Landis busted?
According to the New York Times (link) in a late-breaking story, Landis tested positive for exogenous testosterone via an IRMS test performed by the LNDD. The source of information comes from an unnamed individual with the UCI.
Hold on to your hat folks. Apparently Landis did not file for testing of sample B despite claims of doing so, but the UCI went ahead and requested that verification.
No official word from a single named source has yet clarified whether IRMS was used on sample A and/or whether it will be used on sample B. An earlier story from the New York Times (link) claimed that IRMS was used but the source of that information reported several inaccuracies on the subject of the test and, further, the NYT story itself was ambiguously worded.
Hold on to your hat folks. Apparently Landis did not file for testing of sample B despite claims of doing so, but the UCI went ahead and requested that verification.
No official word from a single named source has yet clarified whether IRMS was used on sample A and/or whether it will be used on sample B. An earlier story from the New York Times (link) claimed that IRMS was used but the source of that information reported several inaccuracies on the subject of the test and, further, the NYT story itself was ambiguously worded.
posted by Patrick Herron at 9:23 PM
10 Comments:
Obviously, this is bad news for Landis. I'm curious, tho, if anyone will (or if Landis's peeps will ask for someone to) go back and test his prior Tour samples in order to look for further damning evidence against him (or possible evidence of tampering with this sample). I'm assuming his B sample confirms what his A sample apparently hath shewn.
Bad news for Floyd. But he's most likely been taking stuff. Of course all these riders are taking tests all the time and passing them (e.g. Ulrich, never failed a test yet deeply implicated in operation puerto, Lance, never failed a test (well officially), and OK lets not go there with Lance) despite the huge level of doping going on. So really you need to ask what went wrong with the masking or whatever to produce the failed test. Yes I know thats a bit cynical of me.
Still not confirmed. I'm waiting for an official word as to which test was done. I can't believe that Landis was not told which one when he was notified. His statements seem to indicate T/TE so I'm sticking with that until we hear something different.
They shouldn't be able to go back and retest either the earlier or later samples. After the A sample is negative, the B is supposed to be discarded. They probably wouldn't have done the IRMS/CIR of them either.
The logic is that because of the stress, or forgetfulness, or something, the Subject Rider didn't do something right in his doping program to keep the ratios reasonable on this one day. That justifies the IRMS, which shows it to be exogenous, and no further testing is needed.
Explcitly proving he was spiked by the proverbial gang of Nazis that held him down while being injected can only mititgate the sanction, not excuse the offense. It's strict liability for exogenous, period.
I'm confused that there is no official word; this UCI source is violating the protocol. I'm also disappointed that the Floyd camp hasn't been more forthcoming about the details of what they received in the initial report, and the report that one of the attorneys was questioning the reliability of IRMS.
If the A sample tested negative, the B sample is supposed to be destroyed. It is not supposed to be possible to go back and test previously negative samples.
This is one of the protocol violations in the Armstrong flap -- the same lab had improperly kept his B samples for "research" purposes, and was lax about the chain of custody.
I tried to find some information on synthetic testosterones and their half-lives. I did find information in several places about a testosterone suspension. It seems that this version has a half life of about 4 hours, and can be used for temporary benefits other than muscle bulk:
"Often testosterone suspension is injected on the day of competition to increase the athlete's aggressiveness and self-esteem in order to approach the difficult tasks with the right attitude." (from testosteronesuspension.com and steroid.com, perhaps reputable.)
This could be one explanation for negative tests before and after a positive test. I hope it's an incorrect explanation.
Does someone have a reference for the information about being able to detect the exact kind of synthetic testosterone?
Here's a little background on the different forms of test used by athletes.
Testosterone suspension is raw testosterone mixed in water and has a half life of around 4 hours. It should clear the body within 12 to 16 hours (3 to 4 half lives) without affecting the natural production of testosterone too much. Other than tested athletes during a contest, most people don't care for test suspension too much since it requires frequent injections to maintain stable test levels.
To get around this, chemists have added esters to the testosterone molecule to make long acting testosterone. This makes the test compound more soluble in oil and depending on the size of the ester, reduces the water solubility of the compound. Short esters have relatively high water solubility while long esters have lower water solubility. So if you attach for example a cypionate ester to testosterone, dissolve it in oil, and inject into a muscle, it will slowly dissolve out of the oil and into the bloodstream. Once in the blood, the ester is removed and the testosterone acts just like naturally produced test. Test cypionate has a half life of about 10 days. Most athletes prefer long ester compounds like this, since you only need to inject once a week or so.
Epitestosterone is chemically the same as testosterone. However, one part is attached with a rotation so that it's structurally different. It's made via a metabolic process that's similar but different than that produces testosterone. Because of this most people make both in about equal amounts. 90% of men have a T/E ratio of 1-to-1, 99% have a T/E ratio of 5-to-1 or less. Test levels can fluctuate somwhat due to time of day, athletic activity, diet, etc. However the T/E ratio is relatively constant.
As far as the IRMS test, they look at the ratio of the different isotopes of carbon (C12 vs C13). This ratio is different between animals and and plants. Since almost all sythetic testosterone is plant-derived, it will have an isotope ratio more like plants than naturally produced test.
Given that Landis' T/E jumped from 4-1 to 11-1 and his blood contains synthetic testosterone, the bottom line is that he was using. I'm not too surprised by this nor do I think too badly of him. From my expereience with athletes and their trainers, I believe that all athletes at the elite level are using something. Usually they use substances like HGH, IGF-LR3, insulin, etc. that are currently undetectible. If they use steroids like test, they're usally very careful to use them in a non-detectible manner. Sounds like Floyd (or his trainer) screwed up somehow...
This NY Times article has much more detail than I've seen previously. For one, it claims that Dr. Brent Kay confirmed that the IRMS test was done on sample A. It also explains the carbon isotope ratio process, and gives Floyd's number as 3.99, with a positive being 3 or higher. You'll have to read the article to know what the numbers mean. After reading all of the details about IRMS, it doesn't sound exactly foolproof either. But I don't see how they intend to try to fight it.
wasafloydfan, it sounds like your story is a possible scenario.
Yes, this is a theory that sounds plausible. Add to it that Lim reported Landis had been training for increased burst power, especially with "Steep Hill Interval Training", and that the bust here is the same sort of thing we appear to be seeing with Gatlin (a sprinter), it makes sense as well. Floyd's weakness wasn't average power, but ability to accelerate to make or chase an attack. Using a sprinter/weightlifter program would work on his problem spot. Maybe the S.H.I.T wasn't just the hills he was on.
If so, then he might not have had problems if (a) he'd eaten on stage 16 and not bonked; and (b) not freaked and messed up his chemistry to trip the T/E test the next day.
Much, of course, depending on the IRMS outcome of the B sample. It it is negative or borderline enough to be questionable, then the defenses to the T/E come back into play for appeals should sanctions be attempted anyway.
Post a Comment
<< Home