Question on the Floyd thing

[saab2000]

It is my understanding that FL tested positive after stage 17 of the Tour. He was subsequently tested and found to be negative on the other, later stages.

If he really took was he is supposed to have taken, would there not still be traces in subsequent days?

I am not trying to start an argument here, but what is the story? The fact that he only tested positive for one day, but not others is a red flag for me.

I hope he is cleared, although I guess in light of other events in his personal life that is probably the last thing on his mind right now.

[atmo]

bingo atmo.

[Needs Help]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/jul06/jul07news3
Jaksche's doctor: drug use common

German doctor Kurt Moosburger, who has looked after Jörg Jaksche (among others) for the past two years, has told dpa that he believes that performance enhancing drugs are "indispensable" for high level cycling

In a frank interview, Moosburger pointed to the average speeds of modern professional races, especially hard tours. "The average in last year's Tour was 41 kilometres per hour - that is incredible. You can do a hard Alpine stage without doping. But after that, the muscles are exhausted. You need - depending on your training conditions - up to three days in order to regenerate."

To help recover, testosterone and human growth hormone can be used. "Both are made by the body and are therefore natural substances," he said. "They help to build muscle as well as in muscle recovery."

Dr Moosburger explained how it was done. "You put a standard testosterone patch that is used for male hormone replacement therapy on your scrotum and leave it there for about six hours. The small dose is not sufficient to produce a positive urine result in the doping test, but the body actually recovers faster."

If he really took was he is supposed to have taken, would there not still be traces in subsequent days?

Who says there weren't traces on subsequent days? Testing below a 4:1 ratio doesn't mean you don't dope, just like having a hematocrit level below 50 doesn't mean you aren't transfusing or using EPO.

[goonster]

If he really took was he is supposed to have taken, would there not still be traces in subsequent days?

I agree.

The level of T, and the T/E ratio, may return to below-threshold values within a matter of hours (if they exceeded them in the first place), but, according to all the information I've seen, the radioisotope test should show exogenous T for several weeks after introduction.

Problem is, the radioisotope test is probably performed only if a sample fails the T/E ratio test.

[Avispa]

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=243488&postcount=27

But, I don't think they would have checked further (if synthetic stuff was on blood/urine) as it was "normal" at 4:1 or less, right?

I am sure the lab would love to check those "normal" results as well for the presence of synthetic stuff... This would just bury FL case further!

[Orin]

I agree.

The level of T, and the T/E ratio, may return to below-threshold values within a matter of hours (if they exceeded them in the first place), but, according to all the information I've seen, the radioisotope test should show exogenous T for several weeks after introduction.

Problem is, the radioisotope test is probably performed only if a sample fails the T/E ratio test.

It's far from definitive...

http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~fine/opinions/testosterone_d13C.html

[manet]

shoulda' checked for tape residue...

Dr Moosburger explained how it was done. "You put a standard testosterone patch that is used for male hormone replacement therapy on your scrotum and leave it there for about six hours.

[Archibald]

shoulda' checked for tape residue...

Dr Moosburger explained how it was done. "You put a standard testosterone patch that is used for male hormone replacement therapy on your scrotum and leave it there for about six hours.
Interestingly enough, it is being reported now that his testosterone levels were well within the normal range, it was just the ratio that was off. That makes no sense to me at all, but I'm ignorant of the implications.

[Bradford]

I'm ignorant of the implications.

We are all ignorant of the implications; this is complicated stuff that has been unevenly, and most likely inaccurately, reported. Unless some of us are testing experts, then the best we can hope for is a partial and inaccurate understanding of what this all means. I don’t know if he did it or not, but I do know that there is no way I could arrive at the correct conclusion based on what I have read so far.

What really doesn't make sense is how many people are aggressively arguing a position (either way) and condescendingly insulting anybody who is reserving judgment until all of the evidence is presented.

As Mark Twain said, “It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”

I think I’ll just reserve judgment until after all the evidence is heard and save my ignorant comments for some other subject. So keep posting questions and comments and maybe we can all learn enough about this to figure it out eventually.

[bcm119]

What really doesn't make sense is how many people are aggressively arguing a position (either way) and condescendingly insulting anybody who is reserving judgment until all of the evidence is presented.

+1

well said.

[Grant McLean]

We are all ignorant of the implications; this is complicated stuff that has been unevenly, and most likely inaccurately, reported. Unless some of us are testing experts, then the best we can hope for is a partial and inaccurate understanding of what this all means. I don’t know if he did it or not, but I do know that there is no way I could arrive at the correct conclusion based on what I have read so far.

What really doesn't make sense is how many people are aggressively arguing a position (either way) and condescendingly insulting anybody who is reserving judgment until all of the evidence is presented.

As Mark Twain said, “It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”

I think I’ll just reserve judgment until after all the evidence is heard and save my ignorant comments for some other subject. So keep posting questions and comments and maybe we can all learn enough about this to figure it out eventually.

+2

[Archibald]

+1

well said.
+3

[goonster]

It's far from definitive...

http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~fine/opinions/testosterone_d13C.html

That's a very good article, and it contains the best information I've yet seen about the radioisotope test. :beer:

A radioisotope test would be highly accurate and reliable if the exogenous substance could be introduced with known isotopic markers, in a controlled study, for example. When applied to individual subjects, who are sampled irregularly and who are subject to varying activities and diets, the test relies on a stack of assumptions and generalizations.

The thing I keep coming back to is this:

I can think of no other examples where the result of a single test has such far-reaching and irredeemable consequences for an individual. If a doctor does bloodwork, and gets an adverse result, the tests are repeated and a host of other factors is considered (history, overall condition, other analytical methods, other symptoms etc.) before a diagnosis is made. You've got to look at the whole picture and the UCI/WADA testing protocols just don't allow for that.

People want easy and definitive answers, but sometimes they just can't be had at any price . . .

[Orin]

This was another interesting paper, but it's coming up with a 404 error now:

home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~perreau/Chem347_2006/IRMS Baume 2006.pdf

However, Google will still has a cached html version - search for: IRMS Baume

Orin.

[Lunar Probe]

Anyone read the comments by Vaughters in Velo News? There is also a great article dealing with the circumstances of Merckx' postive results in the '69 Giro. I'll boil it down:

- Testosterone = stupid and unlikely.
- Nationalistic driven corruption = who would'a thunk

[Big Dan]

Believe...........

[William]

Endless Summer. :cool:




William

[gt6267a]

i remember reading that FL's team based some of their case on differences between the results of the A and B samples. I am curious to know what these differences are?

[Dave B]

I thought I read somewhere on Velonews or cyclingnews.com that his A and B samples did not match up much at all. AND that only one of four tests they took showed the crazy ratios, and that the UCI needs all 4 to be the same. 3 were normal. I think this is what his defense team is using to go after the lab, etc.