T value was NORMAL. E was LOW
pete
points to Floyd's innocence, doesn't it?
Froid Landis
pete wrote:
> If this can be substantiated as the cause for the high ratio, it
> points to Floyd's innocence, doesn't it?
No. Neither does the argument that Testosterone wouldn't have even
helped Floyd in stage 17.
Joe King
epitestosterone may find that using a dose of 500iu of Human Chorionic
Gonadotropin (HCG) will increase epitestosterone levels.
Perhaps the Phonak pharmacists forgot to add the HCG.
Evil exists.
"pete" <mequ...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154878566.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> Athletes worried about failing a urine test because of low levels of
> epitestosterone may find that using a dose of 500iu of Human Chorionic
> Gonadotropin (HCG) will increase epitestosterone levels.
>
> Perhaps the Phonak pharmacists forgot to add the HCG.
>
> Evil exists.
Dumbass,
Would all of you self-righteous clowns look in a mirror
or read the newspaper or something. Evil exists in vast
quantities, but promoting sports doping to the level of "evil"
in today's world is purely self-indulgence. There are
enough examples of actual evil in every day's news.
You guys wanted Floyd to be a hero, and if he wasn't
going to be a hero, he'd be a zero and you'd trash him
(look at how people trash Leipheimer for failing to excel
at the Tour) and now you're condemning him for the choices
that you, indirectly, put pressure on him to make. It's ugly.
When this self-righteous obsession was directed against
LANCE, I thought it had to do with LANCE's sometimes
obnoxious persona. But now that it's directed against
Floyd, whom nobody hated before, I'm thinking it has
deeper roots. We want our heroes to be perfect to
compensate for our own inadequacies; it looks like Floyd
pays the price for the fans' own nagging feelings
that they might not be morally perfect.
Kill 'em all and let Dick Pound sort them out.
Ben
Judge Natty Dread
pete
Sandy
122.5th, this entire thread would not exist. It still rattles me that
the single positive result was this one. I still don't know how to
evaluate that.
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
*******
La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette,
il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre.
-- Einstein, A.
Donald Munro
>> If this can be substantiated as the cause for the high ratio, it
>> points to Floyd's innocence, doesn't it?
Froid Landis wrote:
> No. Neither does the argument that Testosterone wouldn't have even
> helped Floyd in stage 17.
Talking about ourself in third person are we now.
RonSonic
For a material that breaks down so rapidly in the system that he would almost
have to have doped on the road.
It is truly a strange case.
Ron
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> b...@mambo.ucolick.org a écrit :
> > When this self-righteous obsession was directed against
> > LANCE, I thought it had to do with LANCE's sometimes
> > obnoxious persona. But now that it's directed against
> > Floyd, whom nobody hated before, I'm thinking it has
> > deeper roots. We want our heroes to be perfect to
> > compensate for our own inadequacies; it looks like Floyd
> > pays the price for the fans' own nagging feelings
> > that they might not be morally perfect.
> >
> > Kill 'em all and let Dick Pound sort them out.
> >
> > Ben
> > Judge Natty Dread
>
> If the one and only positive test related to some rider who finished
> 122.5th, this entire thread would not exist. It still rattles me that
> the single positive result was this one. I still don't know how to
> evaluate that.
I don't either. I could offer various explanations, for example:
(1) there is only one user of doping in the race (which I
don't believe). (2) there are a number of users of doping,
carefully regulated so as not to test positive under most
circumstances, but that the extreme stress of the Tour can
create unusual circumstances that alter a rider's hormone
levels and mess up their programs. (3) the conspiracy theory,
that whether any doping test is revealed has to do with
the face-off between WADA, UCI, and ASO (which I think
has something to do with _how_ the test is revealed
but not the actual positive).
But there is also a more prosaic effect, which is that the
122.5th placed rider may never or hardly ever be tested
during the Tour. The UCI vampires regularly sample
the riders' hematocrits, but to my understanding there
are only about 5-6 pee tests per day: the top 3 of the stage,
the yellow jersey, and a few randoms. (Maybe the other
jersey holders also?) So if there is a positive, it is most
likely to be a sprinter (frequently in the top 3) or a GC
contender (frequent high finish, MJ wearer).
How many positives have there been during recent
Tours? I would guess 1 or 0. The last couple I can
remember are riders who got popped for high HCT
or EPO in the tests before the start and never actually
started. That also makes this result unusual.
Ben
Simon Brooke
('mequ...@yahoo.com') wrote:
> If this can be substantiated as the cause for the high ratio, it
> points to Floyd's innocence, doesn't it?
No, it points to him having drunk masses of water. Which we knew. And
this is /old/ news - we've known it for ten days at least.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
The Conservative Party is now dead. The corpse may still be
twitching, but resurrection is not an option - unless Satan
chucks them out of Hell as too objectionable even for him.
Simon Brooke
('leu...@frreee.fr') wrote:
> b...@mambo.ucolick.org a écrit :
>> When this self-righteous obsession was directed against
>> LANCE, I thought it had to do with LANCE's sometimes
>> obnoxious persona. But now that it's directed against
>> Floyd, whom nobody hated before, I'm thinking it has
>> deeper roots. We want our heroes to be perfect to
>> compensate for our own inadequacies; it looks like Floyd
>> pays the price for the fans' own nagging feelings
>> that they might not be morally perfect.
>>
> If the one and only positive test related to some rider who finished
> 122.5th, this entire thread would not exist. It still rattles me that
> the single positive result was this one. I still don't know how to
> evaluate that.
Uhhhmmm... Landis was tested at least five times during the tour, and
failed only once. While it's possible that he took a whole cocktail of
stuff the day after the big bonk, it's unlikely that he took
testosterone on one day only. By itself, a single hit would not make
much difference to either performance or recovery.
I'm not one of those people who believe 'they all dope'. I think that
probably most of them don't. But I don't think you can assume that just
because no-one else failed a test, no-one else was doping.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
"The result is a language that... not even its mother could
love. Like the camel, Common Lisp is a horse designed by
committee. Camels do have their uses."
;; Scott Fahlman, 7 March 1995
Tom Kunich
> points to Floyd's innocence, doesn't it?
Not really. Here's the main problem as I see it - the 5% cutoff is around
4:1 - only 5% of men have a naturally occuring ratio at or above that.
That's why UCI originally chose 6:1 - at that point you can pretty much
guarantee that the only cause for ratios above that is from artificial
enhancement or some sort of medical problem. I suppose it's possible for his
other problems and medications to shift it but 11:1 is pretty far out there.
But let's get down to brass tacks - the studies DO NOT show testosterone to
be helpful in endurance recovery regardless of what the rumors about it are.
Testosterone, like all steroids, builds muscle and can be used to rebuild
muscles damaged by overuse. But this isn't an overnight process.
Why would Landis use testosterone? For one thing it's easy to detect because
it does shift the e/t ratios. Secondly, you'd expect the medical staff of
teams to have told their riders the facts of life about drugs. Could it be
that Phonak isn't giving their riders knowledge of how easy it is to detect
most drugs?
Or are they as stupid as laff@me and actually believe that you can "mask"
the drugs in their system with old wive's tales and bad judgement?
Jeff Jones
Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> Why would Landis use testosterone? For one thing it's easy to detect because
> it does shift the e/t ratios. Secondly, you'd expect the medical staff of
> teams to have told their riders the facts of life about drugs. Could it be
> that Phonak isn't giving their riders knowledge of how easy it is to detect
> most drugs?
>
> Or are they as stupid as laff@me and actually believe that you can "mask"
> the drugs in their system with old wive's tales and bad judgement?
I may have missed a few, but isn't this Phonak's 12th separate positive
(or doping related incident) since 2001? That's not counting Guidi's
positive A test for EPO, or some of the riders who were warned by the
UCI in 2004 for having funny blood values (Hamilton, Sevilla, Pereiro,
Dessel, J.E. Gutierrez and Santos Gonzalez, some of whom are part of
the dozen cases). You gotta admit, they do strike out more than most
teams.
Why is it so? Incompetence? Riders are doing it for themselves? Large
scale sabotage by some competitor to Phonak in the hearing aid market?
When people talk about the French conspiracy to dethrone American
riders from the top of the Tour de France, why is the above always
overlooked?
Jeff
Ernst Noch
> "pete" <mequ...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1154878566.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> If this can be substantiated as the cause for the high ratio, it
>> points to Floyd's innocence, doesn't it?
>
> Not really. Here's the main problem as I see it - the 5% cutoff is around
> 4:1 - only 5% of men have a naturally occuring ratio at or above that.
> That's why UCI originally chose 6:1 - at that point you can pretty much
> guarantee that the only cause for ratios above that is from artificial
> enhancement or some sort of medical problem. I suppose it's possible for his
> other problems and medications to shift it but 11:1 is pretty far out there.
>
> But let's get down to brass tacks - the studies DO NOT show testosterone to
> be helpful in endurance recovery regardless of what the rumors about it are.
This doesn't matter. What matters is the numerous hints we have that
endurance athletes seem to be *believing* that it might help.
> Testosterone, like all steroids, builds muscle and can be used to rebuild
> muscles damaged by overuse. But this isn't an overnight process.
>
> Why would Landis use testosterone? For one thing it's easy to detect because
> it does shift the e/t ratios. Secondly, you'd expect the medical staff of
> teams to have told their riders the facts of life about drugs. Could it be
> that Phonak isn't giving their riders knowledge of how easy it is to detect
> most drugs?
I suppose they know exactly that it is easy to detect. Like HK > 50.
WADA has just put up a green light for using T to dope - as long as you
are below the ratio. Compare this to the blood doping (Tyler etc.) where
they did the doses in a way so that the HK of the riders just has to
stay below 50 to not get into trouble.
A general comment:
The argument that there is no scientific proof for substance XY being
not performance enhancing in this or that circumstances is bogus.
Two reasons for that are:
- It's not clear that the knowledge about what is performance enhancing
is deeper in the (legal) scientific field than in the circles concerned
with illegal performance enhancements. And even if we take this for
granted, it's still not clear if subjectively the doctors "prescribing"
doping products still think that they know better.
- Secondly, *if* something is scientifically proven to be performance
enhancing, all anti-doping scientists will *rush* to develop a test for
this - thereby making this product pointless for doping.
The conclusion is that obviously, most of the scientifically proven
performance enhancers will not be used for doping - leaving the doping
scene mainly with substances of disputed effect.
Nev Shea
news:1154898804....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> I may have missed a few, but isn't this Phonak's 12th separate
> positive (or doping related incident) since 2001? That's not counting
> Guidi's positive A test for EPO, or some of the riders who were warned
> by the UCI in 2004 for having funny blood values (Hamilton, Sevilla,
> Pereiro, Dessel, J.E. Gutierrez and Santos Gonzalez, some of whom are
> part of the dozen cases). You gotta admit, they do strike out more
> than most teams.
>
> Why is it so? Incompetence? Riders are doing it for themselves? Large
> scale sabotage by some competitor to Phonak in the hearing aid market?
Considering that Festina's sales went UP following the '98 scandal, I
think that Phonak's competitors would hire the best experts and donate
their services to help Phonak's riders avoid getting popped.
This raises another explanation -- Phonak sabotaging their own riders for
the publicity. Having already made the decision to end their sponsorship,
it looks like Floyd is now delivering maximum bang for the buck!
NS
brand awareness consultant
Frank Drackman
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:TwsBg.4775$xp2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "pete" <mequ...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1154878566.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> If this can be substantiated as the cause for the high ratio, it
>> points to Floyd's innocence, doesn't it?
>
> Not really. Here's the main problem as I see it - the 5% cutoff is around
> 4:1 - only 5% of men have a naturally occuring ratio at or above that.
> That's why UCI originally chose 6:1 - at that point you can pretty much
> guarantee that the only cause for ratios above that is from artificial
> enhancement or some sort of medical problem. I suppose it's possible for
> his other problems and medications to shift it but 11:1 is pretty far out
> there.
>
> But let's get down to brass tacks - the studies DO NOT show testosterone
> to be helpful in endurance recovery regardless of what the rumors about it
> are. Testosterone, like all steroids, builds muscle and can be used to
> rebuild muscles damaged by overuse. But this isn't an overnight process.
>
During the period of late 60s through the later 90s experts thought that
steroids would have a negative effect on baseball players so baseball didn't
have to test...
Stu Fleming
nother explanation -- Phonak sabotaging their own riders for
> the publicity. Having already made the decision to end their sponsorship,
> it looks like Floyd is now delivering maximum bang for the buck!
None of Phonak's potential customers will have heard anything about the
scandal.
bob sullivan
Somebody should ask Ferrari. ;) Of course, he'd probably just come
back and say something like, "Testosterone is no more dangerous than
orange juice..."
~bob
Tom Kunich
news:44d68504$1...@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
I don't know what you're getting down at the tail end of the earth, but
EVERYONE that knows I ride bikes has mentioned it including the guy
installing my granite counter tops who could go one on one with any plumber
on earth for ass crack showing.
Tom Kunich
news:IYOdneNXh5ljH0vZ...@comcast.com...
You really believe that? Baseball was committed to breaking records. That's
what has sustained the audience and little else. Look at the front line on
football teams. Do you think that's natural? I knew a natural giant and he
tried out for the Raiders and he was TOO SLOW, TOO SMALL and TOO WEAK.
Basketball players used to be reasonably sized guys because the really tall
guys couldn't move fast enough. Suddenly they were moving FASTER than the
little 6'4" guys.
There isn't ANY sport whether it's cross country skiing, Shot putting or
target shooting, that isn't doping in a large percentage of the top end of
the competition.
You pass rules against it and you test. But if you get overzealous and you
invent "accuracy" where none exists you simply destroy the sports you claim
to be protecting. That's what's happening to cycling at the moment.
Chris
don't recall any.
Also, do the B samples from his other test exist, and will they be tested
now to learn more?
<b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
news:1154894512....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Chris
The pres of phonak has admitted this has been good for his firm's brand
recognition.
"Stu Fleming" <ste...@wic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:44d68504$1...@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
RonSonic
Don't bother ducking, that one went by you way overhead.
Ron
Tom Kunich
news:l38dd255st3vim6i2...@4ax.com...
Actually it went well under you.
ST
<joe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
BAH HAH HAH HAH!!!!
You said gonad........
RonSonic
Dude, Phonak makes hearing aids, their customers won't have HEARD anything about
it. Get it, nyuck nyuck.
Okay, it wasn't big time funny. But what the fuck is up with the pissy,
argumentative attitude. The guy tells an unfunny joke and you argue with him.
What's with that.
There's enough really egregious shit being said around here that deserves
slapping down and there are a lot of very reasonable differences of opinion.
Wasting venom that could be used for the former and goodwill that'll be needed
for the latter is foolish.
Sorry to have spoken to you like a normal guy.
Ron
Tom Kunich
> Dude, Phonak makes hearing aids, their customers won't have HEARD anything
> about
> it. Get it, nyuck nyuck.
Err, Phonak is also a big time maker of cell phones. You know - the kind
with news updates sent to them automatically?
> Okay, it wasn't big time funny. But what the fuck is up with the pissy,
> argumentative attitude. The guy tells an unfunny joke and you argue with
> him.
> What's with that.
You guys don't seem to understand that bicycle racing was just getting some
big time support and now it's gone.
Ray_...@hotmail.com
> For a material that breaks down so rapidly in the system that he would almost
> have to have doped on the road.
>
> It is truly a strange case.
>
> Ron
It is not a strange case at all. An explaination:
Assume Floyd is correct his T level was normal for him and let's put a
number on it 100.
And of E let's assume 30. Put the T/E ratio away for the time
being.
Now, one other factoid. Alcohol effects E, it can metabolize it.
See:
http://dirtragmag.com/forums/showpost.php?p=112477&postcount=13
When E is consumed by the effect of alcohol, its level drops, in the
Floyd hypo above say from 30 to 5. As the effect of the alcohol wore
off, the body slowing began to produce more E and by time he was tested
after stage 17, it had come up to say 9. Resulting in the 11/1 ratio
even though his T level was normal, 100.
Why is this difficult. It sure should not be. It takes awhile for
the body to replace E.
And yes, the IRMS found some EX T, so what, he wore a patch regularly
and that was part of his normal "T" level of 100. So the UCI should
use the IRMS test everyone's urine from the tdf for Ex T and see
whether everyone in the race had been patching T. But that might be
fair.
Frank Drackman
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
>>> But let's get down to brass tacks - the studies DO NOT show testosterone
>>> to be helpful in endurance recovery regardless of what the rumors about
>>> it are. Testosterone, like all steroids, builds muscle and can be used
>>> to rebuild muscles damaged by overuse. But this isn't an overnight
>>> process.
>>>
>>
>> During the period of late 60s through the later 90s experts thought that
>> steroids would have a negative effect on baseball players so baseball
>> didn't have to test...
>
> You really believe that? Baseball was committed to breaking records.
> That's what has sustained the audience and little else. Look at the front
> line on football teams. Do you think that's natural? I knew a natural
> giant and he tried out for the Raiders and he was TOO SLOW, TOO SMALL and
> TOO WEAK. Basketball players used to be reasonably sized guys because the
> really tall guys couldn't move fast enough. Suddenly they were moving
> FASTER than the little 6'4" guys.
>
> There isn't ANY sport whether it's cross country skiing, Shot putting or
> target shooting, that isn't doping in a large percentage of the top end of
> the competition.
>
> You pass rules against it and you test. But if you get overzealous and you
> invent "accuracy" where none exists you simply destroy the sports you
> claim to be protecting. That's what's happening to cycling at the moment.
>
Your reply seems to respond to something other than what I said, or I just
did a poor job of making my point.
You said that studies show that using testosterone is not helpful in
endurance recovery. I responded by saying that the experts used to say the
same thing about steroids helping baseball players.
In fact many experts said that a baseball player using steroids could become
muscle-bound and would have a negative effect on performance. As baseballs
started going out of the park in record numbers and distances, some of the
experts revised their views and said that steroids could help the power
hitters but not pitchers or positions players. Well the experts were wrong!
It seems that pitchers had found out a long time ago about the recovery
effect that steroids had and were not using them to bulk up but to recover
from injuries and normal wear and tear in a short period of time. The
players were way out in front of the experts and their studies. They were
using chemicals in ways that the experts had never thought of I expect that
there will be numerous studies in the next few years on effects of
testosterone and endurance athletes.
Howard Kveck
RonSonic <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
He didn't get that it was a joke. And surely you've seen enough of TK to know he
has a pissy, know-it-all, superior attitude all the time. Just sayin'.
And I thought the joke was funny.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Ray_...@hotmail.com
At the risk of putting my two cents in where it doesn't belong, I
would venture to say that there may be a mistaken premise. It is my
current understanding that the role T pay in recovery is a little
complex.
After a strong workout the body needs to recover. The old rule might
be a day of rest was needed or else further workout would be counter
productive. My understanding of current thinking, is that the counter
productive element arises because further workout causes the body to
produce compounds which consume existing muscle. T comes into the
picture because in increase in T (say overnight) inhibits the body's
produce these undesirable compounds (themselves a type of naturally
occurring steroid. Thus "recovery" is aided by stopping the body
tearing itself down.
For example, the comparison was made of how Roger Bannister trained (an
hour a day during lunch time and with rest days) and the current mile
record holder (five hours a days virtually continuously). It was
suggested that the only reason he was able to train this hard it that
he was taking substances, T, to prevent his body's production of
compounds which would tear up the muscles he was trying to develop.
By virtue of using drugs, he was able to train harder and performance
improves though the T did not aid his performance directly.
Sounds like something virtually made to order for anyone in the tdf.
I would be interested in the results of a IMRS test on ALL the urine
samples taken during the tdf. I suspect almost everyone was taking a
little T to help themselves out and the tests would certainly resolve
the issue
Donald Munro
> There isn't ANY sport whether it's cross country skiing, Shot putting or
> target shooting, that isn't doping in a large percentage of the top end of
> the competition.
>
> You pass rules against it and you test. But if you get overzealous and you
> invent "accuracy" where none exists you simply destroy the sports you claim
> to be protecting. That's what's happening to cycling at the moment.
Please stop making sense. You're going to ruin your rbr reputation.
Jeff Jones
Frank Drackman wrote:
>
> You said that studies show that using testosterone is not helpful in
> endurance recovery. I responded by saying that the experts used to say the
> same thing about steroids helping baseball players.
>
Similarly, "experts" back in the early 90s also used to say that EPO
would not be helpful in endurance sports. But eventually everyone came
around to the idea that it did make you go faster. And several years
later, it was scientifically shown as well.
Jeff
RonSonic
It might also give them the research data the need to recognize actual cheating
when they see it.
Ron
RonSonic
wrote:
Yeah, I noticed. The thing is, the guy ain't dumb. Or at least no bigger a
dumbass than the rest of us in this locker room for superannuated numbnuts. But
his kneejerk shittiness makes him indistinguishable from the AOL krill.
> And I thought the joke was funny.
It got a grin.
Ron
RonSonic
>There isn't ANY sport whether it's cross country skiing, Shot putting or
>target shooting, that isn't doping in a large percentage of the top end of
>the competition.
>
>You pass rules against it and you test. But if you get overzealous and you
>invent "accuracy" where none exists you simply destroy the sports you claim
>to be protecting. That's what's happening to cycling at the moment.
Hi Tom, here's a good example of "invented accuracy" you'll either find amusing
or infuriating. This is from my Sunday paper's printing of an AP piece:
"Jacques De Ceaurriz, the Chatenay-Malabry chief said the synthetic testosterone
was found in isotope testing.
'It's foolproof. This analysis tells the difference between endogenous and
exogenous,' he said. 'no error is possible in isotopic readings.'"
"No error is possible." That isn't science, it's religion and a particularly
hardheaded sort at that.
Ron
Ray_...@hotmail.com
Tom Kunich wrote:
> There isn't ANY sport whether it's cross country skiing, Shot putting or
> target shooting, that isn't doping in a large percentage of the top end of
> the competition.
>
> You pass rules against it and you test. But if you get overzealous and you
> invent "accuracy" where none exists you simply destroy the sports you claim
> to be protecting. That's what's happening to cycling at the moment.
Your right to a large measure, but what is the to be done. The game
the UCI is playing is with the word "doping". There was a time when
doping was condemn because it was life threatening. And authority to
control the threat was merited. How does one get from life safety to
the matter of outlawing mountain tents?
There was a time when the participants made up the rules for their
games. Bike racing is one of the few places where to any degree that
still takes place and, that it does, adds to event. The peloton
should be permitted to determine the competitive rules including what
constitutes substance abuse and unfair competition. The UCI
authority needs to be replaced with by a democratic revolution.
Tom Kunich
>
> In fact many experts said that a baseball player using steroids could
> become muscle-bound and would have a negative effect on performance.
And in fact that was correct to the particular types of steroids available
at that time. The effects of testosterone hasn't changed. But they've found
other steroids that cause different kinds of body responses.
Frank Drackman
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
Not true, baseball players were using steroids in the 70's, including
pitchers for recovery.
Michael Press
<1154962786....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
Ray_...@hotmail.com wrote:
You think you can put it over us this easily, blinding us
by bringing in democracy? What you propose is no less than
anarchy! Oooh, wait until I tell Dick Pound.
--
Michael Press
Curtis L. Russell
>You think you can put it over us this easily, blinding us
>by bringing in democracy? What you propose is no less than
>anarchy! Oooh, wait until I tell Dick Pound.
Anarchy is when each individual cyclist chooses whether he or she
races clockwise or counter-clockwise. Since this largely appears to be
a motor official problem, I'll take a laissez-faire attitude toward
the whole thing.
I wonder if the French have a word for laissez-faire?
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
Donald Munro
> I wonder if the French have a word for laissez-faire?
Just look in the Bush dictionary.
benjo maso
"Sandy" <leu...@frreee.fr> wrote in message
news:44d62d33$0$7545$626a...@news.free.fr...
[...]
>>
> If the one and only positive test related to some rider who finished
> 122.5th, this entire thread would not exist. It still rattles me that the
> single positive result was this one. I still don't know how to evaluate
> that.
Neither do I. But what rattles me is that it seems a perfect demonstration
of the effectiviness of the anti-doping policy of the WADA. First of all,
all the rotten apples - the riders linked to dr. Fuentes - had to be
removed. Then, it could be pretended we were having a really "clean" Tour.
Even the riders who had not yet seen the light, didn't dare anymore to take
illicit products. And than we had a really exceptional exploit. But lo and
behold! - it turned out that the man who seemd to be a new hero had taken a
performance enhancing product! Which paradoxally only confirmed how clean
the Tour had been. He was proven that the only reason why he could show
himself better than all the others, was because - and obviously contrary to
all his competitors - he had doped himself! At first sight there could
hardly been a more convincing proof how effective the WADA is. Of course,
it;s bogus, but most people are not interested enough to wonder how it was
possible that the average speed was the third highest of all time, that
l'Alpe d'Huez was climbed in more or less the the same time as the years
before, that taking a dose of testerone for an exceptional effort is
complete ineffective, etc.
Landis has said that he doesn't discount some kind of conspiracy by the
UCI or WADA. I don't really believe it, but I hope he is right and I don't
exclude it 100%. I think he is wrong about the UCI, but the WADA? Fanatics
are capable of everything.
Benjo
Ray_...@hotmail.com
Yes, and in the same vein, it would seem that the UCI ought to be
responsible for educating riders. The UCI's doping experts ought to
have been aware that there were five (5) studies done demonstrating
alcohol consumption could lower the E level and thus imperil a rider's
ability to pass the T/E ratio test. Where the hell were the UCI's
doping experts when the peloton needed them? Need them to inform them
of the danger alcohol created? Aaaahhh, the UCI is obsessed catch
cheaters to the degree their own test creates them. The UCI is denial
of mind its duty to prevent violations through education.
Tom Kunich
1) Was it testosterone?
2) Why hasn't lab tests shown "recovery" to be true for testosterone?
Do you REALLY believe that people who are using drugs know the precise
actions of drugs? As I pointed out before, people have been using all sorts
of drugs and claiming all sorts of bogus value to them throughout history.
Tom Kunich
news:eb89a3$ced$1...@inews.gazeta.pl...
I would feel a whole lot better about this if it were a substance that could
conceivably be of some help in the way of performance enhancement. But
testosterone simply isn't that sort of material.
trg
dtPBg.5283$xp2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Well, in that case, this should make you feel a whole lot better-
Testosterone can be used to back up cortisone. Cortisone has pain-killing
and mood-lifting effects, but it also reduces muscle tissue. Testosterone
fixes on cortisone receivers and prevents muscle shrinkage.
Landis was taking cortisone.
bob sullivan
I thought I remembered reading that he'd gotten permission to take
cortisone injections for his hip. Or am I misremembering?
~bob
Frank Drackman
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
What I am trying to say is that sometimes the cheaters are way ahead of the
experts. The experts are sometimes constrained by their knowledge of
intended uses of a substance but the cheaters are constantly looking for new
ways to use drugs. The fact that baseball pitchers were using steroids in
the 70's is a great example of the cheaters being way ahead. As I said
before, I expect that there will be new studies to determine the effects of
Testosterone on endurance athletes.
Michael Press
Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 18:46:10 GMT, Michael Press <ja...@abc.net> wrote:
>
> >You think you can put it over us this easily, blinding us
> >by bringing in democracy? What you propose is no less than
> >anarchy! Oooh, wait until I tell Dick Pound.
>
> Anarchy is when each individual cyclist chooses whether he or she
> races clockwise or counter-clockwise. Since this largely appears to be
> a motor official problem, I'll take a laissez-faire attitude toward
> the whole thing.
The dictionary definition of anarchy is lack of order. The
etymology is very different: the absence of a leader.
Anarchy as a political philosophy is not about willful
behavior, but reaching a consensus. Sorry for getting
serious.
> I wonder if the French have a word for laissez-faire?
Doubt it.
--
Michael Press
Tom Kunich
>
> What I am trying to say is that sometimes the cheaters are way ahead of
> the experts.
Indeed but not usually. Idiots are usually idiots and not the Rain Man in
disguise.
> The experts are sometimes constrained by their knowledge of intended uses
> of a substance but the cheaters are constantly looking for new ways to use
> drugs. The fact that baseball pitchers were using steroids in the 70's is
> a great example of the cheaters being way ahead. As I said before, I
> expect that there will be new studies to determine the effects of
> Testosterone on endurance athletes.
Tests are constrained by the fact that legal research cannot purposely put
test subjects at notable risk. Testosterone is NOT something that can be
used lightly as everyone here seems to think. It is one of the most powerful
hormones in the body in its effect. Testing is difficult at best.
Howard Kveck
RonSonic <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Oh, I agree (though I do differentiate between "smart" and "intelligent"). The
attitude just gets real tiresome: "overbearing."
> > And I thought the joke was funny.
>
> It got a grin.
Yeah, and that was enough.
Howard Kveck
Michael Press <ja...@abc.net> wrote:
> You think you can put it over us this easily, blinding us
> by bringing in democracy? What you propose is no less than
> anarchy! Oooh, wait until I tell Dick Pound.
I once read the phrase "organize for anarchy." And the writer of said phrase was
dead serious.
Ray_...@hotmail.com
Howard Kveck wrote:
> I once read the phrase "organize for anarchy." And the writer of said phrase was
> dead serious.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Never take a tenant with a monkey.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
If you use the original concept of anarchy, it is a reasonable usage.
Early anarchists believed that people, communities, could organized
themselves through custom and tradition without the need for
government.
It the present context, it would be expressing the belief that the
peloton could organize itself, as it indeed has, through customs and
traditions of the participants. The interference of the UCI is an
unnecessary government intrusion.
The word has come to mean those who would eliminate the government by
force. This is a shame because the concept applies quite well to
sports controlled by the participants rather than the soccer mommies.
Frank Drackman
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> "Frank Drackman" <Frank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:a9KdnXUacq4IUErZ...@comcast.com...
>>
>> What I am trying to say is that sometimes the cheaters are way ahead of
>> the experts.
>
> Indeed but not usually. Idiots are usually idiots and not the Rain Man in
> disguise.
>
In this thread we have identified that steroids and EPO were successfully
used by the cheaters before the experts thought that they had any value to
specif sports, I bet there are many other examples.
On the other hand, you are correct that many substances were thought to be
performance enhancing but actually hurt performance. Alcohol and tobacco
are the first two that I can think of.
Howard Kveck
Ray_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
>
> > I once read the phrase "organize for anarchy." And the writer of said
> > phrase was
> > dead serious.
> If you use the original concept of anarchy, it is a reasonable usage.
> Early anarchists believed that people, communities, could organized
> themselves through custom and tradition without the need for
> government.
Yeah, that's true, although I think the only people who realistically believed
that could work were the anarchists themselves. Even back then, the media (such as
it was) and others tended to push the concept of "anarchy" as simply a chaotic mess
of people doing what they wanted. They also provided a convenient scapegoat at
times. I should have explained further that the person who wrote that was one who
advocated a variety of positions that I could only describe as self-indulgent chaos.
Very much a "community of one" kind of thing.
> It the present context, it would be expressing the belief that the
> peloton could organize itself, as it indeed has, through customs and
> traditions of the participants. The interference of the UCI is an
> unnecessary government intrusion.
It would be interesting to see how the racers and teams would organize things. I
think that WADA would be even less welcome than the UCI.
> The word has come to mean those who would eliminate the government by
> force. This is a shame because the concept applies quite well to
> sports controlled by the participants rather than the soccer mommies.
I'll agree with that.
Ernst Noch
>
> In this thread we have identified that steroids and EPO were successfully
> used by the cheaters before the experts thought that they had any value to
> specif sports, I bet there are many other examples.
>
> On the other hand, you are correct that many substances were thought to be
> performance enhancing but actually hurt performance. Alcohol and tobacco
> are the first two that I can think of.
And it shows that it doesn't make any sense to skim scientific
literature in order to get arguments why an athlete couldn't possibly
use substance X for doping.
RonSonic
wrote:
>In article <1155007553.1...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> Ray_...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> Howard Kveck wrote:
>>
>> > I once read the phrase "organize for anarchy." And the writer of said
>> > phrase was
>> > dead serious.
>
>> If you use the original concept of anarchy, it is a reasonable usage.
>> Early anarchists believed that people, communities, could organized
>> themselves through custom and tradition without the need for
>> government.
>
> Yeah, that's true, although I think the only people who realistically believed
>that could work were the anarchists themselves. Even back then, the media (such as
>it was) and others tended to push the concept of "anarchy" as simply a chaotic mess
>of people doing what they wanted. They also provided a convenient scapegoat at
>times.
The occasional bombing (yep, there was a horse drawn car bomb) and assassination
sorta contributed to that.
> I should have explained further that the person who wrote that was one who
>advocated a variety of positions that I could only describe as self-indulgent chaos.
>Very much a "community of one" kind of thing.
"Question authority until I'm in charge."
>> It the present context, it would be expressing the belief that the
>> peloton could organize itself, as it indeed has, through customs and
>> traditions of the participants. The interference of the UCI is an
>> unnecessary government intrusion.
>
> It would be interesting to see how the racers and teams would organize things. I
>think that WADA would be even less welcome than the UCI.
I'd be very much in favor of the riders writing the rules.
Ron
Tom Kunich
news:4jr1h1F...@individual.net...
So you're telling us that EVEN THOUGH the literature shows that testosterone
isn't an endurance sport drug, because someone uses it for such that's proof
in your eyes that it actually works.
OK.
JessicaG
> So you're telling us that EVEN THOUGH the literature shows that
> testosterone
> isn't an endurance sport drug, because someone uses it for such that's
> proof in your eyes that it actually works.
>
> OK.
I'm confused, what are you implying? What should they do if a non
performance enhancing but illegal substance is detected?
Ray_...@hotmail.com
Ditto.
The broader, historic analogy is to compare the English (and Dutch)
experience with the French. English law evolved out of the customs and
traditions of the people. Its democratic impulse came from the bottom,
the people. On the other hand, the French, Napoleonic system, comes
from the top down. In today's world of international rule, the top
down model is much preferred by the WADA/UCI's and UN's. It is much
better for bureaucrats seeking to accumulate power.
Whatever happened to the 1960's "power to the people"?
Ernst Noch
No, I didn't say this at all.
Tom Kunich
news:9S2Cg.3011$3U4...@fe12.lga...
If it is illegal it is illegal. But we can't be sure that it was detected as
I've pointed out already. At the point at which the A sample was positive
and the results were leaked the B sample should have been removed from their
possession immediately and sent to another lab.
Tom Kunich
But that's the implication of your statements Ernst. It DOES make sense to
read scientific literature on something as commonly used in scientific tests
such as testosterone, EPO and the like. You appear to be thinking that
because some new and mostly unknown materials might be mistakenly ignored,
that EVERYTHING is that way is simply incorrect.
Ernst Noch
No it isn't the implication. Stop putting words in my mouth. There is
plenty of evidence that athletes *do* try stuff which is not
scientifically proven. And this is not only restricted to illegal stuff.
Sometimes hindsight shows that the "early adopters" were right,
sometimes it shows they were wrong. And in the case of Testosterone, I
already cited for instance one doctor (Jaksche's) who told about the
"patch practice" in the field.
OTOH, the fact that there is mainly scientific literature proving in
what way T helps long term doesn't mean that it doesn't also have short
term effects - only in different ways. I.e. that something different
than the muscle growth effect kicks in short term.
By the way - and without me wanting to discuss this further:
There *is* scientific literature showing that for instance stress will
in (relatively) short term drop the T level. If there is a short term
effect in this direction, there might also be short term effects on the
body / soul from a higher T level.
Tom Kunich
>
> No it isn't the implication. Stop putting words in my mouth. There is
> plenty of evidence that athletes *do* try stuff which is not
> scientifically proven. And this is not only restricted to illegal stuff.
> Sometimes hindsight shows that the "early adopters" were right, sometimes
> it shows they were wrong. And in the case of Testosterone, I already cited
> for instance one doctor (Jaksche's) who told about the "patch practice" in
> the field.
Testosterone has been pretty thoroughly researched. What Jaksche's DOCTOR
had to say doesn't make it so. And the idea is to catch someone who is
achieving an unfair advantage, not someone who THINKS they're getting an
unfair advantage.
> OTOH, the fact that there is mainly scientific literature proving in what
> way T helps long term doesn't mean that it doesn't also have short term
> effects - only in different ways. I.e. that something different than the
> muscle growth effect kicks in short term.
One thing is absolutely certain - Landis wasn't obtaining any advantage of
doping on stage 16 and testosterone doesn't work fast enough for him to have
obtained any specific help from it in state 17 EVEN IF IT WORKED THAT WAY.
And furthermore, you've seen all sorts of claims that testosterone only
stays in the body for a couple of hours and you saw Landis drinking tons of
water. He had to be taking a whizz as well. Explain how he could have had
testosterone levels that high if he'd applied a patch the night before.
> By the way - and without me wanting to discuss this further:
> There *is* scientific literature showing that for instance stress will in
> (relatively) short term drop the T level. If there is a short term effect
> in this direction, there might also be short term effects on the body /
> soul from a higher T level.
Eh? Stress slows testosterone production in the gonads. What the heck does
that have to do with INCREASING testosterone?
mimoso
> doping on stage 16 and testosterone doesn't work fast enough for him to
> have obtained any specific help from it in state 17 EVEN IF IT WORKED THAT
> WAY.
>
> And furthermore, you've seen all sorts of claims that testosterone only
> stays in the body for a couple of hours and you saw Landis drinking tons
> of water. He had to be taking a whizz as well. Explain how he could have
> had testosterone levels that high if he'd applied a patch the night
> before.
It's simple: a refreshing beverage called Synthetic T
Mark
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> "RonSonic" <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:bjbdd2db578j5ae8s...@4ax.com...
>> Dude, Phonak makes hearing aids, their customers won't have HEARD
>> anything about
>> it. Get it, nyuck nyuck.
>
> Err, Phonak is also a big time maker of cell phones. You know - the kind
> with news updates sent to them automatically?
Can you provide a link? I went to their Swiss web site and all I could see
devices like smart link. No mention that they make cell phones.