# do ya think tyler is guilty?????



## all doped up (Nov 14, 2004)

Just wondering what the consensus is out there right now? 

Does anyone have any first hand doping stories from the peloton, besides the ones I have?


----------



## Cejay (Oct 21, 2004)

In a word Yes. 

I would like to believe otherwise but the evidence is pretty complete and Perez is the final nail.

Other than that I think Tyler is great for cycling. Hah.


----------



## Old_school_nik (May 21, 2002)

*love the guy, great rider too, but "yes", for sure.*

I think Tyler testing positive is an indication that a lot (maybe most) of the peleton is using some type of perf enhancing drugs/systems. I know some will say "just because TH tests positive doesn't mean everyone is doping" Those folks are entitled to their opinion, however, I would submit this image:


----------



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

all doped up said:


> Does anyone have any first hand doping stories from the peloton, besides the ones I have?



I would say the answer to that would depend on what "besides the one I have" means.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

I presume that's besides any story that appears in Willy Voet's 'Breaking the Chain' or Paul Kimmage's book. Oh and a thousand other more than plausible articles. In the UK one of the cycling mags had a compelling interview with Jonathan Vaughters about the pressures on pro cyclists to dope. He stopped just short of a personal admission but the implication was pretty clear. 

Let's see: Bernard Thevenet, who broke Merckx's domination of the race, admitted to doping. The Olympic cross country skiiers who were caught doping had teammates who were picked not because of their talent but because of their blood type. Fausto Coppi was candid about the widespread use of dope in the peloton. Jacques Anquetil was stripped of his hour record because he refused a dope test. Laurent Fignon's knee problems that wrecked his career were almost certainly as a result of cortisone abuse. And on and on. All those riders who've been pulling out of races this season with stomach problems - aren't you just the teensiest bit suspicious? Do you remember the year TVM pulled out of the Tour pretty much en masse because of 'food poisoning' and all along it was dodgy doping practices? 

the sport is rife with it and always has been.


----------



## alexf (Sep 14, 2004)

Without question. I would estimate that most of the top riders have at some stage have been aided by illegal sustances. Not continiously, and mabye not at present, but probably at some stage.
Talk to any sports scientist and they willl fill you in with the details. Pro cycling is like an interesting case study for them, to examine the bodys limits.

However, if most are on something, the playing field is level again.
Tyler like Lance is a freak bike rider. They both were freaks before they turned pro, and now they are even bigger freaks.


----------



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

alexf said:


> Without question. I would estimate that most of the top riders have at some stage have been aided by illegal sustances. Not continiously, and mabye not at present, but probably at some stage.


So what you are saying is that most of the top riders took some PED's somewhere along the way but now, or at some point in the past, they feel or felt that they don't need the edge to win and have gone back to being drug free?


----------



## alexf (Sep 14, 2004)

No. More like they have all taken drugs. But, if you tested them all in a single day, not all of them would be caught. Why? Because the drugs are not taken 365 days of the year.


----------



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

alexf said:


> No. More like they have all taken drugs. But, if you tested them all in a single day, not all of them would be caught. Why? Because the drugs are not taken 365 days of the year.



Good answer.


----------



## Cejay (Oct 21, 2004)

Yeah It's called peaking. 

If I had the genetic potential, dedication to training, expirience, and killer instinct of an Armstrong or Hamiliton Ulrich or Mayo AND I had the inclination and money, I would try to develope contacts and resources necessary to carry out something like this. BTW I am not a doctor or not even a very good racer but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last year.

You train at altitude, cart around an elevation tent - perhaps even use it - and then train your ass off at some secluded location where UCI "out of competition testers" can't find you to suprise you. You pump your hematocrit up way high, wait till the epo markers clear, harvest some blood, restart the EPO therapy so you can quickly bring the blood count back up and not loose too much training time. The timing is the most important factor. Your blood has a short shelf life remember, and the tests are starting to detect EPO for a longer period of time. 

Then arrive at your target race with fresh legs and the perfect blood chemistry. The hematocrit is right at 49 and the EPO has worked out of your blood. Hopefully you even managed to harvest some of your own blood along the way and it is ready for reintroduction later in the race. 

Drugs are expensive. I watched (the bar was too loud to hear it) a former TdF white jersey wearer tell a friend of mine that he spent over 40K on EPO and other products back in the 80s. Guy said he could out TT Mig till he too probably discovered the benifits of 55% hematocrit. My friends eyes went wide and he spilled the story to us a few weeks later.

Okay enough rambling. 

BTW drugs do not level the playing field. Vaughters has a naturally high HC. Drugs takes away his "genetic" advantage. What's next? Will we see is some futureistic gene therapy growth hormone that takes away the genetic advantage of the 7 footers in the NBA.


----------



## Cejay (Oct 21, 2004)

The 40K was in one year.


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

*YES, no doubt.*

He tested positive 3 times in one month! One of the tests was at the Vuelta. The other two were at the Olympics. Granted, one test at the Olympics they had to throw out because the idiot lab technician accidentally stored the vial at too low a temperature, but still.. 2 VALID TESTS IN ONE MONTH!

TYLER IS GUILTY!


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Willy Voet tells a great story about Richard Virenque going for a consultation with Dr Ferrari. Virenque is very impressed, but finds the good doctor far too expensive. And, as Voet says, working with Ferrari would be 'like sticking a saucepan up your arse' - in other words everyone else in the peloton would know exactly what you were up to.

Hamilton's personal doctor is Ferrari's mentor.


----------



## soulsurfer104 (Jun 30, 2003)

*sketchy*

the fact that lance has won six tours and is almost always the strongest climber as well as the fastest time trialist, and the fact that he is just freakishly strong ALL THE TIME makes me think that he must be doping. however, the truth stands that he has never once failed a drug test, and that he is tested more than anybody else in the pro cycling community.

therefore, i have to conclude that lance's success is not due to drugs, but to his obsessive training schedule (the man rides on xmas day), his obsessive nature (the man weighs his food on a digital scale), his biological characteristics (his heart is 33% larger than normal), and to his determination. 

tyler, on the other hand.....


----------



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

soulsurfer104 said:


> the fact that lance has won six tours and is almost always the strongest climber as well as the fastest time trialist, and the fact that he is just freakishly strong ALL THE TIME makes me think that he must be doping. however, the truth stands that he has never once failed a drug test, and that he is tested more than anybody else in the pro cycling community.
> 
> therefore, i have to conclude that lance's success is not due to drugs, but to his obsessive training schedule (the man rides on xmas day), his obsessive nature (the man weighs his food on a digital scale), his biological characteristics (his heart is 33% larger than normal), and to his determination.
> .....


David Millar never tested positive. Neither did Virenque. Or Musseuw. Or Plankaert. The list goes on.

BTW, I can show you a whole bunch of Cat. 4's who have hearts 33% larger than normal.

Lance trains like a mad man. That's why he wins. The question that will remain is, how does he train that hard. How come his body doesn't crap out from the workload? That's what people mean when they say Lance is a doper. Nobody says he doesn't train and just takes drugs and wins.

And I'm not saying that I know Lance is a doper or is not a doper. All I'm saying that you just don't know who is and who isn't. The tests don't mean diddly.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Ricky2 said:


> He tested positive 3 times in one month! One of the tests was at the Vuelta. The other two were at the Olympics. Granted, one test at the Olympics they had to throw out because the idiot lab technician accidentally stored the vial at too low a temperature, but still.. 2 VALID TESTS IN ONE MONTH!
> 
> TYLER IS GUILTY!


Under no circumstances, I repeat no circumstaces, let any facts intrude on your rush to judgement. Hamilton had one blood draw taken at the Olympics and one at the Vuelta. Each was split into an A and B sample. The A sample from the Olympics was ultimately deemed positive. The B sample was frozen and so could not be tested. The A and B samples from the Vuelta were both deemed positive. I have seen people call this anywhere from 1 to 3 positives. However you look at it, I can not comprehend how from these facts you get two positives from the Olympics and one from the Vuelta.


----------



## all doped up (Nov 14, 2004)

*The mesage is clear*



asgelle said:


> Under no circumstances, I repeat no circumstaces, let any facts intrude on your rush to judgement. Hamilton had one blood draw taken at the Olympics and one at the Vuelta. Each was split into an A and B sample. The A sample from the Olympics was ultimately deemed positive. The B sample was frozen and so could not be tested. The A and B samples from the Vuelta were both deemed positive. I have seen people call this anywhere from 1 to 3 positives. However you look at it, I can not comprehend how from these facts you get two positives from the Olympics and one from the Vuelta.


Count it any way you wish, his blood tipped the scales into DOPER status.

Please don't ignore the epidemic that is ruining our sport and damaging the lives of these athletes. You are ultimately doing them a diservice. How many lives have been lost to doping, too many. How many athletes have been injured by performance enhancing methods, alot more than you know about. 
Your naive approach supports drug use among these athletes, by letting them think that they can get away with it or 
if they get caught, deny til ya die and people will still believe you.


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

*What's Your *Real* Name?*



all doped up said:


> Count it any way you wish, his blood tipped the scales into DOPER status.
> 
> Please don't ignore the epidemic that is ruining our sport and damaging the lives of these athletes. You are ultimately doing them a diservice. How many lives have been lost to doping, too many. How many athletes have been injured by performance enhancing methods, alot more than you know about.
> Your naive approach supports drug use among these athletes, by letting them think that they can get away with it or
> if they get caught, deny til ya die and people will still believe you.


Hey, if you are Dick Pound using a pseudonym fess up already!


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

all doped up said:


> Count it any way you wish, his blood tipped the scales into DOPER status.
> 
> Please don't ignore the epidemic that is ruining our sport and damaging the lives of these athletes. You are ultimately doing them a diservice. How many lives have been lost to doping, too many. How many athletes have been injured by performance enhancing methods, alot more than you know about.
> Your naive approach supports drug use among these athletes, by letting them think that they can get away with it or
> if they get caught, deny til ya die and people will still believe you.


This is absolutely unbelievable. Because I question the opinion of someone who doesn't know even the most basic facts of the case, my approach is naive and supports drug use among athletes? I could just as well argue that by asking the question in your original post and not declaring that Hamilton is absolutely and irrefutably guilty, you too are supporting drug use.

I am not ignoring the drug epidemic, but I have to wonder how someone can proclaim so vehemently that Hamilton is guilty when he is so ill informed on the most basic facts of the case. Everyone is free to form their own opinion, but it seems to me that the more one knows about the situation, the better.


----------



## all doped up (Nov 14, 2004)

*you are right asgelle*



asgelle said:


> This is absolutely unbelievable. Because I question the opinion of someone who doesn't know even the most basic facts of the case, my approach is naive and supports drug use among athletes? I could just as well argue that by asking the question in your original post and not declaring that Hamilton is absolutely and irrefutably guilty, you too are supporting drug use.
> 
> I am not ignoring the drug epidemic, but I have to wonder how someone can proclaim so vehemently that Hamilton is guilty when he is so ill informed on the most basic facts of the case. Everyone is free to form their own opinion, but it seems to me that the more one knows about the situation, the better.


the more we know about the situation the better, all for it. 

By posting this message, I got to see how many of you are blinded by the headlights of the oncoming train and how many of you actually know what goes on in the peloton.


----------



## all doped up (Nov 14, 2004)

*This is the new Pro Tour speaking to you*



serbski said:


> Hey, if you are Dick Pound using a pseudonym fess up already!



Tyler, I am your father - star wars IV in Athens 2004


----------



## ElvisMerckx (Oct 11, 2002)

*I believe LeMond.*

I love this sport dearly, but I'm increasingly turned off by the mafia-like fog that surrounds today's pros. They all seem to talk from behind a black curtain of secrecy. When the subject comes up in interviews, cycling's super-elite respond with denials, albeit 'carefully worded' denials, but, in my decades of following the sport, I've never heard an active pro condemn doping or dopers. 

We've all heard them get angry when even the slightest doubt is raised about someone's performance being 'unnatural.' If a reporter asks even the most innocuous question about drugs, the pros paint the question as 'outrageous' and 'preposterous.' They'll defend the lowliest domestique rabidly from accusations. However, not a single one of them expresses similar anger once the doper is caught. Aren't there any active pros who want to level the playing field and eliminate doping?

And, yes, despite the unabashed opinion of his wife (how pathetic), the scientific and medical experts assure us Tyler Is Guilty. Someone at Phonak mixed up the blood bags. I just hope Tugboat's soul isn't cast down from heaven.


----------



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

ElvisMerckx said:


> I love this sport dearly, but I'm increasingly turned off by the mafia-like fog that surrounds today's pros. They all seem to talk from behind a black curtain of secrecy. When the subject comes up in interviews, cycling's super-elite respond with denials, albeit 'carefully worded' denials, but, in my decades of following the sport, I've never heard an active pro condemn doping or dopers.
> 
> We've all heard them get angry when even the slightest doubt is raised about someone's performance being 'unnatural.' If a reporter asks even the most innocuous question about drugs, the pros paint the question as 'outrageous' and 'preposterous.' They'll defend the lowliest domestique rabidly from accusations. However, not a single one of them expresses similar anger once the doper is caught. Aren't there any active pros who want to level the playing field and eliminate doping?
> 
> And, yes, despite the unabashed opinion of his wife (how pathetic), the scientific and medical experts assure us Tyler Is Guilty. Someone at Phonak mixed up the blood bags. I just hope Tugboat's soul isn't cast down from heaven.


A couple of things here. First of all, to be clear, Tyler has not given his side of the story. There is heavy, heavy evidence against him and he has a lot to prove. IF he can prove that everytime he takes that test, his result will be the same, and there is no transfusion, then I would have to say he's innocent. If he comes up with something saying that the test is flawed and too new, etc. then I would have to think that he failed the tests fair and square.

As far as pros denying drugs. Some guys condemn it but lots don't. These guys put a ton of stuff in their bodies. You can't race in the pro peloton today without IV's, injections, and such. Much of it is legal. However, if you're coming back from training or racing and hooking up to an IV or getting a shot, how thin is the line between a "medical recovery aid" and "performance enhancing drug?" Let me tell you, it's thin. Even the clean guys are so close to being a PED user that it's scary.

And here's the part that is hard for many to understand. At first, many rider feel that dopers are bad but as their career progresses, they find out their buddies are taking stuff. Sometimes, their buddies even get busted. It changes your perspective on condemning dopers. The realization that many riders come to is that doping is a choice. It doesn;t make you good or bad as a person, just someone who makes the right choice or a disappointing choice. Each rider has to make his own choice. When you don't have friends who take testosterone or EPO, it's easy to condemn them. When you do, all you can do is say that it's not for me and I won't participate. However, your friends remain your friends. It's hard to explain but that's why more pros don't come out and condemn dopers.

FWIW, I don't agree with the place or maner that Lemond came out with his statements and I feel very badly for all of the crap he had to take (and I will feel sorry for him when Trek drops Lemond in a couple of years) but he didn't make anything up.


----------



## latinist (May 2, 2003)

all doped up said:


> Tyler, I am your father - star wars IV in Athens 2004



all doped up= DiCaino/Spinelli of stolenunderground.com fame?


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

it was interesting that it really blew up between Lemond and Armstrong over Ferrari - and Lemond was certainly right about him.

Wonder how well Armstrong will go this season now that Ferrari is banned from practicing for a year...


----------



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

latinist said:


> all doped up= DiCaino/Spinelli of stolenunderground.com fame?



If anyone, it's the Commander.


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

*Go away*



all doped up said:


> By posting this message, I got to see how many of you are blinded by the headlights of the oncoming train...


Real pathetic. Congratulations on having such a close insider's look at the pro peleton. Those who haven't been around the sport for 25 years, like me, or who have never spent time in a the peleton, like Sherpa, are real appreciative of your knowledge. Do you think we're all idiots who just ride around in postal kit from coffee shop to coffee shop and talk about July? Why don't you tell some of these stories you have and offer up some of your _"facts"_ because all you sound like now is a whining troll.


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

Sherpa23 said:


> If anyone, it's the Commander.


I vote for Decanio, too. It has his wide off the mark style.


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

Bianchigirl said:


> it was interesting that it really blew up between Lemond and Armstrong over Ferrari - and Lemond was certainly right about him.
> 
> Wonder how well Armstrong will go this season now that Ferrari is banned from practicing for a year...


Oh lord. I would be rather shocked if LA would have been silly enough to have recently gotten doping products from Dr. Ferrari and, let's assume that he did, I imagine that he would have no trouble obtaining them in the future considering the wealth/power at his disposal. Furthermore, he can certainly continue to consult with the good doctor privately. You really must be kidding if you think that LA, clean or not, will have his season ruined by Ferrari's suspension. Try to think for a moment before you post such nonsense. Why oh why do I continue to feed trolls like you and "All Doped Up"?


----------



## paluc52 (Jan 2, 2003)

*I think he's innocent.*

Character means something. The evidence I've seen of who Tyler is as a person doesn't fit with this charge.

The New York Times article on Tyler Sunday was interesting. It reports that immediately on learning of the charge during the tour of Spain, Tyler asked to be retested. His request was denied. Why? Was it likely that the measurable effects of the alleged transfusion had already disappeared? Is it assumed in such cases that the accused has a fresh store of his own blood just waiting around the corner and will rush off and and get another transfusion to try to wipe out the effects before being retested? Or is it arrogance on the part of officials who cannot admit the possibility of mistakes?

It's a new test. I've read that there are other explanations for the results obtained. So, I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## P-Quoddy (Oct 25, 2004)

*If you use logic, you have to say no.*



all doped up said:


> Just wondering what the consensus is out there right now?
> 
> Does anyone have any first hand doping stories from the peloton, besides the ones I have?


As long as you wish to put him on trial, lets do this the right way. Let's weigh what we know, our own evidence.

What do we know about Tyler's past. His history. His character. What do people who have first-hand knowledge of his character and his history have to say about him? Everything I've EVER heard said is positive and is the description of an ethical, hardworking, honest man and athlete. Add to this the facts and history behind his cycling accomplishments. The accomplishments show a steady rate of success. How about his family life? An analysis of this also points to him being an honest, down-to-earth, humble, person. 

OK, now what evidence do we have indicating he's a cheat. We have blood tests. We have NEW tests. We have tests that haven't had to withstand the test of time. We have tests that were introduced under pressure to produce results FAST. 

In order to pronounce him guilty, you have to throw away all the real live human testimony attesting to Tyler's integrity. You have to believe this same man described by everyone as an honest true athlete has managed to fool everybody he knows, has an evil Jekyl/Hyde syndrome. You have to ignore all the previous tests declaring him innocent. If you believe in all the previous and current test results, you are also FORCED to believe that he spend his entire career drug free, then suddenly, one day, decided to throw it all away and risk cheating for a time trial. 

Or maybe you believe all previous test results were inaccurate, but this one, single test was accurate. On what basis do you choose to believe some test results and not believe other test results? Did the person everybody describes as being honest and ethical cheat all his life, staying one step ahead of each and every test method, switching doping methods as tests became more and more sofisticated, only to finally be caught? 

Based strictly on logic, you have to conclude he's innocent. But it's human nature to jump to conclusions based on your personal biases and emotions and alterior motives. If you hear a report saying an athlete failed a test, and you have invested faith in the athlete, you
feel betrayed. The emotion of betrayal can blind you, overpowering logic.

If you have a vested interest in seeing him found guilty, your bias will lead you to ignore logic. For instance, if you claim to have first hand knowlege of doping in cycling or if you get off on portraying yourself as an "insider", you may believe a guilty Tyler will give your story more credibility. Your interest in being seen as credible leads you away from the path of logic. 

In order for a community to believe you, they have to review what they know about you. What we know about you is that you, like me, have been a RBR member since, well only this month. From your profile, we know you're from the planet Uranus. We know you have an agenda, and you post topics designed to further your agenda, topics poorly disguised as question. Campaigned for less doping in sports is a good thing. But the you don't seem to have faith in the success of an honest campaign. You think you have to deceive people in order to "show them the light".


----------



## all doped up (Nov 14, 2004)

*And the logical scientific evidence........*



P-Quoddy said:


> As long as you wish to put him on trial, lets do this the right way. Let's weigh what we know, our own evidence.
> 
> What do we know about Tyler's past. His history. His character. What do people who have first-hand knowledge of his character and his history have to say about him? Everything I've EVER heard said is positive and is the description of an ethical, hardworking, honest man and athlete. Add to this the facts and history behind his cycling accomplishments. The accomplishments show a steady rate of success. How about his family life? An analysis of this also points to him being an honest, down-to-earth, humble, person.
> 
> ...


Let's talk logic here P. Drugs are rampant in the peloton, two positive scientific tests and a teammate who tested positive for the exact same procedure. C'mon. 
As you say emotional betrayal can blind you, overpowering logic. That is exactly what is going on here with alot of people who BELIEVE. I believe Tyler is guilty.
Also, how many pros, who have been caught red handed doping adamantly denied they ever doped. I bet it is more than 75%. There is another piece of logic that weighs in here.

"You have to ignore all the previous tests declaring him innocent" I read he was warned of inconsistencies in his blood as early as spring of 2004.

Tyler is probably a great guy, I have enjoyed watching him battle it out and grind his teeth, but you gotta trust your Logic P and the cold, hard, scientifc evidence that has been in use for many years. Let go of your emotions and your hero, he is about to be dethroned in a big way.


----------



## P-Quoddy (Oct 25, 2004)

".... you gotta trust your Logic P and the cold, hard, scientifc evidence that has been in use for many years."

Isn't that what I said?
Every cold hard piece scientific evidence up until this summer told us Tyler was innocent. So if you put your faith in the cold hard scientific facts, you are forced to believe a decades worth of tests declaring him drug-free. You are then forced to believe the two isolated cases where he was found to be doped.

You must conclude he decided to start cheating AFTER the Tour de France, in order to help him win a time trial. 

You have to You have to conclude he wasn't doping during the '03 Tour and the '03 Giro.

You have to conclude he damn near won the '03 Giro and damn near reached the podium in the '03 Tour while drug-free. 

You have to conclude he had faith he could win the Giro and Tour drug-free, but didn't think he could be competative in the time trial or the Vuelta drug-free. 

That's just not logical. It could have happened, but you have to conclude that what happened wasn't logical. You have to ignore your logic.

End of lesson. I'm only trying to help you. If you want to write a book, you really should learn the difference. You can write an emotional, illogical book, but readers and reviewers will quickly recognize it as such, and it will lack any credibility. I have a feeling there's going to be a lot of illogical books on doping, so that market is going to be flooded. You'll make more money by writing a logical book, since there's very little competition.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Or you could say:
he's 33 years old, nearing the end of his career, and yes, he's nearly won a couple of GTs but _he hasn't_.

Not just _any_ time trial, surely? An Olympic gold medal - something Armstrong has never managed to win, something that moves him out finally from his former leader's shadow. 

David Millar took EPO to win a World Championships - and never tested positive. Millar _seems_ a nice guy, has plenty of personal integrity according to friends and family, yet still succumbed to the pressure to dope for the greatest rewards. 

Blood doping is dangerous, but was also thought to be undetectable - remember, this test was introduced _secretly_. Teammate Oscar Camenzind tested positive for EPO use and retired with protestations that he acted alone - but what if he didn't? What if the team was using EPO until Camenzind was caught and then decided to go for a quick fix they thought couldn't be detected? 

Until recently, I've been working in the same area as a man (I work with young people 13 - 20) who turns out to have been serially abusing young people in his youth centre. Everyone, co-workers, friends, family, thought he was a 'really nice bloke'. Whilst I in no way wish to equate Hamilton's misdemeanour with what I consider a really appalling crime, I have been struck thoughout this case by the similarities in reaction. You don't have to be a 'Jekyll and Hyde' to bow to intolerable pressure, to compromise your own integrity and then to be able to rationalise it.


----------



## topcarb (Aug 27, 2004)

Bianchigirl said:


> Or you could say:
> he's 33 years old, nearing the end of his career, and yes, he's nearly won a couple of GTs but _he hasn't_.
> 
> Not just _any_ time trial, surely? An Olympic gold medal - something Armstrong has never managed to win, something that moves him out finally from his former leader's shadow.
> ...


A couple things still dont add up, and make me wonder about the matter still. I clearly understand Tyler has tested positive from what we have been told so far. I am concerned: 1) in implementing a secret test, baseline conditions for riders was never established, yielding the potrential for false + results, 2) from what we are being told, the UCI is not releasing anything of the results and whatnot to Phonak or the public...why? 3) Tyler had nothing to gain in the VE. Risking career, and LIFE and potentially his family members life for a race which he had clearly no ambition to win or do more than payback. It makes no sense. 4) tyler does not have the character issue that a guy like millar has. tyler trains as hard as anyone, and from all we know had a spectacularly successful season at CSC drug free. Millar, perhaps a nice guy, is not in the tradition of Kelly, Roche, and Boardman of cycling heroism. 5) at 33 and team captain he has a lot of weight to carry, and would know he would have to face plenty of doping controls. 6) With his numerous hi viz outreach efforts, like THF, it would be shocking to do this.

Im no so naive to think its impossible he packed, or that many pros just may do. Having seen some of the Spring classics this year in person, I was blown away at the superhuman effort these guys place on their bodies. I just think until the entire sotry is made fully publicly clear, from handling Tylers blood, to instrumentation, to data analysis and interpretation his cries of innocence have some legitamacy in my eyes. I will be curious what the January defense brings, and if his results cannot be explained technically (and Perez' results...if it was serial doping, did the Dr place the wrong name on each bag of blood and confuse Perez with Hamilton and get them backwards?) then he should be sacked and his empire torn asunder. tc


----------



## Spunout (Aug 12, 2002)

From recent velonews reports, his lawyers are combing through the WADA code to find a loophole.

Now, if Tyler found not guilty by reason of legal loophole (testing for blood manipulation as opposed to testing for evidence of banned substances) is he still guilty?

Just because the lawyers find a way out, how does that make the positive doping result any less?


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*it will all unfold in time*

I'll wait until then. otherwise all we have is speculation and innuendo.


----------



## all doped up (Nov 14, 2004)

*Russia and Australia's grounds for CAS prosecution*



atpjunkie said:


> I'll wait until then. otherwise all we have is speculation and innuendo.


This is a great article descibing the legal strategies of both sides. 

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/nov04/nov18news2


----------



## Spunout (Aug 12, 2002)

Newsflash: Tyler is not the Messiah. Just a very naughty boy.

http://www.maddogmedia.com/believeogrady.html

(courtesy MadDog and Velonews)


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

*Tyler SUCKS! Period.*

Tyler tested positive at the Vuelta. Why did they even let him race in the Olympics?! No other sport in the world allows a competitor to compete in the Olympics if he fails a drug test at an international competition before the Olympics.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Ricky2 said:


> Tyler tested positive at the Vuelta. Why did they even let him race in the Olympics?! No other sport in the world allows a competitor to compete in the Olympics if he fails a drug test at an international competition before the Olympics.


This is a joke, right?


----------



## paluc52 (Jan 2, 2003)

*On this, a clear answer*

Chronological considerations.



Ricky2 said:


> Tyler tested positive at the Vuelta. Why did they even let him race in the Olympics?! No other sport in the world allows a competitor to compete in the Olympics if he fails a drug test at an international competition before the Olympics.


----------



## topcarb (Aug 27, 2004)

*Tyler speaks today*

Heres most of what Tyler has just posted on his web page pertaining to his doping case.
FWIW, I recognize that doping is a serious issue in the D1 peloton, but I think Tyler will be exonerated. His clarification of things here is very revealing if you ask me.
topcarb
****************************************************
November 23, 2004

As an athlete I realize that sometimes you may have to lose a few races to gain the knowledge on what it takes to win. Relating to my doping charge, I will say that, up to this point, I have been losing the "pr" war--partially because I naively thought that if I stated whole-heartedly that I have never and would never engage in blood doping or any form of cheating - and waited for the process to exonerate me, I would be fine. I also naively thought that officials within the various "anti-doping" organizations would wait for the due process before passing judgment on me publicly--again I was wrong. I know now that if I wait to discuss at least a few points of fact with the public, by the time I am fully exonerated and I know I will be exonerated; my reputation may be jeopardized.

So with that being said, I would like to dispel some things that have been said inaccurately in the media.

1. Despite indications to the contrary my A sample from the Olympics, the one that first brought on this issue, was initially determined to be negative for blood doping--when it was re-analyzed and I am not sure why it was re-analyzed - it was again deemed negative. It was not a clearly positive test as it has been characterized-- Instead, the results of both "negative" tests were reviewed by a "panel of experts" and then apparently deemed positive. This much review of one sample calls into question the validity of this test which has been criticized by many very reputable scientists as being inaccurate and unreliable. To this day, I have not been provided any paperwork from the IOC that states my A Sample was positive.

As blood testing is a fact of life for a professional cyclist, it is critical that tests are reliable and proven. On that note, I have been tested over 50 times throughout my career and this is the first time I have ever even been questioned--so again this is new and beyond upsetting to me. Everyday throughout the world somebody gets news of a false medical test result. Fortunately, in most of these cases the "false positive" is correctable.

2. Again, Contrary to what you have heard in the media, my B sample from the Olympics was not accidentally frozen. I have no idea why an official would lie about this procedure but for the record, the protocol is for the B sample to be frozen when the A sample is negative--this was the case with me after my A Sample was deemed negative and is why the lab froze the B sample, as opposed to a lab "mistake."

Moreover, comparing my "test results" from Athens to "test results" from Spain reveal serious inconsistencies, which could mean that 1) the test itself is invalid; 2) the test method was not followed; or 3) that one of the samples is not my blood. On this note, I have asked numerous times for my blood to be DNA tested--I have been turned down and also not been allowed to have independent scientists review the findings. In addition, repeated requests to review the raw data and the testing protocol have been thwarted or denied. -- doesn't that sound odd?


----------



## crashjames (Jan 14, 2003)

*After reading this, I believe Tyler*

Doesn't seem like the governing bodies are exactly "agenda free" -- I find Tyler's account far more plausible than the accusations.


----------



## stig rolex (Oct 13, 2004)

crashjames said:


> Doesn't seem like the governing bodies are exactly "agenda free" -- I find Tyler's account far more plausible than the accusations.


yes he's such a nice guy, (multi million dollar contracts to round out career or not) there's no way he'd resort to doping. all of the other stage race riders from spain and italy are dopers (santi perez for example) but tyler (like lance) is american and americans never tell lies no matter what the financial incentives are, they just go out and beat the dopers fair and square.

now pass the bong


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

But wasn't the first test from the Olympics always tagged as suspicious, but only looked at again in the light of the test from the Vuelta?

Interestingly, neither Phonak or Hamilton have challenged the chain of custody of his samples, which makes a bit of a mock of suggesting that it's not his blood.

He says it himself though - it's his fight back in the PR war...


----------



## Asiago (Jan 28, 2004)

*devil's advocate*



Bianchigirl said:



> Interestingly, neither Phonak or Hamilton have challenged the chain of custody of his samples, which makes a bit of a mock of suggesting that it's not his blood.


On this point, they are not openly challenging the "chain of custody" but at the same time requesting a DNA test, which of course, is the ultimate challenge of "chain of custody." They don't have to openly proclaim it is not his blood, they simply want a DNA test to prove it.

Now I'm not saying that I believe the blood is not his, just pointing to this component of the new PR war. If they were to openly say it's not Tyler's blood, WADA would then reply "you callin' me a liar, boy?" It's a bit of gamesmanship.

My biggest problem with the whole situation right now is WADA not allowing a DNA test.


----------



## paluc52 (Jan 2, 2003)

Your straw man doesn't resemble any posting on this thread I've read. The gist of your argument is that the winners dope and non-dopers lose. That is an argument that appeals to many poor losers. 



stig rolex said:


> yes he's such a nice guy, (multi million dollar contracts to round out career or not) there's no way he'd resort to doping. all of the other stage race riders from spain and italy are dopers (santi perez for example) but tyler (like lance) is american and americans never tell lies no matter what the financial incentives are, they just go out and beat the dopers fair and square.
> 
> now pass the bong


----------



## paluc52 (Jan 2, 2003)

If they aren't permitting Tyler's folks to review the test results, I would be surprised if they were providing him an account of the chain of custody.



Bianchigirl said:


> But wasn't the first test from the Olympics always tagged as suspicious, but only looked at again in the light of the test from the Vuelta?
> 
> Interestingly, neither Phonak or Hamilton have challenged the chain of custody of his samples, which makes a bit of a mock of suggesting that it's not his blood.
> 
> He says it himself though - it's his fight back in the PR war...


----------



## topcarb (Aug 27, 2004)

*Its PR and reality*

Sure Tyler is fighting the PR war too...its part of the situation he is in as a public figure. he should be doing something to straighten out the half-truths and lies that are circulating.

Lets see, we ahve heard of no claim of mistake from any lab in handling the frozen B sample. Perhaps those that have been tested here as pros could help us amateurs: is the SOP to freeze the B sample if A is negative? Assuming that is true, then it argues tylers A sample from the Olympics was in fact negative, not positive or even suspicious. If A was relooked at and deemed negative then B would have been frozen as it was. Isnt it also somewht suspect that if this test is so certainly cut and dry (my blood has markers x,y,z and a foreign donor has q,r,s markers) how could it take three investigations and then a panel of experts to claim a positive? That seems entirely counter to the premise of the test itself. Id be questioning it as well. Compund that with the suggestion that the VE and Olympic samples appear to be DIFFERENT altogether and it certainly offeres plenty of reasonablility that the collection, handling, analysis, storage, and intepretation of the data are open to further scrutiny. That Tyler had not been allowed to settle the matter with a DNA test, see the documentation of the analysis, or even receieve official notice of a positive A sample for the Olympics makes me highly suspect of events that has transpired...both scientifically and from the human side. Ive said this before and will say again, Tyler will be found innocent and a mix of human and sceintific error will be a cause for the false anomalies in the examinations.

topcarb


----------

