[quote]Donut62 wrote:
Damn. They are going to have a field day with this. What he did was superhuman, drugs or not, and this is going to overshadow it forever.[/quote]
I love how ‘high testosterone level’ is synonymous with ‘Drug Use’. There are people walking around with T Levels twice that of a normal person (just ask Bas Rutten). Should we really punish people for that? Is it fair to say, ‘you can’t take a pill to give you the same effect of what some genetically gifted person naturally has’. ‘Natural’ is a bullshit term. A situation like this only overshadows Landis’s incredible accomplishment. The guy won the tour with a broken hip. Roughly 3500 KM of pure agony. ‘High Testosterone Levels’. Give me a break.
Some of you all sound like the old-time baseball fans who just absolutely refuse to believe that performance-enhancing drugs would ever enter your favorite sport. Top athletes do drugs. Get over it.
[/quote]
This is where you are wrong about my stance. I actually wouldn’t care if they were allowed to dope. And I have nothing to calm down about. I was just replying to your stupid comment.
Yeah, he is suspended till they examine the B sample. He will be fired if the tests are confirmed. Also, since he needs a hip replacement surgery, there is no telling if he will ever get another chance - could be why he resorted to it?
[quote]Heffernan wrote:
themonthofjun wrote:
So he will lose his title?
That will be the least of his problems.
A real kick in the nuts for him and for cycling…to which Lance luckily for him was immune.
That’s a very valid question you pose and I dont have an answer. I dont know the extent and the time frame it takes to kick in.
Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
[quote]KBCThird wrote:
trailrash wrote:
Amsterdam Animal wrote:
I am not sure about that but most likely he will.
I can’t remember a winner of the Tour testing positive like this. I know Marco Pantani tested positive some time later after he won the Tour in 1998 and he is still listed as the winner. I think the difference is that Pantani tested positive outside the Tour and is therefore still listed as the 98 winner.
Since Landis tested positive after stage 17, I would imagine he loses his title.
themonthofjun wrote:
So he will lose his title?
Funny that they didnt test him until after he blew everyone away on stage 17. I was expecting this. Seems to ironic to me.
It says he had high levels on Test. I call total bullshit. Would one injection of test really make him be able to do what he did on stage 17? I doubt it.
TR
See this was always my understanding, that test doesnt kick in instantly, it takes a few weeks to get teh blood levels to raise any noticeable amount.
AA, would test really give that immediate a performance boost?[/quote]
Thats an interesting argument. Unfortunately for Landis, the governing body of cycling does not share that opinion.
Landis said he was completely suprised by the results and he wants the B samples analyzed to see if it could be a part of a natural process or if some sort of mistake was made.
It is interesting to me that it was announced that a cycler had tested positive and all of a sudden Landis doesnt show up for a scheduled event in Holland and a one day race in Denmark the next day.
[quote]briangodsen wrote:
Donut62 wrote:
Damn. They are going to have a field day with this. What he did was superhuman, drugs or not, and this is going to overshadow it forever.
I love how ‘high testosterone level’ is synonymous with ‘Drug Use’. There are people walking around with T Levels twice that of a normal person (just ask Bas Rutten). Should we really punish people for that? Is it fair to say, ‘you can’t take a pill to give you the same effect of what some genetically gifted person naturally has’. ‘Natural’ is a bullshit term. A situation like this only overshadows Landis’s incredible accomplishment. The guy won the tour with a broken hip. Roughly 3500 KM of pure agony. ‘High Testosterone Levels’. Give me a break.[/quote]
I have always liked Armstrong and in my heart I just do not want to believe he doped. It would just ruin this image I have of him. I would like to be naive in that sense.
I see where you are coming from with the innocent till proven guilty and thats how it should be. Armstrong has never failed a drug test and therefore he is clean…but then again, Barry Bonds has never failed a drug test either and it is a little far fetched to think he never juiced.
[quote]dre wrote:
orion wrote:
Look, do you really, really deep down in your heart believe that it is possible to win a race where approximately 80% are doped 6 times in a row when you are clean?
Really?
So what if Armstrong was doped, all of them where, it kind of levels the playing field.
If I say yes does that make me naive? The whole Armstrong doping issue to me is like the American Justice System. Innocent until proven guilty. IMO you have to believe that he doesn’t dope until he fails a drug test. You can speculate all you want about this or about that. But until Armstrong or any other rider fails a drug test, they are clean to me.
[/quote]
I am with you on this one but for different reasons. Anyone who has any knowledge of cycling or Tour de France history, knows that what Landis was able to do in stage 17 after tanking in stage 16, was unheard of. The entire sport of cycling wrote him off for the remainder of the Tour as far as being able to win it.
When he rode that amazing ride in stage 17, I had people come up to me and tell me to admit I was wrong when I wrote him off. I had no answer other than I underestimated the guy and I had to applaud his effort. I never liked the guy as a rider but I damn sure respected him after that.
This news just put a bad taste in my mouth and I am sure a lot of the riders in the Tour feel the same way. There was a common believe that Landis was an arrogant prick in the peloton but they dam sure respected him after that ride. Now he just looks like another phony, I dont give a shit if he is riding with two bad hips.
[quote]CC wrote:
I’m not going to be the guy who says “I knew all along!”.
But I have to be honest and say that when I saw him completely blow off the reporters and get into the car after the stage on which he cracked, I was sitting there thinking to myself, “What’s he going to do right now? What are he and his team doctor(s) going to talk about…?”[/quote]
[quote]Amsterdam Animal wrote:
I have always liked Armstrong and in my heart I just do not want to believe he doped. It would just ruin this image I have of him. I would like to be naive in that sense.
I see where you are coming from with the innocent till proven guilty and thats how it should be. Armstrong has never failed a drug test and therefore he is clean…but then again, Barry Bonds has never failed a drug test either and it is a little far fetched to think he never juiced.
[/quote]
I agree with ya. And I think we can settle this Armstrong vs. Bonds doping question rather easily. Let’s compare the size of their foreheads. We will clearly see that Bonds has a forehead that could land a 757 Jumbo Jet. While Armstrong doesn’t! haha
Yes sir. Plus this will be a nice way for the French to divert from ther Zidane publicity nightmare.
Mark my words, this shit is going to make the Armstrong witch hunt, launched by L’Equipe, look like a fucking church picnic.
[quote]dre wrote:
Amsterdam Animal wrote:
The French are going to have a feast with this one.
I mean how stupid do you have to be. In stage 16 he was completely in the red and lost over 8 minutes in the overall classifications on the last mountain. Everyone who knew anything about cycling said he lost the Tour right there.
Then he comes back in stage 17 the next day and he rides the most impressive solo ride ever in the Tour, in my opinion. And basically assures he can win the Tour in the time trial in stage 19, which he then does.
His positive test was taken after stage 17. With all the controversy surrounding the start of the Tour with 60 some riders being kicked out and with the accusations Lance Armstrong has had to deal with in the past, this is the last thing US cycling needed.
I couldn’t agree with you more. The French have been wanting to convict Armstrong of something ever since he won his first Tour. And now that they can possibly convict a US rider of doping they are going to freakin’ go nukin’ futs!
The French will no doubt try to somehow tie this into Armstrong somehow. It’s a great opportunity to try to smear his name more. Damn Frenchies…[/quote]
I am not positive about this (no pun intended) but I think they test at least the top 5 finishers every stage. Landis came in second in the first ITT (excluding the prologue) to Gonchar so he would have gotten tested in stage 7.
[quote]trailrash wrote:
Amsterdam Animal wrote:
I am not sure about that but most likely he will.
I can’t remember a winner of the Tour testing positive like this. I know Marco Pantani tested positive some time later after he won the Tour in 1998 and he is still listed as the winner. I think the difference is that Pantani tested positive outside the Tour and is therefore still listed as the 98 winner.
Since Landis tested positive after stage 17, I would imagine he loses his title.
themonthofjun wrote:
So he will lose his title?
Funny that they didnt test him until after he blew everyone away on stage 17. I was expecting this. Seems to ironic to me.
It says he had high levels on Test. I call total bullshit. Would one injection of test really make him be able to do what he did on stage 17? I doubt it.
[quote]trailrash wrote:
This is where you are wrong about my stance. I actually wouldn’t care if they were allowed to dope. And I have nothing to calm down about.[/quote]
Right. That’s why on two separate occasions, in your original TDF 2006 thread, when someone brought up the issue of drug use in cycling you jumped their shit or made some smart-ass comment about it. But you don’t care, lol.
“Stupid” comment, lol? What, are we in 5th grade again? It was a general wondering, which I’ll say once again (if you would read properly) had more to do with my fascination with preparation than actual drug use.
Yeah, I think thats a very good point. Regardless of whether there may be some explanation for his elevated T-levels or whether the test would have kicked in fast enough to give him that advantage in stage 17, this will forever taint that remarkable performance.
[quote]Donut62 wrote:
Damn. They are going to have a field day with this. What he did was superhuman, drugs or not, and this is going to overshadow it forever.[/quote]
[quote]Amsterdam Animal wrote:
but then again, Barry Bonds has never failed a drug test either and it is a little far fetched to think he never juiced.
[/quote]
Bonds never took a drug test until 2003, quite after his homerun explosion of 1999 - 2002.
One other thing to point out is that the results were not just high in testosterone, it’s a high ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone.
They’re both produced naturally in the body and for most people they’re produced at the same levels. For years, there’s been a 6:1 threshold for sports, but many of them (including cycling) have gone to a 4:1 threshold.
DHEA will artificially elevate the testosterone level (but not the epitestosterone level) and allow for much quicker recovery after a strenuous event (like bonking in the Alps).
[quote]briangodsen wrote:
Donut62 wrote:
Damn. They are going to have a field day with this. What he did was superhuman, drugs or not, and this is going to overshadow it forever.
I love how ‘high testosterone level’ is synonymous with ‘Drug Use’. There are people walking around with T Levels twice that of a normal person (just ask Bas Rutten). Should we really punish people for that? Is it fair to say, ‘you can’t take a pill to give you the same effect of what some genetically gifted person naturally has’. ‘Natural’ is a bullshit term. A situation like this only overshadows Landis’s incredible accomplishment. The guy won the tour with a broken hip. Roughly 3500 KM of pure agony. ‘High Testosterone Levels’. Give me a break.[/quote]
Haha, good point …but then again, they would take different gear of course. Armstrong would look for stuff that would help him recover quickly etc, rather than some growth hormone that Barry seems to have been sipping on for breakfast, lunch and dinner so to speak.
[quote]dre wrote:
Amsterdam Animal wrote:
I have always liked Armstrong and in my heart I just do not want to believe he doped. It would just ruin this image I have of him. I would like to be naive in that sense.
I see where you are coming from with the innocent till proven guilty and thats how it should be. Armstrong has never failed a drug test and therefore he is clean…but then again, Barry Bonds has never failed a drug test either and it is a little far fetched to think he never juiced.
I agree with ya. And I think we can settle this Armstrong vs. Bonds doping question rather easily. Let’s compare the size of their foreheads. We will clearly see that Bonds has a forehead that could land a 757 Jumbo Jet. While Armstrong doesn’t! haha[/quote]
Good point - and the tests in MLB are a joke compared to what they test for in the Tour.
[quote]kroby wrote:
Amsterdam Animal wrote:
but then again, Barry Bonds has never failed a drug test either and it is a little far fetched to think he never juiced.
Bonds never took a drug test until 2003, quite after his homerun explosion of 1999 - 2002.[/quote]
Fellas, fellas, play nice. We were all getting along so well in the Tour de France thread. In this time of peril, we have to stand together as one
[quote]CC wrote:
trailrash wrote:
This is where you are wrong about my stance. I actually wouldn’t care if they were allowed to dope. And I have nothing to calm down about.
Right. That’s why on two separate occasions, in your original TDF 2006 thread, when someone brought up the issue of drug use in cycling you jumped their shit or made some smart-ass comment about it. But you don’t care, lol.
I was just replying to your stupid comment.
“Stupid” comment, lol? What, are we in 5th grade again? It was a general wondering, which I’ll say once again (if you would read properly) had more to do with my fascination with preparation than actual drug use.
I don’t know shit about bloodwork, but apparently Landis tested with a ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone of greater than 4:1 (which is the cut-off for a positive under WADA). That ratio before this tour was 6:1. Can anyone explain what this means? And is it possible for the body to exceed this by natural fluctuation?
Question:
Doesn’t that kind of brutal, long term strenous excersize ultimatly lower testosterone levels? So, over the course of the Tour, a rider knows that his T level will drop by X amount, so can “supplement” with an injection intended to add that same X amount to his blood stream over the two weeks?
It says he had high levels on Test. I call total bullshit. Would one injection of test really make him be able to do what he did on stage 17? I doubt it.
TR
[/quote]
I agree.
While I don’t doubt he and many others likely do things that they are not supposed, this looks suspicious.
