# Hamilton races again...



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

Still makes me mad when a suspended rider goes to a hillclimb and wins it. What a joke. 

On another note though, take a look who is in second place. Good old Ned Overend. Never ceases to amaze me that Ned can still throw it down pretty well in his "advanced" years. Good one Ned. Hamilton, you need to stop racing until your suspension is over, that is, if it ever gets done post Operacion Puerto.

http://www.velonews.com/race/dom/articles/10732.0.html


----------



## zoikz (Sep 5, 2003)

*Maybe it was his chimera*

Wow. He always said he had a secret twin (and why his blood test was falsely positive) and now we know its true.


----------



## cocoboots (Apr 13, 2006)

from another post


http://www.eurosport.com/cycling/sport_sto947707.shtml


i bet those other pros at the race love getting beat by a doper...taking their prize $$ .... if he admitted what he did this would all be put behind him, but his twin, chimera crap is a joke. he's a LIAR and a DOPER.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

I really don't think this is a problem. it's a private event isn't it? it's governed only by itself, and the promoters seem to like having hamilton there as they keep inviting him back. he's not banned from <u>racing</u>, just banned from racing sanctioned events.


----------



## rcnute (Dec 21, 2004)

Must take guts though to keep training and showing up at an event like that.


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2006)

It's a freaking friendly bike race / time trial. Chill out already!

It's funny but I don't remember OJ getting this much vitriol from the average person despite the fact that his crime was many orders of magnitude greater than cheating in a bike race!


----------



## zoikz (Sep 5, 2003)

*What's a vitriol?*



Bdaghisallo said:


> It's a freaking friendly bike race / time trial. Chill out already!
> 
> It's funny but I don't remember OJ getting this much vitriol from the average person despite the fact that his crime was many orders of magnitude greater than cheating in a bike race!


You must a done real good like on yer tests and stuff. You sound real smart like. 
Personally don't care if he races again. Just can't stand the absolute lameness of him acting like he is pure as the driven rain and a victim. The whole chimera thing is just a total joke. That boy is dirty, dirty, dirty. I hardly think the cycling community has been that malicious to Tyler, certainly they never treated him like the murderer that OJ is. But pro cyclists should know that if you dope not only do you lose your job, you're a pariah in our community. The stakes are so huge now. We have to clean our sport up.


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2006)

Courtesy of Merriam-Webster online:

Vitriol 

"something felt to resemble vitriol especially in caustic quality; especially : virulence of feeling or of speech" 


And, yes, I did fine on all my tests thank you. 


You are simply dreaming if you think this or any other major sport involving a lot of money and glory will ever be clean. It's not in our nature to be completely honest at all times. Someone will always cheat or lie to gain an advantage over those who don't.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

zoikz said:


> You must a done real good like on yer tests and stuff. You sound real smart like.


Indeed. Perhaps you need a dictionary.


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*It's not invitation..*



blackhat said:


> I really don't think this is a problem. it's a private event isn't it? it's governed only by itself, and the promoters seem to like having hamilton there as they keep inviting him back. he's not banned from <u>racing</u>, just banned from racing sanctioned events.


This isn't an invitation only event, so they're not inviting him back, he has to register just like everyone else, but I think they probably make some sort of leeway for past winners of the event. 

It sucks to me that he keeps going to this race. First, he takes money out of the pockets of people that haven't been suspended from the sport (yes, this event is not sanctioned). You should also sanction yourself. If the top tier of the cycling world doesn't want you participating in the sport because you're a "convicted" doper, don't you think you ought to sit out other races as well? So now we have a doper, riding in an unsanctioned event, taking money away from legit competitors. Yeah, Hamilton is a real stand up guy for doing this again this year. I'm all for him coming back into the sport when his suspension is up (unless he gets banned for life). But until that time, why don't you sit on the sidelines you welp? Freakin' ridiculous. And no, I don't care what he did with the prize money (he gave it away last year I think, and will probably do the same).


----------



## zoikz (Sep 5, 2003)

*hehe*

Actually I was being ironic. I find it interesting when people use words in a public format that are unlikely to be in the public lexicon (vocabulary.) Something about writing for the audience. 
I guess you don't see professional cycling as endangered as I do. You are right though, people will cheat. There is a long history of cheating in the tour and pro cycling. The public opinion right now may be that pro cycling is the dirtiest of all sports when it comes to performance enhancement. I don't think that is right. I think most sports, particularly US professional leagues, don't want to open the can of worms. So long as people are filling the bleachers and home runs are being made they would rather it be left uninvestigated. Hamilton is still a lamo though. He and I raced for Univ Colorado together for a few seasons. I really respected him. Totally blew my and all the riders doors off. It seems to get that extra something he turned to the dark side.


----------



## zoikz (Sep 5, 2003)

*uhh*

Read between the lines ace.
Wow you average over 11 posts a day. That's amazing.


----------



## Mr_Mojo (Mar 14, 2005)

magnolialover said:


> And no, I don't care what he did with the prize money (he gave it away last year I think, and will probably do the same).


So he made millions while he was doped to the gills then he gives away the $1500...he's pathetic.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

zoikz said:


> Read between the lines ace.
> Wow you average over 11 posts a day. That's amazing.



That's the best you can come up with?


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

Zoikz has appointed himself as the hallway monitor and he's keeping it real.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2006)

Zoikz,

You may be right in thinking that professional cycling is endangered, but only on this side of the Atlantic I think. Cycling is a true working class sport in Europe and is so ingrained in the culture there, especially in the Lowlands and in parts of western France, that I am sure it will survive this latest scandal. The recent news surely comes as no surprise to any of the die-hard traditional fans in Europe. They have seen it all before and keep coming back.

Many global and, particularly, north american sponsors may well be scared off by this. They have an image to promote and don't want to be associated with this. I won't be amazed if Discovery don't renew when their contract with Tailwind Sports runs out.

Maybe we will see a return to the times of thirty years ago when all the teams were sponsored by small regional companies in europe and when a four-time Tour winner ( Hinault) was pulling in the princely salary of about $150K.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Does no one see the *real* injustice here??? Hamilton stole a win from hardman Ned Overend who was winning races back when George Washington was chopping down cherry trees! If I were Ned, I'd be mightily p.o.'d at Tyler!!!


----------



## zoikz (Sep 5, 2003)

*Endangered*

I think you are probably right. The US just recently seems to have caught on to pro cycling as a spectator sport. Who knows how turned off they will be. I shares and Liberty don't seem to happy about sponsorship these days. I do wonder if German TV is going to follow through with their threat of dropping their coverage of the tour for next year. I'd bet a lot of euro's enjoyed seeing Landis get busted, after having Lance on the podium for so long. Maybe they will watch more. I guess I don't care so long as I can get coverage here in the US of the major tours. Thats my selfish motivation. That and I don't want it to become a pharmaceutical competition.


----------



## zoikz (Sep 5, 2003)

*Yes*

That's all I can come up with. Better run along before I tell your homeroom teacher that you don't have a bathroom pass.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

magnolialover said:


> You should also sanction yourself. If the top tier of the cycling world doesn't want you participating in the sport because you're a "convicted" doper, don't you think you ought to sit out other races as well?


This "top tier" you're talking about is the UCI; they have all the moral authority of a slug. When EVERYTHING about the UCI's war on doping smacks of hypocrisy and fraud, I see no reason at all for Hamilton to give his sanction any extra scope.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

philippec said:


> Does no one see the *real* injustice here??? Hamilton stole a win from hardman Ned Overend who was winning races back when George Washington was chopping down cherry trees! If I were Ned, I'd be mightily p.o.'d at Tyler!!!


How did he steal it? By riding the race faster than Ned?


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

harlond said:


> How did he steal it? By riding the race faster than Ned?


I think I just figured it out... you're not Ned Overend and probably don't race. If you were, would you have any issue with the events of the weekend or would you shake Tyler's hand and congratulate him on his win? Also, the UCI didn't suspend Hamilton, they provided evidence to American Arbitration Association who did the deed. His appeal was upheld by the CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport).

As a previous poster said, he is a convicted doper serving a suspension and should respect those riders who are not by staying away. How can the sport welcome him back after riding under a suspension? Is this the Tyler showing good sportsmanship? He shouldn't have been there, period.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2006)

{This "top tier" you're talking about is the UCI; they have all the moral authority of a slug. When EVERYTHING about the UCI's war on doping smacks of hypocrisy and fraud, I see no reason at all for Hamilton to give his sanction any extra scope.}

This is precisely the thing that irks me to no end regarding the whole anti-doping effort.

As bad as the cheating and the dope-taking is, the way the authorities are conducting their efforts to stop it is orders of magnitude worse. There is no respect for the athletes' rights to a fair trial and due process. These athletes are pilloried and convicted in the press and tarred and feathered by the authorities before they even have the chance to mount a defence under the authorities' own guidelines. For instance, even though Floyd has failed two dope tests, under the WADA code he is not yet found guilty. His case has to be heard by the USADA and they have to render judgement by weighing up the evidence presented to them both by the prosecution and the defence. The two failed doping tests are merely evidence that can be presented by the prosecution. They are not absolute proof of guilt. This is how it should work under WADA's own code.

Despite this, you have WADA's leader spouting off in the press about Floyd's guilt; you have the head of the UCI saying that Floyd is not the winner of the Tour and, in the same breath, saying he is entitled to the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven. His initial A sample result was leaked by the UCI because they were afraid that the lab that tested the sample would leak it. They wanted to get out in front of it by leaking from an official source. None of this is a part of their own code and guidelines. How is an athlete supposed to get a fair shake at things with behaviour like this? The answer is that they can't and they won't.

These charges ruin an athlete's career in an instant. Nothing happens to the UCI or WADA when they act outside their codes. Where is the accontability for these folk? 

It sickens me.


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

Bdaghisallo said:


> It sickens me.


This is a good post with many valid points, many I share. On the topic of the thread though, where do you stand on Tyler showing up at non-sanctioned events after his suspension and failed appeal? Just curious...


----------



## cocoboots (Apr 13, 2006)

Bdaghisallo
These charges ruin an athlete's career in an instant. Nothing happens to the UCI or WADA when they act outside their codes. Where is the accontability for these folk?
QUOTE said:


> actually, it was Floyd landis that ruined his own career by doping. there have been rumors for years of him doping. his former teammates and friends have spilt the beans to a select few and what do they have to gain from making something like that up? nothing...
> 
> he's a drug addict, it doesn't matter if it's for performance benefit, he's a junkie like a coke head or meth junkie. he screwed himself up and ruined his career.


----------



## lemonlime (Sep 24, 2003)

QUOTE]


...there have been rumors for years of him doping. his former teammates and friends have spilt the beans to a select few and what do they have to gain from making something like that up? nothing...[/QUOTE]

I'm curious to see your sources for this statement.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2006)

{actually, it was Floyd landis that ruined his own career by doping. there have been rumors for years of him doping. his former teammates and friends have spilt the beans to a select few and what do they have to gain from making something like that up? nothing...

he's a drug addict, it doesn't matter if it's for performance benefit, he's a junkie like a coke head or meth junkie. he screwed himself up and ruined his career.}


This is precisely what I mean, in that this same attitude has seemingly been adopted by the anti-doping authorities. You are entitled to think this way but the authorities are not. Legally, he has done nothing wrong... yet!


As for Tyler, I don't see a problem with him doing MT Washington. The organizers don't seem to mind either. He has been banned from racing any sanctioned races. This race is not sanctioned by any of the bodies that he was banned by. How far should the ban go if it applies beyond the jurisdiction governed by the authorities concerned? Should he be banned from sprinting for a town limit sign when out on a ride with his friends? Should he be banned from even riding a bike? Surely if you are barred from entering a particular yacht club, for instance, it doesn't mean you can't enter any other yacht or boat club or any other marina facility?

There are limits. If we want sport and its participants to be governed by a system of law then that law must be respected by all involved, and from all angles. Surely the burden of that law cannot fall in only one direction.


----------



## giovanni sartori (Feb 5, 2004)

Isn't this the race that charges $450 to enter? That's the real crime.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

If he was a lawyer whose licence had been suspended for malpractice, I doubt he'd be able to do any legal work anywhere. He just happens to be a crooked cyclist.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

ultimobici said:


> If he was a lawyer whose licence had been suspended for malpractice, I doubt he'd be able to do any legal work anywhere. He just happens to be a crooked cyclist.


That is because the various state bars in the US have in place rules that may require suspension of a lawyer who is suspended by another bar association. Here there is no rule in place for the Mt. Washington Hill Climb requiring Hamilton's exclusion. So it's not the same at all.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

Fogdweller said:


> I think I just figured it out... you're not Ned Overend and probably don't race. If you were, would you have any issue with the events of the weekend or would you shake Tyler's hand and congratulate him on his win? Also, the UCI didn't suspend Hamilton, they provided evidence to American Arbitration Association who did the deed. His appeal was upheld by the CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport).


I don't know what you've figured out, but it's true that I'm not Ned Overend and I don't race. If I was Ned, I would have no issues with the events of the weekend and I'd congratulate Hamilton for winning. I suspect that is exactly what Ned did. After all, that Hamilton doped nearly two years ago doesn't mean he was doping for this ride, so why should Ned assume that he is? Indeed, isn't Hamilton subject to periodic and unannounced testing during his suspension. 

The UCI takes the results of the tests and refers them to the national association that licenses the rider. If the AAA is involved, it is because the USCF designates thems as the arbiter--they have no authority other than that conferred on them by contract and it is not really accurate to say they "did the deed." It would be more accurate to say that the USCF did the deed, but that doesn't really let the UCI out of the equation.



Fogdweller said:


> As a previous poster said, he is a convicted doper serving a suspension and should respect those riders who are not by staying away. How can the sport welcome him back after riding under a suspension? Is this the Tyler showing good sportsmanship? He shouldn't have been there, period.


His suspension doesn't apply to the Hillclimb. I see no unsportsmanlike conduct from Hamilton. He abided by the rules of the Hillclimb, and I've seen nothing that indicates he cheated in the race in any way. If the Hillclimb doesn't choose to exclude him, and you think they should, shouldn't your beef be with Tin Mountain? 

From what I've seen, the peleton welcomes riders back fairly easily, unless they're rats. Virenque, Millar, etc.


----------



## howiefelthersnatch (Jun 18, 2006)

You guys are reading too much into this whole thing.
He's an ex-pro, who happened to get caught for doping, and he showed up to do a RIDE. It's not a sanctioned race!!! Now, he's just a famous, or infamous, guy on a bike. 
By many of your attitudes, you must still believe that he is still on the dope and that's the only reason he kicked everyone's ass to the top. Nevermind the fact that he may actually be a good bike rider.
I'd have more respect for him if he actually owned up to his doping, but even so, he's allowed to ride his bike and show up at un-sanctioned events. By banning him from an event like Mt. Washington, who comes out on top? It would make the organizers look like tools for not allowing him to participate and you guys ***** that he shouldn't be there... 

All of you saints please step forward. Remember one other thing as you kneel to your Lance and Merckx shrines. Merckx got caught once and expelled from a Grand Tour and Lance just never got caught...


----------



## dclee (Nov 16, 2004)

To call the Mount Wasington Hill Climb a ride is pure B.S. This is a race pure and simple. They have time keeping, record keeping, and prizes. Heck last time Tyler set the course record - which is something you do not see in rides by the way - he won a car. That is a better prize than 99% of races in the States.

The guy was banned from racing for a period of time because he was a cheat. During this period of sanction the guy is continuing to race by entering unsanctioned events. It makes him look bad -i.e. no respect for rules, not surprising from an unremorseful cheat - and further makes cycling look bad since people who should be removed from the competitive side of the sport are still competing.

The UCI has looked very unfavourable on this type of behaviour in the past, as they should. TH tried to set up an unsanctioned race series by paying the insurance costs. The UCI properly said a ban from racing is a ban from racing and threatened to sanction those who participated in a series with the cheat. 

It looks like this problem will not go away anytime soon, since Tyler will likely be banned for life from competitive cycling and thus will have to rely on either a job at a bike shop or the prizes from unsanctioned events in order to make a living.


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

Yes, I worship at the alter of Merckx and if you knew anything about the circumstances of the '69 Giro, you wouldn't have included it in this thread. As for Armstrong, I tend to agree with you, that he never got caught. We'll never know for sure and he seems to spend a ton to make sure we never do. Just my opinion... nothing more.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

howiefelthersnatch said:


> You guys are reading too much into this whole thing.
> He's an ex-pro, who happened to get caught for doping, and he showed up to do a RIDE. It's not a sanctioned race!!! Now, he's just a famous, or infamous, guy on a bike.
> By many of your attitudes, you must still believe that he is still on the dope and that's the only reason he kicked everyone's ass to the top. Nevermind the fact that he may actually be a good bike rider.
> I'd have more respect for him if he actually owned up to his doping, but even so, he's allowed to ride his bike and show up at un-sanctioned events. By banning him from an event like Mt. Washington, who comes out on top? It would make the organizers look like tools for not allowing him to participate and you guys ***** that he shouldn't be there...
> ...


It's not that he may be doped now.

It's that he was caught twice, but got away with one due to a storage error. He was banned and had his appeal denied, yet denied til he was blue in the face. CAS was so piqued by his chimera-like defence that they issued a point by point rebuttal. 

And he has the neck to ride high profile events like Mt Washngton. Who the hell does he think he is? Jesus H Christ?

At least Millar had the decency to put his hands up when presented with the evidence. TH lied and lied, insulting our intelligence to a staggering degree. He is in the same league as Virenque, only Virenque had the good grace to eventually admit his guilt. Until Hamilton does the same he is a pariah on our sport. Yes there will always be people who will cheat. It's been in cycling since the beginning and always will be. But when you're caught to the extent he has been, it's just plain arrogant to act the way he has.

I hope he is banned for life and next time he does a Mt Washington ride he gets a pump in his front wheel. It's the least he deserves.


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*Amen brother...*



ultimobici said:


> It's not that he may be doped now.
> 
> It's that he was caught twice, but got away with one due to a storage error. He was banned and had his appeal denied, yet denied til he was blue in the face. CAS was so piqued by his chimera-like defence that they issued a point by point rebuttal.
> 
> ...


All of that stuff you said, and then some. Except for the part about Millar. He would have been a real man had he admitted what he did when he won the World Championship time trial, and allowed Mr. Rodgers to stand on the top step that day. And let's face it, had the Gendarnes not found those empty vials in his house, he never would have come clean.

But I'm with you on the other stuff. And yes, Millar did come clean AFTER he was busted. 

I still enjoy the people who are blaming the Hamilton and Landis doping affairs on the sanctioning bodies, instead of the riders. Jeesh people, it is the riders who dope themselves, and they have nobody to blame but themselves.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

magnolialover said:


> All of that stuff you said, and then some. Except for the part about Millar. He would have been a real man had he admitted what he did when he won the World Championship time trial, and allowed Mr. Rodgers to stand on the top step that day. And let's face it, had the Gendarnes not found those empty vials in his house, he never would have come clean.
> 
> But I'm with you on the other stuff. And yes, Millar did come clean AFTER he was busted.
> 
> I still enjoy the people who are blaming the Hamilton and Landis doping affairs on the sanctioning bodies, instead of the riders. Jeesh people, it is the riders who dope themselves, and they have nobody to blame but themselves.


I really can't stand Hamilton, and mostly for lying, not for doping. But if the guy can't show up to the "real" races, the least we can let him is show up at "non-races" like Mt. Washingon.
They let prisoners lift weights and play basketball, don't they? Maybe there should be a league for dopers too. Ned Overend is an amazing guy, he is 89 years old and still going strong. But let's not confuse ourselves by implying that he could win against Tour rider - doping or not. If anything, his 2nd place seems more significant due to Tyler's participation.

The guy is serving time, and the lying cheat that he is, he deserves to be able to race SOMEWHERE. If you have ever been injured you must know what it's like not being able to ride or to race. So come on - he is a human being and he likes to race that bike. He won't race it professionally, so at least let him race joe schmoes in New Hampsheah.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

If I could keep up long enough to do it, and didn't mind blowing the 100 bucks to register for this, I would crash him right out...

Silas


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

SilasCL said:


> If I could keep up long enough to do it, and didn't mind blowing the 100 bucks to register for this, I would crash him right out...
> 
> Silas


suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

who cares...this is a non-sanctioned race. he lied and continues to lie but he's paying for it in plenty of ways, i.e. no freaking livelihood! if the organizers and race sponsors don't care knowing that he's banned and the reasoning then it's simply not worth a second thought for me. if you don't support this then don't line up for it if you intended.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

chuckice said:


> suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure


Hate to post a youtube link, but watch my inspiration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGnLDr6jRSI

Silas


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

Seriously...he's not worth it. He's either innocent (by some magic) in which case this is all really sad or he's guilty in which case he pays for it everyday by his ban and likely from shame and guilt. It's to be pitied...


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

chuckice said:


> Seriously...he's not worth it. He's either innocent (by some magic) in which case this is all really sad or he's guilty in which case he pays for it everyday by his ban and likely from shame and guilt. It's to be pitied...


What shame and guilt? The guy practically has a cult worshipping at his dead dog's grave.

I expect the UCI to go through with its promise from the Stazio crit series and give out suspensions to other participants in this "race".

Silas


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

SilasCL said:


> What shame and guilt? The guy practically has a cult worshipping at his dead dog's grave.
> 
> I expect the UCI to go through with its promise from the Stazio crit series and give out suspensions to other participants in this "race".
> 
> Silas


If he did it then he has to sleep with that lie every nite...I wouldn't want that on me in any which way. Personally I could give a crap...he can't take anything from anyone in a sanctioned race so who cares. If the sposors/organizers allow it then move on...


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

55x11 said:


> I really can't stand Hamilton, and mostly for lying, not for doping. But if the guy can't show up to the "real" races, the least we can let him is show up at "non-races" like Mt. Washingon.
> They let prisoners lift weights and play basketball, don't they? Maybe there should be a league for dopers too. Ned Overend is an amazing guy, he is 89 years old and still going strong. But let's not confuse ourselves by implying that he could win against Tour rider - doping or not. If anything, his 2nd place seems more significant due to Tyler's participation.
> 
> The guy is serving time, and the lying cheat that he is, he deserves to be able to race SOMEWHERE. If you have ever been injured you must know what it's like not being able to ride or to race. So come on - he is a human being and he likes to race that bike. He won't race it professionally, so at least let him race joe schmoes in New Hampsheah.


I read somewhere recently that Overend was within a few seconds of his 1986 time. That would indicate that he has the capability to beat Hamilton. He just happens to be 16 years older than him! Ned Overend has more class in his little finger than TH will ever have. No amount of coming clean can wipe away the stain he created.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

magnolialover said:


> I still enjoy the people who are blaming the Hamilton and Landis doping affairs on the sanctioning bodies, instead of the riders. Jeesh people, it is the riders who dope themselves, and they have nobody to blame but themselves.


I don't see anyone in this thread blaming the UCI because the riders doped. If you're talking about me, my point was that expecting the rider to voluntarily increase the scope of his sanction beyond the jurisdiction of the private sanctioning body was unreasonable, especially in view of the lack of moral authority of the sanctioning body. All we're talking about here is a bike race/ride. What's so special about the UCI or the USCF that their penalty should have any scope in a race in which they play no part whatever?


----------



## bazww (Dec 6, 2005)

giovanni sartori said:


> Isn't this the race that charges $450 to enter? That's the real crime.



I believe it's $300 and its considered a "charitable contribution" not an entry fee. Caught a lot of flack when they doudled the cost a few years ago but the working Joes have gone away leaving it to the die hards and the elite. I'm sure the contenders have the "fee" waived.


----------



## Spunout (Aug 12, 2002)

Fogdweller said:


> As a previous poster said, he is a convicted doper serving a suspension and should respect those riders who are not by staying away. How can the sport welcome him back after riding under a suspension? Is this the Tyler showing good sportsmanship? He shouldn't have been there, period.


One thing would be for licensed riders to not participate in the event. Time for the riders to unite on this and stop paying promoters who refuse to sanction an event, and refuse to consider the status banned of riders entering their event.

Unfortunately you, I and a few others make a stance but there are 1,000 other schmoes lined up to take our place.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

I have mixed thoughts on this issue.

The guy loves to ride a bike, can't fault him for that, and he is a former record holder up the mountain, so I can see why he would want to do it now that he can't do anything else.

It is a charity ride, though one you can "win." Sounds like those Gran Fondos that Rumsas keeps winning.


----------



## Shockee (Feb 12, 2004)

Ned Overend Wins MT Washington! ... Should be the title of the thread. Any mention of TH should be erased from all recorded results texts like some classified portion of government transcripts. grrr ... why are they still encouraging that monkey and his imaginary twin?


----------



## j__h (Jun 16, 2006)

philippec said:


> Does no one see the *real* injustice here??? Hamilton stole a win from hardman Ned Overend who was winning races back when George Washington was chopping down cherry trees! If I were Ned, I'd be mightily p.o.'d at Tyler!!!


Technically Ned had an unfair advantage here. Back when he was young he had to ride uphill, both ways, with no feet, in a blizzard, blazing sun, and pouring rain, all at the same time, to get to school. (Rim shot please)


----------



## aliensporebomb (Jul 2, 2002)

*Ned*

No comment on the Hamilton participation - but I'm massively impressed that
Ned is doing so well at his age.

Heck, he should get together with Ekimov and start an "old guys monster
peloton".


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

aliensporebomb said:


> No comment on the Hamilton participation - but I'm massively impressed that
> Ned is doing so well at his age.
> 
> Heck, he should get together with Ekimov and start an "old guys monster
> peloton".


I think more people are upset about Ned's 2nd place than Eki's 2nd place. I think it should be the other way around.

Dopers who got caught are not the scum of the earth as many of us think. They are hard working guys like you or me. Probably much, much more hard working. They lost faith in their natural abilities or may think everyone else is doing is, so why can't we? 

But there has to be some sort of lame race circuit that those guys should be allowed to do. It's cruel otherwise. Non-sanctioned races that are basically average Joe time trials - low-key club races, whatever. 

People who argue that Hamilton or Basso or Landis or Ullrich should be banned from ever racing on a bike, even in unsanctioned races are cruel human beings. I am more of a "live and let live" kind of person. In fact I am all for "dopers league", I may be watching it with more interest than the "amateur" races. I'd love to see Ullrich vs. Basso vs. Beloki vs. Landis vs. Hamilton. But until then, let them race in any non-sanctioned races they want.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

This would be one thing, but there is prize money on the line. It's akin to commiting fraud, losing a professional license (cpa or bar) and then continuing to give under the table legal or tax advice for a fee. It just doesn't fly with me.

Silas


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*Don't care...*



55x11 said:


> I think more people are upset about Ned's 2nd place than Eki's 2nd place. I think it should be the other way around.
> 
> Dopers who got caught are not the scum of the earth as many of us think. They are hard working guys like you or me. Probably much, much more hard working. They lost faith in their natural abilities or may think everyone else is doing is, so why can't we?
> 
> ...


I couldn't possibly care less how nice, or hard working the caught dopers are. To heck with that. They're cheaters, and they're bringing shame to themselves, and bringing ruination to the sport that I love. If they get caught once, they get the old 2 year ban, +2 for ProTour teams now. Get caught a second time, banned for life. The rules are out there, all they have to do is follow them. They shouldn't be allowed to race in any bike race, period. That's their pennance for cheating others within their sport, and for bringing the sport of cycling closer to going away.

But you're right, they're not scum of the Earth, they are the scum of cycling.


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

I'm sure most of you caught this thread from a member who was there:
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?p=742898

I thought I had no respect left to loose for this guy. Boy, was I mistaken. Time to unleash the Nazi frogs...


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

SilasCL said:


> This would be one thing, but there is prize money on the line. It's akin to commiting fraud, losing a professional license (cpa or bar) and then continuing to give under the table legal or tax advice for a fee. It just doesn't fly with me.
> 
> Silas


It's nothing like your CPA or attorney example. A CPA or attorney who continued to give professional advice after being suspended or disbarred would be committing a violation of state law for which he could be held to account. But a CPA or attorney who continues to give professional advice in a state in which he remains licensed and in good standing is perfectly free to do so, even if he is suspended and disbarred in another state. That's what happening here; Hamilton is suspended in the UCI "state," not in the Mt. Washington Hillclimb "state." He's abiding by the rules of the Hillclimb, there's no fraud here whatever. I understand that none of that makes it OK to you, which is fine. But the contention that Hamilton's committing fraud or violating some rule by competing in this race are simply incorrect.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

55x11 said:


> People who argue that Hamilton or Basso or Landis or Ullrich should be banned from ever racing on a bike, even in unsanctioned races are cruel human beings.


+1



55x11 said:


> I am more of a "live and let live" kind of person. In fact I am all for "dopers league", I may be watching it with more interest than the "amateur" races. I'd love to see Ullrich vs. Basso vs. Beloki vs. Landis vs. Hamilton. But until then, let them race in any non-sanctioned races they want.


We have one, it's called ProTour, but regrettably, and stupidly, the operators keep kicking the very best riders out of it. All the while they tell us they're saving the sport.


----------



## dclee (Nov 16, 2004)

Yes, the problem is with anti-doping authorities cracking down on the "best riders" since they have failed a drug test or have been shown through evidence to be directly tied to doping practices. Very insightful, any other commentary you can provide?

How about the SEC should not have cracked down on Ken Lay and the Enron crew since they were the best businessman out there. Futhermore, the SEC should not prevent the ENRON gang - minus Lay obviously - from running a company again as it would be cruel since they just love to run businesses.

I really think some people have their anger directed in the wrong direction.

Hamilton is banned from competitive sport - he should not compete. No one has taken away his right to ride a bike, but Hamilton's own actions indicate he should not be in competive cycling. Place the blame where it is due for why Hamilton should not ride.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

dclee said:


> Yes, the problem is with anti-doping authorities cracking down on the "best riders" since they have failed a drug test or have been shown through evidence to be directly tied to doping practices. Very insightful, any other commentary you can provide?


Sure, unlike you, I don't see the benefit to the sport of having scandal dog the steps of every star and of having every victory immediately tainted with suspicion. The other major professional sports are also affected by doping, but I don't see the NFL ejecting Tom Brady or the NBA booting Shaq or FIFA hounding Ronaldinho or any of those sports facing the threat cycling faces. So if you think I'm suggesting that the tests results are faked or somehow wrong, you're not reading closely enough. Instead, I'm considering the UCI's record since the Festina affair and finding it wanting. To date, the UCI has been part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. If you're think they're doing a great job when the winners of the last three GTs have been or are likely to be stripped of their titles, well, to each his own. 



dclee said:


> How about the SEC should not have cracked down on Ken Lay and the Enron crew since they were the best businessman out there. Futhermore, the SEC should not prevent the ENRON gang - minus Lay obviously - from running a company again as it would be cruel since they just love to run businesses.


A completely inapt comparison. Compare McQuaid and Tagliabue and tell which you think is doing a better job of promoting his sport.



dclee said:


> I really think some people have their anger directed in the wrong direction.


I'm OK with people being angry with Hamilton or Landis, I just don't get why they're not angry at Pound and McQuaid. So I agree with you.



dclee said:


> Hamilton is banned from competitive sport - he should not compete. No one has taken away his right to ride a bike, but Hamilton's own actions indicate he should not be in competive cycling. Place the blame where it is due for why Hamilton should not ride.


No, Hamilton is NOT banned from competitive sport--he's banned from UCI-sanctioned events. The UCI has nothing to do with the Hillclimb and the Hillclimb has not chosen to exclude Hamilton. I'm not blaming anybody, I'm just wondering why people think the world should bow down to a judgment from the UCI or the USCF.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Just to clarify an unrelated point - The SEC did nothing to discover or prevent ENRON or any of the other big bubble blowup disasters. By the time they got involved ENRON had already melted down. Short seller newsletters had been ringing alarm bells about accounting irregularities there, and elsewhere, for over 5 years by that point. If anyone had cared to know what was really going on, what they were investing in, or what sort of nitwit company they were working for the information was readily available without any government "assistance".

"Independent" regulatory bodies invariably screw things up. They feel none of the costs of their mistakes and have little incentive to serve the interests of anyone but themselves. The reason the NBA is far better managed than cycling via the UCI is David Stern is at day's end an employee of the team owners, not some outsider making pronouncements without any concern for the consequences.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

harlond said:


> +1
> 
> We have one, it's called ProTour, but regrettably, and stupidly, the operators keep kicking the very best riders out of it. All the while they tell us they're saving the sport.



Ok, here's what we do - organize an alternative "DOPERS ONLY" tour, where they test you for doping, and if you appear to be clean - you are OUT! 

At the feeding station they will offer injections of your choice of dope. Drug companies will be sponsoring it, and I am sure plenty of spectators will be watching it. Spectators are allowed to give riders food and water, as long as it's tainted with an illegal substance. Every bike should be under the legal weight limit. Aerobars, disk wheels are allowed too. 

Who is with me?


----------



## merckxman (Jan 23, 2002)

*He should just go crawl in a hole*

For tarnishing the sport we love, the olympic gold metal, etc. cyclingnews.com:
"Extensive doping alleged for Hamilton 
One day after the initial report by Danish Politiken, Belgian newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws has published details of the alleged "doping diary" of Tyler Hamilton, found among the papers of Spanish doctor Eufemiano Fuentes. 

According to the Belgian media, Hamilton's doping practices in 2003, when he won both Liège-Bastogne-Liège and the Tour de Romandie as well as a stage in the Tour de France despite a collarbone fracture, were extensive and cost him a total of 43,040 Euros. 

The paper cites information according to which the then-CSC rider used EPO 30 times between December 2002 and February 2003, as well as anabolic steroids. In the beginning of March 2003, Hamilton allegedly used a pregnancy hormone to cover up the traces of the cure. Two blood transfusions are reported to have been administered to his body two days prior to Paris-Nice, where Hamilton won the mountains jersey. 

In April, the American is thought to have used growth hormone and insulin to promote muscle growth. After the Tour de Romandie, the paper claims to have evidence that he transfused three bags of blood (a total of 1.35 litres), returned to normal blood levels with the help of EPO, and re-injected two bags of blood six days before the start of the Dauphiné Libéré. 

Another growth hormone cure came after the race according to the media, as well as several blood transfusions in the count down to the Tour de France. The information gathered even points at a blood transfusion on the day of the medical control at the start of the Grand Tour, and twice during the race."


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

*hmmm....*



zoikz said:


> Read between the lines ace.
> Wow you average over 11 posts a day. That's amazing.


36 post since 2003? Smacks of mutiple RBR accounts in order to troll at will.


----------



## Otago (Aug 6, 2006)

*Look at where your focus is regarding riders times*

Everyone seems to be focusing on one thing....Tyler and his winning

The track and field world, has compiled over decades, the times and ages of various events and has developed a huge data base of athletic performance related to given ages of the performances. 
The Mt Washington Hillclimb has in past years (not this year) listed not only the winning times but also the age adjusted times such that a rider of say age 45 or 55 can compare his/her time with that of a 30 or 35 year old rider. The WAVA age adjustment system used in prior years by the Mt Washington event may not be absolutely perfect, but it is very close and it sort of makes very different performances stand out.
Lets look at the times for the recent event.
BTW, even Tyler is not at the most optimal age for this event. He is a few years older than the optimal range of prime years although only about 1% off
I will give you the adjusted times taken from the actual times and adjusted for the age factor for a endurance race of this time lenght and effort.

Tyler Hamilton. Actual time 52:21 Prime age equivalent 51:42

Ned Overend Actual time 54:41 Prime age equivalent 47:45

# 3 rider Actual time 58:33 Prime age equivalent 58:33

1st rider 40+ (age 42) 1:04:36 Prime age equivalent 1:00:41

Best 40+ equiv. (age 48) 1:06:38 Prime age equivalent 59:39

2nd rider 50+ (age 51) 1:08:15 Prime age equivalent 59:35

Now analyze those times.
No other rider's age adjusted times came within approximately 7 minutes of Tylers age adjusted time except for Overend's.

And Ned Overend's age adjusted time was 4 minutes faster than Tylers age adjusted time.

Overends age adjusted time was 7.6% faster than Tylers age adjusted time and yet Tylers age ajusted time was only about 1.2% off of prime age time.
If Tyler is only off of prime age time by about 1.2% and gets smoked by Ned's age adjusted time, then one has to include that in their analysis.

I'll let all you experts use your keen intelligence on that data and come up with your own analysis.
Love to watch peoples brains take in data and spit out opinions which either utilize facts or or ignore them.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Otago said:


> I'll let all you experts use your keen intelligence on that data and come up with your own analysis.
> Love to watch peoples brains take in data and spit out opinions which either utilize facts or or ignore them.


Not to sound stupid, but what's your point?

I don't think people are insinuating that Tyler is doping for this event, only that he is banned from UCI competition but still competing in unsanctioned events.

or maybe you're saying he's not really that good...?

One could argue that Ned Overend was better. He dominated mountain biking when it was close to road cycling in competitiveness.

Please, clarify what you are trying to say with the data you have given us.

Silas


----------



## Otago (Aug 6, 2006)

*Current record is 49:24 Tylers prior record was 50:21*



SilasCL said:


> I don't think people are insinuating that Tyler is doping for this event, only that he is banned from UCI competition but still competing in unsanctioned events.
> 
> or maybe you're saying he's not really that good...?


Oh, I don't doubt that Tyler is still very close to top form, especially as a climber. As I stated, even his age-adjusted time might only be about 1% better. So I'd probably use that age adjusted time as near what the top Tour cyclists could do if they were in this event. Actually the Mt Washington record is by Tom Danielson who did 49:24 breaking Hamilton's previous record by 57 seconds. Danielson has broken many hill climb records in these hillclimb event. Thats nearly 3 minutes better than Hamilton did this year although weather etc. can be different each year, but its still 1:39 slower than Overends age-adjusted time this year which was 47:45. That age-adjusted time breaks even Danielson's record by 3.3%




SilasCL said:


> One could argue that Ned Overend was better.


Perhaps you could argue that Overend was better than even Tyler, when Ned was in his prime years ago. In fact, even if you took Tylers prior Mt Washington record time, Overends age adjusted 2006 time would have beaten it by 2:36 which is over 5%.




SilasCL said:


> Please, clarify what you are trying to say with the data you have given us.
> Silas


Well, I'm not sure, I just look at the data and observe the facts and figures.. Everyone seems caught up in this UCI, WADA thing, but no one is suggesting that Tyler gained an advantage in this event by doping and yet many still suggest that Overend should be pissed off because without Tyler, he'd have finnished first.

I'm not overly educated about the details of races such as this one, but to the best of my knowledge, no one is tested for this event.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Well, first of all, I have no idea how you are coming up with these age adjustment numbers. You say they are from track and field endurance sports...but as you well know, the bodily stresses from running and cycling are quite different, and relative abilities by age may also be different.

If you're saying that Overend may be doping as well, it's certainly possible. But we have no indication that that is the case. Whereas with Tyler, there has been quite substantial evidence of him doping in the past, leading to his suspension.

You are correct in that no one is tested for this event. But as a current pro (I believe) Overend should be subject to the same out of competition tests as others, for what that's worth.

Lastly, the Mt. Washington hill climb has substantial year to year weather variations, so it would be tough to have standard conditions with which to do this kind of analysis,

Silas


----------



## Otago (Aug 6, 2006)

*Age happens.*



SilasCL said:


> Well, first of all, I have no idea how you are coming up with these age adjustment numbers. You say they are from track and field endurance sports...but as you well know, the bodily stresses from running and cycling are quite different, and relative abilities by age may also be different.


WAVA age adjusting only works in cycling when done for flat or climbs done without drafting.... As a matter of practical use in cycling it is only used for climbs, thus eliminating any age neutral areas like drafting or downhills..
The Mt Washington Hillclimb organization has used this age adjusting method for many years, although it is not always listed in each years "results".
Below is a example from 2003, but I caution you to not pay too much attention to the gender adjusting. I think gender adjusting is far more suspect and not as finely tuned as the long used age adjusting factors. Other "hillclimb" events also sometimes use the age adjusting features of WAVA. While not perfect, this WAVA system is hardly some "hunch" created by some casual observer of sports performance. The data has been collected, adjusted, and refined over decades.

http://www.mtwashingtoncenturyride.org/hillclimb/results_03/index.cfm

Another site with a calculator based on the most current data is found at the below link.
There you will find the track and field calculator. To use it under "event" you need to put in the event as a 10 mile run.... The precise event in terms of distance running is not needed as all you need to do is get close to a similar endurance event and then the "factors" used in the formula remain constant. So whether the event is 9 or 10 or 11 miles and whether the time is 50 min or 55 min or 65 minutes doesn't significantly affect the "factors" used. You will see the "factors" given as .9870 or .9335 etc depending on the age.

http://jick.net/~jess/track/mtf/AGT.php




SilasCL said:


> If you're saying that Overend may be doping as well, it's certainly possible. But we have no indication that that is the case. Whereas with Tyler, there has been quite substantial evidence of him doping in the past, leading to his suspension.
> 
> You are correct in that no one is tested for this event. But as a current pro (I believe) Overend should be subject to the same out of competition tests as others, for what that's worth.


I am NOT saying that there is doping by anyone in this event. As previously noted, there is no testing of ANY of the participants. However given the use of substances in cycling events where there is significant expected testing, one cannot exclude the possible use of similar substances in a cycling event where everyone knows there will be zero testing. 
Ten years ago, this possibility would have been far from my thoughts, but given the past 10 years in all sports, one would be naive to ignore the possibility
I would hope this is not the case.



SilasCL said:


> Lastly, the Mt. Washington hill climb has substantial year to year weather variations, so it would be tough to have standard conditions with which to do this kind of analysis,


Not really. When you look at the general field's times you can get a good idea if times are faster or slower than prior years. Not by looking at the number 1 or 2 or 3 riders, but by looking at the groups of times in lower numbers. Say riders 20 to 25 or riders 45 to 55 or even later numbers. Steady, well trained groups, who would be fairly consistant in quality from year to year.
Someone in a Mt Washington forum suggested that this year was fairly good, but other years may have been better and some no doubt far worse.
More importantly you could look at differentials between times rather than the specific times. Differentials within one years data by age etc.
There are always going to be some unusual numbers and individual anomalies.
Its just a matter of the magnitude of the anomalies.

I have not come to any conclusions. I just note some interesting times and ages.
They say "death and taxes" are things that are inevitable. You can add "aging" to that list. And with age comes a fairly predictable decline in performance "all other factors being equal".
Certainly there are some who can out perform far younger riders. And some riders are faster at 60 than at age 30......but that is not normally the case with riders who have been riding all during those years at a similar level of training.
I am over 55 and am faster now than I was 5 years ago, but reality sets in when I chase/race some other well trained riders 15 and 20 years younger. You can overcome only so much with training. 
How much........is the question.

Just for the record, over the past 10 years, the previous record for anyone over age 50 was 1:06:20 ....
From what I can see, the record for anyone 40 or older was 1:00:44 in 2000 and that person's times went up each of the next two years ending up at age 42 at 1:02:39
So I think you can see why I see a 54:41 time by a 51 year old rider and at least note the exceptional nature of it.
Its very interesting, but I certainly can't draw any firm conclusions about it. 
We are left with what is possible and what is probable. At this point I really don't know.


----------



## zoikz (Sep 5, 2003)

*Not really*



dagger said:


> 36 post since 2003? Smacks of mutiple RBR accounts in order to troll at will.


I just don't post that often.


----------

