Since I was the original poster on this, I feel I should weigh in on the topic. According to my source (namely my coach--who knows Floyd's coach)--please do not confuse me with being nearly as good as Floyd because I have a coach--Floyd's total and free testosterone levels were not elevated, but rather only his ratio of testosterone (total) to epitestosterone (naturally occurring). The UCI, cycling's governing body, sets a ratio of 1:4, assuming that if your body produces low epitestosterone it is because you are taking it from some other source, namely through shot, gel or patch. This is an erroneous assumption in someone who has a normal free testosterone. The other thing is why? Testosterone speeds recovery but to receive measurable benefit, one must take it long term, not before one stage. Also, among cyclists it does not offer the significant benefits to performance that it would to an Olympic powerlifter. Assumably Floyd was tested earlier in the Tour and I am unaware that that test was positive. It is no secret among cyclists that the UCI has some suspicious testing methods and I have little confidence that the second test will reveal any different information. To me, I think the B test will also be positive and one must wonder whether the UCI would let another lab confirm THEIR testing (I doubt it.) The only shadow of doubt in mind for me would be whether Floyd could have been prescribed testosterone supplements by a physician in attempt to increase bone density in his ailing hip, but then he should have known better. If that were the case one would think his samples from the Tour of California, Tour de Georgia, and Paris-Nice race, all of which he won, would also have been positive. Personally, I smell a rat and it is in the testers, not Floyd. Of course, I have been wrong before (just once, though).
John M
