# Why is Tylor Hamilton still being barred from TDC?



## AlexCad5 (Jan 2, 2005)

He's served his suspension. In fact, he has not raced pro tour for three seasons. Why continue to punish him? David Millar raced last year's TDF after two years out. Of course he admitted to doping.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

AlexCad5 said:


> He's served his suspension. In fact, he has not raced pro tour for three seasons. Why continue to punish him? David Millar raced last year's TDF after two years out. Of course he admitted to doping.


Because like Botero and Sevilla there is reason to believe he is involved in Operation Puerto.


----------



## AlexCad5 (Jan 2, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Because like Botero and Sevilla there is reason to believe he is involved in Operation Puerto.


 So he continued to dope after his suspension? That seems unlikely. If he was involved before then he has already served his time. It doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## MikeBiker (Mar 9, 2003)

I have never found any logic in the suspensions and investigations that are done in professional cycling. In some cases, an accusation is enough for a punishment; in others, a conviction is required.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

AlexCad5 said:


> So he continued to dope after his suspension? That seems unlikely. If he was involved before then he has already served his time. It doesn't make sense to me.


Say I rob a store today. Another in three months and I happen to be caught on the second one. I'll do my time for a robbery. After I come out of jail, evidence comes up showing I did the first robbery as well. You think I don't get a second sentence?


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

That's not how it works. Just because you went to jail for one crime doesn't mean you can't be charged with another crime that occurred before you went to jail.

Den Bakker illustrates this point with a nice example.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

MikeBiker said:


> I have never found any logic in the suspensions and investigations that are done in professional cycling. In some cases, an accusation is enough for a punishment; in others, a conviction is required.



logics there. he'll get suspended by usada if he gets another positive. he's prevented from starting (though not suspended) because he's currently under investigation. the difference being that he's still drawing a paycheck.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

but isn't he now under investigation for a link to OP for which he's already served a suspension, so isn't there at least a case for double jeopardy? 

What constitutes an open investigation? There is no WADA/USADA open investigation and he is not suspended in terms of holding a license. Contador and Valverde are also linked to OP-are they not able to race?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

It's a screwy system where suspicion is enough to prevent someone from doing their job. If you want to prevent anyone from riding, all you have to do is generate an endless investigation and they'll never ride again. It doesn't matter if your investigation leads nowhere.

Tyler Hamilton is no hero. Unlike a lot of riders "under investigation," there seems to be actual evidence that Hamilton was involved in OP, and I wonder why they haven't charged him yet. I guess they are hoping he'll give up and go away if they prevent him from riding. It would certainly save them a lot of money and trouble.

Hamilton was also stupid when he was first caught. He should have come clean about everything he was doing, so it all got lumped into one two year suspension. Then he comes out and he is free to race again. By not doing that, he is under permanent investigation, and if he doesn't quit, he'll probably get nailed again and his career will be over.

David Millar was smart. He admitted everything, he did his time, he showed contrition, and now he is free.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

stevesbike said:


> but isn't he now under investigation for a link to OP for which he's already served a suspension, so isn't there at least a case for double jeopardy?


There seems to be conflicting opinions out there. Hamilton was suspended specifically for blood doping at the Vuelta. What's come out concerning his involvement in OP seems to go way beyond that. 

If OP ever resolves itself in Spain and the respective federations actually get the information I would not be surprised to see him go thru another investigation.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

stevesbike said:


> but isn't he now under investigation for a link to OP for which he's already served a suspension, so isn't there at least a case for double jeopardy?
> 
> What constitutes an open investigation? There is no WADA/USADA open investigation and he is not suspended in terms of holding a license. Contador and Valverde are also linked to OP-are they not able to race?


Get the time line straight. He was convicted for doping in Vuelta Espana 2004, OP began in june 2006. 
Apparently he had funky blood readings during Liege in april 2004 but was not convicted of that. 
So, if he gets caught in OP, they can of course not convict him for doping during the vuelta 2004. Just every other race they can prove he was juiced.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> Tyler Hamilton is no hero. Unlike a lot of riders "under investigation," there seems to be actual evidence that Hamilton was involved in OP, and I wonder why they haven't charged him yet.


Because USADA and USA cycling don't have the information, it is in Spain and they are not allowing anyone access until the legal proceedings in Spain are complete.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

*the relevant timeline*

it doesn't matter that OP started in 2006. It is the timeline of the doping that matters. The relevant OP documents regarding Hamilton are for 2002-03--before the doping for which he was suspended. The whole point of a second suspension is that it should follow the first--it would be handed out if the rider did not change habits as a result of the first suspension. The relevant issue is whether Hamilton doped after the 2004 suspension. There's not even a suggestion of that. 

Handing out a suspension on the basis of practices that occured prior to the original suspension is stupid and against the spirit of suspensions, which are supposed to change future behavior. The criminal case examples aren't analogous. It's not retributive. 


from cyclingnews: The paper claims that among the files of Dr Eufemiano Fuentes and Jose Merino Batres, are some details of Hamilton's financial dealings in 2002 and 2003, including a copy of a fax sent to his wife Haven to a hotel in Gerona, where he lived. On the fax, it's shown that he had paid €31,200 with €11,840 still owing: €35,000 was for the medical program, and €8,040 was for the medication.


----------



## AlexCad5 (Jan 2, 2005)

Okay, so he's stupid enough to get caught once, that before he's even able to race his first race, he goes out and dopes up again? Is the stuff addictive as well? Hamilton's a junkie to doping?
It boggles the mind.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

could you point me to the part of the UCI doping rules where it says that once caught you are absolved from all previous sins? 



stevesbike said:


> it doesn't matter that OP started in 2006. It is the timeline of the doping that matters. The relevant OP documents regarding Hamilton are for 2002-03--before the doping for which he was suspended. The whole point of a second suspension is that it should follow the first--it would be handed out if the rider did not change habits as a result of the first suspension. The relevant issue is whether Hamilton doped after the 2004 suspension. There's not even a suggestion of that.
> 
> Handing out a suspension on the basis of practices that occured prior to the original suspension is stupid and against the spirit of suspensions, which are supposed to change future behavior. The criminal case examples aren't analogous. It's not retributive.
> 
> ...


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

actually you should read section 269 http://www.uci.ch/imgArchive/Rules/14ant-E.pdf

it says that the second violation must occur after the first one; specifically, the rider must have been given notice of the first violation so unless you think the UCI warned Hamilton in 2002-03 of his 2004 suspension, they should be considered one violation.

"...second anti-doping rule violation may be considered for purposes of imposing sanctions only if it is established that the License-Holder committed the second anti-doping rule violation after he received notice, or after a reasonable attempt was made to give notice of the first anti-doping rule violation; if not, the violations shall be considered as one single first violation...",

But, that's predicated on the anti-doping agencies following their rules but it looks like they make them up as they go along...


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Hamilton was caught for one specific incident in the Vuelta. He was prosecuted for this offense and lost his case, resulting in a suspension. You might remember that he also had a doping incident around the same time at the Athens Olympics, for which he was not be prosecuted because the B sample was ruined. 

Whatever else he was doing at the time or before was not part of these cases because they had no evidence to charge him. They had no failed tests and no documents or other evidence. Apparently now they do. It will become a new doping case. It's possible that Hamilton could link the new evidence to the cases where he was caught (Vuelta + Olympics), thereby linking them legally and getting off the hook. I'm sure he'll try.

Let's put it this way. Say I rob 10 banks and only get caught on the last one. I had no pattern, so authorities don't know I did nine other robberies. Admitting to the one bank robbery where I was caught will not absolve me of the nine other robberies. If they find evidence I did them, I can be charged, regardless of how much time I have already served, up to the statute of limitations (if there is one).


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

read my above post regarding the wording of the rules; criminal cases are not analogous. The spirit of athletic sanctions is to reform the athlete's behavior. A second violation only makes sense if it occurs after the first, so that a rider is sanctioned because he did not clean up his act. 

I'm no Hamilton fan, but cycling is treated worse by agencies that don't follow any due processes and just make stuff up.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

try to reconcile 269 with section 273-it is contradictory and highlights the arbitrariness of the UCI rules.


----------



## Jett (Mar 21, 2004)

den bakker said:


> Say I rob a store today. Another in three months and I happen to be caught on the second one. I'll do my time for a robbery. After I come out of jail, evidence comes up showing I did the first robbery as well. You think I don't get a second sentence?


Here a better question is let’s say you get busted for using crack. Now, you get sent to jail and you do your time. You come out and you’re clean. Right after you get out, they catch your dealer, and in his record they find evidence that of you buying drugs before your original bust. Should you have to go to jail again for that?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Jett said:


> Here a better question is let’s say you get busted for using crack. Now, you get sent to jail and you do your time. You come out and you’re clean. Right after you get out, they catch your dealer, and in his record they find evidence that of you buying drugs before your original bust. Should you have to go to jail again for that?


according to the law, probably. 
If you had been kicking and screaming for several years about how you never did crack, have no idea what they are talking about and appealing the court decisions, it's more likely to end up in jail again, compared to having fessed up the first time.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

stevesbike said:


> read my above post regarding the wording of the rules; criminal cases are not analogous. The spirit of athletic sanctions is to reform the athlete's behavior. A second violation only makes sense if it occurs after the first, so that a rider is sanctioned because he did not clean up his act.
> 
> I'm no Hamilton fan, but cycling is treated worse by agencies that don't follow any due processes and just make stuff up.


I have been pretty critical of how the doping system is run, so I hear what you are saying about the rules. But part of cleaning up your act is admitting what you did, which Hamilton has never done. Cleaning up your act means you come clean. How can you expect to be reformed for something you don't even admit you did?

Also, in Hamilton's case, he was warned several times by the UCI before he was caught that his blood values were suspicious. They knew what he was doing. He knew that they knew what he was doing. They gave him every chance to stop doing it before the hammer came down. Faced with this knowledge, he could have reformed his behavior. Instead, he chose to continue doping, and he got caught. This is all on him.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

I bet he rues the day he decided to deny everything instead of coming clean like Millar. I used to really like Hamilton, now I despise him. Not because he doped, but because he continues to deny everything in spite of pretty much overwhelming evidence.

He's backed himself into a corner now though. If he admits now at his age, he will definitely not ever ride a pro tour event again.


----------



## AlexCad5 (Jan 2, 2005)

Isn't doping is a continuous activity? It's not like getting high which is for an hour, it must be continued to be effective through the season (with pauses near the event so you don't get busted.) In that sense, getting caught a the Vuelta and the Olympics was getting caught for the same act. It is not like doing multiple bank robberies which is multiple acts.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

this is one reason why there needs to be some sort of amnesty; give riders the chance to come clean, put the past behind, and then institute the anti-doping policies teams like high road, slipstream are instituting system-wide. The UCI needs to face it: in the past it's not some isolated riders but has been a systemic problem. They pretend it's some isolated riders, do a witch hunt, and ignore others (like the recent Rabobank revelations, but no action against the team).


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

AlexCad5 said:


> Isn't doping is a continuous activity? It's not like getting high which is for an hour, it must be continued to be effective through the season (with pauses near the event so you don't get busted.) In that sense, getting caught a the Vuelta and the Olympics was getting caught for the same act. It is not like doing multiple bank robberies which is multiple acts.


maybe in theory but not in fact. 2 separate doping offenses are just that. as everyone seems to be fond of analogy today, if I get arrested for DUI tonight and make bail and get arrested again Im certain the judge won't view it as a single offense.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

stevesbike said:


> this is one reason why there needs to be some sort of amnesty; give riders the chance to come clean, put the past behind, and then institute the anti-doping policies teams like high road, slipstream are instituting system-wide. The UCI needs to face it: in the past it's not some isolated riders but has been a systemic problem. They pretend it's some isolated riders, do a witch hunt, and ignore others (like the recent Rabobank revelations, but no action against the team).


So why did Hamilton not grab the chance to come clean?


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

den bakker said:


> So why did Hamilton not grab the chance to come clean?


Because he has convinced himself and his supporters that he is pure as the driven snow. Consequently, he cannot change his story now, or his supporters will know that he has lied to them as well. It's one thing to keep your gob shut and rely on a slick lawyer to get you off, quite another to play the innocent and be caught out.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

blackhat said:


> maybe in theory but not in fact. 2 separate doping offenses are just that. as everyone seems to be fond of analogy today, if I get arrested for DUI tonight and make bail and get arrested again Im certain the judge won't view it as a single offense.


You were arrested at mile marker 28 for DUI, sentenced and convicted. But wait, how did you get from mile marker 29 to mile marker 28? Must have been drunk there too, so another arrest, trial and conviction. Now what about mile marker 30 to mile marker 29?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

asgelle said:


> You were arrested at mile marker 28 for DUI, sentenced and convicted. But wait, how did you get from mile marker 29 to mile marker 28? Must have been drunk there too, so another arrest, trial and conviction. Now what about mile marker 30 to mile marker 29?


That is what section 269 is for no?


----------



## AlexCad5 (Jan 2, 2005)

blackhat said:


> maybe in theory but not in fact. 2 separate doping offenses are just that. as everyone seems to be fond of analogy today, if I get arrested for DUI tonight and make bail and get arrested again Im certain the judge won't view it as a single offense.



This is a bad analogy. I'm not saying you are not right, but you need to find an analogy that works for your argument. 
From my vantage point:
A single dose of whatever the doc prescribes will not give the desired results. One dose might cause suspension, but it is the course of the drug that augments the performance. It is presumed that this has occurred when any trace amounts/blood abnormalities are discovered. The Vuelta and Olympic testings discovered the same doping offense caught by different sources. It is not two different occasions, it's one continual illegality.
If after all that he had been through in 2004, he sought out Spanish doctors in 2006, Tylor is one amoral SOB, and no, he shouldn't ever ride again.


----------



## gun2head (Sep 3, 2006)

If it's within the statute of limitations, yes....


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

AlexCad5 said:


> This is a bad analogy. I'm not saying you are not right, but you need to find an analogy that works for your argument.
> From my vantage point:
> A single dose of whatever the doc prescribes will not give the desired results. One dose might cause suspension, but it is the course of the drug that augments the performance. It is presumed that this has occurred when any trace amounts/blood abnormalities are discovered. The Vuelta and Olympic testings discovered the same doping offense caught by different sources. It is not two different occasions, it's one continual illegality.
> If after all that he had been through in 2004, he sought out Spanish doctors in 2006, Tylor is one amoral SOB, and no, he shouldn't ever ride again.


How about this scenario?

You get caught in possession of Drug A (in or out of your system) in 2004. You are tried & convicted, and serve your sentence.

In 2008, evidence surfaces that you were in possession of drug B, and were using drug C.

In addition to this there is evidence of your drug buying too.

No matter how you look at it it's a new set of offences.

In which case - LIFETIME BAN.


----------



## Guest (Feb 20, 2008)

Einstruzende said:


> I bet he rues the day he decided to deny everything instead of coming clean like Millar. I used to really like Hamilton, now I despise him. Not because he doped, but because he continues to deny everything in spite of pretty much overwhelming evidence.
> 
> He's backed himself into a corner now though. If he admits now at his age, he will definitely not ever ride a pro tour event again.


My thoughts exactly!


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

ultimobici said:


> How about this scenario?
> 
> You get caught in possession of Drug A (in or out of your system) in 2004. You are tried & convicted, and serve your sentence.
> 
> ...


I don't know the rules of the anti-doping agency, but if if it were a criminal trial in the U.S., and the affect of new charges brought on an old crime was having more serious consequences than had the charges all been filed at once, there'd be a chance of getting off on double jeopardy. Courts are traditionally not inclined to believe in coincidence (we just happened to find new evidence) because prosecutors have so many resources at their disposal and are expected to do their jobs right the first time.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

California L33 said:


> I don't know the rules of the anti-doping agency, but if if it were a criminal trial in the U.S., and the affect of new charges brought on an old crime was having more serious consequences than had the charges all been filed at once, there'd be a chance of getting off on double jeopardy. Courts are traditionally not inclined to believe in coincidence (we just happened to find new evidence) because prosecutors have so many resources at their disposal and are expected to do their jobs right the first time.



Caught
Lied
Tried
Lied
Convicted
Lied
Banned
Lied
Free to Race
Continues with Lie
The guy is a serial liar. He wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the arse.
He is an unrepentant doper. His existence in Pro cycling is an insult to every participant and fan's intelligence.

I do believe that people deserve a second chance. BUT they should at least admit they stuffed up and make a clean breast of it. Tyler didn't flinch.
So my message to Tyler - Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kilo Oscar Foxtrot Foxtrot out of cycling forever please.​


----------



## CabDoctor (Jun 11, 2005)

blackhat said:


> maybe in theory but not in fact. 2 separate doping offenses are just that. as everyone seems to be fond of analogy today, if I get arrested for DUI tonight and make bail and get arrested again Im certain the judge won't view it as a single offense.


It's more like if you robbed a bank and they found your finger prints. You were tried, convicted, sentenced. Then after serving your sentence they stumble upon someone who has video footage of you robbing that bank. They're not going to drag you back in and re-try you, you already paid your debt.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

CabDoctor said:


> It's more like if you robbed a bank and they found your finger prints. You were tried, convicted, sentenced. Then after serving your sentence they stumble upon someone who has video footage of you robbing that bank.


Only if all they find is his vuelta doping/autum doping. 
If something is found from e.g. spring or another year, it's another story.


----------



## CabDoctor (Jun 11, 2005)

That is true, which is why they need a statute of limitations on doping. After a two year ban, the slate should be whipped clean. They shouldn't be allowed to go through and look for more evidence about your past. Otherwise they could keep you out of racing forever. Tyler should switch to mountain biking.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

CabDoctor said:


> That is true, which is why they need a statute of limitations on doping. After a two year ban, the slate should be whipped clean. They shouldn't be allowed to go through and look for more evidence about your past. Otherwise they could keep you out of racing forever. Tyler should switch to mountain biking.


All he had to do was to fess up a few years ago and there would not have been a problem today. He dug this hole himself.


----------



## Scot_Gore (Jan 25, 2002)

AlexCad5 said:


> Isn't doping is a continuous activity? It's not like getting high which is for an hour, it must be continued to be effective through the season (with pauses near the event so you don't get busted.) In that sense, getting caught a the Vuelta and the Olympics was getting caught for the same act. It is not like doing multiple bank robberies which is multiple acts.


It's not the act of doping that's he was accused of per se. It's cheating at a specific race. Cheat at another specific race it's another offense. 

If you rob the First and Second National banks they don't charge you with bank robbery and its done. They charge with 2 seperate counts of bank robbery, even if you use the same ski mask, get away car, note, and gun in both crimes. 

Cheat at the Vuelta, thats one count. Cheat the Paris Nice that's a seperate count of the same kind of crime. Even if the same doping regime aided you at both events.


----------



## AlexCad5 (Jan 2, 2005)

Scot_Gore said:


> It's not the act of doping that's he was accused of per se. It's cheating at a specific race. Cheat at another specific race it's another offense.
> 
> If you rob the First and Second National banks they don't charge you with bank robbery and its done. They charge with 2 seperate counts of bank robbery, even if you use the same ski mask, get away car, note, and gun in both crimes.
> 
> Cheat at the Vuelta, thats one count. Cheat the Paris Nice that's a seperate count of the same kind of crime. Even if the same doping regime aided you at both events.



Good Post


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

asgelle said:


> You were arrested at mile marker 28 for DUI, sentenced and convicted. But wait, how did you get from mile marker 29 to mile marker 28? Must have been drunk there too, so another arrest, trial and conviction. Now what about mile marker 30 to mile marker 29?


Not exactly. Tyler was suspended for failing a doping control, and B sample, for one stage of the Vuelta. 

The evidence from OP shows that he systematically doped multiple times, with multiple products, over 2 years....not exactly a 2 miles apart, more like 2 years


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

CabDoctor said:


> That is true, which is why they need a statute of limitations on doping. After a two year ban, the slate should be whipped clean. They shouldn't be allowed to go through and look for more evidence about your past. Otherwise they could keep you out of racing forever. Tyler should switch to mountain biking.


They do have one, it is nine years.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

CabDoctor said:


> That is true, which is why they need a statute of limitations on doping. After a two year ban, the slate should be whipped clean. They shouldn't be allowed to go through and look for more evidence about your past. Otherwise they could keep you out of racing forever. Tyler should switch to mountain biking.


If the rider puts his hands up and says "yes I did it" then maybe they should do that. But when you still swear on your dead dog that you were clean, no. For a clean slate you have to get it all of your chest. Otherwise, it is wide open to investigation and appropriate penalties.


----------



## euro-trash (May 1, 2004)

stevesbike said:


> The spirit of athletic sanctions is to reform the athlete's behavior.



No, they are punitive measures in place to prevent the entire sport from doping, they are not focused on just that rider.

There are many problems with doping regulations, one being the lack of clear definition of what warrants a suspension, another is the leaking of rider's names before the B sample is returned, another is the process of re-testing samples when the A & B aren't the same result. 

Hamilton's case doesn't fall in one of the problems of doping, they are simply looking into several cases of previous doping. This isn't double jeopardy, and even if it was, this isn't a court, so there are no protections against it anyway. 

Someone above said they need to link his blood doping with races, I disagree. Like Basso, all they need to show is an intent to blood dope and they've got him nailed. Withdraw records or the money trail by his wife (does anyone have a copy of that still?) should be enough. 

I stand by my statement in 2004 that he should be put to death for saying "I swear on the life of Tugboat (his recently deceased dog) that I didn't dope....." Dope, don't dope, I really don't care, these are grown men that wear spandex for a living, but don't swear on the life of an innocent golden retriever.


----------



## euro-trash (May 1, 2004)

den bakker said:


> So why did Hamilton not grab the chance to come clean?


If he does come clean, or if there is solid evidence that he doped, can all the suckers that contibuted to the "Believe Tyler" fund sue him for fraud?


----------



## dmbell (May 20, 2006)

If you guys want to use logic, why should a confession matter under logical principles? A confession doesn't change anything and just satisfies your emotional reaction to his case. Who cares if he confesses? I think it is more likely that nearly every racer who could afford to dope was doping over the last decade. Have they all confessed? Of course not. I'd rather Tyler just stay silent than give us a pathetic Basso-type confession. Let him race.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

dmbell said:


> If you guys want to use logic, why should a confession matter under logical principles? A confession doesn't change anything and just satisfies your emotional reaction to his case. Who cares if he confesses? I think it is more likely that nearly every racer who could afford to dope was doping over the last decade. Have they all confessed? Of course not. I'd rather Tyler just stay silent than give us a pathetic Basso-type confession. Let him race.


 Maybe we should have two categories of racing- clean and doped. "I'm sorry, you're disqualified. We can't find a trace of performance enhancing drugs in your sample, and this was a doped race."


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

dmbell said:


> If you guys want to use logic, why should a confession matter under logical principles? A confession doesn't change anything and just satisfies your emotional reaction to his case. Who cares if he confesses? I think it is more likely that nearly every racer who could afford to dope was doping over the last decade. Have they all confessed? Of course not. I'd rather Tyler just stay silent than give us a pathetic Basso-type confession. Let him race.


I don't require a confession from Hamilton. Hell, I guess there is even a very small possibility that he is innocent. But don't try to convince me that he is "reformed," because it does not make logical sense. How can he be reformed? Reformed from what? Something he doesn't admit he did? Something he didn't do?


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

CabDoctor said:


> Tyler should switch to mountain biking.


He has enough trouble on smooth tarmac. Also, I think the same doping bans apply.


----------



## identifiler (Dec 24, 2005)

I hate that guy, the theatrical ****, his frigging dogs that are treated like they came out of his wife's butt and his wife`s actions to help him dope. Couple from hell. These people are lunatics !


----------



## cocoboots (Apr 13, 2006)

give Tyler a break. How was he going to afford his $1mil home, SUV and trips with his wife on a Div. 3 salary. He did what he had to do to get $$$ to support his wife, his twin and tuggy. Damn you for thinking he should make an honest living and not be a doping liar and cheat. Damn you....


----------



## Guest (Feb 27, 2008)

cocoboots said:


> give Tyler a break. How was he going to afford his $1mil home, SUV and trips with his wife on a Div. 3 salary. He did what he had to do to get $$$ to support his wife, his twin and tuggy. Damn you for thinking he should make an honest living and not be a doping liar and cheat. Damn you....


Yeah and that Gold medal, he did that for team USA! 

He doped for the star spangled banner!


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

sorry, but you're delusional if you think only a few bad apples like Hamilton were doping between 2000-2006. There's a place for individual blame, but it is/was also a systemic problem. The major difference isn't between who doped and who didn't but between who got caught and who didn't...


----------



## sokudo (Dec 22, 2007)

So is there any chance they will remove Hamilton's olympic gold medal and give it to Ekimov?


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

sokudo said:


> So is there any chance they will remove Hamilton's olympic gold medal and give it to Ekimov?


nope. his olympic positive was thrown out because one of the samples was frozen or something.


----------



## sokudo (Dec 22, 2007)

blackhat said:


> nope. his olympic positive was thrown out because one of the samples was frozen or something.


Right. And we know that he was caught immediately after Olympics.

However, if they establish that he was doping before the Olympics, will his results still stay?

Basically, the question is not about appying a new suspension after encountering or poving an older instance of doping, but rather about extending a ban retroactively to the first known instance of doping.


----------



## Guest (Feb 28, 2008)

stevesbike said:


> sorry, but you're delusional if you think only a few bad apples like Hamilton were doping between 2000-2006. There's a place for individual blame, but it is/was also a systemic problem. The major difference isn't between who doped and who didn't but between who got caught and who didn't...


I don't think that is the issue most people have with Tyler.

Let's see:

Got caught doping - check
Lied about it - check
Made up perposterous excuse - check
Still lies about it and refuses to admit it - check
Won't apologise - check

I think it is fair to say that this makes many people feel betrayed especially after the 'I believe Tyler' campaign. The whole thing seems so cynical on Tyler's part.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

sokudo said:


> Basically, the question is not about appying a new suspension after encountering or poving an older instance of doping, but rather about extending a ban retroactively to the first known instance of doping.


What do the governing IOC rules say? Contrary to the way the UCI often works, there are rules and regulations governing this sort of thing that need to be followed.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

the governing rules are arbitrary; I quoted the sections from the UCI in a previous post in this thread. One section says the notice of a potential second violation must be made after the notice of a first. Another section (likely amended in to cover specific cases) says that after being caught and suspended they can find a previous violation and count it as the second violation. The point of increasing sanctions (two year first, lifetime second) is clearly to have a bigger sanction in the case of a subsequent violation (sequential in time) to reflect the failure of the first one. Of course, if any rider is caught at time T, there is likely going to be a previous time during which they doped, with the exception of the very unlikely scenario that they got caught their first time. 

The supreme arbitrariness of all this is that Menchov is free to roll around talking about a GIro/Tour double while his name has been implicated in a new doping ring. There's no talk I've seen about Valverde not being able to ride, although his name is implicated in OP. Isn't that the reason Hamilton, Botero, Sevilla didn't race Toc?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

stevesbike said:


> the governing rules are arbitrary; I quoted the sections from the UCI in a previous post in this thread. One section says the notice of a potential second violation must be made after the notice of a first. Another section (likely amended in to cover specific cases) says that after being caught and suspended they can find a previous violation and count it as the second violation. The point of increasing sanctions (two year first, lifetime second) is clearly to have a bigger sanction in the case of a subsequent violation (sequential in time) to reflect the failure of the first one. Of course, if any rider is caught at time T, there is likely going to be a previous time during which they doped, with the exception of the very unlikely scenario that they got caught their first time.
> 
> The supreme arbitrariness of all this is that Menchov is free to roll around talking about a GIro/Tour double while his name has been implicated in a new doping ring. There's no talk I've seen about Valverde not being able to ride, although his name is implicated in OP. Isn't that the reason Hamilton, Botero, Sevilla didn't race Toc?


I'm pretty sure valverde did not ride ToC either. 
The exclusion was done by ToC not UCI. 
Besides, whether valverde is part of puerto is not clear. 
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/jun07/jun20news2
Whether that is because of a large spanish cover-up or not is not up to me to judge


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

stevesbike said:


> the governing rules are arbitrary; I quoted the sections from the UCI in a previous post in this thread.


UCI doping rules don't cover the Olympics.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

the testing is done by WADA at Olympics but the sanctioning in done under the UCI rules. There is an agreement between the governing body of cycling and the IOC to allow WADA testing in order to participate. This is a major bone of contention re IOC and major league baseball and FIFA in soccer.

not arbitrary? read the reasoning behind the decision. http://www.velonews.com/article/72174 

It's the UCI saying there's an 'open investigation' but it's not accurate. There is no UCI open investigation but an investigation by Spanish courts. They neglect to add that the Spanish courts are only investigating Fuentes for possible criminal conduct, not any riders.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

identifiler said:


> I hate that guy, the theatrical ****, his frigging dogs that are treated like they came out of his wife's butt and his wife`s actions to help him dope. Couple from hell. These people are lunatics !


If being a Prima Donna was enough to get you banned there would be a 3 rider peloton at most major events.


----------

