Tour de France 2006 - Ullrich won't start!

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

In theory, I agree. But the blame should fall entirely on the people doing the testing.

What is the point of having this system in place if they can't keep their mouths shut after the A sample tests positive? The damage is already done. Landis will forever be known as a cheat, regardless of guilt.

This is a 100% serious question, how often does the A sample not match the B sample? I'm not trying to be flippant, I'm actually curious if many people are actually found to be not guilty upon further review.

[cartman]

I wonder if they forgot to recalibrate the testosterone test to take into account that this year's winner has two testicles, as opposed to the winner of the previous 7 times.

[oliegirl]

Originally Posted by cartman

I wonder if they forgot to recalibrate the testosterone test to take into account that this year's winner has two testicles, as opposed to the winner of the previous 7 times.

LOL!

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Everything I've seen so far indicates that Tour officials had simply said an unidentified rider had a positive test. The story breaks out today because his team issued a statement saying Landis tested positive, and if the B sample is positive too he will be fired.

The fact that his team has come out clean with this suggests something very fishy to me. So far, there appears to be none of the Lance Defense being played ... I get the impression that his team seems to think he got caught.

Definately sounds like the team turned on him. Perhaps they know he'll fail the second test or he's made it clear he's leaving the team? Either way, it wasn't the officials' fault.

[Maple Leafs]

You just know that right now they're desperately flipping through pages of a medical encylopedia, looking for any drug that could theoretically cause a positive and also be appropriate for treatment of hip problems.

[kcchief19]

Sounds like a case for Dr. Nick.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Everything I've seen so far indicates that Tour officials had simply said an unidentified rider had a positive test. The story breaks out today because his team issued a statement saying Landis tested positive, and if the B sample is positive too he will be fired.

Exactly. Allthough, the wheel starting turning when other national associsations were quick to mention the rider wasn't one of them, narrowing the options down. And coincidentally Landis disappeared without notice to the show-race organizations he was going to attend the past days.

Originally Posted by kcchief19

The fact that his team has come out clean with this suggests something very fishy to me. So far, there appears to be none of the Lance Defense being played ... I get the impression that his team seems to think he got caught.

Take into account that Phonak has a precedent with past riders being proven guilty and it should be a bad sign about things to come.

There's also a problem in the fact that the cycling teams decided to sign a collective agreement to suspend any rider who is under investigations, so even if Landis would be found innocent, he'd still have been taken out of races. It happens 'all the time' in cycling the past two years, and, sadly, most of the time the riders are indeed founds guilty of 'cheating'.

Still, I'll live by the rule that people are innocent until proven guilty. And those who put the 'guilty' tag on someone after this first test are usually the same people who claim and try to prove that all cyclists are cheaters anyway. But you made a fair point, Jim, it's not supposed to get into the open.

[kcchief19]

You do have to love instant polls and some of the logic people come to. ESPN has jumped on the bandwagon -- 66 percent say Landis is guilty -- but here's my favorite question:

Would a positive test for Landis make you any more likely to believe allegations that Lance Armstrong used performance-enhancing drugs?

What does one necessarily have to do with the other? If I learn Barry Bonds used steroids, should I conclude that Babe Ruth used steroids too?

I guess there is a pretty strong correlation though -- 29.7 percent say yes to the above question, and 30.5 percent believe there is validity to the allegations against Armstrong. Once could infer that .8 percent believe Armstrong may have been doping but don't believe Landis getting caught means Armstrong was guilty. I think I have have found myself an extreme minority opinion!

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

This is a 100% serious question, how often does the A sample not match the B sample? I'm not trying to be flippant, I'm actually curious if many people are actually found to be not guilty upon further review.

I've read that, except in cases of tampering/mishandling, there have been zero instances where the B sample turned out clean after a dirty A.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I've read that, except in cases of tampering/mishandling, there have been zero instances where the B sample turned out clean after a dirty A.

Right but aren't those the exceptions that the B sample exists to find? I guess I'm wondering how often results are tampered/mishandled.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

If it's backed up with the B sample, he get what he deserves. And I have no problem with his team publicizing the test. He rides for them, gets paid by them, his teammates helped him win, and it will affect them with negative PR. They have every right to go public with it if they want.

[corbes]

What happens to the Tour de France if the allegations are true?

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by corbes

What happens to the Tour de France if the allegations are true?

Landis will be disqualified, meaning all his results from day 1 of this Tour will be nullified and all riders behind him will move a spot up.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Sounds like a case for Dr. Nick.

And he'll throw in a free juice loosener.

[Desnudo]

In all seriousness, I would be shocked if any of the top riders weren't cheating in some way. Unlucky for Landis to get caught if this is true.

[Anthony]

what a joke of a sport. why do any of these guys even bother trying to cheat?

i'm starting to think Lance used some substances more and more. his whole premise - coming back from the brink of death to be bigger, stronger, faster - highly doubtable.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

i'm starting to think Lance used some substances more and more. his whole premise - coming back from the brink of death to be bigger, stronger, faster - highly doubtable.

He was tested for substances about every other day during seven victorious editions of the Tour de France. if anybody was using and would have been caught, it would have to be Armstrong.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

He was tested for substances about every other day during seven editions of the Tour de France. if anybody was using and would have been caught using substances they test for, it would have to be Armstrong.

Sorry, but its a dirty sport.

The only way you can best a field of 100+ chemically enhanced athletes 7 years straight is to be chemically enhanced yourself.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

He was tested for substances about every other day during seven victorious editions of the Tour de France. if anybody was using and would have been caught, it would have to be Armstrong.

This argument assumes that you believe that current-day testing is likely to catch even a decent percentage of current-day cheaters.

Barry Bonds never failed a test. Marion Jones never failed a test. Ben Johnson was perhaps the most-doped athelete of all time, to the point that his eyes turned orange. He was passing tests for years until he got careless and failed one.

Sorry, "he never failed a test" isn't enough these days. Sad, and unfair to the clean atheletes, but still true.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

This argument assumes that you believe that current-day testing is likely to catch even a decent percentage of current-day cheaters.

Barry Bonds never failed a test. Marion Jones never failed a test. Ben Johnson was perhaps the most-doped athelete of all time, to the point that his eyes turned orange. He was passing tests for years until he got careless and failed one.

Sorry, "he never failed a test" isn't enough these days. Sad, and unfair to the clean atheletes, but still true.

Precisley. This is the "critical mass" problem with my earlier rant about concluding that Armstrong was juiced simply because Landis was juiced. I don't think that comparison is apt.

But if the comparison is the four guys who finished behind Armstrong and almost all of his main competitors tested positive, there Armstrong must be juiced, then I see the point. There is a "critical mass" greater than just one. I do find it hard to believe that with so many people cheating, one guy who wasn't cheating could so thoroughly dominate the competition.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I do find it hard to believe that with so many people cheating, one guy who wasn't cheating could so thoroughly dominate the competition.

In a previous thread, I think I compared Lance Armstrong to a virtual unknown showing up in baseball in 2002 and hitting 100 HRs in a season. It's unfortunate, but the sheer level of success alone adds up to a whole lot of circumstantial evidence.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Precisley. This is the "critical mass" problem with my earlier rant about concluding that Armstrong was juiced simply because Landis was juiced. I don't think that comparison is apt.

But if the comparison is the four guys who finished behind Armstrong and almost all of his main competitors tested positive, there Armstrong must be juiced, then I see the point. There is a "critical mass" greater than just one. I do find it hard to believe that with so many people cheating, one guy who wasn't cheating could so thoroughly dominate the competition.

unless of course, he was the Bionic Man and they didn't test for robotics in his system.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Sorry, but its a dirty sport.

The only way you can best a field of 100+ chemically enhanced athletes 7 years straight is to be chemically enhanced yourself.

Because of their reputation, people in cycling have gone overboard in testing and they are not hiding a positive-tested big name away from the public. Give me one other sport where every person active in the race is lifted from his bed at 5 am to 'donate' blood for testing purpose, and then again at 8 pm after they have done their job.

I'm not naive, when all the others say: you're stupid when you get caught, that's the smoke that shows where the fire is. But I'm born and raised in a world that proclaims innocent until proven guilty, yet sometimes, so people are stamped with a tag they get for what they do well, not for what they've done wrong.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

In a previous thread, I think I compared Lance Armstrong to a virtual unknown showing up in baseball in 2002 and hitting 100 HRs in a season. It's unfortunate, but the sheer level of success alone adds up to a whole lot of circumstantial evidence.

That doesn't make sense at all. Lance Armstrong was one of the best riders before he was taken out of competition recovering from cancer. A more fitting example is like a Michael Vick who starts playing running back and turns out being good at that too.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

That doesn't make sense at all. Lance Armstrong was one of the best riders before he was taken out of competition recovering from cancer. A more fitting example is like a Michael Vick who starts playing running back and turns out being good at that too.

"Virtual unknown" was pretty clumsy. Let's say a good player who had never won a HR title. Beyond that I don't think it's an unfair comparison.

[ZXTT]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

In a previous thread, I think I compared Lance Armstrong to a virtual unknown showing up in baseball in 2002 and hitting 100 HRs in a season. It's unfortunate, but the sheer level of success alone adds up to a whole lot of circumstantial evidence.

I don't know if he cheated or not, but he'd already won Tour de France stages, been been ranked #1 and won the World Cycling Championship before he was diagnosed with cancer. It appeared that he was improving, before things were derailed, and he certainly wasn't an unknown. I'd heard of him pre-cancer and I don't even follow cycling, as such.

[thealmighty]

A guy (supposedly their cycling expert) on ESPN radio said that Landis testosterone levels were below normal. He got caught for having an imbalance of illegal proportions in the two types of testosterone tested for. I have no idea what that infers, but that's what they said. Anyone else hear this or know about what it signifies?

(Pardon if this has been heard already.)

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by thealmighty

A guy (supposedly their cycling expert) on ESPN radio said that Landis testosterone levels were below normal. He got caught for having an imbalance of illegal proportions in the two types of testosterone tested for. I have no idea what that infers, but that's what they said. Anyone else hear this or know about what it signifies?

(Pardon if this has been heard already.)

Taken from the official statement from the team website:
The Phonak Cycling Team was notified yesterday by the UCI of an unusual level of Testosteron/Epitestosteron ratio in the test made on Floyd Landis after stage 17 of the Tour de France.

Now this is completely hypothetical, but it could be that what they found were traces of a masking device. Asuming the drug involved is testosteron, an overdose of epitestosteron could mask the use of the former, but could also result in an unusual ratio.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

In a previous thread, I think I compared Lance Armstrong to a virtual unknown showing up in baseball in 2002 and hitting 100 HRs in a season. It's unfortunate, but the sheer level of success alone adds up to a whole lot of circumstantial evidence.

I'm kind of with MIJB with this one. It's not like Armstrong came out of nowhere. He was an excellent cyclist before he had cancer. He just happened to have cancer and come back a better athlete and cyclist than he was before cancer. That's very rare.

I think a more apt comparison would be a former MVP who was 36 years old and seemingly past his prime showing up in 2001 and winning four straight MVP awards despite never testing positive for performance enhancers. Wait a minute ...

[AlexB]

Landis has said he was taking hormones for a thyroid problem, but in no way has cheated...

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

"Virtual unknown" was pretty clumsy. Let's say a good player who had never won a HR title. Beyond that I don't think it's an unfair comparison.

I still disagree, Armstrong was touted as a future multiple Tour winner before the cancer. And back in those days (1994-1996) when people said that, the competition for such statements was really slim.

I'm really not deep enough into baseball to make a good example through that sport, but if you want to stick with the 100 HR example, I guess that he was a guy who hit 40+ HR in his rookie season and had several multiple HR games in the following seasons.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

You just know that right now they're desperately flipping through pages of a medical encylopedia, looking for any drug that could theoretically cause a positive and also be appropriate for treatment of hip problems.

You ever do a jigsaw puzzle... and get a piece that looks like it will fit, but isn't quite perfect, and then you go through a little process of jiggling and pushing in an atempt to get the not-quite-perfect piece to fit...?

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

Landis has said he was taking hormones for a thyroid problem, but in no way has cheated...

Yeah, me too.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Yeah, me too.

You had a testosterone patch on your nutsack while playing the WSOP event? Well, that certainly puts things in a whole new light.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by cartman

You had a testosterone patch on your nutsack while playing the WSOP event? Well, that certainly puts things in a whole new light.

Didn't you read the report? They drank a lot of beer!

[amdaily]

I tested Floyd's whisky theory today. Had exactly 1 shot before bed, went cycling this morning and beat yesterdays time by 6 minutes and some odd seconds

[Glengoyne]

I believed Landis' ride in stage 17 was the stuff of legend. The next day I saw an interview with Levi Leipheimer. A paraphrase of his statement was "I don't know how Floyd recovered. Certainly none of the rest of us had. It was .... incredible" I sensed then that the other riders were viewing the effort skeptically, to say the least.

I'm curious to learn more about the specifics of the test, though honestly a failure is a failure.

My initial response to Leipheimer's remark was that Landis would have to be crazy to cheat and go for the stage win. All stage winners are automatically tested. I guess he was confident that he'd slip under the radar...either that or maybe he was just abstained from sex the night before for the first time in months.

[kcchief19]

Well this doesn't help ... so far Landis has come up with a flurry of possible reasons for the positive test:

- medicine for his thyroid condition
- cortisone shot for his degenerative vascular necrosis hip condition
- the bottle of Jack Daniels he had the night before stage 17
- and -- my personal favorite -- naturally high testosterone levels that did not show up in any previous tests

Brilliant. While initialing proclaiming that the B sample would clear him, he is now saying that the B sample will be positive as well, but he didn't cheat.

Another thing I like is that his defenders are saying that the positive testosterone test doesn't make any sense because it has nothing to do with endurance or strength, just recovery. Yet all the people who were flabbergasted at his comeback in stage 17 were amazed at how he was able to "recover" and perform so well when it looked like he was down and out the day before.

Sometimes people don't think their stories all the way to the end.

[Maple Leafs]

Reports say he's now blaming Miguel Tejeda.

[Eaglesfan27]

It was just some B12.

[hoopsguy]

A guy (supposedly their cycling expert) on ESPN radio said that Landis testosterone levels were below normal. He got caught for having an imbalance of illegal proportions in the two types of testosterone tested for. I have no idea what that infers, but that's what they said. Anyone else hear this or know about what it signifies?

Had not seen anyone reply to this, but I heard the same thing today on ESPN Radio.

What the interview subject was saying is that the testosterone level was normal, but the epi level was way low - thus the skewed ratio. And that this particular test is pretty dubious, has been challenged multiple times, and has never held up when challenged. I haven't heard anything about a masking agent producing lower levels of epitestosterone in any of the commentary up to this point.

I don't know whether this guy is a cheat or not, but if this test is not considered to be a good one based on previous challenges, then why do they keep rolling it out to these athletes?

[dacman]

I just love how a day after most media sources know better, they still say he tested positive for a "high level of testosterone" when that is factually incorrect. Far be it from the media to report the facts. /end rant

Anyway, the test can show doping because if you have a high level of testosterone, but a normal level of epi, you almost certainly doped. If your body does for some reason pump out extra testosterone, a higher level of epi is also to be expected (or so I've heard). They basically use the test to try to weed out those testees (**snicker**) who naturally have a high testosterone level.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Had not seen anyone reply to this, but I heard the same thing today on ESPN Radio.

What the interview subject was saying is that the testosterone level was normal, but the epi level was way low - thus the skewed ratio. And that this particular test is pretty dubious, has been challenged multiple times, and has never held up when challenged. I haven't heard anything about a masking agent producing lower levels of epitestosterone in any of the commentary up to this point.

I don't know whether this guy is a cheat or not, but if this test is not considered to be a good one based on previous challenges, then why do they keep rolling it out to these athletes?

I too have heard that it was indeed the ratio between testosterone and epitestosterone that was flagged. I haven't heard which was high, and which was low. Nor have I heard about how absolutely damning this test is. Other than the way in which all positive tests are damning.

I was in a restaurant yesterday, and saw Greg Lemond on ESPN extensively. I don't know what Greg was saying, but I imagine he was dancing on Floyd's grave.

[kcchief19]

I cannot find any source that corroborates the "below normal" level of epitestosterone. Everything I've seen suggests that that there was a normal level of epitestosterone and an above normal level of testosterone that exceeded the allowed 4:1 ratio.

The more you look at it, actually the more guilty Landis looks. If he did indeed have a naturally occurring above normal leve lf testosterone, he certainly would have tested positive for that in the past. And as dacman said, having a high level of tesosterone will not cause you to test positive; you can take testosterone and synthetic epitestosterone that will give you the benefits of high testosterone while mainting a normal 1:1 ratio. It appears as though it's a fairly routine thing to do.

Initial urine samples are not tested for synthetic epitestosterone, but this B sample supposedly will be. If that test is positive, you can bet he's guilty as hell. If the test is negative, we can conclude that either his high level of testosterone argument is true, or he doped and forgot to take the masking agent.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I was in a restaurant yesterday, and saw Greg Lemond on ESPN extensively. I don't know what Greg was saying, but I imagine he was dancing on Floyd's grave.

Yep.

Originally Posted by Greg LeMond

"I'm devastated and extremely disapointed," LeMond told AFP. "I can't imagine the disappointment for Floyd and his family. I really did believe Floyd was clean. The problem is the sport is corrupt and it corrupts everybody. I still believe it was one of the cleanest Tours ever. But is it 100-percent clean? No. You will always find riders who transgress the laws. I really did believe Floyd was not among them, that he was clean. Hopefully, he will be able to step up and tell the truth. But I'm encouraged by the UCI, the Tour organisers and labs who together are doing a great job against doping."

[Maple Leafs]

So just so we're all on the same page... we all agree that "I never failed a test" is an iron-clad defense, but even when atheletes fail drug tests, that's still not going to be enough for us? We're just going to decide the tests are faulty and the athelete must still be clean, as long as they say so?

Well, except for Barry Bonds and funny looking Europeans. Everyone else is OK?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

So just so we're all on the same page... we all agree that "I never failed a test" is an iron-clad defense, but even when atheletes fail drug tests, that's still not going to be enough for us? We're just going to decide the tests are faulty and the athelete must still be clean, as long as they say so?

Well, except for Barry Bonds and funny looking Europeans. Everyone else is OK?

Well I don't know about Iron clad, but I'm willing to wait before piling further condemnation on the guy until all of the results are in.

Sample B will likely show what sample A did. That is it will simply confirm the initial test. The deal is that the first test, the one indicating an abnormal ration of testosterone and epitestosterone, as I understand it, isn't entirely damning in itself. It essentially kickstarts an investigation. Namely, a second test that will determine if pharmaceutical testosterone compounds are present. If the samples contain man-made hormones, then his goose is cooked. If not, then he may have a legitimate case for appeal. Although the appeal road might also be tough for him because while the test can yield false positives, it usually only does so in people with a history of test yielding "unusual" T/E ratios.

[kcchief19]

The New York Times is reporting that the results are in ... and the test for synthetic testosterone is positive.

He's boned.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

The New York Times is reporting that the results are in ... and the test for synthetic testosterone is positive.

He's boned.

Maybe he got a bad massage too.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

The New York Times is reporting that the results are in ... and the test for synthetic testosterone is positive.

He's boned.

It sucks, but at the same time I'm sort of glad the test is conclusive rather than an ambiguous ratio. I wonder what his excuse will be now.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

It sucks, but at the same time I'm sort of glad the test is conclusive rather than an ambiguous ratio. I wonder what his excuse will be now.

Well, let's see. We can rule out the trainer rubbing clear. They've done the pills excuse. He's white so that's out. As mentioned, the massuer angle has been done. He can't blame on the heat. Blaming it on the Jews has been taken. What's left? I know, blame it on the Frenchies.