• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 33 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 12, 2010
488
0
9,280
The problem with Testogel is that it’s an incredibly inefficient means of delivering synthetic testosterone, so the 50mg sachet will only be good for a fraction of that dose when absorbed into the body.

Intramuscular injections are the only efficient means of delivery for true performance enhancement.

In any dose Testogel is pretty much useless for enhancing strength, speed, muscle development etc

What Testogel does do is provide enough of a dose when applied daily to restore depleted levels in individuals (wether that depletion is age related or from the inevitable decline experienced by athletes during heavy endurance training blocks) back to ‘normal’ ranges. Hence it’s historic use in cycling I think.

So to answer the question, 30 x 50mg sachets really is a very minimal level for one individual for a month to see any benefit at all. ‘Microdosing’ with anything less would be pretty pointless ime.
Sinkewitz scored a 24/1 T/E using a satchet [1], Kessler got it up to 85/1 with Andriol [2] - yet both drugs are much less potent than some injection. So bottom line is, it worked, it has always worked as intended.

Both ratios are also lower than the probability that this was the first and only order of T by anyone from Sky/British Cycling.

[1] https://www.spiegel.de/sport/sonst/testosteron-gel-radprofi-sinkewitz-gesteht-doping-a-497493.html
[2] https://www.sueddeutsche.de/sport/doping-noch-mehr-testosteron-1.714113
 
Yes, that was the point. fmk will continually attempt to belittle any opinion I have though here. It's interesting looking back to him hounding me for evidence Sutton's erectile dysfunction would be Freeman's defence and when providing it making out like I was foolishly linking two articles together to fabricate some alternate Sky fan reality I want to see.

But, yes, my point was. Why would Freeman lie and make excuses to to his own team (Burt) and manager (Peters) about a doping product you wanted to order, you wanted to receive and you wanted to administer to an athlete ? Was Freeman acting entirely alone doping British Cycling & Sky without Peters and Burt knowing, considering it was Burt who packaged the jiffy bag for him and was the first to open the Testogel order? It really doesn't sound like a cover story would need to be fabricated. Why would you then also go to the supplier and get them to make up a story for you too - just for Peters satisfaction is odd? I smell fear in Freeman from Sutton and I smell fear Freeman was aware Testosteron at the velodrome outside the medical teams knowledge was a sackable offence under his BC contract if Peters didn't think it was an error. If it was consciously ordered and Peters knew, he would be sacked on the spot and couldn't tell the truth Sutton was bullying him for a variety of reasons, all common to being bullied.
jeez...remind me never to involve you guys in a criminal plot....watch reservoir dogs...people ostensibily within the same 'act' sometimes do not know what the others are doing...sometimes they do but don't know who else does....and sometimes they lie for show...to demonstrate to the assembled audience that the audience demonstrably don't know, even although they might......also watch any mafia film......'the boss', despite ordering the hit, never wants the dead body turning up in his own property.......you guys need to get out more ;);)

now you can turn yourself into knots attrubuting whatever reason you like.........for those with a far simpler explanation and with statistics on their side.......it's a pro cycling doctor ordering PEDs for his riders...of course he might not even 'give' them to them...Sutton may request them, freeman may then leave his door open and the GT contender, who just hapens to be at the velodrome (for testing) happens into the room and sees them on the desk...remember, luckily for all there is no record keeping.......what's a GT contender, who needs to lose weight and keep the power, to do????...........its not like SKY had any really skinny GT winners who lost weight and increased power during this time...or even riders who just lost a lot weight during the season......and as SDB said himself...how they lost weight would be a good question to both ask...and answer (of course, still we await that particular answer - although it may just be becoming clearer) :D:D

and so................ just to get this right (you seem to be going right down the 'defence' story of bullying)........Freeman compromises his own career, 20 years work by BC, millions of pounds in funding and the shame of losing knighthoods and future millions from Ineos because he is scared of one blunt aussie?????????........that's one hell of a bully.....
 
Reactions: Merckx index
So you're claiming Freeman ran BC's and Sky's doping as a lone-man operation separate to Sutton, Peters, Burt & Brailsford and even the riders themselves & you believe Sutton told Lawton the truth anonymously and when Burt opened the order of Testogel, Peters & Freeman panicked? So much they decided Freeman should fabricate it was their licenced suppliers fault (also with their own paper trail) they received, as ordered, what Freeman needed for riders, for no reason and not only that, left an email, invoice and bank paper trail for UKAD, all because Burt opened a box of Testogel? Then Freeman makes up different lies to UKAD & GMC, when all they had to do in the first place was accept the package and do with it what they intended and nobody would ever know other than Burt who had access to the medical store anyway? No doubt you will be aware Burt in 2011 at this period of history in the team packaged Triamcinolone for Freeman in the Wiggins TUE thread - if you believe that was what was in the package and what he put in there for Cope.
Let's see if your belittling of me stacks up better to fmk's earlier - all which has turned out to be a story around the breakdown of relationships between Freeman, Sutton & Wiggins we are now witnessing and as I also claimed Lawton is involved too for withholding a story regarding Sutton, Testogel & bullying in return for the jiffybag fabrication it looks like was paid for.
 
Last edited:
Also claimed by O'Rourke, she said DCMS omitted several pieces of evidence from their report. Lets see who's statements the DCMS decided to not bother including, only referenced:

Phil Burt (DOP0006)
Dr Richard Freeman (DOP0007)

I'll leave you with this witness statement from DCMS from another Doctor in Team Sky with Freeman, which is undoubtedly Dr Richard Usher or Dr Alan Farrell .

At the committee interview Shane hid behind trusting the medical team this is utter nonsense he directed the medical team he constantly bullied Richard Freeman
 
@sam I don't need to believe anything beacuse I don't have a pre-conceived narrative. What I have are the facts. The facts are that a cycling doc received PEDs and then lied about it...inlcuding to UKAD. And his GT riders were once very poor but were now very skinny and could climb and time trial with impunity........
 
Reactions: TheSpud
Question for medical geeks hereabouts: Freeman ordered and received Testogel, which is gel in a sachet, 30 sachets to a box, 50mg of gel per sachet? Is this correct so far?

Typically, what are the micro-dosing levels? How little would you be using, and how often?
You'd have to ask Salazar...

On a more serious note, I'm not sure it's known. response is going to differ person to person and I'm not sure there have been any decent studies into it. With micro-dosing I think the idea is to use as much as you think you can get by the testers, rather than a specific amount. Here's a study on detection of a single dose of 100mg via the biological passport in 8 men over 12, 24, 36 and 48 hours:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/dta.2341

Quick summary, all 8 returned abnormal 5αAdiol/E ratios up to 36 hours. All but 1 were abnormal in one of the 4 other ratios up to 24 hours and the one who was not provided 2 instead of 3 baseline samples (in such a small study this seems strange, I'm guessing it was a student project so they couldn't re-recruit). Urine analysis wasn't as good, as you might expect. This was with a limited baseline, so it's possible that range would be extended with a longer ABP.

There are some other interesting points. 5α reductase is noted as found in high concentrations in the skin, so the 5α makers are likely the best way of detecting transdermal T doping. I'm not sure if the same is found with intra-muscular injections, but it maybe points to the requirement for a range of testing methods to detect the different methods of doping with the same compound.
 
The problem with Testogel is that it’s an incredibly inefficient means of delivering synthetic testosterone, so the 50mg sachet will only be good for a fraction of that dose when absorbed into the body.

Intramuscular injections are the only efficient means of delivery for true performance enhancement.

In any dose Testogel is pretty much useless for enhancing strength, speed, muscle development etc

What Testogel does do is provide enough of a dose when applied daily to restore depleted levels in individuals (wether that depletion is age related or from the inevitable decline experienced by athletes during heavy endurance training blocks) back to ‘normal’ ranges. Hence it’s historic use in cycling I think.

So to answer the question, 30 x 50mg sachets really is a very minimal level for one individual for a month to see any benefit at all. ‘Microdosing’ with anything less would be pretty pointless ime.
There's a lot of statement of fact in this. Do you have any links showing that "Testogel is pretty much useless for enhancing strength, speed, muscle development etc"?
 
Sinkewitz scored a 24/1 T/E using a satchet [1], Kessler got it up to 85/1 with Andriol [2] - yet both drugs are much less potent than some injection. So bottom line is, it worked, it has always worked as intended.

Both ratios are also lower than the probability that this was the first and only order of T by anyone from Sky/British Cycling.

[1] https://www.spiegel.de/sport/sonst/testosteron-gel-radprofi-sinkewitz-gesteht-doping-a-497493.html
[2] https://www.sueddeutsche.de/sport/doping-noch-mehr-testosteron-1.714113
Can you provide translations of these articles please. Failing a doping test and doping being effective are two different things.
 
@sam as a rather large aside...you do realise Freeman could be providing PEDs and Sutton can also be a liar (and bully)...they are not mutually exclusive - indeed, from other stories I think he is both a liar and a bully. The problem SKY have is that SDB lied about the jiffybag and Freeman has lied about the T. Now, petty infighting might be the reason...however, as per upthread...I find the chances of them lying and putting at risk the whole of the BC/SKY success and riches based on petty personal grievances a whole lot lower than lying because they are up to no good PED-wise.........be that team wide, or what appears more likely, an insider/outsider more informal model......
 
There's a lot of statement of fact in this. Do you have any links showing that "Testogel is pretty much useless for enhancing strength, speed, muscle development etc"?
I'm just basing that statement on doseage really...

Its not a google search i want to do from my office, but IIRC the absorption rate for testogel and similar products is as low 2-12% dependant on personal and environmental factors.

So if we optimistically use 10% to make the maths easy, a daily sachet of 50mg is going to give you a weekly effective dose of just 35mg. You also have to factor in that as soon as you start introducing exogenous testosterone the body senses this and responds by reducing production of its own endogenous supplies. This suppression isn't an issue in individuals who are already suppressed through age, illness or other stresses such as high volume endurance training, hence the use of Testogel as a therapeutic aid....but true sports performance enhancement is another matter.

To give the doseages some context, in bodybuilding circles testesterone is added to almost any AAS cycle firstly to counteract the shutdown of natural testosterone production that accompanies the use of any Androgens. For this purpose, typical dosing would be minimum 150-200mg per week, delivered by intramuscular injection. But remember this is for replacing natural production only. If you start using synthetic testosterone as a standalone product for strength and size gains then doseages used range from 400mg per week for beginners, up to 800-1000mg per week for long time users. Its pretty commonly held that pro's are using in excess of 2000mg per week!

Contrast this to the 35mg per week, minus whatever natural production is lost by a healthy individual when using Testogel.

Now i know that bodybuilding and cycling are 2 completely opposite ends of the spectrum, and im not denying that Testogel has its place in recovery protocols for endurance athletes, but when it comes to anyone looking to enhance speed and strength i stand my my statement that Testogel is pretty much useless.

I will however admit that this is pure 'Broscience', the kind of education you get from spending 20 years in proper gyms - so im happy to hear alternative views form those more academically informed...
 
May 12, 2010
488
0
9,280
Can you provide translations of these articles please. Failing a doping test and doping being effective are two different things.
Google translate is pretty accurate. "Effective" as in able to be absorbed in a given timeframe enough to produce very, very high levels of free T. And thus presumably being able to produce the intended effect.

Regarding the other longish post: This is no hormone replacement therapy, the athlete is just able to compensate for low T and elevated cortisol from training loads when it counts most. Both Andriol and Testogel are proven to not shut down endocrine gonadal production - at least not the way they're being abused by athletes.

Edit: The same applied to T propionate that was very popular among amateurs over here (product name "Eifelfango" that came in convenient small vials and which name was somehow funny because the "Eifel" is a low mountain range in my area that is very popular among cyclists. Many current Pros hold Strava KOMs there. I remember their joking very well, the laughter, the syringes and bandages in the dump...).
 
Last edited:
Google translate is pretty accurate. "Effective" as in able to be absorbed in a given timeframe enough to produce very, very high levels of free T. And thus presumably being able to produce the intended effect.

Regarding the other longish post: This is no hormone replacement therapy, the athlete is just able to compensate for low T and elevated cortisol from training loads when it counts most. Both Andriol and Testogel are proven to not shut down endocrine gonadal production - at least not the way they're being abused by athletes.
Really...id be interested to see that proof?

Happy to learn and be proved wrong, but my understanding is that any form of synthetic testosterone will shut down natural production to some extent...
 
Google translate is pretty accurate. "Effective" as in able to be absorbed in a given timeframe enough to produce very, very high levels of free T. And thus presumably being able to produce the intended effect.

Regarding the other longish post: This is no hormone replacement therapy, the athlete is just able to compensate for low T and elevated cortisol from training loads when it counts most. Both Andriol and Testogel are proven to not shut down endocrine gonadal production - at least not the way they're being abused by athletes.
Unfortunately this is impossible for someone to assess who doesn't speak/read the language. That's why we request that a translation is provided. It doesn't have to be the whole thing, just the general gist and pertinent points.

Again, is there a link to show this:

"Both Andriol and Testogel are proven to not shut down endocrine gonadal production - at least not the way they're being abused by athletes." Or is that what the article you posted is saying?
 
May 12, 2010
488
0
9,280
Unfortunately this is impossible for someone to assess who doesn't speak/read the language. That's why we request that a translation is provided. It doesn't have to be the whole thing, just the general gist and pertinent points.

Again, is there a link to show this:

"Both Andriol and Testogel are proven to not shut down endocrine gonadal production - at least not the way they're being abused by athletes." Or is that what the article you posted is saying?
Just search Science Direct for Andriol, there is plenty of material out there. The HPG axis recovers very quickly compared to regular HRTs.

One problem with the gel application were men rubbed it on their lower bellies and there were cases where wife or children had skin contact and got "contaminated".

I have notorious low T so I did some research back then and discussed it with a doc. He said, he preferred prescribing injections rather than transdermal applications. I got AD tested during competition frequently so HRT was no option for me. I always sucked at stage races.
 
I'm just basing that statement on doseage really...

Its not a google search i want to do from my office, but IIRC the absorption rate for testogel and similar products is as low 2-12% dependant on personal and environmental factors.

So if we optimistically use 10% to make the maths easy, a daily sachet of 50mg is going to give you a weekly effective dose of just 35mg. You also have to factor in that as soon as you start introducing exogenous testosterone the body senses this and responds by reducing production of its own endogenous supplies. This suppression isn't an issue in individuals who are already suppressed through age, illness or other stresses such as high volume endurance training, hence the use of Testogel as a therapeutic aid....but true sports performance enhancement is another matter.

To give the doseages some context, in bodybuilding circles testesterone is added to almost any AAS cycle firstly to counteract the shutdown of natural testosterone production that accompanies the use of any Androgens. For this purpose, typical dosing would be minimum 150-200mg per week, delivered by intramuscular injection. But remember this is for replacing natural production only. If you start using synthetic testosterone as a standalone product for strength and size gains then doseages used range from 400mg per week for beginners, up to 800-1000mg per week for long time users. Its pretty commonly held that pro's are using in excess of 2000mg per week!

Contrast this to the 35mg per week, minus whatever natural production is lost by a healthy individual when using Testogel.

Now i know that bodybuilding and cycling are 2 completely opposite ends of the spectrum, and im not denying that Testogel has its place in recovery protocols for endurance athletes, but when it comes to anyone looking to enhance speed and strength i stand my my statement that Testogel is pretty much useless.

I will however admit that this is pure 'Broscience', the kind of education you get from spending 20 years in proper gyms - so im happy to hear alternative views form those more academically informed...

That's fine, it was more if you did have any links to research as I couldn't find any.

I'd question whether suppression happens. Variable T levels aren't uncommon in people, so the tolerance in the endocrine system may allow small amounts of exogenous T doping, but endocrinology is something I'm really not that familiar with. This relates back to @Mr.38% 's post which is why I was wondering if he had a link, or if the link posted said that.

I'd also question the distinction between the direct enhancement of performance and the secondary enhancement of performance via recovery aids. Recovery aids do two things as far as I'm aware. During competition they allow you to recover quicker, so you can perform at a higher level than you otherwise would be able to, and out of competition they allow you to recover quicker so you can either improve faster or improve more. The increase in speed and strength might be small, but at the pointy end of competition it could be the difference between winners and also rans, particularly in disciplines where races can be won by the width of a tyre.

Just search Science Direct for Andriol, there is plenty of material out there. The HPG axis recovers very quickly compared to regular HRTs.

One problem with the gel application were men rubbed it on their lower bellies and there were cases where wife or children had skin contact and got "contaminated".

I have notorious low T so I did some research back then and discussed it with a doc. He said, he preferred prescribing injections rather than transdermal applications. I got AD tested during competition frequently so HRT was no option for me. I always sucked at stage races.
Sorry, that's not how the rules work, which I know is backwards to other places, but if evidence is requested it should be provided. I'm lucky that I can go to Science Direct or Pub Med and read pretty much whatever I want, but not everyone will know they exist or have access beyond the abstract of the papers listed.

I'll take you at your word (I can't see why you'd lie) so it's interesting as this may indicate that micro-dosing could have a small effect. Whether this has been tested though I've been unable to check.
 
The problem with Testogel is that it’s an incredibly inefficient means of delivering synthetic testosterone, so the 50mg sachet will only be good for a fraction of that dose when absorbed into the body.
I'm happier to sideline that off to a separate discussion, it tends to distract from the actual question asked (here, dosages and confirmation of what was actually ordered) when we get into discussion of whether doping works and what methods work better than others. All that really matters in this instance is this is the substance actually (allegedly) being used.
 
On a more serious note, I'm not sure it's known. response is going to differ person to person and I'm not sure there have been any decent studies into it. With micro-dosing I think the idea is to use as much as you think you can get by the testers, rather than a specific amount. Here's a study on detection of a single dose of 100mg via the biological passport in 8 men over 12, 24, 36 and 48 hours:
Yes, I agree, dosage is likely to vary from person to person, the question is very general, I know, I was really just hoping for basic ballparks, Xmg every Y days. We have over time established a notion of what microdosing with EPO actually means, I'm not sure we have a clue what microdosing with testosterone means, not without numbers attached to it. I think we can all vaguely accept that 30x50mg sachets is not very much, I'm just curious to how not very much. It would be enough for a single cycle, we'd all guess even without knowing the actual math.

I think I did see mention of the ABP being capable of spotting a single 100mg dose six days after, if the baseline was properly established. The steroidal ABP only came in in 2014 though, and Freeman's Testogel sachets were for use in 2011. So the ABP threshold is useful but maybe not all that here.
 
im not denying that Testogel has its place in recovery protocols for endurance athletes, but when it comes to anyone looking to enhance speed and strength i stand my my statement that Testogel is pretty much useless.
We always seem to get this argument on doping, as if doping was only something done in competition.

If doping helps you train harder - and you say T has a role in recovery protocols, which is training - then surely we can accept that that is producing an in competition speed and strength benefit, in which case the attempted distinction is false.

We also have the in competition recovery protocol to consider: GTs are attritional, they're about who wears out last. In which case anything that helps you recover, it helps, even if it doesn't directly produce speed/strength.
 
We always seem to get argument this on doping, as if doping was only something done in competition.

If doping helps you train harder - and you say T has a role in recovery protocols, which is training - then surely we can accept that that is producing an in competition speed and strength benefit, in which case the attempted distinction is false.

We also have the in competition recovery protocol to consider: GTs are attritional, they're about who wears out last. In which case anything that helps you recover, it helps, even if it doesn't directly produce speed/strength.
Yes of course i agree, being able to recover more quickly is in itself an important aspect of performance enhancement, i was just trying to give some context to the doseage.....over the course of several posts i've/we've digressed from my original intent which was to answer your question about typical micro dosing levels.

I think its impossible to post exact doseages, but to summarise and on the basis of everything i've posted above i'm of the opinion that 1 box of 30 sachets is a very minimal doseage (call it micro dosing if you like) which could only be used to impart any benefits on a single athlete....its certainly not going to be shared out amongst the team.
 
Last edited:
May 12, 2010
488
0
9,280
Sorry, that's not how the rules work, which I know is backwards to other places, but if evidence is requested it should be provided. I'm lucky that I can go to Science Direct or Pub Med and read pretty much whatever I want, but not everyone will know they exist or have access beyond the abstract of the papers listed.

I'll take you at your word (I can't see why you'd lie) so it's interesting as this may indicate that micro-dosing could have a small effect. Whether this has been tested though I've been unable to check.
I'm sorry, now I got it. I mentioned the articles to quote the actual T/E ratios in two cases where transdermal or ingested T was used:

"Sinkewitz, who had finished the 8th stage, had been tested positive at a training control on June 8th. In the A sample, the testosterone epitestosterone level should have been 24: 1. A value of 4: 1 is allowed. Sinkewitz threatens at least a two-year ban."

"Kessler was surprised by an unannounced doping control on April 24, the day before the launch of spring classic Flèche Wallone. The analysis in Ghent showed a testosterone value of around 85: 1 - the permissible limit is four to one. "A value over 15 to 20 is endogenous not possible according to recent studies," said Professor Wilhelm Schänzer, director of the Institute of Biochemistry at the Sport University Cologne."

I could not find the reference to the mentioned studies right now, I'm pretty sure a few were from Nieschlag and/or Swerdloff or referenced their work. It was about the lack of extreme serum levels that occur with injections that helped keeping the HG axis intact.
 
1 box of 30 sachets is a very minimal doseage (call it micro dosing if you like) which could only be used to impart any benefits on a single athlete....its certainly not going to be shared out amongst the team.
Again, I think you're not actually giving a helpful answer, you're saying what most all of us guess anyway, that one box would not be a team-wide doping programme. The problem with stating that in response to a different question is that some people lose the team-wide and say one box is not (part of) a doping programme.

Whether the drugs work, whether there's one rider or one hundred riders in the 'programme', they're different questions and can be thrashed out separately. My questions were what was ordered (it was 50mg sachets and not, say, patches) and what would a 'typical' Testosterone micro-dosing programme/cycle look like (Xmg every Y days).
 
Again, I think you're not actually giving a helpful answer, you're saying what most all of us guess anyway, that one box would not be a team-wide doping programme. The problem with stating that in response to a different question is that some people lose the team-wide and say one box is not (part of) a doping programme.

Whether the drugs work, whether there's one rider or one hundred riders in the 'programme', they're different questions and can be thrashed out separately. My questions were what was ordered (it was 50mg sachets and not, say, patches) and what would a 'typical' Testosterone micro-dosing programme/cycle look like (Xmg every Y days).
what was ordered (it was 50mg sachets and not, say, patches)

Thats an easy one...yes it was 50mg sachets

'typical' Testosterone micro-dosing programme/cycle look like (Xmg every Y days).

Not such an easy one to answer, its a very individual thing. Different rates of absorption, different rates of suppression. The aim of testosterone 'supplementation' is to establish stable blood values. Its mostly a case of trial and error with constant blood work to monitor effectiveness and establish how the individual reacts to doseage.

I think KB nailed it when he said that 'micro dosing' was basically taking as much as you can without triggering the test. Even this will vary greatly between individuals.

But i'll repeat, imho using one 50mg sachet per day, for at least 30 days is just about the bare minimum for any kind of performance enhancement. Anything less would be a waste of time.

Sorry if this isn't specific enough for you, but i dont believe a specific answer exists to your second question. I've simply tried to provide some doseage related context for consideration.
 
I'm sorry, now I got it. I mentioned the articles to quote the actual T/E ratios in two cases where transdermal or ingested T was used:

"Sinkewitz, who had finished the 8th stage, had been tested positive at a training control on June 8th. In the A sample, the testosterone epitestosterone level should have been 24: 1. A value of 4: 1 is allowed. Sinkewitz threatens at least a two-year ban."

"Kessler was surprised by an unannounced doping control on April 24, the day before the launch of spring classic Flèche Wallone. The analysis in Ghent showed a testosterone value of around 85: 1 - the permissible limit is four to one. "A value over 15 to 20 is endogenous not possible according to recent studies," said Professor Wilhelm Schänzer, director of the Institute of Biochemistry at the Sport University Cologne."

I could not find the reference to the mentioned studies right now, I'm pretty sure a few were from Nieschlag and/or Swerdloff or referenced their work. It was about the lack of extreme serum levels that occur with injections that helped keeping the HG axis intact.
Great, thanks, I'll try dig them out if I get chance.


@fmk_RoI and @brownbobby, I think the best answer anyone can give is that what was ordered might be a typical programme for one rider over a period of 2-n months. Defining n is dificult. As fmk_RoI notes, we don't really have an idea of what T microdosing looks like and as brownbobby notes, T can be used for both recovery and gains (both fmk and I questioned the distinction but lets say the distinction is dosage, which seems fair and a good interpretation of what brownbobby was implying). One 50mg sachet used twice a week to help recover after intense training efforts would mean 2 months regime in the box. Testing seems to extend to at least 48 hours after administration of 100mg, so I can't imagine anyone wanting to push their luck by increasing dosage and frequency much above that (this would be very different in sports where less testing goes on) if the gains are purely recovery (small but measurable). It's possible it's one a week, just to take the edge off, so that's over 6 months. If it's gains (larger than recovery gains) it might have to be 3-5 week, cycled on and off to avoid glow periods and chance the testing. So that's looking around 2-4 months. I think that, making assumptions about efficacy, that's a fair interpretation.


The main issue is that we don't really know what realistic gains such low levels give, recovery or otherwise. I can't remember any study looking at it. Which, I suppose, goes back to my slightly flippant comment of you'd have to ask Salazar. After all, he's admitted to trialling it.


Edit: I'm aware certain tests post-date the purchase of the Testogel and the steroid profile introduction into the ABP like @fmk_RoI pointed out, I still think my reasoning out is fairly sound but at a pinch you could double the dose, half the time.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: fmk_RoI
A lot of people are assuming these products were for the likes of Wiggins and the Dawg. I get that and I can see why.

But you also have the likes of Kenny (nee Trott) and Archibald still dumping on others from a great height.
 
And you have to ask if incoming testogel unpacked by a suprised Burt required lies & cover-up by Freeman and Peters demanded written evidence from Freeman it had been returned and destroyed, why wasn't Burt just as surprised being asked to pack alleged Triamcinolone for Freeman from the velodrome a few weeks later? The dates are: Testogel arrived May 16, 2011, Triamcinolone was allegedly packed and collected by Cope on June 12, 2011 . So 4 weeks apart. What happened? Did Burt & Peters switch from being shocked a prohibited substance arrived and was in the velodrome, to one where they are packing them up to go out of the velodrome in the space of a few weeks?

I think it's pretty obvious what has happened, I just hope Daily Mail don't do a deal with Sutton to agree the Testogel was for him in return that O'Rourke doesn't use the power of 35A to publish their affidavit. I'm not sure what the legal position is for them, I assume insured by Sutton's word in it that what's inside the jiffy is all true, but surely Sutton will be exposed to defamation by Freeman, Brailsford, Wiggins, Cope, Burt & Peters so in his interest 35A isn't applied to discredit his word over claiming the Testogel wasn't for him.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS