Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 29 Aug 2007 12:46:20
From: Feld
Subject: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

http://sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=84EC9327-E7F2-99DF-3275ED1BD923D659

Date: 05 Sep 2007 17:59:45
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

On Sep 5, 1:01 am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > As for the UCI/ASO/WADA/wadever, I'm now finding out that after having a
> > nice happy useful local organization for so many years, the regional arm
> > of the UCI implemented a rule which seems to have been designed solely
> > to piss off two groups of people:
>
> > 1) non-UCI-licensed USCF racers
> > 2) any local cycling club attempting to organize a race
>
> > Since group #2 is also known as the most active 60% of its constituency,
> > I'm not sure what the heck is going on. There have already been
> > prominent local racers/race organizers who have jumped ship thanks to
> > this mess.
>
> Which one of their really stupid rules ? They seem to be specialise
> in creating really stupid rules like the no leg warmers above a certain
> temp (one of our local commissars, who would have done well as a Soviet
> era commissar, didn't read the whole rule and decided it was no leg
> warmers period), no sleeveless jerseys etc.

If we didn't have central control of all aspects of our lives, think
of the pure chaos that would ensue!!! We need wise legislators and
executives because they know so much, and we so little. Get with the
program. Be assimilated. No problem cannot be solved by more money
and top-down commands.

Why should bike racing be any different? For example, I'm sure you
can ask Casey, and he will give you a bucket full of reasons why it
was "good" that the NCNCA rejoined THE USA CYCLING BORG. (The measure
to rejoin passed by one steenking vote, btw.)

Date: 06 Sep 2007 10:01:25
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> If we didn't have central control of all aspects of our lives, think
> of the pure chaos that would ensue!!! We need wise legislators and
> executives because they know so much, and we so little. Get with the
> program. Be assimilated. No problem cannot be solved by more money
> and top-down commands.

Actually you should make a (tax deductible) donation to the UCI since
they illustrate your anti guvmint cause so admirably, they could
help you get more recruits. That is, if you have anything left after
feeding your (non-tax deductible) primates.

Date: 05 Sep 2007 21:13:21
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

"SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwhite@ti.com > wrote in message
news:1189040385.141748.318790@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Why should bike racing be any different? For example, I'm sure you
> can ask Casey, and he will give you a bucket full of reasons why it
> was "good" that the NCNCA rejoined THE USA CYCLING BORG. (The measure
> to rejoin passed by one steenking vote, btw.)

While I really hated the fact that NCNCA rejoined USA Cycling, I can
understand why they did it. He and the few other officers do that job that
takes a huge amount of time and pays almost nothing. The USCF does a lot of
the work that Casey would have to do if the NCNCA stayed independent.

So while I do NOT like USA Cycling I can understand the NCNCA's position.

Date: 05 Sep 2007 15:11:00
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

is there a man holding a paper cup in your future?

Date: 05 Sep 2007 08:18:50
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

On Sep 4, 8:53 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote:
> In article <1188912921.085063.139...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > ryan? is that your ride on the farmland plateau below mendocino? with
> > the fairing cycle?
>
> Probably not. Wrong CA. My farming implement will next be seen at Aldor
> Acres, the most agricultural cyclocross race this side of Fletcher Farms
> (somewhere on Vancouver Island, the island where Vancouver is not).
>
> > no, not off topic (I'm explaining this to a man who publishes photos
> > of unborn children!)
>
> Hey, I'm just the messenger! Not the publisher.
>
> > here are 3 sports organizations producing truly excrebable decisions
> > with difficult results, the character of which is met with vastly
> > different receptions from the "public."
> > Interesting to note (bleeeet), the human based sports org appears to
> > go to war while the two techno orgs proceed without seeming to change
> > anything from their monopoly.
> > Nascar may flourish: you know "let's go watch Yeley burn."
>
> It remains to be seen whether COTF has fatal (to car or driver)
> problems. It's sure there were issues with the Car of Yesterday. What's
> the second techno-org you're thinking of? Is the America's Cup subject
> to litigation again? Ah, who can forget the delightful cut and thrust of
> Team Australia making a legal inter-cyclical challenge for the Cup, only
> to be countered with a catamaran?
>
> As for the UCI/ASO/WADA/wadever, I'm now finding out that after having a
> nice happy useful local organization for so many years, the regional arm
> of the UCI implemented a rule which seems to have been designed solely
> to piss off two groups of people:
>
> 1) non-UCI-licensed USCF racers
> 2) any local cycling club attempting to organize a race
>
> Since group #2 is also known as the most active 60% of its constituency,
> I'm not sure what the heck is going on. There have already been
> prominent local racers/race organizers who have jumped ship thanks to
> this mess.
>
> --
> Ryan Cousineau rcous...@sfu.cahttp://www.wiredcola.com/
> "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
> to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

sure that's the problem but stir in 'moral authority' and freely
flowing cubic money!
that sure did look like you mugging for the camera on the hi desert
highway: you all look alike right?
a sure sign there's trouble in River City.
The local org needs benificent administrative morons and imbeciles not
malevolant ones. people who can go with the flow: here, george bush is
an ideal role model. Bush the preppy cheerleader, remember?

Date: 04 Sep 2007 18:32:48
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

On Sep 3, 11:18 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote:

>
> Obbike: CX CX CX. I'm completely CX-obsessed these days.
>
> --
> Ryan Cousineau rcous...@sfu.cahttp://www.wiredcola.com/
> "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
> to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Seattle has kicked it off big time here! Love it. Mad dogs,
englishmen, and crossers. ;-)
Bill C

Date: 04 Sep 2007 17:12:47
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

the burning at the stake cycling concept appears to increase spectator
numbers but decrease sponsorship numbers while violence in auto racing
increases both despite a feigned revulsion by the press - only after a
threshold similar to 18 a day.

Date: 04 Sep 2007 13:35:21
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

ryan? is that your ride on the farmland plateau below mendocino? with
the fairing cycle?

no, not off topic (I'm explaining this to a man who publishes photos
of unborn children!)
here are 3 sports organizations producing truly excrebable decisions
with difficult results, the character of which is met with vastly
different receptions from the "public."
Interesting to note (bleeeet), the human based sports org appears to
go to war while the two techno orgs proceed without seeming to change
anything from their monopoly.
Nascar may flourish: you know "let's go watch Yeley burn."

Date: 05 Sep 2007 00:53:39
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

In article <1188912921.085063.139840@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
datakoll <datakoll@yahoo.com > wrote:

> ryan? is that your ride on the farmland plateau below mendocino? with
> the fairing cycle?

Probably not. Wrong CA. My farming implement will next be seen at Aldor
Acres, the most agricultural cyclocross race this side of Fletcher Farms
(somewhere on Vancouver Island, the island where Vancouver is not).

> no, not off topic (I'm explaining this to a man who publishes photos
> of unborn children!)

Hey, I'm just the messenger! Not the publisher.

> here are 3 sports organizations producing truly excrebable decisions
> with difficult results, the character of which is met with vastly
> different receptions from the "public."
> Interesting to note (bleeeet), the human based sports org appears to
> go to war while the two techno orgs proceed without seeming to change
> anything from their monopoly.
> Nascar may flourish: you know "let's go watch Yeley burn."

It remains to be seen whether COTF has fatal (to car or driver)
problems. It's sure there were issues with the Car of Yesterday. What's
the second techno-org you're thinking of? Is the America's Cup subject
to litigation again? Ah, who can forget the delightful cut and thrust of
Team Australia making a legal inter-cyclical challenge for the Cup, only
to be countered with a catamaran?

As for the UCI/ASO/WADA/wadever, I'm now finding out that after having a
nice happy useful local organization for so many years, the regional arm
of the UCI implemented a rule which seems to have been designed solely
to piss off two groups of people:

1) non-UCI-licensed USCF racers
2) any local cycling club attempting to organize a race

Since group #2 is also known as the most active 60% of its constituency,
I'm not sure what the heck is going on. There have already been
prominent local racers/race organizers who have jumped ship thanks to
this mess.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Date: 05 Sep 2007 10:01:42
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> As for the UCI/ASO/WADA/wadever, I'm now finding out that after having a
> nice happy useful local organization for so many years, the regional arm
> of the UCI implemented a rule which seems to have been designed solely
> to piss off two groups of people:
>
> 1) non-UCI-licensed USCF racers
> 2) any local cycling club attempting to organize a race
>
> Since group #2 is also known as the most active 60% of its constituency,
> I'm not sure what the heck is going on. There have already been
> prominent local racers/race organizers who have jumped ship thanks to
> this mess.

Which one of their really stupid rules ? They seem to be specialise
in creating really stupid rules like the no leg warmers above a certain
temp (one of our local commissars, who would have done well as a Soviet
era commissar, didn't read the whole rule and decided it was no leg
warmers period), no sleeveless jerseys etc.

Date: 05 Sep 2007 14:34:28
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

In article <46de6263$0$31225$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com >,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > As for the UCI/ASO/WADA/wadever, I'm now finding out that after having a
> > nice happy useful local organization for so many years, the regional arm
> > of the UCI implemented a rule which seems to have been designed solely
> > to piss off two groups of people:
> >
> > 1) non-UCI-licensed USCF racers
> > 2) any local cycling club attempting to organize a race
> >
> > Since group #2 is also known as the most active 60% of its constituency,
> > I'm not sure what the heck is going on. There have already been
> > prominent local racers/race organizers who have jumped ship thanks to
> > this mess.
>
> Which one of their really stupid rules ? They seem to be specialise
> in creating really stupid rules like the no leg warmers above a certain
> temp (one of our local commissars, who would have done well as a Soviet
> era commissar, didn't read the whole rule and decided it was no leg
> warmers period), no sleeveless jerseys etc.

It's no knee warmers, period, and no leg warmers in "normal" conditions
(I think in practice that leg warmers are allowed on all but the most
ridiculously hot days).

The sleeveless jersey rule is right and proper. Could lead to triathlism.

The rule that's causing so much strife is neither of those. The rule is
that non-UCI USCF licenses (which I think means the "domestic" type) are
no longer recognized for local races:

http://www.usacycling.org/news/user/story.php?id=2727

Note that a USCF Domestic Road license costs $60, and an International
license costs $150. You can guess how many riders below Div. III have
International licenses, and how many are likely to buy them so they can
do two or three Canadian races a year.

This burns us big time, given the participation of a fair number of US
riders at some races, especially our Spring training series. This year,
the WWU team showed up as always, only to be turned away at the
registration desk, because they weren't aware of the new rule, and
because we had no way of accommodating out-of-province riders with a
temporary license or insurance.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Date: 05 Sep 2007 15:01:15
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article <46de6263$0$31225$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
> Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>>> As for the UCI/ASO/WADA/wadever, I'm now finding out that after having a
>>> nice happy useful local organization for so many years, the regional arm
>>> of the UCI implemented a rule which seems to have been designed solely
>>> to piss off two groups of people:
>>>
>>> 1) non-UCI-licensed USCF racers
>>> 2) any local cycling club attempting to organize a race
>>>
>>> Since group #2 is also known as the most active 60% of its constituency,
>>> I'm not sure what the heck is going on. There have already been
>>> prominent local racers/race organizers who have jumped ship thanks to
>>> this mess.
>> Which one of their really stupid rules ? They seem to be specialise
>> in creating really stupid rules like the no leg warmers above a certain
>> temp (one of our local commissars, who would have done well as a Soviet
>> era commissar, didn't read the whole rule and decided it was no leg
>> warmers period), no sleeveless jerseys etc.
>
> It's no knee warmers, period, and no leg warmers in "normal" conditions
> (I think in practice that leg warmers are allowed on all but the most
> ridiculously hot days).
>
> The sleeveless jersey rule is right and proper. Could lead to triathlism.
>
> The rule that's causing so much strife is neither of those. The rule is
> that non-UCI USCF licenses (which I think means the "domestic" type) are
> no longer recognized for local races:
>
> http://www.usacycling.org/news/user/story.php?id=2727
>
> Note that a USCF Domestic Road license costs $60, and an International
> license costs $150. You can guess how many riders below Div. III have
> International licenses, and how many are likely to buy them so they can
> do two or three Canadian races a year.
>
> This burns us big time, given the participation of a fair number of US
> riders at some races, especially our Spring training series. This year,
> the WWU team showed up as always, only to be turned away at the
> registration desk, because they weren't aware of the new rule, and
> because we had no way of accommodating out-of-province riders with a
> temporary license or insurance.

Is there any reason you can't run races, especially training races,
using a citizen race format?

The USCF closed that loophole a couple of years ago, but we used
to take advantage of it for years. Maybe the Canadian fed still
allows something similar.

Bob Schwartz

Date: 06 Sep 2007 01:34:27
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

In article <%wzDi.5051$JD.531@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net >,
Bob Schwartz <bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net > wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > In article <46de6263$0$31225$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,

> > The rule that's causing so much strife is neither of those. The rule is
> > that non-UCI USCF licenses (which I think means the "domestic" type) are
> > no longer recognized for local races:
> >
> > http://www.usacycling.org/news/user/story.php?id=2727
> >
> > Note that a USCF Domestic Road license costs $60, and an International
> > license costs $150. You can guess how many riders below Div. III have
> > International licenses, and how many are likely to buy them so they can
> > do two or three Canadian races a year.
> >
> > This burns us big time, given the participation of a fair number of US
> > riders at some races, especially our Spring training series. This year,
> > the WWU team showed up as always, only to be turned away at the
> > registration desk, because they weren't aware of the new rule, and
> > because we had no way of accommodating out-of-province riders with a
> > temporary license or insurance.
>
> Is there any reason you can't run races, especially training races,
> using a citizen race format?
>
> The USCF closed that loophole a couple of years ago, but we used
> to take advantage of it for years. Maybe the Canadian fed still
> allows something similar.

Well, maybe. I don't know.

The issue with a citizen's race is always the matter of securing
insurance, but whether it would lead to sanctions against the club, I
really don't know. We run the two biggest and most popular recurring
race series in the province (Tuesday night crits and weekend spring
training races) and neither is points-bearing for category standings or
upgrades. But for both series, we require race licenses, which I think
is largely a matter of proof-of-insurance.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Date: 04 Sep 2007 15:39:13
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

datakoll wrote:
> no, not off topic (I'm explaining this to a man who publishes photos
> of unborn children!)
> here are 3 sports organizations producing truly excrebable decisions
> with difficult results, the character of which is met with vastly
> different receptions from the "public."
> Interesting to note (bleeeet), the human based sports org appears to
> go to war while the two techno orgs proceed without seeming to change
> anything from their monopoly.
> Nascar may flourish: you know "let's go watch Yeley burn."

While WADA/UCI et al would like to re-introduce burning at the
stake for entertainment. There nothing like a good inquisition
to keep the plebs happy.

Date: 03 Sep 2007 16:05:10
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

and rent's overdue!

Date: 03 Sep 2007 12:46:26
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

On Sep 3, 5:36 am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> datakoll wrote:
> > SciAm strongly suggests yawl bunch of baboons
>
> Dumbass,
> At least we get laid [1].
>
> [1]http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Friendship-Baboons-Barbara-Smuts/dp/0674802756

I research animal communications so I'm not denigrating baboons
butbubtutbut usinf whatcha call ur figure of speech. I turn down 7-8
women a week. I carry a stick. Girls pull their suit bottoms down when
I ride up. Duh.

speaking of ego isolated sports baboons AND THE FRENCH (and not
football players or NASA), NASCAR's COTF turns into a COF-no tea is
posssible-when a tire explodes.

Just to fork over the idea everyone is guilty...

Obviously, the TV folk beholden (sorry) to NASCAR for the daily bread
were reluctent upfront to offer the question "WHY DO TIRE BLOWOUTS
CAUSE DEADLY FIRES?" Deference to Guiliani-Bush-Cheney also a factor.

Like when your tire blows out, is your vehicle engulfed in flame? No.

To the TV folk's credit, mention was made the fires were OIL FIRES not
gas fires. OIL FIRES?

So last night, on one of the other challenging tracks NASCAR "runs,"
D.Waltrip blew a tire in the Universal Failiure Toyota and it was
abeaut: DOA DOA.

This time, TV folk showed us where the oil waza cumin' from! The
freakin' oil lines run uncovered thru the tire well. HOLY FLAMMABLE
FLUID BATMAN, COME LOOK AT THIS!!

GNAW, I"M BUSY WORKING ON THE NEXT BATMOBILE.

NEXT! the good reason!! Well expletive deleted, there's a...

Date: 04 Sep 2007 03:18:45
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

In article <1188823586.827127.57390@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com >,
datakoll <datakoll@yahoo.com > wrote:

> On Sep 3, 5:36 am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > datakoll wrote:
> > > SciAm strongly suggests yawl bunch of baboons
> >
> > Dumbass,
> > At least we get laid [1].
> >
> > [1]http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Friendship-Baboons-Barbara-Smuts/dp/0674802756
>
> I research animal communications so I'm not denigrating baboons
> butbubtutbut usinf whatcha call ur figure of speech. I turn down 7-8
> women a week. I carry a stick. Girls pull their suit bottoms down when
> I ride up. Duh.
>
> speaking of ego isolated sports baboons AND THE FRENCH (and not
> football players or NASA), NASCAR's COTF turns into a COF-no tea is
> posssible-when a tire explodes.
>
> Just to fork over the idea everyone is guilty...
>
> Obviously, the TV folk beholden (sorry) to NASCAR for the daily bread
> were reluctent upfront to offer the question "WHY DO TIRE BLOWOUTS
> CAUSE DEADLY FIRES?" Deference to Guiliani-Bush-Cheney also a factor.

> Like when your tire blows out, is your vehicle engulfed in flame? No.

http://www.concordesst.com/accident/accidentindex.html

> To the TV folk's credit, mention was made the fires were OIL FIRES not
> gas fires. OIL FIRES?
>
> So last night, on one of the other challenging tracks NASCAR "runs,"
> D.Waltrip blew a tire in the Universal Failiure Toyota and it was
> abeaut: DOA DOA.

Well, teething problems (hopefully non-fatal ones!) happen. This was a
pretty dumb error, but I'm confused as to whether this is a non-metal
oil line, or whether the blown tire can cut through a metal oil line
(either way..."(!)").

But that's a relatively easy design flaw to fix. Now, if the COTF was
violently unstable on the big ovals, then we'd all have cause to worry.
Or not. This is off-topic even by rbr's rather ludicrous standards.

Obbike: CX CX CX. I'm completely CX-obsessed these days.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Date: 03 Sep 2007 23:29:18
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

In article <rcousine-7240C5.20184403092007@news.telus.net >,
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote:

> Well, teething problems (hopefully non-fatal ones!) happen. This was a
> pretty dumb error, but I'm confused as to whether this is a non-metal
> oil line, or whether the blown tire can cut through a metal oil line
> (either way..."(!)").

While it's possible for tire shrapnel to damage a braided steel oil line in the
car, it's more likely that a fitting was broken or the line torn out of a fitting.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberg� eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberg� bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 02 Sep 2007 22:31:40
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

looks like SciAm is goofing on yawl and the process.
the print sez short term doesn't and long term studies prove that
but never mentions where the short terms studies are
instead suggest short term studies should be done.
for SciAm to print this obvious maltruth...

my short term studies with the cliff bar solo then with Sobe and Viv
strongly suggest I AM SUPERMAN AND DON'T YOU FORGET THAT ASSHOLE SO
MOVE OVER...
not to mention testo, a steroid

SciAm strongly suggests yawl bunch of baboons

riders don't take spot drugs in a very radical situation because they
think
riders take drugs then because they were told or advised so...

Date: 03 Sep 2007 11:36:30
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

datakoll wrote:
> SciAm strongly suggests yawl bunch of baboons

Dumbass,
At least we get laid [1].

[1]
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Friendship-Baboons-Barbara-Smuts/dp/0674802756

Date: 03 Sep 2007 09:50:48
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 11:36:30 +0200, Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com >
wrote:

>datakoll wrote:
>> SciAm strongly suggests yawl bunch of baboons
>
>Dumbass,
>At least we get laid [1].
>
>[1]
>http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Friendship-Baboons-Barbara-Smuts/dp/0674802756

It's the eponymy stupid.

Ron

Date: 01 Sep 2007 11:45:55
From: lewdvig
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

On Aug 29, 12:46 pm, Feld <bafel...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> http://sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=84EC9327-E7F2-99DF-3275E...

Thanks for the link.

I have to say that while the verdict delay is frustrating, I can
undertsand why it is so hard. Floyd makes a pretty case in his book.
He is pretty convincing even if it seems stupid to doubt the
scientific evidence.

Date: 30 Aug 2007 11:18:29
From:
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

Jim Flom wrote:
> "Feld" <bafeld22@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:i4Wdna81R7pgI0jbnZ2dnUVZ_t6onZ2d@comcast.com...
> > http://sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=84EC9327-E7F2-99DF-3275ED1BD923D659
>
> The bottom line being:
> "In other words, testosterone would not be used so much for recovery and
> increased work output during a single Tour stage as it would be for
> maintenance and improved performance over the course of the entire race."

Which is consistent with what happened. Judging from the test results,
he was on a maintenance dose of testosterone to keep his ratio close,
but under 4:1, to systemically maintain muscle mass and improve
recovery, not to provide "miracle" stage-to-stage results.

After his bonk/dehydration/collapse on stage 16, he received his
maintenance dose that night, which due to the effects of the day's
stage was excessive, and he tested positive (exceeded 4:1 T/E ratio)
on stage 17. This resulted in his "A" sample being carbon isotope
tested, which showed the presence of exogenous testosterone, and was
verified by the "B" sample.

Though it took a while, WADA/USADA/UCI (one of these guys) finally
decided to look at Floyd's samples from earlier stages, where his T/E
ratio was below 4:1, with the carbon isotope test. All of these
samples showed the presence of exogenous testosterone, which is what
you'd expect from someone who was taking a maintenance dose of
testosterone to stay near a 4:1 level.

The dose he took wasn't responsible for his recovery nor his
performance on stage 17, other than the systemic effect it had on his
ability to recover. I suggest that if you took all of the negative "A"
samples from the top 20 in the TdF in 2006, and carbon isotope tested
them, you'd find exogenous testosterone in most of them. It most
likely was a level (but elevated) playing field. Floyd just got
caught. IMO, he should be cleared of the charge, however, because WADA
and the lab violated their own testing protocol and privacy rules.

Despite the many positive tests this year, as long as there are drugs
that aren't detectable by the tests regularly administered, that
produce positive effects on performance and recovery, riders will
continue to take them. Cheating is human nature, no amount of
moralizing, draconian penalties, or crusading against it will
completely eliminate it, no matter how poor the cost/benefits analysis
comes out. Just part of all sport, and all human competition, for
that matter.

Date: 29 Aug 2007 17:02:06
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: It doesn't matter

On Aug 29, 7:52 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com >
wrote:
.
>
well, there's just nothing there but air
> in that defense. I still hope there's conclusive evidence that he was clean
> (but having no idea how that could possibly happen) vs conclusive evidence
> that the samples were tainted.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Agreed Mike
It doesn't really natter whether it really works or not. People will
suck up anything they think works.
check out any "fitness" magazine to see how much shit gets sold that
way.
Bill

Date: 31 Aug 2007 02:59:30
From: sl
Subject: Re: It doesn't matter

In article <1188432126.208855.233470@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com >,
Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:
>On Aug 29, 7:52 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
>wrote:
>.
>>
> well, there's just nothing there but air
>> in that defense. I still hope there's conclusive evidence that he was clean
>> (but having no idea how that could possibly happen) vs conclusive evidence
>> that the samples were tainted.
>>
>> --Mike Jacoubowsky
>> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
>> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
>Agreed Mike
> It doesn't really natter whether it really works or not. People will
>suck up anything they think works.
>check out any "fitness" magazine to see how much shit gets sold that
>way.
>Bill

Even some of our more famous RBR pundits have formerly been involved
with promotion of somewhat questionable supplements :-)

http://sheldonbrown.com/w.html

The shame of it all... Presumably by now WADA has a test for this..

Date: 30 Aug 2007 16:58:32
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: It doesn't matter

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1188432126.208855.233470@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 29, 7:52 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> wrote:
> .
>>
> well, there's just nothing there but air
>> in that defense. I still hope there's conclusive evidence that he was
>> clean
>> (but having no idea how that could possibly happen) vs conclusive
>> evidence
>> that the samples were tainted.
>>
>> --Mike Jacoubowsky
>> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
>> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
> Agreed Mike
> It doesn't really natter whether it really works or not. People will
> suck up anything they think works.
> check out any "fitness" magazine to see how much shit gets sold that
> way.

Hammer gel and E-Caps both work very well. They are selling this expensive
stuff like hotcakes and because it's just normal vitamins and minerals and
some other normal supplements they'd have an impossible task testing for it.

Date: 29 Aug 2007 15:55:30
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

On Aug 29, 6:46 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com > wrote:
> On Aug 29, 1:46 pm, Feld <bafel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=84EC9327-E7F2-99DF-3275E...
>
> I'm wondering how much "improved mood" it would take to get a mule, or
> an exhausted rider who did poorly on immed. previous stage(s) over
> that mountain like a racehorse.
>
> I still haven't seen anyone counter Kunich's assertion that the
> differing results from A and B ("other half of the A"?) test is proof
> positive, if you'll excuse the expression, of contamination at the lab
> (or elsewhere) (that's two, two swipes-- one at the lab and one at the
> "chain of posession") (without mentioning whiteout or lack of
> "blinds"). --D-y

I think TK has been pretty much on the money, even if there is
argument about the details, on this whole subject. Lot's of people
piss on it because it's Tom then say the same thing in another way,
except for those who believe in the divinity of Dick.
Bill C

Date: 29 Aug 2007 20:38:52
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

Bill C wrote:

> ...except for those who believe in the divinity of Dick.

Ah, crap! I've been pretty busy lately and must have missed something.

When did my penis' reputation become common knowledge in RBR?

Date: 30 Aug 2007 09:20:56
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

Bill C wrote:
>> ...except for those who believe in the divinity of Dick.

Fred Fredburger wrote:
> When did my penis' reputation become common knowledge in RBR?

After it suffered a case of mishapen identity with
Tammy Thomas's clitoris ?

Date: 29 Aug 2007 15:46:17
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

On Aug 29, 1:46 pm, Feld <bafel...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> http://sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=84EC9327-E7F2-99DF-3275E...

I'm wondering how much "improved mood" it would take to get a mule, or
an exhausted rider who did poorly on immed. previous stage(s) over
that mountain like a racehorse.

I still haven't seen anyone counter Kunich's assertion that the
differing results from A and B ("other half of the A"?) test is proof
positive, if you'll excuse the expression, of contamination at the lab
(or elsewhere) (that's two, two swipes-- one at the lab and one at the
"chain of posession") (without mentioning whiteout or lack of
"blinds"). --D-y

Date: 29 Aug 2007 14:10:10
From: Dave
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

Feld wrote:
> http://sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=84EC9327-E7F2-99DF-3275ED1BD923D659
>

Of course the article fails to mention that FL's high T/E ratio was due
to low E, not high T. Still, the bottom line is that T hasn't been
demonstrated to enhance performance when administered for short periods.

/dave

Date: 29 Aug 2007 19:49:04
From: Jim Flom
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

"Feld" <bafeld22@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:i4Wdna81R7pgI0jbnZ2dnUVZ_t6onZ2d@comcast.com...
> http://sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=84EC9327-E7F2-99DF-3275ED1BD923D659

The bottom line being:
"In other words, testosterone would not be used so much for recovery and
increased work output during a single Tour stage as it would be for
maintenance and improved performance over the course of the entire race."

Date: 29 Aug 2007 23:52:10
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: It doesn't matter

> The bottom line being:
> "In other words, testosterone would not be used so much for recovery and
> increased work output during a single Tour stage as it would be for
> maintenance and improved performance over the course of the entire race."

And this matters... why? Whether testosterone actually provides a benefit or
not is relevant only in terms of whether you choose to make it legal or not.
The "stupidity" defense ("Why would I use something that's illegal and
wouldn't in any way improve my results?") is meaningless because
professional cyclists can't be assumed to be operating with the same frame
of mind. They may believe something gives them an edge regardless of what
"studies" show. If they thought rationally, they'd show more evidence of
concern over long-term consequences of the various means of doping.

Unfortunately, much as I'd like to think Landis, for example, didn't dope
because it wouldn't have helped... well, there's just nothing there but air
in that defense. I still hope there's conclusive evidence that he was clean
(but having no idea how that could possibly happen) vs conclusive evidence
that the samples were tainted.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Date: 30 Aug 2007 17:35:52
From: William R. Mattil
Subject: Re: It doesn't matter

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

>
> Unfortunately, much as I'd like to think Landis, for example, didn't dope
> because it wouldn't have helped... well, there's just nothing there but air
> in that defense. I still hope there's conclusive evidence that he was clean
> (but having no idea how that could possibly happen) vs conclusive evidence
> that the samples were tainted.
>

Hi Mike,

I will confess to being a bit confused by this. He doesn't specifically
need to prove his innocence as it needs to be proven that he is/was
guilty ? And if the test or testing procedure was flawed then the test
isn't valid and if the test isn't valid then voila.

Confused.

Bill

Date: 29 Aug 2007 17:12:15
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: It doesn't matter

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com > wrote in message
news:KEnBi.747$FO2.289@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>> The bottom line being:
>> "In other words, testosterone would not be used so much for recovery and
>> increased work output during a single Tour stage as it would be for
>> maintenance and improved performance over the course of the entire race."
>
> And this matters... why?

Why don't you then punish people for using water? It has an almost immediate
effect, improves performance and stamina.

If testosterone isn't being used in a manner in which it CAN cause improved
performance then it isn't a performance enhancing substance.

Date: 30 Aug 2007 19:53:15
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: It doesn't matter

Tom Kunich wrote:
> Why don't you then punish people for using water? It has an almost immediate
> effect, improves performance and stamina.

LIVEDRUNK will probably promote the idea of banning water and
replacing it with LIVEDRUNK approved beverages.

Date: 30 Aug 2007 17:41:50
From: Booker Bense
Subject: Re: It doesn't matter

In article <13dc2r3qq3hmee2@corp.supernews.com >,
Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
>
>Why don't you then punish people for using water? It has an almost immediate
>effect, improves performance and stamina.
>

I'm pretty sure they used to in the early days of the tour.

_ Booker C. Bense

Date: 30 Aug 2007 20:25:11
From:
Subject: Re: It doesn't matter

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:41:50 +0000 (UTC), bbense@telemark.slac.stanford.edu
(Booker Bense) wrote:

>In article <13dc2r3qq3hmee2@corp.supernews.com>,
>Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>>Why don't you then punish people for using water? It has an almost immediate
>>effect, improves performance and stamina.
>>
>
>I'm pretty sure they used to in the early days of the tour.
Dihydrogen Monoxide has been a factor in nearly all doping incidents. Ban it
now!

Date: 30 Aug 2007 00:41:39
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: It doesn't matter

>>> "In other words, testosterone would not be used so much for recovery and
>>> increased work output during a single Tour stage as it would be for
>>> maintenance and improved performance over the course of the entire
>>> race."
>>
>> And this matters... why?
>
> Why don't you then punish people for using water? It has an almost
> immediate effect, improves performance and stamina.

Please, Tom, don't give them any ideas. But you accidentally bring up a good
point. Didn't Landis have an unfair advantage over everyone else, by having
a personal team car available to provide an endless supply of water, much of
which was dumped on his head to cool him off? He has often said, and I don't
dispute, that this gave him a significant advantage on that particular
nastily-hot day (I know; I was there).

> If testosterone isn't being used in a manner in which it CAN cause
> improved performance then it isn't a performance enhancing substance.

Athletes themselves bought into the idea that testosterone was a form of
doping. It wasn't some mythical substance that the UCI banned ahead of time.
It was already widely used in the peloton.

Rarely does the UCI or whatever governing body have the upper hand, such
that they ban something before it has a chance to be tried out. The initial
experimentation is going on in the field, not in the labs.

It's a race, both to try and anticipate what athletes might find useful, and
to try and change their (the athletes) mindset by making them believe that
they just might not get away with doping. As it is now, everyone's looking
for the new, not-yet-banned wonder drug that will, at least temporarily,
give them the advantage. That's the culture of doping that we've grown up
with. Until it's banned, after all, is isn't actually cheating. Right?

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Date: 30 Aug 2007 16:46:16
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: It doesn't matter

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com > wrote in message
news:7noBi.4292$JD.1951@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>
> Athletes themselves bought into the idea that testosterone was a form of
> doping. It wasn't some mythical substance that the UCI banned ahead of
> time. It was already widely used in the peloton.

So if someone is convinced that Jujubies are performance enhancing we should
call anyone using them dopers?

Please Mike, here's the bottom line - if it isn't a dangerous drug used to
enhance performance for which there is proven research then it ISN'T A
PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUG and shouldn't be illegal.

I understand that this always leaves the dopers one step ahead of the drug
detectors but that's the cost of a free society.

Date: 30 Aug 2007 18:04:30
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: It doesn't matter

>> Athletes themselves bought into the idea that testosterone was a form of
>> doping. It wasn't some mythical substance that the UCI banned ahead of
>> time. It was already widely used in the peloton.
>
> So if someone is convinced that Jujubies are performance enhancing we
> should call anyone using them dopers?
>
> Please Mike, here's the bottom line - if it isn't a dangerous drug used to
> enhance performance for which there is proven research then it ISN'T A
> PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUG and shouldn't be illegal.
>
> I understand that this always leaves the dopers one step ahead of the drug
> detectors but that's the cost of a free society.

You're trying way too hard to disagree with me, when we're probably on the
same page for most of this.

Try to limit your thoughts strictly to the issue of testosterone.

#1: Testosterone use unquestionably alters your body. At what amount does
this occur? That can be debated, but that it builds muscle mass (for good or
bad for a cyclist) isn't. Beyond that, small amounts are shown to affect
"recovery."
#2: Testosterone is not a drug without significant, and dangerous, side
effects. It's not available in the US without a prescription. There needs to
be a proven reason (theoretically) for its use.

Neither of those is true for water. Nor is it true that people generally are
willing to "abuse" their intake of water such that it's detrimental to their
health, or somehow enhances the performance. There's nothing about water
that gets in the way of someone consuming an optimal quantity, and thus no
reason for it to be regulated.

I'm not enough of an expert on Jujubies to render an opinion on whether they
should be banned or not. But for those of us who grew up without flouridated
water and have a mouthful of cavities, I would recommend against them.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Date: 29 Aug 2007 13:48:49
From: Colin Campbell
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

Date: 29 Aug 2007 20:32:02
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

Colin Campbell wrote:
> Jim Flom wrote:
>> "Feld" <bafeld22@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:i4Wdna81R7pgI0jbnZ2dnUVZ_t6onZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> http://sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=84EC9327-E7F2-99DF-3275ED1BD923D659
>>>
>>
>> The bottom line being:
>> "In other words, testosterone would not be used so much for recovery
>> and increased work output during a single Tour stage as it would be
>> for maintenance and improved performance over the course of the entire
>> race."
>>
>>
> Isn't this what everyone has been saying for over a year?

Not everyone. There is a significant minority that believes drugs to be
magic. They don't necessarily agree on which particular drug is the
magic one. That's pretty much a "flavor of the week" thing.

Date: 30 Aug 2007 13:25:15
From: Jim Boyer
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Landis and Testosterone

"Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote in message
news:dvudnfLZMa-lp0vbnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Colin Campbell wrote:
>> Jim Flom wrote:
>>> "Feld" <bafeld22@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:i4Wdna81R7pgI0jbnZ2dnUVZ_t6onZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>> http://sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=84EC9327-E7F2-99DF-3275ED1BD923D659
>>>
>>> The bottom line being:
>>> "In other words, testosterone would not be used so much for recovery and
>>> increased work output during a single Tour stage as it would be for
>>> maintenance and improved performance over the course of the entire
>>> race."
>>>
>>>
>> Isn't this what everyone has been saying for over a year?
>
> Not everyone. There is a significant minority that believes drugs to be
> magic. They don't necessarily agree on which particular drug is the magic
> one. That's pretty much a "flavor of the week" thing.

Floyd could have been using T even on the days he tested clean. Perhaps an
error in the masking protocol revealed the T. It's naive to think that
someone used "X" on a certain occasion and got caught. For the folks who are
serious about this there is a lot more to performance enhancing chemistry
than just popping a chemical on a whim.

jb