Hypothesis - Could Tom Danielson have been Innocent of Doping in 2015?

I note the following regarding Tom Danielson's 'Positive test for Artificial Testosterone' in 2015:

* Tom Danielson did not test positive for high T/E – the (false?) ‘positive’ was based ONLY on the CIR test

* According to Jonathan Vaughters in an interview I saw (link now lost), the Artificial testosterone was estimated in the PICOGRAMS – which implies only an extremely small difference between the testosterone and the epitestosterone [EDIT - CHOLESTEROL (OR OTHER REFERENCE STEROID) NOT EPITESTOSTERONE] C13/C12 ratios on which this estimate was based.

* The reason the CIR test ‘works’ is that artificial testosterone is made from e.g. soy, which has low C13/C12 ratio, much lower than most foodstuffs from which the body manufactures its own natural testosterone & epitestosterone [EDIT - REFERENCE STEROID]. If you ingest artificial testosterone, then the testosterone (coming partly from the artificial soy-based testosterone) will have lower C13/C12 ratio than the epitestosterone [EDIT - REFERENCE STEROID] (containing higher C13/C12 ratio due to coming largely from non-soy-based foodstuffs having higher C13/C12 ratio).

* HOWEVER - I note that Tom Danielson is now VEGAN (uncommon for athletes). Was he perhaps Vegetarian/semi-vegetarian/Vegan at the time of his ‘positive’ test? Specifically – WAS HE INTERMITTENTLY EATING HIGH QUANTITIES OF SOY-BASED PROTEIN? (which has low C13/C12 ratio) This is a common practice among vegetarians – but likely not tested for specifically in the control group on which WADA based its CIR test???????

* I am not at all an expert at pharmacokinetics, but if I recall correctly, peak epitestosterone and peak testosterone [EDIT - REFERENCE STEROID]in urine from food ingestion come different numbers of hours after food ingestion. Could it be that the epitestosterone [EDIT - REFERENCE STEROID] in his urine came from a non-soy-containing meal containing high C13/C12 ratios, and that his urinary testosterone came from another meal a few hours earlier (or later – I am not sure which way round it is as I cannot recall if it is the testosterone which peaks first or the epitestosterone [EDIT - REFERENCE STEROID] – please can someone look that up?) containing low C13/C12 ratios, thus giving in a difference in the ratios which was interpreted as ‘Artificial testosterone in the picograms’?



Please can someone do the calculations for this, as whilst I do have a degree in physics and a PhD in the Physical sciences (although I please ask that if you know who I am then not to put this on the boards as I prefer to maintain my anonymity as far as the message board goes and don’t want to speak to journalists – if you have a legitimate interest/question then PM me and ask me for my email address), this is not my area of expertise, and I do not want to do a load of calculations on something I don’t understand properly. But I think it is important for someone to do these calculations, as there may well have been a miscarriage of justice. But I don’t know. I want WADA to look into it in terms of whether the CIR test should have some kind of adjustment in its ratification for the ratio differences required for a positive CIR test.



If this hypothesis is correct, then the reason for Tom Danielson’s positive test may well have been ordinary diet and nothing to do with supplement contamination, and if so, then there should have been no ban at all, not even a reduced ban due to ‘unintentional supplement contamination’. Please note that I AM NOT AN EXPERT – I just want the experts to look into this.

Argyle Fan
 
Last edited:
Reactions: joe_papp
If this hypothesis is correct, then the reason for Tom Danielson’s positive test may well have been ordinary diet and nothing to do with supplement contamination, and if so, then there should have been no ban at all, not even a reduced ban due to ‘unintentional supplement contamination’. Please note that I AM NOT AN EXPERT – I just want the experts to look into this.

Argyle Fan
What are you doing here then?
 
Reactions: the delgados
Vegan athletes are uncommon? They perform at the highest level of virtually every athletic endeavor. You clealry don't know what the *** you are talking about
Fair enough, maybe I don't know enough about vegans. If you read carefully, the main point is not so much the veganism, but the POSSIBLE INGESTION OF SOY PROTEIN FOR SOME MEALS BUT NOT OTHERS (and of course, some meateaters may well do this too - but certainly the 'veganism' is what got me thinking about this possibility). Soy contains low C_(13)/C_(12) ratio, and artificial testosterone is made from soy, so food-ingested low C_(13)/C_(12) from soy could well be metabolised into low C_(13)/C_(12) natural testosterone in the urine, mimicing the low C_(13)/C_(12) ratios for artificial testosterone in the urine. Meanwhile, the epitestosterone in the urine (the 'reference/control' steroid, could well have come from food more weighted to food ingested from other meals than the 'high-soy' meal, due to the difference in the pharmacokinetics/metabolism time for the eptitestosterone in the urine as compared to the testosterone in the urine.

I'm happy to be told I'm wrong about the scientific details etc, but please can we keep this civil, and stick to the substantive arguments.

The reason I am posting here is precisely that I am not an expert, so it seems premature to go to WADA etc., when I know that there are people who frequent these boards who do have a lot of expertise - but please can we avoid the uncivil comments.
 
I note the following regarding Tom Danielson's 'Positive test for Artificial Testosterone' in 2015:

* Tom Danielson did not test positive for high T/E – the (false?) ‘positive’ was based ONLY on the CIR test
Ok, it's probably going to be easiest to reply like this. Your understanding of how the test works seems ok, but your understanding of how it is applied and the associated biology isn't really there. There's also a couple of things mentioned that are usually mentioned in an attempt to distract, so I'm going to reply to those too next quote.


* According to Jonathan Vaughters in an interview I saw (link now lost), the Artificial testosterone was estimated in the PICOGRAMS – which implies only an extremely small difference between the testosterone and the epitestosterone C13/C12 ratios on which this estimate was based.
This argument usually comes up in doping cases and is either used to argue that whatever was detected wouldn't really have had an effect, or that the levels are so low then a positive conclusion can't really be drawn.

Testosterone can be measured to sub-picogram levels. Dogmatically the limit of quantitation is about 5 times the limit of detection, so amounts in the picograms can readily be measure and quantified.

I know you didn't make the argument about effect, but just to highlight that low detection amounts does not necessarily mean low infusion amounts. The time something is taken compared to when a sample is drawn is the limiting factor here. I should also highlight that it has been suggested in other cases, Namely Contador's, that very low amounts may be indicative of autologous blood transfusion.


* The reason the CIR test ‘works’ is that artificial testosterone is made from e.g. soy, which has low C13/C12 ratio, much lower than most foodstuffs from which the body manufactures its own natural testosterone & epitestosterone. If you ingest arttificial testosterone, then the testosterone (coming partly from the artificial soy-based testosterone) will have lower C13/C12 ratio than the epitestosterone (containing higher C13/C12 ratio due to coming largely from non-soy-based foodstuffs having higher C13/C12 ratio).

* HOWEVER - I note that Tom Danielson is now VEGAN (uncommon for athletes). Was he perhaps Vegetarian/semi-vegetarian/Vegan at the time of his ‘positive’ test? Specifically – WAS HE INTERMITTENTLY EATING HIGH QUANTITIES OF SOY-BASED PROTEIN? (which has low C13/C12 ratio) This is a common practice among vegetarians – but likely not tested for specifically in the control group on which WADA based its CIR test???????
You are correct in how this testing can work, but not in the application. They don't compare these values to reference standards or reference data, as many of these standards differ and so do ratios in people. The SIR test works by comparing the 13/12 ratio in epitestosterone and/or testosterone with another compound in the sample, like cholesterol (although I've seen tests using other pre-cursors/products such as androsterone and androstanediol, I'm unsure which test anti-doping bodies are using). You essentially provide your own internal standard. If the ratio in these other compounds is the same as your 13/12 ratio in T and E, you're fine. If it differs, you're in trouble.


* I am not at all an expert at pharmacokinetics, but if I recall correctly, peak epitestosterone and peak testosterone in urine from food ingestion come different numbers of hours after food ingestion. Could it be that the epitestosterone in his urine came from a non-soy-containing meal containing high C13/C12 ratios, and that his urinary testosterone came from another meal a few hours earlier (or later – I am not sure which way round it is as I cannot recall if it is the testosterone which peaks first or the epitestosterone – please can someone look that up?) containing low C13/C12 ratios, thus giving in a difference in the ratios which was interpreted as ‘Artificial testosterone in the picograms’?
This seems incredibly unlikely, and I would argue is more likely to happen in non-vegetarian athletes who happen to eat vegetarian food one day and meat the next. However, I'm pretty certain testosterone is well maintained over shorter timescales, days, weeks etc. I've seen some work detailing seasonal variation. Either way, the precursor would still have the same 13/12 ratio, so I think this hypotheses are incorrect and we would have seen it used elsewhere if it were possible.



Please can someone do the calculations for this, as whilst I do have a degree in physics and a PhD in the Physical sciences (although I please ask that if you know who I am then not to put this on the boards as I prefer to maintain my anonymity as far as the message board goes and don’t want to speak to journalists – if you have a legitimate interest/question then PM me and ask me for my email address), this is not my area of expertise, and I do not want to do a load of calculations on something I don’t understand properly. But I think it is important for someone to do these calculations, as there may well have been a miscarriage of justice. But I don’t know. I want WADA to look into it in terms of whether the CIR test should have some kind of adjustment in its ratification for the ratio differences required for a positive CIR test.
Tommy D can pay someone to do this is he or his advisers think it's an avenue they should pursue.


If this hypothesis is correct, then the reason for Tom Danielson’s positive test may well have been ordinary diet and nothing to do with supplement contamination, and if so, then there should have been no ban at all, not even a reduced ban due to ‘unintentional supplement contamination’. Please note that I AM NOT AN EXPERT – I just want the experts to look into this.

Argyle Fan
I am pretty certain your hypothesis is wrong, but obviously can't be sure without being provided with all the data.
 
...this week did i hear his name linked to 'dirty dealings' among gravel riding?

..male riders with no pretence of riding for success supporting female teamates after mass start

Mark L
Probably the wrong place to discuss it, although I haven't started the thread yet, but I think that's probably a bad interpretation of what happened. There are big issues in gravel racing at the moment and it's a multi-faceted problem, but the gist of it seems to be an attempt to retain the spirit of relaxed solo racing within a rapidly growing and developing race scene that relies on big, bunch starts.
 
Reactions: jmdirt and yaco
KING BOONEN:
Ok, it's probably going to be easiest to reply like this. Your understanding of how the test works seems ok, but your understanding of how it is applied and the associated biology isn't really there. There's also a couple of things mentioned that are usually mentioned in an attempt to distract, so I'm going to reply to those too next quote.

MY REPLY:
Yes, you are correct - my knowledge of biology isn't there. It is indeed e.g. cholesterol which is used as the reference steroid - I'll edit my original post to reflect this. Unfortunately I was working from memory from some science I read a number of years ago as I was unable to locate the original source - apologies for rushing my post.

KING BOONEN:
This argument usually comes up in doping cases and is either used to argue that whatever was detected wouldn't really have had an effect, or that the levels are so low then a positive conclusion can't really be drawn.

MY REPLY:
Entirely correct that this argument comes up in doping cases to mislead/distract but this was not what I was attempting to do - the point I tried (but maybe failed) to make was that such a low amount (i.e. picograms could indeed come from the ingestion of low C13/C12 food of the order of e.g. 100g of food. For example
TS = How much C13/C12 testosterone in urine from 100 grams of soya protein
TW = How much C13/C12 testosterone in urine from 100 grams of wheat protein (which will be higher than for soya)
CS = How much C13/C12 cholesterol in urine from 100 grams of soya protein
CW = How much C13/C12 cholesterol in urine from 100 grams of wheat protein (which will be higher than for soya)
Imagine that the cyclist first ate a soya meal (containing C13/C12 mimicing artificial testosterone), then a few hours later ate a wheat meal (containing C13/C12 mimicing natural testosterone).
Imagine that the urine contains testosterone deriving largely from the soya meal and cholesterol deriving frim the wheat meal owing to different metabolism times for the protein to be converted into the steroids (recalling iirc that the testosterone is created from the reservoir of cholesterol in the body).
Then do the following calculation (recalling that TW=CW=C13/C12 ratio for natural testosterone and that TS=CS=C13/C12 ratio for artificial testosterone) you find (very approximately):
estimated percentage of testosterone from artificial sources = (TS - TW)/(CW) X 100%
estimated weight in picograms of artificial testosterone = weight in picograms of testosterone in urine X estimated percentage of testosterone from artificial sources/100%

KING BOONEN:
Testosterone can be measured to sub-picogram levels. Dogmatically the limit of quantitation is about 5 times the limit of detection, so amounts in the picograms can readily be measure and quantified.

I know you didn't make the argument about effect, but just to highlight that low detection amounts does not necessarily mean low infusion amounts. The time something is taken compared to when a sample is drawn is the limiting factor here. I should also highlight that it has been suggested in other cases, Namely Contador's, that very low amounts may be indicative of autologous blood transfusion.

MY REPLY:
I have certainly had thoughts about Contador's case - I have read Mike Ashenden's detailed comments to NYvelocity(?) re. how his evidence regarding the 2 types of bloodbag was suppressed and the science behind it and have also read the CAS report in detail. For a very long time I was 90% (but NOT 100%) sure Contador was guilty, and my doubt was indeed that there was contamination in the beef. I now have an hypothesis regarding how that contamination could have occurred - growth promoters etc. are frequently sourced from Chinese factories where standards are not always enforced - Could there have for instance been cross-contamination from a clenbuterol supply line which was later used for the manufacture of a Cattle growth promotor or medicine which is legal to use on farm animals in Spain? Then the contaminated growth-promotor/medicine injected into the cow, and the cow therefore having a teeny-tiny bit of clenbuterol in it? Clenbuterol has very long half-life in humans, so presumably also in cows? So that could be how clenbuterol got into cow despite the fact that clenbuterol is illegal to use on cows in Spain and few farmers use it.
I am certainly also able to read police reports, and am rather suspicious of 2006, albeit that there was an innocent explanation - but there were a couple of anonymous witnesses in the CAS report saying they had witnessed Contador dope, presumably from the time of Puerto. My guess therefore is that he maybe got away with doping in 2006 and may have been unfairly convicted in 2010 - swings and roundabouts. Just because someone doped in 2006 doesn't mean that they doped in 2010 - we know that there was a movement in the peloton away from doping at exactly that time period. The one thing that made me wonder was iirc I read in cyclingnews something saying that an anonymous cyclist claimed that Contador (around 2010) planned to 'take something for weight loss'.
Now we need Bayeseian statistics - Mike Ashenden makes much of the fact in his hypothesis in NYvelocity that the plasticisers were in the urine one day but not the subsequent one, and that this has to do with bloodbags containing plasticisers one day and plasma-bags not containing plasticisers the next day. He goes on about what a coincidence it is that it was 1 day apart and how plasma is infused 1 day after blood in order to fool the test re. blood values. But think of the Bayesian priors - what is the prior probability of it occurring from food contamination, and also you have to remember that Contador was one of the few people in the peloton being tested on consecutive days.
So now I am maybe 80% thinking he is innocent and 20% thinking he is guilty (and ready to change my mind again upon seeing further evidence) - so declined to post earlier, but thought I would now you have brought it up - it's a horrible situation for the sport when we don't know what to think.
I posted on Danielson as I think it maybe 90% likely that there's an innocent explanation - but I'd change my mind upon this if I saw the numbers e.g. order of magnitude estimates for a hypothetical cyclist.

KING BOONEN
You are correct in how this testing can work, but not in the application. They don't compare these values to reference standards or reference data, as many of these standards differ and so do ratios in people. The SIR test works by comparing the 13/12 ratio in epitestosterone and/or testosterone with another compound in the sample, like cholesterol (although I've seen tests using other pre-cursors/products such as androsterone and androstanediol, I'm unsure which test anti-doping bodies are using). You essentially provide your own internal standard. If the ratio in these other compounds is the same as your 13/12 ratio in T and E, you're fine. If it differs, you're in trouble.

MY REPLY:
Thanks for that explanation - if only I had written something equally clear in my initial post.

KING BOONEN:
This seems incredibly unlikely, and I would argue is more likely to happen in non-vegetarian athletes who happen to eat vegetarian food one day and meat the next. However, I'm pretty certain testosterone is well maintained over shorter timescales, days, weeks etc. I've seen some work detailing seasonal variation. Either way, the precursor would still have the same 13/12 ratio, so I think this hypotheses are incorrect and we would have seen it used elsewhere if it were possible.

MY REPLY:
I honestly don't know how likely it is without someone taking into consideration exactly the things you suggest and doing some calculations - e.g. is there a spike in testosterone in the urine after a meal superimposed on the longer-term variations you reference? I think that there is a lot to consider, and it would require human experiments (are they called pharmokinetic testing?).

KING BOONEN:
Tommy D can pay someone to do this is he or his advisers think it's an avenue they should pursue.

MY REPLY:
Yes it's up to him - I have no idea if he has read my communication but I informed him of the existence of this thread via his company saying not to post in the thread, not to say anything to the media, that I could not act as a scientific expert as I have no training and that he should hire his own experts to look into it if that's what he wants to do.

KING BOONEN:
I am pretty certain your hypothesis is wrong, but obviously can't be sure without being provided with all the data.
 
Last edited:
I forgot to say about the Contador case - the plasticisers can indeed come from e.g. food packaging etc. a large part of why the test was not ratified in the end. Personally I think they should still use the test, but only ratified as a screening test for increased target-testing for other substances which can be unambiguously prosecuted upon.

I would like to apologize in advance that I can only check this thread occasionally - I have a lot of work commitments at the moment and only so much time to spend on this issue.
 
As regards the fact that I mentioned that Tom Danielson was vegan/vegetarian - the frequency/pattern of soya-eating changes the Baysian priors for whether this is a likely explanation. For a far better explanation of Bayesian statistics that I am able to provide, please refer to the follwing Wikipedia page:
Bayesian statistics - Wikipedia

No I am not 'just trying to make excuses' for Danielson. The prior probability of nocturnal doping is indeed an input into the model for the statistical likelihoood.

The point I am trying to make is that I am currently unconvinced that the test should be ratified at such low levels of picograms without the 'IRREGULAR INGESTION OF SOYA' hypothesis being taken into account.
 
Last edited:
We know that Floyd Landis doped, but here are some interesting comments from Floyd Landis in his interview with Paul Kimmage in NYvelocity - an interview in which he had no reason to lie (he admits doping but says that he did not actually take testosterone the night before the test).

PAUL KIMMAGE: You submit to doping control after the stage and submit a sample with traces of testosterone. Where did that come from? My read was that it was in a transfusion?

FLOYD LANDIS: That was the hypothesis that a lot of people came up with and I couldn’t defend against it at the time because I couldn’t just say ‘This is when I did the transfusion and this is when the positive test came.’ But then they went back and ran the B samples on other tests and the pattern of the positives they came up with can in no way be related to the blood bags. It just doesn’t make sense. And the complexity of the test made it so that they could convict me without anybody actually looking at what they actually did. That lab…they probably do some good tests but the results they came-up with were absolutely senseless. They really never did identify testosterone. And the dumb part is…I actually took testosterone the year before that – the cream stuff I used the entire race – and I was tested and nothing came up. But then I decided if I am going to carry around drugs, I might as well carry around something that’s in a syringe. Doing testosterone was easier but growth hormone worked better.

FLOYD LANDIS; USADA (the United States Anti Doping Agency) have asked me to try and reconcile the tests with what happened, and I don’t want to discredit them or WADA (the World Anti Doping Agency) because I do think that there are some people there trying to do the right thing, but I stand by my argument that if you are going to have this strict liability thing, where people are responsible for everything they’ve got in their system, then you better get it right. I did use testosterone leading-up to the Tour, and I know what the clearance rate is, and I know more now about how the carbon-isotope test works and how long the delta change in the carbon isotope should last and how it should degrade over time and I can’t match it up with a blood transfusion. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
================================================================
I quote from the following paper:
Detection of testosterone administration based on the carbon isotope ratio profiling of endogenous steroids: international reference populations of professional soccer players | British Journal of Sports Medicine (bmj.com)
QUOTE:The natural abundance carbon isotopic ratio is expressed as a δ value relative to an international standard (Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite, VPDB; equation 1):[\UNQUOTE]

The practical outcome is the fact that the distribution of carbon isotopes in an animal reflects the relative abundance of food in the diet that originates directly or indirectly from C4 and C3 plants (either plants or animals that are lower in the food chain). Controlled diet studies have shown that the isotopic composition of the whole body of an animal is enriched by about 1‰ as a function of the isotopic composition of its diet.

The metabolism of an exogenous anabolic steroid in humans will cause depletion in 13C of the steroid itself or of its metabolites in urine specimens, since the primary source of synthetic preparations are phytosterols extracted from 13C depleted plants (C3 plants), mainly soy and Mexican yam. During the drug washout period, the 13C/12C ratio of these compounds will progressively return to the natural background values characteristic of the diet of the individual. Ultimately, the variation in the 13C/12C ratio of the testosterone metabolites will depend on 13C depletion of the pharmaceutical preparation administered, as well as the athlete’s baseline values and individual metabolism.12 In our study, we focused on populations representative of top-level athletes for whom a very low prevalence of doping was assumed. Figure 2 shows the 13C/12C ratio expressed in δ13C values (‰) of androsterone and etiocholanolone together with 16(5α)-androstenol and 5β-pregnanediol. Of note, we did not find any evidence against the assumption that the δ13C values were normally distributed for each target steroid. Comparisons between the different groups show that Italian and Swiss populations have more negative δ13C values for all the tested steroids. At the same time, the Japanese soccer players exhibited intermediate δ13C values compared to those of the European countries and the group comprising ARG, SAF and UGA. For all the studied steroids, Argentinean players and players of African countries displayed a similar enrichment in 13C (p>0.2).
END QUOTE

So this study was done on athletes in sports teams from 6 different countries, each of which stay in their local area eating the local food with its local 13C/12C which reaches an equilibrium value. It says elsewhere in the paper that the half-life in response to dietary changes is 17 days. But the cyclists are moving around the world every 2 weeks changing their diets maybe every time they move location - could this be relevant?

Actually, I've looked at a number of papers - and the conclusion I have come to is that if Tom Danielson has not taken the advice of a professional statistician, then it is very much in his interests to do so. So I quote from the article by Joe Lindsay in bicycling:
Our bodies create natural steroid hormones using the food we eat as fuel. Natural testosterone, for instance, is (usually) 98.9% Carbon 12, and 1.1% Carbon 13. Synthetic testosterone is usually made exclusively from soy, and it has a slightly different makeup: 99% C12, and 1% C13. The CIR test is sensitive enough to pick out that .1% difference.

But but but - just look at the following formula:
delta = [(C_13_sample/C_12_sample) - (C_13_reference/C_12_reference)] / [(C_13_reference/C_12_reference]
Imagine that the reference is slightly out of equilibrium (it says in one of the papers that the body adjusts to change in diet in around 17 days half-life) - call the change in C_13 in the reference chemicals 'dx' which is very small, and assume that the mass-spec is completely accurate - that the error is in fact coming from the body's natural reference chemical being out of kilter with the testosterone metabolized owing to an unequilibrated change in C13 in the body owing to change in diet. Then:

delta = [(C_13_sample/C_12_sample)-(C_13_reference+dx)/(C_12_reference-dx)] / [(C_13_reference)/(C_12_reference)

Note that dx in fact appears TWICE not once - I am very suspicious of something claimed to be so incredibly accurate which relies so heavily on the subtraction/difference of two numbers very close together, - errors PROPOGATE, and I suggest Danielson ask a professional statistician - there is a difference between precision and accuracy, and the test can be precise but not accurate. I noticed little to behold in the papers I read in terms of the statistics.
 
I note the following regarding Tom Danielson's 'Positive test for Artificial Testosterone' in 2015:

* Tom Danielson did not test positive for high T/E – the (false?) ‘positive’ was based ONLY on the CIR test
According to VeloNews Danielson's sample was flagged for a high 4.1:1 T/E ratio:


"There’s also the fact that Danielson’s A sample was flagged for a 4.1:1 ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone. When synthetic testosterone is introduced into the body, testosterone becomes elevated while epitestosterone does not, skewing the ratio. A T-E ratio of 4:1 or higher is considered abnormal and triggers a more advanced carbon isotope ratio test (CIR), which, in this instance, detected a banned substance."

I tried to find the USADA hearing on his case but it doesn't appear to available. Btw, Danielson has a history of T use: In his affidavit to USADA in the Armstrong/Postal investigation, he admitted to using T patches when he was with Discovery in 05.

The 4:1 T/E ratio is indicative of using androgens (T, steroids, DHEA, etc.). Normal for most is 1:1 and there can be some outliers at 2:1 & 3:1. Prior to CIR, it was a stand alone test needed to ban an athlete absent a positive test for steroids where T use was suspected.

Here's a good overview of Olympic Gold medalist Justin Gatlin's case from T&F. The presentation goes into depth on the T/E ratio & CIR test. Gatlin was flagged at 4:1 and his subsequent CIR was positive for synthetic T.

View: https://youtu.be/b-UdyXxPSJ0
 
Last edited:
I note the following regarding Tom Danielson's 'Positive test for Artificial Testosterone' in 2015:

* Tom Danielson did not test positive for high T/E – the (false?) ‘positive’ was based ONLY on the CIR test

* According to Jonathan Vaughters in an interview I saw (link now lost), the Artificial testosterone was estimated in the PICOGRAMS – which implies only an extremely small difference between the testosterone and the epitestosterone [EDIT - CHOLESTEROL (OR OTHER REFERENCE STEROID) NOT EPITESTOSTERONE] C13/C12 ratios on which this estimate was based.

* The reason the CIR test ‘works’ is that artificial testosterone is made from e.g. soy, which has low C13/C12 ratio, much lower than most foodstuffs from which the body manufactures its own natural testosterone & epitestosterone [EDIT - REFERENCE STEROID]. If you ingest artificial testosterone, then the testosterone (coming partly from the artificial soy-based testosterone) will have lower C13/C12 ratio than the epitestosterone [EDIT - REFERENCE STEROID] (containing higher C13/C12 ratio due to coming largely from non-soy-based foodstuffs having higher C13/C12 ratio).

* HOWEVER - I note that Tom Danielson is now VEGAN (uncommon for athletes). Was he perhaps Vegetarian/semi-vegetarian/Vegan at the time of his ‘positive’ test? Specifically – WAS HE INTERMITTENTLY EATING HIGH QUANTITIES OF SOY-BASED PROTEIN? (which has low C13/C12 ratio) This is a common practice among vegetarians – but likely not tested for specifically in the control group on which WADA based its CIR test???????

* I am not at all an expert at pharmacokinetics, but if I recall correctly, peak epitestosterone and peak testosterone [EDIT - REFERENCE STEROID]in urine from food ingestion come different numbers of hours after food ingestion. Could it be that the epitestosterone [EDIT - REFERENCE STEROID] in his urine came from a non-soy-containing meal containing high C13/C12 ratios, and that his urinary testosterone came from another meal a few hours earlier (or later – I am not sure which way round it is as I cannot recall if it is the testosterone which peaks first or the epitestosterone [EDIT - REFERENCE STEROID] – please can someone look that up?) containing low C13/C12 ratios, thus giving in a difference in the ratios which was interpreted as ‘Artificial testosterone in the picograms’?



Please can someone do the calculations for this, as whilst I do have a degree in physics and a PhD in the Physical sciences (although I please ask that if you know who I am then not to put this on the boards as I prefer to maintain my anonymity as far as the message board goes and don’t want to speak to journalists – if you have a legitimate interest/question then PM me and ask me for my email address), this is not my area of expertise, and I do not want to do a load of calculations on something I don’t understand properly. But I think it is important for someone to do these calculations, as there may well have been a miscarriage of justice. But I don’t know. I want WADA to look into it in terms of whether the CIR test should have some kind of adjustment in its ratification for the ratio differences required for a positive CIR test.



If this hypothesis is correct, then the reason for Tom Danielson’s positive test may well have been ordinary diet and nothing to do with supplement contamination, and if so, then there should have been no ban at all, not even a reduced ban due to ‘unintentional supplement contamination’. Please note that I AM NOT AN EXPERT – I just want the experts to look into this.

Argyle Fan
Just like Wonderboy "was tested over 956 times and never 1 positive".

"I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles". " They ask, Where are you? I've been on my bike 6 hours a day training".

Why did I bring all this up? ALL the dopers have lied @ some point as to what happened and ALL have came up with some wonky excuse(s) as to why they did/didn't do it(fake test/false positive, backdated TUE, etc). So whoever can say whatever they want, I don't believe ANY riders currently(by CURRENTLY, I mean since Wonderboy's been busted), that there's 1 "100% clean" rider on tour NOW, not 1.

(Caveat: Obviously, there are a few exceptions: Boardman, King LeMond, Hampsten, Bauer, etc- those guys were PRE Wonderboy-but I said NOW/CURRENTLY-LeMond retired in 94- since then, I don't believe there's been 1 "100% clean rider" that's won a Tour or Grand tour race).

No amount of: "You're crazy, I can name 5, That's not true. Blah blah blah", changes that, sorry!



Ive said this since Wonderboy got busted: Now we can't believe ANYONE'S "clean", as now EVERYONE'S questionable who's won, that they have won doped. Results can be manipulated, not given, faked, etc.(just like in Wonderboy's case). So we don't know who's clean and who's not.

My opinions.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Nomad

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts