[bigjared]

First of all let me just say that all I know about this case is what the media has been putting out, but it seems to me that there is a major issue nobody has brought up!

Here are my thoughts, please correct me if I am wrong.

1) Floyd was tested before and after stage 17 and did not test positive for "synthetic testosterone".
2) Floyd tested positive for synthetic testosterone after stage 17.

Now heres what I don't get:

Synthetic testosterone = steroids right?

Well the shortest retention time of any steroid that I can find is 3-4 weeks, while most of them are upwards of 3-6 months. How is it possible for him to test clean the day before and the day after but somehow have steroids in his system on that one day only.

Steroids take days or even weeks to begin providing benefit's so I find it very hard to believe he injected on that one day when it wouldn't even help him. Even if he DID inject for just that one day it is impossible that all of the steroids would be out of his system a day later.

It makes no sense to me and I really wonder why Floyd is not using it in his defense.

[smug]

you'll probably find these inconsistencies in any doping matter, including marion jones'. don't lose any sleep.

[jimmypop]

It makes no sense to me and I really wonder why Floyd is not using it in his defense.

Because the anecdotal stuff does nothing to help disprove the empirical evidence of synthetic testosterone in his system.

[bigjared]

Because the anecdotal stuff does nothing to help disprove the empirical evidence of synthetic testosterone in his system.

Wouldn't the FACT that steroids stay in the system longer than a day, and the FACT that he tested clean before and after PROVE that the test was flawed on that day?

[ludwig]

Wouldn't the FACT that steroids stay in the system longer than a day, and the FACT that he tested clean before and after PROVE that the test was flawed on that day?

Well there's a lot of complicating factors, but one to keep in mind is that when they tested the B samples they found other samples (on other Tour stages) were also positive for T.

[frenchfry]

Floyd took testosterone.

Floyd tested positive for testosterone.

Floyd was found guilty of using testosterone and suspended.

End of story.

[Double R]

Floyd took testosterone.

Floyd tested positive for testosterone.

Floyd was found guilty of using testosterone and suspended.

End of story.

Heeey, that was fun, let us try an other one.

Hinault fled from the dopingtest

The french loved him anyway

Then the french couldn't win the Tour anymore

That made ASO furious

Since then they have won the last 22 world hipocracy championships

The never ending story

[vaunTrevi]

First of all let me just say that all I know about this case is what the media has been putting out, but it seems to me that there is a major issue nobody has brought up
It makes no sense to me and I really wonder why Floyd is not using it in his defense.

Makes me question the tests and testing procedures. Simple as that. its not as simple as going back to the earlier tests and finding that they could be positive also; which seems questionable to me at best.
Effective tests and procedure should be unquestionable and consistent. They would catch the offender and clear the innocent. The results should be duplicable at any laboratory. Of course, questioning the test or procedures or laboratory isn't considered a defense. A neat little package, no wonder that doping continues to be a problem...
On one side they claim that the tests/procedures work flawlessly and are beyond question, on the other hand, some claim the tests don't catch all the cheaters; and thus cheating is much more rampant than the statistics show... what the truth is, saving a confession is hard to tell... personally I'd like to have more certainty than this.

[Velo]

Heeey, that was fun, let us try an other one.

Hinault fled from the dopingtest

The french loved him anyway

Then the french couldn't win the Tour anymore

That made ASO furious

Since then they have won the last 22 world hipocracy championships

The never ending story

Never ending story is that French riders never test positive anymore while American, Spanish, German, and Italian riders continuously do. I don't think the hypocrisy lies with the French, as much as you'd like it to.

[smug]

Makes me question the tests and testing procedures. Simple as that. its not as simple as going back to the earlier tests and finding that they could be positive also; which seems questionable to me at best.
Effective tests and procedure should be unquestionable and consistent. They would catch the offender and clear the innocent. The results should be duplicable at any laboratory. Of course, questioning the test or procedures or laboratory isn't considered a defense. A neat little package, no wonder that doping continues to be a problem...
On one side they claim that the tests/procedures work flawlessly and are beyond question, on the other hand, some claim the tests don't catch all the cheaters; and thus cheating is much more rampant than the statistics show... what the truth is, saving a confession is hard to tell... personally I'd like to have more certainty than this.

the landis team has successfully turned molehills into mountains. congratulations.

[Veloflash]

First of all let me just say that all I know about this case is what the media has been putting out, but it seems to me that there is a major issue nobody has brought up!

Here are my thoughts, please correct me if I am wrong.

1) Floyd was tested before and after stage 17 and did not test positive for "synthetic testosterone".
2) Floyd tested positive for synthetic testosterone after stage 17.

Now heres what I don't get:

Synthetic testosterone = steroids right?

Well the shortest retention time of any steroid that I can find is 3-4 weeks, while most of them are upwards of 3-6 months. How is it possible for him to test clean the day before and the day after but somehow have steroids in his system on that one day only.

Steroids take days or even weeks to begin providing benefit's so I find it very hard to believe he injected on that one day when it wouldn't even help him. Even if he DID inject for just that one day it is impossible that all of the steroids would be out of his system a day later.

It makes no sense to me and I really wonder why Floyd is not using it in his defense.

Because the T/E ratio, the test to determine whether an expensive IRMS test is required to evidence the existence of synthetic testosterone, can be manipulated by the athlete.

[frenchfry]

Makes me question the tests and testing procedures. Simple as that. its not as simple as going back to the earlier tests and finding that they could be positive also; which seems questionable to me at best.
Effective tests and procedure should be unquestionable and consistent. They would catch the offender and clear the innocent. The results should be duplicable at any laboratory. Of course, questioning the test or procedures or laboratory isn't considered a defense. A neat little package, no wonder that doping continues to be a problem...
On one side they claim that the tests/procedures work flawlessly and are beyond question, on the other hand, some claim the tests don't catch all the cheaters; and thus cheating is much more rampant than the statistics show... what the truth is, saving a confession is hard to tell... personally I'd like to have more certainty than this.

Vaughn, I don't think anyone has said the tests work flawlessly, at least in the sense that they catch all dopers. It is all too clear that the current testing has a serious problem with false negatives. We only have to look at the numerous confessions to back this up, as most of those who confess have never tested positive despite a sporting lifetime of serious doping. Did you read Geneviève Jeanson's interview? She was afraid she would die her heart was pounding so hard. She finally tested positive, but only after years of year-long EPO consumption. Testing doesn't work, it doesn't stop doping effectively.

To say that doping testing should be stopped until we are certain that all dopers will be caught is NOT the solution. It is very difficult to clearly identify any false positives that have occurred, and in any case no justice system can guarantee 100% that there won't be isolated errors. To think otherwise is to live outside reality.

Floyd doped, he got caught, he has been sanctioned. Despite what you may think of the anti-doping establishment, Floyd got what he deserved. I really don't think anyone who is informed really believes he wasn't doping. Some might believe he should get off, but for other reasons than the one that counts. The only break he can get is that he was only one of many and most of the others didn't get caught.

[ludwig]

Because the T/E ratio, the test to determine whether an expensive IRMS test is required to evidence the existence of synthetic testosterone, can be manipulated by the athlete.

Am I right that they didn't perform the IRMS on Stage 17 until after they had the positive T/E ration result? So they didn't do an IRMS test on the other samples (ie from other Tour stages) until the testing of the B samples in March?

If that's the case then it would seem to explain the OP's question. In addition, it helps explain why an athlete would risk taking T, given the problems with the T/E ratio test (which the arbs apparently discarded in their decision).

This post has been edited by ludwig: 08 October 2007 - 07:39 PM

[bman]

<cut>
Here are my thoughts, please correct me if I am wrong.

1) Floyd was tested before and after stage 17 and did not test positive for "synthetic testosterone".
2) Floyd tested positive for synthetic testosterone after stage 17.
<cut>

Well he did make this one of the cornerstones of his defense. That T has not been documented as a performance enhancer when used as a one off dose or in traditional (ie high dose) administration. His expert witness (sorry forgot his name and am not going to look) was quite effective IMHO on that aspect, but it didn't really address the full scope of how T is/may be used in the context of an endurance event. Of course those that try to enforce the anti-doping regulations have no idea as well, so it again becomes one big soap opera in a courtroom (the ADA's favorite drama exercise). This has all been very hashed out on this forum. Here's the condensed oversimplified version (and in some spots oversimplified to the point of not technically accurate but I don't have pages to fully hash it all out).

There are two tests in cycling for exo-T. A screening and an IRMS carbon isotope test. They are both accurate but the T/E screening can be "worked" in order to pass in a few ways, esp. if you feel that low doses of T are beneficial.

The screening looks at ratios between both a ratio of T and epi-T and the overall values. So WRT these values either both amounts are very high compared to a normal population, or if the ratio of T to epi-T is high, then it's a good indication that the T came from exogenously. Then you fail the test and we go to the more expensive time consuming IRMS test.

Just a note: When you say that T stays in your system a long time, that's not fully accurate. Usually what stays in the system is the ester that T is combined with in order for T to be more effective/stable in dosing over a period of time. These esters are very easy to detect when you know what you are looking for. BALCO used esters that were modified enough such that they did not show up on normal ester screening, so you ended up "passing" the T tests. The IRMS test is more sensitive than these ester tests because it looks at the carbon isotope levels of the actual drug and was developed in part because athletes were using unknown esters with the T.

The IRMS is as accurate to 99% probability. I'm happy to stand by that statement. You have to be somewhat delusional or overly pedantic not to believe the IRMS tests.

So given these tests, if you think that T in low doses is effective, you can in essence take low doses and still pass all the screening test. Of course you wouldn't pass any of the IRMS tests, but you don't get to those anyway if you pass all the T/E tests. So in a Tour, levels of T go down based on duration of exercise, this is well studied. If you believe that replacing this T is beneficial, you can "pick up" with exo T administration when/where your body drops off. The problem with the T tests is that it screens for absolute advantage when in reality you only need comparative (to one another in a group) advantage. So the IRMS showed that exo T started sometime after the first week and continued to the end of the race. Somewhere in here I speculated what I though happened, but we will probably never know for sure.

[Ali]

Because the T/E ratio, the test to determine whether an expensive IRMS test is required to evidence the existence of synthetic testosterone, can be manipulated by the athlete.

Manipulated by the athlete, the labs, the media and every Tom, Dick and Harry here. A valid question has been asked and I'm not surprised that it is met with the usual stonewall tactic ... the results are what they are...ish.

bigjared, realise that you are not talking to dispassionate scientists here (if such beasts really exist). You are talking to individuals with their own agendas and egos. They'll say whatever it takes for them to win the arguement. That is the only truth of this discussion. The questions over this data are endless. Even one of the premier scientist/moderators here is questioning the repeatability of the results (although not to the extent that it could ever modify their opinion).

If you ask me to measure some physical parameter and I take a few measurements and I get the following results: 11; 4; 5; 6; 8; 2. What would you think about my ability to measure that parameter ?. You wouldn't have to be a scientist to realise that I can't measure for sh1t. But in this forum, I am treated with such respect that my bizarre spread of measurements is treated as the defacto standard. Somehow, it doesn't matter. People flock to explain away my inadequacies. It was because of this, or because of that. Let's just forget that the actual testosterone levels were below normal. That's a hell of a party trick for someone who is supposed to have been taking T. What a bummer to be caught out by his nonexistant ET levels and the eternal divide by zero trap !.

bigjared, keep asking your questions, but don't build up your hopes of having them answered (here)

[Kiwi]

Here are my thoughts, please correct me if I am wrong.

1) Floyd was tested before and after stage 17 and did not test positive for "synthetic testosterone".
2) Floyd tested positive for synthetic testosterone after stage 17.

If you judge the results of the B sample tests that were done in addition to his stage 17 positive to be accurate, he did in fact test positive before and after stage 17.

See here for the timeline:
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/colu...tory?id=2871865

[The Rake]

Since then they have won the last 22 world hipocracy championships

And sadly you failed to get through the first round repechage of the world spelling championships.....

[Ali]

If you judge the results of the B sample tests that were done in addition to his stage 17 positive to be accurate, he did in fact test positive before and after stage 17.

See here for the timeline:
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/colu...tory?id=2871865

Sheep.

[mwbyrd]

Manipulated by the athlete, the labs, the media and every Tom, Dick and Harry here. A valid question has been asked and I'm not surprised that it is met with the usual stonewall tactic ... the results are what they are...ish.

bigjared, realise that you are not talking to dispassionate scientists here (if such beasts really exist). You are talking to individuals with their own agendas and egos. They'll say whatever it takes for them to win the arguement. That is the only truth of this discussion. The questions over this data are endless. Even one of the premier scientist/moderators here is questioning the repeatability of the results (although not to the extent that it could ever modify their opinion).

If you ask me to measure some physical parameter and I take a few measurements and I get the following results: 11; 4; 5; 6; 8; 2. What would you think about my ability to measure that parameter ?. You wouldn't have to be a scientist to realise that I can't measure for sh1t. But in this forum, I am treated with such respect that my bizarre spread of measurements is treated as the defacto standard. Somehow, it doesn't matter. People flock to explain away my inadequacies. It was because of this, or because of that. Let's just forget that the actual testosterone levels were below normal. That's a hell of a party trick for someone who is supposed to have been taking T. What a bummer to be caught out by his nonexistant ET levels and the eternal divide by zero trap !.

bigjared, keep asking your questions, but don't build up your hopes of having them answered (here)

Well said Ali!

(How long before RH sees your post and deletes it?)

If you judge the results of the B sample tests that were done in addition to his stage 17 positive to be accurate, he did in fact test positive before and after stage 17.

See here for the timeline:
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/colu...tory?id=2871865

Yeah, all the talk about the 'other' B samples and the arbs didn't even recognize them in their decisions which means the results mean nothing. Oh yeah, Floyd passed the T/E test for the 'other' samples so they were never tested. The arbs decided that the T/E test for Stage 17 wasn't done correctly which means the IRMS test should have never been attempted which means we shouldn't have wasted a year talking about Floyd.

Floyd got SCREWED by a process that can't follow it's own rules!

[D-Queued]

Manipulated by...

If you ask me to measure some physical parameter and I take a few measurements and I get the following results: 11; 4; 5; 6; 8; 2. What would you think about my ability to measure that parameter ?.

...

If the 'some physical parameter' you were measuring was impurity levels at a ppb level in Silicon, then I would be extremely impressed. I would even be impressed if these measurements were just at the ppm level. You could sell your Silicon and be a very rich man if that was your measuring accuracy. Given that there is an enormous demand for purified Silicon that can be validated with that kind of measuring accuracy, then you should be thrilled by what you actually measured.

In other words, your example lacks any relevance to anything. I think your ability to come up with a good example let alone a relevant example is highly suspect.

Since you clearly have no direct insight on the measurements taken, nor how they were taken, let alone what they mean, then the manipulation here is of your own device.

Dave.