From VeloNews:
Dear Editor,
I, too, am still amazed at the self-righteousness and contrived certainty from some of your readers who have completely written off Tyler Hamilton, especially when there has always been much uncertainty about his case. (See Monday's Mailbag.)
I for one still have serious doubts about his guilt, especially after reading about the trail of errors in his lab reports during his trial, and after the fact that one of his three arbitrators dissented and decided he was innocent (as also happened in Floyd's case). As for his association with Operación Puerto, the evidence was not "quite credible and completely damning" as Perry Brown writes; in fact, Tyler was never even formally charged, nor presented with actual evidence against which he could mount a defense. Let's also remember that Puerto was in mid-2006, when Tyler was serving out his ban, so it seems strange to me that he would be doping while not competing.
But, I can't be certain, so I refrain from absolute claims of Tyler's innocence, just as I think those who want to string Tyler up should exercise restraint. Tyler was only found "guilty" through a highly specious process that has clear interests in covering its own ass and clinging to an illusion of infallibility. It occurs to me that riders like Tyler and Floyd are found guilty because it's much easier to write off a single rider than to admit the possibility that there is corruption and incompetence rife throughout the anti-doping establishment. Since there can be corruption throughout the military (Abu Ghraib), corruption throughout a corporation (Enron), corruption throughout police departments (take your pick), why couldn't there be corruption in an anti-doping organization?
Regardless, let's remember that this was a world-class rider who won countless races with grace and humility long before his questionable conviction, all while dutifully taking time to share his trials and tribulations in daily journal entries, opening himself up to the world. That and his (effectively) three years served for a crime he may have not committed should earn him at least a second chance. I support you, Tyler, and hope to cheer you on at the Tour of California in February.
Mark Radcliffe
Los Angeles, California
Dear Editor,
I, too, am still amazed at the self-righteousness and contrived certainty from some of your readers who have completely written off Tyler Hamilton, especially when there has always been much uncertainty about his case. (See Monday's Mailbag.)
I for one still have serious doubts about his guilt, especially after reading about the trail of errors in his lab reports during his trial, and after the fact that one of his three arbitrators dissented and decided he was innocent (as also happened in Floyd's case). As for his association with Operación Puerto, the evidence was not "quite credible and completely damning" as Perry Brown writes; in fact, Tyler was never even formally charged, nor presented with actual evidence against which he could mount a defense. Let's also remember that Puerto was in mid-2006, when Tyler was serving out his ban, so it seems strange to me that he would be doping while not competing.
But, I can't be certain, so I refrain from absolute claims of Tyler's innocence, just as I think those who want to string Tyler up should exercise restraint. Tyler was only found "guilty" through a highly specious process that has clear interests in covering its own ass and clinging to an illusion of infallibility. It occurs to me that riders like Tyler and Floyd are found guilty because it's much easier to write off a single rider than to admit the possibility that there is corruption and incompetence rife throughout the anti-doping establishment. Since there can be corruption throughout the military (Abu Ghraib), corruption throughout a corporation (Enron), corruption throughout police departments (take your pick), why couldn't there be corruption in an anti-doping organization?
Regardless, let's remember that this was a world-class rider who won countless races with grace and humility long before his questionable conviction, all while dutifully taking time to share his trials and tribulations in daily journal entries, opening himself up to the world. That and his (effectively) three years served for a crime he may have not committed should earn him at least a second chance. I support you, Tyler, and hope to cheer you on at the Tour of California in February.
Mark Radcliffe
Los Angeles, California