In Our Time of Trials
Experts: Possible Explanations for Landis’ Testosterone Levels
In brief:
1. Test is prone to false positives.
2. “[A] spike in testosterone can also result from certain circumstances occuring either before or after winning games . . . ”
3. Landis’ hip condition may cause his body to release extra testosterone in an attempt to speed recovery.
Updates pending. We’ll get through this together.
UPDATE: The LAT has a snippet of info I haven’t seen in other reports:
Under World Anti-Doping Agency protocols, a ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone greater than 4:1 is considered a positive result. The threshold was recently lowered from 6:1. A likely natural ratio is 1:1.
Cf a quote from the previously linked Foox News story:
Carlos R. Hamilton Jr., MD, professor of medicine and an endocrinologist at University of Texas Health Sciences Center in Houston, and a member of the health, medical, and research committee of the World Anti-Doping Agency, is also reserving his judgment.
“The fact that it is strictly a testosterone level does not mean it came from outside of the body, it could have been produced internally,” he says. “It’s a perfectly normal occurring hormone.”
He says that there is a large variation in what they consider normal on this test and no one knows exactly how Landis scored. “Were his results within normal limits or just out of sight?” he asks.
The old (?) Olympic guidelines from 2001:
‘the presence of a testosterone to epitestosterone ratio greater than six to one constitutes an offence unless there is evidence that this ratio is due to a physiological or pathological condition, eg low epitestosterone excretion, androgen-producing tumour, enzyme deficiencies’ (italics added). If a T/E ratio of greater than six to one is discovered, the authorities conduct an investigation before a ban is passed – but even then the tests can prove controversial.
A Cycling News sidebar from last summer:
Most people have a ratio of between 1.5-2:1, but the limit – like the blood hematocrit limit of 50 percent – is 4:1 (for men) to allow for those with naturally high testosterone levels. If it’s greater than this level, then it’s considered a positive unless an athlete can prove that he is always this high.
The case of Kirk O’Bee, from 2001-2002, also from Cycling News:
The Navigators issued a statement saying that “subsequent testing and analysis by the USADA, as well as a private laboratory, found no evidence of banned substances, methods or exogenous testosterone (ie: anabolic steroids). Elevated t/e ratios can be considered an indication of abnormal endocrine function.”
A rider can request an endocrinological examination to determine if the level is due to a physiological or pathological state, according to UCI rules. “The agreement between USADA and Mr. O’Bee also includes additional future endocrinological exams, which may affect the sanctions taken against Kirk. “
However, the Navigators state that “a review of the examinations undertaken by Kirk as a member of the Navigators Cycling Team, show testosterone levels that are not only within UCI guidelines, but are in the low-normal range for the general population.”
“UCI” appears to mean International Cycling Union. Weirdly, running searches for “epitestosterone” and “testosterone” on the organization’s anti-doping guidelines PDF produces no results.
Ignorant me does not know if the Tour follows the UCI procedure from 2002, in which case the next step if the B-sample tests positive would be for Landis to request an endocrine exam.
UPDATE: Ah-ha – other UCI doc was procedural. The nitty-gritty doc reads, one page 3 . . .
When a laboratory has reported a T/E ratio greater than four (4) to one (1) and any reliable analytical method (e.g. IRMS) applied has not determined the exogenous origin of the substance, further investigation may be conducted by a review of previous tests or by conducting subsequent test(s), in order to determine whether the result is due to a physiological or pathological condition, or has occurred as a consequence of the exogenous origin of a Prohibited Substance.
UPDATE: Yes. Per the PDF of the Tour rules, UCI regulations govern drug testing. So presumably Landis has the right to “further investigation,” including an endocrine test.
Hunh. Unqualified Offerings: Your best source for Tour dope-scandal blogging since half an hour ago.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Landis’ denial to SI’s Austin Murphy.
Also Doctor Kurt Moosberger explains it all to you.
And, what about the beer!
Comment by Nell —
July 27, 2006 @ 7:58 pm
I like Landis’ attitude (from the beer link): Even if either of these can explain his high T:E ratio, Landis realises that it will be hard to convince people. ”I wouldn’t hold it against somebody if they don’t believe me,” he said.
I believe him.
And I think the World Anti-Doping Agency is outtacontrol, based on the NYT story yesterday about their plan to ban altitude-training tents (they simulate high-altitude conditions, causing the body to produce more red blood cells, increasing endurance and oxygen-use efficiency).
I don’t have a link to hand; yesterday my s.o. brought home the paper version of the Times, and I realized it had been literally a couple of years since I’d flipped through one.
Comment by Nell —
July 27, 2006 @ 8:02 pm
Here’s the story on the WADA considering an unjust, unenforceable prohibition on something that you have to reeeeaallly stretch to consider ’doping’, IMO.
Mission creep, just like you libertarians have warned about all these years…
Comment by wade —
July 28, 2006 @ 3:22 am
i don’t know much about cycling or doping, but it’s always struck me that some form of performance enhancement would pretty much be a necessity for anyone not born with the heart and lungs of an elephant. i mean france is big, it’s hot and it’s steep… why not just do away with dope testing altogether?
Comment by a shiz —
July 28, 2006 @ 8:08 am
http://www.velonews.com/media/Landis.mp3
he had him some Jack Daniels, too.
here, try this one for fun:
Comment by Camera Obscura —
July 28, 2006 @ 10:34 am
I liked Stephen Cobert’s explanation Thursday night best. (grin)
I have to agree w/ Mule t-shirts about Cobert.
Comment by Jim Henley —
July 28, 2006 @ 10:37 am
I missed it – what did he say?
Comment by Camera Obscura —
July 28, 2006 @ 1:19 pm
The general gist: ”Of COURSE he tested for extra testosterone — He’s an AMERICAN. We’ve got HUGE balls. We should get awards just for sitting on the bicycle seat, the way we’re built.”
Trackback by Off Wing Opinion —
July 28, 2006 @ 3:48 pm
Floyd Landis: I’m Innocent
Read about it here. For audio, click here, here and here. Meanwhile, the grand poohbah of international cycling was promising…
Comment by Brian C.B. —
July 28, 2006 @ 8:54 pm
Doc was on NPR. He’s on the UCI anti-doping board. He didn’t say the first test might be a false positive. That’s assumed, I think. However, he said that the second sample might be subject to the same test as the first or sent to a lab that performs a far more sophisticated (and I imagine time-consuming and expensive) spectography (I think) test that distinguishes between natural and artificial testosterone and is regarded as ironclad. He wasn’t cutting Landis any slack on having a naturally-occurring high testosterone level unless it had been recorded in earlier tests. He thinks that ratios of the kind being mentioned (6:1) are the product solely of artificial supplements. A couple of beers won’t do it. If it’s not a false positive, the doc thinks he’s guilty. But, it could be a false postive. The second test should answer all questions, if it’s the expensive one.
Comment by Jim Henley —
July 28, 2006 @ 9:04 pm
Hi Brian: Which ”Doc?”
New updates btw.
Comment by lkay —
July 29, 2006 @ 6:50 am
They will never be able to duplicate the conditons of that day. It was an amazing ride, and knowing what he had done, and the physical exertion, could nave combined to produce euphoria, and something happened inside his body. This from an uneducated Floyd supporter.
Comment by Brian C.B. —
July 29, 2006 @ 11:26 am
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5590272
Why, Jim, the renowned Dr. Gary Wadler. Or, Walder. One of the two, and I’m not clicking back to find out which. I’m too tired from having to troll through the whole of the NPR website trying to locate the sports department page. Yer link is above.
Comment by Free Floyd —
July 29, 2006 @ 10:30 pm
The LNDD per WADA and UCI has apparently not yet tested his samples using IRMS. This IRMS, this endocrinolgical test, is, unlike the T to E ratio test, definitive. It shows whether the source of the T is his body or not.
Apparently it is up to the UCI whether WADA uses IRMS and I am guessing that is the case because UCI pays the lab bills and chooses to dictate the political dimension. If they have already applied the IRMS and that was in the result of sample A, then there would be no secondary test to my understanding.
The secondary test we would hope would be conducted using IRMS but that is wholly to the discretion of the UCI. I have written extensively about the whole thing on a blog I created solely for this purpose (http://freefloydlandis.blogspot.com).