Landis Fails Drugs test

Rikand

i dont post here, but thought this might interest some of ye

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/5221122.stm

Tour de France winner Floyd Landis has given a positive drugs test, according to his Phonak team.

The American, who claimed victory in the Tour de France on Sunday, has tested positive for the male sex hormone testosterone.

The positive test came after stage 17 of the Tour, which saw Landis record an epic victory after collapsing on the final climb the day before.

Flukey

A cyclist on drugs? Now there's a surprise.:rolleyes:

Mr. Presentable

Wow. The Americans are usually much better at not getting caught than this!

CiaranC

Wait, wait, he tested positive for testosterone? Now, Im no doctor-guy but doesnt testosterone occur naturally in the male body?

cavedave

There is a Testosteron/Epitestosteron ratio in the body. If you were doping you would want to boost Testosteron but not Epitestosteron. So if you test the ratio and it is out of normal range it surves of proof of doping.

Pherekydes

cavedave wrote:

So if you test the ratio and it is out of normal range it surves of proof of doping.

It may serve as evidence of drug usage, but definitely not proof.

The normal range only covers 95% of the population, so someone producing a sample outside this range is not proof of any wrongdoing. It's a similar case to that of runner Gareth Turnbull, who was cleared only yesterday to race again after producing a testosterone "positive".

cavedave

It may serve as evidence of drug usage, but definitely not proof.

The house of humanity has many roms and drug testing does not cover all of them. An interesting read on the problems with drug testing
http://www.arthurdevany.com/archives/2006/06/mark_sisson_on.html

Jnealon

After witnessing what was one of the greatest comebacks cycling has ever seen I would hate to think thet it was drug fuelled. Although when you have kimmage and all the other critics accusing him of taking drugs before he has a chance to explain it does not help the matter.
It will be interesting to see if Armstrong will still take him back after this

kincsem

I'm speaking through my pocket.

I backed Oscar Pereiro Sio to win the Tour de France at 180, 160, and lower prices. I made a profit of €1800 by selling some of my bets, but would have won another €12,100 if Pereiro Sio won. The betting market closes with the podium presentation.

Last year Pereiro Sio took big time out of Landis in the last week.

At least we have an explanation of how this year Landis lost 8 minutes one day, and gained 7 minutes the next day.

Pherekydes

kincsem wrote:

At least we have an explanation of how this year Landis lost 8 minutes one day, and gained 7 minutes the next day.

Which is?

GP

cavedave wrote:

There is a Testosteron/Epitestosteron ratio in the body. If you were doping you would want to boost Testosteron but not Epitestosteron. So if you test the ratio and it is out of normal range it surves of proof of doping.

You sound like you know your stuff......

ferdi

this is why there is no point in following pro cycling. its not people, its just the drugs.

indiewindy

Its a pity that cycling still hasnt cleaned up its act. It was quite obvious last Thursday the way Landis blew everyone away the day after he himself was taken to the cleaners that he had some extra help. It looked very strange to say the least.

justfortherecor

Slow coach wrote:

Which is?

Well Testosterone doping is used primarily for recovery. Would certainly go someway to explaining how he bonked one day and then destroyed the field the next.

MIKE C

What Ever Happened To Innocent Until Proven Guilty??????????

Lets Wait And See About The B Sample

thewing

I said it after that stage that he was on it, so no surprise.

Hope armstrong gets outed as well, and it gives rise to a clean up of the sport, it's beyond a joke

Pherekydes

justfortherecor wrote:

Well Testosterone doping is used primarily for recovery. Would certainly go someway to explaining how he bonked one day and then destroyed the field the next.

And what about all the other tests?

Pherekydes

ferdi wrote:

this is why there is no point in following pro cycling. its not people, its just the drugs.

And you base that on the faulty interpretation by journalists of a T:E ratio test? Some are writing that he had "an excessive level of testosterone". WTF? They don't measure testosterone; they measure the T:E ratio. The T:E ratio means nothing in itself, because you can have a high ratio by having a higher than normal testosterone level, or a lower than normal level of epitestosterone. A high T:E ratio only gives cause for further investigation.

Read the article (link posted by cavedave), and compare it with the idiotic writings of the journalists.

Explosive_Cornflake

I'd wait for a B sample before jumping the gun.
OT, but I was thinking yesterday, imagine they were allowed drugs, what would happen then?

iregk

well i will wait to see the final result myself but in fairness after i watched the greatest comback in my living memory i though to myself hang on, something aint right here!

you do not fall off the bike one day as white as a ghost and lets be fair who saw him come on stage 16 thinking chrst he aint looking healthy? only to destroy the field the following day? that doesn't add up one way or another.

Kerrynoel

Jnealon wrote:

After witnessing what was one of the greatest comebacks cycling has ever seen I would hate to think thet it was drug fuelled. Although when you have kimmage and all the other critics accusing him of taking drugs before he has a chance to explain it does not help the matter.
It will be interesting to see if Armstrong will still take him back after this

That stage was one of the greatest in Cycling. I had all my friends, who have no interest in the sport tuning in on that day watching the remarkable events unfold, and now it could be all a sham!!!!

no leaf clover

it could be down to ultim8 determination, iv bin out for 2months from my sport, 2 days back and i challenged a lad, and won, becuz of the set bak i couldd push harder...or...he could be doping!! "i was thinkin yester..." eveer watched tommy tiernan? e describes the "drug olympics"!!!

Tackleberry

Very ****ty news alright, and whether he's guilty or not the damage is done- half my non-cycling mates have already been slagging the hole off the sport because of it, damage done. and the crap thing about the media is that these lads will only hear the bad news and if he does get acquitted they won't hear that.

With ref to Lance, I can see how people can't believe that he was clean, but can I just make a few quick points on how maybe, just maybe, he might be clean (shock horror):

- Most professional riders will be obliged to do maybe 40/50+ races a year? Lance was obliged to race only one. For that he was paid a reported $4m from USPS/Discovery, I'd swim the feckin atlantic for that!

- Other pro racers have to ride their holes off all season in the giro, the classics, the world champs and all the other races to which their teams had committed them - Lance had to ride his hole off for 5 days a season in the Tour de France. Anything else was just for practice.

- He didn't train like a cyclist, he trained like an athlete specifically for the 5 key days in the tour, going up and down the same bloody mountains again and again while the likes of Ullrich were eating all the pies and racing their holes off.

Bottom line is this: if any athlete worth his salt specifically trained for a few key moments in a race every year and was paid millions to do it, given the best equipment and the best team in the world focused solely with helping him, while other competitors stubbornly stuck to outdated training techniques, I think anyone could be in a position to win the race. Lance simply highlighted how prehistoric everyone else was- I dare to say his was a clean, efficient if somewhat predictable approach that saw him train for a goal and then complete it, simple as, no bull****, no drama, this is what pissed off the french media, who love the likes of Vassuer and Voeckler, and Moreau the eternal also-ran.

The sports too hard at that level, I reckon unless races are limited to certain lengths and difficulty, riders are limited to a certain number of races a season and there is some kind of structured central medical monitoring to which all the pro teams subscribe, there'll always be probs. But who wants to watch that.

Of course you could let them all dope, they could each be given one injection a race, it'd be like a turboboost, great stuff....;)

cavedave

One thing that I always wondered about Armstong was did the cancer give him an advantage? Specifically did having tissue cut out of him reduce his weight in a useful way? He had a column of tissue from his scrotum up through his skull removed. How many kg's would this weigh?
It sounds unlikely to me but would this have been enough weight to give an advantage or was it outweighed by the loss of so much useful tissue, but does someone know?

Tackleberry

The loss of his extra bulk allowed him to climb the high mountains, so he trained specifically at high cadence climbing, check out this picture for how he used to look pre cancer, pure classics rider

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j36/tackleberry_01/_40418279_roadrace203_270.jpg

crashoveroid

His first Sample failed yes but lets give the guy a chance until the i are dotted and t are crossed ok

dave2pvd

iregk wrote:

you do not fall off the bike one day ....... only to destroy the field the following day? that doesn't add up one way or another.

It does. It's called 'the bonk'. You can go backwards awfully quickly if you don't regulate your blood sugar.

Now I'm not suggesting that FL is clean....

Trojan

Re: Armstrong... He did dope. There is no other reasonable explanation for his bullying of the Italian rider and zipped mouth gestures on stage 18 or 19 of last years tour.

Secondly, he'd never have won the TDF if he didn't have cancer, because he simply was the wrong phsique for it.

The chemo treatment destroyed all the muscle in his body, and when he rebuilt himself (literally), his body shaped itself in a way that was optimal for his activities. Look at pics from him cycling before, and after the cancer. Much smaller torso.

Tyler Hamiliton is innocent.

janullrich

I think there needs to be a serious look at cycling. The races are too damn long and hard. Last years world championships mens road race was 294km! I am suprised that anyone made the finishing line or didn't just give up. Maybe if a race like that was 160km people would believe it and look at it more. As it is and most of my non cycling friends believe it, u just can't get up the mountains at that speed without drugs. Great to watch but cycling needs a overhaul. Also what the hell is it that you have to make it within a certain time limit. If u are 2 hours behind at the end so what. U are within daylight hours. I would be surprised if the sprinters don't use something just to survive those horror days.

iregk

Well to be honest I am in the Armstrong was doping camp as well. Now I do take into account all the stuff that has since come out about body shape, chemo etc... but what got me was a few years back the outgoing USP trainer who said its all about who has the best pharmacist now, and we do!

Only one way you can interprit that line... I remember watching that interview on EuroSport and Sean Kelly quickly changed subject to the timining of the day etc...

iregk

Any news on the second test results. They were supposed to be out today!