Replies

Lance wasn't doping before his testicular cancer? That's not what I've heard...

Roberts and Epstein report: “Most people have a ratio of 1-to-1. Prior to 2005, any ratio above 6.0-to-1 was considered abnormally high and evidence of doping; in 2005 that ratio was lowered to 4.0-to-1. But the high ratios had not led to sanctions. In his letter Catlin did not address the 6.5-to-1 result, but he wrote that he had attempted confirmation (a required step) on the 9.0-to-1 and 7.6-to-1 samples, and ‘in both cases the confirmation was unsuccessful and the samples were reported negative.’ ”

And don't forget the Strock v. USA Cycling/Rene Wenzel case.

According to Dr. Donald Catlin’s estimate, his lab at UCLA performed more than two dozen tests of Armstrong between 1990 and 2000. In May 1999, USA Cycling sent a formal request to Catlin for past test results – specifically, testosterone-epitestosterone (T:E) ratios – for a cyclist identified by a source with knowledge of the request as Lance Armstrong. Three results indicated high T:E ratios, specifically: a 9.0-to-1 ratio from a sample collected on June 23, 1993; a 7.6-to-1 from July 7, 1994; and a 6.5-to-1 from June 4, 1996.

Roberts and Epstein report: “Most people have a ratio of 1-to-1. Prior to 2005, any ratio above 6.0-to-1 was considered abnormally high and evidence of doping; in 2005 that ratio was lowered to 4.0-to-1. But the high ratios had not led to sanctions. In his letter Catlin did not address the 6.5-to-1 result, but he wrote that he had attempted confirmation (a required step) on the 9.0-to-1 and 7.6-to-1 samples, and ‘in both cases the confirmation was unsuccessful and the samples were reported negative.’ ”

Well done.