• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 33 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
@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...
 
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?
 
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:
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:
  • Like
Reactions: fmk_RoI
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:
And you really think Peters and Burt were shocked?!

It was obviously for Wiggins. Leinders was mastermind behind it, Sir Dave and Peters obviously knew, Sutton was Wiggo's personal coach and Freeman his personal Dr.
Not that hard to understand, really...
 
I've tried skimming back through this thread and other online reports but i cant easily find the answer.......how did the Testogel delivery come to light; was it part of the 'whistleblower' allegations or was it found in records at the Velodrome when UKAD carried out the raid?
 
I've tried skimming back through this thread and other online reports but i cant easily find the answer.......how did the Testogel delivery come to light; was it part of the 'whistleblower' allegations or was it found in records at the Velodrome when UKAD carried out the raid?
A 2017 Sunday Times story claiming UKAD had found out about it as part of their initial inquiry, with Peters the principal source. CN report.

(Tip: Google News, sort by date order, go straight to last page.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: brownbobby

TRENDING THREADS