Tour De France Winner Floyd Landis Flunks Drug Test (?)

[kpete]

Tour De France Winner Flunks Drug Test
Jul 27, 10:57 AM (ET)
By STEPHEN WILSON

LONDON (AP) - Tour de France champion Floyd Landis tested positive for high levels of testosterone during the race, his Phonak team said Thursday on its Web site.

The statement came a day after the UCI, cycling's world governing body, said an unidentified rider had failed a drug test during the Tour.

And the statement came just four days after Landis stood on the victory podium on the Champs-Elysees, succeeding seven-time winner Lance Armstrong as an American winner in Paris.

The Swiss-based Phonak team said it was notified by the UCI on Wednesday that Landis' sample showed "an unusual level of testosterone/epitestosterone" when he was tested after stage 17 of the race last Thursday.

more at:
http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fapnews.myway.com%2Farticle%2F20060727%2FD8J4D8V80.html

[rfranklin]

1. Maybe he was reading Hustler magazine the night before....

There could be some innocent explanation, right?

[gratuitous]

2. Bummer

I saw an article in the New York Times yesterday that UCI was going to ban use of high altitude chambers. Apparently, oxygen-deprived atmosphere, like that found at high altitude, stimulates the body to produce more red blood cells, so the body processes more oxygen which helps cyclists' endurance.

My question is how would UCI distinguish between someone who used a high altitude chamber and one who trained at, say, some Rocky Mountain site where the air is thinner? And if such "natural" stimulation of one's body (after all, the cyclists aren't taking or injecting themselves with foreign substances) is ruled illegal, how far does UCI plan to take this? After all, a cyclist who rides 125 miles a day in training is probably going to do better than one who trains only 50 miles a day. What other limits on cyclists is UCI contemplating?

[wtmusic]

5. The only way to distinguish

would be to discover one of the chambers at a team's facilities, i.e. non-epidemiological evidence.

We will be at an interesting crossroads in the next decade over what constitutes "cheating". If using a low-pressure chamber is illegal, what about a weight machine? :shrug:

[enough]

3. A little more from the NYT today

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/sports/othersports/27cnd-doping.html?hp&ex=1154059200&en=f616263b07608f96&ei=5094&partner=homepage

snip>

A positive “A” sample does not prove that a rider used performance-enhancing substances; a second sample, the “B” sample, still must be tested to confirm the result.

“The rider will ask in the upcoming days for the counter analysis to prove either that this result is coming from a natural process or that this is resulting from a mistake in the confirmation,” Phonak said in the statement. “In application of the Pro Tour Ethical Code, the rider will not race anymore until this problem is totally clear.

“If the result of the ‘B’ sample analysis confirms the result of the ‘A’ sample, the rider will be dismissed and will then pass the corresponding endocrinological examinations.”

snip>

[leftyladyfrommo]

4. Well, this just sucks.

It doesn't make sense that someone would take a risk like this - they know there will be a drug test. Don't they?

[wtmusic]

6. They know

but sometimes they yield to the immense pressure, hoping the test will yield a false negative.

Landis was favored to win, but totally broke down on a difficult stage in the mountains. After the stage he disappeared without doing any interviews, which some considered as not exhibiting the best sportsmanship. Then the next day, he delivered the performance which won him the Tour. It seemed too good to be true, and possibly it was.

[LostinVA]

7. Yes -- they give samples AS SOON as the stage is over

Before they can do anything else.