From 6:1 to 4:1: The creation of an unfair testing standard?
In the past the ratio of positive evidence was 6:1 but it has been lowered uniformly to 4:1.
Landis tested positive at a ratio of somewhere around 5:1 putting his test result in that range where he would have been negative before.
According to a highly-cited and definitive controlled study of the effects of testosterone administration (DEHENNIN L, MATSUMOTO AM
LONG-TERM ADMINISTRATION OF TESTOSTERONE ENANTHATE TO NORMAL MEN - ALTERATIONS OF THE URINARY PROFILE OF ANDROGEN METABOLITES POTENTIALLY USEFUL FOR DETECTION OF TESTOSTERONE MISUSE IN SPORT
JOURNAL OF STEROID BIOCHEMISTRY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY 44 (2): 179-189 FEB 1993) the 4:1 ratio may be a bad measure leading to unfair false positive results. In fact the study shows that even a 6:1 ratio leads to false positives in a significant number of cases.
In a placebo administration to 10 study participants, the study showed that 20% of the participants started with levels above 4:1 even before the administration of a placebo. One of the participants started above a 6:1 ratio without the administration of anything whatsoever.
It is likewise important to note that the participants in the study were normal 28-30 year old men. They were not athletic outliers with bodies undergoing the dual stresses of a 2000 mile bike ride under extraordinary levels of pain. And they weren't taking cortisone, a steroid injection. Even 20% of these average Joes would have failed the test simply by sitting on a couch eating potato chips.
Can either pain or the administration of cortisone induce elevated ratios?
Is there a definitive test, if the 4:1 ratio test neither confirms nor denies tha actual use of testosterone?
Would the administration of cortisone create a false positive even in a definitive test?