Dickie is a lawyer he could read all the tests available that doesn't mean he knows $hit about what they say or how they are performed and the validity of them.
Go have another pint you lush.
Lets remember too he fought to protect that cheating canadian sprinter years back and then once the guy admits to taking drugs Dick made no big deal about it...see the article above.
Nice xenophobic response milefan.
JCsdkfjhlas wrote:
I have one answer to both questions. This has been discussed ad nauseum on other threads by the way.
Testosterone occurs naturally in your body. There is a natural ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone. When you take synthetic testosterone this is known to increase the ratio of Testosterone to epitestosterone not necessarily the absolute amount of testosterone.
Scientists have analyzed a wide spectrum of human beings. They have determined a mean and standard deviation for this ratio. To be safe they have placed the threshold of a postive drug test well beyond what is humanly possible. The only way to surpass this level is to be taking supplemtary testosterone i.e. doping.
So the only way to test positive is to be doping. That does not mean that you will get caught if you are doping. In fact you could double, triple, even quadruple the ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone in many cases and still fall below the cutoff that would raise suspition.
Only once the sample tested positive did they do the extemely expensive isotope ratio mass spec. analysis (measures the weights of individual atoms) to determine that there is testosterone in the urine sample which could not have been made by the human body. The molecule is identical in composition ie Carbon connected to carbons but the number of neutrons in the syntheic sample are different!
Conclusion: The evidence is overwhelming. The science is sound. The only way for Floyd to get off the hook is to get his lawyers to cause a circus, muddy the issue up, and divert attention from the actual tests.
I hope this answers to you why thershold testing can produce many false negatives and zero false positives.
You mentioned that they determined the ratio from a "wide spectrum of human beings". Doesn't that create a problem since athletes are a different population compared to your average couch potato? I would have to say that years of training would adapt an individual to have a greater ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone since training is meant to have an anabolic response.
Also, you talk about the isotope mass spec results, but that test a qualitative test for C13 and C12. Everyone forgets that Landis did take a cortisone shot, which is synthetic and has a similar structure to testosterone. As a chemist, do you think that could have explained the postive results?(I really don't know the answer to this)
Testing for doping must be done, but it must be done in a proper manner. From what I hear about these labs trying to cover up mistakes, how can we trust any results?
Once an individual has tested postive, there must be a proper procedure where the accused has an avenue to give a defense. Having the head of WADA leak unconfirmed results defeats this purpose. How can we trust WADA when they can't follow their own protocols?
i thought it was only the stage winner and overall winner who were tested every day. anyone know how expensive it would be to take urine samples from every rider every day at the tour? not to test all of them; just to have them available for testing if necessary. for example, you could test all 20+ samples of the eventual guys on the podium rather than just the leaders of the race.
for the dick pound defender you make a good argument for dick pound's virtues as an anti-drug crusader, BUT he has a different responsibility as an official in a prosecutorial role with access to evidence that is not admissible/conclusive. evidence is determined to be not admissible/conclusive for a reason, in advance, by knowledgeable, informed people. for examples of proper prosecutorial behavior take a look at fitzgerald, the plame leak prosecutor. when you find out information that is confidential as part of your job, it is inappropriate to publicly broadcast that information (before it is properly revealed).
i'm very much in the anti-doping camp. i just think that pound's behavior is counterproductive. he seems to be in it more for self-aggrandizement and to satisfy personal grudges. if he would simply do his job quietly and well he'd have my full support. instead he writes moronic op-eds and gets away with it.
I agree Katainen that there have been numerous protocol breaches in WADA's testing and particularly its result notification process. There have been too many leaks for there not to be an unofficial leak policy with or without Pound's tacit approval.
That said I am more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in this. His only agenda appears to be the outing of known drug cheats. If the lengthy double blind protocols give the drug cheats time to assemble their million dollar lawers and PR gurus and muddy the waters, then leaking the results at an opportune time to turn the tables is OK in my books...provided of course they are indeed guilty.
Remember Pound has access to ALL the test results, positive and negative. He has seen all the guys who have come in with testosterone ratios at 5.9/1 when the acceptable limit was 6/1 and watched those same guys consistently come in at 3.9/1 when the threshold was lowered to 4/1. He has all the background info, mountains of "negative" test results that point to a pattern of obvious doping. He knows that most thresholds are set inhumanely high levels to avoid any possibilities of a false positive and he sees the same athletes come in at just under those limits time and time again. He KNOWS they are doping.
Paddytheirishman wrote:
I agree Katainen that there have been numerous protocol breaches in WADA's testing and particularly its result notification process. There have been too many leaks for there not to be an unofficial leak policy with or without Pound's tacit approval.
That said I am more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in this. His only agenda appears to be the outing of known drug cheats. If the lengthy double blind protocols give the drug cheats time to assemble their million dollar lawers and PR gurus and muddy the waters, then leaking the results at an opportune time to turn the tables is OK in my books...provided of course they are indeed guilty.
Remember Pound has access to ALL the test results, positive and negative. He has seen all the guys who have come in with testosterone ratios at 5.9/1 when the acceptable limit was 6/1 and watched those same guys consistently come in at 3.9/1 when the threshold was lowered to 4/1. He has all the background info, mountains of "negative" test results that point to a pattern of obvious doping. He knows that most thresholds are set inhumanely high levels to avoid any possibilities of a false positive and he sees the same athletes come in at just under those limits time and time again. He KNOWS they are doping.
I guess he also knew about doping when declared that Ben Johnson was innocent. I am getting sick and tired of everyone saying that he is a great crusader against doping when all he does is makes unsubstantiated comments about who is doping. The only thing Dick Pound cares about is Dick Pound. Ever since he was passed over as the IOC presidents, he has been a bitter man.
If he wanted to be an anti-doping hero, he should follow his own rules.
Milefan I was trying to get you to do some research of your own. Look on google.
Don't be a victim of the "I heard..." sydrome.
I heard the KKK owns Snapple.
I heard if you swallow gum it stays in your stomach for 7 years.
I heard Mountain dew makes your testicles shrink.
I heard Floyd Landis is innocent.
Please find for me whether Floyd was tested the day after he tested positive.
After every stage of the Tour de France, the yellow jersey, stage winner, and two random riders[29] are tested for testosterone. As such, Landis would have been tested several other times. He has only been reported as failing the test following the 17th stage, which argues against a naturally high T/E ratio.
29^ Macur, Juliet, "Tour champ suspended after testing positive", 2006-07-28. Retrieved on 2006-08-01.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/28/sports/web.0728bike.php
The misinformation spouted on this board is ridiculous. The American culture of "talking points" is ruining many people's capacity to have a productive debate.
here is what I was referring to, you f***ing twit.
milefan wrote:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/cycling/news/2001/04/05/tour_doping/here is what I was referring to, you f***ing twit.
i don't know if you are right or wrong, and i've already posted my understanding of the number of riders tested and my ideas about what i think they should test going forward. however, you shouldn't use such forceful language when citing to an article that is over 5 years old.
For all you Pound apologist consider this:
WADA is actively looking to get the authority to ban athletes that do NOT test positive for drugs. Under this plan, any athlete that is reasonably suspected of drug (i.e., Bonds) would be banned for two years.
How do you defend yourself against this?
In Dick's world all the elite athletes of the world would line up and King Dick would walk down the line ocassionaly giving thumbs down to those he believes are dopers. And their gone.
And it does not stop here. WADA needs 30 countries to sign onto a treaty that would make their rules enforceable by law. Only 15 have so far. Under this plan, you'd have jail time for failing a WADA test.
But it doesn't stop with sports. WADA would then hold itself out as the drug tester of the world. So when you go for a job application, and you test positive, WADA wouldn't tell you, they would just have the cops arrest you. No need to defend yourself, just start serving jail time.
Paddytheirishman wrote:
Remember Pound has access to ALL the test results, positive and negative. He has seen all the guys who have come in with testosterone ratios at 5.9/1 when the acceptable limit was 6/1 and watched those same guys consistently come in at 3.9/1 when the threshold was lowered to 4/1. He has all the background info, mountains of "negative" test results that point to a pattern of obvious doping. He knows that most thresholds are set inhumanely high levels to avoid any possibilities of a false positive and he sees the same athletes come in at just under those limits time and time again. He KNOWS they are doping.
Testing at 3.9 is not illegal or immoral. So why is he persecurating inncoent athletes?
Paddytheirishman wrote:
Remember Pound has access to ALL the test results, positive and negative. He has seen all the guys who have come in with testosterone ratios at 5.9/1 when the acceptable limit was 6/1 and watched those same guys consistently come in at 3.9/1 when the threshold was lowered to 4/1. He has all the background info, mountains of "negative" test results that point to a pattern of obvious doping. He knows that most thresholds are set inhumanely high levels to avoid any possibilities of a false positive and he sees the same athletes come in at just under those limits time and time again. He KNOWS they are doping.
4 to 1 is not inhumanely high. Power lifters have been known to test as high as 400 to 1.
Not A Doctor wrote:
4 to 1 is not inhumanely high. Power lifters have been known to test as high as 400 to 1.
WHAT? are you really claiming that a person can have a 400/1 testosterone epitestosterone ratio and not be on roids?????
A normal ratio is 2-3/1. You start hitting abnormal at 4/1, 6/1 is pretty out there.
400/1 is a walking talking testicle.
It is recommended that a urine Sample in which any one of the following criteria is met during the
Screening Procedure, be routinely submitted to the IRMS analysis:
i) T/E value equal or greater than 4;
ii) concentration of testosterone or epitestosterone (equivalent to the glucuronide) greater than
200 ng/mL1;
iii) concentration of androsterone or etiocholanolone (equivalent to the glucuronide) greater than
10,000 ng/mL1;
iv) concentration of DHEA (equivalent to the glucuronide) greater than 100 ng/mL1.
It is recognised that other parameters may justify a need for IRMS study and the reason should be
documented.
Any result that will be used to support an Adverse Analytical Finding shall be confirmed and
quantified.
Confirmation of elevated T/E values, concentration of testosterone, epitestosterone or any other
steroid metabolite under consideration is to be performed in triplicate. The confirmation of the
identity of any steroid reported with abnormal properties must be made (refer to technical
document TD2003IDCR). Appropriate calibration (e.g. calibration curve, deuterated standards,
quality control samples) is to be included in the protocol of the Confirmation Procedure.
Confirmed elevated concentration of steroids will be reported as such together with the value
adjusted for the specific gravity of the urine Sample using the following formula:
Concentration1.020 ng/mL = (1.020 – 1) / (Specific gravity of the Sample– 1) • Concentration measured
ng/mL
The urine Sample is not collected under sterile conditions, and where the circumstances are
favourable, the microbes present in the Sample can cause changes to the profile of the urinary
steroids. Initially there is cleavage of the glucuronides and sulfates followed by modifications of
the steroids’ structure by oxido-reductive reactions. To report an Adverse Analytical Finding of an
elevated T/E value, testosterone or epitestosterone concentration or any other endogenous steroid
parameters, the concentration of free testosterone and/or epitestosterone in the specimen is not to
exceed 5% of the respective glucuroconjugates. Elevated amounts of 5a- and 5ß-androstan-3,17-
dione in the free form also indicate microbial degradation.
One more piece of science for you. For every molecule of testosterone produced the human body produces an equal number of epitestosterone molecules. A normal ratio is therefore 1/1. If the ratio is high on testosterone it is an indicator that synthetic testosterone has been added to the body.
It is known however that atletes metabolize these substances at differing rates than the average person so WADA accept a 4/1 ratio as being within acceptable boundaries. This is a very generous amount of leeway and anyone who comes close to 4/1 is probably using steroids.
6/1 is 99% certain that they are on roids, 400/1 they are probably dead. Where did you get that figure?
Paddytheirishman wrote:
6/1 is 99% certain that they are on roids, 400/1 they are probably dead. Where did you get that figure?
USA Powerlifting Online, Suspension List from 2002:
http://www.usapowerlifting.com/newsletter/19/medical/medical.htmlAl Dawson: Nandrolone, Methandienone, Oxymetholone,T/E Ratio 181.1
Greg Zoeller: Methandienone, Oxymetholone, T/E Ratio 408.0
Patrick Gratton Missouri T/E Ratio 74.7
Karen C Phillips Virginia Nandrolone, Methandienone,T/E ratio 126.4
Not A Doctor wrote:
USA Powerlifting Online, Suspension List from 2002:
http://www.usapowerlifting.com/newsletter/19/medical/medical.htmlKaren C Phillips Virginia Nandrolone, Methandienone,T/E ratio 126.4
Wow, a woman powerlifter with 123 times the normal amount of testosterone coursing through her system.
Maybe she can be first prize in Dyestat's "win a prom date" contest
Not a doctor. You and I differ in opinion n whether 3.9 is not illegal or immoral. If you are naturally 1:1 and you take testosterone to get to 3.9 what you are doing is both illegal and immoral. You are cheating. Are you going to get caught? No. Does that make it ok? In my opinion, No.
Paddytheirish. When you say 99% I think you are misleading. What you really mean is 99.99999...%. Think about it athletes are exceptional people. They are 1 in a million (maybe billion). There are on the order of 100 athletes in the race. That makes 1 of them 1%. However I think they have set the doping threshold so high that it is impossible to find a healthy person capable of cycling who has a ratio above 6:1 ON EARTH.
Finally to the guy who posted the SI link from 2001. Are you kidding? Read the article. It also says the samples are to be flown to a lab in Lausanne Switzerland. I guess we can turn our attention away from that French lab everyone thought they were using too can't we? Or maybe your information is ridiculously out of date and the policy has changed.
This is what Landis says the doping procedure is (taken from Larry King Live Transcript
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0607/28/lkl.01.html
"KING: Now tell me about the testing process. Do they test you right after? When does the test take place?
LANDIS: The way it works is they test three people each day. They test the winner of each stage. They test the leader of the race. And then they test a random person in a race. All of these take place directly at the finish line. It turns out the leader of the race has often things to do at the podium and awards but immediately after that, so within half an hour I would say maximum."
When you swear at someone and are clearly wrong it undermines your credibility. Maybe you and Dick Pound could learn this lesson.
I would like to make a request. Post your opinion as much as you want but don't pass things off things as fact unles you can back it up.
Not A Doctor wrote:
USA Powerlifting Online, Suspension List from 2002:
http://www.usapowerlifting.com/newsletter/19/medical/medical.htmlAl Dawson: Nandrolone, Methandienone, Oxymetholone,T/E Ratio 181.1
Greg Zoeller: Methandienone, Oxymetholone, T/E Ratio 408.0
Patrick Gratton Missouri T/E Ratio 74.7
Karen C Phillips Virginia Nandrolone, Methandienone,T/E ratio 126.4
Question, is their a point where too much testosterone is no longer effective or even counter-productive? AS with most things, more is not better forever. At what T/E ratio does the effect stop working?