tour de farce

[Gross]

In which case, why is the correct action not to pull out of the competition?

So as I said would you suggest that Redgrave shouldn't have been rowing???

[harry]

I totally agree with Ed. I really want to believe that he didn't cheat and part of me thinks, he still did that legendary ride and the vast majority of that came from him, unfortunately (for him and those it inspired) if the last few percent did come from cheating it totally tarnishes it.

Like Kitch I would rather believe in the athletes. What they do is so extreme and they are injecting/applying/taking loads of stuff each night. The line of what is banned and what is not is drawn by the governing body. How much is survival and how much is performance enhancing? This issue is all shades of grey.I'm not condoning blatant cheating and it is the athlete's responsibility and all that but it's definitely not as black and white as the papers make out (e.g. the headline "spot the difference" with the 2 stage finish pictures). Every rider in the tour is taking stuff (hopefully most are sticking to legal substances).

The "therapeutic use exemption" is one very grey area! I could expand on this but my views are a bit too controversial!!

I think it was wrong of Phonak to annouce the test result before the situation is totally clarified. ie B sample not tested & are the ratios within feasible physiological limits? "unusual" is a bit vague. Presumably it means way off the scale...??

[awk]

If, for whatever reason, he has failed a test - then he has failed a test and he forfeits his result - no question .....

Those found with artificial compounds in their system are cheats -
those with abnormal levels or ratios of natural hormones / compounds may not be.

but they forfeit thier results nevertheless.

I understand the reasoning, but surely, all this does in the long run is bring the drug rules into disrepute. If someone has abnormal levels naturally, why should they forfeit their results? It seems a nonsense to me that some people who have a natural advantage should have to forfeit results, and others don't. High level competitive sport by its very nature seeks to find the exceptional - so why then ban them when we find them?

[Kitch]

Its a fair point awk.

To answer it:
The reasons the rules are exist are for one reason; the protection of all participants in sport.

Drugs enhance performance, they do so by taking the body outside its natural balance and doing this creates a risk, a risk that is potentially and proven fatal.
If drugs were not banned then theeir use would be rampant in professional and 'amateur' sport simply through a process of escalation - and many many people would die as a result.

thereofore a line has to be drawn. If a few physiological superhumans fall foul of that line then that is the price of protecting the majority.

In this particular case testosterone / epitestosterone ratio is the measure - the two should be in a natural balance - unbalanced, rather than an absolute level, indicates something amis.

Someone with naturally high testosterone should have proportionate epitestosterone - as long as they are in balance then they can reap their natural physiological advantage.

[Adventure Racer]

In which case, why is the correct action not to pull out of the competition?

So as I said would you suggest that Redgrave shouldn't have been rowing???

No, but that wasn't the question I was asking which you are avoiding answering. If you could just reply "because they are diabetic and were taking insulin" life would be a lot easier! If however it's not that simple, then my point stands.

[Gross]

Afriad I answered your direct question with a direct answer... you asked if there was an alternative, I said no.

Unfortunately a public forum is not the place to discuss individual medical conditions without seeking permission first (discussing Redgrave is ok as his condition is public knowledge)

[Adventure Racer]

I asked two questions, you've only answered one of them. Hardly discussing individual medical conditions if the individual hasn't been identified (or is the identity common knowledge?) In any case, "because it's a common medical condition for which the drug concerned is allowed by the authorities" would be sufficient if that is the case. Otherwise it still looks like working round the rules to me - I presume the prescription wasn't by a certain Spanish doctor?

Anyway I'm getting bored with this - thought it would be interesting to try arguing the other side for a while, but when you're arguing with Gross, it's just as tedious whatever side you're on.

[Toni]

Another reason it is acceptable to compete on banned drugs (with a prescription) is that a number of drugs are banned that have no performance enhancing effect but have a masking effect (from what I understand).

And the point about dodgy doctors - I think the dodgy doctors are giving athletes drugs that are not commonly detectable - I doubt they are logging prescriptions of them! Athletes who log prescriptions with the governing bodies, I would have to hope, do so in good faith.

AR - sorry that you are being bored in this and other threads - maybe that is the anally retentive orienteers on this forum!

[ifor]

Well I guess I should blame myself for my coment about hoping no-one high up turned out to be on anything....

I am interested to know what the ratio was? What the limit is? what the tipical distributions are? What Landisis previous values have been etc. As has been said given the circumstances over the two days I belive Landis will of pushed himself to somwhere where very few people have been. Definatly not many people that ended up having the apopriate test done to see what can happen to the level.

I fear we will never know for sure.... unless he did take something and comes clean.

Ifor

[Adventure Racer]

AR - sorry that you are being bored in this and other threads - maybe that is the anally retentive orienteers on this forum!

I'll take you on at being anally retentive - it's only really Gross who I'm bored with anyway.

[Gross]

The International Olympic Committee laboratory at Châtenay-Malabry also carried out a carbon isotope test which confirmed that the testosterone present in Landis's body was not a product of his own system, but was synthetic. In other words, it was administered.

from paper this morning.......

[Ed]

I am interested to know what the ratio was? What the limit is? what the tipical distributions are?

according to spiegel online (in German), the ratio found was 11:1, the limit is 4:1 and the typical male ratio is 1:1, 2:1 in exceptional cases. Until last year the limit was 6:1, which suggests that they're not quite sure where to set it.

from paper this morning.......

which paper? can't find anything saying that online.

[Gross]

That's coz you don't read the Scotsman Ed:)

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/sport.cfm?id=1107492006

[Ed]

I don't read the Beano either

[Adventure Racer]

That's coz you don't read the Scotsman Ed:)

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/sport.cfm?id=1107492006

Shame they can't get their facts straight - Landis attacked on the climb and didn't win the final TT (was in fact comfortably beaten by Gonchar and Kloden). Also he admitted to the beer straight after the stage, well before any drugs test results could have been known, which rather changes the spin they're trying to put on that as an excuse. But then I guess they've only got interested in cycling since the drug positive, so don't actually have a clue what happened during the race.

For more accurate reporting cyclingnews is a better bet. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... /jul31news does seem to have the same comments about the ratio and the synthetic testosterone. I'm finding it really hard to believe he's innocent now - I'd imagined the ratio might have been around 6:1, which would have been easier to explain. In fact I will now totally take back the comment I made during the stage - it does matter if that performance was drug fuelled (or the drugs helped him recover overnight), as however spectacular the performance might be, if it's not real it doesn't count!

Interesting to see that cycling isn't the only sport with a drugs problem though - so much so that Landis is no longer in the headlines. I do wonder why it takes other sports 3 months to release results when cycling gets them out in under a week though...