Testosterone test: isotope test

1 view
Skip to first unread message

gabriel faure

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 1:07:00 PM7/28/06
to
The newspaper L'Equipe reported that the test performed by the Chatenay-
Malabry lab was the so-called (and sophisticated) "isotope" test which left
no doubt on whether the extra-testosterone was endogenous or exogenous.

Dumbass

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 1:26:44 PM7/28/06
to

There are many reports that say that Landis' samples have not had the
Carbon Isotope Ratio (CIR) test yet:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/outdoors/bal-sp.drugtest28jul28,0,5130570.story?coll=bal-sports-outdoors

bus...@comcast.net

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 1:36:45 PM7/28/06
to

Does L'Equipe say it was endogenous or exogenous?

Before I read this, I was about to post the following from Mary Decker
Slaney's failed appeal to overturn the arbitration decision confirming
her test for an excessive T/E ratio:

"We hope that at some juncture, science will develop a means for
detecting exogenous testosterone in athletes, such that an athlete's
T/E ratio of 11.6:1 can be discounted if it is based on innocent
factors. However, until that point in time, we are confident that
requiring an athlete to prove by clear and convincing evidence that her
elevated ratio was due to pathological or physiological factors does
not invoke a violation of United States public policy as federal case
law has required in order for a court to refuse to enforce a foreign
arbitral award." Slaney v. Int'l Amateur Ath. Fed'n, 244 F.3d 580,
593-594 (7th Cir. 2001)

Montesquiou

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 1:44:23 PM7/28/06
to

<bus...@comcast.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
1154108205.3...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

According l'Equipe it is a test using the German Biologist Manfred Donike
technic who permit to have the ratio;
Le labo also use a IRMS technic who permit to separate the Exogenous (
Syntese) from the Enrogenous (natural, from the body).

Sorry but in French. According l'Equipe " Cette méthode, fondée sur la
spectrométrie de masse isotopique du carbone, est indiscutable. Dans le
dossier Landis, elle indique clairement que la testotérone est d'origine
exogène"


wsc...@udel.edu

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 2:21:46 PM7/28/06
to

> Before I read this, I was about to post the following from Mary Decker
> Slaney's failed appeal to overturn the arbitration decision confirming
> her test for an excessive T/E ratio:
>

So did she later get it overturned?

Landis (I believe) and others have said that everyone who has
challenged the T/E test has won. Guess not?

bus...@comcast.net

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 2:30:00 PM7/28/06
to

wsc...@udel.edu wrote:
> So did she later get it overturned?
>
> Landis (I believe) and others have said that everyone who has
> challenged the T/E test has won. Guess not?

No. Initially, the US federation overturned it, but the international
federation appealed, and it was reversed in an international
arbitration proceeding. She filed lawsuits to have the international
arbitration set aside and lost. Kirk O'Bee (former Navigator) also
tested positive for a high T/E ratio and was unable to prove it was a
result of doping.

tispectrum

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 2:35:11 PM7/28/06
to
Another test, which analyzes carbon isotopes, provides much more definitive
evidence that an athlete has used external testosterone, according to Don
Catlin, director of the Olympic drug testing laboratory at UCLA.

The French newspaper L'Equipe reported in Friday's editions that the Olympic
anti-doping lab in Paris that analyzed Landis' sample also performed the
carbon isotope test and that it clearly showed the presence of external
testosterone.


<wsc...@udel.edu> wrote in message
news:1154110906.1...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Dumbass

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 2:46:07 PM7/28/06
to

That's starting to make the US press:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/20060728-9999-1n28landis.html

That's bad for Landis if its true.

Tere

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 3:21:57 PM7/28/06
to

Can you provide a link to the l'Equipe article this is from? I Googled
their site and could not get any hits on several words and phrases from
the "quote."

I'm no expert in French, but this looks more like a Babel Fish
translation from English. Any French speakers out there?

bus...@comcast.net

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 3:24:34 PM7/28/06
to

> Sorry but in French. According l'Equipe " ...Dans le

> dossier Landis, elle indique clairement que la testotérone est d'origine
> exogène"

Why does L'Equipe have access to the "dossier Landis"?

Montesquiou

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 3:29:49 PM7/28/06
to

"Tere" <terence...@nist.gov> a écrit dans le message de news:
1154114517....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Sorry, but I am French .... Yes, I know ...

It comes from my l'Equipe. I paid it 0,80 centimes today morning. Pls I have
my reputation to protect with 'mon libraire" ; )


Montesquiou

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 3:30:43 PM7/28/06
to

<bus...@comcast.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
1154114674.1...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...


Understand here the word "Dossier" as "what we are talking about"


Tere

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 3:42:52 PM7/28/06
to

Ok. How about page and paragraph? What was the headline of the article?
Thanks.

bus...@comcast.net

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 3:50:31 PM7/28/06
to

According l'Equipe " ...Dans le
> > dossier Landis, elle indique clairement que la testotérone est d'origine
> > exogène"
>
> Why does L'Equipe have access to the "dossier Landis"?
>
>
> Understand here the word "Dossier" as "what we are talking about"

I'm happy to concede my 6 years of French class were worthless, but in
context, the article appears to say that based on something (an actual
document?), it "clearly indicates that the testosterone is from an
exogenous source."

A French lab would never leak information to the press before a B
sample has been tested, right?

Montesquiou

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 4:05:36 PM7/28/06
to

"Tere" <terence...@nist.gov> a écrit dans le message de news:
1154115772....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...


***

It is page 3
On the top : Landis, le mauvais rêve.
Then a nice picture of a children running close to Landis, a bottle of water
at hand, climbing the stage.
A nice gird in "extase" near the boy.
Under is the part : Un cotrole en question :

5 topics

A quoi sert la testostérone?
La posivité de l'échantillon A est-elle indiscutable ?
La performance de Landis à Morzine est-elle due à la prise de testo. ?
Peut-il invoquer une contamination et une prise passive du produit ?
L'opération Puerto a-t-elle modifié l'arsenal dopant du dernier tour ?


I can develop the topic if you are indulgent with my poor english


Montesquiou

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 4:15:31 PM7/28/06
to

<bus...@comcast.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
1154116230.8...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

****

Ok. Nothing in the text permit to say that they had access to any "dossier".
However it is clear that they have the informations on the result of the
test. For to say the following

"les patches - voire la pommade - de testo. pourraient représenter un mode
d'admission plus conciliable avec le cas Landis"

Where the information comes from ? UCI - AMA or the ministere des sports ?

They are jornalist. They know more than they are telling to us.

Don't forget that they know the TDF better than every one.


Montesquiou

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 4:24:05 PM7/28/06
to

<Montesquiou> a écrit dans le message de news:
44ca6e6a$0$875$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
>
Sorry : Un controle


steve

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 4:33:17 PM7/28/06
to
On 28-Jul-2006, smacked up and reeling, <Montesquiou> blindly formulated
the following incoherence:

> Ok. Nothing in the text permit to say that they had access to any
> "dossier".
> However it is clear that they have the informations on the result of the
> test. For to say the following
>
> "les patches - voire la pommade - de testo. pourraient représenter un mode
>
> d'admission plus conciliable avec le cas Landis"
>
> Where the information comes from ? UCI - AMA or the ministere des sports ?
>
> They are jornalist. They know more than they are telling to us.
>
> Don't forget that they know the TDF better than every one.

If they did run the isotope test on the A sample, that would be a change
from the usual protocol.

Then, again, if it's the TdF winner...maybe they would go all out on "A". I
wonder.

steve
--
"The accused will now make a bogus statement."
James Joyce

Montesquiou

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 4:37:59 PM7/28/06
to

"steve" <st...@steve.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
K9WdndTEfqUR6VfZ...@rcn.net...
> On 28-Jul-2006, Montesquiou formulated
> the following coherent text:

>
>> Ok. Nothing in the text permit to say that they had access to any
>> "dossier".
>> However it is clear that they have the informations on the result of the
>> test. For to say the following
>>
>> "les patches - voire la pommade - de testo. pourraient représenter un
>> mode
>>
>> d'admission plus conciliable avec le cas Landis"
>>
>> Where the information comes from ? UCI - AMA or the ministere des sports
>> ?
>>
>> They are jornalist. They know more than they are telling to us.
>>
>> Don't forget that they know the TDF better than every one.
>
> If they did run the isotope test on the A sample, that would be a change
> from the usual protocol.
>

Yes, and why ?

Are you telling they could not do it ?

mcc...@usa.net

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 4:40:39 PM7/28/06
to
This test, like many doping tests, is not necessarily infallible. Both
synthetic and endogenous testosterone are derived from plant material.
Different plants exhibit distinct biases as to how much 13C (as CO2)
they take in versus 12C (as CO2) they take in. The test assumes that
synthetic hormone (typically derived from a single source of plant
material such as soy) has a different isotopic composition than
endogenous testosterone because people generally eat a variety of plant
materials in their diet.

It is possible for someone's diet to be heavily biased to a given plant
source. For example, I have read that most people from the USA have a
13C/12C ratio very similar to corn because so much of our diet is based
on corn. We eat corn, we eat things with ingredients derived from corn
(e.g., high-fructose corn syrup), and we eat meat that has been fed
corn. Ironically, people from the USA look more like corn than people
from Mexico and Central America, where corn originated.

Could such a dietary bias exist in a cyclist and cause a false positive
in the isotope test?

aco...@earthlink.net

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 4:47:44 PM7/28/06
to

Unlikely, because in this case the "background" or reference material
used to account for the natural abundance of 13C comes from the
specific individual, i.e., they compare the 13:12C ratio of the
testosterone to the 13C:12C ratio of other naturally-occuring steroids
(the 13C:12C ratio of which also varies with the diet). If the
difference is greater than 3 parts per thousand relative to PDB, the
testosterone is considered to be of exogenous origin.

Andy Coggan

Keith

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 4:50:14 PM7/28/06
to

I guess, but an abnormal ratio and a postive on that apparently very
reliable test does ring a few bells, no ? Why deny the obvious ?

Keith

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 4:51:49 PM7/28/06
to

Honestly I think they've looked at it all possible ways and closed all
the doors before coming out with this, they knew what they were
unleashing.

Keith

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 4:53:59 PM7/28/06
to

It is and I'm pretty sure taht excellent lab (they invented EPO
detection) closed all the doors before releasing the info from their
walls. Everyone in the know seems to know this is a done deal.

jim

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 4:58:15 PM7/28/06
to

Whatever the case, as a chemist I wish the press would be given access
to the 'chain of custody' documentation, validation of the methods,
limits of detection, statistical analysis [confidence limits] etc.

Of course, the US press wouldn't have a freaking clue in the world what
to do with it. . .

--
J'm Sm'th

Montesquiou

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 5:01:30 PM7/28/06
to

"Keith" <nos...@nospam.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
02ukc298pv3u38qfk...@4ax.com...

It is why all those who want a clean sport need to fight and fight again.
When Leblanc called it "a Mafia" he was right on the point.
Al Capone also had some excellent lawyers and judges using all the mischief
for to deny the obvious.
However one day... and the cops succeed.....


Keith

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 5:22:00 PM7/28/06
to
>>>Could such a dietary bias exist in a cyclist and cause a false positive
>>>in the isotope test?
>>
>> I guess, but an abnormal ratio and a postive on that apparently very
>> reliable test does ring a few bells, no ? Why deny the obvious ?
>>
>
>It is why all those who want a clean sport need to fight and fight again.
>When Leblanc called it "a Mafia" he was right on the point.
>Al Capone also had some excellent lawyers and judges using all the mischief
>for to deny the obvious.
>However one day... and the cops succeed.....

Yes, but what needs to be done...everyone is at a loss I think. When
you see what Lelangue was doing internally in terms of testing, it
must really be disheartening.

wsc...@udel.edu

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 5:32:23 PM7/28/06
to

> Why does L'Equipe have access to the "dossier Landis"?

IIRC, one of the facts that came out of the Vrijman report on Armstrong
was that the L'equipe reporter Rossier (I think that is his name) had
someone inside the lab in question feeding him information.

bus...@comcast.net

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 6:04:22 PM7/28/06
to

My point exactly. The public announcements thus far (other than
L'Equipe) have simply said that "The A sample from the urine test to
which he submitted after Stage 17 shows 'an unusual level of
testosterone/epitestosterone.'" See
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/austin_murphy/07/27/landis.react/index.html

Nowhere, except in L'Equipe (that I'm aware of), is there any mention
that the test identified exogenous testosterone -- a much more grave
allegation than an elevated ratio. In fact, Floyd has flatly denied
any exogenous connection:

Landis: "I am saying that I don't know what the explanation is for it
[high T/E ratio]. Whether it is a mistake or whether it is an
occurrence from some other circumstances that go on during the race or
something that I did. The explanation I am saying is that it is not
from an exogenous outside source of testosterone. That is what I am
saying."
See http://outside.away.com/outside/news/20060728_1.html

bluep...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 6:52:21 PM7/28/06
to
Does the B sample have a different chain of custody, and is
it analyzed by a different lab in a different country?

Keith

unread,
Jul 28, 2006, 8:47:49 PM7/28/06
to
>Nowhere, except in L'Equipe (that I'm aware of), is there any mention
>that the test identified exogenous testosterone -- a much more grave
>allegation than an elevated ratio. In fact, Floyd has flatly denied
>any exogenous connection:
>
>Landis: "I am saying that I don't know what the explanation is for it
>[high T/E ratio]. Whether it is a mistake or whether it is an
>occurrence from some other circumstances that go on during the race or
>something that I did. The explanation I am saying is that it is not
>from an exogenous outside source of testosterone. That is what I am
>saying."
>See http://outside.away.com/outside/news/20060728_1.html

He's lying, it's been reported elsewhere. I think the reason this came
out is because they had this damning info in Chatenay-Malabry, just as
well if you ask me, even if it would have been preferable to wait
until the B testing was done.

Donald Munro

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 3:59:37 AM7/29/06
to
Montesquiou wrote:
> It is why all those who want a clean sport need to fight and fight again.
> When Leblanc called it "a Mafia" he was right on the point.
> Al Capone also had some excellent lawyers and judges using all the mischief
> for to deny the obvious.
> However one day... and the cops succeed.....

I think they got Capone for tax evasion.

mcc...@usa.net

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 7:04:43 AM7/29/06
to
But this too makes assumptioons. For example, it is assuming that the
isotopic composition is the same when the testosterne is synthesized as
when the "reference material" is synthesized. I admit that I do not
recall all the details of steroid biochemistry, but I do imagine that
the synthesis of different hormones is under different regulation in
the body. Thus the time at which testosterone is synthesized may occur
at a time diferent from when the reference material is made - these
differences may be dirven by such things as supply/demand for a given
hormone, stress, circadian rhythms etc.

In order for a person's 13C/12C ratio of sterooid precursors to be
constant throughouot the day (such that all steroids would have the
same isotopic composition), the diet would need to remain constant. Is
it reasonable to expect that a cyclists diet may change during the day?
I would thik it probably does change as on the bike, the cyclist may be
consuming lots of sugars from his energy drink of choice (I do not kow
Phonak's sponsor), energy gel etc. In contrast, the post ride meals and
evening meal are probably not energy gels.

I do not know whether any of this is true, but it raises possibilities
for questioning test results. This, in fact, was the point of my
original post - test results are subject to different interpretations.

trg

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 9:59:59 AM7/29/06
to
"steve" <st...@steve.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
K9WdndTEfqUR6VfZ...@rcn.net...

It's odd that no other source has picked this up. Also that l'Equipe has not
put this in any article since on their web site. If this is in fact true,
then you'd think it would be blasted all over the media as contradiction to
Landis saying his P/E ratio is normal for him.

Another odd thing is that as far as I can tell, this test is not normally
done on the basis of a suspicious A sample. Why would it have been done
here? Remember, the lab had no way of knowing the sample belonged to Landis.


trg

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 10:02:38 AM7/29/06
to
"Dumbass" <tada...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1154112367.8...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

|
| gabriel faure wrote:
| > The newspaper L'Equipe reported that the test performed by the Chatenay-
| > Malabry lab was the so-called (and sophisticated) "isotope" test which
left
| > no doubt on whether the extra-testosterone was endogenous or exogenous.
|
| That's starting to make the US press:
|
| http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/20060728-9999-1n28landis.html
|
| That's bad for Landis if its true.
|

They're just quoting the Equipe story. No other source. And no followup by
l'equipe.


Montesquiou

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 11:27:29 AM7/29/06
to

"trg" <t...@world.REMOVETHIS.std.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
44cb6a7d$0$32171$636a...@news.free.fr...

Today the l'Equipe said it again.

It seems that the US press ( not all the US press, of course) prefer to
omit this sad information.
A way for the US reader to keed the hope.
However, see one of my post, the Landis lawyer is aware of it at the point
that he began to discuss the validity of any IRMS test.
Calling it " une technique tellement peu fiable, scientifiquement que la
plupart des laboratories ne l'utilisent pas.
En fait le laboratoire de Chatenay est sūrement le seul au monde ą s'en
servir encore"

It seems that l'Equipe is two day ahead the others.


aco...@earthlink.net

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 11:59:33 AM7/29/06
to

The only way that the 13C:12C ratio of endogenous testosterone could
differ from that other naturally-occurring steroids would be if their
synthesis and/or rates were *dramatically* different, *and* you
obtained a sample at just the right time following a large shift in the
13C:12C ratio of the dietary precursor (which, IIRC, is cholesterol).
Neither of these is likely, and indeed I doubt you could detect a
difference in the 13C:12C ratio of various naturally-occuring steroids
even if you bought some 99% 13C tracer from, e.g., Cambridge Isotope
Labs, had somebody ingest it, then timed your sampling to try to catch
the biggest disequilibrium among them.

Andy Coggan (speaking as someone who has used combustion/isotope ratio
mass spectrometry to measure the 13C:12C ratio of endogenous substances)

trg

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 12:27:09 PM7/29/06
to
<aco...@earthlink.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
1154188773....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

| mcc...@usa.net wrote:
| Andy Coggan (speaking as someone who has used combustion/isotope ratio
| mass spectrometry to measure the 13C:12C ratio of endogenous substances)
|

This obviously disqualifies you as someone who should be listened to in RBR
:)


Keith

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 12:32:18 PM7/29/06
to
>Today the l'Equipe said it again.
>
>It seems that the US press ( not all the US press, of course) prefer to
>omit this sad information.
>A way for the US reader to keed the hope.
>However, see one of my post, the Landis lawyer is aware of it at the point
>that he began to discuss the validity of any IRMS test.
>Calling it " une technique tellement peu fiable, scientifiquement que la
>plupart des laboratories ne l'utilisent pas.
>En fait le laboratoire de Chatenay est sûrement le seul au monde à s'en
>servir encore"
>
>It seems that l'Equipe is two day ahead the others.

One can wonder why, but what matters is that the info is accurate and
L'Equipe have very high standards unlike what some idiots here seem to
think. There is no equivalent anywhere else, other than the "Gazetta
Dello Sport" (sp?) worldwide. Certainly nothing like that in the US.

trg

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 12:40:10 PM7/29/06
to
"Keith" <nos...@nospam.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
483nc21a4of76sn9o...@4ax.com...

| >Today the l'Equipe said it again.
| >
| >It seems that the US press ( not all the US press, of course) prefer to
| >omit this sad information.
| >A way for the US reader to keed the hope.
| >However, see one of my post, the Landis lawyer is aware of it at the
point
| >that he began to discuss the validity of any IRMS test.
| >Calling it " une technique tellement peu fiable, scientifiquement que la
| >plupart des laboratories ne l'utilisent pas.
| >En fait le laboratoire de Chatenay est sūrement le seul au monde ą s'en

| >servir encore"
| >
| >It seems that l'Equipe is two day ahead the others.
|
| One can wonder why, but what matters is that the info is accurate and
| L'Equipe have very high standards unlike what some idiots here seem to
| think.

I must be one of those idiots. As a frequent Equipe reader, I am not
impressed with much of their reporting. Quite a bit of gossip. It's fun to
read, and quite informative, but should be taken with caution. But I have
noticed that the online version tends to omit much of the gossip that
appears in the paper and sticks more to straight news. That's why I'm
holding my opinion until I see the story verified.


Montesquiou

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 1:04:49 PM7/29/06
to

"trg" <t...@world.REMOVETHIS.std.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
44cb8f69$0$25139$636a...@news.free.fr...

Of course l'Equipe as any News Papers must be read with caution.
It is probably the most hated News Paper in France. Remember Jacquet and the
French Soccer Team in 98 ......
However I agree with Keith.
The reporters are swine, but doing what they have to do : To point the
finger where the rubbish is.
And they are very efficients on it


Stig Are M. Botterli

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 1:19:25 PM7/29/06
to
On 2006-07-28, steve <st...@steve.com> wrote:
>
> If they did run the isotope test on the A sample, that would be a change
> from the usual protocol.

Not according to this interesting article:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/20060729-9999-1s29landis.html

Keith

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 1:59:13 PM7/29/06
to
>| >It seems that l'Equipe is two day ahead the others.
>|
>| One can wonder why, but what matters is that the info is accurate and
>| L'Equipe have very high standards unlike what some idiots here seem to
>| think.
>
>I must be one of those idiots. As a frequent Equipe reader, I am not
>impressed with much of their reporting. Quite a bit of gossip. It's fun to
>read, and quite informative, but should be taken with caution.

Sure, but do you have examples of false information they have
published, I don't and have been reading L'Equipe since 1984.

B. Lafferty

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 2:11:06 PM7/29/06
to

"Stig Are M. Botterli" <sab...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xMMyg.3954$YI3.1011@amstwist00...

Thanks for the link. It could be game, set, match against Landis if the
L'Equipe report is correct. We'll just have to wait a see what happens.


Donald Munro

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 2:30:07 PM7/29/06
to
acoggan wrote:
> Andy Coggan (speaking as someone who has used

That's disappointing. For a second I thought you were about to say that
you used synthetic testosterone in preparation for your rbr deathmatch.

Montesquiou

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 4:10:13 PM7/29/06
to

"Stig Are M. Botterli" <sab...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
xMMyg.3954$YI3.1011@amstwist00...

Many thanks ! Fine !

At least this News Paper reported what the l'Equipe said yesterday.

I hope it is now clear for all.


RonSonic

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 5:00:21 PM7/29/06
to
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 20:30:07 +0200, Donald Munro <fat-d...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Dumbass - you misspelled "ballpatch."

Ron

Carl Sundquist

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 5:02:06 PM7/29/06
to

<Montesquiou> wrote in message
news:44cb7eba$0$824$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...

>
> Today the l'Equipe said it again.
>
> It seems that the US press ( not all the US press, of course) prefer to
> omit this sad information.
> A way for the US reader to keed the hope.
> However, see one of my post, the Landis lawyer is aware of it at the point
> that he began to discuss the validity of any IRMS test.
> Calling it " une technique tellement peu fiable, scientifiquement que la
> plupart des laboratories ne l'utilisent pas.
> En fait le laboratoire de Chatenay est sūrement le seul au monde ą s'en
> servir encore"
>
> It seems that l'Equipe is two day ahead the others.
>

Imagine that.


RonSonic

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 5:03:17 PM7/29/06
to

What's clear? Another paper is quoting something they read in l'Equipe. That
isn't news.

Ron

RonSonic

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 5:04:42 PM7/29/06
to

Is there any honest way that it is possible?

No. The lab is crooked. At the very least they are giving out information they
should not.

Ron

Carl Sundquist

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 5:06:16 PM7/29/06
to

"B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.com> wrote in message
news:_wNyg.1640$0e5...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...

"They are a WADA-accredited lab and they follow WADA protocol," Catlin said.
"I think it's a very safe assumption - very safe. Why would they risk not
doing that? I mean, good grief, you'd think they are going to have all their
ducks in order for a case like this."


trg

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 5:09:10 PM7/29/06
to
"RonSonic" <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
j9jnc294agfrvcgvh...@4ax.com...
| >En fait le laboratoire de Chatenay est sûrement le seul au monde à s'en

| >servir encore"
| >
| >It seems that l'Equipe is two day ahead the others.
|
| Is there any honest way that it is possible?
|
| No. The lab is crooked. At the very least they are giving out information
they
| should not.
|
| Ron

FWIW, the reported who reported this for l'Equipe is the same one who
reported "Le Mensonge Armstrong" last year.


Michael Press

unread,
Jul 29, 2006, 5:46:24 PM7/29/06
to
In article
<_wNyg.1640$0e5...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"B. Lafferty" <Ma...@Italia.com> wrote:

Can anyone document an instance where L'Equipe was
demonstrably wrong about doping?

--
Michael Press

Michael Press

unread,
Jul 30, 2006, 12:05:38 AM7/30/06
to
In article
<jack-F9AB46.1...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
Michael Press <ja...@abc.net> wrote:

Bueller?

--
Michael Press

Ray_...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jul 30, 2006, 1:09:24 AM7/30/06
to

Keith

unread,
Jul 30, 2006, 6:19:15 AM7/30/06
to
>> > > Not according to this interesting article:
>> > > http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/20060729-9999-1s29landis.html
>> >
>> > Thanks for the link. It could be game, set, match against Landis if the
>> > L'Equipe report is correct. We'll just have to wait a see what happens.
>>
>> Can anyone document an instance where L'Equipe was
>> demonstrably wrong about doping?
>
>Bueller?

WTF is that ?

Simon Brooke

unread,
Jul 30, 2006, 8:03:07 AM7/30/06
to
in message <6pblc2956lon1b164...@4ax.com>, Keith
('nos...@nospam.com') wrote:

>>Nowhere, except in L'Equipe (that I'm aware of), is there any mention
>>that the test identified exogenous testosterone -- a much more grave
>>allegation than an elevated ratio. In fact, Floyd has flatly denied
>>any exogenous connection:
>>
>>Landis: "I am saying that I don't know what the explanation is for it
>>[high T/E ratio]. Whether it is a mistake or whether it is an
>>occurrence from some other circumstances that go on during the race or
>>something that I did. The explanation I am saying is that it is not
>>from an exogenous outside source of testosterone. That is what I am
>>saying."
>>See http://outside.away.com/outside/news/20060728_1.html
>
> He's lying, it's been reported elsewhere.

We don't yet know whether he's lying. L'Equipe alleges that there is
exogenous testosterone, but AIUI they don't have an official source for
that, so it has to be considered speculation at this stage. Certainly
the two statements aren't compatible, but we don't yet know which is
false.

--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Iraq war: it's time for regime change...
... go now, Tony, while you can still go with dignity.
[update 18 months after this .sig was written: it's still relevant]

mcc...@usa.net

unread,
Aug 2, 2006, 11:14:06 AM8/2/06
to
It is not my intention to challenge your evident authority in IRMS.

I respectfully point out two studies that support my argument that one
possible confounding factor in the analysis could be diet.

In one study, Saudan et al. [Journal of Chromatography B, 831 (2006)
324-327] performed IRMS on three elite runners who varied their time
between Europe and Africa. Over the course of their travels, the diets
of the runners changed from one relatively rich in 12C to one
relatively rich in 13C. In one of the athletes, analysis revealed
elevated 13C in a sample taken one week after a return to Europe - they
did not test immediately upon the athletes return. Thus, diet can
influence (not surprisingly) the 13C/12C ratio in humans. Indeed the
authors conclude, "IRMS has been claimed to be the definitive solution
for interpretation of abnormal endogenous profiles in drug testing.
However, when drug-testing authorities interpret IRMS results, they
should have detailed information about residencies and travels of the
athlete (whereabouts) as diet might influence the 13C/12C values of
urinary steroids."

The second study indicates that different steroidal compounds within a
given animal can exhibit different 13C/12C ratios following a dietary
shift. Balizs, Jainz, and Horvatovich [Journal of Chromatography A,
1067 (2005) 323-330] used IRMS analysis of urine samples drawn from
young bulls as diet was changed from one relatively rich in 13C to one
relatively poor in 13C. The animals were fed for 138 days on the high
13C diet. On the 139th day (i.e., the first day of the low 13C diet)
the 13C/12C ratio found for both epitestosterone and etiocholanolone
exhibited a decrease whereas the ratio for dehydroepiandrosterone
(DHEA) did not exhibit a change. Thus, a dietary change can lead to
differential changes in 13C/12C among various metabolites.

aco...@earthlink.net

unread,
Aug 2, 2006, 11:33:32 AM8/2/06
to
mccl...@usa.net wrote:
> It is not my intention to challenge your evident authority in IRMS.
>
> I respectfully point out two studies that support my argument that one
> possible confounding factor in the analysis could be diet.
>
> In one study, Saudan et al. [Journal of Chromatography B, 831 (2006)
> 324-327] performed IRMS on three elite runners who varied their time
> between Europe and Africa. Over the course of their travels, the diets
> of the runners changed from one relatively rich in 12C to one
> relatively rich in 13C. In one of the athletes, analysis revealed
> elevated 13C in a sample taken one week after a return to Europe - they
> did not test immediately upon the athletes return. Thus, diet can
> influence (not surprisingly) the 13C/12C ratio in humans. Indeed the
> authors conclude, "IRMS has been claimed to be the definitive solution
> for interpretation of abnormal endogenous profiles in drug testing.
> However, when drug-testing authorities interpret IRMS results, they
> should have detailed information about residencies and travels of the
> athlete (whereabouts) as diet might influence the 13C/12C values of
> urinary steroids."

To quote from the abstract: "The steroids of interest in each sample
did not show significant isotopic fractionation that could lead to
false positive results in anti-doping testing." IOW, there wasn't a
*differential* change in the 13C:12C ratio of endogenous steroids as a
result of the change in diet. This study therefore does not support
your hypothesis.


> The second study indicates that different steroidal compounds within a
> given animal can exhibit different 13C/12C ratios following a dietary
> shift. Balizs, Jainz, and Horvatovich [Journal of Chromatography A,
> 1067 (2005) 323-330] used IRMS analysis of urine samples drawn from
> young bulls as diet was changed from one relatively rich in 13C to one
> relatively poor in 13C. The animals were fed for 138 days on the high
> 13C diet. On the 139th day (i.e., the first day of the low 13C diet)
> the 13C/12C ratio found for both epitestosterone and etiocholanolone
> exhibited a decrease whereas the ratio for dehydroepiandrosterone
> (DHEA) did not exhibit a change. Thus, a dietary change can lead to
> differential changes in 13C/12C among various metabolites.

Actually, the 13C:12C ratio of DHEA *did* change, by about as much and
about as rapidly as the other compounds - see Figure 4A. What the
authors meant by "...the DHEA values remained under the level of the
two metabolites." is that the absolute 13C:12C ratio was less for DHEA,
not that there was any sort of differential change.

Andy Coggan

aco...@earthlink.net

unread,
Aug 2, 2006, 11:34:09 AM8/2/06
to
mccl...@usa.net wrote:
> It is not my intention to challenge your evident authority in IRMS.
>
> I respectfully point out two studies that support my argument that one
> possible confounding factor in the analysis could be diet.
>
> In one study, Saudan et al. [Journal of Chromatography B, 831 (2006)
> 324-327] performed IRMS on three elite runners who varied their time
> between Europe and Africa. Over the course of their travels, the diets
> of the runners changed from one relatively rich in 12C to one
> relatively rich in 13C. In one of the athletes, analysis revealed
> elevated 13C in a sample taken one week after a return to Europe - they
> did not test immediately upon the athletes return. Thus, diet can
> influence (not surprisingly) the 13C/12C ratio in humans. Indeed the
> authors conclude, "IRMS has been claimed to be the definitive solution
> for interpretation of abnormal endogenous profiles in drug testing.
> However, when drug-testing authorities interpret IRMS results, they
> should have detailed information about residencies and travels of the
> athlete (whereabouts) as diet might influence the 13C/12C values of
> urinary steroids."

To quote from the abstract: "The steroids of interest in each sample


did not show significant isotopic fractionation that could lead to
false positive results in anti-doping testing." IOW, there wasn't a
*differential* change in the 13C:12C ratio of endogenous steroids as a
result of the change in diet. This study therefore does not support
your hypothesis.

> The second study indicates that different steroidal compounds within a
> given animal can exhibit different 13C/12C ratios following a dietary
> shift. Balizs, Jainz, and Horvatovich [Journal of Chromatography A,
> 1067 (2005) 323-330] used IRMS analysis of urine samples drawn from
> young bulls as diet was changed from one relatively rich in 13C to one
> relatively poor in 13C. The animals were fed for 138 days on the high
> 13C diet. On the 139th day (i.e., the first day of the low 13C diet)
> the 13C/12C ratio found for both epitestosterone and etiocholanolone
> exhibited a decrease whereas the ratio for dehydroepiandrosterone
> (DHEA) did not exhibit a change. Thus, a dietary change can lead to
> differential changes in 13C/12C among various metabolites.

Actually, the 13C:12C ratio of DHEA *did* change, by about as much and

mcc...@usa.net

unread,
Aug 2, 2006, 11:42:22 AM8/2/06
to
I suggest you read the article, not simply the abstract.

As stated in my post, 1. they tested one week after the dietary change,
2. the authors recognize that this is a limitation of their study, and
3. the authors conclude, "diet might influence the 13C/12C values of
urinary steroids."

aco...@earthlink.net

unread,
Aug 2, 2006, 11:45:06 AM8/2/06
to

1. I read the article, and stand by what I said. The only reason that I
quoted the abstract is because many others will only be able to access
that, and not the whole article.

2. Good for them.

3. But not, again, *differentially*, which is what the doping test is
based upon.

Andy Coggan

mcc...@usa.net

unread,
Aug 2, 2006, 11:56:52 AM8/2/06