Yes, Landis fans, the Ranter is back after a couple of days non-posting. It’s not that I’ve been away or anything, instead I’ve been digesting the latest Landis developments before committing my thoughts to the glowing electrons of your computer screen.
And what a couple of days it’s been. There’s a very interesting post over at TBV. Seems one “Mr. Ferret” sent TBV images of some lab documentation from LNDD in July. Apparently, this documentation has to do with the anti-doping test results from Stage 17 of the Tour de France.
There’s quite a bit of comments on this particular post, including a couple from yours truly, the Ranter. Let me sum up at least a bit of the document for you, though I would recommend taking a look at it yourself.
The document shows the results for three samples, which presumably came from three different individuals. Among the results are T/E ratios for these three samples. In graphic two on the page (the first is of the whole page and to my aging eyes it’s damn-near unreadable) the T/E results are:
- Sample 994178: either 1:10 or 1:1
- Sample 994179: either 10:1 or 1:1
- Sample 995474: 4.9:1
Let me explain my take on those first two readings a bit: Due to the lack of clarity in the graphics, it’s hard to tell if — or where — the decimal place is in those two readings. I’d have to see the original document, or a better scan to draw a further conclusion about those readings. But let’s go a bit further with them, at least for a moment.
Suppose that sample 994178 is 1:10, what does that mean? It means that the rider has 10 times the epitestosterone (E) as compared to testosterone (T). How could that be? I’m not sure, as the normal T/E ratios for most men falls between 1:1 and 8:1 (yes, even though WADA has reduced the threshold value to 4:1, there are many endocrinologists who say that up to a few percent of the male population has a natural ratio of 8:1 or more). So having more E than T sounds strange to me.
I know there are a number of possible explanations for it, but here’s an intriguing possibility: Perhaps this rider was doping and took too much epitestosterone while trying to mask his doping efforts. This reading would certainly bear investigation, at least from where I see it, as it’s fairly well known that athletes taking testosterone will try and find a way to cover up their doping.
And manipulating the amount of epitestosterone in their systems would be a good place to start. Properly done, it would keep the T/E ratio within bounds– at least in theory — and prevent a further analysis that could turn up a positive result. But what if the athlete took the E but forgot to take the T? What would their T/E ratio look like? My guess: something like a ratio suggesting more E than T, so it would be a ratio of 1 to a value greater than 1.
There are, perhaps, natural explanations for this ratio just like there are some individuals whose ratio is 8:1 or more. Not many athletes, I suppose, but some. Maybe that’s true for a ratio of 1:10, as well.
Then again, if the value really is 1:1, all this discussion is moot. Moving on to the next sample, number 994179, it’s not clear whether it’s 10:1 or 1:1. But let’s consider the implication of if it’s 10:1. That means there was another adverse analytical finding on testosterone that day. Which raises the question: Who is the athlete, and why haven’t we heard about him up to now? Of course, if the value really is 1:1, then the answer would be obvious, he didn’t make it to round 2 of T/E roulette.
And then there’s that last value, for sample 995474, a reading of 4.9:1 (at least as best as I can tell). That clearly exceeds the current threshold, so one can reasonably assume that it bears further investigation. Part of that investigation should be what the raw numbers are, and what they mean. If the ratio was because of an abnormally low E value, then the evidence for doping is not convincing. If E is normal, then one needs to investigate whether the rider has a naturally higher T/E ratio.
The plot thickens. Later on the same page is a notation that appears to suggest a T/E ratio for sample 995474 of 11.4:1. What? How is it that testing the same sample came up with a vastly different result? Is there that much variability in the process that you can have such different values? And if so, how reliable is the testing procedure? And how do you really determine what the actual value is?
I’ve been around enough chemistry and bio-chem labs to know that there could be some variability in the results if you take 2 portions of the sample and run them through the same tests. But what I find amazing is the degree of variation here. It seems wrong. A second reading of 5:1 or 4.8:1 would seem reasonable. A second reading of 11.4:1 is pretty far off the mark — unless you’re looking to smear someone or to create a huge public stink to prove that your anti-doping efforts are paying off.
Which brings us to the next complication. In the portion of the form where we see the 11.4:1 reading is some other text which may suggest that this was for 995474’s B sample, and that the results may come from 7/28/06. This is also intriguing, as news reports said that the B sample was analyzed starting on 8/3/06, which was 5 days later.
What, exactly, is going on here? Feats the buck out of me.
Whenever there’s anonymous information, it’s good to look at the motives of the person who’s made it available to the media. And that leads us to the next bit: Who is Mr. Ferret, and what is his reason for letting this information out?
From where I see it, Mr. Ferret is someone sympathetic to Floyd Landis. That’s because the document presents some seemingly inconsistent or contradictory evidence — not the kind of information someone at LNDD would let out, and certainly not something the UCI or WADA would want out in the public domain.
What’s not clear is whether Mr. Ferret is someone within Floyd’s camp or someone else who has access to these documents, and who has a conscience, and thinks Landis is getting a raw deal. Perhaps someone at LNDD? Or the UCI? Or, dare I say, WADA?
If it’s the latter case, someone outside Floyd’s camp who doesn’t like the way he’s being shafted, I can understand the anonymity. And perhaps the person letting it out from Floyd’s camp wants to keep it vague as to where this is coming from.
It’s intriguing stuff, to be sure. But like TBV said in his comments about the story yesterday and today, I would also like to see the whole package in order to look at all the data. (I know, combing through 370+ pages of lab notes in French is going to be more than laborious.) If the point of letting this info out was to begin to build the case for sloppy work at LNDD, then give us the whole story.
Right now, it’s clear as mud to me.
