Doubting Martin Dugard Part 1

Martin Dugard has appointed himself as all knowing in
the realm of cycling psychology and he has an opinion
as expressed in an article, DOUBTING FLOYD. Dugard
expresses his opinion that Floyd Landis doped to
recover from the Stage 16 "bonk" and he considers the
Stage 17 "recovery" as physiologically impossible
without dope. As a matter of fact Martin Dugard
opines a masterful piece of disinformation. Dugard
maintains that Landis has such a unique physiology
that a topical testosterone cream can speed recovery
from a bonk. The amount of additional recovery testosterone adds to a bonk that is based on glucose depletion is a constant source of debate, some experts claim testosterone provides insignificant improvement, others claim testosterone provides no improvement at all, and some even claim that testosterone would reduce performance after a bonk not improve it. I challenge Dugard to ride a course, bonk, replenish glucose, apply a topical testosterone solution, re-ride the course after "recovery" and measure his riding performance. The probability of a Landis like improvement based upon glucose + testosterone is zero. If your power output is 425 watts under normal training conditions acute applications of a topical testosterone is not going to make you into a 600 watt superman.


Where Were The Other Teams?

Dugard should re-view the Stage 17 Landis attack. The
chasing teams did nothing, merely rode tempo hoping
Landis would "bonk" again. There was no attempt to
chase until the gap to Floyd Landis was 9:00, far too
late to reel him in.

Why Did The AAA Majority Discard the Chatenay-Malabry
Testosterone/Epitestosterone Ratio?
Dugard maintains that Landis' testosterone level was
so high that Dick Pound decided that he could service
every virgin in a radius of fifty miles? Sorry Martin
but the AAA majority did not agree with you or Dick
Pound. Read the AAA decision next time and stop
misleading people. Fact is LNDD ran four Stage 17
testosterone/epitestosterone screen tests, 4.9:1,
5.1:1, 11.4:1, and one was discarded. Guess which one
Chatenay Malabry used as a basis for the Adverse
Analytical Finding? 11:1. The 11:1 result was not
accepted by the AAA majority and the two
and a half year suspension was based on a single
metabolite delta/delta score, remember Martin?
Another thing, if Landis was so full of testosterone
why did not all of the metabolites show similar
scores? Why were three metabolites below the 3 per
mil threshold? This indicates no use of synthetic
testosterone. Even Campbell in his dissent commented
on this fact. If Chatenay-Malabry would have taken
the published uncertainty of +/-.8 mil into account
and admitted that the laboratory measurement may have
been in error, then there is a high probability that
the IRMS measurements would have been declared
inconclusive. Then WADA TD 2004 EAAS would have
called for longitudinal studies by out-of-
competition tests to determine base line scores unique
to Landis' physiology. If an IRMS is deemed inconclusive,
WADA TD 2004 EAAS calls for a measurement of
Testosterone/Luteinizing hormone as supportive evidence.
As a matter of fact two blood tests of Landis were taken
during the 2006 Tour de France. The evidence was available.
And Floyd Landis did request longitudinal tests which
USADA, the UCI, and WADA refused to conduct.

Why Did the Blood Profile Data Not Find A Suppression
in Luteinizing Hormone?

Now I could accept the delta/delta score as accurate
if the gonadotrophin luteinizing hormone; measured by
blood sampling not urine would have been suppressed.
If Landis was using topical synthetic testosterone
luteinizing hormone would have been suppressed. Even
Don Catlin admitted that this did not happen. Why?
More of the Landis miracle physiology? I have yet had
a single person explain how a man can raise the level
of testosterone in his system by introduction of
synthetic testosterone and not suppress luteininzing
hormone from stimulating the Leydig cells to produce
endogenous testosterone. Even though this directly
contradicts the LNDD single metabolite theory of synthetic
testosterone use by Floyd Landis.

Why Did the Anti-Doping Review Board Ignore the
Testosterone/Luteinizing Hormone Evidence?

This medical impossibility was completely ignored by
the AAA majority because there was a single metabolite
above the 3 per mil threshold for exogenous
testosterone. The Carbon Isotope Ratio was accepted a
"bullet proof" and the people who ran the test were
considered to be "infallible." Chatenay-Malabry as a
WADA accredited lab could not back down and admit that
an error might have been made. Even if Paul Scott
stated in his testimony that proper testing with an
GC/C/IRMS could not be done without an operating
manual. The manual was missing when the Stage 17 tests
were done, of course.

COFRAC, AFLD, and the Landis French Suspension

The COFRAC auditors were supposed to check for these
things, under contract for AFLD, right? These audits
were required for accreditation of Chatenay-Malabry as
a WADA/IOC laboratory, correct? This is probably why COFRAC
certified the Chatenay-Malabry results as
correct in the AFLD decision. Please. The AFLD
Landis decision is very complex and would probably
require a very detailed legal analyses. For more
information concerning the Landis AFLD decision please
visit WADAwatch.

Where do I go to study all of the Landis Case
Scientific Issues?

Unfortunately the scientific issues are very complex
and long winded and it would take a very large book to
compile them all. Issues I mentioned in this article
have bothered me the most although they may be some of
the more trivial ones. For a more in depth look at
the scientific issues in the Landis case I would
suggest everyone visit the Landis case information blog
Trust but Verify.

Forget the Science Let's Attack Landis' Character

Once again Martin Dugard like so many other sport writers
who are experts in the Landis case ignore the scientific
issues of the case and instead dwell into the character issues.
First, Dugard mentions Landis' upbringing in the Mennonite
culture and how Floyd defied his father by escaping at night
to train on his mountain bike. Reading between the lines we
can almost discern a sinister suggestion that if the black sheep
of the family would resort to disobeying the biblical injunction
of "honor thy father and mother" and to revolt against the cannons of his faith to "renounce the material world" that it would be no small matter for Floyd to use a topical testosterone cream in order to cheat the competition and win the Tour de France. Dugard seems to delight in Floyd Landis' defiance of his father and later he makes a weird analogy to defiance of his cycling mentor "father figure" Lance Armstrong. Dugard is giving us all an implication that if Floyd Landis would abandon his mentor in the quest for money and glory then certainly he is falling into temptation of athletic greed and avarice. Floyd Landis suddenly is a man without a qualm who would resort to any tactic, even "lies" to become a "legend" of cycling.