# Do you think Tyler's guilty or innocent



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

After reading the posts, reposts, and triple posts about Tyler, Phonak, et al., I figured that I would put a poll on here so that everyone can see where the consensus lies.

For me, I guess that I've been around the block a few times, or perhaps more appropriately, rond het blok enkele tijden, and I will never say based on someone's character that he/she is not a doper. Nonetheless, Tyler seems convinced that he can show the world his innocence. As a result, I will wait until he has presented his evidence to see if he's innocent or not. I do think that some of what he's said so far is not entirely correct so just because he thinks the evidence is overwhelming doesn't mean that I will.

So here are your choices. Post your thoughts.


----------



## FTF (Aug 5, 2003)

I WANT to think he is clean. I want to not because I think he is of such character that he would not dope, or anything like that. It would be a shame for him to have doped, if he did, he should be treated no better than anyone else, his career will be ended, his cycling career shamed, possibly wins taken away and it will have been his fault. It was his decision, and in life as we all do, sometimes you have to pay for those decisions. I will wait to see what happens, I haven't decided what I truly believe, but it would be easy to take some drugs and gain some speed, win some titles, make a few million bucks, I can see almost anyone doing that, so I will just wait, and hope that he didn't really take those drugs.


----------



## jakerson (Jun 15, 2004)

I don't get it. I don't understand how he would risk everything, knowing the focus that is on doping. I don't understand how his team can be made an example of. I don't get how his teammates were found by the same sort of test when nobody on any other team was. 

I admire his gutty performance in the TDF, going the way with broken bone and all... I admire his intensity. I suspect he is guilty, but it makes no sense to me. 

If I could be a gold-medal winning computer programmer by taking a drug, but I was already a world-class computer programmer... I would consider taking the drug for a half second and then I would get back to programming. I dunno. 

I don't like it and it doesnt make sense, but in my mind - unless the testing process is discredited, and UNTIL it is, if it ever is, He is guilty. That guilt carries debt in my mind. I think Tyler owes his fans an apology. He owes his team an apology. (former team) He owes his family an apology. He owes himself an apology. I am disappointed in him. Course, I could be wrong... and my fingers are crossed. But Im not holding my breath.


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

*Guilty*

Obviously guilty. No excuses this time. He's been busted on more than one occasion.


----------



## Stinky Hippie (Jul 19, 2002)

*I'm not a Tyler fan.....*

....His "ambassador of peleton" schtick has always struck me as presumptuous and phony, and thus I've never really trusted him. I never suspected him of being a doper, but I always treated him with suspicion. As a rider, he's gotten alot more credit than he deserves in my estimation. 

So, needless to say, this ordeal has not been as hard on me as it has for some. I don't want Tyler to be guilty ( I don't think cycling can handle it ) but yes, I think he's guilty.

If it turns out he is guilty, I will have been, well, vindicated. Pretty sad way to have my unpopular belief more or less proven .




Sherpa23 said:


> After reading the posts, reposts, and triple posts about Tyler, Phonak, et al., I figured that I would put a poll on here so that everyone can see where the consensus lies.
> 
> For me, I guess that I've been around the block a few times, or perhaps more appropriately, rond het blok enkele tijden, and I will never say based on someone's character that he/she is not a doper. Nonetheless, Tyler seems convinced that he can show the world his innocence. As a result, I will wait until he has presented his evidence to see if he's innocent or not. I do think that some of what he's said so far is not entirely correct so just because he thinks the evidence is overwhelming doesn't mean that I will.
> 
> So here are your choices. Post your thoughts.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

he was unlucky - nobody should really get caught doping but, remember, the blood doping test was introduced _secretly_ at the Olympics. Camenzind was caught taking EPO - his tests were done at the optimum time for EPO prep for the Olympics. What if Phonak then get scared and order its riders to switch to a quick fix method of doping with similar results which, as far as they know, _cannot be detected by testing_? Doesn't that make sense? The UCI had already contacted Phonak earlier in the season because some of their riders were returning suspicious tests. 

I can't condemn any of them for doping - there are very fine lines between what is a 'legal' aid and what constitues doping (high altitude training/tents v EPO anyone?) - and I can see what was at stake (an Olympic gold medal - something Armstrong doesn't have - for a man who will probably never win the Tour). But even Phonak's own panel couldn't say categorically the test was bad. 

It's so reminiscent of the Hamburger case (first rider to test positive for EPO) - he protests innocence, own federation exonerates him because the test is new, other races and federations exclude him because he has tested positive and the whole thing is a mess. Or Millar's protestations of innocence which only crumbled when he was threatened with criminal prosecution.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Bianchigirl said:


> But even Phonak's own panel couldn't say categorically the test was bad.


What an interesting choice of words since it would be equally correct to say that the only panel of experts outside the developers and users of the test could not say categorically that the test was good.


----------



## rule (Dec 2, 2004)

Gotta admit...after reading Tyler's recent rebuttal comments, I am starting to wonder if he is getting hosed.


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

It doesn't look good for Ty. His team gets a warning letter from the UCI early in the season, questionable A sample at the olympics and then the Vuelta tests for him and Perez. He should defend himself and has every right to but anyone who donates to his legal effort is just a sucker. It's a lot easier to write checks to your lawyer(s) when it's someone elses money rather than your retirement. I would rather he sold one or two of his houses before his friends started hitting up the cycling community for donations. Seems pretty classless for one the sport's highest paid stars.


----------



## Old_school_nik (May 21, 2002)

*Your forgot another choice that should be included:*

Choise 6 should read:

"I think tyler is guilty but I still like the guy since many (most?) top pros use perf enhancing drugs (Millar, Pantani, host of famous Belgian riders - see John Vaughters article for real perspective on this issue.) and he is just trying to stay on an even playing field with them."

Besides, Bianchigirl's post about the subtle differences between perf enhancing drugs and aids that are not banned yet or widely known, is spot on.

Maybe there should even be a 7th choice that reads: 

"I think Tyler is guilty but that's not why I am mad at him, I am mad at him because he was warned about having fishy blood and then thought they would nver do anything about it."


----------



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

Old_school_nik said:


> Choise 6 should read:
> 
> "I think tyler is guilty but I still like the guy since many (most?) top pros use perf enhancing drugs (Millar, Pantani, host of famous Belgian riders - see John Vaughters article for real perspective on this issue.) and he is just trying to stay on an even playing field with them."
> 
> "



What article are you talking about?


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

in the UK mag 'Cycling Weekly'


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 24, 2004)

*No one knows how accurate the test is*

I am quite suspicious that the people who came up with the test have never published any studies of how reliable the test is. Their one peer-reviewed publication says that "_These results show the potential for flow cytometry to identify illicit homologous blood transfusion in athletes, and *suggest* the risk of false positives *may be* low._" Do you notive how there are no numbers? No statement that "_the risk of false positives is below x%"_? If the people who developed the test don't know how accurate it is, why are they using it?

Elsewhere in the news, we've seen that the FBI arrested Brandon Mayfield, a verteran of the US Army living in Oregon, claiming that his fingerprints were a "100 percent match" to one found on a baggie used by terrorists behind the Madrid bombings, until the Spanish police matched the same fingerprint to an Algerian terrorist, Ouhnane Daoud who was actually in Spain.

Project Innocence has been publicising the case of Jimmy Ray Bromgard, who spent 15 years in jail for raping an 8-year-old girl on the basis of a forensic test that linked his hair to the rapists with "99.99 percent certainty," until DNA tests on the rapist's semen proved beyond any doubt that it could not habe been Bromgard.

It doesn't look good for Tyler that he failed the test one and a half times, or that the only other rider who failed is his teammate, but we can't interpret the test results if no one knows how reliable the test is. If the people who developed the test believe in it so much, they owe it to the sporting world to publish tests of the reliability in peer-reviewed sports-medicine journals.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Unfortunately for Hamilton and Perez, Phonak have now done a complete U-turn and are declaring the test to be accurate and that they won't be supporting either rider in their fight against their positives. Perez (who Phonak have also sacked) seems quite resigned to the fact that he'll get a ban but reckons that, at 27, he won't be too old to resume his career.

I agree that there have been some quite appalling miscarriages of justice based on faulty evidence, but this test has been in use for at least 10 years in a medical application. 

I actually feel sorrier for Perez who may have the opportunity to resume his career but doesn't have the financial support Hamilton does and hasn't profited emotionally from the same outpouring of sympathy. Especially since there's always the possibility that he and Hamilton had each other's blood because of their compatibility.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*pHONAK'S BAILING*

was more an attempt to salvage a season or an involvemnent with the sport than turning their back on those 2. for the sake of their sponsor and the future of the entire team they had to. Someone said it best, it's like a ship having to leave a couple men overboard rather than jeapordize the entire ship and crew.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 24, 2004)

Bianchigirl said:


> I agree that there have been some quite appalling miscarriages of justice based on faulty evidence, but this test has been in use for at least 10 years in a medical application.


The problem with that argument is that for detecting fetal haemorrhages, you want to err on the side of high sensitivity (fewer false-negatives), even at the cost of low specificity (more false positives) because the consequences of missing such a haemorrhage are great and the consequences of crying wolf are small.

The priorities are reversed when we weigh letting dopers get away free against falsely ruining the career of innocent cyclists, so we can't conclude that the use of the test in obstetrics tells us much useful about its use in cyclists.

Consider the following analogy: when we go to donate blood, our blood is tested for HIV. It would be horrible to accidentally allow HIV tainted blood into circulation, so the Red Cross etc. err on the side of throwing blood away if there's doubt. 

If we were to take this same test and use its results to restrict people's freedom---perhaps quarantining them to stop the spread of AIDS---we would have to become much more worried about false positives, so the fact that the Red Cross has used the test for one purpose for many years would not prove that it was accurate enough for other purposes.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 24, 2004)

Bianchigirl said:


> I actually feel sorrier for Perez who may have the opportunity to resume his career but doesn't have the financial support Hamilton does and hasn't profited emotionally from the same outpouring of sympathy.


I'm with you there. I'll be sending a lot of money to The Innocence Project , which represents poor people who are wrongly in jail, before I send anything to believetyler.org to support a rich man who's upset that he's been publicly humiliated.

My main interest in the Tyler case has less to do with Tyler himself than with its potential to make the public aware of the problems with believing something just because someone claimed it was scientific rather than actually thinking for themselves about whether it's *good science*. 

On the other hand, Tyler may indeed have been doping, in which case all this will teach us is that dopers lie. But we knew that already.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

'Specialists at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney have collaborated with SIAB to develop an effective method to detect homologous blood transfusion. Every red cell of an individual has an identical and specific spectrum of blood group antigens which is under genetic control, and the likelihood of finding a donor with an identical "antigen profile" is remote. Therefore the test uses flow cytometry to identify the antigen profile of circulating red cells, and can highlight the small populations of donated red cells that either express or are missing a specific antigen. The methodology (published in the journal Haematologica) is theoretically capable of detecting as _little as one teaspoon of foreign blood_, and therefore can detect transfusion weeks and months after an athlete has transfused.'

one teaspoon - however theoretical - seems fairly specific to me.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

the problem the UCI have is whether they take punitive action against teams who have riders who may have doped (who are accused by other riders or who confess without testing positive) or whether they only take punitive action against teams with riders who have actually failed doping tests which are in place to catch riders who are doping...

Thanks for the link to the Innocence Project - 'real' miscarriages of justice seem far more worthy of all this debate than worrying whether someone cheated to get ahead.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Bianchigirl said:


> Thanks for the link to the Innocence Project - 'real' miscarriages of justice seem far more worthy of all this debate than worrying whether someone cheated to get ahead.


Yes and no. First it's not just about whether an individual cheated or not but whether that individual should be deprived of his livlihood and reputation based on this evidence. Second, it's about how people look at evidence and authority. It bothers me that 21% of the respondents here are willing to conclude that Hamilton is guilty based only on the pronouncement of the prosecutors before he has had a chance to present his case. I wonder what would happen if I were ever falsely accused and those people were on my jury. Would they unquestioningly accept the word of the prosecutors before I presented my side, and would they discount all my evidence because "everyone says they're innocent"?


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 24, 2004)

*Long winded explanation of why the blood test is not reliable*



Bianchigirl said:


> 'Specialists at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney have collaborated with SIAB to develop an effective method to detect homologous blood transfusion. Every red cell of an individual has an identical and specific spectrum of blood group antigens which is under genetic control, and the likelihood of finding a donor with an identical "antigen profile" is remote. Therefore the test uses flow cytometry to identify the antigen profile of circulating red cells, and can highlight the small populations of donated red cells that either express or are missing a specific antigen. The methodology (published in the journal Haematologica) is theoretically capable of detecting as _little as one teaspoon of foreign blood_, and therefore can detect transfusion weeks and months after an athlete has transfused.'
> 
> one teaspoon - however theoretical - seems fairly specific to me.


I've read the Haematologica article and several others by those authors quite carefully. Here's the problem. There are two ways a test can go wrong. It can fail to detect real doping. This is called a "false negative" because the test says "no doping" incorrectly. The higher a test's _sensitivity_, the less chance there is of a false negative. When the test was first developed for fetal haemorrhaging, the greater concern was false positives---if fetal and maternal blood were mixing, the consequences could be severe. Thus, it iwas important for the test to have a high sensitivity.

There is another kind of error: the test can incorrectly say that an innocent person is doping. This is called a "false positive." The higher a test's _specificity_ the lower the chance of a false positive.

Detecting a teaspoon of foreign blood is a measure of the test's sensitivity. The Haematologica article reports a careful scientific measurement of the test's sensitivity. However, only two people who hadn't been transfused were tested in the experiments reported in Haematologica, so the authors could not say anything quantitative about the specificity of the test.

I wouldn't trust my career to a test where the best the authors could say was, "We tried it on two innocent people and it didn't find either of them guilty."

In general, making a test more sensitive means giving it more of a "hair trigger" for returning positive results. False negatives become less likely, but false positives become more likely. How much you care about either result depends on the consequences of false positives and false negatives. This is why a test that works very well to screen for disease (where you need high sensitivity and might be able to tolerate a poor specificity) is not necessarily appropriate to screen for punishable offenses, where justice demands that the specificity be very high, even if that lowers the sensitivity and allows some bad guys to escape detection.


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

*What about the Vuelta positive test?*

Tyler's excuse for the Olympic positive tests was that the test was flawed.

What's his excuse for the positive test at the Vuelta?


----------



## lonefrontranger (Feb 5, 2004)

*interesting*



Sherpa23 said:


> So here are your choices. Post your thoughts.


I, for one, am choosing the path of highest ambivalence. 

The thing that bugs me on this is reports of how ambivalent the IOC was about reporting the A test positive in the first place. That, it turns out, is how the B sample got frozen. It wasn't a mistake, the A sample was initially judged clean, so the B sample was frozen - that's standard procedure. So okay, the Vuelta A and B were both dead on positive, but then why is the UCI being so bloody evasive about releasing data? 

Anyway, I don't hope anything, I will wait until further evidence is brought to light. Frankly, I could care less, because in the end, these people don't affect. me. Furthermore, I have known for quite some time that there are a lot of cheats, liars and damned liars in pro cycling. Hell, amateur cycling as well - I used to know pretty much who every juicer was in my old USCF wrenching and officiating days. Couldn't prove anything, because amateurs don't get tested, but you get to know who races "off and on" in your region, as they say.

And I'm not so pro-American as to want to blindly exonerate.

My intuition has been correct in the past, and somehow this whole thing kind of smells like a witch hunt to me.

Good poll, my friend


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

*That's enough evidence to show obvious doping*

Remember Dr. Prentice Steffen? The former USPS team physician who said years ago that Tyler and another rider had approached him about getting some doping products when Tyler was on USPS. People were calling Dr. Steffen's claims false. People are no longer claiming Dr. Steffen is such a liar anymore I see.


----------



## joshd671 (Sep 29, 2004)

*Marty Jemison was the other one asking for dope*



Ricky2 said:


> Remember Dr. Prentice Steffen? The former USPS team physician who said years ago that Tyler and another rider had approached him about getting some doping products when Tyler was on USPS. People were calling Dr. Steffen's claims false. People are no longer claiming Dr. Steffen is such a liar anymore I see.


that other rider was Marty Jemison. The good doctor claimed that Marty Jemison and Tyler both came to him at the same time saying that to compete they needed the juice. BTW, it's about time Barry Bonds got caught...


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

the standard test for a raft of doping products is very different to the test for blood doping. Therefore, it is perfectly possible to have a sample declared clean for the former test but be 'suspicious' for blood doping.

I don't think Hamilton should have fudged the issue in the first place. We were promised an explanation because of a 'surgical intervention' - when that wouldn't fly, we were promised that we would hear an 'incredible story' - now he has apparently fallen on his sword for the good of his team...surely, if there was a credible reason for his returning a positive for this test then better to make that clear immediately rather than be seen to be digging around for an explanation and then resorting to attacking the integrity of the test as a defense - which, after his other stories, smacks of a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters.

I don't pretend to know what makes good science and I fully appreciate that none of us should accept things at face value - but to cast doubt on the integrity of a procedure simply because I don't have a credible explanation smacks of the worst kind of adversarial obfuscation.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 24, 2004)

*Guilty until proven innocent?*



Ricky2 said:


> Tyler's excuse for the Olympic positive tests was that the test was flawed.
> 
> What's his excuse for the positive test at the Vuelta?


It looks bad for Hamilton that he has repeatedly tested positive and the only other positive was on Perez, but his fundamental defense is sound: The people who made the test still do not know what the odds are of an innocent person testing positive. This is because they never actually studied the possibility of their test producing false-positives. 

My concern is that the people promoting the test are ethically obligated to show that the test is valid. Until they produce a peer-reviewed scientific study of the false-positive rate, the burden of proof should be on the testers to prove that the test actually does what they claim, not on Tyler to prove that their test is invalid.

If the UCI started using psychics to telepathically find dopers, we'd be outraged. Until we have valid studies of the false positive rate (what lab geeks call the specificity) of the test, I will continue to give it only slightly more credence than psychic divinations.

It's looking increasingly likely that Tyler is guilty---for all its flaws, I can't find a better explanation for Tyler & Perez failing the tests, and no one else---but even so, he still deserves to be brought down by a legitimate test, not a kangaroo court.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Orfeo said:


> I can't find a better explanation for Tyler & Perez failing the tests, and no one else---but even so, he still deserves to be brought down by a legitimate test, not a kangaroo court.


I can't explain it either, but then again I'm not a biochemist. The problem is I haven't seen anything written (much less peer reviewed) addressing the issue of possible legitimate methods which might result in a positive test result. This is compounded by the UCI's bad behavior in not releasing the details of the test or Hamilton's and Perez's results. As you've said before, we shouldn't even have to ask the question. The UCI should show the published results proving that no legal method can result in a positive test before they apply the test. 

As to why only Hamilton and Perez tested positive at the Vuelta, I know Hamilton was specifically targeted for testing and wouldn't be surprised if Perez, as his teammate, was too. So first, it could be that the lab was aware that the samples were from riders suspected of being guilty (and so were prejuduced), and second, I haven't heard how many, if any, negative results came from the Vuelta, it could be that Hamilton and Perez were the only ones tested.


----------



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

Just heard today that another US cyclist is about to get outed for a positive test. I don't know how reliable it is but we should find out pretty soon.


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

*Horner maybe?*



Sherpa23 said:


> Just heard today that another US cyclist is about to get outed for a positive test. I don't know how reliable it is but we should find out pretty soon.


Who? How high a profile is this guy? If its a US guy (not a legit US Euro-pro) then it's gotta be Horner.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Ricky2 said:


> then it's gotta be Horner.


Please share your great knowledge. Did you see Chris using? Did he tell you himself what he was using? Or are you just smearing another rider to appear more in the know than you really are?


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

asgelle said:


> Please share your great knowledge. Did you see Chris using? Did he tell you himself what he was using? Or are you just smearing another rider to appear more in the know than you really are?


Ummm. it's all just speculation and sports talk. Ask Sherpa. He's the one that said a US guy may be soon to be exposed on drug use. Armstrong maybe?


----------



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

asgelle said:


> Please share your great knowledge. Did you see Chris using? Did he tell you himself what he was using? Or are you just smearing another rider to appear more in the know than you really are?


To the best of my knowledge Horner rides clean.


----------



## all doped up (Nov 14, 2004)

*Give it up Sherpa*



Sherpa23 said:


> To the best of my knowledge Horner rides clean.



You will not be smearing anyone, let's just speculate for a moment.

I wish I could tell you all my story and what I know, you will hear it someday.

BTW, I am not writing a book, but easily could.

Sherpa and Bianchi G win for most knowledgable and best Poise on these strings.


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

*Horner all the way!*



all doped up said:


> You will not be smearing anyone, let's just speculate for a moment.
> 
> I wish I could tell you all my story and what I know, you will hear it someday.
> 
> ...




ummm yeah, I was just speculating about Horner. I mean, the guy is like a cycling god. He's a celebrity superstar on the level of a Micheal Jordan. I was just saying hmmmm what if it was Horner. I mean, all you cats out there that know a thing or two. Do yall know anything. I sure don't.


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

*"I wish I could tell you my story..."*



all doped up said:


> You will not be smearing anyone, let's just speculate for a moment.
> 
> I wish I could tell you all my story and what I know, you will hear it someday.
> 
> ...


Look, ADU. You have attempted to dominate these doping-related threads with your "first-hand knowledge" of doping within the peloton but are always unable to reveal the source of your info. If you have so much inside info why do you lurk on a website that is, by your own admission, frequented by "Lance/Tyler Fans" who you believe will never see the sad truth? Admit that you are DYING to hear some dirt on this as-yet-unnamed U.S. pro who will soon be "outed"! You live for the dirt and little else. Please, spare us your predictable diatribe that I am a Lance/Tyler/Horner lover as I am not (thought it shouldn't matter). I have tried to ask you questions and engage in an intelligent discussion with you but only receive, if any, coarse and angry responses regarding this topic. I will, once again, ask you to troll elsewhere as you add nothing but speculative, yet thoroughly damning, commentary to the doping thread. Why don't you "come clean"?


----------



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

all doped up said:


> You will not be smearing anyone, let's just speculate for a moment.
> 
> .



Absolutely not. If it is deemed to be a serious doping infraction, everyone will hear about it pretty soon. If not, then there wasn't enough evidence for an infraction and the person could be clean. At any rate, I am not going to "give it up."

I was just surprised that there would be another potential doping scandal with another US rider while the Tyler thing is going on.


----------



## all doped up (Nov 14, 2004)

*concentrate on the issues not the members of this thread*



serbski said:


> Look, ADU. You have attempted to dominate these doping-related threads with your "first-hand knowledge" of doping within the peloton but are always unable to reveal the source of your info. If you have so much inside info why do you lurk on a website that is, by your own admission, frequented by "Lance/Tyler Fans" who you believe will never see the sad truth? Admit that you are DYING to hear some dirt on this as-yet-unnamed U.S. pro who will soon be "outed"! You live for the dirt and little else. Please, spare us your predictable diatribe that I am a Lance/Tyler/Horner lover as I am not (thought it shouldn't matter). I have tried to ask you questions and engage in an intelligent discussion with you but only receive, if any, coarse and angry responses regarding this topic. I will, once again, ask you to troll elsewhere as you add nothing but speculative, yet thoroughly damning, commentary to the doping thread. Why don't you "come clean"?


Sh*tski, If I came clean, you would owe me an apology. and I will not, so don't worry, not yet at least.


----------



## hrv (Dec 9, 2001)

*Oh, we're the Stolen Undeground now, are we?!!*

Between that and rec.bicycles.racing I think they have just about covered the who's who of domestic dopers. And they have alluded to Horner, Danielson, et al. Major witch(dope) hunters they are. Out for blood, literally! Can't say if they doing good or evil, in my opinion.

hrv


----------



## all doped up (Nov 14, 2004)

*how did you know???????*



hrv said:


> Between that and rec.bicycles.racing I think they have just about covered the who's who of domestic dopers. And they have alluded to Horner, Danielson, et al. Major witch(dope) hunters they are. Out for blood, literally! Can't say if they doing good or evil, in my opinion.
> 
> hrv



Good or Evil? I would say anything that exposes a problem in our sport is good. We do not yet know what will come about of exposing the problem, but it is a good first step.


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

all doped up said:


> Good or Evil? I would say anything that exposes a problem in our sport is good. We do not yet know what will come about of exposing the problem, but it is a good first step.



Agree! Get the dopers out of this sport for good.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*It is interesting in reading this and other threads.......*



Sherpa23 said:


> After reading the posts, reposts, and triple posts about Tyler, Phonak, et al., I figured that I would put a poll on here so that everyone can see where the consensus lies.
> 
> For me, I guess that I've been around the block a few times, or perhaps more appropriately, rond het blok enkele tijden, and I will never say based on someone's character that he/she is not a doper. Nonetheless, Tyler seems convinced that he can show the world his innocence. As a result, I will wait until he has presented his evidence to see if he's innocent or not. I do think that some of what he's said so far is not entirely correct so just because he thinks the evidence is overwhelming doesn't mean that I will.
> 
> So here are your choices. Post your thoughts.


as well as listening to and reading interviews with riders and other seemingly "in the know" team associates, I come away with the impression that there are three types of riders in the Pro Peleton:

1.) Those that use Banned substances and or procedures. (EPO, Blood Doping etc.)
-1A) Those that time it so it's less likely that they will get caught &
-1B) Those that only use illegally if there is no known test for the substance/procedure
2.) Those that use performance enhancing subtances/procedures that have not been listed yet.
3.) Those that don't use at all.

My impressions are that the smallest percentage falls into number 3.......my suspision is that the largest percentage fall into 1B & 2. (Listen to how many times the answer to the question "Do you use illegal substances?" is "I don't use anything that is banned.")

Because of these impressions, it would not surprise me if Tyler turns out to be guilty...it certainly seems like he is. (If it smells like a Duck, and Quacks like a Duck, and walks like a Duck....it must be a Duck). I'm just glad the testing appears to be somewhat catching up with the cheating (I say appears because of what we are learning from the Balco fiasco).

And to those trying to defend Tyler by saying that it was no fair them "surprising" him with the test.......C'mon.

BTW, some day we will find out that Lance is in catagory # 2. Nothing he does is on the Banned list. At the end of the day, what these guys do is amazing, juiced or not.

Len


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 24, 2004)

Bianchigirl said:


> I don't pretend to know what makes good science and I fully appreciate that none of us should accept things at face value - but to cast doubt on the integrity of a procedure simply because I don't have a credible explanation smacks of the worst kind of adversarial obfuscation.


At risk of being boringly repetitive, I think it's up to WADA and UCI to prove that the test does what they say more than that it's up to Tyler to prove that it doesn't. To put the burden of proof on Tyler is to say that he's guilty until proven innocent.

If I were arrested for drug abuse on the basis of a brand-new blood test, it would be up to the prosecutor to prove that the test was accurate, not up to me to prove that it was inaccurate.

So far, not WADA, UCI, nor the authors of the test have measured the false-positive rate. Ever! Not with pregnant women and not with athletes. *Thus, it's literally impossible to tell what the odds are that an innocent person would test positive twice.*

To raise this point is not to obfuscate. *It cuts to the heart of the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty. *The test only proves Tyler guilty if the test has been proven to do what UCI and WADA say. Until they can prove that the test has a sufficiently low false-positive rate, Tyler deserves the presumption of innocence.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*You dont really want to go there do you??????*



all doped up said:


> Sh*tski, If I came clean, you would owe me an apology. and I will not, so don't worry, not yet at least.



I have always been a clean rider and lifter. However, I also know something about "coming clean" in other sports as well. Let me tell you something that is really really obvious and do everyone here a favor, including you. 

1)You have NO idea what you are doing or talking about

2)Coming clean as you call it is the hardest thing to do in any sport. You face the hatred and threats of your competitors, their sponsors, your so called buds, etc etc etc etc 

3)OH and by the way, you learn to spot people looking for anything to make a book or career. You know the types. They hang around forums and try out rumors and then sing that song. Well if I ever came clean......RIIIIIIGHT. We used to call them psychophants. BUT THAT WAS THEN RIGHT?

4)IF you had the guts and dignity to be honest about yourself, the sport and the people who participate, you would know that by and large young people do stupid things for stupid reasons and nobody, not even the young people care. So really, you are feeding the problem and really the actions of folks that wind up hurting themselves and others. In short, you are part of the problem. I guess thats your claim to fame. Well congrats to you. 

You owe alot of people you never met an apology for feeding off their fear and sickness. I will DEFY YOU to prove any assertion you have. As to "speculation", I have a few for you that I am SURE you are already writing about now. But sleep well..........


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

*Well, 'Til That Day Comes...*



all doped up said:


> Sh*tski, If I came clean, you would owe me an apology. and I will not, so don't worry, not yet at least.


...I owe you absolutely nothing and shall not lose any sleep over it. I am not worried in the least (what am I supposed to be worried about BTW?). Unlike other posters here, you have yet to display anything that would lead one to believe that you are anything other than a garden variety troll. Any chance of a two-year ban for repeated trolling?


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

*Eeeewww...*



hrv said:


> Between that and rec.bicycles.racing I think they have just about covered the who's who of domestic dopers. And they have alluded to Horner, Danielson, et al. Major witch(dope) hunters they are. Out for blood, literally! Can't say if they doing good or evil, in my opinion.
> 
> hrv


Oh my. Stolen Underground is a bit frightening to put it mildly and the fervor with which they proselytize is downright Bible Belt-dangerous (if you ain't with us, yer against us!). With the approach they are using, those Stolen Underground kids are gonna throw the baby right out with the bathwater. Their time would be better spent if they went back to playing Dungeons and Dragons. After visiting their fairly creepy website I dare say that I would rather spend time with VDB! I can only envisage Doped Up's response to my obvious "pro-dope" propaganda...


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*you got it right, oh my*

"I owe you absolutely nothing and shall not lose any sleep over it"

HOWEVER, you carry a double standard for riders in their careers. This is cycling related and not about you sorry. AMAZING isnt it? YOU want folks to spill it right? and yet when the moment comes and you can "come clean" you state that you owe me nothing.

Well, neither do the riders you are trying to smear. Even if these folks doped, which is possible if not probable, they owe you nothing. Thankfully.

So, follow that logic. I however will say that I am very very certain you have not lost sleep over anything. Good day to you.


----------



## ElvisMerckx (Oct 11, 2002)

*Uhhhh . . .*



Orfeo said:


> .... To put the burden of proof on Tyler is to say that he's guilty until proven innocent. ... *It cuts to the heart of the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty. * ... Tyler deserves the presumption of innocence.


Tyler isn't guilty, he's suspect. Suspects get locked up until they are proven guilty or found innocent.

Also, why is everyone applying U.S. legal protocols to the UCI?


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Could you be a bit more specific*



ElvisMerckx said:


> Tyler isn't guilty, he's suspect. Suspects get locked up until they are proven guilty or found innocent.
> 
> Also, why is everyone applying U.S. legal protocols to the UCI?


There has to be a charge before you are detained. However,not ALL suspects are detained. Sorry. Thats a tad ludicrous.

As far as legal protocols (U.S.) and the UCI, you do have a point. However, it would be nice to see that all riders, even ones named Virenque, could attract the same laser focus as Tyler.

However, to be clear, I have NO favorites. The only thing that has suffered is the sport. IMO


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

ElvisMerckx said:


> Tyler isn't guilty, he's suspect. Suspects get locked up until they are proven guilty or found innocent.


I don't know what country you're in, but in the United States, suspects do have the right to remain free until they are covicted (8th amendment). Bail or a bond may be required to insure that they appear for trial, but only in the most exceptional circumstances can someone be held without bail (tv shows not withstanding). Furthermore, in the U.S., suspects are not found innocent, they may be found guilty, but until then they are, and remain innocent.


----------



## ElvisMerckx (Oct 11, 2002)

*I'll try it metaphor-free this time ....*



asgelle said:


> I don't know what country you're in, but in the United States, suspects do have the right to remain free until they are covicted (8th amendment). Bail or a bond may be required to insure that they appear for trial, but only in the most exceptional circumstances can someone be held without bail (tv shows not withstanding). Furthermore, in the U.S., suspects are not found innocent, they may be found guilty, but until then they are, and remain innocent.


Ugh. I don't know why I even bother, but here goes: 
Hamilton isn't sitting in jail. He's a free man. No nation, government, or mob has denied him his civil liberties. However, the UCI suspects Hamilton of cheating. Suspicion of criminality in any line of work in any country in the world will lead to a forced leave of absence, suspension of pay, and/or firing. This has nothing to do with innocence and guilt. Hamilton has the right to defend himself, and, according to everything I've read, he's exercising that right unhindered by any nation, government, or mob. The UCI is merely exercising its legal rights as a governing body, and Phonak is exercising its concomitant legal rights as his employer.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*Tyler applied for and received........*



asgelle said:



> I don't know what country you're in, but in the United States, suspects do have the right to remain free until they are covicted (8th amendment). Bail or a bond may be required to insure that they appear for trial, but only in the most exceptional circumstances can someone be held without bail (tv shows not withstanding). Furthermore, in the U.S., suspects are not found innocent, they may be found guilty, but until then they are, and remain innocent.


a UCI Licence. As part of the licencing, he agreed to the UCI's rules and authority. Doesn't that mean that he gave the UCI the authority to revoke his licence if he did not, in their opinion, follow the rules? He can appeal, which he has, but accepting the UCI's authority as part of accepting the Licence he has already agreed that they can revoke his licence, which they have.

This innocent until proven guilty stuff just doesn't apply in my book. It's their licence, it's their rules......if he didn't agree with it he could have always not accepted the licence.

Now in the court of public opinion.......that's a different matter, which is why this poll is so interesting.

The UCI has the right to revoke or suspend his licence, that is undeniable. He has the right to appeal. our individual opinions as to wether or not they should have are interesting but not relevant.

Just my $.02

Len


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Apples and oranges*



Len J said:


> a UCI Licence. As part of the licencing, he agreed to the UCI's rules and authority. Doesn't that mean that he gave the UCI the authority to revoke his licence if he did not, in their opinion, follow the rules? He can appeal, which he has, but accepting the UCI's authority as part of accepting the Licence he has already agreed that they can revoke his licence, which they have.
> 
> This innocent until proven guilty stuff just doesn't apply in my book. It's their licence, it's their rules......if he didn't agree with it he could have always not accepted the licence.
> 
> ...


To be bound by a contract is fine AS LONG AS the contract is valid. If its found that the contract violates an individuals rights, then that same contract is void. Regardless of a signature. IF I signed a contract with a company that said if you fail to fulfill this act, you are no longer allowed to vote in the U.S. SORRY, no corporate entity has that authority. 

BUT, I agree with you AS LONG AS the UCI is following its contract and applying that same standard to ALL of the riders. The UCI, IMO, has done a pi55 poor job in that regard.


----------



## hrv (Dec 9, 2001)

*I'm with you 100%*



serbski said:


> Oh my. Stolen Underground is a bit frightening to put it mildly and the fervor with which they proselytize is downright Bible Belt-dangerous (if you ain't with us, yer against us!). With the approach they are using, those Stolen Underground kids are gonna throw the baby right out with the bathwater. Their time would be better spent if they went back to playing Dungeons and Dragons. After visiting their fairly creepy website I dare say that I would rather spend time with VDB! I can only envisage Doped Up's response to my obvious "pro-dope" propaganda...


Hence that's why I said 'Don't know if they're good or evil'. Quite venomous and full of hatred they are. Wonder if they get that worked up over child-molesting priests? Sorry for going OT, had to get it out.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

ElvisMerckx said:


> Ugh. I don't know why I even bother,


Nor do I, but it looks like we have to go around at least one more time.


ElvisMerckx said:


> Hamilton isn't sitting in jail. He's a free man. No nation, government, or mob has denied him his civil liberties.


Quite true, but it was you who wrote, "Suspects get locked up until they are proven guilty or found innocent." and so I pointed out the fallacy of this statement. Your statement, and so my response, had nothing to do with the UCI, IOC, or cycling in general.


ElvisMerckx said:


> Suspicion of criminality in any line of work in any country in the world will lead to a forced leave of absence, suspension of pay, and/or firing.


Now why did you have to go and write this? I know of two specific examples of individuals who were under investigation for criminal acts and were allowed to remain in their jobs. Since it takes only one counter-example to disprove a hypothesis, your's is clearly false. Why overstate and bring non-cycling related issues into the picture and take what would otherwise be a reasonable position to the point where it is no longer credible? You could have written, "may lead to a forced leave ..." But no, you had to use the word "will".


----------



## ElvisMerckx (Oct 11, 2002)

*You. Are. Killing. Me.*



asgelle said:


> You could have written, "may lead to a forced leave ..." But no, you had to use the word "will".


*That* is some funny stuff. I'll concede the last word in the argument, but, as an aside, I needed to thank you for making my morning.


----------



## all doped up (Nov 14, 2004)

*Why bother with your Rhetoric*

Just look at the poll. 

This weasel is trying to duck out of his clearly positive, scientifically proven TEST RESULTS!!!

He is done. Next..........................................


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*you missed it*



all doped up said:


> Just look at the poll.
> 
> This weasel is trying to duck out of his clearly positive, scientifically proven TEST RESULTS!!!
> 
> He is done. Next..........................................


All of the results could not be scientifically proven. Sorry. I have no idea or caring about Tyler being guilty or not. The ability to obtain an exact repeatable result using the exact same inputs is what I would call a "good start" to anything being scientific. I have to date to hear any scientist claim that their test was perfect etc etc. 

Have you heard of Yellow Journalism?


----------



## ElvisMerckx (Oct 11, 2002)

*Why bother?*



all doped up said:


> Just look at the poll .... scientifically proven TEST RESULTS!!!QUOTE]
> 
> Because polls and laboratories *often* (happy now, *asgelle* ?) produce static results. We're discussing legal matters which *can be* far more dynamic in their interpretation(s). Thus: rhetoric.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*invalid*



ElvisMerckx said:


> all doped up said:
> 
> 
> > Just look at the poll .... scientifically proven TEST RESULTS!!!QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## ElvisMerckx (Oct 11, 2002)

*Sorry to nitpick, but you asked for it . . .*



ttug said:


> Polls are not static. Thats why they are conducted. Usually to attempt to find some common trend in a non static environment. Its an opinion poll. Opinion is something that is neither valid nor invalid. ... Rhetoric can be generated from a series of logical statements, which can be symbolically static or categorized. HOWEVER, NOT HERE.
> 
> Good luck.


Wrong. Polls are static; opinions are not. A poll is a static snapshot of a moment in a dynamic environment.

And why not here? The title of this thread is, "Do you think Tyler's guilty or innocent?" Have we somehow gone off topic by discussing his guilt or innocence? Help me out here.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 24, 2004)

*Innocent until proven guilty. It's not just for the US*



ElvisMerckx said:


> Tyler isn't guilty, he's suspect. Suspects get locked up until they are proven guilty or found innocent.
> 
> Also, why is everyone applying U.S. legal protocols to the UCI?


What are you talking about? The presumption of innocence is not just some quaint US custom. It's part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I realize that this is not some great human rights case, nor even a real legal proceeding, but it's pretty darned provincial to imagine that the US is the only place where you're innocent until proven guilty!

Second, in a proceeding such as this, legal metaphors are useful. Yes, I understand that Tyler's not in jail. Isn't that why I posted several comments to this thread emphasizing this? Nonetheless, since UCI and WADA *are* setting themselves up a quasi-judicial organizations determining guilt and administering punishments, legal metaphors are useful here.

It is wrong to say that Tyler is merely suspected. In fact, he has been found guilty and he's appealing. The only reason suspects are locked up is to make sure they stick around for the trial. Suspending Hamilton from racing is not necessary in order to make him attend whatever hearings UCI and WADA may have in mind for the future. 

Phonak has also been punished for its defense of Tyler. Sure, these are arrangements among private organizations and not *real* legal proceedings, but since the focus of all this is to find people who break rules and then punish them, I think it's useful to talk about them using the language of courts and trials.

You may disagree, but I still think it would be bad for cycling to introduce a bunch of unproven tests, keep the details secret from the cyclists, and then tell people who test positive that they have to prove their innocence while making no provision to hold the testers accountable for the accuracy of their results.

We should take strong measures to get dopers out of cycling, but I have very little tolerance for collateral damage of dirtying the reputation of even one innocent athlete.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*invalid again,congrats*



ElvisMerckx said:


> Wrong. Polls are static; opinions are not. A poll is a static snapshot of a moment in a dynamic environment.
> 
> And why not here? The title of this thread is, "Do you think Tyler's guilty or innocent?" Have we somehow gone off topic by discussing his guilt or innocence? Help me out here.


You cant by definition have a static snapshot of a dynamic environment. You can have data which attempts to describe a sample of that environment at that time. However, as you noted, since the environment is dynamic, the poll is only as good as the data that was gathered at that time. AFTER that, the data you have describes an environment which no longer exists. Hence, it is invalid.

You are attempting to get away from the issue of assuring us that you are confident of Tylers guilt. Thats fine.Thats your opinion. So What? However, it is at best purile to state falsehoods as the truth. 

Your book sales will not be good.


----------



## ElvisMerckx (Oct 11, 2002)

*I think you have me confused with someone else.*



ttug said:


> You are attempting to get away from the issue of assuring us that you are confident of Tylers guilt. Thats fine.Thats your opinion. So What? However, it is at best purile to state falsehoods as the truth.
> 
> Your book sales will not be good.


I don't know if Hamilton's guilty or not. My only point, thus far in this thread, is that neither the UCI nor Phonak have infringed upon his civil liberties. 

As for my "book sales," what on earth are you talking about?


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*good point*



ElvisMerckx said:


> I don't know if Hamilton's guilty or not. My only point, thus far in this thread, is that neither the UCI nor Phonak have infringed upon his civil liberties.
> 
> As for my "book sales," what on earth are you talking about?


I have no idea of the mans guilt or innocence either. However, try being in his position and meeting someone discussing scientific data which in reality isnt. The stakes are huge, its your career and reputation. How detached would you be at that time? I will tell you I would be "less than pleased".

The book sales remark was an observation. Bad science sells my man! I mean dont you think its popular now to print books that are really smear campaigns? Sorry, I meant speculation? Nobody gets hurt right?


----------



## ElvisMerckx (Oct 11, 2002)

*Ugh, again.*



ttug said:


> You cant by definition have a static snapshot of a dynamic environment. You can have data which attempts to describe a sample of that environment at that time. However, as you noted, since the environment is dynamic, the poll is only as good as the data that was gathered at that time. AFTER that, the data you have describes an environment which no longer exists. Hence, it is invalid.


I keep re-reading this, and it still doesn't make any sense.


----------



## ElvisMerckx (Oct 11, 2002)

*Wow, just wow!*



Orfeo said:


> What are you talking about? The presumption of innocence is not just some quaint US custom. ... it's pretty darned provincial to imagine that the US is the only place where you're innocent until proven guilty!


What an dazzling leap in logic! I mean, seriously, where did that come from? I implied the UCI, in the framework of Tyler Hamilton's blood tests, is not bound by U.S. legal protocols -- and it's not. The same is true for the UN's International Declaration of Human Rights. His human rights have not been violated.


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

*Guilty As Charged*

Tyler was, yes WAS, innocent and then he was PROVEN guilty. So, yes Tyler is GUILTY!

He was busted on more than one occasion. Now, he's trying to claim innocence. This is ridiculous. Then, EVERY single person that ever tested positive can claim they are innocent and that there is no proof. Uhh, hey Tyler, you got busted! Give it up!

The point is Tyler was *proven* guilty.


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

*My Reply Was Meant...*



ttug said:


> "I owe you absolutely nothing and shall not lose any sleep over it"
> 
> HOWEVER, you carry a double standard for riders in their careers. This is cycling related and not about you sorry. AMAZING isnt it? YOU want folks to spill it right? and yet when the moment comes and you can "come clean" you state that you owe me nothing.
> 
> ...


...for All Doped Up. I agree with your original post. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Serbski


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

It cracks me up when people drag out the US Constitution on this site since it is often mis quoted, misrepresented and almost always misunderstood. If fact, it does not and will not protect Tyler's rights in this case. Tyler has no rights under the Constitution where doping is concerned. It applies only to people standing on US soil and only where issues of local, state and federal laws and enforcement of those law are at issue. Got it?
So, here are a few pointers:
1. Not showing your ID to a traffic cop after you blow a stop sign is not protected under the 5th Amendment. Your personal contact information is not related to your violation and keeping it from an officer is a misdemeanor in most states.
2. Vulgarity at a sporting event is not protected under the 1st Amendment. Your "agreement" by buying a ticket is to use proper conduct in the stadium or while competing in the event. Your right to free speech is not a blank check to say whatever you want.
3. Your right to peaceful protest is protected so long as you are not blocking the public access or behaving in a manner that is a danger to public safety. As soon as you kick in the door of an angry motorist during critical mass, you have waived your constitutional rights.
4. Tyler has no constitutional rights in this situation for a number of reasons. First: he was in Greece and Spain at the time. Second: Even if he had been in the US, there are no criminal laws on the books pertaining to blood doping that he could be "arrested" for. Third: The constitution is there to protect him (and you) from either the improper enforcement of laws and to protect certain actions, not to protect a multi-million euro contract or a gold medal.

Oh, and while we're at it, ADU, Marion Jones didn't win 5 gold medals in Sidney as you stated in your other thread (shame they had to close that one, you were so well fed on it). It was three and two bronzes.


----------



## CycleBatten (Sep 28, 2004)

I wish I could believe he was innocent, but I can't. All the evidence is against him and all he has in his own defense is his own staunch denials. It pains me to see such a great athlete do something so stupid like this that has now pretty much ruined his career.


----------



## all doped up (Nov 14, 2004)

*Are you kidding me*



Orfeo said:


> At risk of being boringly repetitive, I think it's up to WADA and UCI to prove that the test does what they say more than that it's up to Tyler to prove that it doesn't. To put the burden of proof on Tyler is to say that he's guilty until proven innocent.
> 
> If I were arrested for drug abuse on the basis of a brand-new blood test, it would be up to the prosecutor to prove that the test was accurate, not up to me to prove that it was inaccurate.
> 
> ...


Run the odds by a statisstician.

Tyler has fooled you with his good guy image, he is a doper for sure. give it up!!!!!!!!!

Do you even know Tyler???????? Do you know how competitive he is?

Do you know how much suffering he can take? 

Do you know how much denial there is involved with his psyche? 

I do.


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

all doped up said:


> Run the odds by a statisstician.
> 
> Tyler has fooled you with his good guy image, he is a doper for sure. give it up!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ...


I'm a statistician. You can't tell the odds until you measure the specificity of the test. Also, did you read the message you were replying to? Especially the part where it says that he thinks Tyler probably is guilty, but thinks that even guilty people deserve a fair test?


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 24, 2004)

*I don't trust WADA or Tyler. Do you?*



ElvisMerckx said:


> What an dazzling leap in logic! I mean, seriously, where did that come from? I implied the UCI, in the framework of Tyler Hamilton's blood tests, is not bound by U.S. legal protocols -- and it's not. The same is true for the UN's International Declaration of Human Rights. His human rights have not been violated.


Didn't you read the part where I said,


Orfeo said:


> I realize that this is not some great human rights case, nor even a real legal proceeding


Let's stop and consider why we don't like doping. It's because it ruins the sense that sporting competitions are fair and we care about fairness. We also worry that if we accept doping in professional sport, it will encourage amateurs and especially children to start doping.

This is also the basis for my complaint against UCI and WADA. The way they are treating these tests is not fair to the accused. Sure they're legally entitled to behave unfairly, but this unfairness doesn't help the sport. If we come to see the presumption of guilt and the use of secret evidence as fair practices in sport, we may also become more willing to accept them elsewhere in our lives.

The reason I birng up the declaration of human rights is to emphasize that presumption of innocence is a principle that's almost universally shared. This principle is not legally binding on private organizations such as UCI and WADA, but because most people value it so highly, I think it's reasonable to say that it's unfair to presume guilt and make it Tyler's responsibility to prove his innocence.

I think we can get dopers out of sport fairly. The idea that we have to choose between doping and fairness is wrong. 

Once again, in case anyone didn't notice it the first several times I said it, *I do think that Tyler is probably guilty, but I think even guilty people deserves fair hearings* in which their guilt is proven, and in which they are given the opportunity to rebut evidence against them. WADA is keeping the details of the test secret, so Tyler is denied the opportunity to challenge the accuracy of the test and the public is asked to take WADA's word for its accuracy. 

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't trust WADA or Tyler. *I won't believe either side until I see all the evidence and have a chance to see the evidence and judge it for myself.*


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*wrong, and you know it*



all doped up said:


> Run the odds by a statisstician.
> 
> Tyler has fooled you with his good guy image, he is a doper for sure. give it up!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ...


You cant read minds and you dont ride at that level.

Are you a trained psychologist? Are you medically trained? Well, my GUESS is that you are not, as I know of no professional who would make such ludicrous statements. If you are a doc, the statements you are making can get your license revoked. So, try to be a bit careful, huh?

Have any opinion you want, but please try to stop acquiring fantasy degrees in your spare time when you attempt to talk up or down to other board members.


----------



## 7eap4a (Sep 4, 2003)

*C'mon...*

Quote " If you are a doc, the statements you are making can get your license revoked. So, try to be a bit careful, huh?"

Just not true.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*oh goody*



7eap4a said:


> Quote " If you are a doc, the statements you are making can get your license revoked. So, try to be a bit careful, huh?"
> 
> Just not true.


I have decided to move to fantasy Island and work on my cheesy greeting smile.

I hear that much like Nigerian Billionaires, my medical palmares can happen overnight, so, hope to see you in the Brain Surgery 101 class.


----------



## 7eap4a (Sep 4, 2003)

ttug said:


> I have decided to move to fantasy Island and work on my cheesy greeting smile.


That'd be a start


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Places,places*



7eap4a said:


> That'd be a start


I did not see you there


----------



## Ernie8746 (Dec 9, 2004)

I really think the vast majority do something to help their performane, be it in professional cycle or any other sport when $$$$$ is involved. It's just the way things are.


Professionals look for that something extra - what ever it takes.

I was devastated a number of years ago during the Seul Olympics. Watching Ben Johnston run that 100 meters in 10.79 and he let up the last 20 meters. And then the news of steriods.

Since then, how may others . Flo Jo died at 37 from natural causes - yaw right - she was so juiced up

Marion Jones - how many golds did she win? clean? yaw right

lets not be naive - way to many on the juice or something to provide that extra

my fellow Canadian - Dick Pound is trying hard to clean things up - wont happen


Baseball - what a joke - you see guys gain 50 pounds in the off season - go from hitting 10 homers in one season to 50 the next - lets wake up people


Tyler - american apple pie kind of guy - he's just like all the rest. 


thats pro sports like it or not


----------



## MadRoc92 (Mar 24, 2004)

Ricky2 said:


> Tyler was, yes WAS, innocent and then he was PROVEN guilty. So, yes Tyler is GUILTY!
> 
> He was busted on more than one occasion. Now, he's trying to claim innocence. This is ridiculous. Then, EVERY single person that ever tested positive can claim they are innocent and that there is no proof. Uhh, hey Tyler, you got busted! Give it up!
> 
> The point is Tyler was *proven* guilty.


The point *Orfeo* keeps making, that is obscured by all the legal/philosophical stuff, is that the tests don't *prove* anything, at this point. If the tests have a 50% false positive rate, then you can flunk two of them and there's still a 1 in 4 chance that you're as clean as the driven snow. And as *Orfeo* has noted, we have literaly no clue as to what the false positive rate is for this test. No one has studied it, and the UCI hasn't even told us how many other riders they've tested. I dunno if Tyler is clean or not, but there's enough junk science everywhere else I turn that I don't need it in cycling too.


----------

