[quote]Damici wrote:
Difference in performance regarding Bonds:
1.) WHEN the bat connects with the ball – which is due to his existing incredible eye/instinct/ability – due to much increased size and strength (as a result of steroid use), ball is then hit much HARDER and flies much FARTHER, equating to more home runs than before.
2.) There IS also evidence showing that steroids can actually speed up the neurological process that regulates hand-eye coordination and reflexes. No joke.
TrainerinDC wrote:
kroby wrote:
Bonds never took a drug test until 2003, quite after his homerun explosion of 1999 - 2002.
Would you like to tell me how steroids improved Bonds’s batting eye? He was swinging at better pitches, not swinging at balls, and hitting the ball in the right spot. This has to do with better technique and practice, not the steroids. Even if he was juicing, this would not improve his batting eye and his technique.
As far as Landis, I fail to see how high test levels make him guilty by default. Humans can naturally raise their test levels while in pain, adrenaline rushes, or anger. Perhaps with his combination of the three, he jacked himself up. If it was done naturally, without steroids, then he deserved his win by making his body overcome its limitations and winning the race. Perhaps he just has naturally high levels, and with the extreme circumstances they raised even higher.
[/quote]
Yes, even on the HRT sites they advertise improvement in eyesight over time with HRT treatment.
Also, as AA stated it would allow you to operate at peak recovery levels longer then if not on them. I agree juicing definitely helped him as it helped Canseco, Mcguire, and others.
I am a mountain bike racer (only doping has been expresso…) and have a few questions for you.
How does testosterone help with healing?
How long does it stay in the body? (I know this depends on the type used but I do not know what is the most common)
How long does the test take to get results - hours, days?
Let’s say he did take testosterone (which I do not believe he did), do you guys think he would be able to recover and spank the competition on just testerone?
FYI - Floyd treated the stage that he won just like a mountain bike race. He waited until there was about 4 hours left and then pinned it. Mountain bikers are used to this solo effort since team tactics do not play much of a role. That is one of the reasons why Rasmussen does well in his breakaways.
RE cycling and doping: Unfortunately, the technology is available to dope and not get caught at this time. Sucks but it is what it is.
Lastly, I do not think Floyd can lie due to his upbringing.
I heard one of the writers from velonews on npr a few hours ago stating that the rumours had his T:E ratio at 11 but his T itself wasn’t exceptionally high. One of the theories that they might pursue is that there was some combination of his body state after stage 16 and the fact that he went out for a beer with his DS after the stage and this somehow lowered his epitest. I’m sure we will see a lot of random theories thrown out there over the coming months.
Yes, even on the HRT sites they advertise improvement in eyesight over time with HRT treatment.
Also, as AA stated it would allow you to operate at peak recovery levels longer then if not on them. I agree juicing definitely helped him as it helped Canseco, Mcguire, and others.
D[/quote]
I thought the eyesight effects were claimed to be primarily the result of the HGH.
Yes, even on the HRT sites they advertise improvement in eyesight over time with HRT treatment.
Also, as AA stated it would allow you to operate at peak recovery levels longer then if not on them. I agree juicing definitely helped him as it helped Canseco, Mcguire, and others.
D
I thought the eyesight effects were claimed to be primarily the result of the HGH.[/quote]
Correction what I read is the effect combined with HGH. You are right.
[quote]jjoseph_x wrote:
Amsterdam Animal wrote:
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.
The french have already forgotten about the Zidane head-butt (and polls in France show that most people support him… I’ve have tought the opposite… but oh well).
I don’t think that people will take glee in what’s going-on with Landis. Everyone was pulling for him (the French included) and everyone really like him (whereas Armstrong wasn’t so well liked).
The thing about Armstrong is that rumours about his EPO use have been around for years. Former cycling partners claimed that he used, he had some involvement with an Italian doctor who was accused of supplying EPO and guys like Greg Lemond claim that he used (though that sounds like jealousy).
Obvious you can’t accuse Armstrong until he’s failed a test (which he never did… and he’s been tested plenty)… but it does raise suspicion.
However what L’Equipe and Dick Pound did was wrong. The French lab never released any name so they should have shut-up until there was any kind of proof (and ultimately there wasn’t).
[/quote]
French cycling fans wanted this result to be clean as much as anyone else. Everyone who cares about cycling was happy that such a great tour happened even after the doping scandels before the start. French sports writers aren’t representative of the fan base as a whole. European sports writers in general are just as capable of being ignorant jackals when it comes to these issues as are America’s own hacks. Remember, the actual sporting experience of most sports writers goes no further than the tee-ball they played when they were five. They weren’t kinisiology or bio majors in college, they were journalism majors who like to watch baseball and memorise meaningless statistics from 1956 without any understanding of what is actually entailed in the sport.
[quote]massgarbage wrote:
OK guys - I am new here.[/quote]
Welcome aboard, mate :-).
Which makes sense, because he was formerly a pro mountain biker (a fact which I was unaware of until hearing it on Cowherd’s show yesterday). I thought that was fascinating. Thanks for that small tidbit on mountain biking strategy, BTW.
[quote]Lastly, I do not think Floyd can lie due to his upbringing.
Time will tell.
Thanks in advance!
Jamie[/quote]
I’ve been thinking a lot about that and his family. This has got to be a terrible time for his wife and daughter, but mostly his parents. I remember seeing that his parents, who are Mennonites, decided to go to church instead of watching the final stage on Sunday. But I didn’t get the impression they were being cocky; I felt like their faith is just that strong. This has got to be devastating for them, whether it’s even true or not. The shadow of just being accused is going to follow him around for the rest of his life…
Yes, even on the HRT sites they advertise improvement in eyesight over time with HRT treatment.
Also, as AA stated it would allow you to operate at peak recovery levels longer then if not on them. I agree juicing definitely helped him as it helped Canseco, Mcguire, and others.
D
I thought the eyesight effects were claimed to be primarily the result of the HGH.
Correction what I read is the effect combined with HGH. You are right.
D[/quote]
This is a topic for another thread, but does this actually work? My biggest weakness in sports has always been my vision (broadly defined).
[quote]etaco wrote:
He’s fighting it of course. From cyclingnews:
Landis denies
Floyd Landis has broken his silence about his high T/E ratio that could cost him the Tour de France, as well as hammering cycling’s already battered image. Landis, who has requested a B sample analysis to confirm his A test, told Sports Illustrated, that he “can’t be hopeful” that the B sample will be any different than the A. “I’m a realist,” he added.
But even if the B sample confirms the A result, Landis is not necessarily guilty of taking an illegal performance enhancing drug to boost his testosterone. Some riders can prove that they have an elevated Testosterone/Epitestosterone (T:E) level, if they undergo an endocrine test performed by a credible doctor. Landis said he will use Spanish doctor Luis Hern?ndez, who has helped other riders prove a high T:E count. “In hundreds of cases,” Landis told SI, “no one’s ever lost one.”
In 1999, Colombian rider Santiago Botero was able to prove his elevated testosterone levels (over four times the allowed limit) were natural. His doctor at the time was Kelme’s Dr Eufemiano Fuentes.
Landis is looking for other answers too. He is allowed to take cortisone for his degenerating right hip, although he said during the Tour that he had only had a couple of injections this year. But he also told SI that he’d been taking daily doses of a thyroid hormone to treat a thyroid condition. Even if either of these can explain his high T:E ratio, Landis realises that it will be hard to convince people. “I wouldn’t hold it against somebody if they don’t believe me,” he said.
I heard one of the writers from velonews on npr a few hours ago stating that the rumours had his T:E ratio at 11 but his T itself wasn’t exceptionally high. One of the theories that they might pursue is that there was some combination of his body state after stage 16 and the fact that he went out for a beer with his DS after the stage and this somehow lowered his epitest. I’m sure we will see a lot of random theories thrown out there over the coming months.[/quote]
[quote]Amsterdam Animal wrote:
If he had been taking something for his hip, the smart money would have been to clear the substance with the governing body or whatever you would do to make sure it would not and could not make you look bad.
[/quote]
Besides, anti-inflammatories are not the same as anabolics. And I thought cyclists used EPo most of the time. Gear would definitely help, though, so yeah, I can see it.
[quote=CC]. I remember seeing that his parents, who are Mennonites, decided to go to church instead of watching the final stage on Sunday. But I didn’t get the impression they were being cocky; I felt like their faith is just that strong.
I found that story a bit funny as the race was decided in stage 19. I’m not a TDF expert but stage 20 doesn’t usually decide it I believe.[/quote]
Good point. But you have to figure just about any parent out there would want to watch the final day of such a momentous event for their kid, no matter what the circumstances are. The fact that his parents went to church instead speaks volumes, but maybe that’s just me.
Pedro Delgado won the 1988 tour, and I’m pretty sure that he lost the title afterward when he won shown to have been blood doping. Pre-EPO blood doping was dangerous, it was done by withdrawing blood a couple of months before your race, then letting the body replenish the red blood cells. Just before the race you reinject the red blood cells for higher aerobic capacity. Problem is if you injected too much you could have a clot in a major artery.
[quote]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.
Did a quick fact check on Wikipedia for Pedro Delgado:
“He became an impetus for change in cycling’s doping regulations after testing positive for probenecid, a masking agent, during the 1988 Tour de France. Though other sports governing bodies, such as the IOC, recognized probenecid as a doping agent, the UCI, which oversaw cycling, did not, and thus Delgado was allowed to continue in the event without sanction.”
[quote]andytipton wrote:
Pedro Delgado won the 1988 tour, and I’m pretty sure that he lost the title afterward when he won shown to have been blood doping. Pre-EPO blood doping was dangerous, it was done by withdrawing blood a couple of months before your race, then letting the body replenish the red blood cells. Just before the race you reinject the red blood cells for higher aerobic capacity. Problem is if you injected too much you could have a clot in a major artery.
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?
[/quote]
The alegations against Ullrich/Basso/Mancebo involved old-fashioned transfusion based doping as well from what I’ve read. I guess it’s probably safer from a sporting sense and I don’t think the health risks are quite so out there since they would have to monitor hematocrit on a daily basis anyway. They didn’t have the 50% autosuspension back then I don’t think which means riders could get more aggressive with their numbers.
[quote]andytipton wrote:
Pedro Delgado won the 1988 tour, and I’m pretty sure that he lost the title afterward when he won shown to have been blood doping. Pre-EPO blood doping was dangerous, it was done by withdrawing blood a couple of months before your race, then letting the body replenish the red blood cells. Just before the race you reinject the red blood cells for higher aerobic capacity. Problem is if you injected too much you could have a clot in a major artery.
[/quote]
OK, I was going to ask what was up with doping and juicing being used as synonyms. I have always known blood doping to be withdrawing and freezing a pint of your own blood and reinjecting it at a later date, and (obviously) taking steroids was “juicing”, but apparently that is known as “doping” now?
[quote=CC]. I remember seeing that his parents, who are Mennonites, decided to go to church instead of watching the final stage on Sunday. But I didn’t get the impression they were being cocky; I felt like their faith is just that strong.
I found that story a bit funny as the race was decided in stage 19. I’m not a TDF expert but stage 20 doesn’t usually decide it I believe.
[/quote]
Correct, stage 20 usually does not decide the tour. The last time it happened was on an individual time trial. Greg Lemond had a fantastic time to overtake the Frenchman - Laurent Fignon. No more time trials on the last day. It is usually a parade ride until the sprints on the Champs.
I have heard his parents are that religious. They do not own a TV. His mom had to walk to another location to watch the tour. On the day he won, they had a sign up thanking the lord and not professing Landis as the winner. They are proud of him but are modest.
The other point that I have issue with on the testing - the name of the athlete is not supposed to be released until the B sample confirms the positive. Didn’t happen in this case. The rumor was out and Phonak/Landis confronted it head on.
Unfortunately, this will ruin his reputation whether it is true or not.
[quote]jjoseph_x wrote:
… You also have to keep in mind that these guys are tested several times (not just once… so if one test is shows much higher levels than others… it’s a bit suspicious).