[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]
whoever was talking about bonds, the fact that he was stronger with the help of steroids meant he was able to wait on pitches for longer because of a faster bat speed which meant less strikes and more hits for the most part. Or the difference in a line drive and a homer.
[quote]CC wrote:
trailrash wrote:
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.
Smile, buddy :-). You’ll live longer.
yes, I made these comments because they were SPECULATING that “they all do it” You would have figured that out had you “Read Properly”. Boy, guess you got me there.
It seems to me that maybe I misinterpreted what you said in you initial post, but they way you said it allowed it to be interepreted in tow different ways obviously.
Well, I might be the new Anthony Roberts around here… or I might be the new (renewed) laughingstock of T-Nation…
But if they’re saying he got tested for a high ratio of test to epitest… why wouldnt they just inject test AND epitest to raise test levels while keeping the ratio legal?
[quote]orion wrote:
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…
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.[/quote]
If every winner is carefully tested at various stages, there will be no more doping by any of the riders anymore. But this is not something I understand. His T wasn’t even high. His testosterone to epitestosterone level was off. The epitestosterone was really low. Does anyone know the exact levels and ratios? If so, does anyone know an explanation other than exogenous use? I also don’t understand what the point would have been. His earlier samples tested fine. Would ‘supplementation’ at that late stage even give a performance boost?
[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
Well, I might be the new Anthony Roberts around here… or I might be the new (renewed) laughingstock of T-Nation…
But if they’re saying he got tested for a high ratio of test to epitest… why wouldnt they just inject test AND epitest to raise test levels while keeping the ratio legal?[/quote]
you mean like the Chinese female swimmers did since the late 80`s?
surely they all dope, can’t see them competing at that level without it. Cmon, this time i guess he just hadn’t used the correct “cleaners” afterwards.
“cleaners” conjure up images of a chemical version of Harvey Keitel in Pulp Fiction
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
If every winner is carefully tested at various stages, there will be no more doping by any of the riders anymore. But this is not something I understand. His T wasn’t even high. His testosterone to epitestosterone level was off. The epitestosterone was really low. Does anyone know the exact levels and ratios? If so, does anyone know an explanation other than exogenous use? I also don’t understand what the point would have been. His earlier samples tested fine. Would ‘supplementation’ at that late stage even give a performance boost?
[/quote]
ESPN’s “cycling expert” said something like the threshold is a 6:1 test to epitest ratio and that Landis’ “failed” test had an 11:1 ratio.
[quote]Jim_Bobv2 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
If every winner is carefully tested at various stages, there will be no more doping by any of the riders anymore. But this is not something I understand. His T wasn’t even high. His testosterone to epitestosterone level was off. The epitestosterone was really low. Does anyone know the exact levels and ratios? If so, does anyone know an explanation other than exogenous use? I also don’t understand what the point would have been. His earlier samples tested fine. Would ‘supplementation’ at that late stage even give a performance boost?
ESPN’s “cycling expert” said something like the threshold is a 6:1 test to epitest ratio and that Landis’ “failed” test had an 11:1 ratio.
[/quote]
Yeah. And I think average is a 1:1 ratio. Anyone knowledgable about what can cause an 11:1 ratio? Anyting other than steroids? I have to say I have difficulty believing that a cortizone shot and some Jack Daniels could.
Sadly, I agree with you, neither do I. The limit allowed in the Tour is actually 4:1, they lowered it from 6:1
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Jim_Bobv2 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
If every winner is carefully tested at various stages, there will be no more doping by any of the riders anymore. But this is not something I understand. His T wasn’t even high. His testosterone to epitestosterone level was off. The epitestosterone was really low. Does anyone know the exact levels and ratios? If so, does anyone know an explanation other than exogenous use? I also don’t understand what the point would have been. His earlier samples tested fine. Would ‘supplementation’ at that late stage even give a performance boost?
ESPN’s “cycling expert” said something like the threshold is a 6:1 test to epitest ratio and that Landis’ “failed” test had an 11:1 ratio.
Yeah. And I think average is a 1:1 ratio. Anyone knowledgable about what can cause an 11:1 ratio? Anyting other than steroids? I have to say I have difficulty believing that a cortizone shot and some Jack Daniels could.[/quote]
The head Doctor for the American College of Sport’s Medicine (ACSM) and the consulting physician for the U.S. Cycling Team, said that Landis did not have a out of normal range TEST levels.
His ratio of Test/Epi was off… his Testosterone levels were well within normal human male range.
The Doc went on to say that Landis had been tested so often this tour (Clean) that for this test to come back dirty was almost impossible.
If he had injected something (post stage 16) it would have not only skewed his Test/Epi ratio’s but elevated his TEST levels over the normal limit.
Yeah, to say the least and regardles of the outcome, it will forever taint his performance.
Also, he was quoted as saying he did not cheat but he would not be surprised if the B sample was the same as the A sample, or something to that extent. I mean WTF?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
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).
[quote]Amsterdam Animal wrote:
Also, he was quoted as saying he did not cheat but he would not be surprised if the B sample was the same as the A sample, or something to that extent. I mean WTF?
[/quote]
I am pretty sure he did not cheat. Floyd is saying that the B sample will return the same results as the A sample because they are the same. Whatever issue is at hand affects both samples. He is just as confused as to why there is a positive.
What is also suspicious is the timing. Test would not help him for stage 17 - not enough time for the recovery benefits. He would have taken an EPO coctail or other stimulant that is not being tested - which I do not believe he took.
I also love the Tour and have been following it since the Lemond days but this witchhunt is killing my interest in professional sports. The reporters have talked about all of the riders that were kicked out before the tour due to the doping scandal. Guess what - 5 of them have been cleared but that tidbit is not getting much press.
Time to go watch the little league world series where only age has been the issue
I have a question though…if his testosterone levels weren’t high, doesn’t that mean that the high ratio just meant he had LOW epitest? What would cause that? Would steroids/blood doping cause that? Would low epitest have any kind of benefit?
There is the argument he used hormone therapy for a thyroid problem he had, as well as cortisone injections he took for his bum hip. It’s funny how almost 90% of the pro peleton seem to suffer from asmtha, and use the " my doctor prescribed cortisone for my condition" bit all the time. Pretty sad to see these athletes justify their habitual drug use and use their " so called medical conditions" as an excuse. If his B sample does come back positive, he his a bloody idiot and a disgrace!
[quote]Digital Chainsaw wrote:
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.
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]
Blood doping generally refers to the use of EPO and/or transfusion to increase red blood cell counts … cycling terminology. Cyclist rarely use anabolic steroids ( in that sense) so there is not a separate term for it.
But the earlier samples/tests should have showed the same thing then right? The yelow jersey rider gets tested after every stage and Landis rode in yellow prior to the sample in question from stage 17.
[quote]JACKED71 wrote:
There is the argument he used hormone therapy for a thyroid problem he had, as well as cortisone injections he took for his bum hip. It’s funny how almost 90% of the pro peleton seem to suffer from asmtha, and use the " my doctor prescribed cortisone for my condition" bit all the time. Pretty sad to see these athletes justify their habitual drug use and use their " so called medical conditions" as an excuse. If his B sample does come back positive, he his a bloody idiot and a disgrace![/quote]
[quote]Amsterdam Animal wrote:
But the earlier samples/tests should have showed the same thing then right? The yelow jersey rider gets tested after every stage and Landis rode in yellow prior to the sample in question from stage 17.
JACKED71 wrote:
There is the argument he used hormone therapy for a thyroid problem he had, as well as cortisone injections he took for his bum hip. It’s funny how almost 90% of the pro peleton seem to suffer from asmtha, and use the " my doctor prescribed cortisone for my condition" bit all the time. Pretty sad to see these athletes justify their habitual drug use and use their " so called medical conditions" as an excuse. If his B sample does come back positive, he his a bloody idiot and a disgrace!
[/quote]
Well, from the info that is out there, here is what I understand…he
had 6 total urine tests during the tour. Only one, after stage 17 gave
an abnormal reading…with the abnormality being a skewed ratio due to
LOW Epitestosterone level, not a HIGH testosterone level. The
Testosterone level from that test was at a normal level and no
indication of an exogenous source has been found. Since the Epi portion
was LOW, this skews the ratio…hence the red flag due to the ratio
exceeding the standard.
They are following the letter of the rule and not the spirit. How can a lower Epi level help him recover and perform so well the next day? It can’t - so this a bogus positive doping result.
I have a feeling his B sample will return the same low Epi reading. Floyd will not be a disgrace since this test result does not prove he cheated. Unfortunately, we will be in for a long battle and everyone involved will get hurt.
