PHONAK denied: Hamilton sacked!

Steven L. Sheffield said:

Wonder what Floyd is gonna do now?

Go to CSC?

--
Firefox Web Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/

On 11/30/2004 05:21 AM, in article
[email hidden], "Ewoud Dronkert"

Quoted message said:

Steven L. Sheffield said:

Wonder what Floyd is gonna do now?

Go to CSC?

One can hope.

--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [foreword] slash

From ProCycling's web site:

"More than the confirmation of the cases of doping of which certain members
of the team had been suspected over recent months, it is the attitude of the
management of this team with regard to these cases which led to serious
reservations," said the commission."

It looks more and more like these guys were targeted based on factual
evidence gathered during the new UCI blood tests. It's looking very bleak
for Hamilton at this point.

The question begs--Will he come clean and tell all that he knows?

"Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Wonder what Floyd is gonna do now?

http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=reu-phonak&prov=reuters&type=lgns

--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [foreword] slash

Brian --

Forgetting the Vuelta test for the moment, why do you keep ignoring the
fact that a) Tyler's Athens test was deemed negative twice before being
deemed "positive" by a panel of "experts" 28 days after the original
test, and b) that the UCI and WADA refuse to conduct DNA tests on
either sample to prove that it is indeed Tyler's blood?

Steven L. Sheffield said:

On 11/30/2004 05:21 AM, in article
[email hidden], "Ewoud Dronkert"

Quoted message said:

Steven L. Sheffield said:

Wonder what Floyd is gonna do now?

Go to CSC?

One can hope.

Or to Sunny D.

[email hidden said:

"]Brian --

Forgetting the Vuelta test for the moment, why do you keep ignoring the
fact that a) Tyler's Athens test was deemed negative twice before being
deemed "positive" by a panel of "experts" 28 days after the original
test, and b) that the UCI and WADA refuse to conduct DNA tests on
either sample to prove that it is indeed Tyler's blood?

Convincing Brian is hardly relevant. It seems to me it is a lot more important to convince the UCI.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Brian --

Forgetting the Vuelta test for the moment, why do you keep ignoring the
fact that a) Tyler's Athens test was deemed negative twice before being
deemed "positive" by a panel of "experts" 28 days after the original
test, and b) that the UCI and WADA refuse to conduct DNA tests on
either sample to prove that it is indeed Tyler's blood?

From VeloNews 9/23/04:

The blood sample taken from Hamilton in Athens was one of 385 whole blood
samples tested for evidence of a homologous blood transfusion - the presence
of blood from another person. According to Ljungqvist, Hamilton's was the
only one that showed evidence of such blood doping.
"When we reviewed it, there were varying opinions," he said, noting
laboratory officials in Athens only considered the sample to be "suspect."

The IOC subsequently formed an independent panel to review the test data
from the first sample. The outside experts concluded the results to be more
than just suspect, Ljungqvist said.

"The sample was deemed clearly positive," he said. "The expert panel
concluded that this was clearly a positive."

Again ... it was not the lab that deemed the test positive. It was an
outside panel of "experts".

What were their qualifications?

And why, if the IOC/UCI/WADA are so sure their tests are accurate, will
they not allow the blood to be DNA tested to prove conclusively that it
is (or is not) Tyler's blood?

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Again ... it was not the lab that deemed the test positive. It was an
outside panel of "experts".

What were their qualifications?

Again, the representations from the Tyler spinmasters is that the lab first
found the A sample negative, not once but twice. The IOC has said that the
lab found the A sample "suspect." IIRC, there was one lab tech who was said
to have labeled the suspect finding, in error, as negative.

Quoted message said:

And why, if the IOC/UCI/WADA are so sure their tests are accurate, will
they not allow the blood to be DNA tested to prove conclusively that it
is (or is not) Tyler's blood?

I don't have any definative answer but, I can speculate.

Perhaps, they have run their own DNA test which shows that Tyler blood doped
but are waiting to be ordered by CAS to provide Tyler with an opportunity to
do his own analysis. At that point they will produce thier DNA analysis and
blow the tugboat out of the water.

Time will tell.

Quoted message said:

"Tuschinski" <[email hidden]> schreef in
bericht news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Brian --

Forgetting the Vuelta test for the moment, why do you keep ignoring
the
fact that a) Tyler's Athens test was deemed negative twice before
being
deemed "positive" by a panel of "experts" 28 days after the original
test, and b) that the UCI and WADA refuse to conduct DNA tests on
either sample to prove that it is indeed Tyler's blood?

Convincing Brian is hardly relevant. It seems to me it is a lot more
important to convince the UCI.

Yes, it will be very hard to convince the UCI to 'forget the Vuelta test for
a moment'.

Quoted message said:

--
Tuschinski

B. Lafferty said:

I don't have any definative answer but, I can speculate.

Candyass!

Bob Schwartz
[email hidden]

Or perhaps they did their own DNA test and it was negative but
"suspicious" so they're waiting for their "panel of experts" to make a
decision.

"Bob Schwartz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

I don't have any definative answer but, I can speculate.

Candyass!

Thanks, Bob. That's the first time I've ever been called that. ;-)

B. Lafferty said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Again ... it was not the lab that deemed the test positive. It was an
outside panel of "experts".

What were their qualifications?

Again, the representations from the Tyler spinmasters is that the lab first
found the A sample negative, not once but twice. The IOC has said that the
lab found the A sample "suspect." IIRC, there was one lab tech who was said
to have labeled the suspect finding, in error, as negative.

Just a quibble. The lab is analyzing lots and lots of samples. The tech
labels it as negative for whatever reason. What causes them to go back and
re-analyze the same sample? To me this is cause. A real forensics lab has
the samples encoded, with the names of the person being tested unknown to
the tester to rule out bias. It seems rather obvious to me that the
identity of this sample was known, and perhaps b/c of other factors was
reviewed again. Though this isn't usually a criminal type case, despite
possession(?) of EPO or homologous blood without prescription may be a
crime, we need to stop this BS kind of testing and re-testing and have the
labs follow pure chain-of-custody and barcoding techniques. It's not so
much a matter of catching the dopers by whatever means necessary - it's
about correct science. Once the powers start going to the 'by whatever
means' method even the innocent aren't safe from false allegations.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And why, if the IOC/UCI/WADA are so sure their tests are accurate, will
they not allow the blood to be DNA tested to prove conclusively that it
is (or is not) Tyler's blood?

I don't have any definative answer but, I can speculate.

Perhaps, they have run their own DNA test which shows that Tyler blood doped
but are waiting to be ordered by CAS to provide Tyler with an opportunity to
do his own analysis. At that point they will produce thier DNA analysis and
blow the tugboat out of the water.

Here again, we have the appearance of impropriety. It shouldn't be a matter
of vendetta. The officials should be held to a higher standard and should
not be talking about preliminary results, no matter how much press or glee
they derive.

-B

Quoted message said:

Time will tell.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Brian --

Forgetting the Vuelta test for the moment, why do you keep ignoring the
fact that a) Tyler's Athens test was deemed negative twice before being

Paging Needra Pickler. Ms Pickler, courtesy phone call please.

Badger South said:

Just a quibble. The lab is analyzing lots and lots of samples. The tech
labels it as negative for whatever reason. What causes them to go back and
re-analyze the same sample?

What if the tech didn't really know what he was looking for? It doesn't
make the test invalid as long as the procedure was followed.

Of the 10 or 12 antibodies used in the screen, how many would you expect
to light up a fraction of red cells of any two types of random mixed
blood? A mixed blood sample could have as few as *zero* if the cheater
was well funded enough, and lucky enough to find a matching donor for
all the minor blood group antigens (at least to the degree that the test
looks for them). I presume the design of the test took into
consideration that they couldn't use antibodies to all the different
antigens, so they had to chose a panel of antibodies that would make it
likely that there would be at least one antigenic difference between any
recipient and any ABO and Rh crossmatched donor. Maybe the tech thought
they would all light up?

What if one of the antibodies came back "positive" and all the rest
negative? What would the tech think? Did the cheater use blood that
only had one "mismatch" in the eye of the test, or is that one antibody
giving a false positive?

What if a sample showed that 5% of the red cells seemed to come from a
foreign donor by one or two antibodies, and another antibody shows that
some different number came from a foreign donor? One cheater using two
different donors?

Like you said, the lab is analyzing lots of samples. The tech probably
doesn't have time to sit down and think about results. The panel of
experts does. I believe them.

B. Lafferty said:

"Bob Schwartz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

I don't have any definative answer but, I can speculate.

Candyass!

Quoted message said:

Thanks, Bob. That's the first time I've ever been called that. ;-)

About a dope test result?

I must confess, I'd like to see a DNA test too. Sure, to establish
guilt or innocence by the presence of an alternate DNA. But mostly
to establish if the alternate DNA (if it exists) belongs to Perez.

That would verify Laudien's theory that the Phonak doctor got
canned for screwing up the transfusions. Laudien is not a candyass.

And I'm still waiting for some more detail on Tyler's surgical
event. Did he say anything about that in the BBC interview?

Bob "Rhetorical question" Schwartz
[email hidden]

"Badger South" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Again ... it was not the lab that deemed the test positive. It was an
outside panel of "experts".

What were their qualifications?

Again, the representations from the Tyler spinmasters is that the lab
first
found the A sample negative, not once but twice. The IOC has said that
the
lab found the A sample "suspect." IIRC, there was one lab tech who was
said
to have labeled the suspect finding, in error, as negative.

Just a quibble. The lab is analyzing lots and lots of samples. The tech
labels it as negative for whatever reason. What causes them to go back and
re-analyze the same sample?

I might have something to do with Hamilton having been suspected of doping
for some months and having been targeted.

Quoted message said:

To me this is cause. A real forensics lab has
the samples encoded, with the names of the person being tested unknown to
the tester to rule out bias. It seems rather obvious to me that the
identity of this sample was known, and perhaps b/c of other factors was
reviewed again.

I think the issues are whether or not the chain of custody was unbroken and
the testing procedure was conducted properly. Knowing the name really
doesn't impact on that any more than an athlete being present for the
analysis of his/her B sample.

Quoted message said:

Though this isn't usually a criminal type case, despite
possession(?) of EPO or homologous blood without prescription may be a
crime, we need to stop this BS kind of testing and re-testing and have the
labs follow pure chain-of-custody and barcoding techniques. It's not so
much a matter of catching the dopers by whatever means necessary - it's
about correct science. Once the powers start going to the 'by whatever
means' method even the innocent aren't safe from false allegations.

Were the Athens samples barcoded? It is higher tech than with none but the
chain of custody depends on accurate records of where the sample was at all
times and by whom it was handled. Were the seals intact when the sample was
opened for teating. Was the testing procedure than properly followed.?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And why, if the IOC/UCI/WADA are so sure their tests are accurate, will
they not allow the blood to be DNA tested to prove conclusively that it
is (or is not) Tyler's blood?

I don't have any definative answer but, I can speculate.

Perhaps, they have run their own DNA test which shows that Tyler blood
doped
but are waiting to be ordered by CAS to provide Tyler with an opportunity
to
do his own analysis. At that point they will produce thier DNA analysis
and
blow the tugboat out of the water.

Here again, we have the appearance of impropriety. It shouldn't be a
matter
of vendetta. The officials should be held to a higher standard and should
not be talking about preliminary results, no matter how much press or glee
they derive.

I don't think it is at all a matter of a vendetta. WADA/UCI doesn't need
DNA sampling to prove their case. Knowing that DNA might be used as a
defense, they may have prepared for that by having a DNA test done. Perhaps
not. I don't know what their protocall is as to testing of the samples
after doing A&B as above.

"Bob Schwartz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty <[email hidden]> wrote:
And I'm still waiting for some more detail on Tyler's surgical
event. Did he say anything about that in the BBC interview?

Not a word. But then the question was never asked.