Any words on Tyler's test results?

gntlmn

What's the point of the sarcasm? If you have something to say about why he doesn't take new tests and make them public, why don't you say it? I think he knows the new tests will come up positive just like they did in the Vuelta and in the Olympics. That's why he's "getting on with his life" instead of proving the testing was flawed, and his blood clean. His inaction seems to indicate his blood is not clean, and he can't get away with lying about it anymore. The tests nailed him. I'm glad they did. We don't need another dead cyclist. There have been too many lately.

Brunswick_kate

What sarcasm? One of the biggest and most fundamental differences between you and me is that I don't pretend to have the inside scoop. I'm willing to admit that I don't know. I don't read minds. I don't read tea leaves. I don't talk to Tyler Hamilton. I'm not in his immediate circle of advisors. He doesn't consult with me.

I haven't read anything where he said he was "getting on with his life". Again, are you his lawyer? His physician? His publicist? His agent? His team manager or owner? No? Then it's highly unlikely that he's going to ring you up and get your opinion on the matter. The fact of the matter is that you don't know the details of his legal strategy. I don't know the status of his current situation.

In fact, this thread has just about reached its natural conclusion. You are unwilling to give a man an opportunity to defend himself. I am unwilling to damn him without hearing him. We are now arguing ethics and values and it is unlikely that either one of us are going to budge on these basic principles.

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

VeloFlash

I have not heard to the contrary, but I understand that Tyler was taking the matter to a hearing where he will be pleading his defence. This hearing is before his national federation, ie US, and I read that USADA will be convening that hearing.

I speculate the grounds for defence would be one or more of the following:

1. The tests are flawed and unreliable and, by introducing scientific evidence, evidence the results could produce a false positive.

2. The tests are flawed and unreliable and did produce a false positive as evidenced by the results of an alternative analysis taken soon after the Vuelta announcement of the positive result.

3. He is a chimera.

If another test was conducted within a reasonable time after the Vuelta positive results it would have to be undertaken by an independent and reliable laboratory acceptable to USADA.

Tyler's legal defence team would not be telegraphing the grounds for his defence. Furthermore, allowing media and public speculation prior to the hearing may not be in the interests of the defence's case. Particularly after reading the inane drivel that has been produced by emotional laypersons in forums and letters in his speculative defence.

According to the UCI rules the standards of proof applicable are for the UCI/USADA must be between balance of probabilities and reasonable doubt. That would be relating to the test result and procedures. Whereas, Tyler's defence in rebuttal only require a standard of proof based on the balance of probabilities.

__________________
VF

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

JohnO

I have to say, Kate, you carry yourself well.

One thing that people outside the USA must keep in mind - we have had six years of groundless doping accusations fired towards Lance, while he accomplishes what no cyclist has ever been able to do. We have a lot of people shouting 'doping' at Lance as he wins TDF #5 and #6 (and 1, 2, 3, and 4, for that matter), while here in the USA, a Japanese citizen is about to break a baseball record that has stood since the 1920's, and we cheer him on.

So if we look askance when people start attacking Tyler on the basis of, shall we say, less than concrete foundations, you must understand - this looks like round 10 of 'Lance must be Doping because he is beating us'.

Perhaps Tyler is guilty. It is quite possible, in which case this is a tragic tale of how strong character wasn't strong enough. But with the somewhat imprecise nature of the test used, the fact that Tyler was the only cyclist caught with the new test out of hundreds tested, the long history of false accusations and general animosity towards Lance, and even Dick Pound of the WADA, buddying up with David Walsh of the Accuse Lance Without A Shred Of Proof organization, you must understand that the circumstances regarding Tyler's doping accusation are not exactly brimming with objectivity.

gntlmn

There you go again. Wow! I never said anything directly to the effect or suggested that I had an inside scoop. I said that an inside scoop was unnecessary. All you have to do is read the news. If you haven't read the comments, then you haven't read this thread. I'm sorry, but please don't attack me for claiming to have an inside scoop when I clearly am stating the opposite.

Tyler has not come up with evidence to substantiate the attacks he has made on the validity of the test results. At one point, he said the other blood in his system might have been from surgery. At another point, he said the samples may have been tampered with. He has not provided evidence of this into the same forum as he has placed his attacks, if he has any evidence. This forum is the public eye.

Given that he has made unsubstantiated attacks on the organization which is moving forward to make the sport safer for all pro cyclists in keeping riders clean of doping, it seems fair to attack him for not doing so. That's what I'm doing. I am refusing to believe claims that he has made because he has not presented his evidence in the same forum that he has made his attacks. Granted, everyone should have a chance to defend himself. But when you do it in a way that makes no sense based on the evidence already presented, namely the results, it seems fair to refute those attacks. Otherwise, many people might not see the truth.

The subject of this thread is the test results, not so much ethics and values. Tyler flunked 3 out of 3 tests, and had questionable results on other blood tests earlier in the season when he won two other races. You want to keep refusing to take a good hard look at the evidence. If you did, you would say that it doesn't make sense with what he is saying. I did give him the benefit of the doubt before, when I hadn't read as much as I have now. But I don't anymore.

Most people don't have time to read much technical data. What they hear is Tyler saying he is innocent, and that the test results are false. It's time to balance these unsubstantiated claims. That's what I'm doing. He doesn't have any evidence that he has presented into the media. Therefore, he should have kept his mouth shut about it. A better approach would have been to say that he was withholding comment until the matter was resolved with his attorneys and the UCI. He could have even said that he expected the matter to be resolved to his satisfaction. Since he has not taken that approach, choosing instead to give unsubstantiated reasons for the falsity of the tests, then I won't keep quiet about his lack of substantiation for his comments.

gntlmn

As I said with Kate, Tyler has taken comments into the public arena and has not substantiated those comments into the same arena. Therefore, I am refuting his attacks on the testing due to the fact that he has not substantiated them. He has not come up with evidence that the tests were false. Since he is silent about the evidence, he should have been silent with the attacks and chosen a no comment strategy. He has not. Therefore, I am calling to question the idea that the samples were tampered with. Until he produces clean samples which were dated on or about the date when he was informed of the positive test results, then I hope that the general public doesn't believe him until they see those results.

Court and legal matters are one thing, but when claims are made to the media, then he better be able to back them up with some evidence. He has not. They haven't printed anything like that.

gntlmn

How do you come up with the idea that the test is somewhat imprecise? How do you get the idea that the doping "accusation" is not an objective result, given that Tyler flunked a test that all other riders were required to pass? How do you condone a flunked test when the alleged doper is the one beating out all the others who have passed the test?

I'm with you about Lance. He's never failed a doping test. If we are to remain objective, then we need to continue to look at the evidence even when it doesn't go the way we want it to. That's the fair and objective approach.

JohnO

The flow cytometry test is at best a screening test. A positive indicates only that an abnormal number of what might be foreign blood cells were detected. There are several explanations for this, one of which is a homologous blood transfusion. Another is being a chimera, and another is certain types of infections. Point being - the flow cytometry test is not proof positive that the person did get a blood transfusion. There are more specific tests that can pin down the source, but they aren't being used.

My problem with all of this is that the WADA and UCI take a suspicion as guilt, and see no reason to go further. The attitude seems to be - we think you might be bad, so prove otherwise. This is far below what the rules of evidence in any credible court of law would require.

That wouldn't be a problem with club racing, where the group is small and the only thing at stake is a trophy or bragging rights. But this isn't club racing, it is an international sport that has exploded in growth, with multimillion dollar careers. If an organization like the UCI wishes to assume the position of judge and arbiter of a multibillion dollar sport, then their decisions should at least be governed by the rules of evidence required in a courtroom. This one was not. If anything, I think that the sport of cycling has grown a lot faster than the UCI. Let's forget about WADA - they have long since moved from being impartial arbiter to pit bull accuser. While we need a pit bull to keep the dopers at bay, let's not lose sight of the fact that they can bark at the moon, too.

Honestly, it doesn't look good for Tyler. And the UCI is probably right. Probably. Once again, though, we aren't talking about getting kicked out of the club. We're talking about the destruction of a career. If you're going to do that, you should grant them more than a wink and a nod before you do it.

Granted, I probably wouldn't have paid as much attention if Tyler hadn't been American, but I'm seeing a rebirth of cycling over here as the result of Lance, Tyler, Levi, Bobby, Floyd, and a host of others. I'm back riding a bike as a result, and so are a lot of people. I hate to see all of that go down the drain, because of a club mentality on the part of the governing body.