# Hamilton/Vuelta - blood inconsistencies reported



## mtnwing (Aug 30, 2004)

Velonews is reporting that the UCI blood screening team at the Vuelta has claimed to have found inconsistencies with Hamilton's blood and notified Phonak doctors Monday. 

http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/6984.0.html

Preliminary speculation is some kind of blood transfusion which is not approved by UCI rules and detectable by new testing equipment. 

Let's hope for Tyler's sake there's a different explaination than this . . . 

-mtnwing
www.roadbikes.net
www.carbonbicycles.com


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

From cyclingnews.com it sounds like a good ole fashion blood transfusion, take out your own stuff, let your body rebuild it's red blood cell volume and then pump the stuff you've taken out back in. Sounds like he'll lose his Olympic medal as well since he tested positive at both the Olympics and Vuelta.

I would think this would also raise the spectre over Bobby Julich because he rode so well at the Olympics and more significantly, USA cycling has a history of using this doping technique. I believe Alexi Grewal at the '84 Olympics used this technique back before it was banned.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Mark Gorski, ex-boss of Tailwind was on that team too (won the Olympic Sprint) and Chris Carmichael was substitute.

He's a big name to fall, but I'm sure there'll be some [sarcasm] explanation [/sarcasm]


----------



## eyebob (Feb 3, 2004)

*Really suspicious*

You know, when I saw that he won the Gold medal by that big a margin, I said "that's not right!" It's just pretty suspicious to have won by that big of a margin then come to Vuelta and suffer (except on the ITT day). I truly hope that it's not true. I like what I know of Tyler a lot.

BT


----------



## darbo (Dec 9, 2002)

Bianchigirl said:


> Mark Gorski, ex-boss of Tailwind was on that team too (won the Olympic Sprint) and Chris Carmichael was substitute.
> 
> He's a big name to fall, but I'm sure there'll be some [sarcasm] explanation [/sarcasm]


"Explanation" is hinted to be that the anomolies are the result of a transfusion from some past medical procedure. Anyone remember reports of Tyler going under the knife anytime recently? Not me.

And to borrow a turn of phrase from our latest alleged dopagiste, I swear on my dead dog's grave that from now on, I will be far more skeptical of transcendent performances in cycling.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

I'd be interested to know whether the blood packing took place through Phonak or through the US Olympic team?

Because Bobby Julich had a pretty special ride too...and the Olympic positive test came first (and the second could have been because the test has a 4 week period of validity)...

sorry, as a European am naturally cynical whenever I hear of riders abandoning because of 'food poisoning' or mysterious 'stomach trouble'


----------



## peter1 (Apr 10, 2002)

Well, technically it's not using "performance enhancing drugs"... so there's still "plausible deniability," as they say on the political spin doctor circuit. I wonder what other low-tech doping methods are out there? 

I was mildly shocked when I saw the news, but not surprised. Tyler seems to be a nice guy, but that doesn't seem to be a criteria for being a doper in sports today (or ever, for that matter), and that's something I have a hard time getting my head around. I guess I still see sports stars like I did when I was a kid, as characters in a good vs. evil play. 

Possibly a general amnesty right now in cycling might do some good. Wipe the slate clean, tell cyclists who are doping now and in the past to fess up, with no penalties. Let the fans decide who they want to continue to support. and begin baseline medical tests. But let the penalty for using be a lifetime ban -- on the FIRST offense. Ahh, I'm just pissing in the wind, i guess...(rather than the bottle..)


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

best way to really clean up the sport is to take the responsibility for testing away from the UCI - who are basically a bunch of old pros turning a blind eye to all the tricks. Let Dick Pound have a real go at sorting it out.


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

*A Shame...*



Bianchigirl said:


> best way to really clean up the sport is to take the responsibility for testing away from the UCI - who are basically a bunch of old pros turning a blind eye to all the tricks. Let Dick Pound have a real go at sorting it out.


Hey Bianchigirl, first let me welcome you to the forums. I see you're new to the boards and it's great to have additional perspective from someone who knows there stuff. Your tour knowledge will be a benefit when July comes around...
I can agree with you to an extent. The governing bodies in all sports feel they have a primary goal of putting a flashy product in front of the paying fans and a second priority to enforce the rules of their sport. It's been a tough year for cycling, riders falling from grace, lives disrupted, stage wins and a world title taken away, family homes and hotel rooms raided, but at least the sport is doing something about it. These are the growing pains the sport must suffer to get clean. In comparison to the NFL, NBA and MLB, I'd rather be a fan of a sport that has dopers and a testing regiment than watch a league that will never test its athletes because of a strong player's union and the fear of how it might tarnish their sacred cow. There is testing in US pro sports but it's more of an IQ test than a drug test. 'Hey guys, you'll all have to pee in a cup in two weeks, just to let you know so that it doesn't inconvenience you.' The stupid ones, like Ricky Williams, fail the tests. I'm from San Francisco and have been a Giant's fan all my life but this is the first year I can remember that I haven't been to a game or even watched one on the telie. The whole Balco thing really made me sick.
And now Tyler The US Olympic team began centrifuging blood for the 84 games in LA and were quite open about it. I road with a few of the people on that squad and a few of the alternates and they talked about it in the pack and to the press. The trainers and coaches saw it as a safe way to boost red cell counts without having to inject synthetics or hormones into their athletes. They thought they had found a safe and acceptable method to simulate altitude training but the IOC didn't take it that way.
We can't comprehend the pressures these athletes are under to perform. A guy like Tyler knows he only has two shots left to realize a life's dream, a tour victory. He gets handed the lead of a team and a huge salary, gets to hand pick his climbers for his tour squad, knows he's near retirement, realizes he might need some 'insurance' to stay with the contenders in the mountains. To do what you know is wrong is a real shame and I'll bet there are a lot less Tyler fans in the world.


----------



## bikemech (Sep 15, 2004)

*and to think I was mad b/c he crashes so much*

I'm still pissed at him for crashing so much and now this! I give up... I need someone else to cheer for.. any suggestions.. I think Dizzy, what's his name...the US ITT champ.. I think I'll cheer for him now... Can you imagine how mad you've got to be if you're the Phonak Director? Sign the guy to a huge contract, falls and leaves the tour, then falls again! and leaves the Veulta, and now this? No wonder they signed Floyd... OH! Sorry Dizzy, you'll have to wait your turn... Floyd 's the man now... I'm jumping on the old wooden wagon that Floyd's parents are still pulling around the farm


----------



## peterpen (May 5, 2004)

I won't be terribly surprised if it turns out that Hamilton did blood dope. But my question is, will Tyler use the 'I went to the dentist excuse' or the 'my mother-in-law gave me candy' ? Or maybe his dog ate the surgical records? ;-)

However, I don't think his recent performances have been suspicious in and of themselves. He prepared specifically for the Olympic time trial, a luxury most of his rivals did not have. And the training for a time trial is vastly different than for a grand tour, so his struggles at La Vuelta were no surprise, nor was his success at the flat ITT.

As for his retirment from the race and citing 'food poisoning or intestinal problems,' that is just par for the course - excuses that are used by many pros when they aren't up to snuff. Often they are valid - these guys are right at the edge of what their bodies can take and illness is not uncommon.

At the end of the day, I'm not terribly bothered by this or that rider getting popped. I'm all for doping controls, but the reality is that as long as there's money involved, people will cheat. Hell, even when it's just braggin rights at stake, people cheat. Pantani doped and still was an amazing and inspiring rider. Regardless of the outcome of Hamilton's B samples, I'll still watch my tape of his win at Liege on rainy days while riding the trainer. Sport has never been pure, nor will it ever be. I still can enjoy it.



eyebob said:


> You know, when I saw that he won the Gold medal by that big a margin, I said "that's not right!" It's just pretty suspicious to have won by that big of a margin then come to Vuelta and suffer (except on the ITT day). I truly hope that it's not true. I like what I know of Tyler a lot.
> 
> BT


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*doping and transfusions*

was first done by Eddy B and the US track squad for the LA games (it was legal then)
if Tyler had used this method (his own blood) it wouldn't show 'inconsistencies' but an H-Crit level that was too high. Inconsititencies in RBC's leads to 'someone elses blood' and that would have to be for a 'medical / sugical procedure' maybe from the TdF crash? who knows. If he had a procedure that required blood and his H-Crit is/was below 50 than I think it'll wind up a non-call. It's going to be interesting to say the least.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

atpjunkie said:


> was first done by Eddy B and the US track squad for the LA games (it was legal then)
> if Tyler had used this method (his own blood) it wouldn't show 'inconsistencies' but an H-Crit level that was too high. Inconsititencies in RBC's leads to 'someone elses blood' and that would have to be for a 'medical / sugical procedure' maybe from the TdF crash? who knows. If he had a procedure that required blood and his H-Crit is/was below 50 than I think it'll wind up a non-call. It's going to be interesting to say the least.


Well Phonak seem to be questioning the reliability of the test, so I would assume that there never was a transfusion that could possibly account for someone else's red blood cells getting mixed up with Hamilton's.


----------



## _andrew_ (Jan 2, 2003)

*Millar...Mirehagen... Hamilton now what Armstrong???*

I have to say when I heard the news about Hamilton I couldn't believe it... He seems like the least likley rider to dope, currently I'm going through a little denial and I can't see it being accurate, or making medical sense in conditions as hot and humid as what was present in Athens blood doping would not make sense, the elevated blood pressure could possibly be detrimental. Also with altitude tents where athletes can get there blood up to the UCI limit and beyond through natural means it doesnt' make sense for riders to blood dope in this day and age. Finially if Hamilton is found guilty it will be just another HUGE name rider to fall and slip into the doping sludge pool. With the number of riders becoming "Dopers", I believe its only now a matter of time before the tests catch up to Armstrong. It doesn't make sense no matter how talented and how well he trains that he can be beating athletes with similar natural tallent and ability and are taking performance enhancers, it doesn't make sense that the top rider in the world can be clean when the 50 riders below him are found to be taking drugs...

LETS CLEAN UP THIS SPORT ITS MAKING ME SICK


----------



## mtnwing (Aug 30, 2004)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Well Phonak seem to be questioning the reliability of the test, so I would assume that there never was a transfusion that could possibly account for someone else's red blood cells getting mixed up with Hamilton's.


There seem to be a lot of folks that are jumping to conclusions here so I thought I'd put a few points out in "support of innocent until proven" notion.

1) Tyler has never been positive before.

2) This is a very very very new test so the reliability is not real clear.

3) No other rider has ever been caught or accused via this specific test so there's no empirical data to compare or reference the accuracy.

4) Medical tests can have false positives. No one has published the accuracy ratio/ false positive percentage of this testing on average

5) Tyler has been at the top of the sport and the peleton for two years running and he's got one of the most aero time trial bikes in the world . No other TT bike at the Olympics that I'm aware of had an integrated fork head tube and stem. BMC hasn't published aero numbers on this bike that I've seen. but I bet the numbers are impressive and shave some valuable seconds off competitors times just standing still.

6) He trained under one of TDF's best time trialer's ever and surely learned a few things along the way

7) UCI has reported "inconsistencies" but hasn't said much else so the verdict in their eyes seems to be a bit grey at this point as well. Time will tell what their full position is on this testing 

8) Are there any medical experts out there that can comment on how long a transfusion remains active for detection by this test? None of us know Tyler's full medical history, and I'm sure he doesn't publish it normally for obvious reasons. This might sound a stretch, but weird things happen. My mom got diagnosed with two forms of cancer at once . . . that was weird and almost unbelievabe too.

9) Ex-Posties are all over the peleton and riding well. Leipheimer, Heras, Eki, Floyd, and even the Posties coming over from the states for an ocasional Euro race have faired respectably. So my point here is the training system, discipline, equipment and overall knowledge of how to train hard and ride fast gets ingrained in all those guys heads and so it shouldn't be a surprise when the more talented one's spread their wings and fly high on other teams. 

Maybe it's the system and not "cheating" that makes so many of these guys top contenders. We've seen how good coaching can make a difference in other sports. Bill Parcels, Bill Walsh, Pat Riley . . . etc. So this same theory should transfer to cycling too, and so Tyler's success may largely be the result of being privey to racing and training knowledge handed down by the best and then reapplied.

I think this is a strange situation, but strange realities do exist in life and the truth may not be the easier answer or the highest probability.

That said, we've all see some big stars fall hard. We all know the sport can and needs to be cleaner . . . . but my chips are betting that Tyler is innocent and this test may not be as rock solid for providing crystal ball accuracy.

-mtnwing
www.roadbikes.net
www.carbonbicycles.com


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

It's a new test to cycling, but is the standard test that has been used for some time now to determine paternity and is thus accepted as reliable in law.

I'd be happier to buy all this if there had been one 'positive' test (and inconsistencies is what the test is for, therefore to have inconsistensies is to be positive in this test) but there have been two. The US federation knew about the positive at the Olympics _the day after the TT_ ...

but what bothers me most is why Hamilton would have had a surgical procedure that involved some level of blood manipulation without his team and the UCI knowing about it - let alone the media. Surely this should have been in his medical dossier and thus mitigate against again 'positive' in a test of this kind?

He has denied it - but I can't help thinking of David Millar, who took out an injunction against a UK newspaper so vehement was he that he wasn't doping and then....ho hum, guess what...


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

mtnwing said:


> There seem to be a lot of folks that are jumping to conclusions here so I thought I'd put a few points out in "support of innocent until proven" notion.
> -mtnwing
> www.roadbikes.net
> www.carbonbicycles.com


Well, I'm not sure where exactly you're coming from, as failing two drug tests is the "proof" that he is guilty. His only recourse now is to somehow show that the test is flawed or hope that his "B" samples come back negative. In other words, he is already guilty, he needs to overturn that "verdict".

As for rationalizing his innocence, etc. no one but Hamilton (and the others directly involved if he was indeed doping) know for sure one way or another.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

_andrew_ said:


> "making medical sense in conditions as hot and humid as what was present in Athens blood doping would not make sense, the elevated blood pressure could possibly be detrimental."
> 
> Well the increased oxygen carrying capacity of the blood would make you faster for sure!
> 
> ...


----------



## _andrew_ (Jan 2, 2003)

Cycling needs to be tougher, we need to have a backbone against doping, until that time it will never recieve the respect it deserves as a sport. Everyone wants the hero's to be a shining example of the human spirt and it is hard to imagine that these shining examples could be using drugs, but that is also the nature of the human sprit we lie we cheat we decieve and we love to win. It is hard to accept but people want to win bad enough that they will do what ever it takes; if it means decieving a gulliable public then they will do it. Cycling is by nature a sport of decpetion, from hiding your pain durring a race over talking how your training has been going. Is it that hard to believe that a athlete could also be deceptive about that. The cycling community needs to get a tougher stomache, the cheaters are not going to be the anti social recluses who we could pick out of a group from a mile away, just because Tyler is a nice guy doesn't mean he has a side that he doesn't show- the press never shows a complete person. As much as we would like our hero's to be clean we cant keep clinging to the notion that they its time to wake up and smell the coffee RIDERS CHEAT we may not like it but its a fact of racing we cant try and protect them or hold out hope. I'm going to hate to see the hysteria that will occur if they were to finially catch Armstrong... well he seemed like a nice guy... and we all know nice guys never cheat..


----------



## Tri_Rich (Aug 13, 2003)

Bianchigirl said:


> It's a new test to cycling, but is the standard test that has been used for some time now to determine paternity and is thus accepted as reliable in law.


Unless I am very much mistaken, Tyler failed a new test which uses flow cytometry to look at minor blood groupings. Paternity tests are done using PCR based DNA testing. The testing for blood groupings was developed in 2003 specifically to catch cheaters and was used for the first time this summer.


----------



## Bocephus Jones (Feb 3, 2004)

Tri_Rich said:


> Unless I am very much mistaken, Tyler failed a new test which uses flow cytometry to look at minor blood groupings. Paternity tests are done using PCR based DNA testing. The testing for blood groupings was developed in 2003 specifically to catch cheaters and was used for the first time this summer.


Tyler's news just got worse. His team suspended him and said his contract would be cancelled if he couldn't prove his innocence:

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~76~2419060,00.html


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

they'll never catch Armstrong - can you imagine, that really would kill the sport, especially in the US. There's too much riding on him - Tour sponsorship, global coverage for the race and more money in TV rights, the big US dollars and of course those pharmaceutical dollars that are riding on Armstrong's 'miracle' comeback....


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Bianchigirl said:


> they'll never catch Armstrong - can you imagine, that really would kill the sport, especially in the US. There's too much riding on him - Tour sponsorship, global coverage for the race and more money in TV rights, the big US dollars and of course those pharmaceutical dollars that are riding on Armstrong's 'miracle' comeback....


Right, this is essentially the reason that national federations have suppressed known failed drug test for so long (see US track & field for instance), it doesn't help anyone, except the clean athletes, when someone fails a drug test. Cycling is only dealing with the doping problem now because the French police created the Festina affair, and the cops in Belgium and Italy have followed suit.

We have at least 2 admitted dopers here in the US that have never been sanctioned by USA cycling.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*hang out w/ any serious Track and Fielder*

and you'll get 
a) Flo Jo - definitely doped, no one takes that much time off their 100 (plus .5 second) without 'help' and it's probably what led to her early demise. They knew and suppressed as she was the 'darling' of that games
b) the Belarussian Female Gold Medalist this year, never ran an 11 second 100 and does it 4 times in this Olympics....see above
c) Greek Female 400 Hurdler Gold medalist (same, home field 'pump' can only count for so much)
b&c addendum) they tell me to follow their post-olympic performances, if they don't repeat such times it adds to the conclusion
d) All the WR's that were set in the 80's and are barely challenged, most likely dope aided
ie...Bubkas pole vaults etc...


----------



## KenS (Jan 28, 2004)

*Why someone else's blood?*



atpjunkie said:


> was first done by Eddy B and the US track squad for the LA games (it was legal then)
> if Tyler had used this method (his own blood) it wouldn't show 'inconsistencies' but an H-Crit level that was too high. Inconsititencies in RBC's leads to 'someone elses blood' and that would have to be for a 'medical / sugical procedure' maybe from the TdF crash? who knows. If he had a procedure that required blood and his H-Crit is/was below 50 than I think it'll wind up a non-call. It's going to be interesting to say the least.


It would seem that doing blood-doping with someone else's blood would still produce too high an H-crit level also and that would have been detected by standard tests. It is not like Hamilton has been caught doing something by a new test that would have been missed by older tests. Instead, it is a test developed for other purposes that is being applied to a new situation. Standard tests should have reported that his H-crit level was too high. The new test would suggest where those extra RBCs came from.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*originally done w/ your own*

take some out in the off season, centrifuge (to reduce plasma) and reinject your own RBC's for race time. Put in just enough to be 'legal' on H-Crit scale. So many ways to boost RBC it's why they test for H-Crit and not boosting method


----------



## mtnwing (Aug 30, 2004)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Well, I'm not sure where exactly you're coming from, as failing two drug tests is the "proof" that he is guilty. His only recourse now is to somehow show that the test is flawed or hope that his "B" samples come back negative. In other words, he is already guilty, he needs to overturn that "verdict".
> 
> As for rationalizing his innocence, etc. no one but Hamilton (and the others directly involved if he was indeed doping) know for sure one way or another.


Proof won't come until they test the "B" samples as well and disclose the "accuracy" of the testing (which the UCI should also be accountable to prove the accuracy don't you think???). 

I'm not proclaiming he's innocent . . . or guilty . . . 

What I'm saying IS we should NOT jump to conclusions until all the facts are revealed. Obviously the tower of cards appears to be leaning, but as in any serious matter, caution, patience, and a thorough analysis of all the facts are the key to a fair judgement. 

Right now the arm chair quarterbacks want to throw Tyler to the lions, yet only some of the facts have been disclosed. 

Here's a partial quote from Roadcycling.com article  which can be found here:

http://www.roadcycling.com/news/article853.shtml

"A new development in doping has been the increased prevalence of auto-transfusion (drawing blood from yourself, and replacing it at a later time in an attempt to boost your oxygen carrying capacity). Fear of being caught for EPO use, and awareness of the difficulty of testing for auto-transfusion, has driven athletes to self-transfusion. In preparation for the Sydney Olympics, Australian officials did research quantifying mixed red blood cell populations via the flow cytometric technique used to detect minute differences between fetal and maternal blood cells in pregnant women. This method is accurate in detecting the small amount of mixed blood cells that would result from an auto-transfusion. Using more specific antigen testing, authorities can more specifically hone in on blood types, exposing those who may have been doped. The half-life of transfused red blood cells is 55 days, meaning that this test could possibly detect doping from up to 2 months prior to the test. This testing is very accurate with a false positive rate of less than 5%.

In Hamilton’s case, if the ultra-sensitive flow cytometry technique could detect cells from a blood transfusion for up to 55 days, it could be assumed that the doping tests done following the Tour de France and Athens Olympics would also have shown “mixed blood cells”. The fact that he has never had a positive (or non-negative) test in the last 10 years is in his favor. We should withhold any further judgment regarding the test results until all the results have been disclosed and all the information is known." - ROADCYCLING.com Article
Other articles like this one http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/sports/9724457.htm
quote the head of the IOC questioning the reliability of autologous transfusion testing. The CEO of Phonak is also quoted to be questioning the reliability. 

Let's see the whole truth unveiled before we decide if we need to bring out the tar and feathers on this one.

-mtnwing


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

mtnwing said:


> Let's see the whole truth unveiled before we decide if we need to bring out the tar and feathers on this one.
> -mtnwing


You're confusing personal opinion with what the officials (who matter) say. I don't know if he is a doper or not, nor does anyone else but Hamilton and his confidants, if they exist. Even if he is exonerated ultimately I wouldn't be any less or more sure he was doping or not. Look at the long list of confirmed dopers Brochard, Zulle, Virenque, Pantani (almost assuredly if not confirmed), Millar, etc. who never tested positive.

Now that his B sample results are known, he is 100% guilty of failing a dope test in the eyes of the UCI, so he will be suspended and fired (but probably get to keep his Gold medal since that B test was negative). I think it really unlikely that once the UCI decides to use a test they will backtrack and say it is unreliable. He will have to take them to court which will take months if not years to resolve.


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

Bianchigirl said:


> I'd be interested to know whether the blood packing took place through Phonak or through the US Olympic team?
> 
> Because Bobby Julich had a pretty special ride too...and the Olympic positive test came first (and the second could have been because the test has a 4 week period of validity)...
> 
> sorry, as a European am naturally cynical whenever I hear of riders abandoning because of 'food poisoning' or mysterious 'stomach trouble'


If you will take a more close look on this year Vuelta records (on Cyclingnews or Velonews) you wil notice that riders has abandonend due to stomach problems in throngs, in many cases directly naming dishes that has caused those problems (e.g. fish salad).


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

Bianchigirl said:


> best way to really clean up the sport is to take the responsibility for testing away from the UCI - who are basically a bunch of old pros turning a blind eye to all the tricks. Let Dick Pound have a real go at sorting it out.


The best (and only) way to clean a sport is to legalize any and all dope, as soon as it becomes legalized no one can cheat.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Using your own blood means you have to wait 6-8 weeks for your body to rebuild the red blood cells you took out, and probably suffer with lower abilities during that time. Additionally, the removed red blood cells die off at a pretty good clip, so that after 6-8 weeks when you're ready to re-inject them you don't have nearly as many as there were when you removed them.

The obvious way to get around those negavite aspects is to use somebody else's blood to increase your red blood cell count.


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

Dwayne Barry said:


> ...
> 
> Now that his B sample results are known, he is 100% guilty of failing a dope test in the eyes of the UCI, so he will be suspended and fired (but probably get to keep his Gold medal since that B test was negative). I think it really unlikely that once the UCI decides to use a test they will backtrack and say it is unreliable. He will have to take them to court which will take months if not years to resolve.


For me positive A and negative B (in Olympics test) is a very proof ot test inreliability.

As far as I know this testing techique has never been proved or even tested ot top-level athletes (and at all was tested on very lemited test base - tens , not thousands). It is well-known fact that extra-hard training alter many body processes and many vital signs of top athletes (and often even not so very top) are abnormal and will be considered as illness markers for Joe Average (cardiography results, urine tests, some immunology results and so on). Is it quite possible that this very test is trapped in the same catch.

So till any proof of method become available I will postpone my conclusion.


----------



## mtnwing (Aug 30, 2004)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Well, I'm not sure where exactly you're coming from, as failing two drug tests is the "proof" that he is guilty. His only recourse now is to somehow show that the test is flawed or hope that his "B" samples come back negative. In other words, he is already guilty, he needs to overturn that "verdict".
> 
> As for rationalizing his innocence, etc. no one but Hamilton (and the others directly involved if he was indeed doping) know for sure one way or another.


Not rationalizling innocence ... but I am supporting the concept of "innocent until proven"

Maybe two failed tests are proof for "who draws the starting line" but not necessarily the "real truth". 

As you stated 'B samples need to be negative . . . .' 

now we have 4 tests, and only 3 are accurate? Or were 3 test off the mark and 1 on? or were they all nonsense? 

Not something I'd want to hang my hat on for reliability, especially when you consider this is the first ever case of this test being used on athletes and there's still no published data on Ty's specific blood or the exact testing method the UCI lab used. Sure the UCI can try to split out the Olympic test and say, that isn't relevant and he failed, but we now have more questions than answers on this one I'd say. 

I'd be curious to know if any other olympic or vuelta athletes would get "conflicting results" if they went ahead and tested all the "B" samples. Also curious how similiar or different the Olympic or UCI testing was. Was it the same lab? Same procedures? And how about the tests at the TDF? was this same test done there? If so (WARNING - speculating HERE but . . .) we've may have 3 negatives and 3 positives potentially within a pretty short period and we know Tyler's TT work there was equally amazing. 

From the looks of Phonak's announced actions to set up a scientific board to review the testing reliability and proceedures before making any lasting decisions, it looks to me like they "are supportive" of Tyler and are making some very wise decisions to help him out in a professional manner. 

-mtnwing


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

al0 said:


> For me positive A and negative B (in Olympics test) is a very proof ot test inreliability.
> So till any proof of method become available I will postpone my conclusion.


See the latest on cyclingnews.com. Not so much his B sample was negative as it was untestable.
And unfortunately for Hamilton you don't get to decide if he failed a dope test or not, and the people that do are saying this:

"The fact that the analysis of the B sample was not conclusive does not challenge the accuracy of the analysis of the A sample; the method used during the Olympic Games in Athens was authorized by the World Anti-Doping Agency after validation by the international scientific community in accordance with an established set of criteria."

So he's screwed.


----------



## mtnwing (Aug 30, 2004)

Dwayne Barry said:


> See the latest on cyclingnews.com. Not so much his B sample was negative as it was untestable.
> And unfortunately for Hamilton you don't get to decide if he failed a dope test or not, and the people that do are saying this:
> 
> "The fact that the analysis of the B sample was not conclusive does not challenge the accuracy of the analysis of the A sample; the method used during the Olympic Games in Athens was authorized by the World Anti-Doping Agency after validation by the international scientific community in accordance with an established set of criteria."
> ...


. . . well if he doped were all getting screwed go have such a fraud in the sport. 

Definately some interesting articles up on CyclingNews.com today as you pointed out. Especially the interview from the doctor that helped develop the testing in Austrailia. Looks like the deck of cards is getting closer to falling over. I'd still like see if the Phonak "experts" can make a case but right now it doesn't look too good, beyond some banana peel excuses. 

Interesting too how in Phonak's very first PR responses, they suggested that Tyler might have had a previous transfusion that accounts for the results. They appear to be pretty saavy regarding the testing and what if anything could thrown it off , having mentioned that right off the bat. Curious to see if there are any other creative responses or explainations that surface over the coming months. 

Do you think the possible sactions will affect the whole Phonak team? This is potentially strike two for Phonak this year isn't it? will this negatively affect Floyd's future?

-mtnwing


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

mtnwing said:


> .
> Definately some interesting articles up on CyclingNews.com today as you pointed out. Especially the interview from the doctor that helped develop the testing in Austrailia.


Interview is not so interesting - only unproved claims, some of them clearly and definitely false. Article that he refers provides not much proof as well - test base was too small, see comments to this article on the http://www.cyclingnews.com/letters/?id=2004/sep24letters , especially *Then new bllod test #1,#2,#3 and #4*.


----------

