Any words on Tyler's test results?



CycleSteve

New Member
Aug 21, 2003
34
0
0
I don't have any experience with medicine or pharmacology as a profession, but am a cyclist and read a lot about the sport, and of course about the efforts to control doping. I also have a son who has been through many years of medical treatments and tests. What I've learned is that most medical tests are not black and white.

Instead, they identify a value. The only way to identify the meaning of the value is to compare it against known "norms", or "normal" ranges for a given class (an age group, for example) of people. Interpreting these tests and making a final determination often requires that several doctors or a committee come to a final opinion. This can be difficult when a specific test value or set of interrelated values must be compared against a "normal" range. The problem is that a value that is at the upper end of the normal range, or even a little outside it, may be normal for that specific person.

The other issue is that the doping regulations do allow certain levels of otherwise banned substances. Some of these substances are, for example, not allowed in one form, but are allowed in other forms. There is one (I can't recall what it is), that is not allowed to be injected, but which can be used as a preservative for other, legal, performance improvement diet supplements. Eat too much of the legal supplement and you can acquire an illegal level of the preservative.

There are other issues: that the mainstream press only reports positives and negatives, and doesn't explain how that conclusion was reached, which might dilute the headline; that its very difficult to find out exactly how these tests are performed, the algorithyms they are based on, and the margins of error they contain so that professionals and lay people can get an informed opinion; the desire for doping labs to get contracts and keep contracts - and the only way to keep contracts and continue in business is to have positive test results - if all you get are negative results, then the quality of the testing is suspect because everyone assumes that at least a few people are doping.

It wouldn't surprise me if certain tests are found to be flawed and it becomes apparent that some athletes careers were ruined by false positives.

I also have a difficult time believing that Tyler would subject himself to the risks of a transfusion of blood not his own just for the sake of cycling. All I know of him is what I read in the press, but he seems like too sensible a guy for that. Yet, I could be wrong.
 

run_and_ride

New Member
Aug 6, 2004
47
0
0
skydive69 said:
Yeah good point about LA - he has passed every drug test thrown at him, but he is guilty. Great logic and opinion! Do you also believe in Santa Clause?


That is just ridiculous. Every rider passes every drug test ever thrown at them until they get caught.

Tyler Hamilton passed every drug test ever thrown at them until he got caught. Do you believe this is the first time he ever did it?

Great logic! Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy?
 

run_and_ride

New Member
Aug 6, 2004
47
0
0
Brunswick_kate said:
The variation of the theme that I really like is Hamilton failed 1 test and showed inconsistencies in the one previous and this PROVES that Armstrong is doping...

:rolleyes:

Whoever said that? Are you just making stuff up now? (rolleyes twice, counterclockwise while shaking head in a vigorous left to right motion in disbelief). I believe LA is a doper or has been a doper based on things I have read about the situation and his attitude towards people like Christophe Bassons and Fillipo Simeoni.

I never said I think LA is guilty because Tyler is guilty and I have never seen anyone else on here allude to that.

How about you just stick to responding to what is written said and stop trying to read minds?
 

run_and_ride

New Member
Aug 6, 2004
47
0
0
Nice post. I am open to the possibility that the testing is flawed. Nice to see someone else is open to the possibility that the possibility exists that he is also guilty. I am willing to wait for the final conclusions of the accuracy of this test to declare Hamilton guilty of this offense.

But Tyler, just like LA, has never that I have heard categorically denied that he has ever doped. He parses his words just like LA. The human conscience is an amazing thing.

CycleSteve said:
IAll I know of him is what I read in the press, but he seems like too sensible a guy for that. Yet, I could be wrong.
 

lokstah

New Member
Sep 30, 2003
2,164
0
0
run_and_ride said:
I believe LA is a doper or has been a doper based on things I have read about the situation and his attitude towards people like Christophe Bassons and Fillipo Simeoni.
I don't have a terribly well-informed opinion about Lance's history as a drug user or drug avoider, but I do know that I'm not a fan of his on a personal level. I think he's a bit of a *****; that's just me, however, and it's no substitute for a positive drug test.

So why are folks so defensive about Tyler, even though he's apparently failed a big pair of tests in shameless fashion? That's easy -- it's disbelief. Tyler's a down-home, straight-arrow, likeable boy-next-door family man. We don't want it to be true, so we're willing to hang with him until he's, as he puts it, exhausted every last avenue for his defense. If he's guilty, it'll be the biggest disappointment in my time as a cycling fan -- something I'd rather avoid.

I hope the test is bunk. I hope. I hope.

Logic? It's not about logic. Whomever said celebrity was logical?
 

KMKS

New Member
Aug 3, 2004
90
0
0
42
run_and_ride said:
That is just ridiculous. Every rider passes every drug test ever thrown at them until they get caught.

Tyler Hamilton passed every drug test ever thrown at them until he got caught. Do you believe this is the first time he ever did it?

Great logic! Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy?
The difference here is that it was a new type of blood test which was first used in the TdF this year. Therefore tyler (who retired early from the tour) got caught at the first opportunity in the Olympics. Lance and most others passed this form of blood test throughout the tour and subsequent events.
 

Brunswick_kate

New Member
Aug 16, 2003
515
0
0
run_and_ride said:
Whoever said that? Are you just making stuff up now? (rolleyes twice, counterclockwise while shaking head in a vigorous left to right motion in disbelief). I believe LA is a doper or has been a doper based on things I have read about the situation and his attitude towards people like Christophe Bassons and Fillipo Simeoni.

I never said I think LA is guilty because Tyler is guilty and I have never seen anyone else on here allude to that.

How about you just stick to responding to what is written said and stop trying to read minds?

Was I quoting you? Did I use your name anywhere in the post? You, sir, are entitled to your opinions. You can formulate them by whatever means you find to your satisfaction.

Just try to keep your blood pressure to a reasonable level when some people, like me, suggest that all the facts might not be in at this time and that a bunch of people sitting around a cycling chat board might not be in full possession of the facts.

And by the way, I've looked at the guest book on Hamilton's webpage and his webmaster has posted some pretty pointed and unsupportive comments, contrary to your assertion otherwise.

Pot. Kettle. Black.
 

KMKS

New Member
Aug 3, 2004
90
0
0
42
By the way, anyone notice that since i mentioned LA this post has gotten double the amount of responses? I suppose it really is his celebrity. Sad really...
 

run_and_ride

New Member
Aug 6, 2004
47
0
0
You responded to a post I made and there was no other post on here saying anything about LA when you posted your comments.

Pot. Kettle. Black. LMAO. That is something people only say when they cannot refute a post.

My blood pressure is always a steady 110/70 (good diet and lots of exercise), even when responding to the braindead sheeple. Thanks for your concern.

Brunswick_kate said:
Was I quoting you? Did I use your name anywhere in the post? You, sir, are entitled to your opinions. You can formulate them by whatever means you find to your satisfaction.

Just try to keep your blood pressure to a reasonable level when some people, like me, suggest that all the facts might not be in at this time and that a bunch of people sitting around a cycling chat board might not be in full possession of the facts.

And by the way, I've looked at the guest book on Hamilton's webpage and his webmaster has posted some pretty pointed and unsupportive comments, contrary to your assertion otherwise.

Pot. Kettle. Black.
 

run_and_ride

New Member
Aug 6, 2004
47
0
0
So what? I still say every rider passes every drug test thrown at them until they get caught. I was not specifically talking about this type of blood doping.

In case you hadn't noticed what is going on in the world, the dopers always have new stuff they use. Look at the Balco thing. If it had not been for a ****** off Track Coach that got his feelings hurt, nobody would have even been able to develop a test for that steroid.

It is naive to think that the same research is not going into drugs for cycling. How long was EPO used before there was even a test for it, besides the hematicrit level test? How many apparently healthy cyclists died in the meantime.

KMKS said:
The difference here is that it was a new type of blood test which was first used in the TdF this year. Therefore tyler (who retired early from the tour) got caught at the first opportunity in the Olympics. Lance and most others passed this form of blood test throughout the tour and subsequent events.
 

KMKS

New Member
Aug 3, 2004
90
0
0
42
run_and_ride said:
So what? I still say every rider passes every drug test thrown at them until they get caught. I was not specifically talking about this type of blood doping.
I guess i don't see your point run. I agree w/ you that they pass every test until they don't...I was just saying that tyler failed this test the very first time he took it.

And yes it's a sad fact that the dopers will always be ahead of the authorities b/c the testers can only react.
 

Brunswick_kate

New Member
Aug 16, 2003
515
0
0
lokstah said:
So why are folks so defensive about Tyler, even though he's apparently failed a big pair of tests in shameless fashion? That's easy -- it's disbelief. Tyler's a down-home, straight-arrow, likeable boy-next-door family man. We don't want it to be true, so we're willing to hang with him until he's, as he puts it, exhausted every last avenue for his defense. If he's guilty, it'll be the biggest disappointment in my time as a cycling fan -- something I'd rather avoid.

I hope the test is bunk. I hope. I hope.

Logic? It's not about logic. Whomever said celebrity was logical?

I'd agree with this to some sense; however, there's more to it than the notion that "it can't be true because Tyler's cute"...

I'm still trying to cut my way through the journals but so far, I have some questions about the testing procedure and the protocols.

1. In deference to the caveat attached to the Haematological 2003:88 article, what "rigorous standardization of the assay" was done prior to the submission of the manuscript for peer review in April 2003 and its acceptance as a test for athletic performance?

2. Other than the aforementioned article in Haematological, is there any other peer reviewed publications on the validity of this testing method? What has been done to demonstrate that it is valid on a population of highly physical active people versus as population of 25 post orthopedic surgical patients?

3. Why were the A sample results of the IOC test made public when it was obvious that the B sample was never going to be available for follow up testing?

4. What communication, if any, on this matter took place between IOC and Vuelta officials?

5. Why did the IOC need to convene a panel of experts to re-examine the A sample results. Is this indicative of the highly interpretative nature of the test? The authors of the study, page 1290, indicate that "Not all antisera gave as clear-cut a separation between antigen-postive and negative cells as that illustrated in Figure 1B. Anti-M and anti_S frequently gave ambiguous results despite titration to optimize conditions..." Exactly which antigens are being tested in the IOC/UCI testing procedure? Does anyone know?

I'm not accusing anyone...IOC, UIC, Australian scientist, Tyler Hamilton, anyone ... of malfeasance or cheating or anything until there's been a full review of the facts. This, I recognize, is a minority postion and guaranteed to ******** a few people on this board.
 

run_and_ride

New Member
Aug 6, 2004
47
0
0
I guess my point was that I don't base someone's innocence on having not failed any drug tests to this point. Although I do feel that the authorities and courts have to follow "innocent until proven guilty". This is just a message board and I am just an opinionated cycling fan.

I lost faith in Tyler before this positive test. I lost it when he parsed his words regarding the allegations made by that former USPS doctor. He used strong words about the specific conversation he had with the doctor, but he never categorically denied having doped. He couldn't because he was swearing on his dog's grave and his wife's life.

His behavior in that instance led me to believe he is hiding something. Similarly, that is the opinion I have of LA. This whole Simeoni thing just furthered my opinion in that matter.

Why would LA tell Simeoni that he shouldn't have spoken out vis a vis Ferrari? How does LA know what Ferrari did or didn't give to Simeoni? I find his behavior and lack of a categorical denial of ever having doped peculiar and suspicious.

If you asked me if I ever took a performance enhancing drug I could emphatically just say no. And if I run a sub-18 minute 5k this weekend the answer will still be no. It had to just be the extra gu packet I took before the race.

KMKS said:
I guess i don't see your point run. I agree w/ you that they pass every test until they don't...I was just saying that tyler failed this test the very first time he took it.

And yes it's a sad fact that the dopers will always be ahead of the authorities b/c the testers can only react.
 

Weisse Luft

New Member
May 28, 2004
1,306
0
0
If the IOC is so careless as to improperly store the B sample, what about the A sample? Did they freeze this one too, resulting in a false positive?
 

run_and_ride

New Member
Aug 6, 2004
47
0
0
Good post. However, if the IOC and UCI gave this test before it was scientifically proven to be accurate than shame on them. Also, I don't see anything wrong with IOC officials contacting the UCI and telling them the A sample from Hamilton was suspicious. If Hamilton did this, it is cheating plain and simple and I think the Vuelta should have been informed.

Also, there is apparently some rare blood condition resulting from something to do with fertilization of the embryo and twins. Scientists don't seem to know just how rare the condition is though, since it has almost no manifestation other than to throw off this test.

Brunswick_kate said:
I'd agree with this to some sense; however, there's more to it than the notion that "it can't be true because Tyler's cute"...

I'm still trying to cut my way through the journals but so far, I have some questions about the testing procedure and the protocols.

1. In deference to the caveat attached to the Haematological 2003:88 article, what "rigorous standardization of the assay" was done prior to the submission of the manuscript for peer review in April 2003 and its acceptance as a test for athletic performance?

2. Other than the aforementioned article in Haematological, is there any other peer reviewed publications on the validity of this testing method? What has been done to demonstrate that it is valid on a population of highly physical active people versus as population of 25 post orthopedic surgical patients?

3. Why were the A sample results of the IOC test made public when it was obvious that the B sample was never going to be available for follow up testing?

4. What communication, if any, on this matter took place between IOC and Vuelta officials?

5. Why did the IOC need to convene a panel of experts to re-examine the A sample results. Is this indicative of the highly interpretative nature of the test? The authors of the study, page 1290, indicate that "Not all antisera gave as clear-cut a separation between antigen-postive and negative cells as that illustrated in Figure 1B.

Anti-M and anti_S frequently gave ambiguous results despite titration to optimize conditions..." Exactly which antigens are being tested in the IOC/UCI testing procedure? Does anyone know?

I'm not accusing anyone...IOC, UIC, Australian scientist, Tyler Hamilton, anyone ... of malfeasance or cheating or anything until there's been a full review of the facts. This, I recognize, is a minority postion and guaranteed to ******** a few people on this board.
 

Brunswick_kate

New Member
Aug 16, 2003
515
0
0
run_and_ride said:
You responded to a post I made and there was no other post on here saying anything about LA when you posted your comments.

Pot. Kettle. Black. LMAO. That is something people only say when they cannot refute a post.

My blood pressure is always a steady 110/70 (good diet and lots of exercise), even when responding to the braindead sheeple. Thanks for your concern.

And here I thought I was responding to something written by a poster who claims his/her identity is skydive69. In fact, I didn't address you at all directly until you decided to jump all over my ass.

And I never said the thread was here...it was actually either on the Velonews forums or the Bicycling.com forums or somewhere.

Glad to hear your blood pressure is fine. I actually don't worry about your health in the least. Contrary to what you seem to believe, you are not the centre of my universe. Sorry to disappoint.
 

Brunswick_kate

New Member
Aug 16, 2003
515
0
0
run_and_ride said:
Good post. However, if the IOC and UCI gave this test before it was scientifically proven to be accurate than shame on them. Also, I don't see anything wrong with IOC officials contacting the UCI and telling them the A sample from Hamilton was suspicious. If Hamilton did this, it is cheating plain and simple and I think the Vuelta should have been informed.

Also, there is apparently some rare blood condition resulting from something to do with fertilization of the embryo and twins. Scientists don't seem to know just how rare the condition is though, since it has almost no manifestation other than to throw off this test.

I disagree with you on the matter of communications between IOC and UCI on the "check Hamilton" bit....from what I can gather, this is a highly interpretative procedure that relies a lot on experienced judgement call...part of the reason why only 2 labs can do it. Tester bias is a huge factor to be controlled for.

Contact between the two groups saying "We have 1 unconfirmed positive..please advise if you should find another" might be understandable.
"Test Hamilton; we think he's doping" is unacceptable -- just due to tester bias. You start seeing what you're "supposed" to see. It not malice. It's not being hateful. It's human nature. It's a function of our perception and cognitive capacities.
 

run_and_ride

New Member
Aug 6, 2004
47
0
0
It does not sound to me that the test is that subjective, although I have no medical training. You seem to have some since you can tell what my blood pressure is like from a message board.

Brunswick_kate said:
I disagree with you on the matter of communications between IOC and UCI on the "check Hamilton" bit....from what I can gather, this is a highly interpretative procedure that relies a lot on experienced judgement call...part of the reason why only 2 labs can do it. Tester bias is a huge factor to be controlled for.

Contact between the two groups saying "We have 1 unconfirmed positive..please advise if you should find another" might be understandable.
"Test Hamilton; we think he's doping" is unacceptable -- just due to tester bias. You start seeing what you're "supposed" to see. It not malice. It's not being hateful. It's human nature. It's a function of our perception and cognitive capacities.
 

Brunswick_kate

New Member
Aug 16, 2003
515
0
0
Weisse Luft said:
If the IOC is so careless as to improperly store the B sample, what about the A sample? Did they freeze this one too, resulting in a false positive?

Personally, I think if they coughed up to dropping the ball on the B sample and basically annouced to the world that they goofed, they are unlikely to cover up on the A sample test.

But that's just my sense of human nature -- if they screwed with the A sample, why wouldn't they lie about the B?
 

Brunswick_kate

New Member
Aug 16, 2003
515
0
0
run_and_ride said:
It does not sound to me that the test is that subjective, although I have no medical training. You seem to have some since you can tell what my blood pressure is like from a message board.


Yes, I'll have to refrain from using any metaphorical or illuminative language. I guess that's the sole preserve of those who like to allude to me as a ...what was it...brain dead sheeple....nice turn of phrase by the way. I like it.

Any chance we might bury the hatchet or shall we just continue this ridiculous dance? I mean I'll dish back what I'm served if you really feel compelled to keep at it.
 

Similar threads

B
Replies
0
Views
184
B