no other sport runs more advanced tests, and nothing I mentioned is googled knowledge. You keep making up shit to try to defend a dirty athlete, but you know good and fucking well that you can't negate anything I said.

7/30/2006 6:37:55 PM

What shit did I make up in the last post ass clown?

7/30/2006 7:17:15 PM

he was like, ahhhh fuck it, i am not gonna win, so let me take all these drugs....then he ended up winning......now it will be taken away from him.....

7/30/2006 7:35:03 PM

^^^Well the runner that was in the news today for testing positive for testosterone was discovered by the more accurate test. (They even specifically said it was more accurate than the T/E test at detecting abnormal testosterone)

So I guess running does.

[Edited on July 30, 2006 at 7:35 PM. Reason : .]

7/30/2006 7:35:11 PM

you tried to claim three times in that post that it only cost a few pennies to runs MSGC on test samples, and then you tried to claim that you only had to take samples on the top two. MSGC runs on blood doping and steroids are much more complicated than a standard MSGC on street drugs, because you are trying to identify isotopes of the same molecule instead of whether or not the molecule exists. Like I said, this test costs thousands of dollars every time it is used - not the pennies that you claimed.

You also tried to claim that testing was only needed on the top 2 people and that sponsorship would cover this matter of pennies. Testing would have to be performed on anyone that blows the first test, and the sponsoring bodies already agree that failing the first test is enough reason to bar the athlete from competing. any additional testing past that point won't be covered by sponsors - as they already know to disqualify the person. if the rider wants to continue to play dumb or claim innocence, then he can do so at his own expense. Sponsorship doesn't exist for the purpose of having your name and logo plastered all over the news conference of a cheater; it's there for hosting the race and declaring a winner. No one in their right mind would want to spend their sponsorship dollars on incredibly expensive lab testings that will come to the same conclusion as the cheaper tests they already funded.

7/30/2006 7:35:21 PM

Also I'm curious where you got "thousands" the only thing I could find said "more than 100"

7/30/2006 7:37:40 PM

^^find out the name of the test. I bet it was nothing more than a simple count of testosterone levels in the blood, which is what the NFL does.

7/30/2006 7:39:36 PM

carbon-isotope ratio test

also
http://www.topix.net/content/trb/1413341794354760645118523124520371764484

Quote :

"After a positive T/E ratio test, doping agencies typically require another test. Invented in the mid-1990s, the Carbon Isotope Ratio test discerns differences between carbon atoms in synthetically manufactured steroid hormones and naturally produced human testosteron"

Quote :

"This test costs much more than the T/E ratio test - several hundred dollars versus less than $100 for the latter - and is not usually done unless there is already evidence of cheating. Both CIR and T/E ratio are urine-based tests."

Where do you get a cost in the thousands?

[Edited on July 30, 2006 at 7:44 PM. Reason : ;/.]

7/30/2006 7:41:42 PM

link?

they have to run the IRMS test in conjunction with MSGC to also test for fertility drugs such as clomiphene, nolvadex, and HCG.

7/30/2006 7:45:03 PM

So why not do the CIR test and find out if the testosterone was natural?

[Edited on July 30, 2006 at 7:47 PM. Reason : what do you want a link for? see edit]

7/30/2006 7:46:47 PM

you also need to factor in the cost of the time for the race organizers to document all of these test results, to organize for additional tests to be taken, etc.

7/30/2006 7:47:54 PM

That isn't going to bring the cost from under $100 to Thousands

[Edited on July 30, 2006 at 7:49 PM. Reason : not per person]

7/30/2006 7:49:37 PM

powerlifters used to beat that test by taking fertility drugs such as nolvadex, clomiphene, human chronic gonadotropin, and others that would bypass the HPTA axis and make the nuts produce their own testosterone, even though there are steroids in the body. as a result, you have to also administer a MSGC test on the blood to look for these chemicals. This might have been easier to do 10 years ago when there were only 3 well established fertility agents on the market, but in the last decade there have been about 10 variations of nolvadex alone to hit the market that all have the same effect on the nuts but won't show up on anything other than MSGC identification.

7/30/2006 7:51:33 PM

you just said the test cost several hundred dollars, not under $100.

7/30/2006 7:52:08 PM

The CIR test is, I thought we were talking about the T/E test.

7/30/2006 7:53:28 PM

^^^youve confused aromatase inhibitors with estrogen receptor blockers -- there are many variations of aromatase inhibitors out there, but not of nolva (estrogen receptor blockers, which do not increase testosterone levels nearly as well as aromoatase inhibitors).

7/30/2006 8:02:52 PM

I haven't confused aromatase inhibitors. nothing I listed is considered an aromatase inhibitor. clomiphene and nolvadex are both SERMs.

as far as nolvadex (tamoxifen), the FDA has approved toremifene and raloxifene just to name a couple.

7/30/2006 8:09:54 PM

well, then youre just plain wrong about nolva being used currently, or is modifications, as a testosterone booster. its used for post-cycle therapy to insure that spiking estrogen doesnt cause side effects, but thats about it.

7/30/2006 8:15:33 PM

Seriously, why would someone take a performance enhancing drug and then go win the stage? The stage winner is automatically tested.

Honestly, I sincerely would look closely at the lab performing the testing. I realize that they do ALL the testing, but the Armstrong EPO testing from the 99 sample turned out to be sloppy lab work. Also, If a worker will break policy and leak a result (as in this case), I imagine they would be willing to tamper with samples as well.

After the B test is completed, they will test to see if the hormone is natural.

7/30/2006 8:57:00 PM

Quote :

"my long shot guess is that he was using testosterone 2 months before the tour in an attempt to build muscle mass and to go through practice at a heavier weight than he would enter the tour at. at this point he also withdrew a pint or two of blood and had the plasma removed from it so that he could inject that into himself during the tour."

this guess seems like the only plausible way to explain the results if they are accurate.

7/30/2006 9:01:43 PM

Quote :

"well, then youre just plain wrong about nolva being used currently, or is modifications, as a testosterone booster. its used for post-cycle therapy to insure that spiking estrogen doesnt cause side effects, but thats about it. "

actually, you're dead wrong. it's used during steroid cycles to prevent estrogen from causing gynocomastia. It's used during PCT for the purposes of signaling the HPTA to start producing testosterone again in the testes. when low enough dosages of testosterone are taken, nolvadex and its analogs are enough to signal for the nuts to continue producing testosterone, albeit at lower levels than they would naturally due to conflicting signals on the HPTA caused by the steroids.

nolvadex has been proven to boost LH levels in the body of healthy males not taking steroids, which in theory should result in higher natural test levels. for this reason, there are currently several doctors pushing for the WADA and IOC to ban nolvadex and HCG.

7/30/2006 9:05:19 PM

http://www.steroidology.com/steroid-articles/steroid.info/25/Nolvadex®_(tamoxifen_citrate).html

Quote :

"This drug also shows the ability to increase production of FSH (follicle stimulating hormone) and LH (luteinizing hormone) in the male body. This is accomplished by blocking negative feedback inhibition caused by estrogen at the hypothalamus and pituitary, which fosters the release of the mentioned pituitary hormones. This of course is also the function of Clomid and cyclofenil. Since a higher release of LH can stimulate the Leydig's cells in the testes to produce more testosterone, Nolvadex can have a positive impact on one's serum testosterone level. This "testosterone stimulating" effect is an added benefit when preparing to conclude a steroid cycle (post cycle therapy or PCT). Since most anabolic/androgenic steroids will suppress endogenous testosterone production, Nolvadex can help restore a balance in hormone levels. Nolvadex should be preferred over Clomid for this purpose in fact, as side by side it is clearly the stronger agent. It has also been shown to increase LH responsiveness to Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone after time, while Clomid slightly lowers this sensitivity as the drug is used for several weeks.. "

7/30/2006 9:09:33 PM

Quote :

"nolvadex has been proven to boost LH levels in the body of healthy males not taking steroids,"

that may be true, but its not widely use on cycle for obvious reasons... it wouldnt make sense to use the drug on-cycle becuase youre already using a powerful androgen. the potential harm from side effects occurs mostly post-cycle, and while drugs w/ anti-estrogen effects stimulat endogenous production of testosterone after its been supressed artifically, that reason is secondary to the prevent of permanent side effects--which is why most users postpone its use till post-cycle.

Quote :

"This "testosterone stimulating" effect is an added benefit when preparing to conclude a steroid cycle (post cycle therapy or PCT). Since most anabolic/androgenic steroids will suppress endogenous testosterone production, Nolvadex can help restore a balance in hormone levels."

well thanks, you verified my point for me. its helps restore balance after a cycle, thats how its used.

Quote :

"it's used during steroid cycles to prevent estrogen from causing gynocomastia. "

its simply not smart to use it on cycle given it would save your ass post-cycle. thats what ive read that people aught do, from various articles, and what people report to do.



[Edited on July 30, 2006 at 9:17 PM. Reason : ku77]

7/30/2006 9:11:55 PM

nolvadex is very common to use on cycle because anti-E's have a nasty side effect of fucking up blood lipid profiles and throwing HDL counts down to incredibly low numbers. SERMs tend to have a positive effect on blood lipid profiles. The only reason nolvadex isn't as common for most steroid users is that the vast majority of steroid users are recreational users that are more concerned about water retention and aromatization, and Anti-E's are more effective for treating both (and generally cheaper). Athletes in tested sports such as powerlifting and olympic lifting have understood the importance of SERMs for a while now.

7/30/2006 9:17:24 PM

Quote :

"The only reason nolvadex isn't as common for most steroid users is that the vast majority of steroid users are recreational users that are more concerned about water retention and aromatization,"

the reason they will report is that they are saving them to stimulate natural testosterone and protect against side effects post-cycle. this is what most will say.

7/30/2006 9:24:13 PM

Quote :

"wouldnt make sense to use the drug on-cycle becuase youre already using a powerful androgen"

the reason for taking it along with a powerful androgen is that several common androgens used in powerlifting and other tested sports, such as testosterone, dianabol, and anadrol, aromatize into estrodiol or its derivatives. you could take an aromatase inhibitor to prevent this from happening, but this tends to have a side effect of sending HDL counts to single digit lows. taking a SERM will just prevent the circulating estrogen from making it to certain receptors, such as breast tissue.

7/30/2006 9:24:14 PM

well the logical recourse there is to cut back on the steriod use if youre having side effects that bad on-cycle, not use an nolva.

[Edited on July 30, 2006 at 9:27 PM. Reason : 23]

7/30/2006 9:25:58 PM

that site I linked you to has a whole forum dedicated to this. if you read the threads in the top section, you'll see just how common it is to run SERMs throughout the cycle.

as far as the safety of running SERMs continuously throughout the year, it's kind of hard to assess due to the drug being designed solely for the use of women with breast cancer and I think for certain female fertility issues. there are almost no studies on the safety of their use in men for extended periods.

[Edited on July 30, 2006 at 9:31 PM. Reason : reports on women indicate its use to be perfectly safe for years, but who knows with men.]

7/30/2006 9:28:53 PM

well, estrogen has proven positive effects for men, like bone growth/maintinence. if you took blockers year round, there is no doubt you would have serious long term problems.

7/30/2006 9:30:17 PM

they're called SERMs because they're selective estrogen receptor modulators. they allow estrogen to work its magic with bone and tendon growth along with blood lipid management, but they primarily target breast tissue receptors and the negative feedback loop on the HPTA and bind to them, disabling the receptor.

7/30/2006 9:33:29 PM

uhhh, you can call nolva a SERM if you want, but it targets almost all estrogen receptors in the body (it can get too from the blood stream).

for example, the prostate

http://www.nature.com/pcan/journal/v8/n1/abs/4500782a.html



[Edited on July 30, 2006 at 9:38 PM. Reason : yre]

7/30/2006 9:36:33 PM

I guess you aren't aware that SERMs such as nolvadex are prescribed to menopausal women for treating osteoporosis then.

[Edited on July 30, 2006 at 9:44 PM. Reason : what were you trying to indicate with that link? the effects of chemical castration?]

7/30/2006 9:41:27 PM

http://news.healingwell.com/index.php?p=news1&id=525130
http://www.breastcancer.org/bey_cope_meno_osteo.html

you just contradicted yourself. either they act mainly on breast tissue or they dont.

they act universally.


[Edited on July 30, 2006 at 9:44 PM. Reason : wert]

7/30/2006 9:43:04 PM

receptor modulators. you need to read up on what that means. they bind to the breast tissue and negative feedback receptors but don't do anything at all to activate them. they bind stronger than estrodiol does, so they win the competition for the receptor.

In other areas of the body, they either activate other receptors in the body or allow estrogen to win the battle for the receptor.

7/30/2006 9:47:39 PM

regardless, Ive never heard anyone claim that taking nolva year-round would be wise.

7/30/2006 9:49:02 PM

from your second link:

Quote :

"SERMs: Important improvements in the management of osteopenia and osteoporosis will come from SERM medications. Raloxifene (brand name: Evista) is the first SERM to be approved for the treatment of osteoporosis. In women with osteoporosis (not women with or at high risk for breast cancer), study results also show it can reduce risk of breast cancer and lower cholesterol, without stimulating estrogen receptors in the endometrium (uterine lining). "

so much for your universal theory

7/30/2006 9:51:15 PM

i said NOLVA acts universaly. and i dont even see anything about exclusive action in that passage^

7/30/2006 9:52:11 PM

for that matter, I've never heard anyone claim taking steroids to be wise. it's not like these people are taking these drugs in an attempt to live forever.

7/30/2006 9:53:59 PM

I'm pretty sure all SERMs that are currently approved by the FDA have no action on the uterus. I don't have a uterus though, so I wasn't paying that much attention that that detail when I read reports on these drugs.

7/30/2006 9:55:19 PM

well, taking nolva would be wise, if youve just concluded a steriod cycle. but it wouldnt be wise to take it forever.

7/30/2006 9:55:30 PM

it would be a gamble for men to take it for long periods of time. no one knows what the long term side-effects of the drug are in men, but I couldn't imagine having anything with pro-estrogenic activity in men at elevated levels to be a good thing for extended periods of time.

7/30/2006 10:02:08 PM

you guys are arguing about shit you don't know anything about other than what you read a few min. prior on the internet

anyways...so he was cleared?

7/31/2006 11:48:49 AM

Pretty sure eleusis spends a shit ton of time on these steroid pages. But he probably did have to come up to speed for this thread.

7/31/2006 12:01:37 PM

7/31/2006 12:04:28 PM

he wasn't cleared. they determined that some of the testosterone in his sample was synthetic, so he's not going to be able to bullshit his way out of this one.

[Edited on July 31, 2006 at 10:14 PM. Reason : .]

7/31/2006 10:14:25 PM

yeah he's fucked.

It just makes me assume that they all cheat.

Shooting your ass full of testosterone during the tour de france doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense though.

7/31/2006 10:22:38 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=2535787

7/31/2006 10:22:46 PM

I will hold out judgement until an official report comes out not some source that the New York times "cites" I would say the French are trying everything they can to keep another American as being champion of their race, but who knows we don't have anything rock solid in proof at the moment.

7/31/2006 10:25:53 PM

if I knew that I was going to have to undergo hip replacement surgery in the coming months and knew that I might never ride a bike in a competitive race again, I'd probably say fuck it come into the event covered in androgel too. he got his 15 minutes of fame in sport where no one has been clean in 30 years, and he pissed off the French people. that sounds like a victory to me.

Barry Bonds could probably outpedal all of these guys on a huffy dirt bike.

7/31/2006 10:31:27 PM

^ I can imagine that was Bonds' way of thinking after seeing the public reaction to McGwire and Sosa.

^^ So if a French lab said Bonds used steroids, you'd think Bonds was innocent?

Dear God man, a source said they took a drug test and found synthetic testosterone. There's more credited evidence right now against Landis than Bonds (Bonds has never failed a drug test, Landis has, and the source of Bonds' stuff is a book by two San Francisco journalists, which at best are equally as reputable as the New York Times).

[Edited on July 31, 2006 at 10:37 PM. Reason : /]

7/31/2006 10:33:57 PM