# Tyler Hamilton at Interbike



## bollard (Mar 14, 2002)

Just saw the pictures of the Interbike show on cyclingnews and saw that Tyler Hamilton was on the Zipp stand. With his two positive tests I was wondering what sort of reception he got ????


----------



## Spunout (Aug 12, 2002)

He's got balls, or is actually quite stupid considering his three positive tests.


----------



## joshd671 (Sep 29, 2004)

*Complex Technologies*

Sounds lke he's just announced that he will be endorsing this company... I think this is a big mistake on the part of this company. Personally, I think he is guilty... seems like most everyone does too... I think this company is sending the wrong message by beginning a relationship with Tyler. I wonder what bozo made this decision?!?!


----------



## MPH74 (Dec 3, 2002)

*Call them*



joshd671 said:


> Sounds lke he's just announced that he will be endorsing this company... I think this is a big mistake on the part of this company. Personally, I think he is guilty... seems like most everyone does too... I think this company is sending the wrong message by beginning a relationship with Tyler. I wonder what bozo made this decision?!?!



I suggest you express you're disappointment/surprise (or seek an explanation) to this company's investor relations department. I too was surprised at this annoucement... Compex Tech.'s parent company is Hawk Assoc. Their investor relations number is 305-852-2383.


----------



## Spirito (Nov 26, 2001)

*Yeah .....*

Zipp decided to get him on board to market their new Carbon Fibre syringes. 

ciao


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

*Tyler "Richard Virenque" Hamilton*



bollard said:


> Just saw the pictures of the Interbike show on cyclingnews and saw that Tyler Hamilton was on the Zipp stand. With his two positive tests I was wondering what sort of reception he got ????


As I have said before, I now understand why the French fans supported Richard Virenque even though he was a doper. I do not think that we ever will know for sure, unless Hamilton confesses, whether he is guilty of doping or not. But, even though most us know in our hearts that Tyler Hamilton very likely is guilty, I think that a lot of us still like him and will be cheering for him the next time he races, assuming that he has any pro career left after any suspension he may receive. Tyler may not have the same appeal that he had a month ago, but he will continue to have fans. Now, whether I would recommend that a client sponsor him is another issue. But, if he somehow clears his name, you can be sure that the sponsors that are sticking with and supporting him now will have a friend for life. Look at how Lance Armstrong has stuck with sponsors like Oakley and Nike that stuck with him during his fight with cancer.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

I'm riding with Tyler a week from tomorrow. There are 30 of us that made a donation to the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History in order to do so....

I've debated whether to cancel and ask for a refund but I'm going to the ride. In my heart I want to believe he's innocent..... I guess I'll keep my head buried in the sand and hope for a fun ride.....


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

*Et tu, Tyler?*

One interesting thing to note from having spent time in Europe is that Virenque is mostly popular with the "casual cycling fan" crowd, such as the moms and dads and their kids that you see in photos of Tour de France. Most members of the "serious cyclist" crowd sort of snub him, because they feel like they were betrayed by him in '98-'99. In fact, most of the serious guys just accept that most of the top pros are on drugs anyway. 

Now, it seems that most US cycling fans have made a moral and emotional investment in supporting Tyler Hamilton's claims, and that makes me wonder how things will turn out for him in the US itself, if he were later convicted of the doping charge(s). I also wonder how the American fans' attitude towards cycling will be then. In the past years, we've heard many comments that "American cycling is clean because it's removed from the doped-up European cycling." Maybe the French fans were saying that French cycling was clean because it was removed from the doped-up [German/Spanish/Italian/Eastern European/Eritrean] cycling! 

I should note that I think Tyler Hamilton has made an excellent role model for cyclists all over the world with his humility and ethics in his writings, but we'll just have to wait for the whole thing to be decided in a hopefully fair court before making conjectures and I can't say more other than wishing him good luck. If he were truly the person that I think he is -- based on reading his journals and interviews -- I believe that this is all that he's asking for.


----------



## Gregory Taylor (Mar 29, 2002)

*I Too Really WANT To Believe That He's Innocent..*

I really WANT to believe that the guy is innocent, for a lot of reasons. The science, however, points to a rather unpleasant conclusion. Reason versus Emotion.

Boy, that is going to be a rather interesting charity ride.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Gregory Taylor said:


> I really WANT to believe that the guy is innocent, for a lot of reasons. The science, however, points to a rather unpleasant conclusion. Reason versus Emotion.
> 
> Boy, that is going to be a rather interesting charity ride.


What science would that be? 1 published study, 25 subjects, no evaluation of false positives, secret methods? Even the developer of the test says the quality of the results is highly dependent on the quality of the antigen used; but to date, no one from IOC, USCF, or WADA is willing to release that information. Reason versus Emotion is right.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

asgelle said:


> What science would that be? 1 published study, 25 subjects, no evaluation of false positives, secret methods? Even the developer of the test says the quality of the results is highly dependent on the quality of the antigen used; but to date, no one from IOC, USCF, or WADA is willing to release that information. Reason versus Emotion is right.


So, if the problem is the test likely to lead to false positives don't you find it odd that no one, as far as we know, has tested positive other than Hamilton. And perhaps even more damning, all 3 samples of Hamilton's tested came back positive.
Unless a likely physiological explanation is offered, I'd say the preponderance of evidence at this time is that Hamilton is guilty.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Why don't you just not buy their wheels and let them determine if having Tyler as spokesman is worth it? Isn't that the best way to deal with your distaste? After all, I don't write letters to your boss when you screw up suggesting you be fired.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Dwayne Barry said:


> So, if the problem is the test likely to lead to false positives don't you find it odd that no one, as far as we know, has tested positive other than Hamilton. And perhaps even more damning, all 3 samples of Hamilton's tested came back positive.
> Unless a likely physiological explanation is offered, I'd say the preponderance of evidence at this time is that Hamilton is guilty.


I think a key phrase is "as far as we know" The IOC said the results of the test depend on evaluation of the data but all we see is the binary positive/negative. So while we know Hamilton was the only one who's result was evaluated as past some threshold, we don't know anything about the rest who were tested. It's possible that the evaluation commitee said a score over 65 on some arbitrary scale means a positive result and below 65 is negative. For all we know, Hamilton scored 65 and there might have been dozens of results in the 60-64 range, none of whom transfused but are indicative of flase positive behavior. As to all 3 samples testing the same. First, that just shows the test is repeatable, not accurate. They aren't the same thing. Second, we don't know the tests were the same. All we know is that they were evaluated the same. It could be that after the IOC test results were communicated to UCI (which we know they were) when the UCI tests came back they only scored 62 on the hypothetical scale, but UCI said based on the IOC results that was close enough and they called the test positive. UCI claims the tests were anonymous but they also admit Hamilton was targeted for testing. The fact is neither agency has publicly stated yet what the criteria were for a positive result or even if the criteria were the same. 

As I see it the only evidence put forth by the IOC and UCI is "We ran a secret test and only Hamilton came back positive, therefore he's guilty." To which I say, until they open all the details of the test to scientific scrutiny, they have nothing other than their word for us to believe he's guilty. The fact is, no matter how strong anyone judges the evidence, to this point all we've seen is the prosecution's case. The defense hasn't even presented their side yet. It's equivalent to people are saying he was arrested so he must be guilty. Having just gone through the Moninger and Neben affairs (and the grossly different treatments), we should all recognize how great a distance there is between a positive test result and a real doping infraction. I'm not sying Hamilton is innocent. I have no way of knowing. I do believe that based on what's been shown so far, I'm a long way from being convinced he's guilty which is why it bothers me that so many here have now moved beyond the question of guilt and are already working to punish the guy by advocating complaining to his sponsors.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

bollard said:


> Just saw the pictures of the Interbike show on cyclingnews and saw that Tyler Hamilton was on the Zipp stand. With his two positive tests I was wondering what sort of reception he got ????


An interesting article from bicycleretailer.com

_Tyler Hamilton's Sponsors Stand By Their Man 

OCTOBER 07, 2004 -- LAS VEGAS, NV (BRAIN)--On group rides and in Internet chat rooms, roadies have been hotly debating the validity and implications of Tyler Hamilton's recent positive blood doping tests. At Interbike, Hamilton's many sponsors remain resolute in their support for the Olympic time trial gold medalist.

Hamilton may be suspended from professional racing for positive A and B samples taken at the Vuelta de Espana. 

An A sample taken at the Olympics also came back positive, but judicial action was not taken because the Olympics B sample was frozen, rendering it useless for testing.

Hamilton insists he is clean.

"I am 100 percent innocent," Hamilton said yesterday while signing autographs in Bell's booth where his gold medal is on display.

A few suppliers like Bell have heavily invested in Hamilton and his image, and hundreds of retailers have product in their shops closely associated with the articulate racer.

Hamilton's sponsors appear as resolute as he is—they're not backing out.

"We have a long personal relationship with Tyler, and we will stand by him," said Don Palermini, marketing communications manager for Bell Sports, which sells a Tyler Hamilton Special Edition helmet. "We can't be fair weather sponsors. It's our responsibility to stand by him, whether that's in him dropping out of the Tour de France or this situation."

Richard Bryne, Speedplay's president, said "nothing has changed between Speedplay and Tyler—everything is status quo."

Speedplay has a Tyler Hamilton Edition road pedal on the market.
Hamilton is signing autographs in the booths of Bell, BMC, Speedplay and QBP. Each of those companies has Hamilton memorabilia of some sort hanging in their booths. 

Toshi Corbet, Bell's senior marketing manager, said Bell and Hamilton just signed a sponsorship deal two nights ago that will cover "the duration of his career." 

"We 100 percent believe Tyler is innocent," Corbet said, adding that Bell has a standing policy regarding doping and "we won't tolerate illegal activities."

Cycling's international governing body, the UCI, has not announced when it will issue a verdict on Hamilton's case. Hamilton said he didn't know when the decision would come either.

Hamilton recently hired the high-powered sports management firm SFX Sports Group to handle his public relations. SFX USA helps manage the public affairs of big names such as Michael Jordan and Andre Agassi. 

But at Interbike, Hamilton is still speaking for himself, and when asked whether he had doped ever in his career, his answer was simple—"No, never."

For a complete story on how suppliers are formulating their sponsorship plans regarding doping read the November issue of Bicycle Retailer and Industry News._


----------



## KATZRKOL (Mar 4, 2004)

*Selling blood. .*



bollard said:


> With his two positive tests I was wondering what sort of reception he got ????


He heard some dude was in the bathroom selling bags of good blood!


----------



## russw19 (Nov 27, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> So, if the problem is the test likely to lead to false positives don't you find it odd that no one, as far as we know, has tested positive other than Hamilton. And perhaps even more damning, all 3 samples of Hamilton's tested came back positive.
> Unless a likely physiological explanation is offered, I'd say the preponderance of evidence at this time is that Hamilton is guilty.



Not to take this thread in a new direction, but as I have pointed out here before, Tyler has NOT tested positive 3 times. He has tested positive (by UCI rules of competition) once, and had a second test thrown out for being "inconsistent" even though the "A" sample of that test showed a positive result.

The hair-splitting is that he did not test positive twice in the Vuelta. He tested positive once. They just twice tested the same sample. It's like saying if you break your leg once, having it x-rayed by two different techs at the ER doesn't mean you broke it twice, you just had it tested twice to make sure it was broken once. And even if you include the Olympics test as an actual positive, it was still only the second test..... not the third.

I don't really know why I care, but there is enough speculation about his guilt or innocence surrounding the actual tests that I think we all should be conscious about not adding to the BS and sticking to the truth.

Russ


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Let's not split hairs, 3 samples of Tyler's blood have tested positive for the presence of someone else's blood being mixed with his. Now, if you believe Tyler's blood is Tyler's blood and no one else's that means the test has returned 3 false positives. Or alternatively, there could be something about Tyler's blood that makes it look like someone else's blood is mixed with his. In this case, the test wouldn't be returning false positives, it would in fact be very reliable because it is indeed detecting a true phenomenon, although one that has a valid physiological explanation other than homologous blood doping.


----------



## Gregory Taylor (Mar 29, 2002)

*I'm Not A Doctor...*

...nor a scientist, so I can't really evaluate the "science" behind the test. I did read the article in Cyclingnews a while back (when the story first broke) that discussed the test. The impression that I got from the article (which admittedly contained an interview from a source that is a proponent of the test) was that the test was in wide use in hospitals. 

There is an interesting letter on Cyclingnews from a doctor at Ohio State University that criticizes the WADA for jumping the gun on the test results, and suggesting that there was a simple way to confirm the original findings before they announced the results. He also seems to suggest in the last paragraph that there is a way for Tyler to prove his case: by having a study done of his bone marrow. The letter is copied below:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Boy, did the WADA bungle this one. To prevent any or all potential dispute over Tyler Hamilton's blood test (or any future competitor for that matter), a simple unannounced follow up test 40-90 days after the original positive would definitively prove guilt or innocence. Had the blood group antigens returned to "normal" levels, then guilt would be confirmed. On the other hand, if these abnormalities persisted, particularly for several months outside competition, then the issue of a possible false positive could be quietly addressed.

Unfortunately, once the results have become public, a suspected doper has been notified, and he/she has the opportunity to continue blood doping, at least until the follow up tests have been done and the doper has "proven" that they are a false positive. This would allow the doper to continue homologous transfusions (at least from the same donor) for the rest of their career.

It sickens me to think that Tyler is guilty. However, I find it equally unpalatable that the WADA, USADA, IOC, and UCI are so intent on hurriedly and vociferously smearing the potential good name and reputation of one of the riders, using a technique whose false positive rate has never been studied. This is totally irresponsible, especially when a rider's career may be on the line.

Unfortunately for the anti-doping agencies, if this does turn out to be a false positive, this will be a massive blow to their credibility, which could set them back decades.

If Tyler is innocent, he should have a bone marrow aspirate studied to prove his innocence, and then go after these idiots with vigor.

Charles H. Cook MD, FACS
Assistant Professor of Surgery, The Ohio State University
Friday, October 1, 2004 


http://www.cyclingnews.com/letters/?id=2004/oct08letters


----------



## russw19 (Nov 27, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Let's not split hairs, 3 samples of Tyler's blood have tested positive for the presence of someone else's blood being mixed with his. Now, if you believe Tyler's blood is Tyler's blood and no one else's that means the test has returned 3 false positives. Or alternatively, there could be something about Tyler's blood that makes it look like someone else's blood is mixed with his. In this case, the test wouldn't be returning false positives, it would in fact be very reliable because it is indeed detecting a true phenomenon, although one that has a valid physiological explanation other than homologous blood doping.


OK.... a sample was taken during the Vuelta... a sample was taken at the Olympics.... where's the third? Did I miss something? 

Russ


----------



## campyhag (Feb 4, 2004)

Please enlighten me. I thought they tested an A and B sample , that is two different samples of blood, not one sample tested twice...which is it?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

russw19 said:


> OK.... a sample was taken during the Vuelta... a sample was taken at the Olympics.... where's the third? Did I miss something?
> 
> Russ


Yes, but one sample was tested twice providing two "trials" of the test. So again, if you believe Tyler is innocent, either the test returned 2 false positives on this sample or Tyler's blood is unusual, and it detected these abnormal proteins both times in this sample. Add the 3rd "trial" and you now have the test returning 3 false positives (and it hasn't even returned a positive on anyone else?), or Tyler's blood is abnormal and the test is in fact reliable and detecting a real phenomenon, or Tyler was blood doping. I think the first explanation is the least likely unless there are a whole rash of positives, false or otherwise, out there that we are unaware of, and Tyler has the worst luck in the world in that 3 independent trials turned up false positives.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

campyhag said:


> Please enlighten me. I thought they tested an A and B sample , that is two different samples of blood, not one sample tested twice...which is it?


For a given test, one sample is taken. It is divided into two conatiners. One is labeled A, the other B. So both are from the same sample.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Yes, but one sample was tested twice providing two "trials" of the test. So again, if you believe Tyler is innocent, either the test returned 2 false positives on this sample or Tyler's blood is unusual, and it detected these abnormal proteins both times in this sample. Add the 3rd "trial" and you now have the test returning 3 false positives (and it hasn't even returned a positive on anyone else?), or Tyler's blood is abnormal and the test is in fact reliable and detecting a real phenomenon, or Tyler was blood doping. I think the first explanation is the least likely unless there are a whole rash of positives, false or otherwise, out there that we are unaware of, and Tyler has the worst luck in the world in that 3 independent trials turned up false positives.


The test was designed to identify cause and effect for a single phenomenon. If you transfuse, you get a response. If A then B. The developers have effectively shown that the test is accurate and reproducible in the response A->B. What they never studied or published was if there are other causes beside A that can results in B. In other words, no one has shown that it is not possible that C->B, D->B, ..., Z->B. Since we don't know the range of other causes C-Z, no one can even guess what the probability is for these other causes resulting in a positive test. 

You keep saying that three independent tests caused false positives as though the false positives were a random event that happened three times. I never heard anyone say that. What the skeptics are suggesting is that there might be something in the procedure or in Hamilton's blood that results in a response indicative of a transfusion though none occured. To extend Russ's analogy. If you take an x-ray of someone who doesn't have a broken leg, but there's a flaw in the lens that makes a mark making it look like there's a break, no matter how many x-rays you take, the film will always indicate a fracture even though there is none. If you don't check this and put the leg in a cast, when you take the cast off, you'll find the bone healed and might say everything worked perfectly. It's only if someone insists the leg isn't broken, that anyone might look deeper into the matter to find the defect on the lens.


----------



## russw19 (Nov 27, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Yes, but one sample was tested twice providing two "trials" of the test. So again, if you believe Tyler is innocent, either the test returned 2 false positives on this sample or Tyler's blood is unusual, and it detected these abnormal proteins both times in this sample. Add the 3rd "trial" and you now have the test returning 3 false positives (and it hasn't even returned a positive on anyone else?), or Tyler's blood is abnormal and the test is in fact reliable and detecting a real phenomenon, or Tyler was blood doping. I think the first explanation is the least likely unless there are a whole rash of positives, false or otherwise, out there that we are unaware of, and Tyler has the worst luck in the world in that 3 independent trials turned up false positives.


Dwayne, it's not that I am arguing that Tyler is guilty or innocent... I am just trying to make sure that the actual facts are accurate. You are claiming that 2 blood tests are now 3. It's wrong. There was the Olympic sample and the Vuelta sample. That's it. It doesn't make a difference if you go back and test the Vuelta sample a third and fourth time. If you do and they come back positive, all that does is reinforce that the sample is positive... it does NOT mean he has now tested positive 4 and 5 times. It's all from the exact same sample. Test it 47 times... it's still one sample and still one positive. 

I think you seem to think I am trying to defend Tyler, who you seem to want to see fall. I am not, and I don't care. But I just want to make sure the facts are straight here... he only gave two samples that were tested. One was tested twice, and the second test on that same sample just confirmed that the first test was right. He was also tested in the Olympics and the first sample, or the first time that blood was checked, was positive, but the second sample could not confirm it. But you have only 2 samples in question, not 3, not 4, 5, or 6. If they go back now and check the Veulta sample again, it's still checking the same sample of blood that Tyler gave at the Veulta..... it's not a new test.

I am not judging Tyler's guilt or innocence (I don't know if that is the case with you) but he has at best tested positive once, and at worst only twice. Not 3 like you are claiming. Check the sample again and it's now not 4. My analogy of x-raying a broken leg was a good one. Another would be a loaf of bread. It's a loaf when it comes out of the oven.... does it make any difference if you slice it to make 32 slices or 8 slices? Is it still just one loaf of bread or does slicing it 32 times somehow make it more than one loaf? 

Bottom line... Fact: Tyler Hamilton has tested positive for a non-homologous blood sample in the Vuelta Espana. Fact: Hamilton's A sample at the Olympics was positive, but could not be verified by the B sample. So Fact: Tyler Hamilton tested positive once by UCI rules. He hasn't even tested positive once by IOC rules, and that's why he kept the medal. So you can spin it anyway you like in your attack on Hamilton, but he has not tested positive 3 times. Dwayne, I have read a lot of your posts, and I know you know what you are talking about... but you are wrong on this one. There was never a 3rd sample. That's all I am arguing. There were only 2. You can make the argument that both were positive if you want, I am not going to debate if we should or should not include the Olympic test as a positve (even though neither the UCI or IOC does) but I will argue that you can not say the Vuelta test is two tests. It's from the same sample. All the second test on the one sample does is make sure there wasn't an error on the first test of that sample. Sample it 17 times and if all come back positive, it's still just one positive test. Maybe a very accurate result of it, but just one test. 

Russ


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

You need to go back and read what I wrote, in each instance I offer the alternative that a natural physiological explanation COULD exist to account for the positives. If it does, I would think Tyler would have no problem demonstrating via this test that everytime you test his blood these same results are obtained assuming the test is sufficiently sensitive.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

And all along I thought we were talking about the likelihood that Tyler was guilty or not? Of course, in the eyes of the UCI he has tested positive for homologous blood doping 1 time. But the fact that 3 different runs of the test on two different samples of his blood were positive speaks to the reliability of the test. It would be nice to know if the same results were obtained each time as this would also be suggestive of whether or not Hamilton was doping with someone else's blood or simply has abnormal blood. Of course, it would also be nice to know the facts surrounding the reports that Hamilton was warned two times prior that his blood parameters were showing up as abnormal prior to the development of this test, as the new test and the old analysis of blood parameters examine entirely different things yet both could be indicative of blood doping.


----------



## SteveCnj (Oct 6, 2003)

asgelle said:


> until they open all the details of the test to scientific scrutiny, they have nothing other than their word for us to believe he's guilty. The fact is, no matter how strong anyone judges the evidence, to this point all we've seen is the prosecution's case. The defense hasn't even presented their side yet. It's equivalent to people are saying he was arrested so he must be guilty. ....
> 
> 
> .... I do believe that based on what's been shown so far, I'm a long way from being convinced he's guilty which is why it bothers me that so many here have now moved beyond the question of guilt and are already working to punish the guy by advocating complaining to his sponsors.



Your posts are the most well thought out on this thread. 

The scientific reliablitiy of the tests must be proven before any accurate conclusion can be drawn. Your analogy to prosecution and defense is well taken. I serve as a municipal prosecutor and part of my case load involves prosecuting dwi offenses. In order to introduce scientific evidence, (brethalyzer readings) the science of the brethalyzer must have been first proven and recognized by the courts. No one here would sanction the application of the standards that some on this board are applying to "convict" Hamilton to introduce scientific evidence in court.

Although I could get dwi convictions much easier if I didn't have to worry about accurate and repeatable science. 

Steve


----------



## 10kman (Nov 20, 2002)

*Why don't you just ask him?*

You know, saying that you've seen him at Interbike, and oh he shouldn't be there, he is juiced, etc. on an ANONYMOUS message board don't mean squat.

If you have a deep concern for the matter, ask the man yourself. He probably can't answer you due to legal issues, but if you have a "set" and can post on a big tough message board, go up to him, face to face, and ask him his side of the story. Tell him you think he is a letdown to the cycling community if that's your beef, tell him he doesn't deserve carbon wheels. Tell the product reps that he is going to make you NOT buy their products. See what they say. They are the ones that have a true voice in the matter, not a bunch of people on a board who are killing time at work.

Until real results are posted and we know all of the possible errors or truths of the tests, just go on with life. He's a man trying to make a living. What would you do if you devoted your life to something and wanted to crest that final frontier to get a huge win, and you saw others juiced and getting away with it? I'll tell you what, I'd think twice about being honest. 

If you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'. 

Flame on.

10k


----------



## lyleseven (Nov 15, 2002)

*We'll only know for sure if Tyler retains..*

Scott Peterson's attorney!


----------



## rztk65 (Jun 22, 2004)

*Answer to the original question*

I just got back from Interbike and was at the Zipp booth when Tyler made one of his appearances. I would say that he was received very well. I didn't hear any negative comments from anyone, and there were a lot of people that lined up to take an opportunity to say hi and get an autograph. Of all the cycling personalities who put in appearances, I would say that he was second in popularity only to Floyd Landis, who by far generated the most attention.


----------



## 996vtwin (May 11, 2004)

*What a fol you are.*



MPH74 said:


> I suggest you express you're disappointment/surprise (or seek an explanation) to this company's investor relations department. I too was surprised at this annoucement... Compex Tech.'s parent company is Hawk Assoc. Their investor relations number is 305-852-2383.


I cant believe you put up a phone number ....what kind of pathetic human are you. The man is innocent until proven guilty. You are making a fool of yourself by putting up that number on a public forum. You had to take it to that extreme...I suggest you remove that phone number immediately before I have you removed from this forum permanently.


----------



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

rztk65 said:


> I just got back from Interbike and was at the Zipp booth when Tyler made one of his appearances. I would say that he was received very well. I didn't hear any negative comments from anyone, and there were a lot of people that lined up to take an opportunity to say hi and get an autograph. Of all the cycling personalities who put in appearances, I would say that he was second in popularity only to Floyd Landis, who by far generated the most attention.


You forgot to mention the "I believe Tyler" pins that someone was handing out.


----------



## joshd671 (Sep 29, 2004)

996vtwin said:


> I cant believe you put up a phone number ....what kind of pathetic human are you. The man is innocent until proven guilty. You are making a fool of yourself by putting up that number on a public forum. You had to take it to that extreme...I suggest you remove that phone number immediately before I have you removed from this forum permanently.


996vtwin, that's exactly what an investor relations phone number is for... to express your opinions about a company's product or actions to the company itself. they want to know your opionions that's why they make such numbers public (see their website)! in addition, people can have opinions about whatever topics they want and public chat boards are a means to express such opinions. put a little thought into your comments before posting them...


----------



## FishrCutB8 (Aug 2, 2004)

I think he's guilty. As a result, I can't cheer for the man.


----------



## mwbyrd (Aug 24, 2004)

*Just to add to ASGELLe*

From the VeloNews article on Phil Zajicek "Positive doping" test

However, on page 26 of the United States Anti-Doping Agency's (USADA) 68-page "2004 Guide to Prohibited Substances and prohibited Methods of Doping," it is clearly written, "prohibited stimulants are sometimes present in over-the-counter substances such as cold medications, dietary supplements, diet aids and headache remedies...Because these medications are readily available and commonly used, athletes must not inadvertently use items containing prohibited substances." [That's USADA's boldface, not ours.] 

And on page 21, the code states that, "Even when a prohibited substance is used for legitimate medical treatment with proper medical authorization, the presence of that prohibited substance, its metabolites, or markers in a specimen is deemed to be a doping violation." 

With rules like this, it's hard to know what the USADA, WADA, IOC and UCI are really thinking and what they are really trying to accomplish.


----------



## mtnwing (Aug 30, 2004)

*Jumping to conclusions . . . too many unanswered questions!*



FishrCutB8 said:


> I think he's guilty. As a result, I can't cheer for the man.


I'd like to point out the following possibilities as well and also clarify a few items from above:

1) None of us except WADA and UCI know if Tyler was tested with this same test earlier in the racing season . . . Did they use this test at the TDF as well? Was Tyler tested? It may be the case that the positives or false positives "don't occur" every time. It's easy to say two tests were taken in a short time with consistent positive results, but then can they comment on if any samples were tested at the TDF? It may be the case that Tyler got tested at the TDF as well and came back without positives (that might make it harder or easier for him to defend depending on the counter arguemens???) Tons of strong"opinions" in this thread is being based on a partial set of released informaton with out full disclosure and who's to say the WADA isn't being selective in what they state and keep private.

2) We don't know for sure if there have been any other riders with false positives or inconsistent tests. WADA hasn't and probably won't comment on this publicaly.All we know is that they've made statements pertaining to a single rider. 

3) This test while derived from a similiar technique and test used in hospitals, is NOT the same and it's not Scientific to assume a derivative used for a different application will be equally accurate. Further, the very little validation that was done prior to implementing this test formal for the UCI seems questionable by most scientific standards. 

4) No one has revealed what the financial consierations, incentives, or relationship between the test Lab, the testing inventor/researcher and the UCI or WADA Is there true seperation between church and state here? Is there a huge win fall or financial loss riding in the balance for a test lab or researcher assuming the test proves successful? Was the test rushed to market for this application based on financial pressures without proper or acceptable scientific validation of it's accuracy and procedures?

5) The published articles quoting the UCI, WADA and the testing lab, it was quite clear that there were huge communication gaps regarding the testing protocols for blood storage - atleast at the Olympics. The lab director claimed the samples were handled per the protocol and that the sample distrution was simple a resut of properly following the procedures he was instructed to follow. UCI and WADA had different position entirely from the lab director on the destruction of the sample. With this kind of confusion on testing for the biggest race of the year with one of the few rider samples which could have easily been predetermined prior to racing to be a potential winner and one to be handled with care . . . . . Why then should we put so much faith in the test labs or the UCI and WADA that they are doing a good and fair job handling other testing? Is test contamination going on? How sensitive are these tests to mishandling which could affect samples and test readings? Do we have confidence this was an isolated error? Maybe we should have an independent board investigating WADA and the lab to determine there credibility.

6) Also do the test results show absolute "yes or no" for this test, or does the test register on a scale of some kind for which the data is "interprted?"

I'm not saying that Tyler is Innocent or guilty, but I am saying that there clearly are a lot of questions left unanswered and I don't think this case is as black and white as the 2 tests and 3 out of 4 samples that the UCI and WADA and some of the "FAST=Doped-Pessimists" on this board would like to believe. 

There needs to be a lot more disclosure and until all the questions above are explored and explained, I think we ought give a guy the benefit of the doubt or at very least uphold the Innocent until proven guilty standard. 

Some will argue the test already "proves guilt", and maybe it does in a dictatorship like the UCI, but in the eyes of truth and justice, I think Tyler and the rest of the cycling world deserves some more disclosure on the full gammet of facts regarding the testing practices, financial relationships with the lab and test licensor, and track record for the testing throughout the year. Tyler also should be given a fair chance to present his side of the story, which hasn't yet happened.

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


----------



## nate (Jun 20, 2004)

mtnwing, you have very good points, and it's not just about treating Hamilton fairly. All these questions about this situation have to be addressed because of the implications for all present and future riders who are tested using these methods, not just because of Hamilton's situation.

I have no problem believing that a lot of pros dope or use other performance enhancers that are against the rules, but, for the sake of the riders that don't cheat, all riders need to be entitled to testing methods that are fair and accurate.


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

Dwayne Barry said:


> But the fact that 3 different runs of the test on two different samples of his blood were positive speaks to the reliability of the test.


They speak on *repeatability* of the test not on *reliability* of the test.

*Reliable *test alway is *repeatable*, bot *repeatable *test *may be* and *may not be reliable.*

Repetiability means only that test is not suspectible to random errors, but it me be perfectly suspectible to systematical error. 

For example, if teke a chain gauge and slightly file pins you will receive a gauge that produce no random errors but can't be considered as "reliable" (while still be perfectly "repeatable").

To the moment not proof is available that test method has no systematical errors (yes, such proof may exist, but till it will be published nobody is obliged to believe). All available publication concerng test method are at least very inconvincing for any honest scientist.


----------

