Any words on Tyler's test results?



run_and_ride

New Member
Aug 6, 2004
47
0
0
To use your own logic, I never said that you were one of those braindead sheeple. I merely suggested that they exist.

Have a nice weekend!

Brunswick_kate said:
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.
 

Brunswick_kate

New Member
Aug 16, 2003
515
0
0
run_and_ride said:
To use your own logic, I never said that you were one of those braindead sheeple. I merely suggested that they exist.

Have a nice weekend!

Hence the word "allude"...really, we're having quite the temper now, aren't we?
 

run_and_ride

New Member
Aug 6, 2004
47
0
0
I agree, although they seem to be badly in need of a procedure that says they do not announce any results to the media until both tests are positive. If it takes two positives to prove doping in their system, why would they announce anything until the second test is positive.

Unless, they knew all along that the B sample was messed up but felt the A test was enough and were just trying to cast suspicion on Hamilton. Basically, they knew they couldn't take the medal away but felt the A test was accurate so they compromised. He gets to keep the Gold but the whole world now thinks you are a cheater.

Brunswick_kate said:
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?
 

run_and_ride

New Member
Aug 6, 2004
47
0
0
We are having a temper tantrum? Who is we? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? I was actually laughing.

Brunswick_kate said:
Hence the word "allude"...really, we're having quite the temper now, aren't we?
 

Brunswick_kate

New Member
Aug 16, 2003
515
0
0
run_and_ride said:
I agree, although they seem to be badly in need of a procedure that says they do not announce any results to the media until both tests are positive. If it takes two positives to prove doping in their system, why would they announce anything until the second test is positive.

Unless, they knew all along that the B sample was messed up but felt the A test was enough and were just trying to cast suspicion on Hamilton. Basically, they knew they couldn't take the medal away but felt the A test was accurate so they compromised. He gets to keep the Gold but the whole world now thinks you are a cheater.

And I agree with you on this issue, if I'm not misinterpreting what you're saying, that there are some serious ethical issues associated with that. I think the charges are so serious that there really has to be a very rigourous standard before the allegation is made. He keeps the gold medal but there's an invisible asterisk beside it forever. It will never be mentioned in a news report without the obligatory "under suspicion" thrown in for good measure.

And I really think that's wrong. Fundamentally, ethically, morally wrong to have make the charge and not be able to back it up by the established standards.
 

KMKS

New Member
Aug 3, 2004
90
0
0
42
er...not sure where this personal animosity came from, but back to the point.
I hear what you're saying about the not popping a positive not meaning they're clean. I agree 100%. But on the other hand, popping three positives in a month is pretty strong evidence that your'e not clean, and yet nobody's jumping on hamilton they way they do on lance.
 

JohnO

New Member
Jul 5, 2003
1,495
0
0
Let's keep in mind that a doping allegation against one of cycling's top stars is a lot more serious than a doping allegation against an amateur. Even unfounded allegations can really wreck someone's life, so it had better be rock solid.

So the IOC went public when they had the knowledge that it wouldn't stick. That's not exactly a smoking gun, but it smells bad.

Personally, I like Tyler. If he was doping, then cycling is really in trouble.

Brunswick_kate said:
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?
 

lokstah

New Member
Sep 30, 2003
2,164
0
0
KMKS said:
er...not sure where this personal animosity came from, but back to the point.
I hear what you're saying about the not popping a positive not meaning they're clean. I agree 100%. But on the other hand, popping three positives in a month is pretty strong evidence that your'e not clean, and yet nobody's jumping on hamilton they way they do on lance.
It's not too hard to explain. My grandfather could fail four or five consecutive drug tests, but assuming there was even remote grounds for protest, I'd be less ready to accept his guilt than most other individuals, even those who've never tested positive for Tylenol.

It's about expectations, favorites, heroes, and stigma. Tyler's persona has been that of a squeaky-clean boyish star; a loveable family guy with a cute dog (RIP). Lance, for all his astounding accomplishments, has always been subject to more skepticsm; he has a less papal reputation. Some of that results from the natural tendency to scrutinize those at the top of their field. Some of it is just the way he comes across, and the way he's dealt with doping allegations in the past. He hasn't toured with a cute dog, and he left his wife for a has-been pop star.

Is it fair? Not really. But as I said before, celebrity is a funny animal. It doesn't abide by reason or logic. We like who we like.
 

gntlmn

New Member
Jul 28, 2003
1,667
2
0
Sometimes people deliberately create a likeable image in order to get away with more. The finger doesn't point to them. They more easily shift the blame.
 

Rudy

New Member
Sep 23, 2003
653
0
0
Here's my 2 cents. A lot of you can spend all day and the rest of your life arguing about who's guilty or not guilty of doping etc.. ya da da da da
When perhaps you should be out riding :)

First of all, none of us, me included, are experts in the medical fields and even to those of you who are doctors, you don't have all the facts on LA or Tyler.

In the absence of anything concrete we're left with a few known facts. And they're very simple and clear. LA has not been tested positive. Tyler has been tested positive. And that's it! You can form and voice your opinions in a public forum but is it fair? is it just like some dude purchasing a ticket to the ball game and he sits there and hackle the player all night?
how would you feel if I come out calling your mom names etc. ???? is that fair? do I know your mom? NO!! as soon as I open my mouth and accuse someone of ****, the damage is done.

Innocence until proven guilty.
 

run_and_ride

New Member
Aug 6, 2004
47
0
0
How do you know how long anyone on here spends riding? Even if I ride 8 hours a day and sleep 8 hours a day that still leaves 8 hours for discussions on this forum.

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept. It does not apply to message board opinions.

Comparing insulting someone's mother to debating about whether a top Pro Cyclist is doping or not is just ridiculous. Unless the mother in question is a top Pro Cyclist.

I have an idea for you. How about instead of telling people what they should and shouldn't be allowed to discuss on a message board, you just go for a ride. Otherwise you just look like a hypocrite.

Rudy said:
Here's my 2 cents. A lot of you can spend all day and the rest of your life arguing about who's guilty or not guilty of doping etc.. ya da da da da
When perhaps you should be out riding :)

First of all, none of us, me included, are experts in the medical fields and even to those of you who are doctors, you don't have all the facts on LA or Tyler.

In the absence of anything concrete we're left with a few known facts. And they're very simple and clear. LA has not been tested positive. Tyler has been tested positive. And that's it! You can form and voice your opinions in a public forum but is it fair? is it just like some dude purchasing a ticket to the ball game and he sits there and hackle the player all night?
how would you feel if I come out calling your mom names etc. ???? is that fair? do I know your mom? NO!! as soon as I open my mouth and accuse someone of ****, the damage is done.

Innocence until proven guilty.
 

pineapple

New Member
Oct 3, 2003
213
0
0
Rudy said:
Here's my 2 cents. A lot of you can spend all day and the rest of your life arguing about who's guilty or not guilty of doping etc.. ya da da da da
When perhaps you should be out riding :)

First of all, none of us, me included, are experts in the medical fields and even to those of you who are doctors, you don't have all the facts on LA or Tyler.

In the absence of anything concrete we're left with a few known facts. And they're very simple and clear. LA has not been tested positive. Tyler has been tested positive. And that's it! You can form and voice your opinions in a public forum but is it fair? is it just like some dude purchasing a ticket to the ball game and he sits there and hackle the player all night?
how would you feel if I come out calling your mom names etc. ???? is that fair? do I know your mom? NO!! as soon as I open my mouth and accuse someone of ****, the damage is done.

Innocence until proven guilty.

Rudy: I agree that we absolutely must assume innocence where proof of guilt is absent. However, does this mean that we should not be allowed to voice our doubts? Of course not.

The problem of course is whether we are having a private discussion or a public one. If I said to my mum that I had my doubts about Lance, Tyler or anyone, I would be perfectly within my rights and my conscience would be clear. But if I wrote to Procycling or wrote a book saying that I believed that someone was doping, then surely I would be open to legal action, because I would be trying to tarnish someone's reputation in public, without concrete evidence.

This is why the internet is both illuminating and dangerous. We can so easily sit here and speculate wildly about people's 'training methods' and I'm sure we've all seen many posts which have amounted to outright accusations of drug abuse. But on an internet forum, how do we draw the line between public declaration and private discussion? Are people just expressing their opinions to their peers, or are they guilty of defamation of character?

Most people here aren't properly accusing Tyler or Lance of doping. They are simply expressing their doubts, usually with good reasons backing them up. I don't think it's our place to tell them to shut up, unless their claims outweigh their reasons.

Perhaps it's all about balance. Maybe our rule of thumb when discussing doping issues should be: The weight of the claim must not exceed the weight of the evidence.

Sounds a bit UCI doesn't it? What do you reckon?
 

pineapple

New Member
Oct 3, 2003
213
0
0
Anyway... about Tyler.

He has tested positive, so we are perfectly within our rights to say that he has doped. There is proof of guilt.

The way I see it, the only way this proof can be revoked is if the testing method can be discredited, and it seems that Phonak and Hamilton are pursuing this.

Since it is a new test, it is possible that there are things the UCI and IOC don't know about the test.

Just as some riders are allowed haematocrit 50%+, it could be that there are some riders whose blood is more likely to trigger a positive for blood doping. Since we are all inexperienced in this field, I guess all we can do is wait and see. But the fact that Phonak have stood by Hamilton is a silver lining...
 

lokstah

New Member
Sep 30, 2003
2,164
0
0
pineapple said:
Most people here aren't properly accusing Tyler or Lance of doping. They are simply expressing their doubts, usually with good reasons backing them up. I don't think it's our place to tell them to shut up, unless their claims outweigh their reasons.
Pineapple, a thoughtful post. I like your reasoning.

I particularly like the bit quoted above, because frankly, in this situation, it's an approach that I personally find myself applying to Tyler, in reverse. The man has failed a sequence of tests -- tests which utilize a technique described as utterly failsafe, barring a rare family of blood-related birth defects or malignancies -- and though I can't (and no one other than himself should) declare his innocence, I find myself suspecting that he's the straight arrow I've admired him as.

Wishful thinking? Quite possibly. I also believe Roy Horn will perform again.
 

Breliswell

New Member
Aug 13, 2004
14
0
0
65
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, If I tell someone what I think about something, it is freedom of expression. When I post what I think on a discussion site, I'm not telling one person, I'm telling hundreds or thousands. A posting is, in essence, a puplication. As such it carries considerably more weight and power than an individual opinion expressed to another person.

Fact: Tyler Hamilton wa allowed to keep his Gold Medal
Fact: The proof of the IOC and ICU was insufficient.
Fact: Tyler Hamilton has been found guilty of nothing.
Fact: any conclusions beyond these,(or like them) i.e. failing to deny strongly enough, for the liking of some, are pure innuendo and even if they prove to be true at some point in the future, they constitute slander.

Many of the arguments cited on both sides are compelling and if I were speaking person to person, I would be fine with them. WE aren't person to person, we are publishing to the world.

Bottom line, Innocent until proven guilty. Find something else to talk about. Like riding
 

pineapple

New Member
Oct 3, 2003
213
0
0
Breliswell said:
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, If I tell someone what I think about something, it is freedom of expression. When I post what I think on a discussion site, I'm not telling one person, I'm telling hundreds or thousands. A posting is, in essence, a puplication. As such it carries considerably more weight and power than an individual opinion expressed to another person.

Fact: Tyler Hamilton wa allowed to keep his Gold Medal
Fact: The proof of the IOC and ICU was insufficient.
Fact: Tyler Hamilton has been found guilty of nothing.
Fact: any conclusions beyond these,(or like them) i.e. failing to deny strongly enough, for the liking of some, are pure innuendo and even if they prove to be true at some point in the future, they constitute slander.

Many of the arguments cited on both sides are compelling and if I were speaking person to person, I would be fine with them. WE aren't person to person, we are publishing to the world.

Bottom line, Innocent until proven guilty. Find something else to talk about. Like riding

Actually, the UCI had two positive tests, and I believe Hamilton is facing disciplinary action from the UCI. True he hasn't been 'convicted' (or whatever the equivalent word in sport) but he HAS tested positive - conclusively, under UCI rules.
 

Breliswell

New Member
Aug 13, 2004
14
0
0
65
Thanks for the clarification. As far as I'm concerned, what will be will be.

pineapple said:
Actually, the UCI had two positive tests, and I believe Hamilton is facing disciplinary action from the UCI. True he hasn't been 'convicted' (or whatever the equivalent word in sport) but he HAS tested positive - conclusively, under UCI rules.
 

run_and_ride

New Member
Aug 6, 2004
47
0
0
Let me take a wild guess. You are not a lawyer, are you? Slander????

Nice try. Another person trying to tell everyone else what they can talk about. OPINIONS are not slander. Read some case law on the subject.

Fact: Tyler Hamilton tested positive for blood doping in both the Olympics and the Vuelta.

The fact that some dumb lab tech froze the B sample and he gets to keep his Gold Medal on a technicality does not change that.

Breliswell said:
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, If I tell someone what I think about something, it is freedom of expression. When I post what I think on a discussion site, I'm not telling one person, I'm telling hundreds or thousands. A posting is, in essence, a puplication. As such it carries considerably more weight and power than an individual opinion expressed to another person.

Fact: Tyler Hamilton wa allowed to keep his Gold Medal
Fact: The proof of the IOC and ICU was insufficient.
Fact: Tyler Hamilton has been found guilty of nothing.
Fact: any conclusions beyond these,(or like them) i.e. failing to deny strongly enough, for the liking of some, are pure innuendo and even if they prove to be true at some point in the future, they constitute slander.

Many of the arguments cited on both sides are compelling and if I were speaking person to person, I would be fine with them. WE aren't person to person, we are publishing to the world.

Bottom line, Innocent until proven guilty. Find something else to talk about. Like riding
 

JohnO

New Member
Jul 5, 2003
1,495
0
0
run_and_ride said:
Let me take a wild guess. You are not a lawyer, are you? Slander????

Nice try. Another person trying to tell everyone else what they can talk about. OPINIONS are not slander. Read some case law on the subject.

Fact: Tyler Hamilton tested positive for blood doping in both the Olympics and the Vuelta.

The fact that some dumb lab tech froze the B sample and he gets to keep his Gold Medal on a technicality does not change that.

Okay, let's play lawyer here, and devil's advocate to a degree.

Any lab clumsy enough to foul up a B sample may have also fouled up the A sample as well. It brings their entire credibility into question. How many blood samples did that lab screw up? Just Tylers, one or two others, or all of them? Were any A samples 'accidentally' frozen? Misplaced? Mixed up? Let's get all the facts and circumstances regarding the handling of both A and B samples, and see if any patterns emerge. Was that an accident, or does it begin to look deliberate? With the huge sums of money flowing into professional cycling these days, anyone can be corrupted. Remember the boxing incident at the Seoul Olympics?

Plus, someone in the IOC apparently saw fit to surreptitiously contact the UCI, and apparently after they knew their test was invalid. We're pushing the boundaries of ethics there, not to mention laws. Perhaps someone with a grudge? Or someone who stood to gain financially from Tyler's downfall? Who made the contact? Is this normal? Does the IOC have a formal relationship with other sporting organizations? Have they done this in the past? Did they do this with any of the other detected athletes? Who at the UCI was contacted? Did they have prior business dealings with people in the IOC?

And we have the test itself - bleeding edge stuff, so several physicians have said. Not necessarily cut and dried, and subject to interpretation. How many people have been caught with this particular test? How long has it been in use? What is the percentage of false positives? False negatives? How many labs can run this test? Who is this 'panel of experts' that interpreted the test results? Why does it take a panel of experts to interpret a test? Are we talking about drug testing, or judging ice skating? Truth is, I believe Tyler is the first person and only rider to be accused on the basis of this test. So it is not unreasonable to question the test's validity.

I'm not naive enough to say that Tyler wasn't up to no good. You just don't know what goes on at the highest levels of cycling. Huge amounts of money ride on the outcome, and that will get ordinarily good people to compromise their character. It can corrupt Tyler. It can also corrupt people involved with the testing process.

Everyone is jumping on Tyler these days, while few seem to be looking at the curious chain of events and circumstances that led to the current situation. A champion like Tyler should not go down without his accusers and their methods being subjected to the same level of scrutiny that he is.
 

Brunswick_kate

New Member
Aug 16, 2003
515
0
0
JohnO said:
Everyone is jumping on Tyler these days, while few seem to be looking at the curious chain of events and circumstances that led to the current situation. A champion like Tyler should not go down without his accusers and their methods being subjected to the same level of scrutiny that he is.

Thank you. Amen. Hallelujah. Just when I thought I was the last human being standing who believed in due process and the scientific method.

There are serious questions concerning this entire issue. They are scientific, legal, procedural and ethical issues that need to be addressed. This is **not** the clear-cut, simple issue that some would have us believe.

The theory of the test is sound. The application of the test is NOT demonstrated, or at least, not in a publicly reviewable forum.

The decision of **someone** in the IOC to leak the A sample results in full knowledge that the B sample was unavailable is a) cowardly and b) ethically stinks.

Tyler Hamilton may indeed be guilty of blood doping. I think it's irresponsible to not acknowledge that he may also be innocent of these charges.

And in deference to those who hold opinions which do not agree with mine, may I defer some of the bomblast by expressing now that I appreciate you have an absolute right to express your personally held opinions, however you may have derived those opinions, although I may disagree with the contents of your conclusions. Thank you for your considered and measured response.
 

Similar threads

B
Replies
0
Views
176
B