Landis fails drug test - or do drugs tests fail Landis?

andyandy

anthropomorphic ape
andyandy
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Messages
8,377
this particular test looks at the testosterone/epitestosterone ratio - and then compares it to "norms" to decide whether or not someone has used drugs....

but surely for elite atheletes, doesn't the simple fact that they are elite mean that they may be benefiting from extraordinary biological systems? How can such tests, which measure against norms be conclusive?
(to what deviation from the mean would be regarded as a suspicious - 3 standard deviations, 4? more?)

Just four days after riding triumphantly through the streets of Paris, Tour de France winner Floyd Landis has been implicated in the latest drugs scandal to hit cycling, after testing positive for testosterone.
Landis's test came following his incredible victory in stage 17, when - a day after losing eight minutes to the leaders after bonking during the final climb up the La Toussuire les Sybelles - he broke away from the peleton in the Alps to put himself back in the running.

"The Phonak cycling team was notified yesterday by the UCI [cycling's governing body] of an unusual level of testosterone/epitestosterone ratio in the test made on Floyd Landis after stage 17 of the Tour de France," said Phonak in a statement. "The team management and the rider were both totally surprised of this physiological result."
Click to expand...
http://sport.guardian.co.uk/tourdefrance2006/story/0,,1831777,00.html
some info on the T/E ratio.....
Testosterone, which is a natural hormone in humans, is a prohibited substance, but only on condition that the ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone exceeds the range of values normally found in humans and is not consistent with normal endogenous production. The upper limit of this ratio has been 6:1. The sample will, however, not be regarded as positive for testosterone when an athlete proves by clear and convincing evidence that the abnormal ratio or concentration is attributable to a pathological or physiological condition.2

In the Mary Slaney-Decker Case (1999) this ratio was between 9.5:1 and 11.6:1. The IAAF Arbitration Panel had no doubt that such a ratio exceeded the range of values normally found in humans. The Panel referred to scientific studies according to which many thousands of tests on athletes had shown very few ratios higher than 6:1. The Panel also noted that the ratios of the samples of Mary Slaney-Decker taken in previous years had ranged between 0.6:1 and 3.0:1. Because Slaney-Decker failed to establish clear and convincing evidence that her abnormal testosterone/epitestosterone ratio was attributable to pathological or physiological conditions, she was deemed to have committed a doping offence and was declared ineligible.
Click to expand...
http://www.blues.uab.es/olympic.studies/doping/tarasti.htm

and according to this site, the 6;1 ratio has been exceeded naturally (i assume rarely) in the past.....

The ratio of the concentration of testosterone glucuronide to the concentration of epitestosterone glucuronide (T/E ratio) as determined in urine is the most frequently used method to prove testosterone abuse by athletes. A T/E ratio higher than 6 has been considered as proof of abuse in the past; however, cases of naturally occurring higher T/E ratios have been described. Since the introduction of the T/E ratio in doping analysis, the parameters that may or may not influence the T/E ratio, possibly leading to false-positive results, have been debated.
Click to expand...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10732948&dopt=Abstract

so could landis be a victim of doping inaccuracies - or is he a dirty drugs cheat?

*nb i've actually no interest in cycling - but it's an interesting topic nonetheless....
 
Last edited:
I don't know about testosterone, but I know that when it comes to EPO testing, they first establish the norm for the particular athlete through a series of tests over a few weeks, and then have this ready in a database. Some cross-country skiers, for example, are known to constantly have a higher EPO level than is ordinary. This is why a high EPO level in itself won't get you thrown out for two years.

But if it's past a certain point, you will be denied starting on that particular day for health reasons.

Anyway, that was EPO, and I should think that something similar would be done with the testosterone tests... Though I admit I do not actually -know- this.
 
Hawk one said:
I don't know about testosterone, but I know that when it comes to EPO testing, they first establish the norm for the particular athlete through a series of tests over a few weeks, and then have this ready in a database. Some cross-country skiers, for example, are known to constantly have a higher EPO level than is ordinary. This is why a high EPO level in itself won't get you thrown out for two years.

But if it's past a certain point, you will be denied starting on that particular day for health reasons.

Anyway, that was EPO, and I should think that something similar would be done with the testosterone tests... Though I admit I do not actually -know- this.
Click to expand...

yeah...that would certainly make sense....it would remove the potential excuse of "but my T/E ratio is naturally high...." maybe that's what they do.....
 
Most, if not all, of the cyclist at that level take some form or another of "medication" to help them perform. Anyway, let's just wait until this is all confirmed before we condemn the guy.
 
andyandy said:
and according to this site, the 6;1 ratio has been exceeded naturally (i assume rarely) in the past.....
Click to expand...


There is an appeals process where he could claim that is what happened.
 
sounds like it could take a while to resolve....

The test is a complex one, because testosterone is naturally occurring. The ratio of the hormone to its shadow epitestosterone is measured and if it is over six-to-one, then the hormone is assumed to have been artificially administered. Appeals are sometimes accepted on the grounds that the cyclist has a naturally high level, or that the ratio is due to a medical condition, or occurred naturally.

This means it is highly likely that the Landis test will become a lengthy saga such as Tyler Hamilton's positive for blood doping, which took 17 months to confirm. The ICU is currently dealing with a disputed testosterone positive for the Spaniard Inigo Landaluze, who competed in this year's Tour. In the past, the Colombian Santiago Botero, king of the mountains in the 2000 Tour, is the biggest name to have fought a testosterone positive, and he won his case on medical grounds.
Click to expand...
http://sport.guardian.co.uk/tourdefrance2006/story/0,,1832060,00.html
 
Stage winners are automatically tested. I feel and hope that if Landis had intentionally doped on Testosterone he would have known he'd be tested and caught had he won the stage.
Which he did.
So he wouldn't have.
Follow?

Testosterone is a naturally human hormone so it is possible that the trials and tribulations of his crash and burn the day before, overnight rehydration, and anger during the stage itself (remember the uncharactaristic fist at the finish line) produced a high level of testosterone in his body.

Or he could have been doped unknowingly, but again, my (twisted) logic in the first para would apply to anyone in his team management too.

I'm hoping its a test cock-up and test 2 comes out clean.

And if that's the case I'm also hoping the press and the mob believe it too.
 
It's a very weak argument that people wouldn't cheat because they know they are going to be tested. If this was worked then we wouldn't have all these drug takers in sport.

They time and mask their useage to get around the tests. Sometimes they get it wrong.

BTW, I was under the impression that long distance endurance training causes a drop in testosterone which makes a big result like that very suspicious.
 
Hypothetical question:

Rider A has a naturally-occurring testosterone to epitestosterone ratio of 9:1. Rider B has a naturally-occurring testosterone to epitestosterone ratio of 2:1. At the end of a race, both riders are tested and show a testosterone to epitestosterone ratio of 9:1. Rider B is disqualified. Rider A is not disqualified.

Questions: 1. Is a high testosterone to epitestosterone ratio really beneficial to performance? 2. If so, why should riders be penalized for bringing their testosterone to epitestosterone ratio up to the same level as naturally occurs in a competitor?
 
Splossy said:
It's a very weak argument that people wouldn't cheat because they know they are going to be tested. If this was worked then we wouldn't have all these drug takers in sport.

They time and mask their useage to get around the tests. Sometimes they get it wrong.

BTW, I was under the impression that long distance endurance training causes a drop in testosterone which makes a big result like that very suspicious.
Click to expand...

The test is on the ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone, not an overall level of testosterone - at least that is my understanding from here:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...de_france/2006/07/27/landis.doping/index.html

"Under World Anti-Doping Agency regulations, a ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone greater than 4:1 is considered a positive result and subject to investigation. The threshold was recently lowered from 6:1. The most likely natural ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone in humans is 1:1.

Testosterone is included as an anabolic steroid on WADA's list of banned substances, and its use can be punished by a two-year ban.

Testosterone can build muscle and improve recovery time when used over a period of several weeks, said Dr. Gary Wadler, a member of the World Anti-Doping Agency and a spokesman for the American College of Sports Medicine. But if Landis had been a user, his earlier urine tests during the tour would have been affected, he said.

"So something's missing here," Wadler said. "It just doesn't add up.""

So the actual level of testosterone is not what is tested, only the ratio.
 
shemp said:
Hypothetical question:

Rider A has a naturally-occurring testosterone to epitestosterone ratio of 9:1. Rider B has a naturally-occurring testosterone to epitestosterone ratio of 2:1. At the end of a race, both riders are tested and show a testosterone to epitestosterone ratio of 9:1. Rider B is disqualified. Rider A is not disqualified.

Questions: 1. Is a high testosterone to epitestosterone ratio really beneficial to performance? 2. If so, why should riders be penalized for bringing their testosterone to epitestosterone ratio up to the same level as naturally occurs in a competitor?
Click to expand...

If it is naturally occuring it is not a doping offence. Of course they will need to demonstrate that it is naturally occuring.
 
andyandy said:
In the past, the Colombian Santiago Botero, king of the mountains in the 2000 Tour, is the biggest name to have fought a testosterone positive, and he won his case on medical grounds.

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/tourdefrance2006/story/0,,1832060,00.html
Click to expand...

Botero's team doctor was the guy at the center of the massive doping scandal that took Ullrich, etc. out of this years tour, Dr. Fuentes.

Landis' former teammate Santiago Botero managed to prove he had high testosterone levels in 1999, while Botero was a member of the Kelme team and his team doctor was Dr. Eufemiano Fuentes, the Spanish gynaecologist at the heart of the Operación Puerto investigation.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2006/phonak_legacy
Click to expand...

This article talks about how Phonak has had nine doping scandals in only two years and Landis is the latest one.
 
I think Shemp's hypothetical question is an interesting one, if I'm understanding it right.

Does this mean that a man with naturally far-below-normal testosterone, who would usually receive treatment from a doctor to bring it up to normal, must decide between receiving treatment or participating in certain sports?
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
If it is naturally occuring it is not a doping offence. Of course they will need to demonstrate that it is naturally occuring.
Click to expand...

That isn't the point. The point of my question is, if someone has a naturally occurring advantage over another athlete, why shouldn't someone be allowed to take some of that substance to bring his level up to match?

However, I've given this some thought since posting the question. I think if you allow someone to take testosterone to bring their performance up to someone else's level, then it's no different than allowing someone to take steroids to build up their muscles to the same level as someone else who worked out without steroids to get those muscles. So I'm satisfied now that taking testosterone to improve preformance is as wrong as taking steroids.
 
Pup said:
I think Shemp's hypothetical question is an interesting one, if I'm understanding it right.

Does this mean that a man with naturally far-below-normal testosterone, who would usually receive treatment from a doctor to bring it up to normal, must decide between receiving treatment or participating in certain sports?
Click to expand...

He might have to, unless he could convince the governing sports federation to give him a medical waiver.
 
Pup said:
Does this mean that a man with naturally far-below-normal testosterone, who would usually receive treatment from a doctor to bring it up to normal, must decide between receiving treatment or participating in certain sports?
Click to expand...
Yes it does. Most of the items on the doping list, including testosterone, are useful medicines for various diseases. If you have to take them for legitimate medical reasons, you must stop competing until the effect can no longer benefit you in a competition.
 
looks like Justin Gatlin's going to need the same lawyer...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/5228060.stm

World and Olympic 100m champion Justin Gatlin is facing a lifetime ban after confirmation that his B sample tested positive for testosterone.
The American announced on Saturday that he had failed a doping test in April.

And anti-doping chief Dick Pound and Gatlin's lawyer Cameron Myler told Five Live on Sunday that the 24-year-old's B sample also tested positive.
Click to expand...
 
One thing seems clear to me here.

If the outside world is to make any decision about the reliability of thiese tests a lot more transparency is required on the part of the testing organizations.

What are the actual rations that are getting these folks banned? In the Landis case what were the rations prior to and subsequent to the positive result?

And a bit of a follow up on Shemp's questions. I think Shemp was asking a philosophical question about the whole idea of elite athlete sports. What is the poin?. Will we arrive at the time where we just shuffle through the population looking for the particular collection of genes that will provide for optimal performance and the poor fellows that don't have those unique combinations will have no chance since they won't be allowed to use chemicals to substitute for the advantages that the natural occuring freaks have?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom