EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Off-Season Sports & The Lighter Side › Cycling › Landis: Dehydration Defense?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Landis: Dehydration Defense? - Page 2

post #31 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by jstraw
Sorry, Unzue is just not a go-to source for this. And even if his statement is accurate, 350 controls is not a lot, that's about an 8% sample.
How about the UCI president then?

"UCI president Pat McQuaid said Monday that team bosses to be punished along with riders amid the furor of the failed drugs test of Tour de France winner Floyd Landis.

"It's not just a question of image but of credibility," said McQuaid. "Of some 300 tests carried out during the Tour there was only one positive test. The problem is that it was the winner. We're considering carrying out an audit of top level cycling. Currently the riders are the only ones penalized. We have to see in what way the managers can also be."

The way I see it lots of people take a little of this and that and get away with it. To flunk the test as thoroughly as Floyd did, you've got to be pretty well doped.
post #32 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by jstraw
Ok, that's on the record. If it's the truth it matters and the truth cannot be in dispute. This is a claim about what the numbers *are*, not what they *mean*. There needs to be an outcry to see not just the ratio, but the numbers.

If his claim about what the numbers are is legitimate, then it's possible that the test is not designed properly because the metric is not sufficient.

It's possible that he's lying about the numbers. Apparently he's seen them, why isn't he quoting the actual numbers? Is he lying? And what about the issue of the isotope test?
The ratio has been reported elsewhere as well. My understanding is that the actual numbers don't mean very much because it is a urine test and you don't know how dilute the sample is. The isotope test seems to be a little sketchy too, I'm no physicist or anything, but I don't think it's 100% conclusive of anything.
post #33 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by newfydog
To flunk the test as thoroughly as Floyd did, you've got to be pretty well doped.
That's a pretty bold statement Newfy. "...as thoroughly as he did..."??? I disagree with that completely. I don't think he "thoroughly" failed it. Why did none of his other tests from the day before or after come back positive? If it is a low epitestosterone level, as Floyd claims, how is that evidence of doping at all?
post #34 of 45
My one request is for some explaination of why a test showed that he had synthetic testosterone in his body and how it got there.
post #35 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gill View Post
My one request is for some explaination of why a test showed that he had synthetic testosterone in his body and how it got there.
I can't explain it, but I just spent a few minutes reading posts in the Doping forum on Road Bike Review, and there is some good info over there.

Apparently the radio isotope-somethingorother test shows whether it's your natural testosterone or not. There is also something about taking regular testosterone that will cause your epitest. levels to lower.

After reading all that stuff, I'm on the fence. I just want the truth. If he doped, give him the axe, if not, give him all the praise he deserves.
post #36 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnH View Post
I just want the truth. If he doped, give him the axe, if not, give him all the praise he deserves.
word.

and "if not," turn the axe around on the necks of those who'll be as deserving.
post #37 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnH View Post
That's a pretty bold statement Newfy. "...as thoroughly as he did..."??? I disagree with that completely. I don't think he "thoroughly" failed it.
The doper cut off is a ratio of 4:1. If his natural level was 3.5:1 and he had a 4.2:1 I might believe him. He scored 11:1, with artificial testosterone in his system. To me that's a slam dunk failed test.

He is probably a liar and cheater. Most of them are. Too bad, because he seems like a nice guy, and rode with a lot of heart. Accept it, and come down on the sponsors to clean up the sport.
post #38 of 45
As an attorney with substantial trial experience I can only say that there is not enough information in the public record to even begin to evaluate the claims on either side.

Some of the problems are simple like the lack of specifics on which tests were performed and the actual results - numbers and other specifics.

Others are the subtle things that make sometimes only trigger the BS detector in those used to taking testimony, for example Landis said someone at WADA (or perhaps the ICU) prematurely released the results against policy. Landis also said that the official said he had to since he worried about a premature release from the lab or WADA/ICU. The fact that he worried about the lab releasing info indicates that the lab knew the identities of the testees. That would be a big problem.

Also it seems that if Landis was tested at other times during the Tour and did not fail the drug test should cause serious concern about the validity of all of Landis' tests. Perhaps Landis did use a T-patch on his balls to "recover more quickly" but this is as much a conspiracy theory as lab rats spiking his test at the lab just because their guy didn't win (note if the lab rats knew of the identity of the test samples this becomes a much more serious concern).

Any way at this stage I would be asking for discovery and evaluating it as it comes in.

I have no current respect for WADA or ICU. They have acted poorly and seem to have no remorse. Samples should be numbered and unattachable to the rider by the lab. The samples should be large enough for subsequent follow up testing by a court/governing body appointed independent lab (agreed to by the parties). The results should not be published until the case is adjudicated finally and the governing body has ruled and that should not be until some sort of hearing has taken place and all parties have had their say.

What happened here seems to be more of the Kangaroo Court variety. Broadcast the initial results to destroy the career of a specific rider, demolish the credibility of the sport, for what? Because the lab might release the results first?

Everything here is fishy. Time for a real trial to clear the air.


Mark
post #39 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gill View Post
My one request is for some explaination of why a test showed that he had synthetic testosterone in his body and how it got there.
My one request (ok one of several) is to know why officials would 'leak' such information without officially releasing the results, when those results might officially be released and scrutinized and why people buy so quickly into this gossip approach and treat it as fact worthy of assigning guilt.
post #40 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by L7 View Post
My one request (ok one of several) is to know why officials would 'leak' such information without officially releasing the results, when those results might officially be released and scrutinized and why people buy so quickly into this gossip approach and treat it as fact worthy of assigning guilt.
I'm not saying he's guilty, and I hope for him and for the sport of cycling that he is not guilty.

All I'm saying is that a test was performed that indicated he had testosterone in his system that was not produced by his body. This is not gossip. It is fact. Perhaps the carbon isotope test results are faulty. Perhaps the test is flawed. Perhaps there is some other explaination. If so, I'd like very much to hear it.

I completely agree with you that the information should not have been released. UCI needs to follow the rules if they expect the cyclists to follow the rules too.
post #41 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gill View Post
All I'm saying is that a test was performed that indicated he had testosterone in his system that was not produced by his body. This is not gossip. It is fact. Perhaps the carbon isotope test results are faulty. Perhaps the test is flawed. Perhaps there is some other explaination. If so, I'd like very much to hear it.
Show me the official lab report(s) where it states this. I've seen it in the press, I've never seen it anywhere else. I guess I should move to Missouri.

L
post #42 of 45
Yes, the only fact is that the report is rumored to indicate this.
post #43 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gill View Post
All I'm saying is that a test was performed that indicated he had testosterone in his system that was not produced by his body. This is not gossip. It is fact.
The FACT as I understand it is a german paper reported that someone supposedly received a text message from a supposedly knowledgeable source within the drug corps that supposedly claimed the isotope test found sythetic testosterone. That equals gossip to me but in this situation it seems to be passing for fact for a lot of people.

So now the question is, why has there still been no official release of this result and even if there has why was it preceded by this gossip technique to a newspaper? It seems to me they are trying to win this drug war in the court of public opinion to be judged by those with limited information. Why would they take that approach? Of course the fact many people are falling for it is a big part of the answer.
post #44 of 45
Landis's Father-in-law commits suicide

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/17082006/32...s-suicide.html : :
post #45 of 45
Thread Starter 
Landis roomed with Whitt, an age-group cyclist, not long after Landis moved to San Diego, and it was Whitt who, not long after he began dating Amber's mother, Rose, introduced Landis to Amber.

Sad.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Cycling
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Off-Season Sports & The Lighter Side › Cycling › Landis: Dehydration Defense?