Today's Forum Topics
Set as homepage
|
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
 |
|
|||||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
03-10.-2004, 05:33 PM
|
#76 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 696
|
Re: Any words on Tyler's test results?
Quote:
The IOC was obliged under anti-doping rules to contact the UCI, quietly or loudly but in confidence. Article 7 Sub Clause 2.5 of Anti-doping Rules applicable to 2004 Athens Olympic Games 7.2.5 Notifying Athlete or other persons concerned of the anti-doping rule violation: The IOC President or a person designated by him shall, in confidence, promptly notify the Athlete or other person concerned, the Athlete’s or other person’s chef de mission, the International Federation concerned [my emphasis] and the World Anti-Doping Agency of: a) any adverse analytical finding; b) the anti-doping rule violation or of the additional investigation that will be conducted as to whether there is an anti-doping rule violation; c) the Athlete’s right to promptly request the analysis of the B sample or, failing such request, that the B sample analysis may be deemed waived; d) the right of the Athlete and/or the Athlete’s representative to attend the B sample opening and analysis if such analysis is requested; and e) the Athlete’s right to request copies of the A and B sample laboratory package, which includes information as requested by the International Standards for Laboratories;
__________________
VF "Remember, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat" |
|
|
|
|
04-10.-2004, 06:18 AM
|
#77 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 696
|
Re: Any words on Tyler's test results?
Quote:
Below is a quote from a testing summary of EPO tests for the Sydney Olympics. You may recall that the IOC refused to use the tests singularly as evidence for a breach of anti-doping rules for EPO use. If the athlete failed the French urine test (which only detected EPO use in prior 3-4 days) then the athlete's results from the Australian EPO blood test were included. The rationale behind the IOC's decision was the on-model (detecting current EPO use) produced two false positives from 3,500 subjects (.057%) and this false positive result could be used as a defence. The off-model for use of EPO up to 4 weeks after cessation produced no false positives. You may note that while the French urine test produced no positive results the Australian EPO tests produced eight during the Olympics but the results could not be used as those athletes had passed the French urine tests. The point of this exercise is the IOC is sensitive to testing which produces false positives and are unlikely to approve and institute a testing procedure with any historic ammunition to be used by an athlete's defence lawyer. "Analysis of the on-model, which tested for current use of EPO, found that out of about 3500 subjects, only two false-positive results were returned. So, while this model was highly sensitive, it could not be used by itself for the detection of r-HuEPO abuse. "Analysis of the off-model, which tested for use of EPO up to four weeks after drug cessation, showed the test to be highly specific, with no false-positive results from the testing of about 3500 subjects. "Overall, this validation study showed that an Œindirect‚ approach was a viable approach for the detection of EPO use. "In July 2000, these results were taken to the IOC, which had called a special meeting of the doping commission. The researchers involved and the findings were subjected to quite intense questioning over the course of the two-day meeting, with the outcome being that the on-model protocol, in combination with the direct urine test for EPO, were accepted as a sanctionable test. "The EPO test was implemented in the Sydney Olympic Games, with approximately 300 blood samples taken in the two weeks prior to the opening ceremony. It is believed that this implementation had a deterrent effect. The testing resulted in one high on-model score among the tested athletes, but the urine test was not positive in this case, so it was not sanctioned. Of the 300 tests performed, there were also seven high off-model results".
__________________
VF "Remember, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat" |
|
|
|
|
|
04-10.-2004, 07:06 AM
|
#78 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, USA
Posts: 1,672
|
Re: Any words on Tyler's test results?
As I said, false positives can and do occur, but to get them on two separate occasions in different testing labs is highly unlikely. The burden of proof is on Hamilton. I don't think he's going to successfully keep his pro job.
|
|
|
|
|
04-10.-2004, 07:30 AM
|
#79 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 696
|
Re: Any words on Tyler's test results?
Quote:
A false positive can only occur during a controlled test when the testers become aware from the results of a blind test that one or more of the subjects who tested positive were in the placebo group. As I have pointed out, the existence of any false positives in testing would render those tests as unsustainable by the IOC and potentially litigious. For a false positive to occur during competition testing it means the subject is irrefutably clean but tested positive. If you were only to believe one side of the story, the athlete and connections, that would mean 95% of all competition tested subjects were the results of a false positive. That appears the less than objective opinion about TH.
__________________
VF "Remember, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat" |
|
|
|
|
|
05-10.-2004, 04:34 PM
|
#80 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, USA
Posts: 1,672
|
Re: Any words on Tyler's test results?
Quote:
That clearly is not true because they always take a sample B. If the tests were infallible, as you claim, then the sample B would be unnecessary, and Tyler would have still lost his gold at the olympics even when the sample B came up inconclusive due to mishandling. The fact that false positives can and do occur is the reason why they bother taking a sample B and the reason they didn't dare take his medal even though I doubt many believe he was not doping at the olympics, considering both samples at the Vuelta were positive. By the way, I know someone who got a false positive on a test for HIV. The doctor blew it when he didn't retest. He should have. The test was false as later determined in other testing. |
|
|
|
|
|
05-10.-2004, 05:49 PM
|
#81 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 696
|
Re: Any words on Tyler's test results?
Quote:
In "testing" I was clearly referring to the trials to establish the anti-doping test meets the criteria before being approved to be used for drug testing. I used the words "controlled" and "blind" which do not refer to laboratory procedures once a doping test has been established and accepted. The B sample test is only undertaken at the discretion of the athlete. In essence, the B sample is analysed only to satisfy the athlete or representative that they can identify the sample as the sample they produced at collection. This can be verified through the documentation both parties hold, the code on the sample and by observation the tamper proof seal is intact. Has nothing whatsoever to do with false positives. If there were a history of false positives with an anti-doping procedure all athletes in breach of the anti-doping rules resulting from that procedure would have sued the pants off the IOC, UCI or whoever. The B sample presentation and testing in front of the athlete and/or representative was to remove any doubt of any suspicions about the A sample (collection, transport, wrong identification, contamination,etc). These have been the grounds of defences in the past. If the B sample produces a negative result then that is prima facie evidence the A sample was not collected from the athlete or the laboratory erred in the analysis. The B sample serves only as a confirming check and balance only to the satisfaction of the athlete. It is only implemented at the request of the athlete and, if not requested, the A sample results stand. If a false positive turns up in trials for a anti-doping procedure that procedure is not adopted. Reference the Sydney 2000 EPO trials.
__________________
VF "Remember, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat" |
|
|
|
|
|
05-10.-2004, 09:05 PM
|
#82 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hungary
Posts: 6
  |
Re: Any words on Tyler's test results?
I still believe, that there must be some mistakes during the making the tests or the test is not good enough or smg! I just can't believe that Tyler could do any doping!
|
|
|
|
|
05-10.-2004, 11:11 PM
|
#83 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 71
|
Re: Any words on Tyler's test results?
Quote:
why not? He's just moved to a big team who have injected a huge amount of cash into the sport and would be looking for some return on that. So far the season has not that successfull for them though, with the tour in particular being a whitewash for Hamilton. I can understand there being huge pressure on him to win something. I understand the disbelief to an extent - he certainly comes accross as a very honest person but remember our perceptions of him are controlled by the media. Once a rider gets labelled - that becomes his tag in the media so it can become a self prophesising myth. If he isn't guilty then it must be a fairly amazing reason to explian at least three positive tests. I don't 'wish' him guilty and I'm not pleased to see another big name rider implicated but if it takes this sort of thing to make progress then so be it. |
|
|
|
|
|
05-10.-2004, 11:32 PM
|
#84 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hungary
Posts: 6
|
Re: Any words on Tyler's test results?
Quote:
Of course we can't rule out the possibility, that all this was true. And yes, there can be some truth what you wrote, but you know, I'm thinking like this: If I were him, I would never do any doping, the pressure wouldn't matter. I don't know if you have read his wife's entry in his journal, but after Ty saw his beloved dog suffering much more after a blood transfusion he needed, because of his illness, I don't think he would risked such thing on himself! Maybe I'm too naive ( I was told to be a lot of time ), but I see the things like this.
__________________
love and belief will win all over |
|
|
|
|
|
06-10.-2004, 02:07 AM
|
#85 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 71
|
Re: Any words on Tyler's test results?
Quote:
possibly! But then that's not always a bad thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
06-10.-2004, 10:22 AM
|
#86 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, USA
Posts: 1,672
|
Re: Any words on Tyler's test results?
Quote:
That's very interesting. I understand what you are saying. Now consider this. Science makes inferences. What it does is to make obervations, and then come up with a general rule. The general rule cannot be proven to be true. It can only be proven false. For example, we might observe the sun rising in the east every day, year after year. We come up with the rule: the sun rises in the east. Does this prove that the sun rises in the east? Nope. It only summarizes the observation. The same is true with these tests. The trials are done to develop the rule--that doping results in a positive result, and that non doping results in a negative result. The tolerance level may similarly be observed. For example, this test recognizes doping of any amount of more than so many ml's in such and such period of time. No matter how many trials that are accurately done to detect doping, you cannot prove that the tests are infallible. You can only say that they were within the range of trials done. For example, say you took 100,000 samples, and you never got a false positive. Does this mean that the test eliminates the possibility of a false positive? The answer is no. If the riders are that worried about getting a false positive, then they should have their own test done right after the other. If they get it done from a sanctioned lab, and it tests negative when the other official sample tests positive, then they have a case to make. The problem is that, practically speaking, this test done on Tyler is probably not common enough to be available outside of official testing labs. The kind of doubt I'm talking about is so miniscule that it would not be considered "reasonable doubt" in the courtroom. I'm just saying that tests cannot be proven infallible. They can only be shown to be fallible if you get a false positive, and then only if you have other evidence taken contemporaneously. Otherwise, the false positive will be considered a positive. |
|
|
|
|
|
06-10.-2004, 12:14 PM
|
#87 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 696
|
Re: Any words on Tyler's test results?
Quote:
What is the statistical likelihood of two persons having the same DNA or fingerprints? I understand with DNA testing if eight markers are tested it is about one in a billion. With fingerprints no two fingerprints are alike. You would call one in a billion cause for "doubt" using your logic. If you can prove an anti-doping test can produce one false positive then that test has no credibility and would be canned. It is only infallible to the extent it can be proved to be infallible. And there must be a cut off point where you concede that sufficient testing has been undertaken, without exposing a false positive, to endorse the procedures. What number would you consider? You may have heard of Joey D'Atoni, a US track racer, who failed an EPO test and was recently suspended for 2 years. He and other persons were screaming innocence and even a molecular biologist expressed grave suspicions about the testing report on his A sample and accompanied him to his B sample tests. D'Atoni has now accepted the ban. Maybe because he was exposed as a contributor to a hard core body building forum on drugs. He was considered the EPO guru under his forum handle. Unfortunately he attached his real email address to his forum nickname identity. BTW, "reasonable doubt" only applies to the prosecution of persons accused of crimes. IOC and UCI rules are not law and breaches of those rules result in the imposition of sanctions by those bodies. In a civil court it is the balance of probability that rules. It would be to a civil court that a suspended athlete would take their case.
__________________
VF "Remember, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat" |
|
|
|
|
|
06-10.-2004, 02:28 PM
|
#88 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,498
|
Re: Any words on Tyler's test results?
Quote:
From the information gleaned from this rather interesting article: http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7027.0.html a clearer picture of the actual transfusion test emerges. It is not a DNA test, nor a fingerprint. It is a flow cytometer test, fairly straightforward, but also very general in its results. The flow cytometer test marks blood cells by major and minor types, and can be even more specific, if more specific markers are used. But it is nowhere as specific as a DNA test. By Dr. Sovndal's explanation, the flow cytometer test tells you that something may not be right with the blood sample. It is not prima face evidence of a homologous transfusion, because there are other possible explanations for a positive - for example, a chimera. For homologus blood transfusion to be established, more than a single pair of samples taken at the same time would be desirable. For this reason, this doctor regards the flow cytometer test to be a screening test - one to narrow down candidates, with more specific testing to establish actual fact. Trouble is, it appears that the UCI has proceeded to wreck Tyler's career without a follow up, or if they did, they have kept it secret so far. As Dr. Sovndal suggests, simply testing over an extended period of time should verify the results - if the spurious count drops, the suspect cells probably came from outside the body. Unless, of course, the person takes additional transfusions to keep the count up. Given the 60 to 90 day lifespan of blood cells, the fact that two samples taken from Tyler about a month apart, both testing positive, and both taken before Tyler fell under suspicion, this can indicate that the positive might have come from a source other than a blood transfusion. Had it been a transfusion directly before the Olympics, one would expect it to have dropped considerably by the time of the Vuelta. Unless, of course, he got another transfusion, but now we're getting pretty far out in left field - too many transfusions, and his hematocrit level would have become suspect. Assuming that Dr. Sovndal's remarks are accurate, it doesn't look like much benefit is being granted to the cyclist. Guilty until proven otherwise. Personally, I'm not so much worried about Tyler as I am Lance and his record - there are legions of bitter individuals who would love to sully that accomplishment by any means available. What with iffy blood tests, and Dick Pound, who accuses everyone in sight of doping, buddying up with David Walsh, who publishes accusations without a shred of proof, I begin to wonder if the current cure for doping isn't worse than the malaise. |
|
|
|
|
|
06-10.-2004, 04:22 PM
|
#89 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, USA
Posts: 1,672
|
Re: Any words on Tyler's test results?
Quote:
Tyler's had plenty of opportunity to come forward and allow himself to be under observation in a testing facility. He wouldn't have to stay there long. Probably a couple of weeks would be long enough to show that his blood is not changing and still showing the same result. He hasn't done it though. And he cannot ride pro now until he refutes the results. I don't think he will. I think he's guilty. I doubt that the test from the Olympics and from the Vuelta show the same result on the markers however. We haven't heard that story. We just hear that 3 out of 4 tests were positive and the 4th bobbled and inconclusive. I'd like to know the scientific opinion between how the positive sample A from the Olympics compares with the Vuelta result on all the markers they test. That was an interesting article from the MD you included on blood doping. |
|
|
|
|
|
06-10.-2004, 04:52 PM
|
#90 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, USA
Posts: 1,672
|
Re: Any words on Tyler's test results?
Quote:
Don't get me wrong on this. I endorse these procedures as they appear to be adequately subjected to trial procedures. I believe that Tyler Hamilton is guilty of blood doping. I think that if he had a valid defense, we would have heard it by now. We haven't. I also have posted repeatedly to this effect (but perhaps not on this particular thread) not long after his sample B results came out from the Vuelta. It's a smoking gun, and he's holding it next to the corpse. He deserves to bear the burden of proof. With that said, I will repeat that science does not prove the invalibility of tests for blood doping. Fallibility would be proven with one false positive. That there may not have been a false positive is not enough to conclude the test is infallible. It doesn't matter how many trials were done; the sample size could have been 25 or 25 million. It would still not prove infallibility. Since testing results are accepted as positives, not false positives, then the testing data beyond trials will for practical purposes be considered positives without being able to prove otherwise. Actually, I bet Tyler would still show evidence of blood doping today if he took a test for it since the survival of the foreign red blood cells is 90 to 120 days. He won't go anywhere near testers anymore until he is safely past this detection period. This is my opinion based on my review of the facts. If he really suspected tampering, he could have gone in and had a blood test immediately after the results became public and showed he had no evidence of other blood in his system. Then he could have claimed, and perhaps unsuccessfully in the eyes of the UCI, that his blood samples had been deliberately tampered with at both the Olympics and the Vuelta. If he really believed that they were, he would have done that. Even if the UCI didn't accept this as vindication, it would have done a great deal toward vindicating himself in the eyes of the general public. This is another reason why the general public needs to stop thinking about Tugboat and Tyler's all American image he has built for himself in the media and start looking at the facts. Back to the topic of infallibility, remember how nuclear energy proponents, to counter worries about safety, always said that the risk of a nuclear accident was so remote in a time frame of tens of thousands of years that it is not even worth considering as a credible risk? Well, that's what they used to say, and then we had Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island--not 1 accident, but 2. This flew right in their face, casting doubt on the original estimates of safety. If Tyler would have gone in and gotten retested with a negative result, which he did not, this would have cast serious doubt on the estimate of reliability of those tests. The fact that Tyler is guilty, and he probably is, does not mean we can accept these tests as infallible. As I said, I would not doubt them, but infallibility is an entirely different conclusion. |
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
