# Believe tyler website



## undertrained (Dec 17, 2002)

So who is really going to send donations to pay for a multi-millionaire doper's lawyer?
This is sad Tyler. 

http://www.believetyler.org/index.html


----------



## DanM (Apr 17, 2004)

remember when he said he'd spend his last penny proving he wasn't guilty? Guess he's broke already! LAME   Guess he decided OPM is cheaper. Not only was he caught THREE times doping, now he wants others to pay for his defense. Hey Tyler, Mark Geragos is free now... What a dork.......


----------



## all doped up (Nov 14, 2004)

*Maybe Tyler learned from Lancelot and Eddie B how to...*

deny til ya die. 

Wasn't Eddie B. Lancelot and Tyler's first coach on Subaru Montgomery?

Wasn't that Eddie B. who blood doped alot of the riders at the 84 Olympics?

Who is the doctor/soigneur in charge of Santi Perez and Tyler?


----------



## argylesocks (Aug 2, 2004)

i agree...quite lame...but i dont think this site is actually put up by tyler....friend possibly. regardless, its lame to ask the general public to help fund a lawyer's fee of someone who makes considerably more money than most of his "admirers"


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

what a joke - he devalues all the assertions he has made by endorsing a site like this. I imagine some poor saps will be coughing up - glad I'm not one of them. How cynical can you get?


----------



## the bull (Jan 16, 2003)

*Guilty as...*

Armstrong.. opps ...I mean O.j.


----------



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

Reading that article in the NY Times is interesting. I think that Bobby Julich summed up my thoughts exactly (man, did I actually agree on something with Bobby?). I'll listen to Tyler's side but the evidence is pretty big.


----------



## all doped up (Nov 14, 2004)

*what is even more disheartening*

Is that this doper Tyler Hamilton has a kids cycling program called Tyler's tough tykes and Tyler's Tornadoes. What a role model for these kids. Hey Dad, "can I blood dope like Tyler does!! He is my hero" This guy is pathetic! and he won't live up to it like a real man. 

Just like you swore to spend every last euro (LIE), Tyler you also swore on your wife's and your beloved Dogs grave that you didn't dope (3 positives and a teammate busted for the same thing). Tyler you have let alot of people down and no OJ simpson type of defense is gonna save your butt. Your gold is gone in everyone's eye. Have fun tallying your lawyers bills (that got you nowhere) over the next two years as you sit on the couch watching the TDF on TV.


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

all doped up said:


> ...Tyler you have let alot of people down and no OJ simpson type of defense is gonna save your butt...


I don't agree with this venom. It is holding the few who run afoul of testing out as scapegoats while ignoring the systemic nature of the problem or pretending it doesn't exist.

You have to feel sorry for Tyler. Here is a guy who spent most of his career as a domestique. He works his way up to grade A status and just when he finally starts getting results and the money to go with them, his doctor fails to keep abreast of the current testing methods and he gets busted--at an age that makes a two year ban a career ending punishment. Meanwhile, other top dogs are just as doped up and smart enough not to get caught or got busted at a much younger age, served their suspensions, and resumed their careers with the determination to be more careful next time.

What should be done is more testing, especially out of competition testing. One of the chief problems is cost. Part of this is due to the huge number of non-performance enhancing substances that are tested for. Who really cares if a snowboarder wants to light up a fatty after a hard day on the slopes. It doesn't aid performance in any way. Limited money should not be spent testing for it.

It costs $500 to $600 per test in the U.S. And, if I remember correctly, there were only about 40 tests done in domestic U.S. cycling last year. Because cycling is a fringe, fringe sport in the states, there is no money for an effective testing plan. But Europe is different. The Pro Tour should require a five hundred thousand euro drug testing fee. For most teams (maybe all) that would be less than ten percent of their budget. With twenty-five riders and four hundred euros per test that is fifty tests per rider, enough to test on a weekly basis for the entire year with a Christmas break.


----------



## P-Quoddy (Oct 25, 2004)

*new to reading?*



DanM said:


> remember when he said he'd spend his last penny proving he wasn't guilty? Guess he's broke already! LAME   Guess he decided OPM is cheaper. Not only was he caught THREE times doping, now he wants others to pay for his defense. Hey Tyler, Mark Geragos is free now... What a dork.......


"This web site has been set up in response to the volume of unsolicitied contributions being received and as a informational resource during this time and will continue as a resource of information for youth cyclists.
Believe Tyler is organized by his friends Chris Davenport and Deirdre Moynihan."

Can you read this? Can you process what you read? Others set the site up. Tyler never asked anybody to contribute.


----------



## Abaddon (Feb 27, 2004)

*I Believe Tyler... Doped.*

And he's bring the rest of the team down with him. From CyclingNews:


*Phonak almost out of ProTour* 

By Tim Maloney, European Editor

Although Phonak owner Andy Rihs may have thought he could finesse the delicate situation with the UCI vis a vis ProTour license approval, Swiss Federal Judge Zappelli and his Pro Cycling Council appointed commission lowered the boom on Saturday with the formal communication that the Swiss squad would not be granted a ProTour license.

Phonak's directeur sportif Alvaro Pino told Spain's Todociclismo that he was "surprised". "Regarding our riders [Hamilton and Perez - ed.] there are no official measures against them. If there were, they would be kicked off of the team as we did with Camenzind. I want to be clear that we are not against the UCI and their blood test controls. We just want to be certain of the eventual guilt of our athletes," Pino explained. But with defiant statements posted by Phonak about the Hamilton and Perez tests on their team website, the Swiss hearing technology team evidently did itself no favours with Judge Zappelli's panel. Today, the New York Times' Juliet Macur quoted Phonak boss Rihs at last month's Interbike trade show as saying, "We wanted a clear second opinion because this new test is a little black box with a thousand questions in it."

At the same Interbike show, Hamilton's fellow Team USA Olympian Bobby Julich told the Times' Macur that, "Suspicions about Hamilton 'go against everything I've ever known from the guy.' But, Julich added: 'The rest of us at the Olympics passed the test. Why didn't he? I'm sick of people who cheat, sick of cleaning up their mess and trying to explain it. There is heavy evidence against (Hamilton). With that much evidence, I don't know how he's going to get out of it."

Phonak still has one chance for an appeal to Judge Zappelli's commission by November 22 but at this point, the chances seem slim to none that the only top level Swiss cycling team will compete in the ProTour in 2005.


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*Landis?*



Abaddon said:


> And he's bring the rest of the team down with him. From CyclingNews:
> 
> 
> *Phonak almost out of ProTour*
> ...


Will this mean if Phonak doesn't get an invite to the Protour, will Landis bail, and head back to Discovery? I'm betting Johan and company would welcome him back. Without the Protour, Phonak could be left out of the Tour and other big races. He might be better off heading back to whence he came.


----------



## Old_school_nik (May 21, 2002)

*Crag: I totally agree with you 100% on this.*

I believe what you outline here is exactly the case with Tyler. Someone lese in one of these threads refrenced the John Vaughters piece in Brit Cycing magazine and ( I wish I could remember where I read it) but if you can get your hands on it its a good read. He basically corroborates what you say. They pro riders basically "have to" dope to stay in the game. Which makes you wonder why bobby J would be so harsh in his criticism of "people who get caught riuning for the rest of us"

-Nik




Utah CragHopper said:


> I don't agree with this venom. It is holding the few who run afoul of testing out as scapegoats while ignoring the systemic nature of the problem or pretending it doesn't exist.
> 
> You have to feel sorry for Tyler. Here is a guy who spent most of his career as a domestique. He works his way up to grade A status and just when he finally starts getting results and the money to go with them, his doctor fails to keep abreast of the current testing methods and he gets busted--at an age that makes a two year ban a career ending punishment. Meanwhile, other top dogs are just as doped up and smart enough not to get caught or got busted at a much younger age, served their suspensions, and resumed their careers with the determination to be more careful next time.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

Utah CragHopper said:


> It costs $500 to $600 per test in the U.S. And, if I remember correctly, there were only about 40 tests done in domestic U.S. cycling last year. Because cycling is a fringe, fringe sport in the states, there is no money for an effective testing plan. But Europe is different. The Pro Tour should require a five hundred thousand euro drug testing fee. For most teams (maybe all) that would be less than ten percent of their budget. With twenty-five riders and four hundred euros per test that is fifty tests per rider, enough to test on a weekly basis for the entire year with a Christmas break.


FWIW, I'm waiting for Tyler's side of the story, however, what Julich said that I agree with is that, if everyone else took the test and came out clean, why didn't Tyler?

And you're right about the amount of tests in the US. It's scaled back. I have never had an out of competition test in the US but have had a bunch in other places. And the thing is, if you know what you're doing, you can take some pretty helpful products and never test positive, i.e. Millar, Virenque, etc.

The problem with out of competition testing is that although riders are supposed to make themselves available for testing, many times they do "secret" training camps and no one knows where they are. Sometimes, all it takes is 3 to 5 days. By the time the testers know where you are and the testing protocol is followed, the rider is "clean."


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

Sherpa23 said:


> FWIW, I'm waiting for Tyler's side of the story, however, what Julich said that I agree with is that, if everyone else took the test and came out clean, why didn't Tyler?
> 
> And you're right about the amount of tests in the US. It's scaled back. I have never had an out of competition test in the US but have had a bunch in other places. And the thing is, if you know what you're doing, you can take some pretty helpful products and never test positive, i.e. Millar, Virenque, etc.
> 
> The problem with out of competition testing is that although riders are supposed to make themselves available for testing, many times they do "secret" training camps and no one knows where they are. Sometimes, all it takes is 3 to 5 days. By the time the testers know where you are and the testing protocol is followed, the rider is "clean."


So they were not doing these types of tests in the TDF? Might explain why Lance didn't compete in the Olympics this year if he had advance warning. Then again I really hope Lance is clean and he really did just want to be with his kids.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

no, the test was introduced secretly at the Olympics. I have to say, Armstrong's decision not to go seemed dodgy to me at the time. But then I think they're all gassed - just some are cleverer (and have more to lose) than others.


----------



## russw19 (Nov 27, 2002)

DanM said:


> remember when he said he'd spend his last penny proving he wasn't guilty? Guess he's broke already! LAME   Guess he decided OPM is cheaper. Not only was he caught THREE times doping, now he wants others to pay for his defense. Hey Tyler, Mark Geragos is free now... What a dork.......



I know I am beginning to sound like a broken record here... but he has NOT tested positive 3 times. It was 2 tests, not 3. One was run twice, on the A and B sample. If you test the same sample 47 times, it's still just the same sample. That's like a cop pulling you over on a DUI test and has you blow 14 blood alcohol samples... if they all say you are drunk, do you get charged with 14 counts of DUI or just 1? So the Vuelta is just one positive, not two.

On the second sample, the Olympic sample, technically he did not test positive. His A test revealed discrepancies and then the lab botched the storage procedure for the B sample making it impossible to say if that was or was not a positive test. And it's important to note that the Olympic sample was first declared clean. So if you want to take the BS approach that the A sample was positive so it must be positive, you have to first figure out how to address the fact that it was first labeled as clean and there is no way to back EITHER claim if it was positive or not since they destroyed the rest of the sample. So it can't be tested to confirm either result. Either way, if you BELIEVE Tyler as innocent or guilty, you can not use the Olympic test to prove anything since the whole situation there was a clusterfu*k.

So..... that leaves ONE test as a positive by UCI or IOC rules. Not 3. I don't care one way or the other if he's guilty or not... but people on the internet need to stop spreading lies (deliberately or innocently) so that the TRUTH will eventually come out. If people on the net keep getting all this info wrong, then there's really no hope anyone will ever know the truth.

Just my small little rant on this thread...again, I don't care what the truth is, just so long as once we are told the facts, they are accurate.

Russ


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

but it's not true to say the Olympic A sample was initially passed as clean either. The sample was noted to have inconsitencies but WADA were cautious about declaring this openly, precisely because of the newness of the test.


----------



## russw19 (Nov 27, 2002)

Bianchigirl said:


> but it's not true to say the Olympic A sample was initially passed as clean either. The sample was noted to have inconsitencies but WADA were cautious about declaring this openly, precisely because of the newness of the test.


Wrong! Hamilton's sample was initially noted to be clean. Read the WADA's Independent Observor Report.

http://www.wada-ama.org/docs/web/communications/publications/reports/athensioreport.pdf

I can't figure out how to do a cut and paste on a .pdf file, but go to the part where they specifically discuss the Hamilton case. He was tested on 8-19-2004 and his test was declared "Negative" it wasn't until nearly a month later that his result was changed to "Positive" on 9-16-2004. One of the testers noted that the sample was "suspicious" and that was it... the report went to the IOC Medical Director who contacted the Director of the Testing Lab the same day. They talked about the sample and both agreed that the sample was indeed negative. The IOC decided not to look any further into the case... they didn't even bother to check the B sample at that point. (At this point, it was still unclear if anyone knew the B sample was destroyed by the same lab's bad protocol.) The result was only changed to show a positive (and I must say very much against IOC and UCI rules because the "positive" was NOT backed by a positive B sample, which MUST happen in order to rule any sample positive under IOC and UCI bylaws) after the WADA got hold of the report. It is a long established and known fact that Dick Pound is on a crusade to catch a big name cyclist, and Hamilton's sample was only declared positive after the report was viewed by the Science Director at the WADA, who admits he only saw the report, and not the actual sample. 

You really need to read the Independent Report. I have said before that I don't care if Tyler is guilty or not, but this report compared with what I expect to come out in the CAS hearing will most likely show huge doubt as to his guilt, both on this and the Vuelta tests. 

Read the report yourself.... it's a helluva lot more accurate a description of what has gone on in Tyler's case than anything else that has been posted here over the past 3 months.

Russ


----------



## soulsurfer104 (Jun 30, 2003)

*ha*

....AND that website design is horrid.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

the Phonak team doctor has resigned - a decision taken the day after Perez was found positive.


----------



## all doped up (Nov 14, 2004)

*who is this doctor?*



Bianchigirl said:


> the Phonak team doctor has resigned - a decision taken the day after Perez was found positive.


Was this doctor the one you refer to earlier as Ferrari's mentor? Or are you referring to Cecchini as the one who is Ferrari's mentor. Look into both of these doctor's history to see if Tyler is guilty or not.

You are quite knowledgable Biancigirl. I think you might be on to something interesting.

The doctors might be the only ones, besides Tyler, who know the truth.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Inaki Arratibel was once team doctor to Banesto and BigMat.

“The UCI considers the team doctors are guilty, and most of us have not given them any reason to think this. The UCI is trying to make us act as policemen, they want us to pull cyclists out of races at the least hint of suspicion, but without having some proof I can’t leave someone without work because they could take legal proceedings against me. I can’t work like that and for that reason I’m saying no to this, because I don’t have an anti-doping laboratory at my disposal and I can’t tell if blood levels are the result of a high-altitude training camp or something else,” said the outgoing Phonak doctor. 

cycling, it seems to me, is a sport riven with contradictions - it'a team sport, yet all about the success of the individual, it's absolutely free to watch, sponsors pay millions each year yet as a sport it's a poor relation to football (of any persuasion) or golf or motor racing. And the pressures to dope are colossal, according to ex-pros. Jonathan Vaughters stopped just short of confessing to his own use of PEDs but made a compelling case as to why many riders do succumb. I think you can be as nice and as honourable and as ethical as you like and still rationalise away your own wrongdoing because 'it levels the playing field' or 'I was pressured to' or 'my team needed the results' or whatever. Steffan Prentiss wouldn't say that Hamilton is squeaky clean, but then who of us is? Who hasn't succumbed to even the teensiest bit of wrong doing fro the thrill, or because of peer pressure or because we thought it might help us get ahead?

As for the question of team doctors, remember David Millar? He sought EPO through the Euskaltel team doctor, not his own.


----------

