Any words on Tyler's test results?
- Thread starter Rudy
- Start date
Brunswick_kate said:
BK, while you are uncomfortably sitting on that fence trying to claim objectivity, you are making your position more unbalanced and precarious by repeatedly shooting from the hip.
I suggest you read the UCI anti-doping rules -
http://www.uci.ch/imgArchive/Rules/AER 2005 .pdf
You may note that the UCI were extremely reluctant to adopt the WADA rules (IIRC, they were the last sporting organisation) but their hand was forced when, if they had not adopted, cycling events ran under the umbrella of the UCI would have been excluded from the Athens 2004 Olympics. Also it is notable that the UCI finally agreed by signing in August 2004, before the Olympics but after the 2004 TdF.
The UCI now has to contend with greater scrutiny of its drug testing procedures and external accountability.
I take it your "sheer brilliance" remark was meant to imply the UCI/IOC/WADA system is contrived to lack fairness and impartiality when compared with truly democratic systems of justice. Read the rules. It is not a kangaroo court as you appear to be suggesting.
Brunswick_kate said:
One of these days, I'll figure out how to do dispersed quotes. In the meantime, bear with me please as I answer in order.
My point on the DNA testing is that it severely shrinks the number of people who are wrongly convicted. If someone is wrongly convicted of a crime where DNA testing was not used, then that fact becomes part of the data leading to the statistical statements you made about false convictions. However, that's irrelevant to our discussion about Tyler's doping. You were talking about crime in general. Sure we would like for that number, the number of wrongful convictions, to shrink to zero, but there are many other problems in the world which we would like to see eliminated: hunger, disease, war, racism, aging, to name a few. Why focus on wrongly convicted criminals? It doesn't seem like it pertains to our discussion of Tyler's blood test results. That's why I said it was illogical to mention it here.
As for whether "justice, fair play, and sport are mutually exclusive categories" as you suggest, then that says you don't care whether Tyler is guilty or innocent of doping. I think most of us here want to know the truth, not to categorize his doping--whether it's because he was otherwise known as a good sport or otherwise known as a fair player--as being in a category of its own. That's why I participate in these discussions--to try to learn the truth and to see that the sport is heading in the direction of less doping, not more.
Tyler has made claims to the media that he thinks the tests were tampered with. Well, if you read carefully how the test works, he could exonerate himself by taking new tests and showing the world the results. He would test negative now. Although we don't know when Tyler allegedly infused blood into his system, we know that if he never did, as he claims, then he would come up with negative results immediately after testing positive. He would only be able to do this if the samples were tampered with as he claims. You see, the markers for the foreign blood remain in his system for 90 to 120 days, that's 3 to 4 MONTHS, not days, hours or minutes--MONTHS.
Now tell me, why would he not want such tests to be disclosed to the general public? He has already lost his endorsement contracts. If he had done this right away, as he would have if he didn't dope (why wouldn't he?), then he might have gotten his contracts back. Furthermore, he would have avoided a great deal of negative publicity. He may have even been reinstated as an active member of Phonak. The team manager suspended him only after first refusing to believe the drug results. But he has looked at them carefully, and he cannot deny them either. This means he would understand what a current negative result would mean--that Tyler is probably innocent. But it's not happening. Tyler is not coming public with these results. How do I know? Because it's not on the front page of every major newspaper all over the world. I don't have to have inside information to figure this out. I just have to look at the newspapers and see no Tyler exoneration news.
Do you see what I'm driving at? When you look deeper at this case, it becomes much more clear what is going on.
gntlmn said:
You know, even for you, this is a cheap shot. I made a statement that other systems which have some experience with the determination of guilt and innonence have had some problems with getting it 100% right, 100% of the time. The system is good. It is not infallible. It works most of the time. It does not work absolutely.
Yes, my comments were NOT directly on point. It made reference to the criminal justice system not the doping control system. It made reference to a parallel system that has on occasion confronted the same issues of guilty/innocence/burden of proof, standards of evidence and a few other minor details. It's a system where a lot of people claim innocence when they are in fact guilty. It's a system where accused parties lie to save themselves from punitive measures. Those issues might have some vague sense of familiarity to the issue of "doping in sport". At the time that I wrote the statement, I was under the misguided impression that having confronted some of these issues, head on so to speak, I may be able to make some contribution to the issue at hand. I was wrong because I misunderstood the issue.
At no point in this conversation at any time did I mention anything about world hunger, nuclear arms races, AIDS, child poverty. I would also like to point out that I did not mention chocolate cheese cake or single malt whiskey. Your "straw man argument" attempts are noted. It's a very old, very cheap rhetorical trick to ridicule me for things I did not say. My biggest mistake in this entire "conversation" has been my assumption of good faith on your part and the notion that I just might be able to have a serious conversation on the subject. That is where my logic broke down. It has since been rectified.
Over the course of the past few days I have learned that the doping control system is without error. It has never made a mistake. It is incapable of making a mistake. In all aspects, the doping control system from top to bottom, from policy making to sample collection and storage is without flaw. Excellent. I conceded the point last night. Hamilton is guilty because the accusation IS the proof. I get it. I finally get it. It took me a while to cotton on the entire point that was being made: Whether or not he ever stuck a needle in his arm is irrelevant in its entirety.
Brunswick_kate said:
What's the point of the sarcasm? If you have something to say about why he doesn't take new tests and make them public, why don't you say it? I think he knows the new tests will come up positive just like they did in the Vuelta and in the Olympics. That's why he's "getting on with his life" instead of proving the testing was flawed, and his blood clean. His inaction seems to indicate his blood is not clean, and he can't get away with lying about it anymore. The tests nailed him. I'm glad they did. We don't need another dead cyclist. There have been too many lately.
gntlmn said:
What sarcasm? One of the biggest and most fundamental differences between you and me is that I don't pretend to have the inside scoop. I'm willing to admit that I don't know. I don't read minds. I don't read tea leaves. I don't talk to Tyler Hamilton. I'm not in his immediate circle of advisors. He doesn't consult with me.
I haven't read anything where he said he was "getting on with his life". Again, are you his lawyer? His physician? His publicist? His agent? His team manager or owner? No? Then it's highly unlikely that he's going to ring you up and get your opinion on the matter. The fact of the matter is that you don't know the details of his legal strategy. I don't know the status of his current situation.
In fact, this thread has just about reached its natural conclusion. You are unwilling to give a man an opportunity to defend himself. I am unwilling to damn him without hearing him. We are now arguing ethics and values and it is unlikely that either one of us are going to budge on these basic principles.
gntlmn said:
I have not heard to the contrary, but I understand that Tyler was taking the matter to a hearing where he will be pleading his defence. This hearing is before his national federation, ie US, and I read that USADA will be convening that hearing.
I speculate the grounds for defence would be one or more of the following:
1. The tests are flawed and unreliable and, by introducing scientific evidence, evidence the results could produce a false positive.
2. The tests are flawed and unreliable and did produce a false positive as evidenced by the results of an alternative analysis taken soon after the Vuelta announcement of the positive result.
3. He is a chimera.
If another test was conducted within a reasonable time after the Vuelta positive results it would have to be undertaken by an independent and reliable laboratory acceptable to USADA.
Tyler's legal defence team would not be telegraphing the grounds for his defence. Furthermore, allowing media and public speculation prior to the hearing may not be in the interests of the defence's case. Particularly after reading the inane drivel that has been produced by emotional laypersons in forums and letters in his speculative defence.
According to the UCI rules the standards of proof applicable are for the UCI/USADA must be between balance of probabilities and reasonable doubt. That would be relating to the test result and procedures. Whereas, Tyler's defence in rebuttal only require a standard of proof based on the balance of probabilities.
Brunswick_kate said:
I have to say, Kate, you carry yourself well.
One thing that people outside the USA must keep in mind - we have had six years of groundless doping accusations fired towards Lance, while he accomplishes what no cyclist has ever been able to do. We have a lot of people shouting 'doping' at Lance as he wins TDF #5 and #6 (and 1, 2, 3, and 4, for that matter), while here in the USA, a Japanese citizen is about to break a baseball record that has stood since the 1920's, and we cheer him on.
So if we look askance when people start attacking Tyler on the basis of, shall we say, less than concrete foundations, you must understand - this looks like round 10 of 'Lance must be Doping because he is beating us'.
Perhaps Tyler is guilty. It is quite possible, in which case this is a tragic tale of how strong character wasn't strong enough. But with the somewhat imprecise nature of the test used, the fact that Tyler was the only cyclist caught with the new test out of hundreds tested, the long history of false accusations and general animosity towards Lance, and even **** Pound of the WADA, buddying up with David Walsh of the Accuse Lance Without A Shred Of Proof organization, you must understand that the circumstances regarding Tyler's doping accusation are not exactly brimming with objectivity.
Brunswick_kate said:
There you go again. Wow! I never said anything directly to the effect or suggested that I had an inside scoop. I said that an inside scoop was unnecessary. All you have to do is read the news. If you haven't read the comments, then you haven't read this thread. I'm sorry, but please don't attack me for claiming to have an inside scoop when I clearly am stating the opposite.
Tyler has not come up with evidence to substantiate the attacks he has made on the validity of the test results. At one point, he said the other blood in his system might have been from surgery. At another point, he said the samples may have been tampered with. He has not provided evidence of this into the same forum as he has placed his attacks, if he has any evidence. This forum is the public eye.
Given that he has made unsubstantiated attacks on the organization which is moving forward to make the sport safer for all pro cyclists in keeping riders clean of doping, it seems fair to attack him for not doing so. That's what I'm doing. I am refusing to believe claims that he has made because he has not presented his evidence in the same forum that he has made his attacks. Granted, everyone should have a chance to defend himself. But when you do it in a way that makes no sense based on the evidence already presented, namely the results, it seems fair to refute those attacks. Otherwise, many people might not see the truth.
The subject of this thread is the test results, not so much ethics and values. Tyler flunked 3 out of 3 tests, and had questionable results on other blood tests earlier in the season when he won two other races. You want to keep refusing to take a good hard look at the evidence. If you did, you would say that it doesn't make sense with what he is saying. I did give him the benefit of the doubt before, when I hadn't read as much as I have now. But I don't anymore.
Most people don't have time to read much technical data. What they hear is Tyler saying he is innocent, and that the test results are false. It's time to balance these unsubstantiated claims. That's what I'm doing. He doesn't have any evidence that he has presented into the media. Therefore, he should have kept his mouth shut about it. A better approach would have been to say that he was withholding comment until the matter was resolved with his attorneys and the UCI. He could have even said that he expected the matter to be resolved to his satisfaction. Since he has not taken that approach, choosing instead to give unsubstantiated reasons for the falsity of the tests, then I won't keep quiet about his lack of substantiation for his comments.
VeloFlash said:
As I said with Kate, Tyler has taken comments into the public arena and has not substantiated those comments into the same arena. Therefore, I am refuting his attacks on the testing due to the fact that he has not substantiated them. He has not come up with evidence that the tests were false. Since he is silent about the evidence, he should have been silent with the attacks and chosen a no comment strategy. He has not. Therefore, I am calling to question the idea that the samples were tampered with. Until he produces clean samples which were dated on or about the date when he was informed of the positive test results, then I hope that the general public doesn't believe him until they see those results.
Court and legal matters are one thing, but when claims are made to the media, then he better be able to back them up with some evidence. He has not. They haven't printed anything like that.
JohnO said:
How do you come up with the idea that the test is somewhat imprecise? How do you get the idea that the doping "accusation" is not an objective result, given that Tyler flunked a test that all other riders were required to pass? How do you condone a flunked test when the alleged doper is the one beating out all the others who have passed the test?
I'm with you about Lance. He's never failed a doping test. If we are to remain objective, then we need to continue to look at the evidence even when it doesn't go the way we want it to. That's the fair and objective approach.
gntlmn said:
The flow cytometry test is at best a screening test. A positive indicates only that an abnormal number of what might be foreign blood cells were detected. There are several explanations for this, one of which is a homologous blood transfusion. Another is being a chimera, and another is certain types of infections. Point being - the flow cytometry test is not proof positive that the person did get a blood transfusion. There are more specific tests that can pin down the source, but they aren't being used.
My problem with all of this is that the WADA and UCI take a suspicion as guilt, and see no reason to go further. The attitude seems to be - we think you might be bad, so prove otherwise. This is far below what the rules of evidence in any credible court of law would require.
That wouldn't be a problem with club racing, where the group is small and the only thing at stake is a trophy or bragging rights. But this isn't club racing, it is an international sport that has exploded in growth, with multimillion dollar careers. If an organization like the UCI wishes to assume the position of judge and arbiter of a multibillion dollar sport, then their decisions should at least be governed by the rules of evidence required in a courtroom. This one was not. If anything, I think that the sport of cycling has grown a lot faster than the UCI. Let's forget about WADA - they have long since moved from being impartial arbiter to pit bull accuser. While we need a pit bull to keep the dopers at bay, let's not lose sight of the fact that they can bark at the moon, too.
Honestly, it doesn't look good for Tyler. And the UCI is probably right. Probably. Once again, though, we aren't talking about getting kicked out of the club. We're talking about the destruction of a career. If you're going to do that, you should grant them more than a wink and a nod before you do it.
Granted, I probably wouldn't have paid as much attention if Tyler hadn't been American, but I'm seeing a rebirth of cycling over here as the result of Lance, Tyler, Levi, Bobby, Floyd, and a host of others. I'm back riding a bike as a result, and so are a lot of people. I hate to see all of that go down the drain, because of a club mentality on the part of the governing body.
Look I don't think that WADA/IOC/UCI are going to leave themselves open to very expensive damages claim from TH, and neither are his ex employers Phonak. Anyhow, how come you seem to be in on the issue of blood testing. Nobody else is, and you don't know what 'pinpoint' tests they do, do you?JohnO said:
COURTS of LAW as well, another forte of yours? Well let me simplyfy matters.
If you are accused of murder, you are charged with the offence in a place set aside for these matters. The prosecutor lays his charges, and you plead not guilty. You don't walk out of the door and go home, you are remanded in custody. It is then up to your defence to prove you are not guilty at a trial.
The same process is happening with TH.
Your next paragraph proves your ignorance of bike racing in Europe. You haven't a clue, and although I could put you right on many things, I don't have the time nor the inclination to do so.
Nobody made TH cheat. None of his team are in the same position!
I say TH will be banned. Would you like to wager a few dollars to the contrary? As we say over here 'he has ****(shat) on his own doorstep'. Of course cycling has problems with doping, but I will say one thing about it. It faces it's demons head on.
So bye for now, and have a think about it
JohnO said:
I see the other point of view, that it's less likely to go down the drain with a very strict anti doping stance. If they all turn out to be dopers, well, I guess it's already down the drain. But I don't see it that way. I think the overwhelming majority of pro cyclists are clean, as the tests bear out.
It will be interesting to hear Tyler's defense. I hope the general public gets to hear it all in the end.
I think some things are more important than winning a race. One of them is staying off any kind of banned performance enhancing doping.
I think if Tyler really is innocent, he has the means to afford other testing and medical opinions to support his case. His career won't entirely go down the drain. I am glad the UCI is not letting him off the hook with a wink and a nod. They're holding him to the results.
I think it's good for the sport. I've been riding quite a bit since Lemond started winning and kept riding through Indurain's reign, wins by Riis, Ullrich, Pantani, and then finally still through Armstrong. I'm not a pro, but my love for the sport goes way beyond America. And of course, it's not only about the TdF. I agree with you, that what the pros do has influence over us non pros as to our riding.
If we Americans screw up over here, I don't think people should look the other way simply because we bring a lot of money to the game. There are plenty of other riders here besides Hamilton coming up through the ranks. I think a strong message like this tragedy sends is good in the long run. The young guys may give the sport a go at it if they know that when they finally do make it to the top rungs of cycling, they'll be able to ride without pumping themselves full of dope to compete with the other pros. They might quit right now if they knew they would have to use drugs. These would be the young guys, 15 to 20 years old or thereabouts--the future of the sport.
