8/11/06 WSJ on Landis tests

Today's Wall Street Journal has an article reviewing the testing --
well written and their conclusion is he's fully busted.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1155...N=wsjie/6month

Best,
Bill Black

"billb" wrote in message
oups.com...
Today's Wall Street Journal has an article reviewing the testing --
well written and their conclusion is he's fully busted.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1155...N=wsjie/6month

Best,
Bill Black


You have to subscribe first?
-tom

The Page You Requested Is Available Only to Subscribers



"billb" wrote in message
oups.com...
Today's Wall Street Journal has an article reviewing the testing --
well written and their conclusion is he's fully busted.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1155...N=wsjie/6month

Best,
Bill Black

billb wrote:
Today's Wall Street Journal has an article reviewing the testing --
well written and their conclusion is he's fully busted.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1155...N=wsjie/6month

Funny how two people can read the same article and come to different
conclusions. Must say something about people's biases. While it
doesn't look good for Landis, "fully busted" might be overstating
things. Anyway, here's the article:

More on the Landis Controversy
August 11, 2006

Last week, I wrote about Tour de France winner Floyd Landis's positive
doping test and the possibility -- raised by his doctor -- that an
alcohol binge the night before had caused him to flunk. Since then, Mr.
Landis's outlook has grown bleaker: A more sophisticated test showed
synthetic testosterone, not made by Mr. Landis's own body, was in his
urine.

Mr. Landis continues to maintain he didn't use any banned substances,
but media coverage has become brutal. Much of the criticism centers on
the variety of explanations offered by Mr. Landis and his doctor,
lawyer and spokesman. "Landis's excuses like 1,000 monkeys with
typewriters," read a headline on a SportsLine column. "Landis's excuses
sound familiar: Earthquake, flood, locusts!" was the headline on a
Richard Roeper column in the Chicago Sun-Times.

Inevitably, Mr. Landis has also become a punch line: David Letterman
drafted a Top 10 list of Landis excuses -- No. 4: "Wanted to give 'New
York Post' excuse to run hilarious 'Fink Floyd' headline." The Onion
imagined a Lance Armstrong-inspired "Cheat to Win" Landis bracelet.

Judging from my mailbox, Numbers Guy readers have been a bit more
cautious. In the past week, they've asked a number of questions about
the numbers and science behind Mr. Landis's case. Many of these
questions can't be answered because of the opacity of the drug-testing
process, but with the help of doctors and drug-testing experts, I've
attempted to answer as many of these as I can.

First, a bit of background: A sample of Mr. Landis's urine collected
after the 17th stage of the race showed a
testosterone-to-epitestosterone ratio (T/E ratio) of 11-to-1.
Testosterone and epitestosterone are related hormones, usually found in
roughly equal amounts in urine. The International Cycling Union
considers any ratio above 4-to-1 to be a positive test, suggesting
steroid use. A follow-up test examining the atomic structure of Mr.
Landis's testosterone found that some of it wasn't produced by his
body. Now Mr. Landis's case will be turned over to the United States
Anti-Doping Agency. Pending the agency's decision, and results of
possible arbitration hearings, Mr. Landis could be stripped of his
title.

Here are my adaptations of readers' questions, and my best attempt at
answering them:

Q: It has been reported that Mr. Landis's testosterone level was within
the normal range, but his epitestosterone was very low. Do low levels
of epitestosterone confer any advantage to an athlete?

A: No, nor do high levels. Epitestosterone doesn't have any known
purpose in the body, several doctors told me. Ingemar Bjorkhem, a
professor of clinical chemistry at Karolinska University Hospital in
Stockholm who has studied testosterone, said epitestosterone's function
is "controversial," but added, "Most probably, it's not very
important."

"It's an accident in metabolism," said Richard Hellman, president-elect
of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. "For each
molecule of testosterone made, there is a nonfunctional molecule [of
epitestosterone] made." Hence the usual 1-to-1 T/E ratio.

Production of epitestosterone can be suppressed by adding synthetic
testosterone to the body, so a high T/E ratio can be a marker for
doping.

Landis spokesman Michael Henson confirmed to me that the high ratio was
the result of very low epitestosterone. The cycling union has been more
tight-lipped, and no one has specified the exact hormonal levels.
Howard Jacobs, Mr. Landis's lawyer, told me he wouldn't release numbers
yet because he hasn't yet received full documentation of the tests from
the cycling union. "I want to see the documentation of how they
calculate the numbers," he said. "I don't want to put out numbers that
are flat wrong."

Q: Was Mr. Landis tested at other times during the race? Were any of
those tests positive?

A: Mr. Henson, the Landis spokesman, told me Mr. Landis was tested
eight times during the Tour, including the positive test on July 20, a
test two days before, and a test two days after. Mr. Landis's positive
test was the only positive test during the Tour, cycling union doctor
Mario Zorzoli told me last week.

That raises the next question, also posed by several readers:

Q: How quickly does synthetic testosterone clear out of one's system?

A: Testosterone typically is injected straight into muscle, and,
depending on the dosage, it generally creates an elevated T/E ratio for
a week to 10 days, according to researchers I spoke with.

That makes this form of testosterone usage an unlikely candidate to
explain Mr. Landis's positive test, since -- assuming the tests were
conducted properly -- his elevated ratio would have shown up in one of
his other tests.

Using testosterone in this form also wouldn't be much help, as it
"takes at least a week to have a physiological effect," said Simon
Davis, technical director for Mass Spec Solutions Ltd., a Wythenshawe,
U.K., maker of mass-spectrometry devices. He has helped athletes defend
allegations of doping.

Testosterone can also be taken orally or applied to the skin with a
gel, cream or patch. These forms have several advantages: They can
provide more short-term boost than injected steroids, and can also
clear out of the system more quickly. Mario Thevis, professor for
preventive doping research at German Sport University, said in an email
that, depending on the dosage, T/E ratios could return to normal after
several hours.

But the athletic benefit of such doping is unproven, said Dr. Davis.
"These provide a very small amount of testosterone, and certainly would
not improve performance at any significant level," he said.

Q: Which lab conducted the tests? Is it reputable?

A: The tests were done at Laboratoire National de Depistage du Dopage
(known by its French acronym, LNDD) in Chatenay-Malabry, outside Paris.
It is accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency, the international
body that coordinates global drug-testing measures. Several readers
have suggested that a French lab could be biased against an American
cyclist, particularly a former teammate of Lance Armstrong, who has
many vocal critics in France. But doctors spoke highly of LNDD's
reputation.

"The lab in Chatenay-Malabry has an excellent reputation and has
fulfilled the accreditation requirements for sports drug testing for
more than 15 years," Dr. Thevis at German Sport University told me.
Others I talked with also praised the lab.

However, the lab had some stumbles in the 1990s. Reader Rudy Lim
pointed out that, in 1998, cyclist Paola Pezzo was cleared of a
positive drug test by LNDD, in part because of flaws in the lab's
testing procedures.

More recently, tests by LNDD on a sample of Lance Armstrong's urine
turned up the presence of synthetic erythropoietin (known as EPO),
which can be used to enhance performance. But earlier this year, an
investigator appointed by the cycling union cleared Mr. Armstrong of
the charges, finding among other things, that LNDD "did not follow a
single one" of the required technical procedures for handling urine
samples. (See the full report here.)

No one answered the phone at LNDD's general number Wednesday, and an
email I sent to the lab got not response.

Q: How conclusive are the results of the test? Could there have been an
error by the lab?

A: The numbers don't bode well for Mr. Landis.

A difference of more than three parts per thousand in the examination
known as isotope ratio mass spectrometry is considered a positive test
(the test is explained in more detail here; see the paragraph starting
with "stable isotope abundances"). Mr. Henson, the Landis spokesman,
told me that Mr. Landis's difference was 3.99 parts per thousand,
calling it a "mild bump." But Dr. Thevis's interpretation differed:
"The difference (3.99 to three) is a big number and not related to
uncertainties. ...The established value of three parts per thousand
covers all possibly occurring uncertainties. Hence, a difference of
almost four is perfectly positive."

However, there are difficulties in conducting the test. "It's a very
complex test that requires very skilled people and is easy to mess up,"
said Dr. Hellman of the American Association of Clinical
Endocrinologists.

Q: How are the urine samples transported? Could they have been tampered
with or damaged?

A: Here's how the process should work: "Once the samples have been
collected they are delivered by accredited persons to the laboratories,
where the sample is stored at four degrees Celsius [39.2 degrees
Fahrenheit] until analysis," said German Sport University's Dr. Thevis.
"They are locked in a cooling chamber and taken out only for sample
preparation."

However, samples have been mishandled, causing degradation. In 1995,
U.K. middle-distance runner Diane Modahl was cleared of drug
allegations when a panel found that bacteria in the sample could have
caused an elevated T/E ratio.

Still, mishandling alone wouldn't explain the presence of synthetic
testosterone in Mr. Landis's sample. Some commentators have gone so far
as to suggest foul play, though there has been no evidence of tampering
with the sample. Dr. Davis of Mass Spec Solutions told me that if
someone did want to spike an athlete's sample, testosterone would be a
good choice. "If you did an analysis on testosterone, you wouldn't be
able to distinguish between testosterone injected straight into the
sample, or coming out through urine," he said

Jeff wrote:

billb wrote:

Today's Wall Street Journal has an article reviewing the testing --
well written and their conclusion is he's fully busted.


The article confirms that FL passed tests conducted 2 days
before and 2 days after the positive test. I am not sure I have
heard anyone propose a scenario that fully explains the
positive test, particularly the low epitestosterone level. If FLs
T was about normal, then his E must have been 10% of
normal. If he took testosterone orally the day before the test,
it seems unlikely that the E would be suppressed so far,
so quickly.

Jeff


From previous articles, we know that they don't test for exogenous T
unless the T/E ratio is abnormal, so it's possible Floyd could have
brought his ratio back in balance somehow (knowingly by injecting epiT
or unknowingly) and the lab wouldn't have looked for exogenous T in his
subsequent samples.

"Geraard Spergen" wrote in message

From previous articles, we know that they don't test for exogenous T
unless the T/E ratio is abnormal, so it's possible Floyd could have
brought his ratio back in balance somehow (knowingly by injecting epiT or
unknowingly) and the lab wouldn't have looked for exogenous T in his
subsequent samples.

Would Floyd risk having his other B samples tested for exogenous T?

"Carl Sundquist" wrote in message
news:q09Dg.5918$yO4.4520@dukeread02...

"Geraard Spergen" wrote in message

From previous articles, we know that they don't test for exogenous T
unless the T/E ratio is abnormal, so it's possible Floyd could have
brought his ratio back in balance somehow (knowingly by injecting epiT or
unknowingly) and the lab wouldn't have looked for exogenous T in his
subsequent samples.

Would Floyd risk having his other B samples tested for exogenous T?

Carl - would YOU allow your samples to be tested by that lab?

"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in message
ink.net...

From previous articles, we know that they don't test for exogenous T
unless the T/E ratio is abnormal, so it's possible Floyd could have
brought his ratio back in balance somehow (knowingly by injecting epiT
or unknowingly) and the lab wouldn't have looked for exogenous T in his
subsequent samples.

Would Floyd risk having his other B samples tested for exogenous T?

Carl - would YOU allow your samples to be tested by that lab?


That wasn't my point. But you're right, sentimentally I would want a
different lab.

However what I meant was, could Landis be more damned by further positive
tests from the same Tour (assuming the stage 17 exogenous T charge is a
correct one) or has he hit rock bottom and would have nothing more to lose
by crossing his fingers and hoping the other B samples show no evidence of
syn T?

Would Floyd risk having his other B samples tested for exogenous T?

Carl - would YOU allow your samples to be tested by that lab?


That wasn't my point. But you're right, sentimentally I would want a
different lab.

However what I meant was, could Landis be more damned by further positive
tests from the same Tour (assuming the stage 17 exogenous T charge is a
correct one) or has he hit rock bottom and would have nothing more to lose
by crossing his fingers and hoping the other B samples show no evidence of
syn T?


I agree, at this point what does he have to lose. If he is indeed innocent
he should agressively pursue to have his other samples tested for exogenous
testo.

If I were Bob Mionske, I would offer to represent himne fopr a nominal fee.
Exposure baby.

billb wrote:
Today's Wall Street Journal has an article reviewing the testing --
well written and their conclusion is he's fully busted.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1155...N=wsjie/6month

B.F.D. B. F.. D...

WSJ? What the F ever. You embarrass yourself. WSJ?? Bike Racing?
WSJ Billy B?? Are you that stupid?

ROTFLMAO.

-kjp