Yesterday, hearings in Floyd Landis’ appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, conducted in a New York law office, came to a conclusion. Well, sort of. A bare-bones press release from the CAS noted that the session, held from Wedneday, March 19 through Monday, March 24 (with a recess on Sunday), had finished. (By the way, I found it interesting and amusing that the English-language press release was on the French language portion of the CAS site, while the French-language version of the press release was on the English-language section of the CAS site.)
As the press release and media reports have noted, both sides have until April 18th to file their final written statements. Most likely, this means each side will present its proposed findings of fact at that time. The press release also notes a large volume of material that the arbitrators will need to wade through in making their decision, including whatever exhibits were entered, the testimony of 14 (so far unidentified) individuals during the hearings, written testimony from 10 other individuals, and heaven knows what else.
The CAS Panel will need some time to review this voluminous file and the post-hearing submissions, which are due on 18 April, 2008, before delivering a final decision, which is not expected before June 2008.
Certainly, the three men who will decide Landis’ fate have their work cut out for themselves. And no doubt they’ve got a lot to digest. It seems reasonable that the amount of scientific and technical information that the panel will need to make heads and tails of will be at least as much as came out of the first hearing last May.
Up to now, things have moved at approximately twice the speed of the original process. From the time Landis filed his appeal until the appeal took place was just a bit over 5 months. In comparison, the original hearing didn’t happen until 10 months after the scandal first broke. Final submissions are due just one working day shy of four weeks after the hearing concluded on Monday, which is roughly the same amount of time from the end of last May’s hearings until the proposed findings of fact were filed by each side.
Exactly how long it will take for the panel to reach their decision is anybody’s guess. Most articles have suggested that Landis will get an answer in June, while Reuters posted an article that said the decision would not come before June. Judging by the CAS’ own press release, it appears that Reuters has the correct time frame. At least June. Maybe before the 2008 Tour starts. But no guarantees.
Shifting Gears Just A Bit
CyclingNews.com, got the facts wrong, not once, but twice in the following statement in an article about the conclusion of the Landis hearings on Monday:
… Landis [became] the first in its 94-year history to be officially stripped of the victory.
For a professional cycling publication, you’d think the writers or editors could get their facts straight. First, there have been 94 Tours de France, but the history of the race stretches back 105 years now, to 1903, when the first Tour was run. The race was not held during the two World Wars, which causes the number of races to be less than the actual age of the Tour. Now, if you want to split hairs and say that because the Tour was only held during 94 of the last 105 years that it has a 94-year history, well, that’s technically true, but it’s misleading to the average reader.
And as I’ve pointed out before, it is also factually wrong to say that Landis is the first Tour victor ever to be stripped of a victory. The first rider to be stripped of his victory was in 1904, during the second edition of the Tour. In fact, the first four finishers of that year’s event were later disqualified, with the victory ultimately being awarded to the rider who finished fifth. Maurice Garin was the first rider ever stripped of a Tour title, according to the Tour’s own website. As I wrote last April:
The claim that Landis might be the first rider stripped of his Tour victory has been reported far and wide in a large number of stories over the last eight months. But there’s a small problem with that assertion: No matter the outcome of the Landis case, Floyd Landis will not be the first cyclist to be stripped of his Tour victory and title. That dubious honor belongs to Maurice Garin, as documented on the official Tour de France web site.
Although Maurice Garin technically won the race for the second year in a row, he, along with the rest of the top four, were disqualified for various infractions. As a result, little-known Henri Cornet, the fifth-place finisher, was declared the winner.
The other riders who were disqualified, from second to fourth place originally, were Lucien Pothier, César Garin, and Hippolyte Aucouturier. After an investigation by the French cycling union, the top four riders, along with all the stage winners, were disqualified in December 1904, due to rampant cheating during the race. This elevated Cornet, a 20-year-old rider who had finished the race in fifth place, to the status of Tour winner.
So it’s time for the mainstream media to stop repeating the canard that Landis will be the first rider in the history of the Tour to be stripped of his title. Even if he loses in May and loses before the Court of Arbitration for Sport, Maurice Garin was the first, and he’s in no danger of losing his dubious honor however the Landis case turns out.
That a cycling publication can’t get its facts straight gives me pause. If reporters who are paid to research and be knowledgeable about the sport can’t do it, how could we possibly expect the mainstream press to get it right?
Rant,
It may be nothing more then blind idealism — but one can hope that the CAS members will actually look at the facts and not merely pursue “agendas” — one can hope.
to look at some really terrific investigative efforts — you all should check out Thomas A. Fine submissions — thank you Thomas for all the work you put into it and for making a “complex” situation easily palatable”¦
Floyd Landis’ Testosterone, WADA, and Abused Science
http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~fine/opinions/testosterone_d13C.html
Floyd’s Exogenous Testosterone
http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~fine/opinions/testosterone_again.html
Hope the CAS people get access to this too”¦but that is way too much to expect. But at least people who have more then just superficial interest or “agendas” can learn something.
Morgan:
In US courts, at least, the decision is supposed to be rendered only on the basis of whatever evidence is produced in court. It would be improper for a jury to consult outside sources such as Mr. Fine’s, as fine as it might be.
I would assume that the CAS operates similarly.
Remember, there very well may be websites with a totally opposite pooint of view that they could access too, if so inclined. And neither side would get to cross examine or object to such “evidence”.
It would be up to the Landis side to introduce whatever evidence of this type they felt was relevant.
I am not a lawyer but I think that the Landis team could not present evidence like Thomas Fine’s in this case for several reasons.
The most important one in this case is:
Stating that the IRMS could very well measure something else then exogenous testosterone is beyond the scope of this case.
Is belongs in a review of the IRMS machine, procedure, testosterone test etc.
For Landis’ case they had to deal with an IRMS test that was approved to be valid for the tests they preformed.
Rant,
enjoyed your timely and sharply barbed points of view on the Floyd Landis timeline and the poorly written Cycling News articles.
Funny how professional writers can’t get their facts straight on this case…. makes you wonder about the press as a whole.
“There is no truth… only versions of the truth”
“Truth comes only to a prepared mind”
Unknown Source
http://en.proverbia.net/citastema.asp?tematica=1243&page=1
RSD
Is it just me, or are decisions in big doping cases always timed for June/July? Someone should compile a list of all major cases in the last few years, and see when the more newsworthy yet time-controllable events occur.
Sorry Rant, I really didn’t mean to hijack your comment sections for discussion of my wild-assed theories. But since they asked…
I’ve heard repeatedly that Floyd isn’t allowed to “question the science”. I’m not really sure where this comes from, or if there’s any truth to it, and at this point, I don’t even think it’s very relevant.
Floyd has always been allowed to “explain the result”. If he can introduce scientific evidence that something else besides synthetic testosterone could cause this result, that should be fine, and it wouldn’t really undermine the previous science, so much as add to it.
But it hasn’t happened I think for a few reasons. First, there’s no direct scientific evidence that my theory has any merit. As far as the first two articles go, it’s nothing more than vague supposition. If you looked at the topic in daily peloton forums that I posted a link to in the comments to yesterdays news, that has six scientific papers that advance things quite a bit further, in my opinion to the point where real scientists might think the idea is at last feasible.
The handful of scientists in the world really qualified to do this work all get some money from WADA, so that’s a disincentive. Don’t take that argument too far though. A slightly less cynical view would be that it would simply be hard to find anyone to provide funding for such a study. And that in turn is a sign that, scientifically, this is a very fringe topic, and it’s just generally boring, scientifically.
That said, I think the more important reason why nothing is likely to come of this is how the press responded initially when it was suggested that alcohol could be related. Floyd got spanked, and badly, for his public suggestions of this, even though the idea originated with Sports Illustrated and cyclingnews.com. Proceeding with this argument without absolutely airtight scientific evidence would be a public-relations disaster, and because of this it would probably be easy for CAS to dismiss such a suggestion.
tom
Good work TA Fine.
Could you give reasons why your criticisms of the testing could be wrong? How would somebody argue against what you have brought to the table? I understand how hard that is, but it would be interesting.
The last 18-months have shown WADA to be mismanaged and unreliable, UCI to be woefully inept, ASO to be petty, and LNDD to be sorely lacking in professionalism and competence. (As an aside, the riders careers are too short and the teams too reliant upon short term sponsorships to effect any change.) To add to this litany of problems you suggest that the test that caught Floyd may not be as reliable as WADA would have us believe. Now I am perfectly willing to believe that WADA has stretched the truth, to be charitable, and I have not seen any independent (non-WADA) in depth analysis regarding the fit for purpose of the T test, but I am still inclined to give them the benefit of doubt (even after having seen your analysis of it’s potential inaccuracies).
All that said, your analysis strikes me as impotent. Who’s going to listen and analyze it and then implement serious change?
A lot of people I have heard from are perfectly comfortable with these quasi-government agencies having utter and unaccountable control over other peoples’ livelihood. That any voice in the woods must be a quack. Or a conspiracy nut. There have been numerous people on this site that have suggested that even given all the problems with the case against Floyd, circumstantial and anecdotal evidence should convince us of his guilt. Skipping over the tyrannical nature of such a position, it shows the difficulty Floyd has in obtaining any sort of fairness. Floyd should not be found guilty because people think it serves a greater good, or some sort of implicit justice. Floyd is an individual and should be treated as such. If we want the ADA’s to be able to take so much away from an individual, we should hold them to much higher standards.
Tom,
No worries about hijacking. I like seeing where these discussions go. Interestingly, one of the articles I cited in the previous post has references to studies on the influence of alcohol on the T/E ratio. Turns out, there is some evidence that alcohol does have an influence. Not on the IRMS testing, but on the T/E test used for screening. So, Landis’ elevated T/E ratios could actually have come from alcohol — no guarantee that this was the cause, but not as far-fetched as some reporters who haven’t done a whole lot or research would have us believe. There are a number of possible explanations for Landis’ elevated T/E ratios. But it might require more testing of a rather infamous subject to determine whether ingesting ethanol had anything to do with it. And I’m guessing that would have been a non-starter with his attorneys.
William, Karuna,
You have taken my comment about Mr Fines’ pieces as being “accessible” to the CAS too literally. As you William, state, —–“the decision is supposed to be rendered only on the basis of whatever evidence is produced in court.” — I wholeheartedly agree with this – My blurb was intended as tongue in cheek – since in the last ARB’s decision this issue was present, but never addressed enough to get at the publics attention, at least in my thinking.
Karuna,
As with William, I don’t disagree with you. This is the way it is and we cannot do anything about it. My point was simply to bring to attention that there are “some questions” that need to be answered as far as the alphabet soup’s presentation of the situation.
I admit to you both that I am “biased” in this situation – I think Floyd won the 2006 Tour fair and square. That he had an amazing and epacole ride on Stage 17. Do I have “scientific evidence” to back up my stand – no – only my belief. Only what my eyes showed me from the race itself and what my gut told me at the time.
Since this whole thing started, we have to admit that whatever the “truth is” – we are certainly never going to find out under the constraints of the WADA code or the involvement of the various “governing bodies” – sorry if this belief and conclusion rubs you both the wrong way.
Will CAS come to a fair decision? I can only hope. But what the reality of this whole situation has thought me is to seriously question how any decision and result that the governing bodies present to us, the general public, should be looked at with a jaundiced eye. Since in my opinion, we have a situation where an individual is “publicly destroyed” by the very governing bodies that are supposedly in charge of making pro cycling a “fair” sport.
House cleaning is not a pretty job. But it is job that needs to be done or the place will turn into a garbage dump. Before Floyd Landis gave us the opportunity to open up the so called “hearings” of the governing bodies in pro cycling very few tifosi knew anything about how the “system” actually works. My personal conclusion is that it works alright, but has very little if anything to do with finding out the “truth” or proving the innocence or guilt of an accused rider!
Look at what we wind up with whatever the CAS decision may be. The reputation and the means of livelihood for one man has been destroyed. The governing bodies that exist, entrenched in their positions will not be forced to better the situation, but rather it wall cause them to only dig their heels in deeper.
Is there doping and cheating going on in pro cycling? I don’t really think that this is the right question. The question should be and what many people are voicing is that the methods, means and governance of pro cycling is at best biased and inept as it stands. I am not against the idea of having a WADA or a UCI, a USADA or a USAC- what I am wholeheartedly against is the reality of how they presently function! Such political entities should not feel comfortable in using up and having the power to destroy individuals – apparently, to suit their “agendas!” Without equally serious consequences to them when they are caught with their pants down.
As Michael points out, —“A lot of people I have heard from are perfectly comfortable with these quasi-government agencies having utter and unaccountable control over other peoples’ livelihood. That any voice in the woods must be a quack. Or a conspiracy nut.” — Well, since I am no other then a mere “voice in the woods” and do not believe myself to be more important then any other, my purpose to encourage people to read the Thomas A. Fine articles was meant not to justify anything, rather to point out once again, just how screwed up this system is.
Perhaps Mr Fine’s written statements were done to reach a certain judicial conclusion, I did not read this into it, I found them refreshing in that they present a cogent presentation of the situation. If anything, I value the ability of one person to present his ideas, or hers, in a way that sorts and clears the mess that exists today in pro cycling. I am not arguing the rightness or correctness of discussing ethanol and the changes it may or may not bring about in the testing procedure, I am not scientifically knowledgeable to do that. What my intent is to point out that there appears to be “too many questions” in existence concerning the whole shebang.
I cannot speak and will not speak for the rest of the people on this and other blogs, but my personal view point is that when such a state of affairs exists as in pro cycling – we all really need to step back and not be so quick to jump to judgment! If at heart we are all trying to improve the situation – then we should take the concept of “fair-play” seriously enough to act and speak accordingly.
Mr Landis’ livelihood and honor will not be saved whatever the outcome of CAS is or isn’t. The concept of “fair play” is unknown to the governing bodies – “winning at all cost!” is their goal. I won’t go along silently with this, my hope is that none of you will either.
Morgan
Thank you for your comment. I appreciate your comments very much.
Let me try first to set something strait that might have given you the wrong impression.
I think that the work of A Fine is great!!! I came with (only) an observation about it myself.
I just realized that, for now, under nowadays law, it can “˜t help Landis just yet.
I hope there will be more research into it because it seems to be something that deserves a lot of attention.
Okay, let me also ask for your (and others) forgiveness for remarks or questions that might sound stupid or like “˜oh no, not again’.
I am way behind on you all concerning this case. I am doing my best to catch up at least a little, but I doubt I will be able to read everything there is to read about this.
Larry’s posts (and others) are helping me a lot, so I am very grateful for them.
Let me go to the content of your post.
Your sentence: -sorry if this belief and conclusion rubs you both the wrong way-
You don’t rub me the wrong way.
I think you are right. I read the decision of the USADA from last September and it left me astonished.
I have got this version: http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/Landis Final (20-09-07) (3).pdf
I think it is the official version.
With a superficial eye it looks more or less reasonable and clearly written.
They seem to hang on to the WADA rules as onto a lifeline.
My thought: Well okay, was there something else they could do? Probably not.
Experts disagreeing? Well they always do, nothing new here. I actually think they should. How else will things progress.
Then I arrived at 239 and 240. There was said that in the scientific field the thresholds for what was “˜a good enough result’ were higher.
There I go nuts.
I know, you said it all before, but I am pick headed, a disbeliever, I like to see for myself.
Okay, so I saw for myself. This is unfair to the riders, in this case Landis. No matter if he doped or not, that is not all that relevant for me at this point, when the punishment is as high as it is now, there need to be the highest standards.
So I think we have no disagreement here.
But then my next thought is: how is this possible? Why are the rules as they are?
Possible answers in my head are:
-a bunch of incapable people?
Hmm there are too many involved, looks to me as not the only reason.
-a bunch of people that like to be in control to an extend that it goes beyond fairness. Hmm all narcissists with a borderline personality structure? Like the first one, probably a few, but all of them? Doesn’t seem reasonable.
-circumstances? Must be. Money? Probably. Frustration about the few possibility left because there is not enough money. Probably too.
Okay, I don’t have an answer but that’s my line of thinking.
Because of it I might seem “˜more on the side of the government bodies’.
I am not, I have a brain that always comes up with questions (after going nuts :)). I sometimes consider it to be “˜my handicap’ and I surely don’t mean to pass judgement on anyone!
When you say:
-I admit to you both that I am “biased” in this situation – I think Floyd won the 2006 Tour fair and square-,
my thought is: great!!! So am I. In this case not so much with Landis but I have the same with Rasmussen. Nothing wrong with being biased!
Okay, I think it is a good thing to know that you are, but in itself it’s a good thing.
When we were not biased I don’t think that we would spent so much time digging into it.
Which I think is useful. Okay, let me be honest: it suits my brain also, hihi (there is always something selfish in it :)).
What will the CAS do?
I hope they will not use the WADA rules as the USADA did. That’s for sure.
My question (sorry again a question) is though, how will they go around it and where can they disagree when they don’t go around it since the standards are what they are?
Do you know?
Morgan:
It is often hard to detect things like tongue in check in written discourse, so I apologize that I took you perhaps a bit to literally.
Karuna:
WADA rules seems to be written in a rather vague way, perhaps deliberately so in order that WADA can interpret them as they wish. I had been sort of hoping that in all the scientific discussion here, at TBV, etc., that someone would step forth and say “I do this sort of testing and here are the facts” in such a way that a consensus regarding the validity of LNDD’s evidence could be reached. Unfortunately, this has not happened and I am thinking that perhaps there is no definite standard that would allow a simple pass or fail evaluation of LNDD’s work in this case. In the May hearing, both sides had experts to back their version and ultimately the arbs took the USADA experts over the Landis experts. I would expect that Landis’ lawyers had re-tooled the case taking in account the majority decision. Perhaps USADA could have anticipated this re-tooling and revised their case accordingly, who knows? And who knows how each side actually performed.
One perhaps hopeful thing is the fact that (as far as I am aware) there will not be a “court appointed expert” to advise the panel in camera.
In short, I expect that CAS will rule as CAS sees fit.
Someone who knows the inner workings of the pro peleton should know this:
How much beer/wine/JD is consumed during a major tour by the riders? If Tom’s theory is correct then if juice alone can alter the T/E ratio or the IRMS analysis, then if these guys regularly drink between stages, shouldn’t that have shown up by now? I have a hard time believing the italians don’t down a glass or two (or three) of red wine with their nightly pasta, but maybe I am wrong.
Or maybe the genetics factor rears its ugly head and you have to have the right genetics to process a hearty beer into artificial T reading, and Floyd just has the bad alcohol/T/E gene? Maybe the menonite gene’s haven’t found their way into the italian gene pool yet.
Karuna,
To respond to your last question—I haven’t got any idea what or how CAS will respond, ergo my sincere hope that SOME PEOPLE in the pro cycling racket get a backbone and actually do aim themselves for “fairness” and “clarity.” Because up to now – in my opinion – it has been nothing more then playing a shell game, with the riders being the eternal suckers.
Karuna – I speak only for myself – but I have never found you to be lacking in the most important aspect to this “dialogue” over matters in the cycling world. The important matter being “sincere interest” interested enough to get your self more knowledgeable to the state of affairs.
I was not a “commenter” on the Rant Line till after the all the brouhaha had long begun. I am not claiming any special expertise or knowledge, but like you state, I also have a brain and I like to use it. Just because I unequivocally state my “bias” in favor of Landis, does not mean that I stop using my brain. I am simply admitting to the fact that I think Landis got a “raw deal” and a permanent “shaft job.”
My response to both you and William was not meant to be a rebuff or to give the impression that I felt “criticized” by either of you. My commentary is not meant to be taken as “defending myself” – I do not feel the need to do this. I believe my comment was simply stating my feelings, opinions and reactions to the state of affairs in pro cycling. My suggestion to read the Thomas A. Fine pieces, was simply to bring to attention a very good piece of “investigative work” as resource and another view of the situation. Not a counter argument of any sort.
You would agree, I think, that there are many “different views” expressed in this case. I found TAF’s two pieces cogent and interesting and well researched. I learned from it. Therefore I wished to share it and support it with adding my voice to encourage people to read it. In my opinion – the more we know of the situation, the better we can come to understand it.
As to the “WHY” the state of affairs in pro cycling is the way it is, I am not certain that we can honestly address this – all anyone can do is have theories and opinions. I tend to be for the rights of the individual, so my view of the situation in pro cycling is colored by my stand. In my opinion – the rules are the way people and groups have made them to maintain control of the sport for their own ends. For these individuals and groups, the rider has never been more then what a grey-hound is to the owner, something to use till they are too old to do their thing anymore, then toss them. I believe that all the riders who turn pro – know this – but a pro riders goal is to make a living, to make money NOW, because he isn’t going to be able to do it “forever.”
I jumped into this thing because I feel that Floyd Landis was cheated of his win, cheated and ruined in public, by a set of people and individuals that have gotten to “feel very secure” that they can get away with such behavior. Personally, I find myself thrown into the middle of the old fairy tale known as the “Emperor’s New Clothes,” do you know it? While the media and the governing bodies are busy telling us how much they are in existence to support and safeguard the riders – I come away from this whole brouhaha – with the realization that the riders have no support, have always been used and no matter how much money they may earn, the one thing they do not have is a “fair and even playing field” to work in. In otherwords, Karuna, the governing bodies are lying through their teeth.
Larry, William and the Judge, all are professionals in the field of jurisprudence, Rant, TAF, and others are experts or very knowledgeable about the science. Me? All I have to offer is some small ability to think – no different then a lot of other people involved in commenting on this blog and others. All I can say is what I believe – Floyd Landis won the 2006 Tour de France, had an amazing Stage 17 ride that I shall never forget – and that all this was unjustly taken away from him. Or perhaps, I should say, that it may have been “just” because of the way the rules are written – but in my thinking Floyd got shafted.
Hi Rant,
Sorry to digress a bit from the topic but things are getting curiouser and curiouser in the WADA/UCI/ASO world. WADA has just announced that they are pulling out of supporting the UCI’s biological passport program due to UCI’s lawsuit against Dick Pound. There hardly seems to be enough knives around to stab each other in the back.
And on another note Bradley Wiggins was impressive in his win at the World track event last night but less impressive was his defense of his fellow countryman Hayles whose hematocrit level fell outside the acceptable range. It’s odd that when it is his friend who tested positive he is convinced that the test must be at fault but when it is others (Landis) then they doped!
Again sorry to all for not following the thread but kudos to you as it does take a lot of time to stay on top of the topic and the links.
Cheers
Beer is a diuretic, so there is no reason to drink beer for an dehydrated athlete, it would be stupid and that will affect the performance of the next day. Although Landis’next day performance was at least wonderful. So he was not dehydrated after that day and his bonk could not be linked with dehydration. What was his hct level?
As pointed by BSMB, there is a lot of athletes who had been tested when they were half-drunk, and probably some were loaded (?)… I have seen that in nautic sport where racing is done when the weather is good, in that lind of sport testing are rarely, doctors could not wait all the day long so often they come in the evening when some “athletes” have already drunk a lot!
There is certainly other sport like this…
Why might my arguments be wrong.
Mainly, no one has done an end-to-end test of alcohol’s influence on testosterone’s carbon isotope ratio, and certainly not in the case of a performance athlete. But in a more detailed way, where might I go wrong? Even if I’m correct, even I have only a rough guess of how strong this effect would be. Most of the test are on rats, and rats are not humans (although let’s be real, we do tests on rats precisely because of the presumption that we are similar). The pathways may exist, but the timing and quantities are so complicated that some would still say it’s highly unlikely.
As far as the beer-drinking:
Floyd stated he had been drinking the morning before his epic ride, so this was already well-known. But it’s assumed to be unusual for riders to drink during the Tour. And, only four riders are typically tested per stage. And, alcohol’s effect is variable depending on timing, but also depending on type of alcohol. Corn or rice-based beers would actually protect against failing this test. Whiskeys which are brewed from multiple sources would have an unknown, possibly neutral effect. And this is an effect that may be more likely in endurance sports (due to depletion of cholesterol stores) than other sports – but endurance sports are precisely where drinking is minimized. Put all of these factors together, and you end up with a vanishingly small set.
And there are some cases out there. Gareth Turnbull had a failed T/E test and an “inconclusive” (in between positive and negative) CIR test. There’s lots of testosterone cases where the victims protest their innocence, but they’re simply not reported, because they aren’t Floyd. There was a horse jockey who failed this test. Why would a horse jockey need to juice with testosterone?
Or more generally consider this: the older, more basic T/E test is now widely known to be influenced by alcohol – anywhere from 40% to 240%, depending on which study you look at. Where are all the cases of people falsely nailed due to beer when T/E was the best available test? Some cases are out there, if you dig you can find them. And I would guess for every known case there are lots of unknown cases.
In other words, how could we possibly know how many positives out there are true or false? This basic question should be fundamental in any anti-doping policy, but WADA has completely failed to address it.
tom
Indeed, Thomas. WADA and its subsidiaries are not very forthcoming with detailed statistics regarding all the results of testing. We do not have any idea, for example, how many non-negative A tests are backed up by the B test, how many are not backed up, and how many athletes decline to have a B test. The publicity regarding cases which are taken to arbitration varies; we cyclists tend to keep up on the cycling cases as best we can, but how familiar are we with cases from other sports, unless they hit the headlines a la Jones, Bonds, etc.? Are all athletes who accept the A test results and resulting sanction doing so because they are guilty or are some innocent athletes bowing to what they believe is the inevitable? And how many labs might have the principals to admit that perhaps they screwed up a test, and not report the result as a non-negative?
The last I heard – William, it was because WADA does not want the “dopers” to know how they test……………hmnnnnnnn….let me think about that…..WADA is beyond reproach…they have been transparent and fair in all their dealings….They are not motivated by politics or the hunger for power or control…Cycling is merely a convenient whipping boy sport that WADA and the IOC chose because..?…hmnnnn…of these statements…which ones would you tend to disagree with? (The “you” in this case is not meant to signify William)
Wow – an apparent “real reason” – for WADA to mess with the much touted blood passport…If the UCI takes them to court – the blood passport is toilet water!…
Well considering the fortune that has now been invested, the teams themselves getting on the band wagon…Wonder how the rest of the world will come knocking on WADA’s door about this decision?
Maybe WADA wasn’t so clever after all…The teams and the UCI put a big hole into WADA and its’ methods…What will the LNDD or any other WADA “accredited lab” do when they accuse an athlete and come face to face with the “longitudinal blood passport” studies being in practice…how will they claim that they are the ONLY authority on “doping?”
But WADA will of course “continue” its’ “stellar work against doping”—in the Olympics – especially now since all the huff and puff came out that “Chinese Produced Food” is so contaminated with “hormones” that it will be only suitable to the poorer countries competing who can’t afford to ship their own “clean food” into China…Are these poorer countries going to get “favored nations exemptions?”
And the funniest part of it all…WADA is hinting that it will now approach OTHER SPORTS to put into place “Their blood passport program”….I can just see all those different sports lining up, can you?
And they say that the riders are damaging the sport pffffff
I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but it has averything of a war between toddlers instead of grown up people.
Thomas,
In order for your (long discredited) ideas about alcohol to have merit, you would need to explain why the beer Landis drunk effected not only the Stage 17 sample, but also the other samples where he was positive for testertorone.
Ludwig, Landis’ T/E ratio only tested positive once. I haven’t read anything here that alcohol affected the CIR testing, which was performed on multiple samples.
ludwig,
No one has ever “discredited” my ideas. OTOH, no one has ever proved them either. Basically they’ve been largely ignored, which is very different from “discredited”. I’d actually love to be discredited. Actual evidence one way or the other would mean I’d waste a lot less time on things like this.
The other samples were much less “positive” than the one that caught Floyd, and had they actually run them during the tour, I don’t think a lab would have declared them to be positive, though I’m not sure.
But basically, I simply don’t trust these results.
During Floyd’s first hearing, the lab tech that performed the tests readily admitted that she and everyone else knew exactly which samples belonged to Floyd when they tested them. Now when you tie this to the months of public abuse the lab received at the hands of Floyd leading up to the hearing, and job security and all that, I think human nature could explain these weak “positives”.
Some of the other testimony at his first hearing focused on how sensitive these tests are to input from the tester, such that significant errors could creep in, either by design or accidentally.
Let me put it this way, if you had to make a precise adjustment with equipment that wasn’t as precise as you might hope, and you knew there was always going to be a small error introduced based on your “precise” adjustment, then in the case where your job and your companies’ reputation was on the line, on which side of precise would you tend to err?
For the record, I have no idea if Floyd did or didn’t. But the evidence is a big fat mess.
tom
Larry,
I’m the one saying that alcohol can affect the CIR test. Read the links in the Morgan Hunter reposted in the top of all these comments.
tom
Tom, sorry, I’d picked up on the corn part of the argument and not the grain part of the argument.
Question for you: if the protein in a person’s diet was unusually light in C13, then wouldn’t that depress the C13 in the pregnanediol (used as the second delta in the delta-delta computation) as well as in testosterone metabolites such as 5-alpha-diol? Google being my best friend, I understand that pregnanediol is a metabolite of progesterone, which is also a cholesterol derivative.
I think the question may turn on the timing of these metabolic functions. If one day a subject ingested a great deal more stuff with low C13 content than usual, then the delta-delta would be thrown off only if the testosterone metabolites from such ingestion appeared before the progesterone metabolites from such consumption. This is a question of importance in the Landis case, since (as I’m sure you know) the C13 content of some of Landis’ testosterone metabolites were in normal range. Giving the USADA – LNDD arguments the benefit of the doubt for the moment, I can think of only three possible explanations for the C13 content varying so much between these testosterone metabolites, and one of the explanations involves the timing of the body’s production of these metabolites. Forgive me if you’ve already discussed this, but care to comment?
(Explanations nos. 2 and 3 seem pretty far-fetched to me. Explanation no. 2 is that some of the body’s metabolic functions might prefer C12 more than others, so that the C12-C13 proportions might not end up evenly distributed. Explanation no. 3 is that the C13 atoms might not be randomly distributed in these cholesterol molecules, so that when the molecules are broken down in metabolism, some of the metabolites would naturally have a different C13 proportion than others. I’m NOT a scientist and know very little about biochemistry, but these two other possible explanations seem higly improbable to me.)
Larry,
If you had a very negative natural CIR, most dietary chagnes would be likely to raise it, and hence you’d be protected from positive results. On the other hand a less negative natural CIR would increase your risk in this test, because most dietary shifts would likely be towards more negative values. It’s interesting to me because a properly chosen diet could move your natural CIR very close to synthetic testosterone, and minimize your risk of detection. Lot’s of soy. Barley-fed animal sources. On the other hand, a very corn-heavy diet would increase your risk of true positives if you were doping. It would also increase your susceptibility to false positives caused by dietary influences.
As far as what could cause Floyd’s result?
1. Doping. At hearing Wilhelm Schanzer presented evidence that testosterone gels applied to the skin may produce results like Floyd’s. While I doubt that this study was properly peer-reviewed for use as evidence, the science is still more than likely ok.
2. Alcohol from some sources. Hey, it’s my theory and I like it.
3. General natural variations that are in excess of what is found in studies. Athletes in the TdF after can only be expected to show highly unusual metabolisms.
We’ll never know what Floyd did, but I suspect in the next few years it will be proven that the CIR test is not really foolproof, and that 2 and 3 are in fact possible explanations.
tom
Tom –
That’s interesting about naturally deficient CIR. You’re right, if a subject consistently ate a diet that is as deficient in C13 as exogenous testosterone, then the administration of exogenous testosterone would not move that person’s CIR readings.
However, if we take a corn-eating subject and switch the subject’s diet to soy, it’s still not clear to me that the switch would cause a blip in the subject’s delta-delta reading. Sure, the C13 content of the subject’s testosterone metabolites would drop, but then so would the C13 content of the other half of the delta-delta equation (for example, pregnanediol). Absent some wrinkle (like one of my 3 explanations above), the delta-delta should not budge.
Contrast administration of exogenous testosterone, which should only depress the C13 content of the testosterone metabolites.
The “Flenker” study referenced in my articles monitored what happened with such a shift in diet, and found that diet did not have a significant rapid effect on things. But that same study does show signficant random day-to-day variability in levels. At any rate they conclude that bodily stores (e.g. cholesterol in the liver) help to level out the changes and keep them form occurring rapidly. It isn’t clear what effect on bodily stores competing in the tour might have. Given that athletes burn blood lipids for fuel at much higher rates than mere mortals, it seems likely they would deplete those stores.
But alcohol is different. I guess the really interesting bits are not in the first two articles, they’re here:
http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/index.php?showtopic=3929
Alcohol boosts testosterone production in the short term, and it also boosts production of one testosterone metabolite in particular. So this effect, combined with depleted cholesterol stores, and a sudden new source of carbon for the cholesterol, might cause the testosterone, and especially the one metabolite in particular, to diverge away from the other metabolites.
Guess which metabolite in particular is boosted?
tom
Tom –
I’ve given a more careful read to your articles, and to some of the articles cited in your articels, and whew! Funny thing how the human body’s biochemistry has a way of defying simple logic.
If administration of exogenous testosterone is something like eating food that is light in C13, then you can’t count on the C13 content of testosterone and pregnanediol to move in lock step. In some of the people in the food study, the testosterone’s C13 content dropped faster than the pregnanediol C13 content. It was interesting to see how these values moved in time, and how the movements were different from person to person.
So, you reach an interesting conclusion: if you can eat or drink something that was capable of moving your C13 delta for testosterone by a factor greater than 3, you could not count on the C13 delta for pregnanediol to keep pace. It might not even budge. So in theory, it is possible to eat or drink your way into an adverse analytical finding.
Food for thought … so to speak.
Larry,
I don’t think you are completely correct about the ratio on the delta:delta. A sudden change in diet (with a change in the carbon source) should affect the ratio. For how long is really the question. Testosterone would pick up the C more quickly (or slowly?) than some other metabolites based upon the rate that the metabolite is created and destroyed. So intuitively (for what that’s worth) one could deduce that a rider with a less negative CIR who bonked then pounded the corn flakes, cola, and other things laden with corn sweeteners (to help recover glycogen stores), would be more likely to have a false positive, only if it could be shown that the timing of the uptake of the C13 fits the timing and sequence of the metabolite production. I’m not so sure anyone has followed this through on test subjects burning 8000 calories a day – it would be pretty complicated and very hard to get an adequate test population.
I don’t think that your statement regarding the body’s metabolic functions preferring C12 more than C13 is so far fetched. Although I can’t find too much science to back that up.
Interlude:
A similar concept to what you are talking about is codon bias. Simple bio lesson: In the genetic code, it is common for a single amino acid to occupy all four third-position codon possibilities; for example, the amino acid glycine is coded by the codon sequences GGU, GGC, GGA, and GGG (cytosine, guanine, adenine, and uracil). Within an individual, some of those codons are more readily usable than others. But generally they will all work. There are about 1,500,000 of these single-nucleotide varieties in the human population (The coexistence, in the same population, of two or more distinct forms of a sequence that codes for the same amino acid). To put it very simply, gene variants for the same trait can exist within a healthy population (called silent substitutions because they are nucleotide variations that don’t change the amino acid). However, some of the variants can be a disadvantage, because they can slightly alter the rate or cost of production (to over simplify). Without getting into too much detail, the basic point is that biological systems do play favorites with raw materials for efficiency. Admittedly, these codon biases being followed to the molecular level is a huge leap.
Now back to our show. Is anyone still with me?
Thomas, you list three reasons regarding what could cause Floyd’s result. All are correct, but you are missing a single phrase: assuming that the test results were accurately obtained. I believe that’s what you meant, anyway?
Okay, I’m behind the thread.
Am I correct in thinking that pregnanediol is metabolized slowly (relatively) and testosterone is metabolized quickly?
Michael, it appears that we’re dealing with some very complex stuff, where there are few general rules. As you put it, biological systems do play favorites. They also seem to avoid easy characterization.
I’ve been looking at the numbers generated by LNDD for Landis’ B samples for all 4 testosterone metabolites, and I can’t find any pattern to their movement. I’ve been hoping to argue from these numbers that there must be some mistake, that they’re simply inconsistent with what could be produced by a human system regardless of any arguable pattern of use of exogenous testosterone.
But our human biochemical systems simply appear to me to be too complex to be tied down like this. The arguments that Tom makes, to the effect that the numbers could be produced naturally, also argue that the numbers are possible, and therefore that the numbers might be produced by doping. This is a depressing conclusion. It doesn’t “prove” that Landis doped, but it takes away an argument that he couldn’t have doped.
Jean C,
As I know it, alcohol is what is a diuretic, not that it is beer or wine…
Hey Tom – forgive me if I got you into something that you have lost interest in, it would seem that your research is piquing interest.
In my opinion your articles and a lot of others points to one simple and significant issue. The only conclusion I can come to is that we are “testing” all these people with tests that are legitimate only because WADA has decided that they are.
If one looks at the sheer amount of “questions” that arise in these discussions – one has to assume that the problem is that “WADA science” is based on opinion rather then time tested scientific research. There is a very good reason that any real scientific process is presented to the world community of scientists and the hallmark of it being correct or not is whether others arrive at the same conclusion to what was presented.
I’m not a scientist but this seems to me a very logical and “fair” method for proving procedures. Of course WADA’s problem then arises that this process takes real time. What this “governing body” seems to believe is that “getting the dopers” is more important then good science. In any protocol applied to anything – when so many questions are left unanswered, the “protocol” is tossed. Could it be that they assume that, “well, it is only cycling, it is only sport.”
As I see it, there is one “small” problem with this. When they have so little interest in comporting their testing in a ligitemit and time tested science – then the whole process collapses. What bothers me is that the “cost” of such behavior is the individual. Such an attitude is diametrically opposed to finding out the truth.
I have to say though Tom, I am not disappointed by your present interaction with us. Thank you.
It does seem that there are a lot of questions about the validity of various tests. Given the rather unusual conditions a TdF rider submits himself too, and which conceivable can effect the body’s chemistry, I wonder just how we might rigorously test the tests? Do we allow a significant sample of the peleton to use a given PED in order to see how well a given test does indeed detect the PED in question. Or do we perhaps hire up all the sanctioned riders and attempt to duplicate the conditions of the Tour?
Morgan,
Probably alcohol is a diuretic too, but beer is more efficient!
From http://www.unibroue.com/beer101/sante.cfm
The diuretic action of beer is due to the hops resin, which stimulates the kidneys, thereby contributing to the elimination not only of excess water in the body, but also of wastes and toxins.
William,
How many riders are tested each day on TDF? How many on Giro? How many on Vuelta? How long are the riders tested? How long are other athletes tested?
As you said we are lacking od datas… longitudinal monitoring is the answer for better understanding and for decreasing suspicion on an athlete.
Jean:
My understanding is that 4 riders are tested daily: the stage winner, the Maillot Jaune, and 2 “random” riders. I don’t know what the protocol is when the stage winner is also first on GC, not all that uncommon, but I am sure there is some procedure in place. I don’t know about the other big tours; but I’d guess something similar.
Such limited testing does indeed give us little data to either judge the nature of the problem nor how the physical stress of the race affects the body’s chemistry.
William
The research you are referring to is being done. Right now I mean. Not on riders though.
They take samples (blood and urine) very often and under most of the possible circumstances. There are far more tests performed compared to the UCI testing. For instance the liver levels are measured to look for ferro bilding etc. Extensive research.
One thing that is already mentioned is that the kidneys under heavy exercise does not function as they can do under normal circumstances.
I agree that there is not enough research. Too costly and often too extensive.
I tried to dig a little into for instance research about soy products and testosterone levels
Well nothing conclusive and soy products are intensively researched for their supposed beneficial influence on health and hormone levels.
Most of the results I found said that soy products lower (!) the testosterone levels.
And there was evidence that not everybody “˜used’ important metabolites of soy in the same way.
What I am trying to say here is that scientific proof of diet (for instance soy products) influencing the testosterone levels (and possibly the outcome of testosterone tests) is very extensive research.
I took soy products because soy is in a lot of the products we eat every day and there is a of variation in the “˜composition’ of the soy product.
Faced with this it gives a depressing reason for:
the rules of WADA seem to be written to catch the doping rider/sportsman.
Of course are rules that are written to catch the doping rider not fair for sure.
“Catch the rider’ is everything but objective.
They might have taken the rational of: -when we keep full scientific guidelines we might not catch enough of them. And it will be too easy to get free from the charges. So we loosen the guidelines for our tests and we will be right in 8 out of 10 cases. AND in most cases we will have some corroborating evidence anyway.
The WADA got into existence when it became public that there was a lot of doping going on in sports, so who knows.
There was strong public pressure to: catch the doping persons.
It would surely explain why there is so much room for interpretation throughout the rules: on several occasions the Landis objections were dismissed because there was a “˜should’ instead of a “˜must’ in the rules. And why “˜it’s good enough’ (the evidence) is so easily spoken and held over “˜it’s not good enough’.
Of course this is deadly for the individual and there for unacceptable.
But WADA is run by managers so who knows.
Without verification, there is at least 3 riders tested every race day since Festina, GT or single day race!
Every year there is 50 (20 15 15) GT stages, and 6-8 week races like PN or Tour de Suisse… around 1000 tests done just for GTs since 99, probably enough to have a good insight of the reality.
Probably there is more than 500 different days of race by year, some times there is 2 or 3 different races the same days. So around 1500 tests by year … just for cycling … testing done by multiple lab (Spain, Italian France, Belgium, Suisse, Germany, US, NDL, …).
Around 10,000 T/E test since Festina !
Jean C,
Are the “results” of these test available to scientific investigation? I do not mean result in the sense of conclusion rather as raw data?
It would seem to me that with over 10,000such tests performed on “Elite” athletes, we would get a much better idea of what the heck is going on – since the most oft repeated “problem” is that we do not have research – It seems to me like a no brainer to collate all that data – if your count is correct – we should have 90,000 samples to go through – AND they would be a direct testing of the “Elite” athlete type not merely normal “test subjects.”
From what I heard – the WADA labs do not make any specifics available for scientific study – this seems to me to0 be a complete idiotic situation. Or am I incorrect in this assumption?
One problem Morgan is that these test results are only one side of the situation. If we are trying to find out how things like diet, exercise, etc. can effect the results of a given test (say the T/E test, or CIR or whatever) we would need to have some independent means of determining the true state of a given rider being tested.
The current situation regarding the in competition, as best I know, is that the selected riders get tested (A test). If the A test is determined to be negative, nothing is done (except if you’re a certain rider!), if the result is non-negative, the rider is informed and he can request that the B sample is tested. Some riders will request the B sample, some don’t for whatever reason.
If we are interested in whether or not the T/E test is good, perhaps the other types of tests that LNDD did might serve and perhaps not. I sort of think that they are testing different things. In addition, how many positive T/E tests have have occurred and how many of these were subject to B testing? I don’t recall hearing about T doping in cycling prior to Landis, but then if the rider involved was not a big name, it might not have made the news over here. But my feeling is that there haven’t been all that many cases. If there are only a few cases, whatever conclusions one might draw are not going to be statistically valid.
What we’d need to do to determine whether diet, alcoholic beverage consumption, etc. can adversely effect the test results is to be able to administer some test which is well accepted as being highly reliable along with the tests currently used in WADA labs and compare results. Or at least have some way of knowing for certain that the test subjects weren’t using T doping. And perhaps test some who were T doping to see what if any percentage were false negatives.
While the total number of tests administered under WADA seems large, it is only a small percentage of the total population in question. If 4 riders are tested daily in the TdF, 4 times 21 stages equals 84 tests compared to the 180 or so total riders times 21 stages, which is around 3600 tests for total testing. Having all the raw data available for analysis might produce some interesting results, but I doubt it will tell us much about how reliable the tests are and whether or not diet, etc. affects them.
An aside on this beer topic, I didn’t drink Amstel Light before 2006. Now I buy it regularly. It’s lighter than I like in a brew, but “metabolizes” just fine.
Just a tiny little show of support for Floyd.
Now this must be doping…
Pantani teammate found dead
By Agence France Presse
Posted Mar. 28, 2008
Italian rider Valentino Fois, a former teammate of deceased champion Marco Pantani, has been found dead at his home near Bergamo, La Gazzetta dello Sport reported on Friday.
The 34-year-old Fois, who turned professional in 1996, was arrested in 1998 for doping after testing positive twice during the Tour of Switzerland and the Tour of Poland.
He was suspended for three years in 2002 while he rode for the Mercato Uno team of Pantani, who died of a drug overdose four years ago.
The cause of Fois’ death is unknown. He was found by his mother with whom he lived.
Fois made his return to professional cycling last November by signing for the Amore e Vita team.
Two months earlier he had been sentenced to 100 days in prison for stealing two portable computers from a local newspaper. The sentence was later reduced to a 4000-euro fine.
In an interview, he blamed the incident on the fact that he had taken to drinking because he had not raced for so long. He admitted trying cocaine and suffering from depression and anxiety, for which he was receiving treatment.
William,
Thank you for explaining the flaws in my suggestion, as you say – the data needs to address—“whether diet, alcoholic beverage consumption, etc. can adversely effect the test results is to be able to administer some test which is well accepted as being highly reliable along with the tests currently used in WADA labs and compare results.” I completely agree with you.
My thoughts were wandering in the direction concerning the data we have, how it is arrived at and that nobody seems to trust anything in the milue – because, in my opinion, and I cannot claim it to be scientifically correct – steps in proper scientific validation have been circumvented by the WADA practices.
As I understand it, when a “study” is done, conclusions are drawn, then it is presented to the world. The validity of the the conclusions of the study are “proved” when other scientists, following the same procedures that the study was conducted under, get the same results.
WADA’s reasoning and rationale is that “they” are under attack, which may be very true, and any organization in their position should know that this would happen. But WADA uses this situation as a means to avoid having their “tests” validated in the way that we do trust a test, if I do a test, using very specific protocols, I should get the same results.
I am reminded of the “fusion/fission” testing controversies that have gone on. Are you aware of these? Well, the “results” could not be repeated so the great “discovery” is out there but because the results could not be repeated – it is the realm of limbo, as far as the search for cheap energy is concerned.
I guess my point was that the WADA and the UCI and now at least a half dozen teams are doing “longitudinal testing” of their athletes, this is what the “blood passport” is all about, I think.
So it seems strange to me that when you have such a number of “tests” going on already, of very specific types of athletes and the need of the situation is that these “specific types” be tested correctly – why does WADA spend and waste money on setting up “research” that uses subjects that are not from the same type of individuals that are being tested? After all, it would seem logical that if ones’ goal is to “find reliable tests” for a specific group then the individuals tested would be from this group type. If WADA wasn’t so paranoid and controlling, they could present this “research” to the Elite cycling community and find “willing participants.” But no – they test individuals that are not of the same type and claim to get “reliable results for the cycling elite, AND these “outside” researches are expensive.
WADA claims a kind of validation – which comes from their own “closed group” of scientists. Well then we should not be overly surprised that there are questions of trust, since the WADA scientists results have not been tested or proved by the world scientific community, since all the WADA research that these labs are doing is kept under wraps “for fear that the dopers will discover even cleverer ways to avoid getting busted.”
So I ask myself, why is it that when all these tests are being done and we do need “scientifically reliable tests and results” – why are not all the existing testing going on – NOT being used to do actual research of this specialized group of individuals? If the problem is that the tests are not “asking the right questions” for research purposes, then why not expand them to do so? Especially since the programs like ACE and the Dammsgard, et al. systems seem to be based on such scientific principles? After all, what supposedly makes these programs viable is that they may be looked at and tested by the scientific world community.
I think the answer is quiet simple – WADA does not want this to happen – because the end result would be simply that they would no longer be able to “claim” the power to say when and who is doping. The only advantage I see that a closed system like WADA practices is that it makes WADA the sole arbiter of their own “conclusions.”
William, as you can see, I understand your points and agree with them. I know that the results we are getting are not adaquet for proper research – but it should be a simple thing to redirect the testing so that we could actually come up with verifiable results – and the question of cost in a large part is already taken care of – give ACE and Damsgaard the money to “widen” the testing- the teams along with the sponsors are investing a small fortune already. It seems pretty simple and logical to me. But then of course the idea that WADA or the USADA are the sole authority on “defining” what is scientific and the standard by which we come to conclude who is or is not doping, goes up in smoke.
William, let me apologize now for whatever populist misconceptions I may be making concerning science – I look forward to your response if you are so inclined.
Morgan
I hope you don’t mind me jumping in on the subject you are discussing with William.
And forgive when you know all I am saying.
Your idea, as I understand it is, redirecting the research to the actual subjects, the cycling population is in itself a great idea.
And I think it could be done for some things like the tests involved with the biological passport.
But I think that with other tests there are a few problems.
Let me start like this.
I think that the IRMS test in itself CAN test for exogenous testosterone under CONTROLLED circumstances.
There is scientific backup for that.
But what is not available is: will the test ALWAYS test exogenous testosterone, or could it test another substance.
We are (only) talking about diet and alcohol (there might a lot of other things that interfere).
To find scientific proof for that it’s necessary to keep the circumstances as controlled as possible otherwise there is still no scientific proof.
So let’s take the TdF as our testing conditions. All our subjects are riding the Tour. So that is more or less under control.
To be sure that the subjects have more or less similar circumstances during the riding we better take a group that is (mostly) riding in the peloton and a group that is (mostly) riding up front otherwise there is still not a real situation.
We need to measure their kidneys levels and probably their liver values to be sure that kidneys and liver are working normally to rule out temporarily kidney or liver failure under the heavy circumstances. These test are not routinely done under normal anti doping testing
Then “˜controlled’ means that some of the test subjects are given a certain amount of (let’s say) soy products and/or alcohol. The others don’t get it, they are the control group.
Last but not least: we need some of the riders to take exogenous testosterone and some who don’t.
Some might volunteer here 🙂 .
To have a scientific reliable study we AT LEAST need to control the circumstances I wrote above.
Without them it is a nice study but we can’t rely on it.
I think you will understand the problems coming with it.
Then I give you a few examples of medicines that after extensive scientific study still turned out to have “˜results’ that were not found during the studies before release of the medicine.
Vioxx, you probably know. It was found out after a lot of heart attacks that the medicine has side effects that wasn’t found during the investigation of it.
MTX (methotexaat) is a medicine originally used against cancer. While administering it to people it turn out to have the side effect that rheumatism was positively influenced by it.
Until now medical science doesn’t really know how it works, it’s just known that it does.
I am not trying to be “˜the wise guy’ here or “˜the defender of WADA’. Surely not, because I do find that the highest standards should be used. Also when it might mean and it very well might, that they can hardly convict anybody.
But I think it is everything but simple.
I think WADA/UCI is far more stretching the already “loose” rules then they were used to.
Leukemans might be a good example of it. He tested not negative T/E ratio before. There hasn’t been any remark about it until this year. Then he suddenly was testing with a IRMS test in Stuttgart and found positive for exogenous testosterone.
It would be so nice if we could put his results on the GC/MS and IRMS tests next to those of Landis. Then we would at least an idea how they look compared to Landis’.
From another post:
I forgot about: The Emperor’s New Clothes. But Luckily “˜my friend named Google’ helped me out 🙂 .
And to your:
-I come away from this whole brouhaha – with the realization that the riders have no support, have always been used and no matter how much money they may earn, the one thing they do not have is a “fair and even playing field” to work in-
I agree fully.
To me it looks awful and tragic.
Karuna,
Unfortunately, your comment got stuck in moderation for a short while (until I checked this morning, that is). Sorry for the inconvenience.
Rant
No problem 🙂
Karuna,
This is an “open forum” – you are not “interrupting” when you state a comment…At least I don’t think so…(:-))))) – But seriously…hihihihihi…
Karuna – in my thinking – I do not see any objections to using the “peloton” as test subjects – not if we are really serious about having tests that are reliable. It may take some getting used to by the riders, but if the full implications of what may be gained from such testing is explained to them – I can’t see them not willing to participate. The “potential” for knowledge that can come of such a situation, as they say, “blows my mind!”
There is so much we DON’T KNOW about how an “elite” athletes’ body functions – since most studies are not done on “elite athletes” rather on ordinary test subjects. This reminds me of what the drug companies used to do when it came to “testing” their products and all the test subjects were male. For a moment – let us assume that male bodies do have differences from the female body. (:-))) To begin with – our PH values are mostly completely different – although I have run into individual females that would not pass visual inspection to being female – simply due to their genetic history…
What I am suggesting – is quiet simple and you got the point – why is there so much resistance to make good scientifically based testing a part of cycling? Let me clarify how I am applying the term “simple” – I do not say that proper testing is going to be simple. What is simple is to make a logical and scientifically based decision that we do such a thing. The entire situation in cycling cries out for it…why fight it?
Just look at all the trouble and work that is going into the “passport” system of control. Consider the sums of money that sponsors, organizers TEAMS AND RIDERS already contribute…well perhaps the contribution of the organizers is open to question. But it is already happening. Of course then – the whole “emotional climate” – of TESTING changes. It changes from being a weapon AGAINST riders and teams and turns into a search for knowledge. I think the “cheaters” would fall, as the testing progresses. to me – this seems a “Win-Win” situation.
I do not think of your comments, Karuna, as “misrepresenting yourself” – so I do not read it as you attempting to be “a wise guy.” – I do not believe that anybody else does here either – but this is of course only a “guess” on my part. While some of us are “PRO LANDIS” – what all of us are is “interested in knowing what we are talking about.” In other words – simply respecting individuals that show themselves to be able to pass their own “biases” and come at this whole thing from a rational and scientific point of view….We all express ourselves on different levels – but the central theme is kept pure.
This is what keeps me involved with these fine group of individuals – and you are such a person. Your attempts at communication is what makes you so. So is TVB, William, the Judge, Larry, Mike, Snake, bsmb and many others. Well of course Rant is such a person – although – I am not too sure about his Huskies…I think they can be bribed…but don’t quote me on this. Hmmnnn what would they do for a 5 kilo rump steak, eh? Think about it…..
Perhaps what has come to light in all this time with ASO, WADA, UCI, USADA, et al, is simply that there must be “changes made” in them…because as you say – “It ain’t a pretty picture.” – We should not be put off from making changes. We should also realize that the people who have been deeply embedded in the systems are “NOT just going to go without a serious fight.” This is not a realistic expectation, in my opinion. When Rant posses the question about the “apocalypse” in cycling coming. I think he is right – but in my opinion, this apocalypse is the winds of change – not a question of whether pro cycling racing exists or not. I for one find it fascinating to watch these corrupt “governing entities” consuming each other…I know….I will pay karmicaly for this…but I am weak and my egocentric view of justice is hungry.
Hope this clarifies the word “simple” – as I am applying it in this case – since I do agree with your observations also about the situation. This time – I think I managed to avoid the need for you to “Google” any references…? I hope? (;-)))
Karuna:
You’re ideas on a scientific study are quite good. The one problem is that it would require a group of riders to take a banned substance. This in turn would require the ASO/UCI/WADA to grant them an exception (RUE – Research Use Exception?). If some of the riders in question achieved high placing, other riders might feel the riders in question had an unfair advantage. If any of the putative benefits of T use are true, indeed they would have an advantage. On the other hand, if you allowed a group of riders to ride in the Tour, but not be actually competing (I believe this was done in the past, where one could pay to be allowed to ride the tour as sort of a fantasy ride), it could alter the conditions, both in regards to the test as well as to the race. If the test group merely hung in on the back of the peleton, they would not be duplicating the conditions of the top riders. If they took some part in attacks and chases, they could alter the results.
Money.
Making tests better is expensive, and you’re almost immediately at the point of diminishing returns – each incremental improvement is progressively more expensive. And no matter how much you spent, there would always be someone like me saying “yeah but what about this…”.
Better testing is important, but in my opinion the most important thing is forming an anti-doping poicy that works honestly with the science you have so far. If your test is going to hvae both false positives and false negatives sometimes, then you your policy should not include mandatory two-year sentences. You should not have strict liability.
If the real goal is to increase the fairness of the sport itself, then you would try to estimate key statistical factors, like the true doping rate, the false positive rate, and the false negative rate, and from those form a sensible policy that would never lead to the nightmares we have now. You’d have light sentences that were accepted by athletes even if they were false positives. You wouldn’t have ridiculous publicity, and instantly ruined careers, and riders who’ve served their time but are still “marked”.
But if the real goal is to make a good show of things? WADA’s real customer is the International Olympic Committe. So their real goal is to make a good show of things for the IOC. In that case, by all means form an anti-doping policy that appears on the surface to be very hard-line, and that can lead to spectacularly newsworthy results. Of course, WADA would be wise to use such a policy on sports that were small enough to not be the IOC’s bread and butter, but big enough to still be newsworthy.
tom
Couldn’t agree with you more TAF – Isn’t WADA a “child of the IOC?”
Thomas
I agree with you up to the point that WADA is putting up a show for the IOC.
That would mean that the IOC is not aware of what is going on. I doubt that.
Verbruggen is a member of the IOC, he was president of the UCI as I am sure you know.
Maybe you read the Vogelzang rapport in the Rasmussen case. If there was one thing that came out it of that rapport than it is that there is so much show going on at every part of the doping policy of WADA/UCI.
I guess a show to convince and reassure the public. The public that wants to think that the doping problem is under control. THAT is good for business (read money) and the IOC.
I also think that these long suspensions, “˜catch the riders rules’ etc are in place for the reassurance of the public.
In short, I think there is a show but it is for the public.
I hope the public in the USA is a lot more sensible but in the Netherlands and Belgium people were shooting for a hard-line since the first doping cases came public.
Not being able to convict a rider was not adding to the credibility of the WADA/UCI in the eyes of a lot of disappointed people.
Disappointed people isn’t good for sponsoring etc.
The ASO show with Astana? To my opinion, partly the same recipe.
ut if the real goal is to make a good show of things? WADA’s real customer is the International Olympic Committe. So their real goal is to make a good show of things for the IOC. In that case, by all means form an anti-doping policy that appears on the surface to be very hard-line, and that can lead to spectacularly newsworthy results. Of course, WADA would be wise to use such a policy on sports that were small enough to not be the IOC’s bread and butter, but big enough to still be newsworthy.
Bingo.
Why else would the dual-hatted folks in the Landis case stretch truth (“green sensor light on low pressure”) past the breaking point? They have a lot to lose beyond the Landis case.
TBV
karuna,
I can’t believe that anti-doping is primarily a public-relations thing. No one could be that stupid. Having the word “doping” attached to every major story is NOT good PR.
The best PR, as relates to doping, would be to bury the issue, never mention it, and either have no anti-doping program at all, or have a very quiet, low-key (low penalty) program that doesn’t splash on the news every week.
And let me just rewrite my last posting into a really nice soundbite:
Anti-doping policy should be formed around the science you have, not the science you wish for.
tom
Tom,
—“Anti-doping policy should be formed around the science you have, not the science you wish for.”—
That is exactly the root of all this, in my opinion.
TBV,
There is a chance also that the PR monster got loose and the “spinners” had lost control because Floyd and his Team changed the way the game was usually played out…
It is also true that you can dress a pig in a Seville Roe suit and for a while you can get away with nobody noticing that he’s a pig…the thing about pigs though is that they are and they can’t help acting like pigs, even why they work overtime to hide it…
Someone will come along and ask, “Hey – ain’t that a pig in a suit?”
(Apologies to any honest Pigs in the audience – I am applying the word as an adjective.)
Thomas
I wasn’t clear about what I meant. I will try to make this theory a little more clear.
Under the same rules the doping issue went from denial to a witch hunt.
Personally I am pretty sure that in the nineties there was probably more doping going on than the last couple of years.
In the nineties everybody pretended not to know. Nothing was done by nobody.
They lowered the Hct level, that was it. If they really raised alarm at that time they could have installed a form of the blood passport much sooner.
Why didn’t they?
I think because they didn’t want any scandal. They hoped with introducing the whereabout system (without the tests coming along so there still wasn’t too many non negative tests) that the sportsmans/riders would stop of at least lower the doping intake.
No luck, the riders just took it as: I just need to make sure I am not caught.
There came a point of no return. The WADA/UCI etc became sure that at some point a newspaper or whatever would find out and how would they look then?
That OP could be kept under the carpet was not realistic. So they switched strategy and the whole: blame the rider, begun.
Okay, I hope I am a little more clear about what I mean.
So the strategy as they use now is to keep as much control of a situation that has gotten out of hand.
The out of hand situation is doing the sport great damage.
Especially in the eyes of the public. And ultimately the sport needs the public to keep going.
In short we could say that the WADA etc are saying with this hard line strategy: see we have it under control, we are doing everything we can and we can catch and convict doping riders.
It’s a means to restore the trust.
–Anti-doping policy should be formed around the science you have, not the science you wish for.–
Absolutely. I agree.
”
The best PR, as relates to doping, would be to bury the issue, never mention it, and either have no anti-doping program at all, or have a very quiet, low-key (low penalty) program that doesn’t splash on the news every week.”
This is, IMO, pretty much how the big pro sports leagues in the US have handled things, at least up until the Mitchell report. By and large, drug suspensions are initially for only a few games, reports in the media are only a brief mention that so-and-so is being suspended for 4 games for violation of league substance rules. Often it is hard to impossible to determine if the suspension is for PED, recreational drug use or alcohol. As result, most fans aren’t too concerned about PED usage in MLB, NFL, etc.
There was a far amount of negative press over Bonds run to the HR record this year, but by and large it ignored any other PED use in MLB.
But cycling continues to be perceived as THE dirty sport that does little to change, despite the heaviest penalties which may be equaled by other sports, but are not exceeded.
WADA, under Pound’s leadership, seems to have been on a crusade to take down pro cycling. I am not sure why this is, except the Olympic angle surely figures here. Baseball was briefly an Olympic sport and US football was never an Olympic sport, so IOC has little interest in what happens in those sports, but cycling has been in the modern Olympics since day one.
“If the real goal is to increase the fairness of the sport itself, then you would try to estimate key statistical factors, like the true doping rate, the false positive rate, and the false negative rate, and from those form a sensible policy that would never lead to the nightmares we have now.”
Good idea, here, Thomas, and one I think is within reason, financially and otherwise. It is a wise person who chooses the battles he can win. I think a directed approach, sport specific, and perhaps even specific to the particular sub-discipline within a given sport. For example, while perhaps track cyclists, particularly sprinter, would benefit from using steroids to build muscle, this would be detrimental to a road cyclist. On the road, EPO and blood doping are probably the big problem now, and T use has no proven benefit, with only rumors of “aiding recovery”. So maybe the time, trouble and expense directed to detecting T use could be better spent in anti-EPO campaign, improving testing, etc.
Such a targeted approach could go one of two ways: either simple don’t both to test for certain substances in the context of a certain sport, or competition within a sport; or even go so far as to perhaps legalize certain drugs within a given context. Would EOP be of much use to a bobsledder? I doubt it, so why not let bobsledders use EPO all they want. Which probably wouldn’t be much, if any.