A .250 batting average isn't even good in baseball.

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by crit pro, Sep 23, 2004.

  1. crit pro

    crit pro Guest

    3 failed drug tests. the fourth passed only on a technicality. IOC Doc
    said draw your own conclusions when asked if the fourth might have
    been a positive.

    cp
     
    Tags:


  2. TritonRider

    TritonRider Guest

    >From: [email protected] (crit pro)
    >Date: 9/23/2004 8:14 PM Eastern


    >3 failed drug tests. the fourth passed only on a technicality. IOC Doc
    >said draw your own conclusions when asked if the fourth might have
    >been a positive.
    >
    >cp


    Never thought we'd see this. I still want to see what Tyler actually comes up
    with in his defense, though it'd have to be pretty incredible.
    As for the IOC it's been pretty clear for a long time that they are sleazoid,
    money grubbing, lying cheating, stealing, ass kissing losers and that is just
    the IOC leadership.
    What's a little test doctoring and suppression compared to bribery, influence
    peddling, vote selling, ignoring China's human rights record to collect the
    cash etc...
    Bill C
     
  3. TM

    TM Guest

    "TritonRider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > >From: [email protected] (crit pro)
    > >Date: 9/23/2004 8:14 PM Eastern

    >
    > >3 failed drug tests. the fourth passed only on a technicality. IOC Doc
    > >said draw your own conclusions when asked if the fourth might have
    > >been a positive.
    > >
    > >cp

    >
    > Never thought we'd see this. I still want to see what Tyler actually

    comes up
    > with in his defense, though it'd have to be pretty incredible.
    > As for the IOC it's been pretty clear for a long time that they are

    sleazoid,
    > money grubbing, lying cheating, stealing, ass kissing losers and that is

    just
    > the IOC leadership.
    > What's a little test doctoring and suppression compared to bribery,

    influence
    > peddling, vote selling, ignoring China's human rights record to collect

    the
    > cash etc...
    > Bill C


    eezefray ethay odgay amnedday bay amplesay!
     
  4. Kyle Legate

    Kyle Legate Guest

    TritonRider wrote:
    >> From: [email protected] (crit pro)
    >> Date: 9/23/2004 8:14 PM Eastern

    >
    >> 3 failed drug tests. the fourth passed only on a technicality. IOC
    >> Doc
    >> said draw your own conclusions when asked if the fourth might have
    >> been a positive.
    >>
    >> cp

    >
    > Never thought we'd see this. I still want to see what Tyler actually
    > comes up with in his defense, though it'd have to be pretty
    > incredible.
    >

    His defence is simple. Give another blood sample right now, and another next
    week, and keep doing so for at least a couple of months. If he's innocent,
    these particular blood parameters should not change. Certainly he doesn't
    have a fridge full of the same blood to supplement with.
     
  5. TritonRider

    TritonRider Guest

    >From: "Kyle Legate" [email protected]

    >His defence is simple. Give another blood sample right now, and another next
    >week, and keep doing so for at least a couple of months. If he's innocent,
    >these particular blood parameters should not change. Certainly he doesn't
    >have a fridge full of the same blood to supplement with.
    >
    >
    >


    That's probably the most sensible thing anyone has suggested so far. So I'd
    guess that were back to the "snowball in hell" chance of anything like that
    happening.
    I do think that it's interesting that Andy seems to be taking a cautious
    approach to this whole controversy.
    Bill C
     
  6. Badger_South

    Badger_South Guest

    On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:57:11 +0200, "Kyle Legate" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >TritonRider wrote:
    >>> From: [email protected] (crit pro)
    >>> Date: 9/23/2004 8:14 PM Eastern

    >>
    >>> 3 failed drug tests. the fourth passed only on a technicality. IOC
    >>> Doc
    >>> said draw your own conclusions when asked if the fourth might have
    >>> been a positive.
    >>>
    >>> cp

    >>
    >> Never thought we'd see this. I still want to see what Tyler actually
    >> comes up with in his defense, though it'd have to be pretty
    >> incredible.
    >>

    >His defence is simple. Give another blood sample right now, and another next
    >week, and keep doing so for at least a couple of months. If he's innocent,
    >these particular blood parameters should not change. Certainly he doesn't
    >have a fridge full of the same blood to supplement with.


    I still think it's possible there was some kind of mistake, b/c it's just
    so monumentally stupid to be transfused with someone else's blood, even if
    it's a trusted family member. Transfusion medicine is full of stories of
    'Uncle Fred' who comes in to give blood for a relative, but privately tells
    the donor staff he's gay and can't donate. You never know where ppl have
    been, obviously.

    Of course, we really don't know the specific details, and there were
    multiple questionable samples, it seems, so it's a small possibilty.

    I'm not a huge fan of Tyler's although I like the guy, so I'm not trying to
    say he's innocent for that reason. I just can't fathom a guy who knows
    about doping by being a pro and talking to other pros and stuff taking
    homologous blood!

    -B
     
  7. Bob Schwartz

    Bob Schwartz Guest

    Kyle Legate <[email protected]> wrote:
    > His defence is simple. Give another blood sample right now, and another next
    > week, and keep doing so for at least a couple of months. If he's innocent,
    > these particular blood parameters should not change. Certainly he doesn't
    > have a fridge full of the same blood to supplement with.


    If the donor is known then you could go back to the source.

    Unless the donor is the dear departed Tugboat.

    Bob Schwartz
    [email protected]
     
  8. Mark Fennell

    Mark Fennell Guest

    "Badger_South" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >
    > I still think it's possible there was some kind of mistake, b/c it's just
    > so monumentally stupid to be transfused with someone else's blood, even if
    > it's a trusted family member. Transfusion medicine is full of stories of
    > 'Uncle Fred' who comes in to give blood for a relative, but privately

    tells
    > the donor staff he's gay and can't donate. You never know where ppl have
    > been, obviously.
    >
    > Of course, we really don't know the specific details, and there were
    > multiple questionable samples, it seems, so it's a small possibilty.
    >
    > I'm not a huge fan of Tyler's although I like the guy, so I'm not trying

    to
    > say he's innocent for that reason. I just can't fathom a guy who knows
    > about doping by being a pro and talking to other pros and stuff taking
    > homologous blood!
    >


    You "like the guy"? I am continually amazed by how strongly fans attack or
    defend certain pro cyclists who they don't beyond some spotty mental image
    formed by watching a few bike races on TV and reading/hearing carefully
    worded interviews and press releases. For those that have convicted Lance in
    their minds, but feel there must be a mistake in Tyler's case, can you
    please tell me why you feel that way???
     
  9. Badger_South

    Badger_South Guest

    On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:42:49 -0700, "Mark Fennell"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"Badger_South" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>
    >> I still think it's possible there was some kind of mistake, b/c it's just
    >> so monumentally stupid to be transfused with someone else's blood, even if
    >> it's a trusted family member. Transfusion medicine is full of stories of
    >> 'Uncle Fred' who comes in to give blood for a relative, but privately

    >tells
    >> the donor staff he's gay and can't donate. You never know where ppl have
    >> been, obviously.
    >>
    >> Of course, we really don't know the specific details, and there were
    >> multiple questionable samples, it seems, so it's a small possibilty.
    >>
    >> I'm not a huge fan of Tyler's although I like the guy, so I'm not trying

    >to
    >> say he's innocent for that reason. I just can't fathom a guy who knows
    >> about doping by being a pro and talking to other pros and stuff taking
    >> homologous blood!
    >>

    >
    >You "like the guy"? I am continually amazed by how strongly fans attack or
    >defend certain pro cyclists who they don't beyond some spotty mental image
    >formed by watching a few bike races on TV and reading/hearing carefully
    >worded interviews and press releases. For those that have convicted Lance in
    >their minds, but feel there must be a mistake in Tyler's case, can you
    >please tell me why you feel that way???


    I thought I did explain it in excruciating detail above.

    Are you saying that you have no pro cyclists that you've never met, yet you
    'like' them, say Jan Ullrich, for his die-hard image, or Hincapie for his
    fun-loving attitude (seen in a few OLN Lance chronicles)?

    I was trying to say above that I -don't- consider myself a Tyler fan, yet I
    'like' him, maybe for the fact that he rode to a fourth place with a busted
    collar-bone and that in interviews he seems low-key and unassuming.

    Tell me there's no sports starts that you 'like'?

    I realize that the TV image is often totally different from the real person
    - I'm not planning on asking anyone over for dinner, here. ;-)

    -B
     
  10. gym gravity

    gym gravity Guest

    Bob Schwartz wrote:
    > Kyle Legate <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>His defence is simple. Give another blood sample right now, and another next
    >>week, and keep doing so for at least a couple of months. If he's innocent,
    >>these particular blood parameters should not change. Certainly he doesn't
    >>have a fridge full of the same blood to supplement with.

    >
    >
    > If the donor is known then you could go back to the source.
    >
    > Unless the donor is the dear departed Tugboat.
    >



    No, because if he is guilty, the same blood group antigens that are
    lighting up in the test as being "non-Tyler" will also have caused his
    immune system to make antibodies to these antigens. Next time Tyler
    gets injected with that kind of blood, he could get very sick (maybe he
    already has). That's why when a transfusion is required there is a
    cross matching process where they check for such incompatibilities...to
    make sure that a person hasn't already made antibodies to certain
    antigens from a previous transfusion. So if he's telling the truth, he
    will continue to fail the test. The more positives, the better, in his
    case.

    I only wonder what did or didn't happen at the Tour. This test was
    supposed to be implemented back then. I'm sure they drew blood, at
    least for the hematocrit tests, and I was under the impression that they
    were freezing it too. I hope they used some glycerol.
     
  11. Jeff Jones

    Jeff Jones Guest

    "Bob Schwartz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Kyle Legate <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > His defence is simple. Give another blood sample right now, and another

    next
    > > week, and keep doing so for at least a couple of months. If he's

    innocent,
    > > these particular blood parameters should not change. Certainly he

    doesn't
    > > have a fridge full of the same blood to supplement with.

    >
    > If the donor is known then you could go back to the source.
    >

    But then the other blood test (HR-OFF) would pick it up (or maybe both of
    them would) because of the big jump in RBC levels and everything else. I
    guess you could just inject small doses every few days to keep your RBC mix
    constant, provided your donor was relatively close.

    But as Kyle suggested, constant followup tests giving the same result would
    be one way to prove innocence, providing the test is sound. The other way is
    to discredit the test, which is what Phonak and Hamilton are trying to do.

    Jeff
     
  12. Badger_South

    Badger_South Guest

    On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:19:49 -0400, gym gravity <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >Bob Schwartz wrote:
    >> Kyle Legate <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>His defence is simple. Give another blood sample right now, and another next
    >>>week, and keep doing so for at least a couple of months. If he's innocent,
    >>>these particular blood parameters should not change. Certainly he doesn't
    >>>have a fridge full of the same blood to supplement with.

    >>
    >>
    >> If the donor is known then you could go back to the source.
    >>
    >> Unless the donor is the dear departed Tugboat.
    >>

    >
    >
    >No, because if he is guilty, the same blood group antigens that are
    >lighting up in the test as being "non-Tyler" will also have caused his
    >immune system to make antibodies to these antigens. Next time Tyler
    >gets injected with that kind of blood, he could get very sick (maybe he
    >already has). That's why when a transfusion is required there is a
    >cross matching process where they check for such incompatibilities...to
    >make sure that a person hasn't already made antibodies to certain
    >antigens from a previous transfusion. So if he's telling the truth, he
    >will continue to fail the test. The more positives, the better, in his
    >case.


    You fail to take into account the antigenicity of the antigens. Not
    everyone who gets transfused develop antibodies, in fact very few do (<15%)
    from a single transfusion. However, if he does have antibodies, it's good
    evidence that he's been transfused at one time or another, except for those
    that occur naturally, even anti-D and anti-E (Mollison, 8th ed. pp 342-3).

    -B

    >I only wonder what did or didn't happen at the Tour. This test was
    >supposed to be implemented back then. I'm sure they drew blood, at
    >least for the hematocrit tests, and I was under the impression that they
    >were freezing it too. I hope they used some glycerol.
     
  13. lostmyshape

    lostmyshape New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    try .000 average - 3 strike outs and a walk. he's 0/3. ouch.
     
  14. Mark Fennell

    Mark Fennell Guest

    "Badger_South" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:42:49 -0700, "Mark Fennell"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >"Badger_South" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >>
    > >> I still think it's possible there was some kind of mistake, b/c it's

    just
    > >> so monumentally stupid to be transfused with someone else's blood, even

    if
    > >> it's a trusted family member. Transfusion medicine is full of stories

    of
    > >> 'Uncle Fred' who comes in to give blood for a relative, but privately

    > >tells
    > >> the donor staff he's gay and can't donate. You never know where ppl

    have
    > >> been, obviously.
    > >>
    > >> Of course, we really don't know the specific details, and there were
    > >> multiple questionable samples, it seems, so it's a small possibilty.
    > >>
    > >> I'm not a huge fan of Tyler's although I like the guy, so I'm not

    trying
    > >to
    > >> say he's innocent for that reason. I just can't fathom a guy who knows
    > >> about doping by being a pro and talking to other pros and stuff taking
    > >> homologous blood!
    > >>

    > >
    > >You "like the guy"? I am continually amazed by how strongly fans attack

    or
    > >defend certain pro cyclists who they don't beyond some spotty mental

    image
    > >formed by watching a few bike races on TV and reading/hearing carefully
    > >worded interviews and press releases. For those that have convicted Lance

    in
    > >their minds, but feel there must be a mistake in Tyler's case, can you
    > >please tell me why you feel that way???

    >
    > I thought I did explain it in excruciating detail above.
    >
    > Are you saying that you have no pro cyclists that you've never met, yet

    you
    > 'like' them, say Jan Ullrich, for his die-hard image, or Hincapie for his
    > fun-loving attitude (seen in a few OLN Lance chronicles)?
    >
    > I was trying to say above that I -don't- consider myself a Tyler fan, yet

    I
    > 'like' him, maybe for the fact that he rode to a fourth place with a

    busted
    > collar-bone and that in interviews he seems low-key and unassuming.
    >
    > Tell me there's no sports starts that you 'like'?
    >
    > I realize that the TV image is often totally different from the real

    person
    > - I'm not planning on asking anyone over for dinner, here. ;-)
    >
    > -B


    I wasn't directly my comments at you in particular, it's just your statement
    about liking him that I reacted to. Maybe I'm too jaded and cynical.
     
  15. Badger_South

    Badger_South Guest

    On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:33:42 -0700, "Mark Fennell"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> I realize that the TV image is often totally different from the real

    >person
    >> - I'm not planning on asking anyone over for dinner, here. ;-)
    >>
    >> -B

    >
    >I wasn't directly my comments at you in particular, it's just your statement
    >about liking him that I reacted to. Maybe I'm too jaded and cynical.


    Hey, no problem. Having just seen my first TdF and gotten back into biking
    at age 50, I'm probably starry-eyed and rapt, heh.

    I realize that I'm a little fan-ish, but I do know a little about
    transfusion medicine, thus my attempt to contribute to the topic. <sigh> I
    guess I want to believe, but I realize deep-down that everyone has doped at
    one time, even if it's recreational drugs.

    Dumb as it is, I just love watching bike races. Except for the fact that
    it's dangerous, and that only those that are sponsored can afford to dope,
    I'd say, heck, let 'em dope if they want to. Obviously it's better all
    around and it's easier for the recreational, but serious rider to judge
    their capabilities against a pro (again, another dumb passtime, heh), if
    the pro is natural.

    One thing that's true is you can't make a race-horse out of a donkey, and
    the stuff LA does can't be done with drugs, but I guess that's beside the
    point.

    Best,

    -B
     
  16. Kyle Legate

    Kyle Legate Guest

    Jeff Jones wrote:
    > "Bob Schwartz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> Kyle Legate <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>> His defence is simple. Give another blood sample right now, and
    >>> another next week, and keep doing so for at least a couple of
    >>> months. If he's innocent, these particular blood parameters should
    >>> not change. Certainly he doesn't have a fridge full of the same
    >>> blood to supplement with.

    >>
    >> If the donor is known then you could go back to the source.
    >>

    > But then the other blood test (HR-OFF) would pick it up (or maybe
    > both of them would) because of the big jump in RBC levels and
    > everything else. I guess you could just inject small doses every few
    > days to keep your RBC mix constant, provided your donor was
    > relatively close.
    >

    I don't think that supplementing the rider's blood like you suggest would
    provide a stable baseline, since the half life of elimination of the foreign
    blood cells is not known. A stable baseline is what is required to prove
    innocence.

    > But as Kyle suggested, constant followup tests giving the same result
    > would be one way to prove innocence, providing the test is sound. The
    > other way is to discredit the test, which is what Phonak and Hamilton
    > are trying to do.
    >

    That, in itself, says a lot.
     
  17. On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:49:02 -0400, Badger_South wrote:
    > One thing that's true is you can't make a race-horse out of a donkey


    I'm not sure that's true. There was an article a while back in a Belgian
    paper, where a (Belgian) doctor said it *is* possible.

    OK, I'm sure I'm not going to translate it now, so here it is:



    INTERVIEW. Hormonenspecialist Francis Coucke wil bio-label in sport
    ,,Epo-plaag is nog lang niet uit wielerpeloton verdwenen''

    Gilbert Roox 02/08/2004

    Christophe Brandt was de enige renner die in de voorbije Tour op doping
    werd betrapt. Maar dat wil allerminst zeggen dat epo uit het peloton
    verdwenen is. ,,En als ze groeihormonen opsporen, kunnen ze de
    Olympische Spelen beter niet meer organiseren'', zegt de endocrinoloog
    Francis Coucke, zelf ex-renner. Coucke pleit voor profrennerij onder
    strikt medisch toezicht.


    FRANCIS Coucke (41) is endocrinoloog en koerste ooit nog bij de
    amateurs. Hij kent dus evenveel van de menselijke hormonenhuishouding
    als van het wielrennen. Daarom wordt hij niet goed van de berichten dat
    de dopingjagers van de Internationale Wielerunie UCI de strijd met de
    epo-plaag in het wielerpeloton aan het winnen zijn. ,,In de Tour werd
    niemand betrapt, maar ze gebruikten allemaal'', zegt Coucke. ,,Bij de
    start in Luik werd een gemiddelde hematocrietwaarde van 44,8
    vastgesteld. Getrainde sporters komen niet eens aan veertig. En hoe
    harder je traint, hoe lager het hematocriet. Behalve bij Armstrong en co
    blijkbaar.''

    De UCI bepaalde vijf jaar gelden een ovengrens van 50 procent op het
    volume van rode bloedcellen in het bloed: wie daarboven gaat, moet aan
    de kant. ,,Maar die grens ligt veel te hoog'', zegt Coucke. ,,Een
    coureur met een hematocriet van 48 rijdt vijftig per uur, terwijl zijn
    niet-gedopeerde concurrenten met 38 bijna tien kilometer per uur trager
    zijn. Het is alsof je met water tegen superbenzine concurreert, zoals
    Van Hooydonck weleer zei. Een klassebak, maar plots kon hij niet meer
    volgen. Hij is dus maar gestopt.''

    ,,Tourwinnaar Greg LeMond doet dezelfde vaststelling. Begin jaren
    negentig was hij met zijn zuurstofopnamecapaciteit van 93 ml/kg/min de
    beste van het peloton. Nu zou hij daarmee niet eens meer de beste
    vijftig halen. Met training bereik je nooit zo'n sprong vooruit. Dat
    komt omdat er middelen zijn die van een muilezel een paard maken.''

    En het gaat niet alleen om epo. Ook groeihormoon, dat het spiervolume
    doet toenemen, is tegenwoordig algemeen verspreid in de sportwereld.
    ,,Kijk naar al die buitenmaatse kinnebakken in het peloton'', zegt
    Coucke. ,,Als ze groeihormoon opsporen, kunnen ze maar beter geen
    Olympische Spelen meer organiseren. Maar er bestaat nog altijd geen
    erkende test. Terwijl het eigenlijk simpel is: bepaal voor elke sporter
    de IGF1-spiegel en sluit de al te grote afwijkingen uit. In het
    ziekenhuis doe ik dat elke dag.''

    Met groeiende verbijstering volgt hij de evoluties op het dopingfront.
    ,,Nu zouden ze zelfs al synthetisch hemoglobine gebruiken, een middel
    uit de kankergeneeskunde. Nog eens tien procent sneller: zou dat de truc
    van Lance Armstrong zijn?'' Als arts kan Coucke niet begrijpen dat een
    voormalig kankerpatiƫnt zo met de eigen gezondheid speelt. ,,Het is
    bijna pervers. Groeihormoon is een zeer kankerverwekkende stof. In het
    ziekenhuis aarzel ik om het patiƫnten in zelfs kleine dosissen voor te
    schrijven. Want het doet ook gezwellen razendsnel groeien. Ste, je hebt
    een poliep in de darmen: voor je het weet zit je met een heus
    kankergezwel.''

    Epo-gebruik leidt op lange termijn tot hartproblemen en aderverkalking.
    Te veel cortisonen tasten het immuunsysteem aan. ,,Maar toch blijven
    renners slikken en spuiten. Ze kunnen niet anders, als ze willen blijven
    meedingen. Je moet er niet aan denken dat je zoon ooit wielrenner wil
    worden. Dit is geen sport meer, maar een aanslag op de gezondheid.''

    Francis Coucke pleit resoluut voor de harde sanering. ,,Hoe ging dat
    indertijd met de hormonen in ons vlees? Laat ons ook zo'n bio-label
    opzetten voor de sport. Alleen 'propere wielrenners' die week na week
    getest zijn, zullen nog worden toegelaten tot wedstrijden. Natuurlijk
    zal Lance Armstrong dan niet meer zo snel Alpe d'Huez oprijden, maar het
    zal net zo goed topsport zijn. Nu kan ik me er, ondanks mijn liefde voor
    de wielrennerij, nog nauwelijks toe brengen naar de Tour te kijken: ik
    zie alleen rijdende apothekerkasten.''

    De technologie voor zo'n bio-label is voorhanden, zegt de endocrinoloog.
    ,,Net zoals je nu een hematocriet-grenswaarde hebt, kun je ook een
    omvattend hormonaal profiel van alle profrenners vastleggen. Dan zie je
    bij controle meteen of er geknoeid is. Slikt iemand groeihormoon, dan
    duikt de lichaamseigen productie omlaag. Dan kan maar twee dingen
    betekenen: of hij heeft kanker, of hij is gedopeerd.''

    Maar is zijn plan niet al te utopisch? ,,Het is dat of de strijd tegen
    de doping helemaal opgeven'', zegt Coucke. ,,Nu is het toch alleen een
    halfslachtig zoethoudertje. De UCI zamelt elk seizoen duizenden bloed-
    en urinestalen in, maar ze speurt niet naar de producten waar het echt
    om gaat. En dus vindt de UCI ook nauwelijks epo-slikkers in het
    wielerpeloton. Alleen zo'n arme jongen als een Christophe Brandt, die
    gepakt wordt op, godbetert, methadon. Terwijl dat wellicht nog een
    gemanipuleerd staal is. Als het niet zo treurig was, zou het om te
    lachen zijn.''

    Copyright De Standaard
     
  18. Robert Chung

    Robert Chung Guest

    Kyle Legate wrote:
    > Jeff Jones wrote:
    >
    >> But as Kyle suggested, constant followup tests giving the same result
    >> would be one way to prove innocence, providing the test is sound. The
    >> other way is to discredit the test, which is what Phonak and Hamilton
    >> are trying to do.
    >>

    > That, in itself, says a lot.


    I'm not sure how much it does say. Were I in a situation where I thought a
    test was saying something wrong about me, and the test was a new test, I'd
    want to know what the test did before I submitted myself to it again. The
    key thing I'd want to know was its specificity.

    BTW, does anyone know if the blood parameters in the Olympics test were
    higher, lower, or the same as the Vuelta test(s)?
     
  19. Kyle Legate

    Kyle Legate Guest

    Robert Chung wrote:
    > Kyle Legate wrote:
    >> Jeff Jones wrote:
    >>
    >>> But as Kyle suggested, constant followup tests giving the same
    >>> result would be one way to prove innocence, providing the test is
    >>> sound. The other way is to discredit the test, which is what Phonak
    >>> and Hamilton are trying to do.
    >>>

    >> That, in itself, says a lot.

    >
    > I'm not sure how much it does say. Were I in a situation where I
    > thought a test was saying something wrong about me, and the test was
    > a new test, I'd want to know what the test did before I submitted
    > myself to it again. The key thing I'd want to know was its
    > specificity.
    >

    I think a stronger challenge to the test would be to demonstrate that it
    consistently gives the incorrect result for Tyler's blood. Maybe then he
    could apply for a UCI exemption ceertificate. As already mentioned
    elsewhere, this is not a new test; it has just been applied to catching
    cheats for the first time.
     
Loading...
Loading...