# tyler's vuelta b-sample came back positive



## haiku d'etat (Apr 28, 2001)

...interesingly, the athens b-sample came back negative.

http://velonews.com/news/fea/6997.0.html

suspicious test.


----------



## gregdogg62 (Aug 9, 2004)

*3 out of 4 = "C" average*

I would hope that a test that has someone’s livelihood at stake would be more accurate. Any reasons, why the b sample from the Olympics would come back negative? I don’t know, not being knowledgable on the subject. I am still withholding judgment now that 25% of the tests done on Tyler came back negative.


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

*Every time Tyler says "I'm clean, I swear"...*

he unfortunately just sounds like Virenque did a few years back...very sad day.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

*Now I can understand why Virenque is popular in France*



chuckice said:


> he unfortunately just sounds like Virenque did a few years back...very sad day.


It always has baffled me how popular Virenque is in France notwithstanding his doping past. But, based on the feelings that I have for Tyler Hamilton, which I think many people here share, I now can understand Virenque's popularity. Although I think it is unlikely that Hamilton will have much of a career left if he is banned from riding for two years, if he is banned and then returns to ride, I'll probably be out there cheering for him just like the French have supported Virenque post-1998.


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

MarkS said:


> It always has baffled me how popular Virenque is in France notwithstanding his doping past. But, based on the feelings that I have for Tyler Hamilton, which I think many people here share, I now can understand Virenque's popularity. Although I think it is unlikely that Hamilton will have much of a career left if he is banned from riding for two years, if he is banned and then returns to ride, I'll probably be out there cheering for him just like the French have supported Virenque post-1998.


Tyler is 32 years old...if he receives a 2 year doping ban then his pro career will be pretty damn close to over. Not everyone can be Ekimov.


----------



## bimini (Jul 2, 2003)

*I tend to agree - This is sad*

I guess there is a chance that Tyler is and has been telling the truth, but I'm thinking it fairly unlikely. 

I think his team of "independent" scientist may be able to create a legal case or legal smoke screen with a fairly good chance of success. But for them to create a case that will remove doubt and then prove the UCI testing measures as completely invalid will be a very hard task indeed.

Tyler may race next year but he won't be wearing a halo. 

I wonder if he will be riding the TEC 666 next year?


----------



## johnny99 (Apr 2, 2004)

J's Haiku Shop said:


> ...interesingly, the athens b-sample came back negative.


The Athens test was reportedly inconclusive, not negative. It was inconclusive because the sample was too small.


----------



## Mel Erickson (Feb 3, 2004)

There weren't enough intact red blood cells in the Olympic B sample to do an accurate test. Technically the test was neither positive or negative. It couldn't be run.


----------



## Bocephus Jones (Feb 3, 2004)

Mel Erickson said:


> There weren't enough intact red blood cells in the Olympic B sample to do an accurate test. Technically the test was neither positive or negative. It couldn't be run.


so unless he can prove the test is flawed he's f'ed.


----------



## Axe (Sep 21, 2004)

J's Haiku Shop said:


> ...interesingly, the athens b-sample came back negative.


It came out "inconclusive" - too old to check.

The cheat managed to keep his stolen Olympic medal. His doctors were too good.

But we all know that Ekimov is the champion.


----------



## Jdub (May 5, 2004)

*Hypothetical*



Axe said:


> It came out "inconclusive" - too old to check.
> 
> The cheat managed to keep his stolen Olympic medal. His doctors were too good.
> 
> But we all know that Ekimov is the champion.



None of us know the truth and probably will never know but ...

What if he really is innocent and the test is flawed in some way? He is the first to test positive with this test. I mean the guy's life is ruined. What if the test is wrong? We should all be wary of this tendency to automatically assume guilt. I'm not saying I think he is innocent. I'm just saying, I don't know. It makes me sick to think that he dupe us all, but it makes me FAR SICKER to imagine an innocent athlete of his ability condemned erroneously. 

The truth is... the damage is done. From a PR point of view he'll never recover from this unless for some reason the test is shown to be irrutably inaccurate.


----------



## coreyb (Aug 4, 2003)

Axe said:


> It came out "inconclusive" - too old to check.
> 
> The cheat managed to keep his stolen Olympic medal. His doctors were too good.
> 
> But we all know that Ekimov is the champion.


wait, isnt it the IOCs job to run the B test?

we dont all know anything at this point.


----------



## velochico (Mar 25, 2004)

The IOC test for his B sample came back as ""lack of enough intact red blood cells" to get a result. This does not mean "negative." In fact, if you read the IOC document carefully, it in fact says they stand behind the results of the A sample. Unfortunately, (but luckily for Tyler) you need both the A and B to be positive. So he gets to keep his gold medal on a technicality.

It's all elementary though as both samples from the Vuelta are positive. A two year ban at 33 will effectively end his career unless he can pull an amazing excuse out of his butt.

What truely intrigues me about this story is that the French paper L'equipe is reporting that the UCI sent a warning letter to Hamilton after his victory in this years Tour de Romandie warning him about suspicious findings in his blood work. They knew something was up and it appears to me they were treating him with kid gloves. Then again during the Dauphine the UCI sent a letter to the entire Phonak team warning them about their bloodwork. What's up with that? Two warnings and this idiot continues to blood dope?! If he is that stupid then he deserves to be banned. What a fool.


----------



## buffedupboy (Feb 6, 2003)

*hmm..*

Yup, there weren't enough live red blood cells to do a second test. Look guys, I'm not going to condemn someone without absolute truth. It sounds vauge but so does this new test.

This world has become one where someone is guilty until proven innocent, and even then his reputation will never be the same. If indeed he is found guilty, one has to question why? What motivates a man to inject another person's blood into his body. If you were a professional cyclist, what will make YOU do something like this?

It's a sad sad world.


----------



## AcesFull (Jun 10, 2003)

*Yea right...*



Jdub said:


> None of us know the truth and probably will never know but ...
> 
> What if he really is innocent and the test is flawed in some way?


Just like OJ. You can't trust them damned blood test!

Maybe he can sell his gold medal like OJ sold his Heisman.

Look at the situation logically:

Of the tests that could be completed, he failed all three.

The test has been proven effective for life-saving procedures for over 10 years.

Contrast the cool and logical explanations of the doctors versus Tyler's weak and multiple excuses.

Tyler said that he had a surgery. What happened to that alibi?

He won the gold.


----------



## Mel Erickson (Feb 3, 2004)

Stick a fork in him.


----------



## Mel Erickson (Feb 3, 2004)

Money

And lots of it!


----------



## scubad (Jun 22, 2004)

The IOC's blood sample was mistakenly frozen. When whole blood freezes it destroys the red blood cells. One article stated that you can freeze urine and plasma but not blood.

Therefore, by incompetence of an drug lab technician Tyler gets to keep the Gold medal.

ScubaD


----------



## goloso (Feb 4, 2004)

*I have a question...*

Three came back positive and one inclusive because the sample had degraded.

One question I have is how many people had taken this test?

If 100 olympic athelets and UCI cyclists taken it the past couple months and Tyler is the only positive then it seems very unlikely that these are false positives, espeically when you consider that the sample were taken at two different times in two different countries under two different organizing bodies.

From what I understand this test is almost identical to those given for years to people in hospitals to cross match blood. One would have to presume that the test is reliable. Since a whole list of riders haven't popped for packing I suspect the test isn't prone to false positives but I would like to see the statistics.

Too bad, he was my favorite american rider.

-G


----------



## buffedupboy (Feb 6, 2003)

*hmmm..*

Might explain the number of people who have pulled out of the Vuelta??? I think the other way though. If there were tonnes of athletes who were tested and Tyler came back positive, then I would think it was a succesful method of testing... but this is all subjective.... wonder whether Lance was one of them...


----------



## ETthat'sMe! (Aug 17, 2004)

*freeze-dried*



scubad said:


> The IOC's blood sample was mistakenly frozen. When whole blood freezes it destroys the red blood cells. One article stated that you can freeze urine and plasma but not blood.
> 
> Therefore, by incompetence of an drug lab technician Tyler gets to keep the Gold medal.
> 
> ScubaD


Right; below is a link with the reference to the freeze-dried:

http://www.sportsline.com/olympics/story/7713742

So that's a positive-positive in one event and a positive-explainable negative in the other; not exactly anything to boast about if looking for exoneration.


----------



## Old_school_nik (May 21, 2002)

*That IS interesting... is there an english version of that article in L 'equipe?*

That's a REAL story. I wonder why Cyclingnews isn't covering that angle?

I forget when Romandie is but is it 120 before Olympics?





velochico said:


> The IOC test for his B sample came back as ""lack of enough intact red blood cells" to get a result. This does not mean "negative." In fact, if you read the IOC document carefully, it in fact says they stand behind the results of the A sample. Unfortunately, (but luckily for Tyler) you need both the A and B to be positive. So he gets to keep his gold medal on a technicality.
> 
> It's all elementary though as both samples from the Vuelta are positive. A two year ban at 33 will effectively end his career unless he can pull an amazing excuse out of his butt.
> 
> What truely intrigues me about this story is that the French paper L'equipe is reporting that the UCI sent a warning letter to Hamilton after his victory in this years Tour de Romandie warning him about suspicious findings in his blood work. They knew something was up and it appears to me they were treating him with kid gloves. Then again during the Dauphine the UCI sent a letter to the entire Phonak team warning them about their bloodwork. What's up with that? Two warnings and this idiot continues to blood dope?! If he is that stupid then he deserves to be banned. What a fool.


----------



## Jdub (May 5, 2004)

*Devil's Advocate here*



velochico said:


> What truely intrigues me about this story is that the French paper L'equipe is reporting that the UCI sent a warning letter to Hamilton after his victory in this years Tour de Romandie warning him about suspicious findings in his blood work. They knew something was up and it appears to me they were treating him with kid gloves. Then again during the Dauphine the UCI sent a letter to the entire Phonak team warning them about their bloodwork. What's up with that? Two warnings and this idiot continues to blood dope?! If he is that stupid then he deserves to be banned. What a fool.


Just playing devil's advocate, but this to me could be looked at another way. Again TH is THE FIRST to test positive with this test. Who's to say his blood doesn't have some annomally that shows up in this test. I'm not biologist or blood chemist (whatever you call a pro in this filed) and I'm guessing none of you are either. These guys may be eager to make an extra buck, but are they that stupid to be warned and keep right at it? What about the TDF? No positive there? Why waste the time doping if you aren't going to do it for your biggest race of the year. Olympics? Vuelta? Chump change for these guys compared to TDF.

Again I am not advocating that "Tyler is innocent, he's being framed... blah blah blah". I just find it very disturbing how ready you all are to send this guy packing with out really knowing what the hell is going on. There's far too much stigma attached to this doping issue right now. It's impossible for these organizations to remain non-biased. Doping is bad for the sport ... clearly. Ruining an innocent man's life (if he is in fact innocent) is also a very bad thing.

Now that I've stated my POV, let me add a little personal addendum. I grew up ski racing with Tyler in NH. Having known him and his family for many years it's very hard to believe that doping is a path Tyler would choose to follow. This doesn't mean he didn't, it just means it doesn't fit his personality or his families way of doing things. This is why I'm a little scared for the guy. If he's guilty ... shame on him. If not ... man I hope he has some gaurdian angels at this point.


----------



## NC_Jim (Aug 26, 2002)

*Someone help me with this...*

How is this test administered? Are the 2 samples (A and B) taken at different times? Or is one sample merely split into 2? Is the B (or A) sample a control sample taken under known conditions (which doesn't seem possible to me)?

Who can help? Thanks.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

NC_Jim said:


> How is this test administered? Are the 2 samples (A and B) taken at different times? Or is one sample merely split into 2? Is the B (or A) sample a control sample taken under known conditions (which doesn't seem possible to me)?
> 
> Who can help? Thanks.


As I understand it; At the time of tesitng a sample is taken and split into an A and B portion. A is tested, if it turns out to be positive, the rider can then request his B sample be tested to confirm the A test. Bot the A and B samples must be positive, for the rider to be suspended.


----------



## goloso (Feb 4, 2004)

*Good points JDub but this is what I know...*

Tyler failed 3 tests and had one sample destroyed by lab techs.

I found out on Eurosport that over 300 Olympic athletes were tested with this test and Tyler was the only positive. While not conclusive it certainly reduces the chances that it was testing error or a false positive. Couple that with two positives at the Vuelta and he looks pretty damn guilty to me.

I also find his denial rather suspicious. All he had to say is, "I did not take a blood transfusion." Read the transcript and all the bizarre sentence construction and qualifiers. He sounds like a man with something to hide to me.

Too bad, I really liked the guy and would have got over the doping thing. What really bugs me is all the lying and righteous indignation.

Anyone have some blood I can borrow so I don't get dropped on the Spectrum ride tomorrow?


-G


----------



## Mike Ryan (Aug 6, 2003)

I used to wonder what it would be like to ride in the same races as the giants of our sport. I can honestly say after all the doping allegations lately, I'll just be content cruising down my local roads or anywhere else I travel to. Recently I've discovered the Philadelphia bike messenger scene and their cool fixed machines, no brakes. Some of these guys and girls drink like sailors, smoke like hippies and stay out until the sun comes up. Now this is cycling, giving yourself disadvantages before you go out on the road full of cars,buses, and taxis to work a 8 to 10 hour day. I bow and take my hat off to you guys.


----------

