I'm surprised that anyone would risk taking anything knowing how likely testing is. Unless, he thought testosterone would be assumed to be natural to the body even at a higher level. I actually hope he can be cleared.
I'm probably one of the slowest to pile on in these cases, but Floyd's goose is cooked. Anybody who says differently is pinning his hopes on nothing more than wishful thinking. The carbon isotope ratio test (the one that detects synthetic or exogenous testosterone) is very conclusive. From what I have read he has now failed this test on both the A and B samples (as somebody pointed out above, just two parts of the same piss, if you'll pardon my french). So on the day in question, he had synthetic testosterone in his urine, OR somebody intentionally or unintentionally fucked with his sample. From my own experience I can tell you that there are a lot of safeguards in place to prevent tampering between the collection and the time that the sample is opened at the lab. After that, I can't say. At any rate, he will NEVER be able to prove contamination or tampering unless he can find somebody who will confess to it. He's busted and there's no avoiding a two-year ban and loss of the Tour title. (Mind you, the evidence against him was pretty sketchy when it first got leaked to the press, which is a different story.)
As for why he might think he can get away with it, I have a few thoughts. Apparently Landis "just barely" failed the isotope ratio test (NYT reported he had 3.99 units where a positive for synthetic testosterone is 3 units). On the other hand, we know that his T/E ratio was outrageously high (11/1). The former suggests that the amount of synthetic testosterone was actually fairly low, whereas the latter suggests that the ratio of total testosterone to epitestosterone was astronomical. So my guess is that he has been doping testosterone for a long time at a low level; just enough to boost his T/E up to 3/1, for example. He and his medical team have a good handle on that and keep his levels just below the 4/1 ratio where a positive test is flagged. On that day something odd happened -- for example, there is research that shows that alcohol can raise T/E levels, and Landis admits to drinking the evening before. Whatever it was, his epitestosterone levels were unexpectedly depressed, and perhaps his own natural testosterone was elevated for some natural reason. That caused the initial positive test of 11/1, which triggered the lab to do the isotope test, which uncovered the synthetic stuff he'd been using without previous detection.
Gee, I really miss the days when the cheaters were like Tonya Harding and just broke the legs of their competitors. All this chemical science is getting too complicated. Since cycling is so dependant on chemical enhancement, why don't they just accept it and let the best doper win? They have been doing it in bodybuilding, and weight lifting for decades. Didn't Lawrence Taylor play linbacker like a coked up maniac? Oh thats right he was a coked up maniac. He still made the Hall of Fame and is still considered the best linebacker of all time. My guess is that most of the competitors in these big time cylce races are doping anyway. No matter who wins it will be discovered that they were doping. Even if they test the back of the pack finishers they will discover doping. So if everybody dopes just give the victory to the guy who finishes first, since he is the one who beat the other dopers by being a better doper.
But if everyone's doping, then why didn't the second-placed finisher, who is also tested, fail? If you contend that he is doping, he's just doing it well enough to not get caught, then we're already at the point where the best doper wins. Sort of.
Some day a pro cyclist popped for doping will confess and help save the sport rather than fabricating elaborate excuses & constructing "Believe [Me]" websites. Don't hold your breath though/
How many times was Pereiro tested during Tour? I noticed he finished third and fourth in several stages, but I think someone said that the first and second place stage finishers were tested and everyone else was random. Just wondering. And, by the way, I am not a Landis fan or apologist. I just have no confidence in the whole testing situation, no matter who it is. Frankly, I think that at some future date they are going to go back and test stored samples from some Tour race and find out that there was no winner because everyone was disqualified.
Here comes a shit storm! Another note, a chemical engineer was on the radio this morning saying that one heavy dose of testosterone would do absolutely nothing to enhance perfomance. Testosterone has to build up over an extended period of time to have any effect at all. So, either Landis is incredibly stupid to think that a single dose would do any good or or somethink stinks in Denmark (or France). Man, I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I find it hard to believe Landis is that stupid.
Landis is not stupid. The most likely cause of his failed test is that he missed his dose(s) the day before (you know, the breakdown stage), and that these missed dose(s) unset his balance the following day. This year's Tour was under a lot of scrutiny, and some teams/riders certainly had some delivery issues.
Landis says alot more here. Although he does raise some good points, I doubt any of them will hold up.
Landis (and his Phonak team and doctors) are not stupid. Riders take testosterone not to enhance performance but rather to aid in recovery. My guess follows along with what qbert wrote; he either "forgot" to take a dose or the dosage was administered incorrectly and therefore tripped the doping controls. You can bet that doping technology is ahead of the doping controls, be it through microdosing or using masking agents.
Willthrill, this is the same Phonak team that has had several other riders fail doping tests in the last two years. Sascha Urweider (SUI) Santiago Perez (ESP) Santos Gonzalez (ESP) Tyler Hamilton (USA) Urweider failed a test in February of this year for, can we guess... excess testosterone, was sacked by the team and received a two year ban. Are we presuming they were all innocent too, because they can't be that stupid, or is it just the American boys who have been framed?
Taking some somewhat obvious factors out of it, the patriotic angle will induce the average U.S. fan to back a guy like Armstrong, Hamilton or Landis than a guy like Barry Bonds. Until Osama starts a baseball team, I think Bonds is shit out of luck. Plus, we've seen Bonds' "character flaws" up close for the last 20 years. In contrast, we know Cad Armstrong for his battle with cancer. Who gets the benefit of the doubt from the average Joe?
I never said I was presuming Landis is innocent. My point is that he had passed all of his previous tests and then turns up dirty after the "miracle" stage. I am just wondering exactly what good would testosterone do for a single stage when it is more of a long term enhancer. I wouldn't be dubious at all if they claimed Landis was doping with EPO or the like, it just seems odd to me that he, or someone, would choose testosterone to give him boost.
afx's link covers what good testosterone can do in the short term. "In an article with his byline in the Spanish daily AS, Manzano outlined the way riders can take testosterone during a competition, undercutting the argument that testosterone is a substance taken over weeks and months to slowly build strength and resistance. "Its effects are felt almost immediately," Manzano wrote. "It gives you a lot of force and produces a sort of euphoria." " The link mentions Rastandol, which can be taken 20 minutes before competition and still have an effect.
Thanks, Bismarck. I think I overlooked afx's link.
** Checks top of thread, thread title and subject. ** Yep, this thread is about Floyd Landis and cycling and not Barry Bonds. Why do the axe grinders have to bring him up here? Aren't there plenty of threads of threads about baseball to rip on him?
I don't know what to think about this case at this point. On one hand, I want to believe Landis, and I do agree the way the UCI rushed to release the results without giving him advance notice seems unfair. Head of UCI - Pat McQuaid - justifies this by saying he knew someone at lab was bound to leak the results. That doesn't give me a lot of faith in the lab's ethics or the UCI's ability to enforce it's own protocols. Aren't all samples supposed to be blind to lab technicians?? On other hand, the carbon isotope results (assuming the test was run correctly) are hard to dodge. If correct, Landis had synthetic testosterone in his body. That's hard to get around. No matter what happens from here on, his goose is cooked. Barring someone from lab or elsewhere admitting to tampering with his sample, I don't see any way he's ever going to overcome the media storm. If he's truly innocent, I really feel sorry for him.
Seems pretty cut and dried from here. Landis, biking, synthetic hormone = see ya, sucka.
It seems very suspicious that one sample out of 8 tested positive, three samples before and four samples afterwards were negative. Lets wait and pass judgement after all is said and done.
If you contend that he is doping, he's just doing it well enough to not get caught, then we're already at the point where the best doper wins. Sort of. Comment icon posted by Mr Bismarck at 10:22 AM CDT on August 7 I believe this to be true (see Armstrong, Lance). Well, at least among the very top riders. It's possible that the guys who work hard for a part of the race and then squeak by in the grupetto are not doping.
