Any words on Tyler's test results?

JohnO

We can't say one way or another what the samples have said, because none of that has been made public - at least as far as I know, it hasn't been made public. They may show a decline, or they may not. You want to place the burden of proof on Tyler, while I say it should rest on the UCI. They are the ones making the accusation, they should bear the burden of proof. In this case, the UCI should have instituted more rigorous tests to confirm the screening. Since at least one IOC sample was mishandled, they should probably disregard the other and proceed forward.

Is he guilty? It's quite possible. I'm not so much concerned with Tyler, but the nature of exactly how he was judged to be doping, and the basis on which the career of a promising athlete with years of hard work was sent down the drain. Personally, I enjoy a good bike race a lot more than a witch hunt.

The UCI has operated, on occasion, on 'a wink and a nod'. Witness their banning beam frames a few years ago with the somewhat ludicrous explanation that they were 'an unfair advantage'. HIH was probably the real reason. On the other hand, banning aero bars in the peloton was a wise move, keeps crashes to a minimum. That sort of judgment is fine in a club, where everyone knows everyone and the only thing at stake is a trophy and bragging rights. Now that there are millions riding on the outcome, not to mention a thriving industry and national pride, the UCI should have no problem fully explaining it's policies, it's judgments, and the evidence on which these judgments are based. If the flow cytometry test looks a bit iffy, then maybe they should be supplimenting it with more definitive tests.

James Felstead

[QUOTE=JohnO] You want to place the burden of proof on Tyler, while I say it should rest on the UCI. They are the ones making the accusation, they should bear the burden of proof. QUOTE]

???

So you don't think three seperate positive tests does this? I would say the burden of proof is entirely on Tyler. The UCI has a test in place which he has failed at least three times. I think that pretty much rules out the 'false positive' argument. So in their eyes they've proved that he cheated.

If he doesn't accept their test results then why is the burden of proof on them?

It amazes me that so many people who know absolutely sod all about this level of science seem so unable to accept these results and convolute these amazing theories that somehow in their own minds render the tests as questionable.

I think everyone has had at least moments of admiration for Tyler over recent years but wake up - unless he comes up with a pretty compelling argument his career is over.

Brunswick_kate

It all comes down to the notion of "what constitutes proof?". For some, the report of three failed test results is adequate proof. For others, the skeptical and the cynical at heart, the test results are categorized as 'accusation' -- let's bring on the proof. It's a judgement call based on one's personal experiences.

As for myself, I'm shameless in my skepticism. Do I think Tyler Hamilton, nice clean cut young man that he appears to be, may have doped and cheated. Yes, it's a possibility - not proven but not disproved either. Do I think that the UCI and other doping authorities **may** have made a mistake? Yup, I think that ball's still in play too. Despite all appearances to the contrary, fence sitting gets rather comfortable if you use the right technique.

While some debaters may be amazed and confounded by this lack of belief in the pronouncements of our betters, some of us can't help but be jaded by a a bit of real world experience in the matters of determining guilt and innocence.

I'm quite convinced that the people in doping control authorities, from lab techs to policy makers, are well educated, well trained, consciencious, careful, dedicated, hard working people trying to do the right thing for the right reasons. I'm sure they're very much like the people I work with who are well educated, well trained etc doing the right thing for the right reasons in the criminal justice system.

Doping control authorities, around the world and at all levels, have a wonderful and enviable track record. Does this make them infalliable? No, it doesn't. The criminal justice system prides itself on the notion that it is better to free 10 guilty parties than to convict one innocent man. The entire system is built around supporting that very philosophical belief. Presumption of innocence for the accused; burden of proof on the prosecution, all the procedurual requirements, all the rules of evidence, the entire system is rigged, rightly so, in favour of the accused. And in spite of this and in spite of all our good intentions, we still managed to get it wrong sometimes.

Not frequently. Most of the time we get it right. In the UK, it has been estimated that there may be up to 15 cases of wrongful conviction annually. Another estimate is up to as high as 0.1%. US estimates are placed at between 0.5 and 1%. Another source estimates it as up to 6000 cases annually. There are no wrongful conviction estimates for Canada or Australia that I've been able to locate.

This does not mean that the Canadian criminal justice system has not, on occasion, got it all so horribly and terribly wrong. Without getting into the rehash of individual case histories, I invite you to Google the following names:
Donald Marshall, David Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin, Thomas Sophonow, and my personal favourite for teaching us all a lesson in the need to challenge one's basic assumptions, Clayton Johnson. It turns out that not only was Mr. Johnson not responsible for his wife's murder, she hadn't been murdered in the first place. She really did fall down the stairs. Too bad someone hadn't checked that bit out before Mr Johnson did 11 years in the pen for a murder that never happened. But I digress...but all these matters do have one great commonality -- the a priori assumption of guilt whereby all subsequent evidence is filtered through that perspective.

My point is that all human enterprises are subject to human failings. Is Tyler Hamilton guilty? I don't know. He's been accused. At some point in time, he will be afforded the opportunity to answer to those charges. And, I'm assuming at that time doping control officials will have their opportunity to demonstrate the accuracy, sensitivity and ultimate fairness of their test and the associated testing procedures.

And personally, and while appreciating that not all persons share this perspective, I think that until both parties have been heard, it's not reasonable to come to a conclusion on this matter.

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

James Felstead

Kate

Whilst I appreciate your lengthy discussion on the problems faced by any legal system, especially in the face of 'real world' scenarios that do not always fit within the system's boundaries, refute the ethical basis of a system and so forth - do you not think that this is over elaborating the situation here?

you talk about the 'reporting' of three failed tests but surely those tests exist, those test were made and in each case the tests were failed. From my understanding that does constitute proof. Isn't that what a test is for?

Dictionary definition:

test

A procedure for critical evaluation; a means of determining the presence, quality, or truth of something; a trial: a test of one's eyesight; subjecting a hypothesis to a test; a test of an athlete's endurance.
A series of questions, problems, or physical responses designed to determine knowledge, intelligence, or ability.
A basis for evaluation or judgment: “A test of democratic government is how Congress and the president work together” (Haynes Johnson).
Chemistry.
A physical or chemical change by which a substance may be detected or its properties ascertained.
A reagent used to cause or promote such a change.
A positive result obtained.

These aren't accusations made based on rumour or testimony or opinion, they're a scientific procedure undertaken to establish a non-subjective judgement.

As I understand it (and I'm not an expert in scientific matters like this) the issue of detecting foreign blood is one that has been around for a long time - this isn't some brand new test for a new drug. It's a fairly well established procedure and from the various commentaries from more medically minded observers I’ve read is a fairly straightforward matter.

I can't help but feel that the prevalent response - to question the validity of the test (by the fan, by the rider, by the team) is at best self delusional and at worst malicious.

You mention being faded by real world experiences. Well how many of us are jaded by every athlete who tests positive claiming something wrong with the tests? I mean if everyone is honest with themselves, if you accept that this might have happened in the past (ie a false positive test), what percentage of positive tests do people really feel fall in this category? I've given up believing athletes who automatically jump on the testing method.

I am one of the most sceptical people around (notably gleaming with pride when at the age of seven my Aunt exclaimed how cynical I was) but I’m much more cynical when it comes to riders than I am about the UCI or testing procedures. The hypocrisy displayed in many people’s response to a clean-cut American boy’ failing a test rather than some ‘dirty, untrustworthy European’ is shameful and self-delusional beyond belief. I would have thought that recent experiences with America’s track and field stars should have exploded that myth.

I hate the fact that yet another world famous rider has tested positive, and especially so in this case as Tyler would seem to otherwise represent a great role model for the sport. I sincerely hope he is innocent and can prove it – I really do. But I cannot see how it is up to anyone other than himself to prove that this is the case.

Cycling is clearly a sport with a dirty history, probably never having been clean at any point. Some might argue that it is unlikely to ever be and we should stop trying to make it so – but that is whole different argument.

In my view if we ever want to make any progress in cleaning up the sport then everyone: the organisation, the riders, the teams, the sponsors, the fans, the media all need to start accepting responsibility for what is happening.

Brunswick_kate

Well, James, you speak so well on so many of the salient issues. We have been lied to before. We've been lied to repeatedly. None of us really believe in the Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy anymore, as much as we'd like to believe in the mythology of it. Is it a surprise to any of us that there is drug abuse in cycling? Is there a surprise that there's drug abuse in all levels of professional sport? I don't think it surprises anyone. There's a drug problem in society -- it's not confined to athletes nor are athletes exempt from it.

And in the interest of utter self disclosure, I do not understand the entire body of science behind the test. I've been working on it but my interest of more intellectual curiousity than any burning desire. I have some questions, none of which are appropriate to post on this forum, namely because they are minutia of exceedingly tedious fussbudgeting.

I'm sorry if I sounded like I was dubious of the existence of the testing procedure. What I was trying to say is that I have no knowledge, nor whould I ever have, of Mr. Hamilton's test results. Somebody "told" me...ie the media, that he failed the tests. I haven't examined them personally, nor would it make any sense to me if the raw data was dumped on my lap. Like you, I am no expert on this matter. I have no doubt that the report is accurate. I don't think anyone is lying about the test results. He did, by accepted standards, fail the test which if I read correctly, indicated that he had a mixed RBC population, indicative of homologous blood transfusion. Until the rest of the story unfolds, I really can't comment because I don't know and I've got into enough trouble elsewhere by thinking aloud.

Your post does bring out a couple of tangential issues that I've been kicking around in my brain. I haven't got answers yet...these are still just questions. Why do any of us give a damn anyway? What is it about this issue that evokes such passions in many of us? Why do we make "role models" out of athletes in the first place? Seriously...Tyler Hamilton or <fill in the name of rider of your choice> rides a bicycle really really really well. He can ride it faster, bigger, better, stronger than 99.99999999999% of the other human beings on the face of the earth. By what standard does this qualify him as a role model for any of us except for that very narrow slice of the population who want to ride bicycles for a living? Really, there's only one person in the world who should consider Tyler Hamilton a "hero" and that's Haven Hamilton, and God willing, might he always be one to her.

Maybe, just maybe, all of us ought to re-examine our expectations. Personally, I think these questions may in long run prove more interesting than the specifics of the Tyler Hamilton case.

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

VeloFlash

You cannot draw a comparison between a justice system, criminal or civil, and the rules related testing procedure that has found an infraction of those rules against TH.

"Human failings" in criminal justice systems do result in felons being acquitted and innocents being convicted. Inept prosecutors, inept defence lawyers, witnesses knowingly providing false testimony, police obtaining irrefutable evidence that is ruled inadmissable, etc. All human failings.

Where is the prospect of this human failing in the TH case to prove his positive test was in fact a false positive?

TH would have had a qualified representative at his Vuelta B test to ensure it was his sample and testing procedures were correctly followed. That is the check and balance to the A sample test. If the B test was faulted there would not have been the outcome reported and Phonak suspending TH.

What are TH's defences against a result that, to be defensible, can be proved (on balance of probabilities not beyond all reasonable doubt) to be sourced to human failings? None that I am aware of.

The B test result confirming the A test result rules out identity of the sample and incorrect testing procedures.

What are Tylers likely defences? He has to prove his blood is not normal and is atypical resulting in a false positive. No human failing there.

He has to prove that there are flaws in the trial testing of the procedure. This test is not new. It may be new to PED testing in sport but has been around in hospitals for over 10 years. It only just recently has been adapted to sport.

WADA have now taken formal responsibility to include and exclude PED's on the list (exclude? Eg., caffeine was dropped last year). The IOC when in control of accepting tests was extremely reluctant to institute any new drug testing procedures and, in the past, refused to fund field testing of trials for the detection of drugs like Hgh. This formed part of the negative image formed of the IOC, dominated by the largesse of its members, that it operated in a corrupt manner and was prepared to turn a blind eye to drugs as the likelihood of record breaking performances ensured full stadia which equals increased revenues.

Drug testing procedures that are used by the IOC and UCI have been heavily scrutinised to ensure there is absolutely nothing within the reports of the independent trials that could be used to discredit the tests. If there were there would be a party or parties at some time in the future facing huge damages claims through loss of earnings and reputation from all athletes found positive from the test.

The only human failing I can see are that sports scientists failed during the trials (and covered up?) and WADA failed in detecting this departure.

It is not up to the UCI and WADA to prove their trials and testing as you claim - "bring on the proof". The onus falls on TH, if he appeals, to disprove. And, as you would be aware BK, he cannot use the process of an appeal to mount a fishing expedition for evidence to establish a case. He has to establish his case when lodging his appeal.

Tyler is not "accused", as you claim, whereupon a case is prepared by WADA/UCI to support that accusation. TH has, by failing a drug test for a performance enhancing adaption, been found in breach of the rules and, pending an appeal, is to be sanctioned possibly with a 2 year suspension. He is not "accused" of being "guilty" of any misbehaviour that in strict legal terms must be a felony or misdemeanour. The failure of both the A and B sample UCI tests is evidence TH is in breach of the rules. Game, set and match pending an appeal.

__________________
VF

"Remember, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat"

gntlmn

I don't think many would argue, either from the defense perspective or the prosecution, that the DNA testing, when the untampered evidence is available, shrinks these wrongful convictions rather dramatically. In fact, they are the very reason many times that we hear of these wrongful convictions in the first place. The innocent are released from prison after the DNA tests show that the convicted party should not have been convicted. To present the record as support against believing the results of such tests seems to be a little bit illogical.

Don't we have a responsibility as citizens interested in justice to facilitate the continued improvement of such techniques? For Tyler to sit on the sidelines and to allow this charade to continue, if he really is innocent, without taking active steps to prove his innocence indicates that he doesn't want to cooperate in a process that only strives to be fair to all the athletes in eliminating the dopers from taking the prize from those who really deserve it.

Brunswick_kate

Yes, I'm starting to understand. Primary differences between the two systems are striking. It borders on sheer brilliance. The accusation IS the proof and the veracity of the entire process is, by definition, completely irrelevant.

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

tcklyde

I'm with you on this. I appreciate Tyler's strong denial. If he is being honest, he's made done so eloquently.

But if he is honest, why the heck isn't he doing an information dump. Why isn't getting his trainer and personal physician to speak up. Why isn't he submitting his blood to more tests? Why isn't he getting everyone imaginable to vouch for him? IS there a reason he can't do this? Why is he hanging out at Interbike and not fighting tooth and nail?

Of course, I believe Tyler is innocent until proven guilty. UCI is investigating. But at this point, personally, I think he's guilty as sin. He didn't know they were going to be testing for blood doping. The test really is pretty darn good. And he pulled positives under two different authorities. In court, we may presume him innocent. But as a fan, looking at the evidence, I wish he'd give us a bit more.

__________________
Harry

Brunswick_kate

In what sense is it illogical? The development of DNA testing technology did a lot to illuminate the issue and has been used as exonerating evidence in a number of cases but by no means all cases. I can think of several off hand that were not dependent on DNA technology.



Apparently, as I have just recently learned, the notion of justice, fair play, and sport are mutually exclusive categories.



Really. What inside information do you have on what Tyler Hamilton may or may not be doing to .... well, he can't prove his innocence because he's all ready guilty by definition....whatever. Do you know who he has spoken to? Do you know who he has consulted? I know he certainly doesn't confer with me about his defense strategies. Does he check in with you on a regular basis?

So there we have it. Those who believe sincerely and whole heartedly, for good and excellent reasons, that he is guilty still believe he is guilty. Those who think he's innocent, although he can't be innocent because he's guilty by definition still think he's innocent in the non-technical sense of the word "innocent". And those of us who don't know still don't know enough to figure out the science behind the whole thing. Nothing's changed since last week, then.

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

VeloFlash

BK, while you are uncomfortably sitting on that fence trying to claim objectivity, you are making your position more unbalanced and precarious by repeatedly shooting from the hip.

I suggest you read the UCI anti-doping rules -

http://www.uci.ch/imgArchive/Rules/AER%202005%20.pdf

You may note that the UCI were extremely reluctant to adopt the WADA rules (IIRC, they were the last sporting organisation) but their hand was forced when, if they had not adopted, cycling events ran under the umbrella of the UCI would have been excluded from the Athens 2004 Olympics. Also it is notable that the UCI finally agreed by signing in August 2004, before the Olympics but after the 2004 TdF.

The UCI now has to contend with greater scrutiny of its drug testing procedures and external accountability.

I take it your "sheer brilliance" remark was meant to imply the UCI/IOC/WADA system is contrived to lack fairness and impartiality when compared with truly democratic systems of justice. Read the rules. It is not a kangaroo court as you appear to be suggesting.

__________________
VF

"Remember, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat"

Brunswick_kate

thanks for the reference. I will.

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

gntlmn

One of these days, I'll figure out how to do dispersed quotes. In the meantime, bear with me please as I answer in order.

My point on the DNA testing is that it severely shrinks the number of people who are wrongly convicted. If someone is wrongly convicted of a crime where DNA testing was not used, then that fact becomes part of the data leading to the statistical statements you made about false convictions. However, that's irrelevant to our discussion about Tyler's doping. You were talking about crime in general. Sure we would like for that number, the number of wrongful convictions, to shrink to zero, but there are many other problems in the world which we would like to see eliminated: hunger, disease, war, racism, aging, to name a few. Why focus on wrongly convicted criminals? It doesn't seem like it pertains to our discussion of Tyler's blood test results. That's why I said it was illogical to mention it here.

As for whether "justice, fair play, and sport are mutually exclusive categories" as you suggest, then that says you don't care whether Tyler is guilty or innocent of doping. I think most of us here want to know the truth, not to categorize his doping--whether it's because he was otherwise known as a good sport or otherwise known as a fair player--as being in a category of its own. That's why I participate in these discussions--to try to learn the truth and to see that the sport is heading in the direction of less doping, not more.

Tyler has made claims to the media that he thinks the tests were tampered with. Well, if you read carefully how the test works, he could exonerate himself by taking new tests and showing the world the results. He would test negative now. Although we don't know when Tyler allegedly infused blood into his system, we know that if he never did, as he claims, then he would come up with negative results immediately after testing positive. He would only be able to do this if the samples were tampered with as he claims. You see, the markers for the foreign blood remain in his system for 90 to 120 days, that's 3 to 4 MONTHS, not days, hours or minutes--MONTHS.

Now tell me, why would he not want such tests to be disclosed to the general public? He has already lost his endorsement contracts. If he had done this right away, as he would have if he didn't dope (why wouldn't he?), then he might have gotten his contracts back. Furthermore, he would have avoided a great deal of negative publicity. He may have even been reinstated as an active member of Phonak. The team manager suspended him only after first refusing to believe the drug results. But he has looked at them carefully, and he cannot deny them either. This means he would understand what a current negative result would mean--that Tyler is probably innocent. But it's not happening. Tyler is not coming public with these results. How do I know? Because it's not on the front page of every major newspaper all over the world. I don't have to have inside information to figure this out. I just have to look at the newspapers and see no Tyler exoneration news.

Do you see what I'm driving at? When you look deeper at this case, it becomes much more clear what is going on.