Travel from the United States to Europe will increase your carbon-13
delta from -17 to -21, due to variations in local foods.
And I'm supposed to believe that Floyd's carbon-13 results can only be
explained by doping?
Yeah and now the dehydration on the flight will get ya too.
Stu Fleming wrote:
> Yeah and now the dehydration on the flight will get ya too.
And if it doesn't the liquids might.
- Fred B.
3.99 according to Michael Henson, Landis' spokesman. Three is the
In addition, the background against which the 13C:12C ratio of
testosterone is compared is another endogenous steroid, produced from
the same precursors. Whether or not diet alters the ratio therefore
isn't the question, the question is whether it alters it
*differentially* compared to the "standard".
According to WADA's own study, apparently it can, and quickly too.
I also found it interesting that the "did not exceed 3%" statement was
crossed out....hmmmm, I wonder what that means...
It looks like it may be a printing/publishing issue. Since that is also
in CAPS it may be intended to be underlined for emphasis. It is
unlikely that in the papers of a conference there would be strikeouts.
I've tested positive on the isotope test. Twice. And I didn't dope.
On second test, I had to pay out of my own pocket. I'm no longer an
athlete (was never even close to being a professional one when I went
positive) and the second test was 4 months ago. I can see how people
could question the first one. But the more recent one? Like I would
need to dope in order to drink beer and surf up internet porn. Use
some common sense folks. If doping is one but not the only
explanation, then you've got to perform some additional tests and
narrow it down and be certain.
In a way, I hope Floyd is guilty. I would truly hate to think that
someone who was actually talented and making a living competing clean
was tagged due to someone half-assing the test and interpretation. At
least I was not talented and it doesn't really affect me ('cept I'm out
a good chunk of cash). If I was talented, I would be so pissed that I
would most certainly write another paragraph.
Note that the subjects in this study were on a cholesterol-free diet
(thus forcing much greater reliance on endogenous precursors for the
synthesis of testosterone, etc.), and that samples were obtained 5x/d
(thus enhancing the chance of observing disequilibrium). Since no data
are shown, we also don't the magnitude of the differences that were
actually observed, except that it didn't exceed the 3 per mil cut-off
used by anti-doping authorities (as emphasized by the authors through
use of bold *and* underlined* - not crossed out - text).
> I've tested positive on the isotope test. Twice. And I didn't dope.
> On second test, I had to pay out of my own pocket. I'm no longer an
> athlete (was never even close to being a professional one when I went
> positive) and the second test was 4 months ago.
That's intersesting - who are you?
OK...I'll accept that. But, can someone please point me to the results
of the study where they had riders bonk, replace 8-10k calories with
mostly plant based carbos (including a touch of beer and some of
Kentucky's "finest"), and then follow that up with >5 hours at max
effort and an overwhelming feeling of domination and victory with it's
resulting testosterone surge? What happens to the isotope ratios after
something like that? So far, we just have one sample point...and there
wasn't good enough control over the input.
I've got this funny feeling that, just like their baseline physiologies
are "off the charts", the response of top level athletes bodies to
things like the Stage 16/Stage 17 scenario can be widely variable with
respect to these tests.
The more I learn about both the T/E ratio test and the isotope test,
the more I find it them to be highly suspicious as "smoking gun" type
tests. They appear to be methods to indicate POSSIBLE testosterone
doping, but fall short of being absolute indicators.
But...those tests are the best we have so far to try to detect this
type of doping. Damn.
Wait a minute...does this mean that if any animal products would be
consumed, it could have an additional effect on the isotope ratio
What if the "animal product" consumed had an isotope ratio similar to
the signature of exogenous testosterone?
Please educate me. Thanks.
Well, I don't know of the study you want to see but I think there is
the possibility of looking at those questions quite easily. There are
many, many samples taken from many, many riders on all the stages of
the Tour. So, if all of these are negative save one there is a pretty
strong implication that riding a bicycle hard and eating a lot doesn't
cause the result obtained. Anf FL himself seems to have not tested
positive on any other stage. Are you suggesting that he wasn't riding
hard or eating a lot on any other day.
No...I'm saying he didn't bonk and then follow it up with a maximal,
victorious ride at any other point...I don't think any of the other
riders did either. Besides, everyone is different in their responses
to efforts and stress...
However, due to the cost, the isotope ratio test isn't done unless the
T/E ratio test is over the limit first. So...there's absolutely NO
additional data on the effects on the isotope ratios from all those
Also, remember, what's been revealed is that the high ratio of T/E in
Landis' test sample wasn't due to a massive increase in testostorone,
but a massive decrease in epitestosterone...a hormone that, according
to the information I've looked at, has a lot of questions attached to
it on it's purpose, it's production, and it's sensitivity to various
scenarios encountered in athletic settings. Again, it's another test
with a bunch of question marks to it...
Hey, I don't profess to know the ultimate truth. But the T to E test
was run on many days on many riders. There is lots of bonking and lots
of maximal efforts.
Only one came back positive. You are trying to define the issue much
too narrowly. You want to know how these tests discriminate when one
person, Floyd Landis, eats a certain diet and has a really bad day
followed by a really good day.
Come on. The standard that you are proposing means that you would need
to calibrate a test for every single individual over all possibilities
of diet and exertion. That is simply nonsense.
Perhaps the results are a fluke. But to argue that nothing means
anything because you don't know xyz is childish.
BTW if I understand this all correctly the isotope test is run only
after a postiive for T to E as a confirmation (or not) test. So what we
have is FL first being the only rider to test postive on the T to E
test and then he was also shown to have exogenous T via the follow up
I'm not asking for the "nonsense" of individual testing. I'm just
asking that the test results be put into proper perspective. Neither
of the "failed" results is a "slam dunk" indicator of exogenous
testosterone use, despite what is being claimed by many.
That one anomolous T/E ratio test was failed due to an odd 1 day
DECREASE in a marginally understood hormone, of which a reduction has
absolutely no benefit whatsoever, nor a known artificial way to cause
the reduction. Odd result #1.
Then, the isotope ratio test is just barely failed at a ratio of 3.99
parts per mil vs. the limit of 3 parts per mil....yet, there's an
overlap in "normal" ranges of the c12/c13 ratio of endogenous and
exogenous testosterone and there are studies that show that diet can
"manipulate" the ratios in the short term and there's also an unknown
response in the ratio to a bonk/refuel/victory scenario. Odd result
I'm beginning to agree with you that "Perhaps the results are a fluke".
I can't believe that the scientific literature agrees with you.
Otherwise why run the ratio test at all. Beyond that why run it on a
person multiple times. The only reasonable conclusions are 1) the ratio
test has been scientifically validated, and 2) because there are
changes from time to time.
> Then, the isotope ratio test is just barely failed at a ratio of 3.99
> parts per mil vs. the limit of 3 parts per mil....yet, there's an
> overlap in "normal" ranges of the c12/c13 ratio of endogenous and
> exogenous testosterone and there are studies that show that diet can
> "manipulate" the ratios in the short term and there's also an unknown
> response in the ratio to a bonk/refuel/victory scenario. Odd result
Barely failed? Looks to me that he was over by 33%.
> I'm beginning to agree with you that "Perhaps the results are a fluke".
And yes it can still be a fluke, a statistical anomaly or whatever. But
I'd feel more strongly in that direction if some scientists would jump
on that bandwagon. So far it's only fans.
Here's a statistical view of the applicability of the T/E ratio test:
You also might want to review Thomas Fine's summary of his
investigation into the subject (with literature citings galore):
> > Then, the isotope ratio test is just barely failed at a ratio of 3.99
> > parts per mil vs. the limit of 3 parts per mil....yet, there's an
> > overlap in "normal" ranges of the c12/c13 ratio of endogenous and
> > exogenous testosterone and there are studies that show that diet can
> > "manipulate" the ratios in the short term and there's also an unknown
> > response in the ratio to a bonk/refuel/victory scenario. Odd result
> Barely failed? Looks to me that he was over by 33%.
Let's see...the limit is 3 parts per THOUSAND and in this small sample
of urine, the metabolites of testosterone compared to metabolites of
some other hormone was read to be 3.99 per THOUSAND. If you want to
characterize that as a whopping 33% over the limit...ummm, OK.
Besides, I've only seen the 3.99 number as a quote from Landis' doctor.
I don't think the public officially knows what the test results are.
> > #2.
> > I'm beginning to agree with you that "Perhaps the results are a fluke".
> And yes it can still be a fluke, a statistical anomaly or whatever. But
> I'd feel more strongly in that direction if some scientists would jump
> on that bandwagon. So far it's only fans.
So...you're saying you feel more comfortable with the statements coming
from anti-doping scientist (like the head of the French lab) that the
tests are "infallible"? Really? Infallible?
Read the Thomas Fine summary I linked to above and tell me that either
of these tests is absolute proof of testosterone doping.
I'm not questioning the performance of the testing or the accuracy of
the tests measurements. I'm questioning the applicability of the tests
to the stated purpose...catching dopers. With so much at stake, i.e.
rider's livelihoods, I find these testosterone tests to be somewhat
> Hey, I don't profess to know the ultimate truth. But the T to E test
> was run on many days on many riders. There is lots of bonking and lots
> of maximal efforts.
Do all the folks who bonk get tested the next day? Test
everybody to promote fairness. Test everybody for
> Only one came back positive. You are trying to define the issue much
> too narrowly. You want to know how these tests discriminate when one
> person, Floyd Landis, eats a certain diet and has a really bad day
> followed by a really good day.
> Come on. The standard that you are proposing means that you would need
> to calibrate a test for every single individual over all possibilities
> of diet and exertion. That is simply nonsense.
> Perhaps the results are a fluke. But to argue that nothing means
> anything because you don't know xyz is childish.
Any information out there on what was used as the standard?
It means the opposite: with more of the endogenously-produced
testosterone (and other steroids) being made from dietary cholesterol,
there would be less opportunity for isotopic discrimination to alter
the 13C:12C ratio, because there would be fewer synthetic steps at
which it might occur. IOW, it would be harder to detect an impact of
diet on the 13C:12C ratio of endogenous testosterone and other steroids
in someone who is eating animal products than in someone who is not.
Got it. Thank you.
OK I reviewed it all. My position is the same as before.
And my position is pretty irrelevant, unless there is a lawsuit in the
US and I happen to find myself on the jury.
I think that Floyd will spend a couple months denying this and
"exploring" all osrts of options and then the discussion will just go
away. A la Tyler. Doesn't prove he's guilty but it is a very steep hill
to prove you are innocent.
I still believe that doping is endemic and the unfair part of the story
is not that an innocent got falsly indicted but that a only one (or
several this year) of the guilty got indicted leaving many unidicted
guilty riders. Sorry, I'm realy cynical on this. I've been a
competitive athlete for over 40 years and I have seen too much to
Hey, I'd get rid of the screening test and the preening about running
clean sports and just let them race. The level playing field argument
holds little sway with me. The field is "unleveled" by drugs,
nutrition, coaching, luck, talent and a host of other variables. If you
want to see athletes win on pure talent don't let them have coaches or
nutitionists and don't let them read any books on those subjects
either. I have a hard time understanding the moral differences between
taking a high tech electrolyte replacment drink that keeps blood suger
even without the insulin spikes of some other products and getting
something injected that improves the ability of the blood to get O2 to
Am I sad the Floyd got caught the way he did- Yes! But I don't see the
bogeyman arguments as changing anything.
> Any information out there on what was used as the standard?
There would appear to be multiple candidates, e.g.,:
However, I don't know what is actually used (based on how WADA seems to
operate, it could vary from lab to lab).
Apparently WADA's own tests show that winners have a large boost in
testosteone production and losers do not no matter how good they did
Any idea why the C13:C12 ratio differred in the subjects in the US vs.
Given the short half life of testosterone in the body, is it
manufactured by the body a shorter time before it is released?
If so, is it more suceptible to changes in C13:C12 ratio than other
hormones used in the standard?
...Or until they find the right standard to get the result they want.
Ce message, issu de l'agriculture biologique, a été rédigé avec des
électrons recyclés. En conséquence, il est possible que des fautes
d'orthographes s'y soient malencontreusement glissées.
OGM = GMO (genetically modified organism)
Most olive oil you can buy in the US is imported from
Europe anyway. However, the typical American's diet
probably includes much more of other types of
Tom Prail. Who are you, other than someone who doesn't use spell check?
> OK I reviewed it all. My position is the same as before.
> And my position is pretty irrelevant, unless there is a lawsuit in the
> US and I happen to find myself on the jury.
> I think that Floyd will spend a couple months denying this and
> "exploring" all osrts of options and then the discussion will just go
> away. A la Tyler. Doesn't prove he's guilty but it is a very steep hill
> to prove you are innocent.
I think he should blame the finasteride:
"I'm not just a client..."
Because our diets are different. I'm not sure what exactly the difference
is. It may be that we eat a lot more sugar, from sugar cane, which is
a C4 plant, and hence has more carbon-13 (and a less negative d13C value).
We also probably eat more corn, another C4 plant. And I might venture
a guess that corn syrup is used more widely in the US than in Europe.
The four significant food sources that are C4 plants, and hence
carbon13-rich are corn, sugar cane, millet, and pineapples. Pretty
much everything else is a C3 plant, and has less carbon-13 (and
a more negative d13C value).
It's also possible (though I've seen no literature on this) that there
are continental variations in background carbon-13 levels.
>Given the short half life of testosterone in the body, is it
>manufactured by the body a shorter time before it is released?
Yes. Patches and oral preparations of pure testosterone are also
absorbed, used, and passed very very quickly. Preparations (generally
injections from what I've read) used for hormone replacement (e.g. if
you have no testicles) are not pure testosterone, but are somehow
modified to last a week to ten days in the body. An injection should
be detectable for a long period of time, i.e. in multiple samples
taken from Floyd, while a patch should only show a change within
a few hours after administration. Take off the patch, wait an hour,
pee, wait another hour, pee again. Any test after that should show
essentially no exogenous testosterone in the urine.
>If so, is it more suceptible to changes in C13:C12 ratio than other
>hormones used in the standard?
It's possible, especially if testosterone production surges. But it
is essentially an unknown. The study that found that diet could
affect the isotope ratio very quickly also found variance between
different natural steroids. But since I can only find the abstract,
I don't have the details. They may be right there in the study.
Even if I had that though, I'm not sure we can find out what the
comparison steroid is that WADA tests the testosterone against.
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ---------------------
For a secure high performance FTP using SSL/TLS encryption
upgrade to SurgeFTP
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgeftp.htm ----
And THAT, right there indicates that in order for the meaning of the
isotope test to be correct (i.e. presence of exogenous T metabolites in
his urine) Landis would have to been stupid enough to take a T
injection OR worn a patch DURING Stage 17.
Now THAT'S stretching the bounds of believability....