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.
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.
