Re: Interesting article on Landis currently

cyclintom@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Aug 20, 8:49 am, Cal Thomas <jcarp1...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thought the subscribers might be interested in this article on Landis
currently. Any athlete with no fall back position if not working in
their sport, I feel bad for. This really seems to show all the human
sides of Floyd.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/sports/playmagazine/0819play-floyd....

Being a rec cyclist and tri-geek, I don't post here, but the post makes
interesting reading and learning.

The most important fact and one generally left out is that Landis'
testosterone levels weren't high. His epitestosterone levels were
low.

What's more, the FIRST test showed 4.5:1 and the second test of the
same sample showed 11:1 demonstrating either that there was a
contaminant, probably an epitestosterone eating bacteria, an
incompetent lab or outright crookedness.

You take your pick but I'm guessing "All of the above" since IF the
levels change that radically for the first and second tests they're
supposed to throw the sample out as contaminated. So.... why didn't
they? And then why didn't the UCI call them on it? And why hasn't WADA
said anything? This entire business smacks of corruption on a high
level.


All my riding buddies are convinced.

"Conspiracy Theory?
.

Relevant Pages