OpEd: Landis to be exonerated, Tour to lose more face

1. 5 of 9 cyclists in Spanish scandal completely cleared.

2. testosterone levels 'normal'....epi is lower than normal(could even explain the disastrous fade in previous stage actually).
Most everyone's so rushing to judge the ratios, that they've thrown common sense out the window(or don't care: figuring they can always retract/recant, and/or are plain prejudiced and/or politically motivated) by not looking at how much is there to begin with!

A. numerous previous Tour tests did NOT catch high testo levels.

B. why bulk up for one cycling race: anti-beneficial & more important-- is it even possible/helpful on such short notice?

C. Testo is SO RETRO....it's the first thing checked for decades now-- only an ignoramus amateur teen would even think about doing something like that.......

D. Landis' squeaky clean religious background & diet: no artificial food additives / chemicals...

E. Think the French organizers were elated to see another non-Francophone & way worse: American, destroy the competition?

F. The lab in question to this day has not submitted to inspection & truly "independent" standards / procedures certification since the Lance fiasco.

NOTHING adds up here..........

Most corrupt organization outside the Democrats

whalewager said:

Most corrupt organization outside the Democrats

Click to expand...

WW, where have you been the last 6 years? LTucking: :monsters- :nohead:

u dont wanna know

I wish to add that initial post could've been clearer: tests both just before & just after did not confirm that-- a scientific impossibility!

That lab is just totally incompetent-- & the Tour folks know it...but they'll be damned to admit it.

charleslanger,
Where did you find that Op-ed?

doug stewart said:

charleslanger,
Where did you find that Op-ed?

Click to expand...

Sorry for misleading you-- it's mine: some from sources, some from articles & links.

You can take to the bank that the "amount" of testosterone &
epitestosterone will be the basis of exoneration by any arbitrator / judge.

The general press & too many others have been too quick to talk w/o considering facts & common sense:

yes, the ratio merits a closer look-- but then you see how much of each are there.

Let's pretend for the sake of argument that all my various info is flawed-- it still leaves two ways he is cleared:

1. He was low on epitestosterone that day.

2. Tests before & after came back clean: that just cannot be done so quickly with testosterone.

Yes, you can then get into sinister additional theories to explain that: such as blood doping-- maybe even as far as complete transfusions skewing results...that's arguable given his background...but barring additional evidence of such coming up he will be acquitted.
The worst that can happen is the process slows to a crawl, plus on top of that journalists & the Tour folks pile on negative comments & maybe even punitive measures in the meantime, but there is nothing there so far to allow punishment AND subsequent legal/appeal process upholding.

And i don't believe the Tour will act hastily here after more than half its suspended riders were totally cleared-- i don't think they & the lab want to streghthen the chances of more in-depth scrutiny plus additional negative attention and lawsuits.

CL,
I don't doubt any of what you posted, I just don't follow cycling or know enough to doubt. Let's start at the beginning then, which is usually a good place to start...what drugs did the 9 spaniards test positive for and which ones were exonerated? I don't even know enough about testosterone and epitestosterone to ask an intelligent question, other than the obvious...what did Landis test positive for? Testosterone or epitestosterone? I only heard elevated testosterone level. Like I say I don't know much about cycling or testosterone testing but I thought from the start that this was another frog attempt to discredit an American winner.

doug stewart said:

CL,
I don't doubt any of what you posted, I just don't follow cycling or know enough to doubt. Let's start at the beginning then, which is usually a good place to start...what drugs did the 9 spaniards test positive for and which ones were exonerated? I don't even know enough about testosterone and epitestosterone to ask an intelligent question, other than the obvious...what did Landis test positive for? Testosterone or epitestosterone? I only heard elevated testosterone level. Like I say I don't know much about cycling or testosterone testing but I thought from the start that this was another frog attempt to discredit an American winner.

Click to expand...

The suspended tested positive for nothing-- at least initially when suspended...that was only for supposedly having come into some kind of contact with a dirty doctor: so much for due process!!! Do you how often a sports body informs police(in many European countries)they suspect someone, & the police then raid & confiscate whatever they deem fit, jail the suspects, question their relatives & acquaintances, & perform body cavity searches on them? This is why i laugh in the face of foreiigners & their whiny rants about the US while conveniently glossing over their own issues

Re testing & detecting: it's such an inexact science.... we really can't go by the amount of a particular hormone in someone because different people make different amounts...& those can vary in the test samples depending on diet, supplements, alcohol intake, trainng regimen, biological stages, etc.; so a range can be used, but someone can figure out their level and inject as much as the max. threshold level allows...to combat you'd've had to have tested someone for a long time before they entered competition, to establish beyond reasonable doubt their normal levels...OR, someone came up wth the bright idea to just compare the ratios between the different hormones(supposedly the body will not make much more testosterone than epitestosterone, so if too much is present....)-- but that is more of the same problem-- a range is needed..and to this day there is not a universal consensus on what that range should be: folks may produce from equal amounts of each, thru a 'mean' ratio of 2.5-3, to as high as standard deviation would allow: originally a ratio of 6-1 or more was considered evidence of guilt-- & this was later lowered to 4...BUT many doctors claim that a ratio of 5 or more can still fall within standard deviation...& that the only way to tell for sure is to test in prolonged & repeated fashion-- & not just urine, but hair....while making note of diet: alcohol consumed, etc. For instance:
IF Landis had beer / wine with his dinner, that could skew the results...but worse for the credibility of the test: testosterone takes weeks to cycle out of the body.
And what a cheating cyclist in need of a quick fix would need is something much different: amphetamines, red blood cell boosters, broncho-dilator, pain-killer...

All the press is doing is running with one potential sign-- for instance: i have an enlarged heart, lungs, & head + high testosterone levels... & have never even considered doping......

Did the B sample come in yet if thats the same its 100% certain he was on something one other thing everyone says it dont make sense why only juice for 1 stage it wont do anything and testastorne takes a couple weeks to kick in so why do it on one of the last stages, well he was juiced the whole tour and the reason for the failed test the masking agent wore off.

Heres something else to think about if you take the very best athletes in any event they're all pretty close in ability now put half of them on steroids and that gives them lets say a 10% increase in ability the ones that dont have that 10% will never win, nobody who is serious about winning the tour de france is gonna be clean.

Stocks said:

Did the B sample come in yet if thats the same its 100% certain he was on something one other thing everyone says it dont make sense why only juice for 1 stage it wont do anything and testastorne takes a couple weeks to kick in so why do it on one of the last stages, well he was juiced the whole tour and the reason for the failed test the masking agent wore off.

Heres something else to think about if you take the very best athletes in any event they're all pretty close in ability now put half of them on steroids and that gives them lets say a 10% increase in ability the ones that dont have that 10% will never win, nobody who is serious about winning the tour de france is gonna be clean.

Click to expand...

You missed the whole theme of this thread-- everything single point! You got absolutely nothing out of it.

charleslanger said:

You missed the whole theme of this thread-- everything single point! You got absolutely nothing out of it.

Click to expand...

lol I know I read it again and still dont really get what your saying plus I went off on my own little rant there anyway on points A, B, C and 2 on the other post it was his masking agent that wore off, he was taking steroids the whole time plus something else to mask the effects so his tests would come back negative and when the masking agent wore off his test came back positive.

<TABLE class=tborder id=post3059091 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD class=alt2 width=175>Stocks<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> vbmenu_register("postmenu_3059091", true); </SCRIPT>
RX Member

Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Newfoundland
Posts: 401


</TD><TD class=alt1 id=td_post_3059091><!-- icon and title -->
<HR style="COLOR: #fdde82" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by charleslanger
You missed the whole theme of this thread-- everything single point! You got absolutely nothing out of it.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

lol I know I read it again and still dont really get what your saying plus I went off on my own little rant there anyway on points A, B, C and 2 on the other post it was his masking agent that wore off, he was taking steroids the whole time plus something else to mask the effects so his tests would come back negative and when the masking agent wore off his test came back positive.
<!-- / message --></TD></TR><TR><TD class=alt2> </TD><TD class=alt1 align=right><!-- controls --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>That's what i thought...listen, they could all be stealthily doping up the kazoo or not, but that is not the point: there is not enough evidence OR EVEN probable cause to an impartial arbitrator or judge:

tests right before & after do not duplicate those results... & the ONLY anomaly found was a LOW level of epitestosterone AS OPPOSED to high of testosterone...this latter is what will be coming out in the next few days.

YES, we could come up with evil theories that explain everything & still paint him guilty, but we'd need plenty of proof.

BTW the legal system abroad anywhere can be atrocious, no matter how the rest of the world criticizes us-- the proof is in the pudding: everyone knows or is related to someone who wants to come here.

I couldn't imagine the analogy of Barry Bonds being not only banned, but arrested & forced to prove he's innocent in order to get back into baseball...but that's what the Tour has done to many.
Nor can i imagine living in Aruba, where so many got arrested & pressured to prove they had nothing to do with a rape & killing before getting released......

CL,
OK, now I found something in your post that I doubt...

"The suspended tested positive for nothing-- at least initially when suspended"

...you show me the article or the link to the article where it says 9 spanish cyclists were suspended for a NEGATIVE drug test!

doug stewart said:

CL,
OK, now I found something in your post that I doubt...

"The suspended tested positive for nothing-- at least initially when suspended"

...you show me the article or the link to the article where it says 9 spanish cyclists were suspended for a NEGATIVE drug test!

Click to expand...

They were not supended for a drug test. They were suspended because they were in contact with a certain doctor.

It's like a police officer is suspended because he has dinner at the house of a bookie but the policeman doesn't know the guy is a bookie.

cincy_ said:

They were not supended for a drug test. They were suspended because they were in contact with a certain doctor.

It's like a police officer is suspended because he has dinner at the house of a bookie but the policeman doesn't know the guy is a bookie.

Click to expand...

Getting information out of you two (CL/cincy) is like pulling teeth. CL posted that 5 of 9 Spanish cyclists suspended were exonerated, so I asked what I thought was a logical question since this was a drug test positive thread, what drug were the Spanish players suspended for. CL answered, ""The suspended tested positive for nothing-- at least initially when suspended". I doubt this; you don't get suspended for a negative drug test. Still waiting for the article/link.
Now cincy enters the discussion and says they were not suspended for a drug test. OK, but even though I don't follow cycling, I'm going to go out on a limb and wager that they were given drug tests and we already know from CL's original post that 5 of the 9 were exonerated, so I'm going out further on that limb and bet that the 4 who were not exonerated had positive drug tests.
So I'm going to ask again, even though by this time I don't friggin care, but WTF drug or drugs did they test positive for?

<TABLE class=tborder id=post3061122 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD class=alt2 width=175>cincy_<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> vbmenu_register("postmenu_3061122", true); </SCRIPT>
RX Senior



Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,524


</TD><TD class=alt1 id=td_post_3061122><!-- icon and title -->
<HR style="COLOR: #fdde82" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by doug stewart
CL,
OK, now I found something in your post that I doubt...

"The suspended tested positive for nothing-- at least initially when suspended"

...you show me the article or the link to the article where it says 9 spanish cyclists were suspended for a NEGATIVE drug test!
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

They were not supended for a drug test. They were suspended because they were in contact with a certain doctor.

It's like a police officer is suspended because he has dinner at the house of a bookie but the policeman doesn't know the guy is a bookie.
<!-- / message --></TD></TR><TR><TD class=alt2> </TD><TD class=alt1 align=right><!-- controls --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Exactly!

Now, maybe the 5 cyclists did know he was dirty-- or maybe not, but: the decision for those 5 was "exonerated FULLY".

I mean, we could go on ad nauseam about previous raids, arrests, cavity searches, questioning under duress the suspect + acquaintances & relatives...going back over a decade, not just recently mind you: MOST based on JUST a call from the sports body or event organizers to the police...

We can hold semantics over what we think happened / goes on, but no way should we even think of supporting all those draconian measures & obviously-biased character assasination conducted publicly through the press from the very folks that need to be impartial & not just uphold the law, but avoid any/all possible semblances of impropriety / conflict of interest.

That's why to me, most criticism of our justice system is way ridiculous.

<TABLE class=tborder id=post3061252 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD class=alt2 width=175>doug stewart<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> vbmenu_register("postmenu_3061252", true); </SCRIPT>
RX Member

Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 746


</TD><TD class=alt1 id=td_post_3061252><!-- icon and title -->
<HR style="COLOR: #fdde82" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by cincy_
They were not supended for a drug test. They were suspended because they were in contact with a certain doctor.

It's like a police officer is suspended because he has dinner at the house of a bookie but the policeman doesn't know the guy is a bookie.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Getting information out of you two (CL/cincy) is like pulling teeth. CL posted that 5 of 9 Spanish cyclists suspended were exonerated, so I asked what I thought was a logical question since this was a drug test positive thread, what drug were the Spanish players suspended for. CL answered, ""The suspended tested positive for nothing-- at least initially when suspended". I doubt this; you don't get suspended for a negative drug test. Still waiting for the article/link.
Now cincy enters the discussion and says they were not suspended for a drug test. OK, but even though I don't follow cycling, I'm going to go out on a limb and wager that they were given drug tests and we already know from CL's original post that 5 of the 9 were exonerated, so I'm going out further on that limb and bet that the 4 who were not exonerated had positive drug tests.
So I'm going to ask again, even though by this time I don't friggin care, but WTF drug or drugs did they test positive for?
<!-- / message --></TD></TR><TR><TD class=alt2> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>DS: You're trying to pull non-existent teeth!!
Why are you so willing to assume something AND then run with it? That's exactly what a lot of the press & authorities, as well as most of the public is doing!!! NOBODY has ever stated ANYWHERE that they failed ANY tests-- that would likely have resulted in arrests and/or banning from the sport(not just one of its events), at least initially. There is a blacklist of banned former officials & doctors because of past such improprieties/offenses that is precluded from any contact with athletes & being in the vicinity of any event- subject to arrest & incarceration...the riders were accused of having some kind of contact with such a person.

In other words, don't assign our system of justice to other countries-- most of the rest of the world-- including those who pride themselves on being civilized-- do not have our due process: based on somebody's word or anonymous phone call police can arrest/detain/ & question any/all possibly involved "as part of the investigative process to determine the likelihood of culpability, IF indictment / formal charging is warranted".

CL,
Still waiting for the article/link.

And are you accepting my wagers?
"Now cincy enters the discussion and says they were not suspended for a drug test. OK, but even though I don't follow cycling, I'm going to go out on a limb and wager that they were given drug tests and we already know from CL's original post that 5 of the 9 were exonerated, so I'm going out further on that limb and bet that the 4 who were not exonerated had positive drug tests."

2 posts, CL, and still no mention of what drug or drugs we're talking about. Why won't you answer this simple question?

CL,
I just noticed this...

"That's why to me, most criticism of our justice system is way ridiculous."

...evidently you haven't been following the DoJ-BOS case!