Mass Spectrometry To The Rescue?
Naturally, we're closely following the news reports regarding the alleged testosterone (T) doping by Floyd Landis. What makes this accusation particularly suspicious is why anyone would try to get away with doping themselves with a substance that isn't going to improve their short term performance on the bike.
Reportedly, the urine sample that tested high for T was taken after stage 17, the stage where Floyd made up eight minutes on key riders and ultimately set him up for victory in the time trial. I'm assuming tour officials measured a baseline T-level for all the riders prior to the start of the race, so assuming the follow-up test on sample "B" reveals the same thing as sample "A", it would have to represent a sudden spike in Floyd's T-level. But the question remains: why would anyone slap on a T-patch (or inject themselves) the night before a key stage when it isn't going to improve your performance? T can improve performance, but it takes weeks (at least) to achieve the effect of building muscle, bone mass, and endurance. Surely Floyd knows this, and wouldn't be so stupid as to jeopardize his would-be success.
Mass spectrometry could vindicate Floyd, or ruin him. Pharmaceutical varieties of T are nearly identical to the endogenous form - the kind your body makes naturally - except in the carbon isotope ratio, that is C13/C12. Every individual has a certain C13/C12 ratio incorporated in their endogenously produced T, similar to the ratio found in the metabolic precursor of T, which is cholesterol. So, a ratio of C13/C12 in a T sample, markedly different from that found in your cholesterol, would necessarily indicate doping with an exogenous form of T, i.e. a synthetic form. A simple mass spectrometer would be able to measure this ratio in a sample. If the isotope ratio was significantly different than expected, Floyd would have some explaining to do. If it wasn't, the frogs would have to accept the fact that another American has won their bike race.