[Phanekim]

[ QUOTE ]
So, for clarity, this is a second ratio. The first ratio is the t:e ratio, which measures testosterone vs epitestosterone (the biproduct of testosterone use by the body), and the "synthetic" test determines a ratio between the different kinds of carbon in the testosterone. For those just tuning in, either natural testosterone doesn't have one of these carbons or has it in very small amounts, and synthetic testosterone has larger amounts of whichever the naughty carbon is

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, i believe that its not a trace test. Its a ratio test. Normally you still have both "isotopes". The only difference here between c12 and c13 is a nuetron. You have both. Its just in exogenous testosterone you have more c12 and thus would effect the ratio.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not getting where you're getting this from. My understanding at this point is that, reliable or not, these isotope tests (that's the difference between the various carbons, right, and cromotography is the method?) have been accepted by the cycling authorities and WADA and so he's stuck, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

because you are getting ratio, you must separate the c12 from the c13 to get your ratio. This is done by running a substanc that will attract more c12 than c13 thus separating them so you can get your ratio. As you can see, it depends greatly on the scientists running the experiment. So, lets say that normal ratio is 10:1. sample a is 25:1 and sample b is 15:1. Differences like this can descredit such a "highly accurate" test.

Also, with this test run on other samples...what if landis is naturally at 15:1....this would lend credence to his innocence.

Again, this is a ratio test. There are higher levels of c12 compared to c13...not the fact that the existence of c12 would indicate synthetic testosterone. the vegetable derived testosterone would merely sway the ratio.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure that he wasn't tested after stage 16, though your point about a post-stage-18 test is a valid one. I am unsure. The old trick with EPO was to hydrate yourself with an IV to lower your hemocrit, but you would probably know better than I would if something like that is available as an easy "flush".


[/ QUOTE ]

The point is this....with any drug...there will be remainders left a few days afterwards. Very few drugs/hormones or whatever simply just get out of your system in one day. Lets say you take aspirin on stage 17...your levels of aspirin would be high when tested. On stage 18 and 19 there would be traces of that aspirin left. Now, if the after tests show no traces, it would only serve to show that there is a good chance that stage 17 test was an anomaly.

The EPO thing you mentioned is quite simply to increase your blood volume. Red blood cells are created by epo and are in the blood. when someone takes epo they have higher rbc concentration. Now to increase the water, would increase blood and lower the ratio of rbc in the blood. If you ask me that wouldn't work. Also, the EPO test is antigen based. Its so specific you can't argue it. antigens are used in vaccines in such. A polio vaccine is specific for polio...here's just no way around it.


[ QUOTE ]

I have not personally seen any specific numbers (not that I'd be able to interpret them anyway, I'd have to rely on secondary sources) reporting his actual levels. I've only seen the ratios.

[/ QUOTE ]

low testosterone. This is the active ingredient. now if you look at the early samples and the after samples...if he has normal testosterone levels and this sample has low testosterone levels, this can lead to some conclusions. First, the sample is contaminated. Second, even it wasn't contaminated, he still isn't cheating....There isn't an elevated testosterone level. It just means there's no testosterone in his body..which means there's no doping of testosterone. You can't accuse someone of using steriods if there's no steroids in his body in a sense.

Well, I can disagree with these points, at least for the sake of argument, but I am not happy about doing it. I too, in my heart of hearts, still don't want to believe that he cheated, and I am actually troubled by why I don't want to believe the evidence that's out there. I feel like I'm in denial or something.

[ QUOTE ]
It's hard to know about the possible recklessness of using a patch. Landis needed a huge ride the next day, everyone knew it, and if this is something that riders semi-routinely use, the risk of detection might've been quite small. His hip presents another incentive imo: who knows what he will be after a hip replacement; any minor complication and his career could be over. Win or lose this year, this has to have been his best chance to win, with many of the favourites gone, etc. This truly was the chance that comes once in a lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]

hip is not a problem because cycling is a low impact sport. swimming is probably one of the few sports that come lower impact than cycling. This quite simply means he suffers no trauma. Take basketball...a knee injury is devastating because of the high impact jumping involved in basketball. The contstantquick trauma the body is involved in basketball is tremendous. Now, take cycling, it is a low impact sport...you dont' have quick sudden impacts. His hip would not be in trouble.

another point is this, landis had about a 1/100 shot of even doing damage on that stage. thats why it was so surprising that he won it. So you mean to tell me he would do something careless and easily detectable for a 1/100 shot? cmon...lets get serious. he was 10 minutes down outside the top 10. There were several teams that coulda chased him down over...um...all these cat 1 and hc climbs. the attack was considered suicide. SO he would risk 2 year suspension and his good name for a 1/100 shot? cmon...just doesn't add up. He's young and could easily come back next year.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, and I hope that you are right and that he is innocent. My position has changed over the past couple of weeks, and after somewhat embarassing myself in front of friends arguing his innocence, the second "synthetic" results came out and I now believe that he is guilty. But it is an argument that I would be happy to lose. My own feeling is that the explanations for his innocence don't work for me. 1) someone set him up seems somewhat silly and 2) I just can't buy that he was so extremely unlucky as to not only test positive for the bad t:e ratio (whether the t:e test is accurate or useful or not, it's the first and only time he had a bad ratio, and that's quite unlucky that it came on that day) and then be so unlucky as to get a false positive on the "synthetic" test (as far as I understand, there is no particular reason that a high t:e ratio would be more likely to produce a bad "synthetic" ratio) for the same sample. I just can't buy it, no matter how badly I would like to.

I do hope that you turn out to be right, and I also hope that, no matter how it comes out, people can at some point understand how incredible what he did this year was and, even if he were guilty, how little a part of that was played by drugs.

[/ QUOTE ]

His reputation is tarnished no matter what. He would have to win 2-3 more tdfs for it to be cleared. I also think he needs to find a PR person that is decent...his PR has been crap for lack of better word. THere is completely damaging evidence against basso/ullrich which is cheating at the worst level...blood transfusions and such and they have just merely shut up. landis shoulda just shut up. now his words are being used against him.

on a lighter note, levi is only 24 secs behind voigt in tour of germany with the ITT coming up