Any words on Tyler's test results?

KMKS

er...not sure where this personal animosity came from, but back to the point.
I hear what you're saying about the not popping a positive not meaning they're clean. I agree 100%. But on the other hand, popping three positives in a month is pretty strong evidence that your'e not clean, and yet nobody's jumping on hamilton they way they do on lance.

JohnO

Let's keep in mind that a doping allegation against one of cycling's top stars is a lot more serious than a doping allegation against an amateur. Even unfounded allegations can really wreck someone's life, so it had better be rock solid.

So the IOC went public when they had the knowledge that it wouldn't stick. That's not exactly a smoking gun, but it smells bad.

Personally, I like Tyler. If he was doping, then cycling is really in trouble.

lokstah

It's not too hard to explain. My grandfather could fail four or five consecutive drug tests, but assuming there was even remote grounds for protest, I'd be less ready to accept his guilt than most other individuals, even those who've never tested positive for Tylenol.

It's about expectations, favorites, heroes, and stigma. Tyler's persona has been that of a squeaky-clean boyish star; a loveable family guy with a cute dog (RIP). Lance, for all his astounding accomplishments, has always been subject to more skepticsm; he has a less papal reputation. Some of that results from the natural tendency to scrutinize those at the top of their field. Some of it is just the way he comes across, and the way he's dealt with doping allegations in the past. He hasn't toured with a cute dog, and he left his wife for a has-been pop star.

Is it fair? Not really. But as I said before, celebrity is a funny animal. It doesn't abide by reason or logic. We like who we like.

gntlmn

Sometimes people deliberately create a likeable image in order to get away with more. The finger doesn't point to them. They more easily shift the blame.

Rudy

Here's my 2 cents. A lot of you can spend all day and the rest of your life arguing about who's guilty or not guilty of doping etc.. ya da da da da
When perhaps you should be out riding

First of all, none of us, me included, are experts in the medical fields and even to those of you who are doctors, you don't have all the facts on LA or Tyler.

In the absence of anything concrete we're left with a few known facts. And they're very simple and clear. LA has not been tested positive. Tyler has been tested positive. And that's it! You can form and voice your opinions in a public forum but is it fair? is it just like some dude purchasing a ticket to the ball game and he sits there and hackle the player all night?
how would you feel if I come out calling your mom names etc. ???? is that fair? do I know your mom? NO!! as soon as I open my mouth and accuse someone of ****, the damage is done.

Innocence until proven guilty.

run_and_ride

How do you know how long anyone on here spends riding? Even if I ride 8 hours a day and sleep 8 hours a day that still leaves 8 hours for discussions on this forum.

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept. It does not apply to message board opinions.

Comparing insulting someone's mother to debating about whether a top Pro Cyclist is doping or not is just ridiculous. Unless the mother in question is a top Pro Cyclist.

I have an idea for you. How about instead of telling people what they should and shouldn't be allowed to discuss on a message board, you just go for a ride. Otherwise you just look like a hypocrite.

pineapple

Rudy: I agree that we absolutely must assume innocence where proof of guilt is absent. However, does this mean that we should not be allowed to voice our doubts? Of course not.

The problem of course is whether we are having a private discussion or a public one. If I said to my mum that I had my doubts about Lance, Tyler or anyone, I would be perfectly within my rights and my conscience would be clear. But if I wrote to Procycling or wrote a book saying that I believed that someone was doping, then surely I would be open to legal action, because I would be trying to tarnish someone's reputation in public, without concrete evidence.

This is why the internet is both illuminating and dangerous. We can so easily sit here and speculate wildly about people's 'training methods' and I'm sure we've all seen many posts which have amounted to outright accusations of drug abuse. But on an internet forum, how do we draw the line between public declaration and private discussion? Are people just expressing their opinions to their peers, or are they guilty of defamation of character?

Most people here aren't properly accusing Tyler or Lance of doping. They are simply expressing their doubts, usually with good reasons backing them up. I don't think it's our place to tell them to shut up, unless their claims outweigh their reasons.

Perhaps it's all about balance. Maybe our rule of thumb when discussing doping issues should be: The weight of the claim must not exceed the weight of the evidence.

Sounds a bit UCI doesn't it? What do you reckon?

__________________
tempus eundi

pineapple

Anyway... about Tyler.

He has tested positive, so we are perfectly within our rights to say that he has doped. There is proof of guilt.

The way I see it, the only way this proof can be revoked is if the testing method can be discredited, and it seems that Phonak and Hamilton are pursuing this.

Since it is a new test, it is possible that there are things the UCI and IOC don't know about the test.

Just as some riders are allowed haematocrit 50%+, it could be that there are some riders whose blood is more likely to trigger a positive for blood doping. Since we are all inexperienced in this field, I guess all we can do is wait and see. But the fact that Phonak have stood by Hamilton is a silver lining...

__________________
tempus eundi

lokstah

Pineapple, a thoughtful post. I like your reasoning.

I particularly like the bit quoted above, because frankly, in this situation, it's an approach that I personally find myself applying to Tyler, in reverse. The man has failed a sequence of tests -- tests which utilize a technique described as utterly failsafe, barring a rare family of blood-related birth defects or malignancies -- and though I can't (and no one other than himself should) declare his innocence, I find myself suspecting that he's the straight arrow I've admired him as.

Wishful thinking? Quite possibly. I also believe Roy Horn will perform again.

Breliswell

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, If I tell someone what I think about something, it is freedom of expression. When I post what I think on a discussion site, I'm not telling one person, I'm telling hundreds or thousands. A posting is, in essence, a puplication. As such it carries considerably more weight and power than an individual opinion expressed to another person.

Fact: Tyler Hamilton wa allowed to keep his Gold Medal
Fact: The proof of the IOC and ICU was insufficient.
Fact: Tyler Hamilton has been found guilty of nothing.
Fact: any conclusions beyond these,(or like them) i.e. failing to deny strongly enough, for the liking of some, are pure innuendo and even if they prove to be true at some point in the future, they constitute slander.

Many of the arguments cited on both sides are compelling and if I were speaking person to person, I would be fine with them. WE aren't person to person, we are publishing to the world.

Bottom line, Innocent until proven guilty. Find something else to talk about. Like riding

pineapple

Actually, the UCI had two positive tests, and I believe Hamilton is facing disciplinary action from the UCI. True he hasn't been 'convicted' (or whatever the equivalent word in sport) but he HAS tested positive - conclusively, under UCI rules.

__________________
tempus eundi

Breliswell

Thanks for the clarification. As far as I'm concerned, what will be will be.

run_and_ride

Let me take a wild guess. You are not a lawyer, are you? Slander????

Nice try. Another person trying to tell everyone else what they can talk about. OPINIONS are not slander. Read some case law on the subject.

Fact: Tyler Hamilton tested positive for blood doping in both the Olympics and the Vuelta.

The fact that some dumb lab tech froze the B sample and he gets to keep his Gold Medal on a technicality does not change that.

JohnO

Okay, let's play lawyer here, and devil's advocate to a degree.

Any lab clumsy enough to foul up a B sample may have also fouled up the A sample as well. It brings their entire credibility into question. How many blood samples did that lab screw up? Just Tylers, one or two others, or all of them? Were any A samples 'accidentally' frozen? Misplaced? Mixed up? Let's get all the facts and circumstances regarding the handling of both A and B samples, and see if any patterns emerge. Was that an accident, or does it begin to look deliberate? With the huge sums of money flowing into professional cycling these days, anyone can be corrupted. Remember the boxing incident at the Seoul Olympics?

Plus, someone in the IOC apparently saw fit to surreptitiously contact the UCI, and apparently after they knew their test was invalid. We're pushing the boundaries of ethics there, not to mention laws. Perhaps someone with a grudge? Or someone who stood to gain financially from Tyler's downfall? Who made the contact? Is this normal? Does the IOC have a formal relationship with other sporting organizations? Have they done this in the past? Did they do this with any of the other detected athletes? Who at the UCI was contacted? Did they have prior business dealings with people in the IOC?

And we have the test itself - bleeding edge stuff, so several physicians have said. Not necessarily cut and dried, and subject to interpretation. How many people have been caught with this particular test? How long has it been in use? What is the percentage of false positives? False negatives? How many labs can run this test? Who is this 'panel of experts' that interpreted the test results? Why does it take a panel of experts to interpret a test? Are we talking about drug testing, or judging ice skating? Truth is, I believe Tyler is the first person and only rider to be accused on the basis of this test. So it is not unreasonable to question the test's validity.

I'm not naive enough to say that Tyler wasn't up to no good. You just don't know what goes on at the highest levels of cycling. Huge amounts of money ride on the outcome, and that will get ordinarily good people to compromise their character. It can corrupt Tyler. It can also corrupt people involved with the testing process.

Everyone is jumping on Tyler these days, while few seem to be looking at the curious chain of events and circumstances that led to the current situation. A champion like Tyler should not go down without his accusers and their methods being subjected to the same level of scrutiny that he is.