Any words on Tyler's test results?

KMKS

I guess i don't see your point run. I agree w/ you that they pass every test until they don't...I was just saying that tyler failed this test the very first time he took it.

And yes it's a sad fact that the dopers will always be ahead of the authorities b/c the testers can only react.

Brunswick_kate

I'd agree with this to some sense; however, there's more to it than the notion that "it can't be true because Tyler's cute"...

I'm still trying to cut my way through the journals but so far, I have some questions about the testing procedure and the protocols.

1. In deference to the caveat attached to the Haematological 2003:88 article, what "rigorous standardization of the assay" was done prior to the submission of the manuscript for peer review in April 2003 and its acceptance as a test for athletic performance?

2. Other than the aforementioned article in Haematological, is there any other peer reviewed publications on the validity of this testing method? What has been done to demonstrate that it is valid on a population of highly physical active people versus as population of 25 post orthopedic surgical patients?

3. Why were the A sample results of the IOC test made public when it was obvious that the B sample was never going to be available for follow up testing?

4. What communication, if any, on this matter took place between IOC and Vuelta officials?

5. Why did the IOC need to convene a panel of experts to re-examine the A sample results. Is this indicative of the highly interpretative nature of the test? The authors of the study, page 1290, indicate that "Not all antisera gave as clear-cut a separation between antigen-postive and negative cells as that illustrated in Figure 1B. Anti-M and anti_S frequently gave ambiguous results despite titration to optimize conditions..." Exactly which antigens are being tested in the IOC/UCI testing procedure? Does anyone know?

I'm not accusing anyone...IOC, UIC, Australian scientist, Tyler Hamilton, anyone ... of malfeasance or cheating or anything until there's been a full review of the facts. This, I recognize, is a minority postion and guaranteed to piss off a few people on this board.

__________________
Insanity has its price -- Please have exact change.

run_and_ride

I guess my point was that I don't base someone's innocence on having not failed any drug tests to this point. Although I do feel that the authorities and courts have to follow "innocent until proven guilty". This is just a message board and I am just an opinionated cycling fan.

I lost faith in Tyler before this positive test. I lost it when he parsed his words regarding the allegations made by that former USPS doctor. He used strong words about the specific conversation he had with the doctor, but he never categorically denied having doped. He couldn't because he was swearing on his dog's grave and his wife's life.

His behavior in that instance led me to believe he is hiding something. Similarly, that is the opinion I have of LA. This whole Simeoni thing just furthered my opinion in that matter.

Why would LA tell Simeoni that he shouldn't have spoken out vis a vis Ferrari? How does LA know what Ferrari did or didn't give to Simeoni? I find his behavior and lack of a categorical denial of ever having doped peculiar and suspicious.

If you asked me if I ever took a performance enhancing drug I could emphatically just say no. And if I run a sub-18 minute 5k this weekend the answer will still be no. It had to just be the extra gu packet I took before the race.

Weisse Luft

If the IOC is so careless as to improperly store the B sample, what about the A sample? Did they freeze this one too, resulting in a false positive?

run_and_ride

Good post. However, if the IOC and UCI gave this test before it was scientifically proven to be accurate than shame on them. Also, I don't see anything wrong with IOC officials contacting the UCI and telling them the A sample from Hamilton was suspicious. If Hamilton did this, it is cheating plain and simple and I think the Vuelta should have been informed.

Also, there is apparently some rare blood condition resulting from something to do with fertilization of the embryo and twins. Scientists don't seem to know just how rare the condition is though, since it has almost no manifestation other than to throw off this test.

Brunswick_kate

And here I thought I was responding to something written by a poster who claims his/her identity is skydive69. In fact, I didn't address you at all directly until you decided to jump all over my ass.

And I never said the thread was here...it was actually either on the Velonews forums or the Bicycling.com forums or somewhere.

Glad to hear your blood pressure is fine. I actually don't worry about your health in the least. Contrary to what you seem to believe, you are not the centre of my universe. Sorry to disappoint.

__________________
Insanity has its price -- Please have exact change.

Brunswick_kate

I disagree with you on the matter of communications between IOC and UCI on the "check Hamilton" bit....from what I can gather, this is a highly interpretative procedure that relies a lot on experienced judgement call...part of the reason why only 2 labs can do it. Tester bias is a huge factor to be controlled for.

Contact between the two groups saying "We have 1 unconfirmed positive..please advise if you should find another" might be understandable.
"Test Hamilton; we think he's doping" is unacceptable -- just due to tester bias. You start seeing what you're "supposed" to see. It not malice. It's not being hateful. It's human nature. It's a function of our perception and cognitive capacities.

__________________
Insanity has its price -- Please have exact change.

run_and_ride

It does not sound to me that the test is that subjective, although I have no medical training. You seem to have some since you can tell what my blood pressure is like from a message board.

Brunswick_kate

Personally, I think if they coughed up to dropping the ball on the B sample and basically annouced to the world that they goofed, they are unlikely to cover up on the A sample test.

But that's just my sense of human nature -- if they screwed with the A sample, why wouldn't they lie about the B?

__________________
Insanity has its price -- Please have exact change.

Brunswick_kate

Yes, I'll have to refrain from using any metaphorical or illuminative language. I guess that's the sole preserve of those who like to allude to me as a ...what was it...brain dead sheeple....nice turn of phrase by the way. I like it.

Any chance we might bury the hatchet or shall we just continue this ridiculous dance? I mean I'll dish back what I'm served if you really feel compelled to keep at it.

__________________
Insanity has its price -- Please have exact change.

run_and_ride

To use your own logic, I never said that you were one of those braindead sheeple. I merely suggested that they exist.

Have a nice weekend!

Brunswick_kate

Hence the word "allude"...really, we're having quite the temper now, aren't we?

__________________
Insanity has its price -- Please have exact change.

run_and_ride

I agree, although they seem to be badly in need of a procedure that says they do not announce any results to the media until both tests are positive. If it takes two positives to prove doping in their system, why would they announce anything until the second test is positive.

Unless, they knew all along that the B sample was messed up but felt the A test was enough and were just trying to cast suspicion on Hamilton. Basically, they knew they couldn't take the medal away but felt the A test was accurate so they compromised. He gets to keep the Gold but the whole world now thinks you are a cheater.

run_and_ride

We are having a temper tantrum? Who is we? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? I was actually laughing.