Landis fails drug test!!!!!!!!!!

ClemmonsHoo

Floyd's testosterone level was NOT 4x the legal limit. His testosterone level was actually close to normal. It was actually the ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone that was 4:1 (because his epitestosterone was very low), and is meaningless as a drug test indicator. Every athlete that has ever failed this particular drug test has won in court. Every single one. As for the abnormal ratio, this can happen in high endurance competition, especially after being on a bike a 150 miles a day for 2 weeks straight.

And for the guy who thinks cycling is not a sport - LOL - come on down to my neck of the woods and lets hit the track for a few laps. Then we'll see if cycling is a sport, if you can keep up that is.

bikezappa

ClemmonsHoo

Do you ride a track bike? I did for a short time at San Diego. It was a total blast coming down off the rail on a corner.

bikezappa

Developing the picture: A suggested mechanism for dealing with doping in sport
By Jim Ferstle
This report filed July 28, 2006
A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you, the less you know.
Diane Arbus

Doping is sport's photograph; Its dirty secret. And the more we see it, the more we think it tells us, the less we really know. By now you're either enraged, puzzled, mystified, or fed up with the latest installment of the seemingly never-ending saga of doping in cycling and its current poster boy, Floyd Landis. Photographs, illustrations, graphs, and reams of information broadcast and published have attempted to make sense of something that doesn't make sense. The more it tells you, the less you know.

Once again pundits offer the opinion that the latest doping scandal in the sport will result in cycling's demise. Sponsors will flee. The public will be disgusted and refuse to watch. The flood of attention the story has attracted says otherwise. Turn on the TV, radio, internet, or pick up a paper and the story is everywhere. Most stories are cast as the struggle between good and evil, heroes and villains. Conflict, plot twists, one day you're labeled a hero, the next you're a cheat.

The perception is that people care. That this story matters. That people want to know more about it. A sport hero emerges with an inspirational victory in one of the world's toughest challenges. Now we learn there is some question about how he achieved his victory. Did he use performance-enhancers? If so, why does this keep happening in cycling? The more it tells you, the less you know.

As the drama plays out the varying players in the game are asked for their opinions, explanations, and musings. The scientists attempt to explain the intricacies of examining body fluids for evidence of illicit substance abuse. Sports administrators scramble to either limit the perceived damage to the sport, spin the story for their own benefit, or talk about how it is just another example of how they are winning/losing the so-called war on drugs in sport. The self proclaimed or media anointed "experts" weigh in with their opinions on what it all means. The more it tells you, the less you know.

Risking falling into one of the above categories, I'll offer a few observations of my own. The doping problem in cycling, as in other team sports, has grown at least in part due to the structure of the sport. Cycling is a team sport that deifies an individual. Would Lance Armstrong have won seven Tours without his teammates? His support crew of doctors, physiologists, lawyers, advisors, etc.?

Everyone on the "team" sacrifices so that the chosen one, the star, can pedal to victory. As part of this team effort, varying degrees of physiological monitoring take place. Body fluids are taken and tested to monitor the physiological condition of the riders.

It is an expensive and impressive undertaking that on the one hand lends itself to becoming the perfect mechanism for administering all types of substances, legitimate and banned, with the stated purpose of keeping the riders in peak form. All this data is gathered to further the teams chances of success. The more it tells you, the less you know.

Not long after Dr. Don Catlin got into the drug testing business prior to the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles, he began to muse about ways to deal with doping in sport. He knew that testing was an important part of the mix, providing a deterrent to those who wanted to use banned substances. But Catlin knew that a deterrent alone was not the solution. What if, he thought, you use a carrot and stick approach? Offer the athletes a service in return for a monitoring system that would have more success than the current pee and police approach to drug testing.

Athletes would get what amounts to free health monitoring year round. In exchange the data gathered from each athlete would form a longitudinal base of information that could be used to detect whether or not the athletes were using illicit means in an attempt to boost their performances. The more it tells you, the more you know.

The sport's latest scandal has increased the calls to "clean up the sport." The infrastructure is in place. Teams, sponsors, athletes, the UCI, the testing labs have the money, technology, and apparatus in place to address the problem. The only question is whether or not the will is there. Do they want a "clean sport?"

Can all these disparate groups join together behind such a cause? That's the picture. The secret, the mystery is whether or not such a picture can be developed into something meaningful and effective. Or whether or not the more we know about the sport and these issues, the less it really tells us about the commitment of those involved to find a solution.

---

Jim Ferstle is a freelance writer based in St. Paul, MN. He has covered the issue of sports and doping since 1987.

Sami

ClemmonsHoo wrote:

Floyd's testosterone level was NOT 4x the legal limit. His testosterone level was actually close to normal. It was actually the ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone that was 4:1

I didn't know they released the results. As for now, we don't know what his levels were just that his ratio was over 4:1 which is the threshold.

ClemmonsHoo wrote:

Every athlete that has ever failed this particular drug test has won in court. Every single one.

How many have had their results back on the records and suspension reversed?

ClemmonsHoo

I don't have a track bike, but I ride a 16 lb tricked out Trek 5200. If I had the money though I would love to build a velodrome somewhere around here for myself and others to ride on.

I was set to get my masters class license to race this year but last summer I had a major heart attack caused by a myocardial bridge (caused my LAD to dissect) that no one including myself knew I had since birth. Go figure. I should have died, and the docs can only say it's a miracle I made it. Actually the miracle is I have negligible heart damage. Won't be racing anymore though. Oh well, one bypass later I'm still here.

As for cycling and drugs, I can only say that cycling is THE definitive sport where simple performance enhancers, like EPO, can take you from the back to the front. It can mean the difference between bonking and finishing strong. Knowing this, I expect that just the thought that the other riders around you have an "extra edge" is a big incentive. It is hard for us to understand what the incentive is because cycling is not even on the same scale here in the US.

From my own experience - I hit a plateau at 17 mph avg in the hilly area where I live. Having never used supplements before, I bought some Hammer Gel and a container of Endurox. My avg speed went to 23 mph within 2 months. That is a HUGE difference in cycling.

I don't see how you can clean the sport up when that kind of incentive to cheat is there, and the fact that science is always ahead of the testing technology. What else can they do? They already suspend/fire/disqualify riders on mere suspicion alone!

ClemmonsHoo

Sami, I am not sure. Just going by what ESPN reported this morning. They said his epitestosterone was very low, which would obviously cause the greater ratio, and that the abnormal ratio is what he had been accused of. They also said his testosterone level was not high enough to have any affect on performance (ie, it wasn't typical roid-user high).

seo

Demiurge wrote:

In any event, cycling is an individual sport, while baseball is a team sport. It's like comparing apples to oranges, not to mention the two are completely

Nope.

A race like the Tour De France is a team sport, absolutely.

seo

Dennis Gardner wrote:

In 7 years, doped or not, noone could beat him. He beat all competitors and testers. I think that says it all. He was the best ever.;)

Agree, he was the best Tour de France rider ever. I would contend Eddy Merckx was the best ever. He won five tours, five Giro's as well as racing the classics, setting the mile record, etc.


(Eddy was accused of doping as well, 30+ years ago. This isn't really a new thing in cycling, the accusations anyway)

Demiurge

seo wrote:

Nope.

A race like the Tour De France is a team sport, absolutely.

If it's a team sport the team would win, not just the individual. So clearly your definition of team is different than the Tour De France's definition of team, as well as mine. They're support at best, otherwise they'd all be wearing yellow.

I'm a fan of the sport, and I bike. I don't like seeing the sport tainted by doping.

Demiurge

seo wrote:

Agree, he was the best Tour de France rider ever. I would contend Eddy Merckx was the best ever. He won five tours, five Giro's as well as racing the classics, setting the mile record, etc.


(Eddy was accused of doping as well, 30+ years ago. This isn't really a new thing in cycling, the accusations anyway)

The doping isn't new either, which is why 4 were booted out before this years race, and 2 were favorites to win it. Doping is a real problem, and if the fans keep making excuses for the athletes then nothing is going to change.

seo

Demiurge wrote:

If it's a team sport the team would win, not just the individual. So clearly your definition of team is different than the Tour De France's definition of team, as well as mine. They're support at best, otherwise they'd all be wearing yellow.

I'm a fan of the sport, and I bike. I don't like seeing the sport tainted by doping.

I'm a fan and a biker also, but nobody wins the tour on their own. They need some team support. Some need more team support than others. All the accolades and attention go to the rider with the best time, but there are teams and they work together to put their leader on the podium. Thay have a "coach" (director sportif) mechanics etc.

It is a team sport in that respect. Just because the team leader is shown as the winner, doesn't meant there isn't a team effort behind it.

ClemmonsHoo

It IS a team sport. Without a team around him, no indivual cyclist could win the TdF. And without any teams, the winner would be the guy that got the most other guys to help him. And if you didn't know, it is customary for the winner to give his prize money to his team, in some part because they all know he could not have won without them.

They actually do keep points for the team competition. It's just not ever talked about because individual Yellow is the bigger deal, and it's easier to explain on TV.

The way the team works is, guys get paid to be helpers to help the leader win. Of those helpers, some are happy being helpers (the best ones are paid quite well), and some aspire to work their way up to someday be the leader.

As for the post above, I haven't seen any fans making excuses for the doping. There are reasons why guys dope, but just because we can express what those reasons are does not mean we approve. Everyone would like to see doping gone. What is the solution? They already ban guys for 2 years or more for the slightest infraction. What's next, the death penalty?

bikezappa

Team, noun = a number of persons associated together in work or activity,
adj = marked by devotion to teamwork rather than individual achievement.

No where is winning metioned in any definition.

It's a red herring anyway in the doping issue regarding bike racing.

Demiurge

bikezappa wrote:

Team, noun = a number of persons associated together in work or activity,
adj = marked by devotion to teamwork rather than individual achievement.

No where is winning metioned in any definition.

It's a red herring anyway in the doping issue regarding bike racing.

Jesus H. Christ.

Sicne you love using baseball analogies, let's start there...

If Barry "Juicy" Bonds hits 5 home runs in one game, and is the only person on the two teams to score, Barry "Juicy" Bonds doesn't get the win, the team does.

When Floyd "Incredi-Balls" Landis kicked **** in the Tour De France, and was the first man to cross the finish line, Floyd "Incredi-Balls" Landis got the win, not the team.

See the difference?

They're support at best, but there is one man pedaling that bike.

Sami

seo wrote:

Agree, he was the best Tour de France rider ever. I would contend Eddy Merckx was the best ever. He won five tours, five Giro's as well as racing the classics, setting the mile record, etc.

Indurain...

jeremie

ClemmonsHoo wrote:

I don't have a track bike, but I ride a 16 lb tricked out Trek 5200. If I had the money though I would love to build a velodrome somewhere around here for myself and others to ride on.

I was set to get my masters class license to race this year but last summer I had a major heart attack caused by a myocardial bridge (caused my LAD to dissect) that no one including myself knew I had since birth. Go figure. I should have died, and the docs can only say it's a miracle I made it. Actually the miracle is I have negligible heart damage. Won't be racing anymore though. Oh well, one bypass later I'm still here.

As for cycling and drugs, I can only say that cycling is THE definitive sport where simple performance enhancers, like EPO, can take you from the back to the front. It can mean the difference between bonking and finishing strong. Knowing this, I expect that just the thought that the other riders around you have an "extra edge" is a big incentive. It is hard for us to understand what the incentive is because cycling is not even on the same scale here in the US.

From my own experience - I hit a plateau at 17 mph avg in the hilly area where I live. Having never used supplements before, I bought some Hammer Gel and a container of Endurox. My avg speed went to 23 mph within 2 months. That is a HUGE difference in cycling.

I don't see how you can clean the sport up when that kind of incentive to cheat is there, and the fact that science is always ahead of the testing technology. What else can they do? They already suspend/fire/disqualify riders on mere suspicion alone!

I really doubt the hammer gel made you go any faster, maybe it kept your energy levels up but it does not make you go faster. As a cat 3 racer, training will only make you faster but gels will make you last longer.

Jeremie
www.gatewaycyclingclub.com

mrbigbluelight

One of the big problems with drug testing programs, either in MLB, NFL, or Tour de France is that there is no way to test for HGH.
Not now, nor any time in the near or distant future.

It would be interesting to do a study of how many athletes have asthma.
Have it bad enough, and you may have to go on a regimen of prednisone.
Hmmm.

seo

Sami wrote:

Indurain...

not even close

Sami

seo wrote:

not even close

You are right, there is no such thing as the greatest ever, and none of them come even close. Not Lance, not Eddie, not Miguel, not Bernard, none of them are the greatest ever since no such thing exists. Between the four, you can only have your own opinion because none of them are better than the other.

bikezappa

Sunday's EuroFile: Much at stake in B test; Manzano: testosterone works quickly
By Andrew Hood
VeloNews European correspondent
This report filed July 30, 2006
While Floyd Landis traveled back to the United States this weekend, his fate and the outcome of his counter-analysis are still pending in Europe.





The test results of the "B" sample could be known as early as Monday, but a bank holiday in France could delay the test another day or two if it already hasn't been carried out.

Landis's lawyers said in a Saturday press conference that they don't expect any changes in the counter-analysis.

"We're expecting that [counter-analysis] will return positive because he produced it," said Jos

seo

Sami wrote:

You are right, there is no such thing as the greatest ever, and none of them come even close. Not Lance, not Eddie, not Miguel, not Bernard, none of them are the greatest ever since no such thing exists. Between the four, you can only have your own opinion because none of them are better than the other.

Exactly. My opinion is Merckx. The Cannibal.

bikezappa

If this is true, he is done for.


Report: synthetic hormone in Landis
August 1, 2006

Cycling

Sports section |
Latest sports news |
Globe front page |
Boston.com
Breaking News Alerts Tests show that some of the testosterone in Floyd Landis's system at the Tour de France was synthetic and not naturally produced by his body as he claimed, according to report on the New York Times website last night, which cited a person at the International Cycling Union with knowledge of the result. The French antidoping lab testing the American cyclist's samples determined that some of the hormone came from an external source, a finding that undermines the defense that Landis has stood behind since he tested positive for an elevated ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone following the race's 17th stage. The lab performed a carbon isotope ratio test on the first of Landis's two urine samples, the person told the Times. Landis officially requested the testing of his backup urine sample yesterday for an elevated testosterone ratio. If the ``B" test is negative, Landis would be cleared. If it's positive, he could be stripped of his Tour victory and banned for two years

bikezappa

UCI source says some Landis testosterone exogenous
'B' sample results to be known by Saturday
By AFP
This report filed August 1, 2006
Some of the testosterone found in Tour de France winner Floyd Landis' "A" sample is from an external source and not his body's, The New York Times reported on Tuesday, quoting an unidentified UCI official.


Landis faces questions at a press conference in Madrid last Friday


The carbon isotope test on the first of Landis' two urine samples taken after his 17th stage win in last month's Tour indicates the presence of synthetic testosterone, said the official with knowledge of the results from France's Ch

bikezappa

Calfornian offers Landis $100,000 to take polygraph test
By VeloNews Interactive
This report filed August 4, 2006
San Diego computer entrepreneur Michael Robertson on Thursday offered Tour de France winner Floyd Landis $100,000 to "clear the air" and take a polygraph examination while addressing charges that he doped on his way to victory in the Tour.

Robertson, who made his fortune off of investments in a host of software companies - including a Linux-based operating system called "Linspire" and and VOIP system know as SIPphone - is also a former collegiate cyclist and fan of the professional peloton. Robertson sent a fax addressed to Landis on Thursday offering to test the cyclist using a set of mutually agreed-upon questions designed to reveal facts surrounding doping allegations that came to light just days after completion of the Tour.

Robertson, on Friday, said he had not received a response from either the team or Landis himself.

The full text of Robertson's fax follows:

---

To: Floyd Landis
Phonak Cycling Team
Eichtal 8634 Hombrechtikon

Dear Floyd,
Over the years I've watched every second of the outstanding coverage on the OLN network of the Tour de France - the toughest race in the world. I used to race bikes in my collegiate years. My roommate and high school buddy convinced me to go out for the UCSD Cycling team. I wasn't blessed with much natural talent, but persevered and actually won a race in my 4 year career. It helped me understand some of what goes into the 3-week torture called the Tour.

When I first heard the television announcers mention your name I took special interest because of your ties to my hometown of San Diego. I watched your years of loyal work as a domestique on Team Discovery to helping pull Lance Armstrong to 3 of his Tour victories. I know how tough it is to literally carry water and sacrifice your own body and chance for victory for your leader so I cheered your move to the Phonak Team where you'd have a chance to see just how good you could be.

This year, I learned about your grounded Mennonite upbringing where your mom made you ride your bike with sweat pants. And with the list of cheaters that were kicked out before the beginning of the Tour, I looked forward to your opportunity in the big race. Your stunning revelations about your dead hip midway through the race just made me cheer for you harder. On Stage 15 when you reclaimed the leader's yellow jersey on the infamous Alpe d'Huez, I thought you'd keep it until the podium in Paris. But the next day I watched you collapse and fall more than 10 minutes behind the leaders. Like many I thought your chance for victory was over this year. Your epic ride on Stage 17 which included an 80 mile solo breakaway over 4 mountain passes left me in awe and of course put you back in contention. (On that morning I was preparing to ride my bike to work so I happened to be watching morning coverage in cycling gear. My son asked if it was more fun to watch it dressed up pretending like I was there. Funny.) Your solid time trial sealed the victory and I celebrated with you from my couch on your ride down Champs-Elys

Sami

bikezappa wrote:

Robertson, on Friday, said he had not received a response from either the team or Landis himself.

And most likely never will.

dragon1952

ClemmonsHoo wrote:

And for the guy who thinks cycling is not a sport - LOL - come on down to my neck of the woods and lets hit the track for a few laps. Then we'll see if cycling is a sport, if you can keep up that is.

Somebody actually said that! Un-freakin-believable :rolleyes: What a dumbass!

Demiurge

HBombToo

what is "PWNED"?

mhardy6647

Landis is, apparently, PWNED. According to the news today.

BTW, it strikes me as odd that anyone could use an on-line forum & not know what PWNED (OWNED) means. See link below...

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25550&highlight=PWNED

MacLeod

Dont feel too bad. It looks like "PAWNED" to me.

I guess Im from the old school where we actually spelled words the way theyre supposed to be spelled. Or should I say 5PELLED. Gee arent I cool?