# Hamilton - It's Official



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Cycling4all.com is reporting Hamilton's suspension has been upheld.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Cycling4all.com is reporting Hamilton's suspension has been upheld.


Yet he still whines his "innocence"!
God I wish he'd shut up.


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

ultimobici said:


> Yet he still whines his "innocence"!
> God I wish he'd shut up.


Of course he's innocent! We all know it was his "evil twin" that got him in this position.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

*another...former...postie.....*



Dwayne Barry said:


> Cycling4all.com is reporting Hamilton's suspension has been upheld.


not really contrite either, <a href="http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/feb06/feb12newsflash">cyclingnews.com</a> has a quote from his website calling himself an "innocent athlete". it appears he plans on being a testing reform crusader--"My goal is to keep other athletes from experiencing the enormous pain and horrendous toll of being wrongly accused".


----------



## Henry Chinaski (Feb 3, 2004)

where's the dancing banana when you need it?


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

Henry Chinaski said:


> where's the dancing banana when you need it?


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*Queen song...*

Another one bites the dust?

Although he will eligible to race again in September. I am betting some D3 or D2 will pick him up. He's still got another couple of years though before he can race for the ProTour. Cheater that he is. What is that old saying? Cheat cheat never beat?


----------



## peter1 (Apr 10, 2002)

*He may be guilty, but...*

...he followed the rules re his right to an appeal. He (or any athlete) doesn't deserve comments like the following: 


"The Panel considered each of the excuses and found each to be completely without merit," Terry Madden, CEO of USADA, said in a press release issued Saturday. "It is sad that Mr. Hamilton resorted to conspiracy theories rather than just accept the consequences of his doping."

I'd have a lot more confidence in the process if the anti-doping authorities would confine themselves to the facts of the case rather than ad hominem attacks on the athletes. A simple "appeal denied" would have sufficed. 

And why should anyone "accept the consequences" for anything if they think they are innocent and have a legal right to an appeal? I certainly wouldn't. 

Still, the process worked, even though it took a long time. And as I've said before, TH did what he said he would do: fight the ruling with everything he had. And he was found guilty. 

End of story, at least until this September, when he can race again, hopefully with all his own blood. If you think about it, all he lost was six months of racing. 

It's clearly been shown that doping convictions won't get you thrown out of the pro peloton. Maybe he and David Millar can team up for a few two-man TT's in 2007.


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

peter1 said:


> It's clearly been shown that doping convictions won't get you thrown out of the pro peloton. Maybe he and David Millar can team up for a few two-man TT's in 2007.


I would actually like to see that, when they served their sentences and are free to ride. I think they'd make a great couple. Unfortunately the two-man TT is a discipline that is almost extinct.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

> End of story, at least until this September, when he can race again, hopefully with all his own blood. If you think about it, all he lost was six months of racing.


How do you arrive at this?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Here's the official ruling. Hamilton certainly appears to be guilty as h*ll, most of his objections were shown to be full of holes and some were pretty silly. Certainly appeared to be grasping for straws. He showed some balls though continuing to do it despite the fact that he knew he was being watched.

http://www.tas-cas.org/en/pdf/Hamilton.pdf


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

The only B.S. thing about the Hamilton affair is that it has taken more than eighteen months to reach a final decision. What if they would have dismissed the suspension? 

If the athlete stops competing after the test announcement then the suspension should start then, not in six months after his national organization has made a decision. And suspensions should be expressed in months of competition, so the off-season doesn't count.

Looks like Hamilton might be applying for the waterboy job at Team United.


----------



## Mosovich (Feb 3, 2004)

*Now they say 2 years...*

, does that mean really he can compete on a pro tour team after Sept.? Are they using the date before the new UCI rule that he can't compete on a ProTour team? Seems as though they are, and if that's the case, he could finish the year back on Phonak or some other team, but I don't know who would take him. Although David Miller got a ride pretty quick. Although, he was a MAN and ADMITTED he did wrong where as Hamilton will never fess up. I'd admire Tyler more if he'd just be honest. Heck, he's told this story so much, he probably believes it himself now.

What team do you think will pick him up?


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Mosovich said:


> , does that mean really he can compete on a pro tour team after Sept.? Are they using the date before the new UCI rule that he can't compete on a ProTour team? Seems as though they are, and if that's the case, he could finish the year back on Phonak or some other team, but I don't know who would take him. Although David Miller got a ride pretty quick. Although, he was a MAN and ADMITTED he did wrong where as Hamilton will never fess up. I'd admire Tyler more if he'd just be honest. Heck, he's told this story so much, he probably believes it himself now.
> 
> What team do you think will pick him up?


No, 2 years ban from cycling which runs until September but 2 more years until he can ride for a Pro Tour team. Basically it's bye bye TDF hopes. Good riddance to the lying scab!


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Under ACrookedSky said:


> The only B.S. thing about the Hamilton affair is that it has taken more than eighteen months to reach a final decision. What if they would have dismissed the suspension?


From the ruling it appears it was Hamilton who requested delays. Alternatively, he could have just accepted the original ruling. He really had no case and appeared to be looking for any kind of excuse. Also if I understood the ruling, they offered him a chance to submit himself to further testing and he declined.


----------



## ari (Jan 25, 2005)

ultimobici said:


> No, 2 years ban from cycling which runs until September but 2 more years until he can ride for a Pro Tour team. Basically it's bye bye TDF hopes. Good riddance to the lying scab!


I'm not so sure about that ... the start of his suspension was moved back to the original infraction, which I believe was before the inception of the ProTour. Therefore, the "double suspension time" rule wouldn't have been in effect yet. From the Velonews article:



> Under the original suspension, Hamilton would not have been eligible to ride for a ProTour team until April of 2008. Now that the suspension date has been shifted, he might be eligible to ride at that level after September 22 of this year, coincidentally just two days before the start of this year's world road race championship.


We may be seeing Tyler line up in the ProTour before the end of the season.

Cheers,
Ari


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*No, you're incorrect.*



ari said:


> I'm not so sure about that ... the start of his suspension was moved back to the original infraction, which I believe was before the inception of the ProTour. Therefore, the "double suspension time" rule wouldn't have been in effect yet. From the Velonews article:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hamilton cannot ride for a ProTour team for another 2 years after his suspension is up. When he was busted and took suspension from his team, the ProTour had already been organized and incorporated (if you want to look at it that way). He can race again in September, but not for a ProTour team for another 2 years, but that doesn't mean he can't ride the Grand Tours, well, not this year, but possibly in 2007, as the Grand Tours have split from the ProTour and will accept whatever teams they want. 

He won't be on a ProTour team until 2008, if at all.

Him and Millar riding a TT together... Yeah, that would be great. Two whining bastards riding together.


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

Man you guys live off this stuff, always wondered why Maury, Springer and others did so well, this is no different haha.

K


----------



## Mosovich (Feb 3, 2004)

*Isn't Tyler on ....*

Springer next week? No, that's Dr. Phil.  

So if he can't race pro tour, do you think an Amercian D2 team will pick him up? I don't think any team would touch him. Probably a Euro team, but not an Amercian team. How would you as a director explain that to a sponsor. "Uh, I know he got busted, and thinks he's innocent, but you'll get a lot of publicity." Not exactly the kind of publicity I'd want as a sponsor, but hey, you never know.

I think David Millar's honesty "once caught of course" is what saved him. But denying it, well, what can you say?


----------



## Woofer (Nov 18, 2004)

Dwayne Barry said:


> From the ruling it appears it was Hamilton who requested delays. Alternatively, he could have just accepted the original ruling. He really had no case and appeared to be looking for any kind of excuse. Also if I understood the ruling, they offered him a chance to submit himself to further testing and he declined.


It appears they wanted to do more testing to see if he really was a chimera and he refused.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Woofer said:


> It appears they wanted to do more testing to see if he really was a chimera and he refused.


And I think they took the blood they had and did the genetic testing anyway to show he wasn't a chimera. I believe that was one of the objections, that they did this testing without his permission. Like most of his objections, total BS trying to get off on a technicality rather than proof he wasn't doping.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> And I think they took the blood they had and did the genetic testing anyway to show he wasn't a chimera. I believe that was one of the objections, that they did this testing without his permission. Like most of his objections, total BS trying to get off on a technicality rather than proof he wasn't doping.


 He showed no evidence before or after of being a chimera. He is still touting fluctuating results as a problem with the test rather than the natural result of cheating (unless you get continuous transfusions the results would fluctuate as the cells died off). I could buy that he didn't intend to cheat with someone else's blood (just his own) but his statement shows he is still deliberately trying to mislead people. Or is too stupid to understand the tests, which is entirely possible since he is an athlete. Maybe because somebody told him he could get away with it he still believes he's innocent and was never caught. He is from Marblehead after all.


----------



## andy02 (Nov 14, 2002)

*all gulity we have to make it look like we have proof*

I don't know if he did it or not, but I don't like the test.

1-no test is not 100% and science is falaible by its vary defintion
2-virus can cause a change in cell surface protein expression
3-this test would never make it past the FDA with 19!!!! person test
4-didn't a judge in VA throw out all of his drunk driving case because the law made the test infalable (and it has close as you can get.....which isn't as close as people think)?? I know this is the us and the uci is not but still
5-No one has tested the effects of stress on cell surface markers....for that matter no one has test it for much of anything!

AND on a side note the epo test must look for a sterochemical differece between home brewed and homemade. therefore, you can purify home brew to be the same as homemade and the test will not work.

Also, the samples stored for long peroids of time may break down to give false positives. So in a couple of years they might find everyone gulity


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

*TIAA Cref*



Mosovich said:


> Springer next week? No, that's Dr. Phil.
> 
> So if he can't race pro tour, do you think an Amercian D2 team will pick him up? I don't think any team would touch him. Probably a Euro team, but not an Amercian team. How would you as a director explain that to a sponsor. "Uh, I know he got busted, and thinks he's innocent, but you'll get a lot of publicity." Not exactly the kind of publicity I'd want as a sponsor, but hey, you never know.
> 
> I think David Millar's honesty "once caught of course" is what saved him. But denying it, well, what can you say?


Its a wild card, but I am betting that TIAA Cref picks him up in fall and here's why:
They're a D3 team, but Vaughters and Hamilton were teammates on Postal. 
The team is based in Hamilton's home town of Boulder.
They have an extensive Euro racing program which could be attractive toTyler because he still has a home in Spain.
He could be used as an "example" for the kids on the team. Sort of a "been there done that, screwed myself, don't do it kind of thing." Ok that's a stretch.....
Tyler probably won't demand much money and TIAA Cref probably doesn't have much to give. A perfect fit.


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Here's the official ruling. Hamilton certainly appears to be guilty as h*ll, most of his objections were shown to be full of holes and some were pretty silly. Certainly appeared to be grasping for straws. He showed some balls though continuing to do it despite the fact that he knew he was being watched.
> 
> http://www.tas-cas.org/en/pdf/Hamilton.pdf


Did you have read that ruling carefully? It is laughable if not outright outrageous. 


They stated that because decision affect whole athlete livehood standard that does not differs significatly from "beyong reasonable doubt" shall be applied and then state that no real difference exists between "beyound reasonable doubt" and and "comfortable satisfactions" proof levels. Say this to any attorney - it would die from laugh. 
They said that witness have lied and concealed information during the hearing - it's pity, but it does not make them less credible. 
They refer to long use of test in questions for other purposes, but have not even mentioned that for all that applications false positives are of no big concern (while false negatives absolutely critical), so test metodolgy in them have to be biased to avoid false negatives by any means (that almost unavoidable implies false positives).
They said that for a time of testing laboratory has not had proper accreditation for this test, but it does not matter.
Definitely, some Hamilton's arguments are weak, but any of reason mentioned above alone has to be sufficient to dismiss a case, regardless of Hamilton's guilt.BTW, there are some more nice nasty points in the ruling, try to find them yourself.

My personal opinion is that his guilt is proved on "comfortable satisfaction" level, but far from "beyong any reasonable doubt".


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

al0 said:


> Did you have read that ruling carefully? It is laughable if not outright outrageous.
> /QUOTE]
> 
> I didn't read it carefully but I read it. Not being a lawyer I don't give a sh*t about the fine points of legal proceedings. What struck me was that Hamilton offered no reason as to why he appeared to possess two distinct blood types (3 of the sames antigens on both the A & B sample). He didn't submit himself to further testing which could have exonerated him if there truly was a natural explanation. From reading the document it is pretty apparent the doping officials go to significant troubles to avoid false positives and set a pretty high bar for being positive.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

> this test would never make it past the FDA with 19!!!! person test


 Wow, you're telling me they don't use flow cytometry in US hospitals to test for pre-eclampsia amongst other things - how positively medieval!


----------



## peter1 (Apr 10, 2002)

ultimobici said:


> How do you arrive at this?


I believe his suspension is retroactive to the doping offense, so he's eligible to race in Sept. If he had won his appeal, he could start racing right away. So he's lost 6 months or so.


----------



## cyclewvu (Oct 17, 2005)

*Lenght of ban*

The Protour had already been worked out when he was busted, but Phonak didn't have a license yet, did they? Or did they. They had to restructure the team management, drop tyler and the other rider who tested positive, and make a last minute appeal to get the 2 year protour license. So was he technically on a protour team, or not? David millar is coming back w/ a protour team after his infraction just a few months before tyler, correct?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

terzo rene said:


> He showed no evidence before or after of being a chimera. He is still touting fluctuating results as a problem with the test rather than the natural result of cheating (unless you get continuous transfusions the results would fluctuate as the cells died off). I could buy that he didn't intend to cheat with someone else's blood (just his own) but his statement shows he is still deliberately trying to mislead people. Or is too stupid to understand the tests, which is entirely possible since he is an athlete. Maybe because somebody told him he could get away with it he still believes he's innocent and was never caught. He is from Marblehead after all.


There is also the issue of what was going on with his blood parameters that raised the red flag with the UCI officials in the first place, I don't think they were testing his blood with the not yet approved blood doping test earlier in the year. Yet another reason he probably didn't want to submit himself to testing. Seems to me he's guilty as guilty can get based on a drug test, the best his lawyer could do and he tried mightily was to raise Johnny Cochran type smoke and mirror issues but those don't work on reasonably intelligent people.


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

Bianchigirl said:


> Wow, you're telling me they don't use flow cytometry in US hospitals to test for pre-eclampsia amongst other things - how positively medieval!


What is of utmost importancevin your hospital tests? False positives or false negatives?

Sure, latter. In case of false negative patient life is at stake, in case of false positive only cost of some unnecessary precautions.

For these reasons small percent of false positives is of no value in your cases, which is terribly different from doping tests.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

al0 said:


> What is of utmost importancevin your hospital tests? False positives or false negatives?
> 
> Sure, latter. In case of false negative patient life is at stake, in case of false positive only cost of some unnecessary precautions.
> 
> For these reasons small percent of false positives is of no value in your cases, which is terribly different from doping tests.


From the ruling it appears the testers have checked the reliability of the test and the lab's methodology for false positives. In fact, Hamilton's lawyers tried to disengenuously accuse the testers of knowingly ignoring a false positive when validating the Swiss lab's methodology when they were privy to all the emails concerning the incident. What in fact happened was the testers at the lab in Australia, where the test was developed, were in fact mistaken about the sample in question and it was indeed a positive sample not a negative sample as they originally believed when they thought the Swiss lab had yielded a false positive.


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

Dwayne Barry said:


> al0 said:
> 
> 
> > Did you have read that ruling carefully? It is laughable if not outright outrageous.
> ...


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

Dwayne Barry said:


> al0 said:
> 
> 
> > Did you have read that ruling carefully? It is laughable if not outright outrageous.
> ...


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

al0 said:


> What is of utmost importancevin your hospital tests? False positives or false negatives?
> 
> Sure, latter. In case of false negative patient life is at stake, in case of false positive only cost of some unnecessary precautions.
> 
> For these reasons small percent of false positives is of no value in your cases, which is terribly different from doping tests.


 False positives are not without costs in a traditional medical environment. The testing that can result in some cases is both invasive and potentially fatal.

At any rate any cutoff greater than zero with the test is an effort to decrease false positives and making the cutoff greater than 20% in this case is quite lenient. If you want to poke holes in the EPO test it's a pretty easy target but the science behind this one is quite solid.

The only reason we even know chimeras exist is because of flow cytometry, so to argue that chimerism, whatever the source, invalidates the test is rather circular reasoning.


----------



## andy02 (Nov 14, 2002)

I don't have a problem with the cytometry I have a problem with the fact that they are using AB that are NOT monoclonal and we are not even sure of the function of these proteins. We don't even no that two set of AB are the same!!! So you could have a set of AB in one lab that test for a diffeerent set of proteins then in a AB set in another lab! 






Bianchigirl said:


> Wow, you're telling me they don't use flow cytometry in US hospitals to test for pre-eclampsia amongst other things - how positively medieval!


----------



## mellowman (Apr 17, 2004)

andy02 said:


> I don't have a problem with the cytometry I have a problem with the fact that they are using AB that are NOT monoclonal and we are not even sure of the function of these proteins. We don't even no that two set of AB are the same!!! So you could have a set of AB in one lab that test for a diffeerent set of proteins then in a AB set in another lab!


IF by AB I assume you mean Vuelta test A and a Vuelta test B not a blood type.

If so then you should read the CAS report. They list which specific secondary markers were found to have mix populaitons. There were 3 and they were the same for the Vuelta A and B tests. They were also the same for the Olympic A test as well as a UCI Health check HBT test done in June '04 (when Tyler and Phonak team manager were first notified of something going on with Tyler's blood and why he was put on watch but before the HBT test was certified for use by WADA, UCI, IOC).

With the addition of Tyler's high off-score test results and the DNA analysis of his blood (item 59 in the CAS report) showing the homologous blood is not someone related to Tyler (and therefore not a chimera) the conclusion is undeniable. guilty. unfortunately.

From what I've seen and read, those that argue about the false positive issue are also people who lack a basic understanding of any science.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

andy02 said:


> I don't have a problem with the cytometry I have a problem with the fact that they are using AB that are NOT monoclonal and we are not even sure of the function of these proteins. We don't even no that two set of AB are the same!!! So you could have a set of AB in one lab that test for a diffeerent set of proteins then in a AB set in another lab!


What do you think was unique about Hamilton's blood that would explain the fact that on mulitple occasions it showed evidence of the same mixed blood sample? Why were other blood parameters of his so out of whack it raised the UCI concern? Isn't it odd that to date only Tyler and his room mate from the Vuelta have been found guilty of this type of doping? How come this flawed test isn't mistakenly catching people left and right rather than just poor Tyler and his room mate (you know the guy who had never done anything in the past but suddenly finished second in the Vuelta)? Why did Phonak fire their team doctor after these positives? You do the math.


----------



## walleyeangler (Nov 4, 2005)

I admit I know only what I've read about these tests for the red-blood cell pump and the EPO. But, what makes me suspect the whole testing process is this;

* They are "catching" way too many people. Do they all think they are smarter than the tests? Is drug use so universal? Hamilton I'm told was red flagged and warned at the Olympics. Would he really be so stupid as to think he could ontinue to get away with it? 

* The tests used to suspect EPO is more than 70 steps. As a former biochem major at a major university, I know that any flaw at any one of the steps can taint the results. 

* Or are the tests at fault? I think before ruining so many careers, the powers that be would launch some kind of universal testing committee to investigate how much assurance they can have in their methods, what other tests can be made available, perhaps commission a search for new testing procedures. 

* I don't believe Armstrong doped. Read his books. The guy is a maniac when it comes to relying on himself and training. His ego wouldn't let him. ANd, cancer patients are far too sensitive as to what they put in their bodies to think he would risk medical complications after what he was through. 

I won't feel confident I'm getting the straight dope on doping until the testing is tested.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

walleyeangler said:


> * I don't believe Armstrong doped. His ego wouldn't let him. ANd, cancer patients are far too sensitive as to what they put in their bodies to think he would risk medical complications after what he was through.
> QUOTE]
> 
> You really don't think there are cancer patients that have doped for far less significant reasons than to reach the pinnacle of their sport, achieve wealth and fame? Come on, I'm sure there are plenty of cancer survivors putting dope into their bodies for no better reason than it makes them feel good or look good.
> ...


----------



## walleyeangler (Nov 4, 2005)

[Armstrong has always struck me as a pretty gritty hardcore guy when it comes to cycling. I can't imagine he got to Europe as an 20 something guy and found out how the came was played and said, "no guys I'll pass on that stuff".[/QUOTE]


The problem of course is absolute reliable proof. 100 percent. No doubts. Before careers are ruined, the testing should be as reliable as DNA testing. Otherwise we are just voicing opinions. 

Armstrong was tested literally hundreds of times and we have only a B test without confirmation several years after the fact on a sample that was frozen and god knows who had access to it. The charges are being pressed by people with their noses out of joint and axes to grind. He came back year after year, submitted to testing and beat all comers with the help of his marvelous support team. 

Give me a test proven reliable, confirm the results and then I will believe the worst about Hamilton, Armstrong and a long list of equally great riders who have been implicated. I just don't believe current testing is doing the trick. Until it does, the tests are on trial in my mind, not the riders.


----------



## beaker (Feb 2, 2005)

*Jedi Mind Trick*



Dwayne Barry said:


> the best his lawyer could do and he tried mightily was to raise Johnny Cochran type smoke and mirror issues but those don't work on reasonably intelligent people.


The more I read of the case, the less I feel that Tyler has a leg to stand on. Even if he didn't dope, he didn't seem to meet the standard needed to prove his innocence.

That being said, WADA seemed to be using its own "smoke and mirrors" in their response. Actually, their response to certain issues was more like the Jedi mind trick. In response to the proposed 5% threshold we get "Panel does not find that there is any basis for doubting the validity of the test because no such threshold had been adopted." This is not the result you are looking for. You can go about your business.

The lack of discussion of the 5% threshold and its ultimate rejection might have just been for brevity's sake. I was interested in hearing exactly why it was rejected, especially since it seemed its consideration was swept under the rug by the witness. Even the CAS admitted "It is a concern to the Panel that the witness did not say that this had been considered as a legitimate criteria but ultimately had been abandoned." Again, the CAS tries to pull the mind trick of "However, the Panel is satisfied that this apparent contradiction does not affect the overall validity of the test."

If I missed something during my reading of the CAS document, please explain it to me (seriously, I'd like to know the scientific basis for it). How could the threshold level not be relevant to the "overall validity of the test"?!? Again, if the 5% threshold was not viable, why was it "discussed and seriously considered by the same witness and others"? Somebody, please 'splain this to me?!?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

al0 said:


> Once more - I do not state that Hamilton is innocent, I only state that hole procedure was unacceptable and case have to be dropped based just on procedural reasons.


This isn't sending someone to jail or the electric chair. Hamilton couldn't account for the findings. Letting him off based on procedural reasons would be letting a doper get off the hook. I agree in some big world picture the way they went about things wasn't great, but I'm pretty confident they caught a legitimate case of doping and as such I'm not going to shed any tears that his suspension was upheld.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

There is no such thing as a 100% reliable test.

Do you want a list of the admitted or caught by means other than drug tests dopers who were also tested hundreds of times? There are clearly ways to dope with very little chance of turning up positive on a drug test.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

beaker said:


> Again, if the 5% threshold was not viable, why was it "discussed and seriously considered by the same witness and others"? Somebody, please 'splain this to me?!?


Well I think because you want to set the bar fairly high for declaring someone positive. However, if I understood, this test can detect mixed blood populations well below 5%, I think they sight one case of .04%.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

walleyeangler said:


> The problem of course is absolute reliable proof. 100 percent. No doubts. Before careers are ruined, the testing should be as reliable as DNA testing. Otherwise we are just voicing opinions.
> 
> Armstrong was tested literally hundreds of times and we have only a B test without confirmation several years after the fact on a sample that was frozen and god knows who had access to it. The charges are being pressed by people with their noses out of joint and axes to grind. He came back year after year, submitted to testing and beat all comers with the help of his marvelous support team.
> 
> Give me a test proven reliable, confirm the results and then I will believe the worst about Hamilton, Armstrong and a long list of equally great riders who have been implicated. I just don't believe current testing is doing the trick. Until it does, the tests are on trial in my mind, not the riders.


First off, from what I can gather the only person calling the reliability of this test are TH and his defence. Secondly, Millar admitted taking EPO in the run up to the Vuelta & Worlds yet didn't test positive at all. Not so much as a whiff.

The test in the case of TH is designed to say if there is more than 1 persond blood markers present. There's no level at which it is positive, it is a yes or no test. He managed to have 2 extra markers! When presented with this he had more explanations of it. Transfusion, chimera, disappearing twin......

Usually, when accused of something that you didn't do, you present a cogent logical defence. TH jumped around from on to the other as each was discounted. That's the clincher for me.

As Dwayne said it's not like he was on trial for his life, nor for that matter is the burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Hamilton is a liar, cheat & a thief. 

He lied about doping.
He cheated to win.
He stole his victories.

If he'd put his hands up there and then, instead of trying to squirm his way out of it, I'd be able to look back at his gritty performances in the Giro & Tour without thinking "what the hell were you taking?"

I wish they could just erase him together with Virenque & Vandenbrouke.


----------



## beaker (Feb 2, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Well I think because you want to set the bar fairly high for declaring someone positive. However, if I understood, this test can detect mixed blood populations well below 5%, I think they sight one case of .04%.


That's what I'm saying, give me the details. I read about the .04% detection, but was that merely an outlier and the average detection rate higher? What if they missed detection at the 3% level, which is why they had initially suggested the 5% level? This may be too detailed for the CAS document's purposes, but I am still wondering.

Again, I grudgingly admit that TH has some explaining to do, but I would also like the testing authorities to share the whole story.

Anybody know about any writeups on the test that is done in layman's terms? I think a medical journal might be a tad too technical....


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

Yes, it is not sending someone into a jail, it is just professional ban, but anyway it is severe punishment. Concerning "legitimate" case - it is not legitiamte as it is not proved "beyound reasonable doubt". As I have already pointed, the main objections - poor level of validation of the test in regard to false positives - was not really controverted. 

The main issue in this affair was not a Hamilton's fate, but rather principles. Principles are sacrificed that is very sadly. Witch hunt is evil even if you by coincidence has nicked true witch - too many chances that next 100 would not be withces. 



Dwayne Barry said:


> This isn't sending someone to jail or the electric chair. Hamilton couldn't account for the findings. Letting him off based on procedural reasons would be letting a doper get off the hook. I agree in some big world picture the way they went about things wasn't great, but I'm pretty confident they caught a legitimate case of doping and as such I'm not going to shed any tears that his suspension was upheld.


----------



## mellowman (Apr 17, 2004)

al0 said:


> The main issue in this affair was not a Hamilton's fate, but rather principles. Principles are sacrificed that is very sadly. Witch hunt is evil even if you by coincidence has nicked true witch - too many chances that next 100 would not be withces.


It is a true evil to distort truth the way you do. No principles were sacrificed except for Tyler cheating, you should talk to Eki. 

Tyler's case is NOT a witch hunt nor is testing of riders for banned substances a witch hunt.

Tyler's case has been decided by 6 judges through both his appeals. If you actually bother to read the CAS report you will see just how reasonable the judges were (particularly with this last report) even when at times Tyler was clearly lying to the judges.

The 5% threshold was a demand by Tyler. Obviously so he would pass. The noise floor of the test is around .01%. The panel dismissed his 5% "recommendation" because there was no reasonable basis for that threshold beyond the obvious benefit for Tyler.

From the previous CAS report it seems Tyler's secondary population peaks were in the range of 1.3% to 3%. Any reasonable person would admit that evidence of secondary peaks 130x (or 13,000% above) the noise floor is significant enough to declare evidence of illegal blood transfusion given lack of excusable causes such as chimera, medical blood transfusion, pregnancy, ..etc.


----------



## mellowman (Apr 17, 2004)

beaker said:


> That's what I'm saying, give me the details. I read about the .04% detection, but was that merely an outlier and the average detection rate higher? What if they missed detection at the 3% level, which is why they had initially suggested the 5% level? This may be too detailed for the CAS document's purposes, but I am still wondering.
> 
> Again, I grudgingly admit that TH has some explaining to do, but I would also like the testing authorities to share the whole story.
> 
> Anybody know about any writeups on the test that is done in layman's terms? I think a medical journal might be a tad too technical....



Like I said previously, no understanding of basic science.

If you need a laymans explanation then you are already accepting someones interpretation. If you are already accepting someones interpretation then ACCEPT THE HBT TEST! THE EXPERTS ALREADY AGREE WITH IT AND HAVE CERTIFIED IT.


----------



## beaker (Feb 2, 2005)

mellowman said:


> Like I said previously, no understanding of basic science.
> 
> If you need a laymans explanation then you are already accepting someones interpretation. If you are already accepting someones interpretation then ACCEPT THE HBT TEST! THE EXPERTS ALREADY AGREE WITH IT AND HAVE CERTIFIED IT.


I don't have a problem with the test or with the judgement against TH, I was just looking for more information. 

_posters note: I edited out one paragraph from my post- I found an additional infosource that made my criticism invalid.- like I said, just trying to find info_

The 5% was not proposed by Tyler, it was "discussed and seriously considered" by the group working with the Lausanne lab (see part 76 of the CAS document). Tyler did bring it as part of his defense, but it was the Respondent's own witness who had suggested it.


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

walleyeangler said:


> * They are "catching" way too many people.


Well that is a new one: The tests must be flawed because they are catching too many dopers. It was not that long ago that doping apologists like ATP were parroting the party line that it was only the low end pros that resorted to doping; the stars would never risk getting busted because of the financial hit they would take from product endorsements being dropped.


----------



## mellowman (Apr 17, 2004)

beaker said:


> I don't have a problem with the test or with the judgement against TH, I was just looking for more information.
> 
> _posters note: I edited out one paragraph from my post- I found an additional infosource that made my criticism invalid.- like I said, just trying to find info_
> 
> The 5% was not proposed by Tyler, it was "discussed and seriously considered" by the group working with the Lausanne lab (see part 76 of the CAS document). Tyler did bring it as part of his defense, but it was the Respondent's own witness who had suggested it.


You are right in the sense that as the Lausanne lab was learning the Sydney and Athens method to perform the test, they had their own ideas on how to perform the tests until Sydney and Athens sorted them out on why the methods they use are the correct ones. Part of that was one doctor at Lausanne questioning why not to use a 5% threshold before declaring a positive. Subsequent communications cleared up his question and the threshold was not adopted. All this happened well before Tyler was tested.

But it was Tyler who used that correspondence to demand that his Vuelta results were invalid because they did not use the 5% threshold. This point is clearer in the last CAS hearing. I doubt Tyler would even have brought it up if it were not for the fact the 5% threshold would clear him.


----------



## wiles (Apr 17, 2005)

*Tyler's Ban: PEZ's Final Instalment*

from PEZ

We've been off the back in our incorrect reporting of the when Tyler Hamilton's return to racing could actually take place, and the number of flaming e-mails from alert readers has been keeping us toasty all week. So we goofed, but here's the good goods... Officially Tyler will be allowed to return to professional racing on September 22, 2006, two years on from the date when Hamilton voluntarily accepted a provisional suspension. This is in line with article 275 in Chapter 10 of the Anti-doping regulations of the UCI which states.
“The period of Ineligibility shall start on the date of the hearing decision providing for Ineligibility or, if the hearing is waived, on the date Ineligibility is accepted or otherwise imposed. Any period during which provisional measures pursuant to articles 217 through 223 were imposed or voluntarily accepted and any period for which subsequent Competition results have been Disqualified under article 274 shall be credited against the total period of Ineligibility to be served.”
The confusion surrounded the fact that the American Arbitration Association (AAA) found Hamilton guilty on April 18, 2005, after the introduction of the ProTour. Therefore, after the decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), the sanction was officially imposed before the introduction, Hamilton’s case is not affected by he ProTour regulations which prohibits riders signing for ProTour teams for four years following a positive test.
In conclusion, it is possible that Hamilton may return to racing with a ProTour team when his ban expires in September this year.


----------



## wiles (Apr 17, 2005)

*The Tyler Interview at last.*

I have always believed Tyler. I never read enough to convince me he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

His recent interview is very interesting.

http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=8955

Please read it if you think he is guilty. Tyler is giving us a chance to have an informed opinion. The doping storm is far from over. We need to learn as much as we can.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Sorry, but that interview is a joke - I've seen the writer defend it as being the only interview where Hamilton truly has his say - but the questions are an exercise in fawning sycophancy designed to let Hamilton parrot the beloved theories that CAS rejected out of hand. It's one long verbal arse licking.


----------



## thefunkyplumber (Sep 27, 2004)

Bianchigirl said:


> It's one long verbal arse licking.


Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Stop picking on The Fawning Sycophants and Hamilton Parrots.


Hmm, have you guys sprung Spring yet?


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Interesting stuff in the latest Velonews. The one that gave me the biggest laugh was that in unannounced testing done around LBL and Romandie Tyler's % of foreign blood was 10%. Then after they met with him and told him they knew what he was doing and to cut it out the percentage mysteriously started to decline down to the 1.5% level they nailed him for at the Vuelta.

Perhaps he thought since he had cut down if not stopped altogether they weren't going to go after him with the test and that's why he's so bent out of shape about the whole affair, but regardless his defense never came up with any plausible explanation for all his results and that mysterious decline certainly adds yet another sizeable nail to the multitude in his coffin.

www.IBelieveTylerisaLyingSackofSh!t.org


----------

