Tyler Innocent?

House

Meehs- do you get who I was referring to now? Mr. Spelling King aka little puppy dog! LOL

It's cool man. You just came off like the person I was talking about at first.

meehs

Yeah House I kinda figured you were referring to Flyer as I've read some of the verbal sparring between you two. I understand your frustration to some extent. Sometimes I agree with Flyer and sometimes I don't.

FWIW: It seems to me that Flyer is very well informed about doping in the pro cycling ranks and it's obvious that he's very passionate about the damage it's doing to the sport and the influence that it has on young cyclists. I totally respect that.

Edit: House - Did you take your username from the television show? I don't watch a lot of TV but I love that show!

limerickman

I think you need to relax.
Meehs, is probably one of the most objective posters here and doesn't "wade in"
on issues.

You're attempting to re-write history here.
TH has been found guilty.
His defence has been rejected.

I can see that this whole TH episode is a disappointment to fans like you.
And while I sympathise on human level, I think the decison is binding.

House

Go back and read what I wrote again...I never said anything about innocence or guilt merely responded to his request for sources on the extortionist angle. Perhaps you shouldn't just "wade-in" No offence intended.

davidbod

Here is a link to the full UASDA decision in the Hamilton case.

http://www.usantidoping.org/files/a...%20-%20Hamilton[1].pdf

The part I have trouble with is the original verdict on the Olympics test was negative, then changed to positive over a month later by a panel consisting of members who have a vested interest in the success of the testing method and knowing who the sample had come from. The sample at the Vuelta had a significantly lower reading than the Olympics sample, meaning that if the original technician at the Olympics had judged both samples (Olympics and Vuelta) they would have both been deemed negative. To say that this whole process has been tampered with is an understatement.

limerickman

Well what do you call, calling in to question the decision against TH ?
You were advocating that TH was innocent.

He has been proven guilty.

Learn to live with it.
No offence intended.

House

Learn to read. Apparently you have decided to put something in that isn't there. Nice try.

limerickman

You learn to remember - you state that you maintain that TH is innocent.
Despite the fact that his defence has shown to be defective.

VeloFlash

I refer you to the Arbitration ruling. The dissenting panel member, Christopher L Campbell, stated at page 14 of 20 (PDF numbering) final paragraph: "USADA presented a peer-reviewed study conducted by Margaret Nelson & associates ("Nelson Study") as the validation for the new WADA Transfusion Positivity Criteria in question in these proceedings."

Where did he "made mincemeat of the guys who developed this thing"? I cannot find such events in the rulings. He (Housman, MIT expert) is referenced in the notes by the two panel members in agreement that they have dismissed his theory and have provided opposite findings. If he had made "mincemeat" of the test developers the USADA case would have been dismissed and TH would have been competing.

The TH team were not confident of the outcome as they asked for a one month's extension to introduce new evidence. No new evidence was introduced. If the decision was in TH's favour in March 2005 he would have been time eligible to enter the TdG.

Are you saying there is a conspiracy existing between UCI, WADA, USADA, 2 arbitration members and the test developers? If so, TH had the odds stacked against him!

system=conspiracy?

That is part of the findings history preamble. The panel were not asked to rule on Athens. Could not and did not have any bearing on the Vuelta outcome. From recollection, an enquiry found that the lab testers had implemented the procedures incorrectly. Was not the Vuelta samples processed by a different lab?

Irrelevant to the Vuelta outcome.

And if you had studied the findings you would have deduced that he had submitted to two blood analyses which showed no mixed blood population to support the research conducted by van Dijk (referred to final paragraph of page 10 of 20 of PDF). Van Dijk claimed it is "probable" that a human chimera can have fluctuations between mixed and single blood populations. TH had presented 2 blood analyses to the panel (one by Housman testimony) that only showed a single population. In support of this van Dijk "probability" theory there should have been other analyses around about the same time that showed TH's blood population had fluctuated. Pretty difficult to get a panel to support a probability theory if you do not provide applicable evidence.

TH's objective was not to be transparent. Only desperation that the panel would swallow that his now lack of a mixed blood population related to him being a human chimera with fluctuating blood populations.

__________________
VF

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

House

Show me the post in this thread where I "stated that I maintain TH is innocent" You can't because I never said it. You are acting like the trained puppy now, making up stuff to suit what you want it to...and just like your hero you just got made to look like a fool. You took a conversation between Meehs and I about the extortionist and tried to turn it into something it wasn't. Care to get smacked around again?