# Tyler Suspended



## godot (Feb 3, 2004)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/apr05/apr19news1


----------



## divve (May 3, 2002)

He blames his twin brother......

Hamilton's defence: The vanishing twin? 

By Susan Westemeyer, with additional reporting from Cyclingnews staff 

With a verdict in the Tyler Hamilton blood doping case expected today (Monday), information has already started to leak out about the likely outcome of the case, and the nature of Hamilton's defence. In an article in the Los Angeles Times, it appears that the "chimera theory" is being used to try to explain the mixed blood cell population in Hamilton's body. "A theme central to Hamilton's defence is the notion of a 'vanishing twin' who shared the womb when Hamilton was a fetus - a point on which there is much speculation but no proof," wrote the LA Times, which said it had "obtained key documents before the arbitration panel, including legal briefs, test results, and the transcript of the hearing six weeks ago where the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency and Hamilton's defense team presented their cases." These documents did not likely come from the UCI or the USADA, who typically don't release these to the media. 

The newspaper also released specific numbers for Hamilton's blood tests last spring. Riders are not be allowed to start a race if they receive a score of more than 133 in the Stimulation Index, a simple formula for profiling blood cell growth that takes into account haemoglobin and reticulocytes (immature blood cells). An explanation of the formula can be found in the footnote of Cyclingnews' Anti-doping measures get tougher article, published in July last year. 

The average SI score for professional cyclists is 90. At Liege-Bastogne-Liege last year, Hamilton scored 123.8. It was up to 132.9 the next week by the Tour de Romandie, and with it came a hematocrit level of 49.7% (the UCI's nominal limit is 50%) and a reticulocyte index of 0.22 (which is below normal limits). Hamilton claimed that both the hematocrit test and the reticulocyte index taken at Romandie were inaccurate. 

These readings caused the UCI to inform Hamilton that "he was going to be watched because his 'blood values showed strong signs' of 'a possible manipulation,'" according to both the LA Times and articles in L'Equipe in 2004. The warning letters that Hamilton received were like a red card in football. 

Testimony given at Hamilton's hearing by Australian scientist Ross Brown said that "only reasonable explanation" for Hamilton's blood values was that he had undergone one, and possibly two transfusions: one near the start of 2004, and perhaps another in June or July, with the occasional "top up". At the hearing, Hamilton denied that he had had multiple transfusions. 

In Hamilton's defence, the chimera 'vanishing twin' argument was put forward by David Housman, a genetics expert and MIT professor, who presented expert testimony. He claimed that cells can transfer from one to unborn twin to another in the womb, "and bone marrow cells can persist for life." Both USADA and WADA have dismissed this theory, which could be easily verified by further testing on Hamilton. 

Hamilton's lawyer Howard Jacobs suggested in the hearing that there were problems with the test, one being that it "doesn't produce an objective standard", i.e. there is either a mixed blood cell population or there isn't - there are no percentages; and the other being that it doesn't prove that the subject had a blood transfusion, only that there was a mixed blood cell population present. This raises the question of other things, such as the 'vanishing twin', that might cause false positives. 
No Georgia 

Whatever the verdict, it's highly unlikely that Hamilton will race in the Tour de Georgia - for Phonak or any other team. Hamilton was sacked by Phonak last year and has yet to sign for a new team. According to UCI rules, he would need to have done this at least three days before the start of a race in order to be present on their team roster, even as a reserve. In addition, the UCI would have to approve his inclusion on a team. 

Phonak's press officer Georges Lüchinger told Cyclingnews that he did not know whether Hamilton would ride in Georgia, nor if Hamilton would win his case. If Hamilton is cleared, or is given a sanction of less than two years, then Cyclingnews understands that the UCI will certainly appeal the decision.


----------



## unchained (May 8, 2002)

*Excellent*



godot said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/apr05/apr19news1


Now if he would only stand up like a man and admit he lied and cheated. Then he would be forgiven.


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

*what were his previous tests?*

I wonder what were his previous tests? That twin's marrow shouldn't just show up recently.




unchained said:


> Now if he would only stand up like a man and admit he lied and cheated. Then he would be forgiven.


----------



## johnny99 (Apr 2, 2004)

unchained said:


> Now if he would only stand up like a man and admit he lied and cheated. Then he would be forgiven.


I'm not going to forgive him. If he does come clean, however, maybe kids will learn from his mistakes.


----------



## unchained (May 8, 2002)

*Forgiveness*



johnny99 said:


> I'm not going to forgive him. If he does come clean, however, maybe kids will learn from his mistakes.


The bum made millions riding his bike and endorsing products while cheating, lying and swearing on poor Tugboat's grave. He should be forgiven.

Maybe not.


----------



## bimini (Jul 2, 2003)

*What a "Basketcase"*

Maybe Tyler is like the Freak in the Movies "Basketcase" and "BasketCase 2". It's a movie about a guy who has an evil twin absorbed in his body (or in the movies case attached to his chest). 

"Yes, my evil twin made me dope my blood, that's the ticket."

Maybe Tyler can take a butcher knife and detach his evil twin and return to cycling? Careful though, the evil twin might go running amok with a butcher knife through the pro peloton.

I bet his poor pooch is rolling over in it's grave.


----------



## Whipper99 (Aug 8, 2004)

*Tylers Defence: Tyler Hamilton's Diary*

Tyler goes into detail about the results. The two year suspension is going to be appealed.

http://www.roadcycling.com/news/article1029.shtml

The day they told me I had tested positive for the banned performance enhancing method of homologous blood transfusing I threw forward my arm, and said – “It’s a mistake. Take another sample”. 

I was refused. 

At that moment, sometime around 8 PM on September 16, 2004, I began the long process of trying to get to the bottom of those results. 

There has been a lot of speculation about my case so I’ll try to set things straight the best I can issue by issue. Some of the details are more complicated than others but I’ll try to keep things simple. I have nothing to hide, and I don’t mind sharing all the twists and turns of my story with you. Even the parts I can’t explain. Here goes - 

Spring Off Scores: An off score is a measurement based on an equation incorporating hemoglobin and reticulocyte counts. These counts are measured during random “health tests” conducted on riders during races. They are also commonly referred to as “vampire tests” – because drug control officers visit the race hotel to wake riders and take their blood before a start. 

Health tests administered on my blood at Liege-Bastogne-Liege, the Tour of Romandie and Dauphine Libere registered uncharacteristically low reticulocyte counts, which is the count of new red blood cells. 

Medical expert Jim Stray-Gundersen, who has conducted more than 10,000 blood tests on athletes participating in doping research programs, testified during my hearing that my reticulocyte counts from these three races were so low they “are not to be believed”. Of the thousands he’s evaluated in his career, he has only seen one test come up as low as mine – and it was an instance when he knew for a fact, the sample had been “mishandled” during transport to the lab. 

My story really starts at the Tour of Romandie when Phonak disputed the entire team’s hematocrit readings from one of the UCI’s morning health tests. Riders who did both Liege and Romandie showed gains of an average of 4 points in a span of 4 days. In addition, the readings were also about 4-5 points higher than the team’s own results taken the night before. 

I had been health tested before the start of Stage 2. After the stage, I was told I would have to provide an additional anti-doping test because my hematocrit result from the morning was high. One of the things I was tested for was EPO. The result was negative. 

Hematocrit readings are meant to measure the percentage of red cells in your blood. These readings can vary for a number of reasons. Everything from the machine’s calibration to the way the sample is drawn can affect the result. In 2004, multiple teams complained to the UCI about scores they felt were inaccurate. In fact, Dr. Zorzoli, of the UCI, testified to this fact in the Phonak/CAS hearing in January. 

My hematocrit score at Romandie was inaccurately high. I know this because I can compare it the UCI’s own test from Liege (45.3), and the team’s test taken just four days before. To give you and idea of how variable these numbers can be, the UCI test conducted on July 1st, the day before the Tour de France started, registered my hematocrit at 38. Again, my team complained, but this time about the score being too low. Inaccuracy of the readings can go both ways. 

If someone’s hematocrit, hemoglobin or reticulocyte readings are incorrect, the “off score” will be incorrect. This is why the off score is not used to determine a doping offense. It is widely known that the measurements used to calculate the score are prone to some instability. 

Warnings: There have been lots of rumors circulating that I had received multiple warnings about irregularities in my blood tests in 2004. To clarify, the conversations about the results of my health tests were actually more about mutual concerns than accusations. 

The Phonak team was the first to raise a red flag about results associated with my tests. The team felt there was something wrong with the UCI’s health test measurements from Romandie. A meeting regarding those measurements was requested by Phonak, and took place in Switzerland in early May. I was not present, but the team management and various UCI officials were. 

The discussion boiled down to the fact that the Phonak team and UCI were using hematocrit machines manufactured by different companies. Phonak agreed to purchase the same machine the UCI uses so if a discrepancy was ever noted again, there would be a similar starting point at the basis of the argument. That machine was up and running for the team by the Tour de France. 

I also had a face to face meeting with Dr. Zorzoli in June to discuss my health test results. We spoke at length about my reticulocyte counts and what the medical explanations for those readings could be. He recommended a specialist for me to see in Boston to try and get to the bottom of the results. It was a friendly conversation, during which the topic of the new blood transfusion test was raised. Dr. Zorzoli noted that the test would be approved soon, but pointedly noted that I was fine to continue racing. 

I was also told that regardless of whether or not we agreed on the accuracy of my hematocrit reading at Romandie, that result put me in the out-of-competition testing pool for extra doping tests between races. I did receive one letter after our meeting confirming this. This news was not concerning to me because I already thought I was in this pool for having met other criteria – which were; being ranked in the top 50 in the world, and for having won an HC Stage race within the last year. In addition, I was already part of the USADA out-of-competition testing program and had been since the spring of 2000. So I didn’t protest being included. In fact, I welcomed it. 

I agreed to help Dr. Zorzoli with the development of the forms he needed to design to determine the whereabouts of athletes in the program. We traded multiple emails and faxes regarding this subject in the days after our meeting. 

So for me, nothing had really changed. I planned to follow up with the hematology specialist in Boston during the off season, and started the Tour de France two weeks later as planned. 

Issues with the Blood Transfusion Test: The primary issues we raised about this test during my hearing were: 

1. Experts for both sides testified that flow cytometry, the test methodology used for this test, can not prove a blood transfusion has taken place. 

2. If the minimum threshold stated in the sole peer review for the test were applied to my test results from the Olympic Games and the Vuelta Espana, both tests would have been declared negative. 

3. There was no false positive study conducted during the validation of this test. 

4. The “visual criteria” used to determined the results of this test boils down to an “I know it when I see it” evaluation - which when applied in other doping tests, has been considered an unacceptable level of detection that cannot stand alone in determining someone has tested positive. Arbitration panels have stated in previous cases that quantifiable criteria must confirm “visual” criteria. In my case there was no quantifiable criteria used.


Issues with My Results: Of the number of unanswered issues regarding my test results the most concerning are: 

The fact the my Olympic A sample was originally declared negative and there was no B sample test result to substantiate changing it to positive. 

The antigens declared positive for “mixed populations” in Athens and the Vuelta are not the same. 

Santi Perez: When Santi was declared guilty on the day my hearing started - it took two key arguments off the table in my defense. We could no longer contend my case was the first blood transfusion case. Nor could we state that the test had not yet been validated through a judicial process. 

Santi Perez tested positive in the off-season but not during the Vuelta where he provided multiple blood samples. And, his judicial hearing was held without him being present. He plans to appeal his case to CAS, the Court of Arbitration for Sport. 

The Extortionist: My case is made even more confounding with the added component of someone threatening the Phonak team with inside knowledge about Santi and I being positive before either of us were declared so. Issues and coincidences that cannot be ignored are: 

1. On August 25, the extortionist sent his first message stating he knew I would be announced as “positive” at the Olympics. According to the IOC, that conclusion was not made until between September 10 and 16. 

2. Out of all the Olympic athletes in Athens, and professional cyclists competing in 2004, the extortionist correctly “guessed” that Santi and I would test positive 

3. The extortionist accepted a monetary bribe “to keep an additional rider clean” and “the Phonak team clean in 2005” on November 3, 2004. At that time he stated he needed 9 days to determine if everything would be okay. He was arrested by police after accepting the bribe. Nine days later, the Pro Tour teams were announced and Phonak was told for the first time, they would be left off the list 

Circumstantial Support: When they told me I had tested positive I was in discussions with Phonak for a two year extension to my contract that would have taken me through 2007, when I would be 36 years old. I had ten individual sponsors, a foundation, a touring company and a film project on my plate. My life had never been more secure. This was not a time to risk everything. And I never would have. 

In addition, the allegations made during my hearing were that I transfused once in the winter and again in early June. This simply doesn’t make any sense. A transfusion in January or February would be pointless since I did not start racing until March. In addition, a wintertime transfusion would not result in low reticulocyte or high hematocrit counts in late April or early May. 

The spring is an important racing period, but it’s not a time when I have any pressure on me to perform. I was happy to win the Tour of Romandie in May, but my goal for the season was seeing how well I could do at the Tour de France. 

In June, I finished second at the Dauphine Libere but never once attacked during the race. No one with objectives for the Tour wants to be flying a month ahead of schedule. Winning the Dauphine was not important to me or my team. Getting to the Tour healthy and ready to go was. So there’s no logic in the argument that I could have taken a transfusion in early June. 

And finally, I would never risk my health or my wife’s health for the sake of racing. That just goes without saying. 

Normal Values: My hematocrit, hemoglobin and reticulocyte readings – that were of such discussion in the spring, were absolutely normal for the key time periods of my season. My scores all through the Tour de France, Olympics and Vuelta were in a range consistent with ten years of health data I have saved. From my perspective, this is an important point that seemed to have been discounted during my hearing. 

When you add my major injuries in the Tour de France that left me with hematomas in my lower back and deep bruises to my kidneys and spine – plus two additional crashes in the Dauphine and Vuelta where I suffered additional bruises and abrasions – it gets difficult to defend the presence of a foreign blood transfusion taken in early June being visible in tests conducted in mid September. My body would have been working over time to heal those injuries – especially the bruises. And that recovery would have flushed away any evidence of the alleged June transfusion. 

One expert who helped develop the test and who also testified against me during my hearing agreed that it would be a long shot for an early June transfusion to be visible at the late date of 9/11 – but went on to allege that I must have been “topping off my blood supply with 100 milliliter transfusions throughout the summer” for my tests to come out the way they did. 

This raises a few questions – the first being what would topping off a blood supply with shot glass size transfusions accomplish other than keeping the chances of testing positive alive? And why would anyone go to the trouble or risk to their health to do this? This allegation, above all, made me wonder just how invested these researchers were in understanding the practice they were trying to eradicate. 

My case is a very complicated one. I could write on and on about the issues we raised, the personal toll all this has had on me, my family and my sponsors and why I think the anti-doping process could be improved. In the days ahead I’ll share more. 

Thanks for reading. 

Tyler Hamilton


----------



## weiwentg (Feb 3, 2004)

unchained said:


> Now if he would only stand up like a man and admit he lied and cheated. Then he would be forgiven.


it is, of course, also possible that he is telling the truth. his actions so far are also consistent with someone who has been wrongly accused. I make no judgment yet on the evidence as I haven't read it. 
however, unless he is exonerated by the CAS with conclusive evidence of innocence, then I am giving up faith in pro cycling. my Livestrong wristband will stay off. the cycling posters on my walls will come down. I'll get posters of naked women put up instead. I have an autographed shot of Laurent Jalabert, very nice guy and great champion, that will stay up for a bit. if I completely lose faith, that goes up on ebay. otherwise, I think Playboy Playmates will be much better inspiration than pro cyclists. at least it's obvious who has implants and who doesn't.


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

*Chimerism is BS, but arbitrators are outrageous on false-positives.*



bas said:


> I wonder what were his previous tests? That twin's marrow shouldn't just show up recently.


The arbitrators' report explicitly discusses this. There were two other tests from this winter, one of which was conducted by a physician who testified as an expert witness for Tyler. Both tests showed no sign of a mixed blood population. Tyler presented zero evidence that he had chimeric blood, so the relevance of chimeras is about the same as the relevance of pregnant women. They are possible sources of false positives, but neither applies to Tyler.

The panel also pointed out that in a recent meeting of 5000 haematologists, there was a request for information from anyone who had experience with a chimeric patient and no one responded. According to the report, the Red Cross has tested millions of blood samples for chimerism and has only found one instance, but to the best of my knowledge, they Red Cross does not use the Nelson-Ashendon flow-cytometry test used to catch Tyler. A comprehensive study of the medical literature by the Nelson-Ashenden group found only 100 known cases of chimerism and a more recent study of 20,000 blood samples from the general population found no such cases.

The probability that _both_ Perez _and_ Hamilton would be chimeras is thus outside the range of reasonable plausibility. Without ironclad evidence, I would not even waste time considering the chimera excuse.

If Hamilton and Perez are actually innocent, the more likely explanation would be either that the blood was deliberately or accidentally tampered with after being collected or that the flow cytometry was performed incompetently. Hamilton's diary tells of these excuses but the arbitrators' report does not discuss any evidence of either of these arguments being presented in detail at Hamilton's hearing.

The arbitration panel plays fast and loose with important factors, such as the baseline noise level of fluorescent flow cytometery and false-positive rates. The panel claims that 


> _It is a fact that there are no scientific studies that detect false-positives in the use of the HBTT. However, there is no need to do so because there is no hint that the HBTT produces false positives. ... There is no risk of a false positive and no need to do so-called validation studies. The test is reliable at doing what it does without risk of a false-positive for a mixed-blood population._


I don't know about the rest of you, but I've never in my life seen a test that had a false-positive rate of zero, or one that was so self-evidently correct that it didn't need to be validated by scientific testing.

All in all, Hamilton had a chance to present his strongest defense and all he could come up with was something along the lines of "the dog ate my homework." The panel was correct in finding against him because his case stunk. However, I fear the implications of a blanket ruling that a particular test cannot possibly produce a false positive. That's bad science and a bad basis for drug testing!


----------



## shokhead (Dec 17, 2002)

Everything else being the same,if he's a non-american,does he get the same vote?


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

weiwentg said:


> the cycling posters on my walls will come down. I'll get posters of naked women put up instead. ... I think Playboy Playmates will be much better inspiration than pro cyclists. at least it's obvious who has implants and who doesn't.


Oh no! They have implants! Next you'll be telling me that the pictures were photoshopped! What kind of message does that send to all the innocent kids who aspire to be rhythmically admired on glossy pages? 

All my posters of naked women are coming down right now and I'm going to establish a shrine in my room to pie. At least it comes with an ingredients list.


----------



## DSR (Oct 10, 2002)

*I believe him...*

Based on his rep and fishy circumstances around the tests, I give him the benefit of the doubt. 

On a sidenote, I was climbing up into Ward (up the canyon from Boulder) yesterday afternoon as Tyler passed heading down the canyon. We exchanged waves - his a big wave and big smile. I heard the news when I got home from the ride. Even if he did do it, I will always respect him for being a great guy in a sport of prima donnas. Heck, a lot of the "serious" riders around here couldn't even be bothered to lift a hand for a wave while on a empty canyon road. Outside of this unfortunate event, I've never heard a bad word about Tyler and he's been in town here for a couple years now. 

I believe him. S


----------



## thinkcooper (Jan 5, 2005)

*another believer here*



DSR said:


> Based on his rep and fishy circumstances around the tests, I give him the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> On a sidenote, I was climbing up into Ward (up the canyon from Boulder) yesterday afternoon as Tyler passed heading down the canyon. We exchanged waves - his a big wave and big smile. I heard the news when I got home from the ride. Even if he did do it, I will always respect him for being a great guy in a sport of prima donnas. Heck, a lot of the "serious" riders around here couldn't even be bothered to lift a hand for a wave while on a empty canyon road. Outside of this unfortunate event, I've never heard a bad word about Tyler and he's been in town here for a couple years now.
> 
> I believe him. S


Perhaps I'm a pollyanna here, but I'm with you on that. 

Tyler was a junior on my old east coast team (CCB). I only got to know him casually, but have some good friends/old team mates that are very close to Tyler. According to all their comments, blood doping doesn't match up with anything in his personality. It's way too out of character. And he isn't stupid enough to be doping after hearing warnings about increased srutiny. 

That said, after reading through the abritrator's report, the case and evidence is pretty damning. My conspiratorial mind conjures up wild scenarios; perhaps the blood samples were tainted to hurt him. Perhaps he was administered EPO without his knowledge as a food supplement or another medical treatment... (although that wouldn't explain the different RBC marker profiles)

I still believe that he's innocent and something else has to be going on.


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

thinkcooper said:


> I only got to know him casually, but have some good friends/old team mates that are very close to Tyler. According to all their comments, blood doping doesn't match up with anything in his personality. It's way too out of character.


"He seemed like such a nice guy." That's what the neighbors of every serial killer say. 

I tend to think Hamilton was doing what everyone else was doing. Getting caught is an occupational hazzard, but I also think he got screwed. The case stinks and I can't help but think the UCI framed a guilty man.

The chimera defense seems to be just plain stupid to advance unless you could reproduce the positive test result at will. It damages the defense's credibility and takes away from the other more valid arguments.


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

I would expect Hamilton to appeal the suspension to have it start when he stopped racing during the Vuelta/2004. That would allow him to race again at the end of next year. He would be able to do the short stages races early in the 2007 season--assuming he can get past the four year deal of the PT.

Does the extra two years of the PT count for doping offenses that happened before the agreement? It seems a rider should only be held to the punishment that was expected at the time of the offense.


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

thinkcooper said:


> My conspiratorial mind conjures up wild scenarios; perhaps the blood samples were tainted to hurt him. Perhaps he was administered EPO without his knowledge as a food supplement or another medical treatment... (although that wouldn't explain the different RBC marker profiles)


As you correctly note, EPO or other drugs couldn't explain these results. Transfusion is the only plausible explanation and that wouldn't have happened without Tyler's knowledge.

Much more likely would be someone tampering either with the blood samples or with the instruments used. The extortionist story, if it's true, suggests that this is possible. There are many cases in the criminal law of prosecutors fabricating evidence (DNA and other) to frame innocent people. It's possible that there is a corrupt technician in one of the laboratories that tested Hamilton's blood. I don't believe it, but if you want a conspiracy I would look for tampering with the samples in the laboratory.


----------



## thinkcooper (Jan 5, 2005)

Utah CragHopper said:


> "He seemed like such a nice guy." That's what the neighbors of every serial killer say.


My sincere apologies in advance if this line wasn't intended to be dismissive, but I read it way and it inspired a little rant...

Paradoxically, I look for the twisted/serial killer in every person. The nicer, the more likely. 

Opinions about Tyler based on what I recall and to this day hear, are filtered through a healthy skeptic's POV. He wasn't a poster kid for nice when I knew him. He was a rambunctious, gregarious teen, digging riding and evolving into a strong rider, eventually kicking veteran ass like mine. Not driven by some power/ego trip, but driven by truly loving riding.

Hell, I don't know squat about the truth. I'm out there guessing like every one else. I happen to have a little pipeline to his inner circle, but all news is second hand, even if I heard it directly from Tyler himself. For sure though, I'm not willing to put myself into a position that places me in judgement of another regardless of what I "know", heard, guess or surmise. All I have to share on the brutal subject is an odd, quirky inkling that something stinks in way that it shouldn't. And I don't believe the stink is wafting off Tyler.


----------



## Jim Nazium (Feb 3, 2004)

Utah CragHopper said:


> I would expect Hamilton to appeal the suspension to have it start when he stopped racing during the Vuelta/2004. That would allow him to race again at the end of next year. He would be able to do the short stages races early in the 2007 season--assuming he can get past the four year deal of the PT.
> 
> Does the extra two years of the PT count for doping offenses that happened before the agreement? It seems a rider should only be held to the punishment that was expected at the time of the offense.


He's already 34. I doubt any pro team would pick up a 36 year old rider who's been out of competition for two years and who's been busted (fairly or not) for doping. This spells the end of his career, I'm afraid.


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

Jim Nazium said:


> He's already 34. I doubt any pro team would pick up a 36 year old rider who's been out of competition for two years and who's been busted (fairly or not) for doping. This spells the end of his career, I'm afraid.


There's always Team Subway--assuming he didn't spend his last euro on his defense. For him they might even drop the price to join.


----------



## euro-trash (May 1, 2004)

First, as I've stated before, he should be put to death for swearing on the life of his dead dog. If he wants to swear on the life of his nasty wife, fine, but bringing a dog into it crossed a line. 

Second, he should be charged with fraud for his allowing the believetyler.org to take money from innocent people who want to believe. Meanwhile, he's made millions wearing spandex for a living.

Third, "My story really starts at the Tour of Romandie when Phonak disputed the entire teamâ€™s hematocrit readings from one of the UCIâ€™s morning health tests. Riders who did both Liege and Romandie showed gains of an average of 4 points in a span of 4 days. In addition, the readings were also about 4-5 points higher than the teamâ€™s own results taken the night before." Why would Phonak check their riders' hematocrit at night unless they knew their riders were doped? Afterall, Tyler's crit was nowhere near 50 during the winter...... I know checking rider's hematocrit is standard practice, but so is doping.


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

euro-trash said:


> Why would Phonak check their riders' hematocrit at night unless they knew their riders were doped?


Tacit understanding that the riders will do what they gotta do. The team just wants to avoid a scandal that would upset their sponsors.

What's worse is the UCI warning people. It's like, "Hey, we are on to what you are doing. Please switch your methods before you give the sport a black eye."


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

"First, as I've stated before, he should be put to death for swearing on the life of his dead dog. If he wants to swear on the life of his nasty wife, fine, but bringing a dog into it crossed a line."

Love it.


----------



## duckstrap (Mar 8, 2002)

*I believe him also*

This case has had a surprisingly large impact on both my enthusiasm for the bike and for watching pro cycling. I suspect this is a big part of the reason why we are all burning valuable hours (and electrons) still debating did he or didn't he. 

On the "He did it, so throw the bastard to the wolves" side, I can't get past the fact that flow cytometry is, in fact, a relatively mature technology, and the results should be qualitatively pretty clear. I don't have too much of a problem with the "I know a positive when I see it" criterion. As Julich said, "we all had to pass the same test, so why couldn't he?" I also tend to believe that both of his Vuelta samples were clearly positive (although I have some serious concerns about the impartiality of the observers). As someone else said, the disappearing twin or chimera defense is basically just a bunch of hooey. The fact that he has previous histograms showing a single distribution of antigens tells me he's only making one kind of red blood cells. I don't know why he even bothered--it's almost as bad as the "surgical intervention" stuff he put out there after this first came up.

On the other hand, on the "let's wait a second and think" side, there are a few things. From the scientific perspective, I think the dissenting arbiter actually raised some important issues. The false positive rate for the test is not well described in the literature, nor is the robustness of the test when a sample is really badly mishandled. We still don't know what happens to their test if, e.g. the sample warms up to 40 deg C or cools below where it is suppose to be during the antibody-binding step, or what if the collection tube does or doesn't have EDTA or heparin in it, etc. These are in addition to the gating and other issues described in the paper proposing the test. The Athens lab already demonstrated an ability to screw up the sample handling by freezing the B sample. It also sounds as though interpretation of the Athens A result was equivocal. If the result was clear, then why did one physician initially not see it, and then the other (biased) observers see the positive and overrule him. Why were they looking at all? The other earlier blood results are only relevant in putting him into the pool for further examination, and for demonstrating possibly that they should be concerned, and for showing (again) that there are probably holes in the way they handle blood samples.

If the antigens that turned up positive were different in the Athens and Vuelta results, that is a serious problem for the UCI interpretation. Since RBCs generally have a long half-life (90 days), anything that turned up positive in Athens should have still been positive at the Vuelta with only ~30 days in between. If Tyler took another transfusion between the two races, then something else could turn up in the Vuelta sample, but something that was there at Athens wouldn't disappear. I can't get past the fact (fact!!) that if some a**hole squirts an eyedropper full of blood into the sample or doesn't wash the pipette between samples, then Tyler is hosed. The extortionist thing is totally bazaar, but that doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen. They never did a DNA analysis of the sample--here's a thought--maybe they should look at the DNA in both Tyler's and Santi Perez's samples. Markers from a common saboteur could show up in both samples. Tyler's got the resources to pay for it if the samples still exist (doubtful, I know, even if they would let him have access to them).

The last part of comes down to logic. Why would he do it? I believe he's a very nice guy with plenty of integrity. I also believe that nice people can succumb to the inordinate pressure to perform. On the other hand he's dealt with this pressure for all of his career (ok, ok, maybe he just didn't get caught). Still, only an idiot, knowing how intensively he would be tested, and knowing that he was already in the pool for intensive monitoring, would go ahead and take another dip. Tyler is not an idiot. The timeline Tyler lays out about his training program and team expectations sounds plausible. At the times he is suppose to have taken a transfusion, he didn't really have a need to. Whether he did or did not take a transfusion, he has to have understood the seriousness of taking that step. BTW, that crap from Dick Pound or somebody else at WADA or UCI about "topping up" over the summer is also a bunch of BS. 

From a due process perspective, I think this whole affair stinks. As far as whether he LEGALLY entitled to due process, I don't have an opinion. As a fan, and consumer of bike stuff, it pisses me off that in this instance there doesn't appear to have been even minimal concern for fairness. From the very start, I think it has been clear that Dick Pound and that character Ashendon were a lot more interested in calling Tyler a liar and in having the result blindly accepted than about ensuring the validity of the results. Every single thing that was unexplainable about their "perfect" test was taken as further evidence of guilt, rather than for them to assume innocence and look further at how their test works. They have been so convinced that the method is always valid, and that the rider is guilty, that they willfully ignored any dissenting evidence. The presumption is that he did it so let's nail him. 

So where does that leave me? Well, I've wasted the hour I had for riding my bike today. Again. Is there a preponderance of evidence that he took a transfusion? Maybe. There is a preponderance of evidence that his Vuelta sample was positive. Is it from a transfusion? Don't know. To me, there is certainly reason to doubt. I ride with CCB in Mass., not one of their heavy hitters, or even medium ones, but I enjoy riding. I've met some of his family, and they seem like people whose word counts. On the other hand, all the stuff I've seen about the WADA and UCI people tells me they're on a mission, 

Bottom line: I believe him.


----------



## duckstrap (Mar 8, 2002)

*I believe him also*

This case has had a surprisingly large impact on both my enthusiasm for the bike and for watching pro cycling. I suspect this is a big part of the reason why we are all burning valuable hours (and electrons) still debating did he or didn't he. 

On the "He did it, so throw the bastard to the wolves" side, I can't get past the fact that flow cytometry is, in fact, a relatively mature technology, and the results should be qualitatively pretty clear. I don't have too much of a problem with the "I know a positive when I see it" criterion. As Julich said, "we all had to pass the same test, so why couldn't he?" I also tend to believe that both of his Vuelta samples were clearly positive (although I have some serious concerns about the impartiality of the observers). As someone else said, the disappearing twin or chimera defense is basically just a bunch of hooey. The fact that he has previous histograms showing a single distribution of antigens tells me he's only making one kind of red blood cells. I don't know why he even bothered--it's almost as bad as the "surgical intervention" stuff he put out there after this first came up.

On the other hand, on the "let's wait a second and think" side, there are a few things. From the scientific perspective, I think the dissenting arbiter actually raised some important issues. The false positive rate for the test is not well described in the literature, nor is the robustness of the test when a sample is really badly mishandled. We still don't know what happens to their test if, e.g. the sample warms up to 40 deg C or cools below where it is suppose to be during the antibody-binding step, or what if the collection tube does or doesn't have EDTA or heparin in it, etc. These are in addition to the gating and other issues described in the paper proposing the test. The Athens lab already demonstrated an ability to screw up the sample handling by freezing the B sample. It also sounds as though interpretation of the Athens A result was equivocal. If the result was clear, then why did one physician initially not see it, and then the other (biased) observers see the positive and overrule him. Why were they looking at all? The other earlier blood results are only relevant in putting him into the pool for further examination, and for demonstrating possibly that they should be concerned, and for showing (again) that there are probably holes in the way they handle blood samples.

If the antigens that turned up positive were different in the Athens and Vuelta results, that is a serious problem for the UCI interpretation. Since RBCs generally have a long half-life (90 days), anything that turned up positive in Athens should have still been positive at the Vuelta with only ~30 days in between. If Tyler took another transfusion between the two races, then something else could turn up in the Vuelta sample, but something that was there at Athens wouldn't disappear. I can't get past the fact (fact!!) that if some a**hole squirts an eyedropper full of blood into the sample or doesn't wash the pipette between samples, then Tyler is hosed. The extortionist thing is totally bazaar, but that doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen. They never did a DNA analysis of the sample--here's a thought--maybe they should look at the DNA in both Tyler's and Santi Perez's samples. Markers from a common saboteur could show up in both samples. Tyler's got the resources to pay for it if the samples still exist (doubtful, I know, even if they would let him have access to them).

The last part of comes down to logic. Why would he do it? I believe he's a very nice guy with plenty of integrity. I also believe that nice people can succumb to the inordinate pressure to perform. On the other hand he's dealt with this pressure for all of his career (ok, ok, maybe he just didn't get caught). Still, only an idiot, knowing how intensively he would be tested, and knowing that he was already in the pool for intensive monitoring, would go ahead and take another dip. Tyler is not an idiot. The timeline Tyler lays out about his training program and team expectations sounds plausible. At the times he is suppose to have taken a transfusion, he didn't really have a need to. Whether he did or did not take a transfusion, he has to have understood the seriousness of taking that step. BTW, that crap from Dick Pound or somebody else at WADA or UCI about "topping up" over the summer is also a bunch of BS. 

From a due process perspective, I think this whole affair stinks. As far as whether he LEGALLY entitled to due process, I don't have an opinion. As a fan, and consumer of bike stuff, it pisses me off that in this instance there doesn't appear to have been even minimal concern for fairness. From the very start, I think it has been clear that Dick Pound and that character Ashendon were a lot more interested in calling Tyler a liar and in having the result blindly accepted than about ensuring the validity of the results. Every single thing that was unexplainable about their "perfect" test was taken as further evidence of guilt, rather than for them to assume innocence and look further at how their test works. They have been so convinced that the method is always valid, and that the rider is guilty, that they willfully ignored any dissenting evidence. The presumption is that he did it so let's nail him. 

So where does that leave me? Well, I've wasted the hour I had for riding my bike today. Again. Is there a preponderance of evidence that he took a transfusion? Maybe. There is a preponderance of evidence that his Vuelta sample was positive. Is it from a transfusion? Don't know. To me, there is certainly reason to doubt. I ride with CCB in Mass., not one of their heavy hitters, or even medium ones, but I enjoy riding. I've met some of his family, and they seem like people whose word counts. On the other hand, all the stuff I've seen about the WADA and UCI people tells me they're on a mission, 

Bottom line: I believe him.


----------



## CLTracer (Aug 21, 2004)

Utah CragHopper said:


> There's always Team Subway--assuming he didn't spend his last euro on his defense. For him they might even drop the price to join.


LOL - domestic riding is an expensive sport!.


----------



## PdxMark (Feb 3, 2004)

Nice summary Duckstrap. Like many issues, this one has a host of seemingly contradictory facts. I think you summarized them well. I come down the same way you do.


----------



## mgp (Feb 3, 2004)

Are there any reports of what Tyler and Perez's blood type are? I think UCH mentioned it in another post--the reasonable explanation is that they screwed up and mixed up their own stored blood.

Assuming Tyler and Perez were doing transfusions.


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

duckstrap said:


> The extortionist thing is totally bazaar, but that doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen.


Well the police arrested the extortionist. The question is how he knew in advance that Tyler and Perez would test positive at the Vuelta.



duckstrap said:


> They never did a DNA analysis of the sample--here's a thought--maybe they should look at the DNA in both Tyler's and Santi Perez's samples. Markers from a common saboteur could show up in both samples. Tyler's got the resources to pay for it if the samples still exist (doubtful, I know, even if they would let him have access to them)


Human erythrocytes don't have nuclei, so there would be nothing to do a DNA test on.


----------



## duckstrap (Mar 8, 2002)

*True Enough*

You're right--I'd forgotten about RBCs not having a nucleus. There would likely be some small contamination of any RBC prep with cells that did have DNA, but fishing out that minor population is probably not possible. Also those cells would likely be long gone by sampling time, and we're back to checking an under-validated test with another unvalidated test.


----------



## danielc (Oct 24, 2002)

*Chimera*

i mentioned the whole chimera thing to my boss who is a hematologist the other day. his first response was 'he's lying'..haha. anyway, even if the condition is extremely rare, tyler should have a lab retest his blood for this particular trait and use it as evidence. heck, couldn't he just commission the same lab to do a retest? if he truly does have a mixed population, he should come up with a positive again.
anyway, i think that he doesn't want to admit guilt because he loves his nice shiny gold medal. as someone said, if his career is over, he could still earn a living if he writes a book on the peleton. i would buy it.


----------



## nwilkes (Jun 21, 2004)

_One of the most surprising statements in the AAA/CAS report, and one that was argued against by the dissenting arbitrator Chris Campbell, was that "There can be no risk of a false positive" in this test. "In fact, in the 48 subjects reported in the literature, there was 100% accuracy. There is no risk of a false positive and no need to do so called validation studies." _ 

48 subjects and no quality validation for WADA. Tyler is probably guilty, but this test is _definately_ not going to prove anything. This is crappy and incomplete "science".


----------



## Rthur2sheds (Jul 30, 2004)

from everything I have read, it is not as open-and-shut as I once thought... understanding that cycling needs to take a hard line,I think perhaps probation may have been a more reasonable response


----------



## all doped up (Nov 14, 2004)

*Remember Prentice Steffen's claim's against Tyler?*



Rthur2sheds said:


> from everything I have read, it is not as open-and-shut as I once thought... understanding that cycling needs to take a hard line,I think perhaps probation may have been a more reasonable response


He was a Motorola team doctor, who claimed Tyler and one other Motorola rider asked him for PED's awhile back. Claims Tyler denied.

I bet Dr. Steffen is now rolling on the floor laughing at BelieveTyler fans. 

I told you so.

And what about the Greg Lemonds, Emma O'Reillys and Steven Swart's of the world are they going to saying I told you so???????


----------

