Foot in mouth?...not quite

Is now the appropriate time for me to put my foot in my mouth, retract my previous post, and ride off into the night with my tail between my legs? In light of recent news that Floyd Landis has tested positive "for testosterone," the knee jerk reaction here is, yes. In a sport overwhelmed by doping scandal, we have reached the point where suspicion is sufficient to condemn.

So I'm not doing it. I'm backing Floyd. All the way. I'm saying it here in my blog, with four of you as my witness. Vive Le Floyd.

How? Why? W.T.F?

Good questions. We'll get to the answer, but first let's explain the case against Floyd (to the best of my knowledge at this point). Let's start with a myth: Floyd tested positive for testosterone. Fact: The evidence against Floyd is an "unusual" ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone (T/E ratio), both naturally produced by the body. The average T/E ratio for males is about 1:1, though a ratio of 2 or 3:1 is well within normal limits. To say that Floyd tested positive for testosterone is a complete fallacy. In fact, the actual levels of testosterone and epitestosterone in Floyd's sample were LOW compared to "normal" results. What triggered that positive was the ratio.

So what's the ratio that triggers an "Adverse Analytical Finding" (AAF - in the parlance of Anti-Doping culture)? Well, until 2005, a 6:1 ratio was the trigger point for a positive result. This ratio was often challenged while it stood, and often athletes won arbitration cases over the 6:1 detection limit. One Swedish study I found tested nearly 9000 individuals. Of these, 28 (about 0.3%) triggered positive results at a 6:1 detection level. However, after further work the team "concluded that among the above 28 cases, only one can be regarded as a clear case of testosterone doping. Although the vast majority of Swedish athletes have urinary T/E ratios below six, there is a subfraction with a constant higher ratio, possibly due to genetic factors."

So what happened in 2005? Well clearly, WADA did the only thing they could do in light of such evidence that the test really doesn't work all that well...they lowered the ratio. Now, the trigger point for an AAF is a 4:1 ratio. You thought we created false negatives before, wait till you see what we do now!! Of course, WADA and sports' respective governing bodies have claimed that lowering the ratio limit has allowed them to catch more cheaters. Guess what, guys? You catch more good guys too. That's what lowering the limit does.

So we trigger a positive result, tipping the scales at just over the 4:1 limit...what now? Well, we do more testing, of course. Or we don't. Seriously. We either perform Isotope Ratio Mass Spectometry (IRMS) which kinda sorta helps a little in maybe showing if the testosterone came from the body or not... or we don't. You may ask, "Well, how do you decide whether or not to do the test?" Simple really, if we're capable of doing the test, we do it. If we're not capable of doing the test, we don't. Admittedly, it's not very scientific, but it sure does make life easier.

I'll stop the explanation there, because I don't know whether IRMS was performed, nor do I know what it revealed assuming it was performed. So I'll stop.

So what now? Well, first Floyd gets his 'B' sample tested by an independent lab to either confirm or disprove the results of the original test. If the 'B' sample comes up positive, which is likely since it came from the same cup of piss, then Floyd is suspended and he gets to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS, or TAS if you're French, and I sincerely hope you're not). At this point, based on the history of appeals related to this test, he has very very good chance of his appeal being granted and the sport of cycling issuing a collective, "my bad."

So, there's my defense. We'll see how it holds up. The good news is I'm not alone. It seems that in a cycling community that lately has jumped on every accused, suspected, or rumored doper, there is a surprising amount of support for Floyd. Jonathan Vaughters, the manager of the TIAA-CREF Us Pro team, on Velonews.com:

I believe Floyd is innocent. The majority of T/E tests are over-turned at the CAS level. The guy will probably be proven innocent in eight months time, but in the short-term, the media is killing him. Floyd is basically paying for the sins of all the morons who came before him, who have denied, denied, denied. He's going to take the fall for everyone who has cried wolf before him. He's going to be the guy who gets his head cut off and that's a real tragedy.

From Dirk Demol, director of Team Discovery:

I cannot truly believe that Landis positive. I never imagined anything behind his exploit (to Morzine). As an ex-pro, I know you can have a good day after a bad day and the legs can come back and succeed again. Be careful. The counter-analysis is not yet positive and we shouldn't draw too fast of a conclusion.

Of course, suspicion, surprise, frustration, and doubt rule the day. We live in a guilty until proven innocent era in sporting history, where the shadow of doubt is strong than the light of truth. But we do make mistakes. Just days ago, 5 riders from the Astana-Wurth squad who were disqualified from the Tour de France in the midst of the Operacion Puerta doping scandal were all cleared of any wrong doing. They'll never get their race back, and that's a damn shame, but a necessary product of the sporting environment in which we currently find ourselves. I don't blame the UCI for their suspensions, and even in hindsight, I support that decision. It was done for the good of the race, and for the good of the sport. But we do make mistakes. And only time will tell if Floyd is innocent or guilty. But until I have proof of guilt, I'm standing by his innocence.