expose` which will also bring up the Armstrong "Lie" once again...
This is a reply to this message


Message 69 - posted by tonymcf (U2005503) , Aug 9, 2006

How can they do an "expose'" when there's nothing to expose? We know Landis has failed the testing procedure on both his samples so there's nothing more people need to know... except maybe when he'll be banned.
This is a reply to this message


Message 70 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 9, 2006

There's still plenty to come out of this...One of the reasons I'm still backing Landis is because he hasn't pulled an Ivan Basso or Jan Ullrich and dissappeared in disgrace...If I were wrongly accused I'd fight it all the way to the supreme court too...

By the way, I don't have a PhD in anything but my understanding is that both the A and B sample derive from the same, original...whiz, so to speak...At a later time half is poured into another container....If the original sample was spiked than obviously both the A and B would be the same...or both the A and B could have spiked separately...

If I were Landis or on his legal team, and I knew I was innocent, I'd be hiring a private detective to investigate the bank activity of the lab, all persons involved in the lab work and tour staff that administer the drug tests...Everybody from Leblanc to Prudhomme to top executives at L'Equipe....Follow the money!
This is a reply to this message


Message 71 - posted by mike - Valverde WILL eventually win Tour - Selig (U2239560) , Aug 9, 2006

And I ask you the same question, what is different between Landis and any other athlete who has tested positive? The fact that he is protesting his innocence and is spouting 3 excuses a day is hardly unique...
This is a reply to this message


Message 72 - posted by ventoux (U4677503) , Aug 9, 2006

"By the way, I don't have a PhD in anything"

but surely you must be well qualified in flogging a dead horse??
This is a reply to this message


Message 73 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 9, 2006

"And I ask you the same question, what is different between Landis and any other athlete who has tested positive? The fact that he is protesting his innocence and is spouting 3 excuses a day is hardly unique..."


As I've stated many times, it doesn't add up for me...using a pre-historic drug that somehow poppped into his system one day and dissappeared the next...And spare me the Manzano quotes...
This is a reply to this message


Message 74 - posted by claytonseymour (U3927055) , Aug 9, 2006

I'm still backing Landis is because he hasn't pulled an Ivan Basso or Jan Ullrich and dissappeared in disgrace...

This merely demonstrates how hard faced he is. He'll stop at nothing to hold on to what he stole in the first place.


This is a reply to this message


Message 75 - posted by tonymcf (U2005503) , Aug 9, 2006

I feel sorry for you smarauder, you're clutching at straws here. I've been a big Ulle fan for as long as I can remember but I accept the certainty that the man was doping.

You don't need to fail a test either, look at Davis Millar. Landis did a two day disappearing act by the way, so you're wrong to say he has not done anything of the sort.

There is no conspiracy, no funny bank activity, no spiking, zip. The reason people are refusing to believe Landis is because the man has changed his story at least half a dozen times and we've heard these protests of innocence before from Tyler Hamilton.

As Lionel Birnie put it in Cycling Weekly "It's time to stop blaming Dick Pound, the media, the pressures, the testing procedures, the French, the laboratories, the science. The only people responsible for the banned substances sloshing around the peloton are the team managers, the doctors and the riders">

I for one agree 100% with this view.
This is a reply to this message


Message 76 - posted by koustaki (U5079599) , Aug 9, 2006

"the team managers, the doctors and the riders"


Even the order is correct here. Spot on.
This is a reply to this message


Message 77 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 9, 2006

Do any of us on this board really KNOW that he cheated??? No way!

If you were charged with something you didn't do how would you react?

By the way, if you really wanna be cynnical, just imagine the entire Peleton are loading up with "patches" and the appropriate masking drugs...If, as many suggest they are ALL in fact doping, than Landis stole nothing...He merely got caught.
This is a reply to this message


Message 78 - posted by claytonseymour (U3927055) , Aug 9, 2006

By the way, if you really wanna be cynnical, just imagine the entire Peleton are loading up with "patches" and the appropriate masking drugs...If, as many suggest they are ALL in fact doping, than Landis stole nothing...He merely got caught.

Then does that make him right? Assuming that they are all doping - LANDIS got caught that's the luck of the game he was playing. Perhaps that's why he's so bitter about - he simply cannot accept that he cheated and was caught.
This is a reply to this message


Message 79 - posted by mike - Valverde WILL eventually win Tour - Selig (U2239560) , Aug 9, 2006

"As I've stated many times, it doesn't add up for me...using a pre-historic drug that somehow poppped into his system one day and dissappeared the next...And spare me the Manzano quotes..."

Well you just have to ask Jorg Jaksche! If you're not going to believe people who have actually tried it, then who are you going to believe? Oh yeah, Landis "I had a couple of beers", "it's my cortisone injections and my hip problem", "it's all natural", "it's all an anti-american conspiracy".
This is a reply to this message


Message 80 - posted by claytonseymour (U3927055) , Aug 9, 2006

"As I've stated many times, it doesn't add up for me...using a pre-historic drug that somehow poppped into his system one day and dissappeared the next...And spare me the Manzano quotes..."

Well you just have to ask Jorg Jaksche! If you're not going to believe people who have actually tried it, then who are you going to believe? Oh yeah, Landis "I had a couple of beers", "it's my cortisone injections and my hip problem", "it's all natural", "it's all an anti-american conspiracy".

I'd suggest that all those that doubt the benefits of testosterone patches actually try them out for themselves.
naspa

Message 81 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 9, 2006

Yes, Landis would be better off just closing his pie hole at this point...but just because you throw out differnt possibilities doesn't make it more likely you're guilty...I genuinely believe he doesn't know why he tested positive....clutching at straws, speculating doesn't help his case but I think he's genuinely perplexed...
This is a reply to this message


Message 82 - posted by sradhakr (U2393201) , Aug 9, 2006

I was beginning to like Landis as he looked like a simple unassuming fellow, does media commentary with no arrogance, a man who was committed to cycling and not having the "no-mercy" attitude even in a cut-throat competition where friends become enemies in no time. He would have been the perfect idol for a couple of more years atleast. But now, whether exonerated or not, there will be an eternal blemish. He will no longer be viewed as a true sportsman (by L'equipe )

I also think Landis probably faltered on moral grounds because of peer-pressure or peloton-pressure or Armstrong-team-mate-pressure, whatever you want to call it. He would never have gotten in the doping business by himself. But that is just a wildest and wieredest guess from me. Maybe we will know when he is 60 years old. I am still available to be someone's cycling fan (Valverde? Rasmussen? anyone?)

This is a reply to this message


Message 83 - posted by ihasch1 (U4874499) , Aug 9, 2006

Basically the powers that be at the BBC find me so threatening to your timid sensibilities that you problably won't see this for about five hours. It kind of takes the fun out of it.
Still its edifying. One poster who cannot spell nor read with much nuance, in response to the point that labs are neither infallible nor incorruptible, tells us that European labs are perfect. This statement is patently idiotic. Apparently there is no corruption and scandal in Europe, which is the contemporary equivalent of Shangra-la.
On the issue of testosterone as a short term performance enhancer, I have found some doping experts that say it isn't, others who acknowledge speculation that it has immediate beneficial effects, and one pretty convincing doping expert who has testified on behalf of defendants in doping cases who stated that he has experimented with testosterone on himself and has found significant immediate benefits to performance. The problem is that this hasn't been subject to clinical study (at least that I am aware of; I haven't been to the old East German archives) leaving expert opinion somewhat equivocal. Still there is enough anecdotal evidence to believe that testosterone would be used by cyclists in an immediate attempt to recover. This seemingly makes the case much more solid against Landis.
On the larger point, what standard of proof do you apply in a doping case? What standards of due process apply as well? What I think all cycling fans are entitled to is a transparent process, to the answers to answerable questions such as chain of custody and the relationship of the different test results throughout the Tour. So far we have a series of leaks that make it difficult to formulate a conclusive judgment. And when the process is not opened up, it creates reasonable suspicions. The fact is some weird things have happened, such as Merckx in 1969. That is why you reserve judgment. Yeah, Landis is likely guilty as hell. (I would say so with 90 percent certainty if what I've heard is true). Just don't let the lynching overtake the facts. I mean, after the Tour it was announced that only one rider out of the whole rotten barrel had tested positive. How improbable was it that this sole rider was Landis? And how collosally stupid did Landis have to be?

P.S.--I read somewhere that Merkx tested positive twice for doping? Anyone know the details?

P.S.S.--Anyone who thinks that Periero wasn't doping is smoking crack.

This is a reply to this message


Message 84 - posted by BoneHeadedBushLover (U1692166) , Aug 10, 2006

"If somebody wanted to spike a sample it wouldn't be hard to orchastrate...We're not talking about Fort Knox type security..."

Smarauder,

Let's not forget that both samples would have to be spiked in the same way to achieve the observed result, namely that the A and B samples produced the same results.

My understanding is that when a sample is given, it is divided into two and sealed in the presence of the sample giver. The samples are sealed in such a way as to make it clear whether or not a sample has been tampered with.

Thus, Landis will have seen has sample all the way from "source" to the sealed samples. Tampering during this part of the process is highly unlikely to put it mildly. Thus, the A and B samples must have been nobbled individually.

If the samples were "nobbled", then it would have to have been done in such a way that both the A and B samples appeared untampered with. Remember that the B sample was opened in the presence of Landis and his lawyer and they would have examined the sample minutely for any signs of tampering.

So, I have two questions for you:

1. Is it likely that someone has developed a technique for detection prove tampering?

2. If tampering did take place, is it likely that the tamperer could have introduced the same quantities in the same concentrations to both A and B samples?

All you've written so far is that you're sure the samples were tampered with. To have any credibility, you need to explain how this could have happened.


This is a reply to this message


Message 85 - posted by rapidfattyboy (U5268590) , Aug 10, 2006

Where are all the ex-champions here. Armstrong, Indurain, Hinault, Mercx, Roche. They should be saying "Guilty, throw him out for life" if they have any respect for their acheivements, i.e I've got doubts about them all.
P.S. - Nicole Cooke for Sports Personality - time she got some recognition
This is a reply to this message


Message 86 - posted by crash48 (U3987106) , Aug 10, 2006

'but just because you throw out differnt possibilities doesn't make it more likely you're guilty'

Well given he has now Exhausted nearly all possibilities ( he still may end up blaming his team in a last chance excuse), I believe his defence will solely concentrate on legal technicalities to beat the 'rap.

If he does go down that road and gets off the charge )regardless of the results clearly linking him to doping), I hope he ends up flat broke paying off his legal team.

Has he hired Hamilton's lawyer? I guess they all stick together.


And yes smarauder68, we know that in your heart of hearts you know he is not guilty...

This is a reply to this message


Message 87 - posted by rogaboga (U2366216) , Aug 10, 2006

surely the biggest indicator of his guilt is that he did something that 'was too good to be true'.

is it possible to do some sums to show this?

personally i'm gutted as i had taped the itv4 highlights of the stage where he bonked and watched it the next day in the hour leading up to the highlights of his great victory, not knowing the result of either. it was, i thought, 2 hours of the best sporting entertainment i'd ever seen!
This is a reply to this message


Message 88 - posted by spiritualwolf (U1953527) , Aug 10, 2006

Where are all the ex-champions here. Armstrong, Indurain, Hinault, Mercx, Roche. They should be saying "Guilty, throw him out for life" if they have any respect for their acheivements, i.e I've got doubts about them all.
Quoted from this message





With Armstrong and Indurain there's practically no doubt at all... for the others, well, the testing wasn't nearly so good in those days. The one who impressed me was Greg LeMond - you can't accuse him of anti-Americanism, he's a former champion, and he made the point very clearly: if we want to deal with the bottom line issue we need to start telling the truth. Landis could, if he was brave, be the first to do that. That would cement his place in history far more than winning a hugely tarnished Tour.

Will he do it? Of course not...
This is a reply to this message


Message 89 - posted by rogaboga (U2366216) , Aug 10, 2006

question:

was this the first time that landis had ever doped?

if yes, where did he get it from at such short notice? will he have his own personal trainer that will have rushed out to some dealer to get some? or will it be the team that got it for him?

if no, then why has he never been caught before and what does that say about the validity of all the other riders?


This is a reply to this message


Message 90 - posted by psylophone (U1403360) , Aug 10, 2006

BoneHeadedBushLover makes a good argument about how difficult it would be to tamper with both A & B samples. Crime is about motive and opportunity. It's difficult to see a credible opportunity to fake the results.

It's even more difficult to see a credible motive for faking sample results. Various implausible conspiracies have been suggested, including that L'Equipe / French cycling authorities / UCI / whoever don't like American riders so pay off lab workers to fake the results. Risky, criminal... and what would they gain? Normally when people risk all to break the rules it's because they stand to gain a big reward.

I can see the risk / reward equation from Landis' perspective. If he gets away with cheating - he becomes hugely wealthy, famous and respected.

But on the other side of the coin, we are expected to believe that people would engage in complex criminal conspiracies to defraud, costing lots of money, risking loss of jobs, possible prison sentences and ruin, with no financial benefits... because they are sick of Americans winning the Tour?!

It's simply not credible.
This is a reply to this message


Message 91 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 10, 2006

"All you've written so far is that you're sure the samples were tampered with. To have any credibility, you need to explain how this could have happened."

How about the person opening the original sample, having been paid 20k simply drops some synthetic testosterone into the main Landis sample...then the sample is split creating the A and B sample which of course winds up positive.

Or how about the same lab worker having a testosterone laced finger tip of the glove "accidentaly" spiking the original sample as he or she opens the sample...that would have been the more clandestine method...

Either way, its not brain surgery and there would have been plenty of time for that to happen from the moments after Stage 17 til the end of the Tour when the results were leaked.


This is a reply to this message


Message 92 - posted by alanmcn1 (U2948131) , Aug 10, 2006

You are even funnier than Landis himself now!!!!!! I'm convinced you are either his lawyer or the brain dead man himself!!!
This is a reply to this message


Message 93 - posted by ventoux (U4677503) , Aug 10, 2006

to be sure we should all be waiting for the men in white coats to visit smarauder's house & cart him off to the funny farm any minute now... my (rough) definition of mental illness has loss of contact with reality at it's core... we think you're there now Sma... best wishes for a speedy recovery, and give Floydy Boy our best wishes while you're in there...
This is a reply to this message


Message 94 - posted by ventoux (U4677503) , Aug 10, 2006

.. or maybe it's a double-bluff...? perhaps smarauder is in the pay of those nasty French, working very hard to make his arguments look even more ridiculous?
This is a reply to this message


Message 95 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 10, 2006

lol...I was asked how it could have happened..I provided 2 possibilities...Do any of you so-called EXPERTS and PHD guys actually KNOW how secure the collection and testing is???


This is a reply to this message


Message 96 - posted by bergaretxebe (U4486432) , Aug 10, 2006

mybe they spiked his drink with testosterone all the way to Morzine???? or the evil chef at the hotel put some testo into his dinner???
Maybe he came out the shower and someone left a testosterone patch on the floor that sticked to his foot for 2 hours before he realised of it and took it off....

This is a reply to this message


Message 97 - posted by alanmcn1 (U2948131) , Aug 10, 2006

No, its all open to violation. Over here we are a bit backward and corrupt so there are no governing guidelines

While we are doing wacko theories, can I do mine about Elvis coming back from the dead and running al-qaeda ha ha ha ha ha
This is a reply to this message


Message 98 - posted by BoneHeadedBushLover (U1692166) , Aug 10, 2006

Smarauder,

There's too many conspiracy theories involved in your suggestions for them to be taken seriously.

They're theoretically possible, I suppose, but no more likely than the moon landings being faked or the Sept 11th WTC incident being organised by the CIA.

There's another thing about your theory that doesn't quite hold water.

Arranging to have a sample spiked is obviously no small matter - if it was easy, then we'd have positive tests left right and centre. Most notably, if spiking was possible then a certain recently retired Texan would have been spiked.

Given this, at what point do you think the spikers decided to spike the Stage 17 winner's sample? At the start of the Tour? At the end of Stage 16 or halfway up the Joux Plane? Why bother going to all this trouble to spike a sample that was almost certainly not going to be Landis'?

Well, I admire your fortitude. I'd recommend the "contaminated supplements" approach. It worked for a few athletes and tennis players. I'm surprised Landis hasn't gone for this. Or maybe he already has and has changed his mind.


This is a reply to this message


Message 99 - posted by bergaretxebe (U4486432) , Aug 10, 2006

Smarauder with your imagination and conspiracy theories you could be like John Grisham, etc...
You should write a book and get loaded!!!!!!
This is a reply to this message


Message 100 - posted by ventoux (U4677503) , Aug 10, 2006

I've read all the Grisham books, and found the plots to be plausible at some level....
naspa

Message 101 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 10, 2006

Great Idea, Bergerboy!

I might just do that!
This is a reply to this message


Message 102 - posted by bergaretxebe (U4486432) , Aug 10, 2006

So imagine, that the sample B turns negative.

If why use Smarauderīs logic, why should we believe that is the truth???? couldnīt someone swap the sample??? maybe someone paid 20k to the lab guy???
This is a reply to this message


Message 103 - posted by BoneHeadedBushLover (U1692166) , Aug 10, 2006

Sherlock Holmes had it right:

Rule out the impossible and whatever remains, however improbable, is the truth.
This is a reply to this message


Message 104 - posted by crash48 (U3987106) , Aug 10, 2006

Sherlock Holmes never had to talk sense to smarauder68!
This is a reply to this message


Message 105 - posted by mike - Valverde WILL eventually win Tour - Selig (U2239560) , Aug 10, 2006

How about the person opening the original sample, having been paid 20k simply drops some synthetic testosterone into the main Landis sample...then the sample is split creating the A and B sample which of course winds up positive.
Quoted from this message





Now I'm not an expert on drug testing procedures, but regarding any other testing the sample would be split as soon as possible to avoid a contamination on all the sample. Therefore I assume (but maybe Alan can tell us for sure) that the sample would be split straight after being recuperated, ie in presence of the athlete. No spiking possible then.


Or how about the same lab worker having a testosterone laced finger tip of the glove "accidentaly" spiking the original sample as he or she opens the sample...that would have been the more clandestine method...
Quoted from this message





Impossible, as it would require the spiker to know Landis's absolute testo and epi levels so as to know how much testosterone to introduce. As Landis's absolute testosterone levels are actually lowish, then only a small amount of testosterone would be necessary to give a positive test, yet introducing a small amount would be useless as should Landis's absolute levels been high this would not have produced a positive. Sorry if this is unclear but it makes perfect sense if you understand it.

Also, I ask you again, why should you make these claims for Landis and not any other cycler who has been tested positive? The arguments could be applied to all... All you seem to be saying is "it doesn't seem right"
This is a reply to this message


Message 106 - posted by ventoux (U4677503) , Aug 10, 2006

Also, I ask you again, why should you make these claims for Landis and not any other cycler who has been tested positive? The arguments could be applied to all... All you seem to be saying is "it doesn't seem right"

Just in case Sma doesn't feel up to answering:-

(a) he's American...

errrr.. that's it!
This is a reply to this message


Message 107 - posted by bergaretxebe (U4486432) , Aug 10, 2006

I think he is writing his book....... "Cycling Against the World"
This is a reply to this message


Message 108 - posted by ventoux (U4677503) , Aug 10, 2006

wasn't it "101 best conspiracy theories" ??
This is a reply to this message


Message 109 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 10, 2006

My top 5 most likely conclusions:

1)his levels were in fact higher than normal due to natural reasons.

2)his sample was spiked.

3)he ingested testosterone unwittingly...a Phonak trainer, doc or masseuse hooked him up after his disastrous stage 16 result.

4)Lab mistake or mix-up.

5)He knowingly took the stuff or did the patch thing and didn't follow his masking procedures.


This is a reply to this message


Message 110 - posted by bergaretxebe (U4486432) , Aug 10, 2006

that is the second part, that will come with a DVD of Landisīs press conferences.... If you go to Ottakars it would be within the comedy section, or science fiction
This is a reply to this message


Message 111 - posted by ventoux (U4677503) , Aug 10, 2006

"Also, I ask you again, why should you make these claims for Landis and not any other cycler who has been tested positive? The arguments could be applied to all... All you seem to be saying is "it doesn't seem right"..."

still waiting for your response on this one SM... or were you OK with me answering it for you..?
This is a reply to this message


Message 112 - posted by bergaretxebe (U4486432) , Aug 10, 2006

why noone has asked him what did he do during the two hours that he spent alone in his room???? two hours....testosteron patch....
This is a reply to this message


Message 113 - posted by ventoux (U4677503) , Aug 10, 2006

maybe he was writing a list (a long one) of the most ridiculous excuses for testing positive - no, maybe that would have taken more than two hours...
This is a reply to this message


Message 114 - posted by bergaretxebe (U4486432) , Aug 10, 2006

seriously???? listen to the excuses again, it took him 10 min, tops.... my 6 year old nephew can come with better excuses....
This is a reply to this message


Message 115 - posted by ventoux (U4677503) , Aug 10, 2006

ah, but I doubt we've heard them all yet... I think we're in for a laugh a day for the next few months at least...
This is a reply to this message


Message 116 - posted by bergaretxebe (U4486432) , Aug 10, 2006

I think blaming others when the shit hits the fan must be an american thing, look at the Gatlin case, Trevor Graham, his trainer, says that there is a conspiracy against him and Gatlin, and that he was drugged by his physiotherapist....
This is a reply to this message


Message 117 - posted by ventoux (U4677503) , Aug 10, 2006

careful Berg.. you'll get yourself onto the list of "America Haters" (with me...) - I think there is a greater tendency to throw in "they're out to get me" along with the standard "there must be some mistake".... we've been around this a few times, but we do have to keep on asking (cos we never get an answer) why the Americans see any accusations/criticism as anti-American, whereas when I/we criticise British, French, Italian and (God forbid) Spanish, it's not viewed as being anti them...?
This is a reply to this message


Message 118 - posted by bergaretxebe (U4486432) , Aug 10, 2006

who knows........
This is a reply to this message


Message 119 - posted by BellissimaItalia (U5070261) , Aug 10, 2006

smarauder, your are devious. I can't believe your mind is able to come up with all these dodgy ideas. You must be guilty of something too!??
This is a reply to this message


Message 120 - posted by dave_bloggs (U1668566) , Aug 10, 2006

> it was, i thought, 2 hours of the best sporting entertainment i'd ever seen!

exactly .. so does it really matter what smarties he took?? fantastic ENTERTAINMENT.. to me its like saying .. 'ooh i love the gladiators fighting to the death.. but they shouldn't be allowed to die'.. make your minds up.. you want the spectacle.. but you want all these daft rules..

p.s. i totally agree with you ihabsch.. your post was well worth the 5 hour wait (esp. the bit about periero.. heh)
naspa

Message 121 - posted by mike - Valverde WILL eventually win Tour - Selig (U2239560) , Aug 10, 2006

1)his levels were in fact higher than normal due to natural reasons.
Quoted from this message





Nope, the testosterone came from an external source. And the test which proved it IS as precise as any other testing method, it is also used in montreal etc...


2)his sample was spiked.
Quoted from this message





How? You've given us a couple of possibilities, both of which are impossible. Try again.


3)he ingested testosterone unwittingly...a Phonak trainer, doc or masseuse hooked him up after his disastrous stage 16 result.
Quoted from this message





Possible, but if so he is still at fault and should be banned (read the Gatlin article).


4)Lab mistake or mix-up.
Quoted from this message





That would be mistakes or mix-ups, since both samples produced identical results. One mistake is always possible, that's why we use a B sample! If two samples from the same rider are tested and during both tests produce through random errors of manipulation the sme results then this would be a truly remarcable result. Scientific history ladies and gentlemen!!!


5)He knowingly took the stuff or did the patch thing and didn't follow his masking procedures.

Quoted from this message





Sounds about right to me, or I would say he took it on his own, just for one day, a team doctor spotted it in the evening and thus "reajusted" the testo/epi levels. Don't forget that the legal limit has recently changed, and as Landis's absolute levels are low it wouldn't take a lot to send him over the legal edge (hence he might have thought he was OK).
This is a reply to this message


Message 122 - posted by dave_bloggs (U1668566) , Aug 10, 2006

aha.. thanks.. a proper explanation at last..
This is a reply to this message


Message 123 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 10, 2006

I'm not sure if you get American sports programs, but ESPN ran a full 30 program on the Landis affair with several independent scientists who agreed that its impossible to determine whether the testosterone tested was natural or synthetic...They agreed that the lab, UCI will have a hard time prooving it was synthetic...

People are jumping the gun on the whole natural/synthetic question. Its not as black and white as the lab and UCI leaks have reported...That's not my opinion, but the opinion of several stateside scientists.
This is a reply to this message


Message 124 - posted by ventoux (U4677503) , Aug 10, 2006

a couple more questions SM....

(1) were these American scientists by any chance...?

(2) where is this box of straws you keep finding to clutch at...?
This is a reply to this message


Message 125 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 10, 2006

Don't shoot the messenger...lol...one of them was Korean or Chinese...one was German and one was American....
This is a reply to this message


Message 126 - posted by bergaretxebe (U4486432) , Aug 10, 2006

that sounds like a joke.....
This is a reply to this message


Message 127 - posted by mike - Valverde WILL eventually win Tour - Selig (U2239560) , Aug 10, 2006

ESPN ran a full 30 program on the Landis affair with several independent scientists who agreed that its impossible to determine whether the testosterone tested was natural or synthetic
Quoted from this message





ESPN being an american TV station, I wonder how far they had to look to find so many such scientists. Do you remember their names, nationnalities, ages, qualifications? It's not for a dig, just that's I'd be interested... The method which the french lab used to determine where the extra testosterone came from is in my eyes (with my french education) as exact as any other scientific experiment, i.e. 99.9% at least.

Also, the "it was all natural" is so last week! Even Landis has abandonned that line of attack
This is a reply to this message


Message 128 - posted by ventoux (U4677503) , Aug 10, 2006

which one thought the others were all out to get him...???
This is a reply to this message


Message 129 - posted by bergaretxebe (U4486432) , Aug 10, 2006

I am still wondering where is his legal team???? I remember, for example, Heras case, after the positive all the declarations and press conferences were given by his lawyer, and this would stop Landis giving hilarious excuses....that are quite funny tho
This is a reply to this message


Message 130 - posted by BellissimaItalia (U5070261) , Aug 10, 2006

I demand to see the bank accounts details of the scientist that were on that TV show!
This is a reply to this message


Message 131 - posted by ventoux (U4677503) , Aug 10, 2006

" I am still wondering where is his legal team???? "

...appearing on US TV shows, posing as "scientists"
This is a reply to this message


Message 132 - posted by dave_bloggs (U1668566) , Aug 10, 2006

>ESPN being an american TV station

and YOU were making out it was 'only' smarauder who was seeing conspiracies
This is a reply to this message


Message 133 - posted by bergaretxebe (U4486432) , Aug 10, 2006

, next stop for landis would be apperaring on Trisha Goddardīs show!!!!!!
This is a reply to this message


Message 134 - posted by ventoux (U4677503) , Aug 10, 2006

"Also, I ask you again, why should you make these claims for Landis and not any other cycler who has been tested positive? The arguments could be applied to all... All you seem to be saying is "it doesn't seem right"..."


Funny, haven't seen Sma..'s response to this one yet..? come on, come on....
This is a reply to this message


Message 135 - posted by alanmcn1 (U2948131) , Aug 10, 2006

Smarauder, rest assured that IRMS is a 99.9% perfetc test (no test is 100). It works on the basis that synthetic testosterone has a different Carbon type than natural. When the sample is hit by a laser, it produces a unique "peak" based on the weight (or type) of carbon atom. Synthetic testotserone will produce a clearly distinguisahble peak from any natural stuff, unless hes been drinking or eating radioactive isotopes containing the different C atom. Trust me, and I dont have an agenda, IRMS is an expensive and conclusive test.It is in effect a fingerprint of what he has in his system.
This is a reply to this message


Message 136 - posted by bergaretxebe (U4486432) , Aug 10, 2006

Amen
This is a reply to this message


Message 137 - posted by ventoux (U4677503) , Aug 10, 2006

"Trust me, and I dont have an agenda.."

ah, but you're not saying what Sma.. wants to hear are you, so I wouldn't hold your breath...
This is a reply to this message


Message 138 - posted by alanmcn1 (U2948131) , Aug 10, 2006

I suppose. As I said a month ago, I went over to Paris to cheer the guy I was so happy he won it. was stood on the Place De La Concorde shouting for him. ALLI want is justice done, and cheating taken out my beloved sport................and maybe my own accredited lab if I impress people enough
This is a reply to this message


Message 139 - posted by bergaretxebe (U4486432) , Aug 10, 2006

you can run the message board lab
This is a reply to this message


Message 140 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 10, 2006

"Also, I ask you again, why should you make these claims for Landis and not any other cycler who has been tested positive? The arguments could be applied to all... All you seem to be saying is "it doesn't seem right"..."


Hey Ventoux, how many times do I have to state my reasons for believing Landis??? When I do re-state them, I get flogged for beating a dead horse...Go back and read the threads...My reasons are in them countless times.
naspa

Message 141 - posted by ventoux (U4677503) , Aug 10, 2006

"Hey Ventoux, how many times do I have to state my reasons for believing Landis???"

let's not fall out over this.... I've read all your reasons for believing Floydy Boy, but the question was why you don't draw the same conclusions for all the other accused dopers..? I think I've missed your response to this, so tel me again...
This is a reply to this message


Message 142 - posted by bridgework (U1652282) , Aug 10, 2006

landis doped it up if you ask me. and it is a bummer.

another bummer: UCI/WADA etc blowing protocol. if the administrative folks had stuck to the rules, then there would be nothing for landis to talk of besides "agendas." theories of agendas do not hold much weight in formal proceedings.

perhaps smarauder would still be smarauding. but perhaps skoda would still be on board for le Tour 07.




This is a reply to this message


Message 143 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 10, 2006

Ventoux,

Because other riders haven't had the same circumstances that I know of where they test clean for several days, then hot one day, then clean again....and by all accounts,(don't laugh) Landis is one of the most honest, unassuming, non-calculating people you'd ever wanna meet...IF you cant trust or believe him, you can't believe anybody.
This is a reply to this message


Message 144 - posted by Besonders (U3969514) , Aug 10, 2006

Message posted by ventoux
All you seem to be saying is "it doesn't seem right"
Quoted from this message





Give the guy a break. Plenty of things don't seem right about the testing procedure. Most of them are technicalities that don't negate the result of Landis' tests. My question would be, "Why would the authorities risk blowing a clear cut doping violation because of minor procedural infringements?"

www.velonews.com/new...

- Lab leaks t/e result of A sample test; and that before the B sample test, never mind the disciplinary hearing. This requires permission from the race organiser (the parent company of L'Equipe) and the UCI. But leak appears to be 'anonymous'.

- UCI President deliberately violates UCI rules on disclosure.

- UCI announces 'exogenous source' before B sample test.

- UCI can't show it announced test results through proper channels.

- UCI President admits "close link" between testing lab and L'Equipe. Also suggests lab knew identity of sample - absolute violation of anonymity rule, and hence 'blindness' of test.

- Lab's history of leaking test results to L'Equipe, in violation of Anti-Doping Rules and Laboratory Code of Ethics. This lab needs to be sanctioned under WADA's International Standard for Laboratories.

As said above, none of these violations have a real bearing on what was in Landis' system or how it got in there. But quite frankly, I wouldn't blame anyone for smelling a great big stinking rat.
This is a reply to this message


Message 145 - posted by claytonseymour (U3927055) , Aug 10, 2006

Because other riders haven't had the same circumstances that I know of where they test clean for several days, then hot one day, then clean again....and by all accounts,(don't laugh) Landis is one of the most honest, unassuming, non-calculating people you'd ever wanna meet...IF you cant trust or believe him, you can't believe anybody.


It all just goes to show that you can never trust anyone. Have you ever met Landis by the way?
This is a reply to this message


Message 146 - posted by immacks (U5276337) , Aug 10, 2006

As a one-time analytical lab worker, I agree the scenario of 2 contaminated sample containers is unlikely - but not impossible.
Modern analytical methods also make precise measurement of even very small ammounts of contamination possible.
This is a reply to this message


Message 147 - posted by ventoux (U4677503) , Aug 10, 2006

by all accounts (haven't met him) that Richard Virenque was a most engaging fellow too...
This is a reply to this message


Message 148 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 10, 2006

Yeah, I knew I'd get that type or retort but you asked...I provided my answer...that's the gist of it...
This is a reply to this message


Message 149 - posted by ventoux (U4677503) , Aug 10, 2006

OK sma.... I've chased you around on this, and don't want to get labelled as a stalker: I'll give you a break now.... I guess I think you're naive, you think I'm cynical.... hey ho...
This is a reply to this message


Message 150 - posted by inputjoe (U1695197) , Aug 10, 2006

"...none of these violations have a real bearing on what was in Landis' system or how it got in there. But quite frankly, I wouldn't blame anyone for smelling a great big stinking rat."

Perhaps then they can be blamed for being confused, for thinking they are smelling a great big stinking rat when close up it doesn't really smell that bad.
This is a reply to this message


Message 151 - posted by Besonders (U3969514) , Aug 10, 2006

"doesn't smell that bad"?

Violation of anonymity rule: Landis could be let off because of that.
This is a reply to this message


Message 152 - posted by SaddleSore (U5152923) , Aug 10, 2006

What UCI has done is created enough doubt that Landis could very possibly win on a technicality. They have to prove their case but with each new revalation of irregularity, they are making it harder.
This is a reply to this message


Message 153 - posted by SaddleSore (U5152923) , Aug 10, 2006

I once met Roberto Heras, he was very gracious with me. He may be a cheat but he seemed to be a very decent person.
This is a reply to this message


Message 154 - posted by ttthebear (U5277783) , Aug 10, 2006

I hope that Landis is cleared.

But I can see a scenario leading to the positive test that goes like this: Bonks on Stage 16. After, he commiserates with drinks. Perhaps too many. I know that when I have a drink after a hard activity or a long day without food, it goes straight to my head. So he gets a bit tipsy. Lalangue (sp? DS) suggests he see team soignier or doctor to make sure he'll be ok in the am cause "you still need to finish the race for the sponsor." Helper gives him a patch, which Floyd leaves on too long because he sleeps a bit late to deal with the booze. Voila, he's feeling great the next AM, but he has too much from the patch in his system.

I do want him to be cleared. But sometimes I feel like I'm rooting for OJ Simpson or Richard Scurshy.
This is a reply to this message


Message 155 - posted by inputjoe (U1695197) , Aug 10, 2006

Your quote: "......none of these violations have a real bearing on what was in Landis' system or how it got in there."

I agree ...and so the rat is not reeking: the substantive evidence against Landis is not in doubt.
This is a reply to this message


Message 156 - posted by Besonders (U3969514) , Aug 10, 2006

FFS, the 'smell a rat' doubts concern the lab, it's links with L'Equipe, and the UCI.
This is a reply to this message


Message 157 - posted by mike - Valverde WILL eventually win Tour - Selig (U2239560) , Aug 11, 2006

rest assured that IRMS is a 99.9% perfetc test (no test is 100)
Quoted from this message





Alan is correct. As I said the IRMS is as perfect as any other scientific experiment. Please all try to understand that no scientific test is 100% reliable. Things can (and do) very occasionally go wrong, be it through an error in manipulation or what have you.

This is why they do two tests!! The possibility of an error on the first tests is very very small (say the same likelihood of dropping two matches and them landing excatly on top of each-other). The possibility of an error also occuring on the 2nd test is even smaller. The possibility that an error occurs on both the first and second tests and leads to the same (wrong) result is so gigantically small (say dropping 20 boxes of matches worth and them all landing exactly on top of each other would be much much more likely).


This is a reply to this message


Message 158 - posted by claytonseymour (U3927055) , Aug 11, 2006

I hope that Landis is cleared.

I most certainly hope he isn't cleared!
This is a reply to this message


Message 159 - posted by spiritualwolf (U1953527) , Aug 11, 2006

Landis being cleared would be the worst possible result for cycling - if he gets let off, you may as well change cycling to an openly drug-taking sport. It won't make any real difference to performances. That's the question to ask yourself - do you want cycling to be clean, or not? Is that more or less important than American patriotism?

...as I said before, Greg LeMond seems to be the only American in the cycling world who understands this. I wish more did.
This is a reply to this message


Message 160 - posted by Nuvolari1 (U1731570) , Aug 11, 2006

My same position. I hope he is cleared, or maybe not. The tests are positive; he must have cheated his way around. Or maybe they were wrong and we are wrongfully accusing him. I just don’t know and cannot make up my mind.
For the more knowledgeable people here, would be possible to look for exogenous steroid in the serum. And by any chance does anyone know the exact half life of testosterone (endogenous or exogenous or it really doesn’t make a difference). Maybe looking at these factors would quit the doubters on both sides.
naspa

Message 161 - posted by 70kmph (U5077047) , Aug 11, 2006

It seems logical that someone who needs a hip replacement, is already taking cortosone, and is riding in pain might use testosterone to give himself a boost. Then into the first week of the Tour he holds a bizarre press conference where he announces his forthcoming operation? It almost sounds like a cover story in hindsight, that somehow in his own mind, the hip entitled him to a little extra 'medication'.
This is a reply to this message


Message 162 - posted by inputjoe (U1695197) , Aug 11, 2006

"FFS, the 'smell a rat' doubts concern the lab, it's links with L'Equipe, and the UCI."

FFS, The 'smell a rat' doubts concern more than just your opinion. If you have any doubts about that, check out the message (91) of the poster whose comments you are excusing.


This is a reply to this message


Message 163 - posted by dave_muggle111 (U3522874) , Aug 11, 2006

I think an important point that is missing in the "analysis" by Bob Moisenke in the Velonews article is that in any quasi-legal setting, which the Landis case has evolved into now that the file is being forwarded to USADA/USA Cycling, is that much greater emphasis will be given to maintaining a reasonably pure process from the moment that Landis dropped his drawers and pee'd in a cup.

Regardless of whether Landis cheated or not, there is a strong legal basis for Landis to use in his defence IF the process was not carried out as it was supposed to have been. This is especially true if the identity of the riders was known by the lab or persons connected to the lab, which was not supposed to have that knowledge or any information that could link the rider to the sample. The anonymity of the rider/sample is therefore compromised - anonymity being a key element in giving the science part of its validity.

This is important as it protects the riders from unscrupulous individuals tampering with samples, or other AND, it protects the lab and its personnel from unwarranted/illegitimate criticism of bias. There may be mitigating circumstances to surface from the lab or its personnel that will negate the breach of the anonymity rule; that remains to be seen.

Had this been a criminal case, there may be sufficient doubt created by this alone to result in an "acquittal" of Landis. The saving grace in all of this, is that doping infractions are not to be considered as criminal matters under WADA/UCI-IOC but rather as "strict liability" offences with a correspondingly lower threshold of standards.

However, it really would not surprise me now to see if UASADA/USA Cycling, in a nation with a proud history of legal protections and individual rights will "acquit" Landis. Of course, they will need to balance this ideal with the need to crack down on doping and to maintain its standing in the international community.
This is a reply to this message


Message 164 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 11, 2006

I'm looking forward to his full acquital and would love to see the UCI, Tour De France Organizers and the lab be investigated.


This is a reply to this message


Message 165 - posted by BoneHeadedBushLover (U1692166) , Aug 11, 2006

I would have sympathy with an argument that if the riders have to abide by a strict liability policy (i.e. if it's in your body you're guilty unless you can prove otherwise) then the UCI must operate by a strict observance of testing procedures (i.e. if the test isn't conducted properly then the result is invalid).

This is a reply to this message


Message 166 - posted by tommie81 (U1654932) , Aug 11, 2006

"I'm looking forward to his full acquital and would love to see the UCI, Tour De France Organizers and the lab be investigated."

I'm not. That would make proffessional cycling a laughing stock and would probably destroy it totally. Both his A and B samples were positive, so he has to be stripped of his TdF title and banned for two years.
This is a reply to this message


Message 167 - posted by BoneHeadedBushLover (U1692166) , Aug 11, 2006

Re 165, this would potentially lead to a lot of riders being let off on a technicality, but it would give the UCI an incentive to smarten up their act.

This is a reply to this message


Message 168 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 11, 2006

"Both his A and B samples were positive, so he has to be stripped of his TdF title and banned for two years."

I'm not sure why people think the A and B sample thing means anything...They both derive from the same, original sample...Its not like Landis pee'd into a A cup and a B cup....
This is a reply to this message


Message 169 - posted by tommie81 (U1654932) , Aug 11, 2006

but sample B was sealed in Landis presence and reopened in his presence, tested in his presence so theres nothing and no-one could have tampered with it, which means he's guilty and should be punished accordingly.
This is a reply to this message


Message 170 - posted by bergaretxebe (U4486432) , Aug 11, 2006

they mean positive, whatever conspiracy theory you want to apply, still a positive.


This is a reply to this message


Message 171 - posted by Robinson_Crusoe (U4741572) , Aug 11, 2006

inputjoe,
My "smell a rat" comment refers to the doping procedure violations and my opinion of them. My post mentions Landis only as a clause - put there to differentiate my views from smarauder's specualtions about the actual test result. If you want to comment on smarauder's opinions, quote his posts. Using my comments as a stick to beat him with is a bit desperate.

So nyah nyah to you.
This is a reply to this message


Message 172 - posted by bergaretxebe (U4486432) , Aug 11, 2006

and for the interest of everyone, Landis wasnīt present when the B sample was opened, he was in California, but his lawyers were there, and they havenīt said anything, about something irregular during the test
This is a reply to this message


Message 173 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 11, 2006

"but sample B was sealed in Landis presence and reopened in his presence, tested in his presence so theres nothing and no-one could have tampered with it, which means he's guilty and should be punished accordingly."


How do you know there's no way it could have been tampered with?

Were you there?


This is a reply to this message


Message 174 - posted by tommie81 (U1654932) , Aug 11, 2006

No, but I doubt you were either to prove it was tampered with.
This is a reply to this message


Message 175 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 11, 2006

exactly my point!

WE both don't know...That's why there should be an investigation and the people who had access to his sample should be investigated.

The UCI, Tour Organizers and the Lab brought this on themselves with their breach of protocal...They should now be investigated thouroughly.
This is a reply to this message


Message 176 - posted by Besonders (U3969514) , Aug 11, 2006

There may be mitigating circumstances to surface from the lab or its personnel that will negate the breach of the anonymity rule; that remains to be seen.
Quoted from this message





The lab gets a chance to argue that the procedural breach didn't affect the outcome of the tests, don't they?
This is a reply to this message


Message 177 - posted by bergaretxebe (U4486432) , Aug 11, 2006

"The UCI, Tour Organizers and the Lab brought this on themselves with their breach of protocal...They should now be investigated thouroughly"

what rules have they broken?????
This is a reply to this message


Message 178 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 11, 2006

Berger, I know you were so delighted by the news of a positive test on Landis that you probably got bogged down in your euphoria...but the UCI violated lots of rules as did tour organizers by commenting on the matter before the B Sample had been tested.

All of the leaks that came out were clear violations of the agreement between the riders and the UCI. The rules are in place not only for the protection of the riders and their reputations, but also to avoid the appearence of looking like they have an agenda...

Wake up, Berger!
This is a reply to this message


Message 179 - posted by crash48 (U3987106) , Aug 11, 2006

smarauder68

Are there any negative thoughts in your mind that make you think that Landis might have actually taken something?
This is a reply to this message


Message 180 - posted by 70kmph (U5077047) , Aug 11, 2006

Sour grapes for the American flag leads to a lab conspiracy. For the lab had 7 years worth of Armstrong samples to sabotage and they never once proved a positive. Then an American truly fails the doping controls and the result is tampering?
naspa

Message 181 - posted by bergaretxebe (U4486432) , Aug 11, 2006

Look funny boy, I ride to work everyday, I ride every weekend, I love cycling and I have been practicing since I was 9, I love this sport more than anything, and since Landis positive everyone in th eoffice jokes around, "have you taken the testosterone today??? you are going to need an extra shoot of testo tonight to ride back, etc..." and I tell you that is not pleasant.

you should look back and check the chronology of the case, the UCI on the 26th of July announced that there was a positive case in the TdF, Prudhomme agreed and said that if the sample B confirm the positive he was going to be really angry and dissapointed, up to this stage noone mentioned any name.
It was on the 27th when PHONAK announced that they have a fax from the UCI saying that Landis did tested positive, so it wasnīt the UCI, It wasnīt the TdF and it wasnīt the lab, it was his team.
This is a reply to this message


Message 182 - posted by crash48 (U3987106) , Aug 11, 2006

Mate

He know's this, he just refuses to accept it.

He will only here what he wants to.

You have to admire the strength of his convictions though...




This is a reply to this message


Message 183 - posted by bergaretxebe (U4486432) , Aug 11, 2006

yeah, itīs like talking to a wall
This is a reply to this message


Message 184 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 11, 2006

The UCI and Prudhomme shouldn't have said anything and Prudhomme certainly shouldn't have made his remark about being "very angry"...his very angry comments made it pretty obvious that one of the top GC guys had tested positive...that's what caused Phonak to eventually admit it was Landis who tested positive.


In between the A and B testing there shouldn't have been any leaks but we had several important leaks including the so-called "synthetic" testosterone leak which has forever tarnished Landis even if he does wind up being acquitted.


This is a reply to this message


Message 185 - posted by 70kmph (U5077047) , Aug 11, 2006

Here is the lowest defence argument one could possibly make, blame the messenger. For when all of the other reasons for Landis' failure to pass doping control have been exhausted there can be only one of two conclusions- tampering and conspiracy or divine intervention.
This is a reply to this message


Message 186 - posted by bergaretxebe (U4486432) , Aug 11, 2006

The UCI has the right to communicate that there is a positive case, where does it say that they can not??? they can not say the name, which they didnīt, but the have the right, and they SHOULD inform that there is a case of someone testing positive.
This is a reply to this message


Message 187 - posted by bergaretxebe (U4486432) , Aug 11, 2006

and the ones that made the coments about the syntheic testo was the New York Times, not the LīÉquipe, not the UCI, not the TdF.
This is a reply to this message


Message 188 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 11, 2006

If the UCI, Lab and Tour Organizers had followed guidelines I wouldn't have become so suspicious about a conspiracy...but they came out swinging with leaks and "anger" and didn't treat the case with total objectivity as they should have if they wanted to avoid the appearence of an agenda.

And yes, I'm NOT so close-minded that I can't fathom the idea that Landis actually doped...In my mind there's a 10 or 15% probability that he did dope but as I've stated time and time again, it doesn't add up for me.
This is a reply to this message


Message 189 - posted by crash48 (U3987106) , Aug 11, 2006

smarauder68

How about we forget this topic for a few days. At least until the next excuse comes to the fore..
This is a reply to this message


Message 190 - posted by inputjoe (U1695197) , Aug 11, 2006

"My "smell a rat" comment refers to the doping procedure violations and my opinion of them. My post mentions Landis only as a clause - put there to differentiate my views from smarauder's specualtions about the actual test result. If you want to comment on smarauder's opinions, quote his posts. Using my comments as a stick to beat him with is a bit desperate."

Cheap shots are not my style ...nor are cheap tricks, Besonders, Robinson Crusoe or whatever else you call yourself on these boards.
This is a reply to this message


Message 191 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 11, 2006

Fine with me...I've stated my reasons for my beliefs time and time again...People enjoy taking shots at me and I'm happy to entertain...but until there's a new revolation(such as a Landis confession or further proof of an agenda or wrongdoing on the part of the UCI, Lab or Prudhomme) then I'm done with this topic...Fair enuf!
This is a reply to this message


Message 192 - posted by bergaretxebe (U4486432) , Aug 11, 2006

me too.
This is a reply to this message


Message 193 - posted by Besonders (U3969514) , Aug 11, 2006

inputjoe,
Yeah yeah whatever, but did you notice the difference between your posts and the worthwhile ones from people who wanted to discuss violations of doping protocol? You want to join in with that, or just want to try to make yourself look good by making smarauder look bad? As if I didn't already know the answer.
This is a reply to this message


Message 194 - posted by Besonders (U3969514) , Aug 11, 2006

Message posted by smarauder68
I'm not sure why people think the A and B sample thing means anything...They both derive from the same, original sample...Its not like Landis pee'd into a A cup and a B cup....
Quoted from this message





With two tests, there is far less chance that the *testing procedure* gives a false positive. Makes no difference to what the sample contains.
This is a reply to this message


Message 195 - posted by mike - Valverde WILL eventually win Tour - Selig (U2239560) , Aug 11, 2006

If the UCI, Lab and Tour Organizers had followed guidelines I wouldn't have become so suspicious about a conspiracy...
Quoted from this message





Right, I'll say this one more time. The lab didn't leak anything, they told the UCI about the positive test, who said that someone had tested positive. So far nothing wrong although maybe the UCI shouldn't have said anything at all. Prudhomme came out and said he was very angry BECAUSE he had hoped that after all teh fuss prior to the tour, it would be a clean one. His quote has since been taken completely out of context. Phonak then admitted that Landis had tested positive. All of this happenned before the B test, as IT ALWAYS DOES. Check e.g. the Heras case (link: news.bbc.co.uk/sport... the only difference is the UCI admitting there has been a positive test, which is not a breach of any regulations at all. Oh and the fact that Heras is spanish and Landis american I suppose... I really fail to see how the UCI, Lab and Tour Organizers "didn't treat the case with total objectivity".

I really would like you to answer and provide other differences between this case and Heras's...

Re the supposed link between the Lab and L'Equipe, it really is boll#$ks! L'Equipe is the only full-time sports newspaper in France and as such it is its role to chase up any info about sports, hence they have links with each and every testing lab in france. Sounds reasonable to me...
This is a reply to this message


Message 196 - posted by Besonders (U3969514) , Aug 11, 2006

Re the supposed link between the Lab and L'Equipe, it really is boll#$ks! L'Equipe is the only full-time sports newspaper in France and as such it is its role to chase up any info about sports, hence they have links with each and every testing lab in france. Sounds reasonable to me...
Quoted from this message





To announce that a rider has tested positive (without giving his/her name), the lab needs permission from the UCI and the race organiser. The company that organises the Tour de France is the parent company of L'Equipe (itself a descendant of the sports newspaper that originally created the Tour de France).

So if the lab reveals anything to the organiser's of the Tour de France, it is basically revealing it to L'Equipe. Hence the history of leaks referred to by UCI president Pat McQuaid.

As you say, L'Equipe employees wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't chase these things up. I'd have to check, but I don't think there's anything preventing the race organiser revealing anything the lab tells it (a loophole in the regulations).

The problem will be if (IF) Landis gets away with a real doping offence because of sloppy procedure - a bit like guilty criminals not being prosecuted because the police didn't read them their rights, get them a lawyer, or record their interviews.

Nobody is going to be happy if the case against Landis is screwed up because of incompetence or negligence. But whatever happens, L'Equipe will sell more papers.

Interesting!
This is a reply to this message


Message 197 - posted by dave_muggle111 (U3522874) , Aug 11, 2006

"Sour grapes for the American flag leads to a lab conspiracy. For the lab had 7 years worth of Armstrong samples to sabotage and they never once proved a positive. Then an American truly fails the doping controls and the result is tampering?"


A very good point made here. The only thing that I can see being egregious is the way that the Experiments/new research occured with Armstrong and those old samples.


This is a reply to this message


Message 198 - posted by mike - Valverde WILL eventually win Tour - Selig (U2239560) , Aug 12, 2006

To Besonders, the lab didn't leak anything. Blame the UCI if you want to for botching procedures, but all teh lab did was inform the UCI of the positiv test. That that fact meant that L'Equipe immediately knew of the positive is really irrelevant as the UCI decided to make the positive test public (but not the name, which is perfectly legal).

It IS possible that Landis gets off because of a sloppy procedure, and you can bet his entire defence will be centered on this (and not on "it was all natural" or anything else, as is now becoming apparent), but really he shouldn't, as the procedure has really been the same as it always is!! Also, there is a big difference between a criminal case and a drugs case, and I can't recall any drug users being let off on a technicality. I'd also like to think that should Landis get off (and I sincerely hope he doesn't, not because I don't like him, but because in my view he's cheated) no team will want to take him on again...
This is a reply to this message


Message 199 - posted by Bean_here_bee_four (U3889512) , Aug 12, 2006

Sat, 12 Aug 2006 09:13:22 GMT, In reply to: Besonders [www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...]

>Nobody is going to be happy if the case against Landis is screwed up because of incompetence or negligence. But whatever happens, L'Equipe will sell more papers.<

The big problem is that L'equipe is damaging it's parent company as the TdeF will struggle to find sponsors, and French cycling suffers generally. At the present rate I wonder how many years it will be before cycling in France is more of a minority sport than it is in the UK.
This is a reply to this message


Message 200 - posted by inputjoe (U1695197) , Aug 12, 2006

"It IS possible that Landis gets off because of a sloppy procedure, and you can bet his entire defence will be centered on this (and not on "it was all natural" or anything else, as is now becoming apparent), but really he shouldn't, as the procedure has really been the same as it always is!! Also, there is a big difference between a criminal case and a drugs case, and I can't recall any drug users being let off on a technicality. I'd also like to think that should Landis get off (and I sincerely hope he doesn't, not because I don't like him, but because in my view he's cheated) no team will want to take him on again..."

It's possible he gets off but like you I don't think there is much chance of that really happening. IMO the sloppy procedure (minor procedural infringements, lack of due process or whatever you want to call it) does not amount to much at this point. Landis' right to a fair hearing has not been jeopardized. One can always make a big fuss about this and that procedure being violated but the more important issue I think would be the impact of the violations (if indeed they are violations)on Landis' ability to present his defense. Has his ability to mount a full defense been impaired? Has he incriminated himself in a way that violates some procedure? Has the evidence against him been compromised? Landis' problem is the positive results which sooner or later he is going to have to try and explain away. From what I can tell, none of the so called violations hamper his ability to try and do so.
naspa

Message 201 - posted by tigger70 (U5244107) , Aug 12, 2006

Sadly, from the information gleened from postings in this thread, I believe that there are weaknesses in the UCI testing regime that could possibly yield to sufficient legal scrutiny/pressure.

Firstly, postings appear to suggest that the lab was in a position to leak the name of the positive rider. Whether or not they did so is immaterial, but in clinical drugs trials testing is "double blind" - no-one knows who is given what to preserve the objectivity of the trial. In this case, the lab should have only received samples labelled by code, not by name; that information would be privvy only to a small number of UCI staff, who would have to be completely divorced from the actual conduct of the test. This would snuff out all the Baroque conspiracy theories in one swoop (at least those not involving Opus Dei...).

Secondly, given the above, when the B-sample was retested by the same lab they would have been able to identify who the rider was and what the result was from the A-sample, which would detract from the objectivity of the second test and undermine its formal independence. In order to restore independence the test would have to be conducted so the that the B-sample could not be related by the lab back to the A-sample. This would mean both using coded B-samples and including a proportion of the B-samples in the second testing cohort. It would also act as a QA check on the lab's methodology.

Personally, I believe that the possibilty that the test result is false to be vanishingly small, but UCI procedures should be robust enough to deny even that small glimmer of legal hope.


This is a reply to this message


Message 202 - posted by Besonders (U3969514) , Aug 13, 2006

Message posted by mike - CTV most improved society - Selig
To Besonders, the lab didn't leak anything.
Quoted from this message





That's right. And how many cyclists have never failed a dope test?!

The lab didn't ANNOUNCE anything. I know it was the UCI that made the initial announcement, and not the lab, so you don't have to keep repeating that (to me at least).

Look at McQuaid's reasons for making the announcement (the way Landis' lawyers will). There are a chain of inferences there which are difficult to follow, but put simply, the UCI are saying (in word and deed) that
(1) The Lab knew it was testing Landis' sample.
(2) L'Equipe knew everything the lab knew.
(3) The UCI knew the result had already been leaked to L'Equipe, and decided to make the announcement because they had been made to look bad (slow to act) in the past when L'Equipe broke the news first.

It might take Lieutenant Columbo to convince people (see PS. below), but it looks as if someone in the lab told L'Equipe, "A rider (cough, nod, wink) has failed a drugs test".

As you know, none of this has any bearing on what was in Landis' sample. But if his lawyers can show that the testing procedure was open to abuse because it failed to preserve his anonymity, that should be enough to let Landis off. I doubt he'd keep his Tour title, but he'd probably escape a ban.

If that happens, then heads ought to roll at the testing lab and in the UCI.

PS.
There’s a logical nicety in number (1) above, because everyone knew Landis’ sample was tested - the stage winner and the GC leader (among others) are tested after every stage. Even though there could still be an argument whether or not the lab knew which particular sample was Landis', complete anonymity wan't preserved. (In fact it's impossible, as it would mean testing every rider).

So, although the lab are only supposed to deal with samples (and report results) by code number, they'd have to be pretty thick not to know that one of the samples had to come from Landis. They can still claim that they didn't actually breach the rules on anonymity.

But if they do that, then they'd have us believe they're all off with the fairies with no idea how sports reporting works. Who'd believe that, given all the leaks associated with their lab in the past? That is, the lab would have to argue either that they're ignorant, or stupid, or liars.

Now suppose (for example only) journalists from L'Equipe had phoned every national cycling authority EXCEPT the USA, to ask if they’d been notified that one of their riders tested positive. That would strongly suggest the journalists were trying to confirm it was an American rider (by a process of elimination) - not simply trying to find out which rider it was.

Things may not have happened that way: but if they did it would allow Landis’ defence to argue his anonymity had been flouted and the testing procedures compromised. It's a deperate argument, but it (and other equally desperate scenarios) would be enough to scupper the disciplinary procedures against Landis.
This is a reply to this message


Message 203 - posted by inputjoe (U1695197) , Aug 13, 2006

Crusonders,

There are a lot of ifs in what you have to say but is there a statement or some other piece of evidence you can point to confirming that the lab knew with certainty which sample belonged to which particular rider before the testing of the A samples took place. If Landis' lawyer is going to go with the "open to abuse" defense it is not enough to suggest a plot and leave it at that. Where is the evidence that the Lab was grossly negligent or acting with malicious intent?
This is a reply to this message


Message 204 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 13, 2006

Follow the money trail...

seriously, if I were working for Landis, I'd be investigating bank activities of all lab workers, UCI officials and Tour De France organizers...not to mention, top officials of "L'Equipe"....Follow the Money!
This is a reply to this message


Message 205 - posted by Besonders (U3969514) , Aug 13, 2006

Is that all one question? If it is, the one answer is, "Darned if I know"! Hence the supposition.
This is a reply to this message


Message 206 - posted by inputjoe (U1695197) , Aug 13, 2006

Landisgate!
This is a reply to this message


Message 207 - posted by mike - Valverde WILL eventually win Tour - Selig (U2239560) , Aug 13, 2006

To Besonders again,


(1) The Lab knew it was testing Landis' sample.
Quoted from this message





Sorry but what suggests to you that the Lab knew the sample it was testing was Landis's. This lab was testing hundreds of samples from the Tour, each with a serial label, how would it know that that particular one was from Landis? No evidence shows anything but the lab informing the UCI of a positive test along with its serial number. The UCI knew who tested positive but didn't announce it. So far, NO breach of anonimity (unless you count the fact that the lab knew that ONE of the samples they were testing was from Landis, which even by smarauder's standards is a pitifull argument).


(2) L'Equipe knew everything the lab knew.
Quoted from this message





Oh and where is the evidence for that? Yeah they knew about the positive test after the announce of the UCI and they knew it was Landis after Phonak's announcement, no evidence whatsoever to show leaks between L'Equipe and the lab.


(3) The UCI knew the result had already been leaked to L'Equipe, and decided to make the announcement because they had been made to look bad (slow to act) in the past when L'Equipe broke the news first.
Quoted from this message





Ah now I get you, when L'Equipe anounces things first it's because of a leak, when the UCI does it, it's also because of a leak! Right...

Ah well, I suppose at least we all now seem to agree that Landis did take the drugs but might get off on a procedurial error...
This is a reply to this message


Message 208 - posted by tommie81 (U1654932) , Aug 13, 2006

If I were Landis I would be so embarassed I would have legged it and left cycling all together seeing the shame I would have brought upon it. I would have then spent the rest of my life worrying about when I would get a heart attack from all the drugs I'd taken.
This is a reply to this message


Message 209 - posted by mike - Valverde WILL eventually win Tour - Selig (U2239560) , Aug 13, 2006

Secondly, given the above, when the B-sample was retested by the same lab they would have been able to identify who the rider was and what the result was from the A-sample, which would detract from the objectivity of the second test and undermine its formal independence
Quoted from this message





I get what you're saying, but this is what happens in every case where someone has tested positive.
This is a reply to this message


Message 210 - posted by inputjoe (U1695197) , Aug 13, 2006

"Is that all one question? If it is, the one answer is, "Darned if I know"! Hence the supposition."

Supposition or not you raised a good point about how the defense might approach the case.
This is a reply to this message


Message 211 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 13, 2006

"If I were Landis I would be so embarassed I would have legged it and left cycling all together seeing the shame I would have brought upon it. I would have then spent the rest of my life worrying about when I would get a heart attack from all the drugs I'd taken."


Did it ever occur to you the reason Landis is fighting so much is because he feels everybody else was doping too and that he was truly the strongest man?

As for "going away" alot of people said the same thing about Clinton after the Lewinsky affair...they said he should step away because of all the shame he brought to his country...But he persevered and he's universally loved now...
This is a reply to this message


Message 212 - posted by mike - Valverde WILL eventually win Tour - Selig (U2239560) , Aug 13, 2006

Is that all one question? If it is, the one answer is, "Darned if I know"! Hence the supposition.
Quoted from this message





So there isn't any reason to believe that the Lab knew the sample they were testing was from Landis? Is that what you're saying?
This is a reply to this message


Message 213 - posted by tommie81 (U1654932) , Aug 13, 2006

Yes, but Clinton didn't cheat to win something (though amusingly enough Bush did!). The only person Clinton cheated on was his wife, and how often does that happen in society these days? And it was pathetic that something like that came out into the open.
This is a reply to this message


Message 214 - posted by inputjoe (U1695197) , Aug 13, 2006

"As for "going away" alot of people said the same thing about Clinton after the Lewinsky affair...they said he should step away because of all the shame he brought to his country...But he persevered and he's universally loved now..."

I never loved the guy.
This is a reply to this message


Message 215 - posted by Besonders (U3969514) , Aug 13, 2006

mike - CTV most improved society - Selig,

Not me. It's not what I think. It's what Bob Mionske thinks, and it's what Landis' lawyers could use to get him off.

Sorry but what suggests to you that the Lab knew the sample it was testing was Landis's. This lab was testing hundreds of samples from the Tour, each with a serial label, how would it know that that particular one was from Landis?
Quoted from this message



FFS, I said that in my post. In fact I think I explained that point better than you! I know it was long and complicated message, but - sheesh.


Ah now I get you, when L'Equipe anounces things first it's because of a leak, when the UCI does it, it's also because of a leak!
Quoted from this message



Well, what can you say to that? Read Pat McQuaid's explanation for why they announced the positive test result! Past experience shows L'Equipe often knows what the lab knows, especially with regard to the Tour de France.


Ah well, I suppose at least we all now seem to agree that Landis did take the drugs but might get off on a procedurial error...
Quoted from this message



Isn't this where we started?
This is a reply to this message


Message 216 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 13, 2006

"As for "going away" alot of people said the same thing about Clinton after the Lewinsky affair...they said he should step away because of all the shame he brought to his country...But he persevered and he's universally loved now..."

I never loved the guy."


Ok! he's mostly loved and some would argue his popularity rose after staying on and fighting off his accusers...The same could happen to Landis.
This is a reply to this message


Message 217 - posted by ventoux (U4677503) , Aug 13, 2006

.. but nobody thinks Clinton "didn't do it.." - they forgave him.... forgive landis? I don't think so...
This is a reply to this message


Message 218 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 13, 2006

what if there's nothing to forgive??? Do you still hold open that possibility?

What would be the reaction of the people on this board if it is proven to be a conspiracy or that his testosterone levels were in fact a "natural" occurrence???




This is a reply to this message


Message 219 - posted by Besonders (U3969514) , Aug 13, 2006

Message posted by mike - CTV most improved society - Selig
So there isn't any reason to believe that the Lab knew the sample they were testing was from Landis? Is that what you're saying?
Quoted from this message





Er... did I already reply to this? WTF. No, I'm not saying that. Mionske is saying that factors surrounding violations of the testing procedure (such as McQuaid's comments) could reveal that the lab had information identifying Landis' sample. I don't know what those factors might be (probably why you're asking), but then not everything has been fully reported. See news.bbc.co.uk/sport...

As an example, if the lawyers find ONE phone call from a L'Equipe journalist to a national cycling authority asking about doping violations BEFORE the initial UCI announcement, that would be strong evidence of a leak - unless they make such phone calls every day as routine. Again, it's a supposition of a desperate argument. (And I pointed that out previously, so take note).

The thing that's concerning me is that LNDD, WADA and L'Equipe thought they'd pinned Armstrong down. But Armstrong squirmed out of it/vindicated himself (depending what you want to believe about him) because Vrijmann was able to put so many question marks over WADA's case. They botched it then, and they might botch this one too.
This is a reply to this message


Message 220 - posted by tommie81 (U1654932) , Aug 13, 2006

"What would be the reaction of the people on this board if it is proven to be a conspiracy or that his testosterone levels were in fact a "natural" occurrence???"

But there is no conspiracy and the testosterone has been found to come from an external source. That has been proven. Landis has doped and needs to be punished accoringly.
naspa

Message 221 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 13, 2006

"But there is no conspiracy and the testosterone has been found to come from an external source. That has been proven. Landis has doped and needs to be punished accoringly."

That has NOT been proven...Its very much still in the air according to scientist I saw on ESPN just the other day...
This is a reply to this message


Message 222 - posted by mike - Valverde WILL eventually win Tour - Selig (U2239560) , Aug 14, 2006

OK soz Besonders I get you know. Comments made from Landis's lawers suggest that the lab knew who they were testing on. If this is indeed the case (and for the moment there's NO proof of this) then he might (some may say should) get off. The onus is however on Landis to prove the breach of anonimity (as opposed to a criminal court where the onus would be for the prosecuting party to prove there wasn't, quite a difference that). As I personally don't think there would be breach of anonimity (it would be madness) I doubt very much he will succeed. And as you admit, even if there was breach, this wouldn't actually affect the test results (remember the B sample, which is almost error-proof, and unspikeable - if there is such a word).

For the time being though, this is my last post on the subject (unless somebody says something completely false that really annoys me...), there's the Vuelta coming up, and personally live racing takes precedence over petty debates about a non-existant conspiracy.
This is a reply to this message


Message 223 - posted by ventoux (U4677503) , Aug 14, 2006

"what if there's nothing to forgive??? Do you still hold open that possibility?"

Of course, I was saying so only this morning, to my friend Arthur from the planet Zog, as we were taking our daily magic carpet ride around the local cheese plantation....


This is a reply to this message


Message 224 - posted by crash48 (U3987106) , Aug 14, 2006

'At the present rate I wonder how many years it will be before cycling in France is more of a minority sport than it is in the UK'.

You will not see it in your lifetime mate!
This is a reply to this message


Message 225 - posted by tigger70 (U5244107) , Aug 14, 2006

Re: "this is what happens when every case where someone tests positive" - that underlines the broad thrust of the point I'm making.

I do not claim that UCI broke any protocols; the point I was trying to make is that the UCI drug testing protocol is not rigourous. The test of the B-sample has to be independent of the A-sample test, otherwise the re-test is a pointless exercise. And the only way to guarantee that independence is to mix the B-sample with others so it cannot be identified during the re-test.
This is a reply to this message


Message 226 - posted by Besonders (U3969514) , Aug 14, 2006

What would be the reaction of the people on this board if it is proven to be a conspiracy or that his testosterone levels were in fact a "natural" occurrence???
Quoted from this message





Don't know about natural, and 'conspiracy' doesn't convince me (would be interesting though); but if someday it turns out that the test results aren't reliable for some reason, I for one won't be in the least bit surprised.

Something like 80% of published scientific findings turn out to be in error some way (if you believe what Nature magazine says). Think of the MMR vaccine scare in the UK, and how Sally Clark and Angela Cannings were convicted of killing their babies on the evidence of expert witness Sir Roy Meadow - then both were later acquitted after his testimony was discredited.

In the context of this discussion, there's Diane Modahl, the nandrolone issues of a few years ago, and the testosterone test's history of inadequacy.

Also, my experience working in science is that, despite the degrees and the white coats and the air of learned scholarly expertise, scientists are just as vulnerable to incompetence, jumping to conclusions, shouting down opposition, every kind of irrational and stressed-out behaviour arising from the urge to win an argument, 'whistle-blowing' or using procedures to settle old scores against rivals, and (worst of all) a refusal to admit even the possibility of making a mistake. Try looking up John Christy (American climate scientist).
This is a reply to this message


Message 227 - posted by Besonders (U3969514) , Aug 14, 2006

Comments made from Landis's lawers suggest that the lab knew who they were testing on.
Quoted from this message





Yeah, and I wish they'd say what they know, so we could be sure it's not an empty threat. I suppose they're keeping their powder dry for the disciplinary hearings.

It was those remarks that got me interested. Doping violations are a bit ho-hum really. (When the news broke about Landis, I didn't even bother looking at these boards for about a week).

But a good argument is a fight!
This is a reply to this message


Message 228 - posted by mike - Valverde WILL eventually win Tour - Selig (U2239560) , Aug 14, 2006

The point is, Besonders, that the chances of scientists performing exactly the same errors or different errors which lead to exactly the same results twice are negligeable. Remember both the A and B samples yielded the same results.

Or are you suggesting that after the results of the first test were announced, the Lab realised that they'd made a mistake, and rather than admit it, made sure the B sample would give the same result. but Landis's representatives were present for that, so it seems impossible.

Quite frankly I'm tired of saying the same things over and over again. The possibility of a genuine mistake/spiking on the first test is low, but it's plausible (although whoever spiked it would have to have known that Landis's absolute levels of testo and epi were low - see my other posts). However the B sample was sealed in Landis's presence, and opened and analysed in the presence of his representative, so spiking that would be impossible. Likewise, the chances of an error in manipulation leading to exactly the same results as another error did for the A sample are so small that if it did happen we'd have made scientific history.

Two more points before I really leave this discussion, otherwise I'll go crazy...


Something like 80% of published scientific findings turn out to be in error some way (if you believe what Nature magazine says).
Quoted from this message





Not in my experience.


the testosterone test's history of inadequacy.
Quoted from this message





What history? I assume you're talking about the IRMS method and just because 3 scientists have come out and said it's fallible doesn't mean it is (again all science is fallible - BTW we shoulod enquire into those scientists bank statements since they made that appearance, follow the monney). After all some scietists still believe God created the earth in 7 days...
This is a reply to this message


Message 229 - posted by slapshot_3 (U1685569) , Aug 14, 2006

"What history? I assume you're talking about the IRMS method and just because 3 scientists have come out and said it's fallible doesn't mean it is (again all science is fallible - BTW we should enquire into those scientists bank statements since they made that appearance, follow the monney). After all some scietists still believe God created the earth in 7 days..."

Science has to be fallible otherwise why would we continually try to disprove every proven theoretical piece of work ever done ergo it's specifically infallible up to the point where someone proves it otherwise, remember that point when Global warming induces the next ice age, another theory but irrelevant on here.

Scientists, like myself, work to two words: What if? once they are all gone and we lose the power of imagination then maybe science and by progression life, become infallible.
This is a reply to this message


Message 230 - posted by Zyclist (U2392870) , Aug 14, 2006

I went to a pharmaceutical convention and a cycling race broke out.
This is a reply to this message


Message 231 - posted by Besonders (U3969514) , Aug 14, 2006

that the chances of scientists performing exactly the same errors or different errors which lead to exactly the same results twice are negligeable.
Quoted from this message





Errr, what you've written there isn't true. Chances of scientists repeating errors are quite high - if you knew you were making a mistake, you wouldn't make it! That's why it's good practise to check your results by measuring them with a different method.

If you mean that the chances of both A & B samples returning false positives are far lower than the chance of the just the A sample giving a false positive - well yeah, why are you explaining that? It's the reason they have a B sample!

Spiking: I don't believe the samples were spiked! The reason for anonymity is to garauntee impartiality. If the lab had 10 samples to test, and they know one of them was from the stage winner (say) and someone wanted to spike that sample, anonymity means they'd have to spike all 10. Ten positives would be so unlikely that it would defeat the object of the exercise (spiking). But it would be possible to spike one sample if someone can match the code numbers with the rider's name.

Anonymity/impartiality is such an easy thing to preserve that, if the lab doesn't manage it, you have to think, "Jerks!". Yet LNDD have this reputation for constantly leaking results.
Still, we don't yet know how much the lawyers can really bring it into question.

As for the IRMS test, why do you think they introduced that? Wasn't it because the t/e ratio was unreliable and loads of positives were overturned on appeal?

I'm glad your experience hasn't involved any incompetent and/or unscrupulous scientists; but my experience has, and so have Nature's meta-studies.

So, the question was, "Blah de blah... IF it is proven that... yada yada yada". The isotope ratio mass spectroscopy (ometry?) test is supposed to reveal the presence of exogenous testosterone. Do they know the carbon isotope ratio isn't affected by any medication Landis was taking, or by his body's reaction to it? Do they KNOW that they know that, or not?

Don't go crackers - the question was, "IF", after all! I'm not saying they will find anything wrong with the IRMS results - just that I wouldn't be surprised.

PS.
I once had a research supervisor who refused to calibrate his measurements. It was a complicated issue, but basically it was as if we'd put a thermometer into a bucket of ice & water, and when it came out reading 20 Celsius, I said, "There's something wrong with this thermometer", and he insisted, "No, we've discovered a new form of water that is frozen at 20 Celsius"!

And I really do mean he INSISTED. He created no end of trouble for my research (ensuring it would fail), and once the sh1t finally hit the fan, he ended up looking so incompetent and unscrupulous that he eventually had a nervous breakdown because of the damage it did to his reputation.

(I had to prove that he'd done all he could to kill my project, purely out of malice because I didn't agree with him. Also, that if he'd put a fraction of that effort into doing his job properly, my project would have been a straightforward success).

And that's just one experience I had, and not the worst one (just the simplest to explain). So, as far as I'm concerned, there's no limit to some scientists' willingness and capacity for screwing up the simplest bl00dy thing!
This is a reply to this message


Message 232 - posted by slapshot_3 (U1685569) , Aug 14, 2006

Besonders, sounds familiar;

Got failed on a piece of work years ago discussing global warming. The proof of my work was based on the reduction of salinity of the seas reducing the heat retention properties...etc etc etc

The prof who marked it scored it zero because he didn't agree with the basis of the theory but on checking by another prof, the pure science and proof of my theory was spot on.

There are unscrupulous people out there, everywhere!!!
This is a reply to this message


Message 233 - posted by Besonders (U3969514) , Aug 14, 2006

I had to prove that he'd done all he could to kill my project, purely out of malice because I didn't agree with him
Quoted from this message





That should read, "...and that he'd killed my project purely out of malice (because I didn't agree with him)"

In case anybody read that far (!) and got the wrong end of the stick.
This is a reply to this message


Message 234 - posted by Besonders (U3969514) , Aug 14, 2006

slapshot,

Dare you tell me where that was? Because I know an entire department that's full of profs like that!

This is a reply to this message


Message 235 - posted by cyclingdoctor (U5107195) , Aug 14, 2006

Any university you care to think of I'd suggest!
This is a reply to this message


Message 236 - posted by Biosphere (U3216938) , Aug 14, 2006

Interesting

We now have two regular contributors (there aren't that many on this board) comparing notes on past problems with academic supervisors. For what it's worth I had a pretty similar experience during my PhD with an examiner who pronounced my thesis as wrong, and refused to change his point of view for almost a year despite a considerable amount of evidence backing my position.

I know it's a pretty unscientific to compare anecdotes on a message board, but whatever you think about Landis, science and scientists are not infallible. Egos, career aspirations, politics, reputations and the rest are all in the mix, and that's before you even begin to consider honest mistakes, systematic errors, a less than perfect understanding of the human body . . .
This is a reply to this message


Message 237 - posted by smarauder68 (U3346753) , Aug 14, 2006

Hey Biosphere, you seem like the kinda guy Landis would want to testify in his case...Thanks for not acting god-like with your PhD...
This is a reply to this message


Message 238 - posted by rogaboga (U2366216) , Aug 15, 2006

what happens to the B sample after it has been sealed in Landis' presence?

what if the B sample that was then re-opened in his representative's presence was a re-sealed, spiked A sample?
This is a reply to this message


Message 239 - posted by ventoux (U4677503) , Aug 15, 2006

.. and what if an alien came down & magically transformed clean samples into dirty ones...
This is a reply to this message


Message 240 - posted by mike - Valverde WILL eventually win Tour - Selig (U2239560) , Aug 15, 2006

what if the B sample that was then re-opened in his representative's presence was a re-sealed, spiked A sample?
Quoted from this message





FFS YOU CANNOT RESEAL A SAMPLE
naspa

Message 241 - posted by ventoux (U4677503) , Aug 15, 2006

mike-CTV... don't keep on trying to convince them, you'll go mad!
This is a reply to this message


Message 242 - posted by rogaboga (U2366216) , Aug 15, 2006

hey, after reading the entire thread i reckon he's guilty - little doubt of that.

but since everyone's going on about how the sample was sealed in his presence and then not opened til later - i always had the question in my head of what happens to the sample in the intervening time. So i asked it.

the only response is some one shouting YOU CAN'T RESEAL A SAMPLE

well why not?

if someone wants to go to lengths to put landis in the sh1t, its not as if they'll just put some cling foil and an elastic band round the top - they're going to do it properly.

if people don't ask the questions, then we don't live in a democracy
This is a reply to this message


Message 243 - posted by ventoux (U4677503) , Aug 15, 2006

well, as I understand it, the sealing process (in the presence of the athlete) is marked/signed by the athlete, so cannot be tampered with - as this is rather the point of the whole exercise, it would seem just a little facile to ask why it couldn't be opened & re-sealed... the frustration which leads to the "shouting" is borne out of the number of posters clutching at straws to show how poor floyd has been (or might have been) badly done to... it doesn't move the argument on, but then neither does this constant ferreting around looking for some way that those who are "out to get him" might just have done it...
This is a reply to this message


Message 244 - posted by MAILLOT JAUNE (U1932045) , Aug 15, 2006

"the sealing process (in the presence of the athlete) is marked/signed by the athlete"

How does this then relate to the B sample being tested and the testers not knowing who the sample belonged to if it's signed by the athlete????
This is a reply to this message


Message 245 - posted by ventoux (U4677503) , Aug 15, 2006

ah, MJ, I think you have me there... shooting off without sufficient information (not like I'm the only one though, is it??) - my understanding (and it's only that) is that the whole point of it being sealed in the presence of the athlete is so that he/she can verify that it's his/hers at the time of re-testing... I'll need one of our board experts to come up with the details....

just musing, though, at the point of the "B" test, the name of the athlete must be known as he/she is present when it's opened...? It would only be the "B" sample that was marked in such a way, and this is the safeguard against the "A" sample being mixed up, or tampered with...
This is a reply to this message


Message 246 - posted by Besonders (U3969514) , Aug 15, 2006

Provided there are no newsleaks, the lab should only ever know the code number. It's the UCI that matches the number to the rider's name.

When the B sample is being tested, the rider can send a representative to monitor the procedure. The representative only needs to verify the integrity of the seal. The B sample is still identified only by number - the rider's identity only appears on the UCI's paperwork.

As before, if the lab is testing lots of samples, the only way to tamper with a particular rider's sample would be to tamper with all of them, unless you knew the rider's code numbers.
This is a reply to this message


Message 247 - posted by Besonders (U3969514) , Aug 15, 2006

Also, I've been mulling over the claims that the lab knew which was Landis' sample. Actually I stopped thinking about it and let my subconscious do it's stuff, and I think the clever little bugger may have figured out where these claims come from.

(1)
They only mean the B sample. Because of the UCI announcement of one test failure, and Phonak's announcement it was Landis, the lab (we all) knew the identity of the B sample.
And the usual caveats apply.

(2)
McQuaid's reasons for announcing the result of the A sample - that they were certain L'Equipe were going to leak the news, and because of the labs close ties to L'Equipe and history of leaks. The UCI didn't release Landis' name (although they knew it), and McQuaid has insisted the lab didn't know who the sample came from.

However, if McQuaid has said somewhere that the UCI were sure L'Equipe were going to leak the rider's NAME, that would mean the lab must have known the rider's name, because there's nobody else L'Equipe could have got it from.

Phew!
Anyway, I haven't had time to scour the news report for a McQuaid slip up, so no idea if he said anything like that (even in error).
And, the usual caveats apply.
This is a reply to this message


Message 248 - posted by rogaboga (U2366216) , Aug 16, 2006

just a thought, sorry if its been brought up before:

if landis was on some sort of doping regime where his juice levels would be higher some days than others, then since the yellow jersey is sure to get tested, did he lose the yellow jersey on purpose as that day coincided with one of his juice peaks?

then something went wrong on stage 16/17?
This is a reply to this message


Message 249 - posted by Besonders (U3969514) , Aug 16, 2006

Another reason to give all his samples the IRMS test for exogenous testosterone.
This is a reply to this message


Message 250 - posted by BianchiGirl (U1728348) , Aug 17, 2006

all this stuff about the lab knowing Landis' name is smoke and mirrors - it's simply playing on American xenophobia and tapping into the Armstrong samples controversy. His defense team have to attack the lab and know that this will go down well with the legion of Armstrong supporters who believe they spiked 6 of his samples (even though this is impossible).

Personally, I think Landis should look very carefully at the company he's keeping - his lawyers are both best known for unsuccesfully defending Hamilton and Heras and, while ever Landis has deep pockets they'll keep muddying the waters and draining his resources.
This is a reply to this message


Message 251 - posted by mike - Valverde WILL eventually win Tour - Selig (U2239560) , Aug 18, 2006

I'm really busy at the mo, so can't go into details, however I owe rogaboga an apology for shouting at him/her when that was his/her post on the subject. Am normally a perfectly calm and willing to debate person, but some of the stupidity on this thread obviously got to me. I realise now it was a genuine question, so please accept the apology. Will write detailed answer when I have time...
This is a reply to this message


Message 252 - posted by rogaboga (U2366216) , Aug 18, 2006

hey mike don't worry - i maybe should've just asked the question rather than put the suggestion that followed it! i would be interested to know the procedure in more detail, as i have enjoyed reading the threads on landis.

i realise that there were some crazy ideas on there - and people seemed to be trying to say that it would be possible to spike both samples independently to give the same results which seemed ludicrous to me. i just thought that my suggestion would overcome this 'impossibility' (its not what i actually think) so i put it in.

i am pretty interested in it all because although i'm not a big cycling fan - as i said somewhere else i think - i had taped the itv4 highlights of stage 16 where he bonked and watched it in the hour before the highlights of the comeback on stage 17 without knowing the result of either. it was one of the best sporting occasions i'd ever seen and was telling people for days after how good it was. so it was a bit of a let down when we found out he'd cheated. although it did provide good entertainment! maybe each rider should be given one testosterone patch before the start of the race and they can use it for a strategic boost when needed!
This is a reply to this message


Message 253 - posted by Besonders (U3969514) , Aug 18, 2006

rogaboga,

Scant consolation, but there's lots of opinion that one shot of testosterone wouldn't have improved Landis' performance, except psychologically.

That's if it was only one shot!
This is a reply to this message


Message 254 - posted by Besonders (U3969514) , 4 Weeks Ago

www.cyclingnews.com/...

Right then, in English, the Landis camp is challenging the vaildity of the tests - both the T/E ratio (for testosterone levels) and the carbon-isotope ratio (for source of testosterone).
They are also challenging the conduct of the test, particularly whose sample was it?

Impressive!

First, they claim inconsistent T/E levels in the A sample tests.

Second, they claim the B sample has a code number not assigned to Landis, meaning it wasn't his urine - AND they don't know where his urine is!

Third, I don't know what a testosterone metabolite differential is, but apparently the carbon-isotope ratio test involves 4 of them. For the test to be positive, ALL 4 have to provide clear evidence of testosterone usage. In Landis' sample, 3 of them tested NEGATIVE. These include the one that WADA-accredited labs regard as the best indicator of long-term testosterone doping.

Fourth, the 4th T metabolite thingy, tested positive because of an unknown lab error and is not the result of doping.

Cutting out the hype, Jacobs says, "At a minimum, those laboratory errors must go to the defense of the athlete and must result in a finding that the T/E results are wholly unreliable."
This is a reply to this message


Message 255 - posted by Besonders (U3969514) , 4 Weeks Ago

My initial thoughts.

Inconsistent T/E levels in the A sample: would that suggest Landis wasn't using testosterone?

B sample code numbers not assigned to Landis. If true - FFS!

3 out of 4 T metabolite differentials negative, when all 4 are supposed to provide clear evidence of doping. FFS, if that's true it's enough to chuck this case out.

"Unknown lab error"? Need more details. If they can prove the lab made an error - with the only test that indicates doping - case dismissed.
On the other hand, just because Jacobs says it was because of a lab error, doesn't mean it was. It could be just noise. But if it is just noise, then the lab should be able to prove there weren't any screw-ups. If they do, then Jacobs' claim would end up detracting from Landis' defence.

If I was on the disciplinary hearing, at the moment I'd be leaning towards acquitting Landis.
This is a reply to this message


Message 256 - posted by BianchiGirl (U1728348) , 4 Weeks Ago

Here's something to ponder from Jacobs defence of Hamilton:

The facts I'm thinking of is Jacobs/Hamilton claimed the blood test as carried out by the LNDD was unreliable because the LNDD had a false positive when they were validating their protocol.

That is, the lab was given a known sample (from the Australian developer of the test) to test and they said it was positive for homologous blood doping. The Australians said sorry but that sample should be negative, you've got a problem. The lab said no we think it's postive. Finally, it was determined that in fact the Australians were wrong and it was a positive sample so the LNDD was correct.

Hamilton's camp was given all the emails and communications regarding this incident and yet still maintained the LNDD was unrelieable because of this "false positive" in their appeal when they knew full well that no false positive actually existed.

As for the numbers not matching - in what way? If the number on one sample is 324444465, say, and on another is 3297856 then big obvious error. But say a 4 is missing - you know, human error in transcribing multiple same digits? - is that a whole different number?

Jacobs is being extremely well paid to do his job and doing it to the best of his ability - rememeber, a lawyer's job isn't to get at the truth, just to make the evidence work to their client's best advantage.
This is a reply to this message


Message 257 - posted by mike - Valverde WILL eventually win Tour - Selig (U2239560) , 4 Weeks Ago

Same tactics from Landis then, fling out as many far-fetched accusations and excuses and hope one of them sticks. I can't believe the "switch in code numbers" theory, would have to be some coincident that the sample chosen confirmed Landis's A samples.

Also, re the synthetic/natural I thought Landis didn't believe in the validity of the test? Also I thought he'd accepted that the testo found wasn't naturaly but had been planted there... Seems to be changing his defence again!
This is a reply to this message


Message 258 - posted by cyclingdoctor (U5107195) , 4 Weeks Ago

A lawyer's job is to defend his client. The authority's job (in this case the UCI / WADA) is to make sure their procedures are water-tight. Howard Jacobs is a good lawyer doing his job properly, you just have to hope that the UCI / WADA did there's....
This is a reply to this message


Message 259 - posted by Besonders (U3969514) , 4 Weeks Ago

I can't believe the "switch in code numbers" theory, would have to be some coincident that the sample chosen confirmed Landis's A samples.
Quoted from this message





If the test is as dodgy as Jacobs claims, I'm surprised it hasn't given positive results on every bl00dy sample!

As cycling doctor put it, the lab only has to make sure they do their job properly and follow their procedures. It has to be that way, to protect honest riders from false positives. Any screw-ups though, however minor, and cheats can wriggle off the hook.

Anyway, the Anti-Doping Commission (UCI) will get their chance to show that any problems with the tests haven't actually compromised the 'adverse analytical finding' (i.e. the positive result).
This is a reply to this message


Message 260 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , 4 Weeks Ago

As for the numbers not matching - in what way? If the number on one sample is 324444465, say, and on another is 3297856 then big obvious error. But say a 4 is missing - you know, human error in transcribing multiple same digits? - is that a whole different number?
Quoted from this message





Well, I don't know the details used in this case, but I do occasionally have to undergo random drug testing at my work place. In our cause, there are labels, with pre-printed code numbers, which are attached to the samples. I then sign a separate document that mathces my name to the code number on the samples. So, similarly, the samples go to the lab without a name attached, and only my company's medical department can match the code number to my name. But id does not rely on someone correctly transcribing a multi-digit number.

I do find it interesting that Landis tested positive after stage 17, but not later in the race, especially since the result was way out of normal range, not just borderline. Testosterone doesn't clear out of the system that quickly.
naspa

Message 261 - posted by alanmcn1 (U2948131) , 4 Weeks Ago

Testosterone does clear out the systemn quickly. check the scientific data I posted earlier in this thread.
This is a reply to this message


Message 262 - posted by Nick Havoc (U1645160) , 4 Weeks Ago

I couldn't find the scientific data. Maybe you could point me to it. Did they ever release details of what his actual testosterone levels were? There were suggestions that it wasn't even elevated, but rather the epi- level was low. I wasn't sure if that was ever cleared up for sure or not, though.

       justcycling.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> BBC Old Threads
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum