**** Breaking News: Hamilton Tested Positive? ***



Saucy

New Member
Feb 21, 2004
278
0
0
In its September 23 edition, the French sports daily l'Equipe reported that the UCI sent letters of notification to Hamilton after both the Tour de Romandie (which he won) and the Dauphine Libere (where he was a close second to Iban Mayo), warning him of what l'Equipe called "strange fluctuations" in certain values of his blood tests.
This story just gets more odd by the minute. If TH knew about this why didn't he resolve this problem when he received these warnings?!? Like the article states, it takes incredible audacity or stupidity to continue racing when authorities have alerted you to borderline results.

Also, how can TH now claim to be so utterly shocked by the IOC/Vuelta results if he was warned after two races?


**** Pound weighs in on the issue

From the article:
Without mentioning Hamilton by name, Pound told a meeting of Toronto's business community, "It appears a cyclist might have escaped this net because of human error, but I can assure you it's no longer a gold medal in the eyes of the world.

"But if nothing else, we got him on the second bounce."
No sympathy from Mr. Pound. Not that I expected any...

Its worth noting that Pound is a lawyer and even he apparently doesn't believe in "innocent until proven guilty".
 

Brunswick_kate

New Member
Aug 16, 2003
515
0
0
Saucy said:
This story just gets more odd by the minute. If TH knew about this why didn't he resolve this problem when he received these warnings?!? Like the article states, it takes incredible audacity or stupidity to continue racing when authorities have alerted you to borderline results.

Also, how can TH now claim to be so utterly shocked by the IOC/Vuelta results if he was warned after two races?


**** Pound weighs in on the issue

From the article:

No sympathy from Mr. Pound. Not that I expected any...

Its worth noting that Pound is a lawyer and even he apparently doesn't believe in "innocent until proven guilty".

If nothing else, we got him on the second bounce....

Wow. Now that's a testimonial to the "impartiality and objective native nature" of this entire process, from the head of WADA nonetheless. Pretty much contaminates the credibility quotient for the Veulta test process.
 

antoineg

New Member
Jun 13, 2003
247
0
0
Brunswick_kate said:
If nothing else, we got him on the second bounce....

Wow. Now that's a testimonial to the "impartiality and objective native nature" of this entire process, from the head of WADA nonetheless. Pretty much contaminates the credibility quotient for the Veulta test process.

What exactly does **** Pound have to do with the Vuelta test process? Did he take the blood, package it, hand-deliver it to the lab, run the tests, compile the results?
 

antoineg

New Member
Jun 13, 2003
247
0
0
Saucy said:
Also, how can TH now claim to be so utterly shocked by the IOC/Vuelta results if he was warned after two races?
Quote from Hamilton on 9/22, as reported on cyclingnews.com:

Tyler Hamilton said:
The results were like a bolt of lightning out of the blue for me. I have no idea what has happened.
Hm. He'd already been warned twice about "strange fluctuations,", yet these results were like a "bolt of lightning out of the blue."

You'd think an innocent person would have said:

"Innocent Tyler Hamilton" said:
The UCI had previously notified me of some odd blood readings. Given these findings, I'm very confident that either (a) the tests are wrong or (b) my blood physiology is such that I fall outside of the normal ranges the testers look for and I will immediately seek out the best independent lab experts to determine what my normal ranges are
The fact that he hid the fact of the prior two notifications from the UCI does not look good for him.
 

antoineg

New Member
Jun 13, 2003
247
0
0
Saucy said:
No sympathy from Mr. Pound. Not that I expected any...

Its worth noting that Pound is a lawyer and even he apparently doesn't believe in "innocent until proven guilty".
WADA is not like the US and "innocent until proven guilty" is not the foundation of their system, nor is their primary mission to protect the innocent.

As a fun exercise, check out the World Anti-Doping Code at http://www.wada-ama.org/docs/web/standards_harmonization/code/code_v3.pdf and do a search for the terms "fair" and "fairness". Aside from section 8, which deals with hearings, the terms are all used in terms of protecting clean riders from the dopers.. It's important to note that perspective.

The comments in section 2.1.1, which deal with strict liability, are also telling:

WADC said:
Furthermore, it appears to be a laudable policy objective not to repair an accidental unfairness to an individual by creating an intentional unfairness to the whole body of other competitors
An even more fun exercise: search the document for the word "innocent" :)
 

Saucy

New Member
Feb 21, 2004
278
0
0
antoineg said:
What exactly does **** Pound have to do with the Vuelta test process? Did he take the blood, package it, hand-deliver it to the lab, run the tests, compile the results?

I agree. WADA does not do any testing; they simply facilitate other organizations, finance development of new testing procedures, and harmonize the doping code amongst various sporting authorities. Was **** Pound hovering over the shoulders of the lab technicians who were presumably doing their testing "blind" anyway?

Considering the conflict between WADA and the UCI, I highly doubt Mr. Pound's opinions have much effect on UCI testers. WADA observers were persona non grata at the 2003 TDF.

As far as objectivity, **** Pound does not need to be diplomatic, as he says in his own words:

Part of my role with WADA is to raise the level of public perception of the importance of doping-free sport and the need to deal with those who cheat. I can say things more directly than someone who has to try to balance other issues as well as doping and who has, therefore, to be more diplomatic or circumspect.

I do not for example, regard doping in sport as a matter of diplomacy. It is cheating. This does not require nuance. It requires firm and consistent action.

As long as I have any connection with WADA my approach to cheaters will be that they may run, for a while, but they can no longer hide. --**** Pound.

antoineg said:
The fact that he hid the fact of the prior two notifications from the UCI does not look good for him.
If this story is true, then I agree. Not having seen any corroboration to the L'Equipe story, I am still waiting for further info. If this story is true, it indicates an extreme level of stupidity on Tyler's part that I'm not sure I'm ready to assign.
 

Brunswick_kate

New Member
Aug 16, 2003
515
0
0
antoineg said:
What exactly does **** Pound have to do with the Vuelta test process? Did he take the blood, package it, hand-deliver it to the lab, run the tests, compile the results?

My apologies for not elucidating every nuance. I'm unaccustomed to attempting to communicate with absolute literalists in the language and it is a bit of a learning curve for me.

I have written previously, I'm sure you can provide the references, on a question of the appearance of inappropriate communications between doping control officials at the IOC and Veulta. The quote attributed to Mr. Pound indicates that there may be some substance to this suspicion.

My comment, and again I sincerely apologize for having failed to communicate every single element of my commentary, is in reference to reservations that the tests at Vuelta were done independently of the Olympic tests. It dovetails with my curiousity on why someone associated with the IOC leaked the Sample A results to the media when there was no way that the Sample A results could be confirmed given the loss of the B sample.

Again, I thank you for pointing out that I did not fully and completely express my thoughts. I appreciate your consideration on this matter and while I frequently disagree with your conclusions on this matter, I respect your right to articulate your position.
 

antoineg

New Member
Jun 13, 2003
247
0
0
Brunswick_kate said:
My apologies for not elucidating every nuance. I'm unaccustomed to attempting to communicate with absolute literalists in the language and it is a bit of a learning curve for me.

I have written previously, I'm sure you can provide the references, on a question of the appearance of inappropriate communications between doping control officials at the IOC and Veulta. The quote attributed to Mr. Pound indicates that there may be some substance to this suspicion.

My comment, and again I sincerely apologize for having failed to communicate every single element of my commentary, is in reference to reservations that the tests at Vuelta were done independently of the Olympic tests. It dovetails with my curiousity on why someone associated with the IOC leaked the Sample A results to the media when there was no way that the Sample A results could be confirmed given the loss of the B sample.

Again, I thank you for pointing out that I did not fully and completely express my thoughts. I appreciate your consideration on this matter and while I frequently disagree with your conclusions on this matter, I respect your right to articulate your position.

No, Kate, you were trying to cast a cloud of suspicion over the whole thing because of a comment made my **** Pound. Let's just call a spade a spade. If that's what you call "absolute literalists," then so be it :)

You have no information to back up your thought that maybe the IOC and the UCI were collaborating prior to the Vuelta, at this point it's just a suspicion without any proof or even allegation by anyone even remotely familiar with the process (at least that I'm aware of). In fact, I may be the one who even brought up that suspicion on this board at least.

The Olympic "A" tests were not leaked to the media -- they were communicated by Phonak to the media. They claim they had been receiving phone calls asking about the "A" test but have yet to provide any names of anyone in the media who called them, and who might have known about the test results in advance. Given the timing of the official notification, to the time of the press conference by Phonak, you would think that if the media knew about it it would have broken before 9/22/04.
 

Saucy

New Member
Feb 21, 2004
278
0
0
Brunswick_kate said:
My comment, and again I sincerely apologize for having failed to communicate every single element of my commentary, is in reference to reservations that the tests at Vuelta were done independently of the Olympic tests. It dovetails with my curiousity on why someone associated with the IOC leaked the Sample A results to the media when there was no way that the Sample A results could be confirmed given the loss of the B sample.

Kate, go to the TH thread in the Bike Cafe forum. Veloflash answered your question. There is a perfectly logical reason as to why this occurred. There is no great conspiracy theory. There was no "leak". It was all by the book.

Again, I thank you for pointing out that I did not fully and completely express my thoughts. I appreciate your consideration on this matter and while I frequently disagree with your conclusions on this matter, I respect your right to articulate your position.

Quit wasting bandwith. And cut it out with the defensiveness and condescension. Your passive-aggressive ******** is really getting tiresome. You're just trying to bait people into a fight. Antoineg at least takes people head on. You hide behind your victim complex.

If you want an example of how to express an contrarian viewpoint without talking down to people, look at Roadrash Dunc' post further up.
 

antoineg

New Member
Jun 13, 2003
247
0
0
Saucy said:
If this story is true, then I agree. Not having seen any corroboration to the L'Equipe story, I am still waiting for further info.

Important point highlighted above that Saucy brings up -- after doing some searching, I don't see any corroboration yet either. So at this point it's still a big "maybe."
 

Saucy

New Member
Feb 21, 2004
278
0
0
This was posted by Veloflash in another forum in response to the suggestion of sample results being leaked and/or collusion between testing bodies. I thought it was very informative and thought you guys might like to read it.

Veloflash said:
Lot of conjecture here.

KB, if you have been reading your revelations on doping exposures you will find that failures on testing of "A" samples are nearly always released. When an athlete is notified of a positive drug test result from the "A" sample they have a right have the "B" sample analysed or waived. The athlete has a right to be informed of the procedures of testing and can be present (or have a representative present) during the analysis of the "B" sample.

You allude to a conspiracy about release of "A" sample results knowing the "B" sample was not fit for testing. Where is your source for this information? The lab would not have known the "B" sample was destroyed by refrigeration until after the request by TH to have his "B" sample tested.

KB, you will also find that the identification of the donor of the samples for drug testing are unknown to the lab testers. The samples are coded. There is a restriction under IOC rules to release the name of an athlete who has failed an "A" test. But the IOC has an obligation under the rules to release the identity and results of the analysis to the following -

1. The athlete (who can request his "B" sample be analysed).

2. The head of the team (ie US Olympic team).

3. The international federation governing the sport (ie. UCI)

4. World Anti Doping Agency (WADA).

The IOC did not "leak" the information to the UCI as you speculate. The IOC followed the rules applicable to every athlete. I suggest you read the IOC anti doping rules that applied to the Athens 2004 Olympics.
 

Brunswick_kate

New Member
Aug 16, 2003
515
0
0
Saucy said:
Quit wasting bandwith. And cut it out with the defensiveness and condescension. Your passive-aggressive ******** is really getting tiresome. You're just trying to bait people into a fight. Antoineg at least takes people head on. You hide behind your victim complex.

If you want an example of how to express an contrarian viewpoint without talking down to people, look at Roadrash Dunc' post further up.

Yes. Thank you for the advice.
 

run_and_ride

New Member
Aug 6, 2004
47
0
0
I agree with Kate, am I too wasting bandwidth? I believe that no rider that ever tested positive for doping is guilty. I even take it one step further. I think those admitted dopers like David Millar have lied about being dopers. They are just lazy slackers that wanted a break from cycling so they confessed to doping to get suspended.

I don't even believe there is such a thing as dope. I have never seen dope. Have you? How do we know it actually exists.

Leave Kate alone.

Saucy said:
Kate, go to the TH thread in the Bike Cafe forum. Veloflash answered your question. There is a perfectly logical reason as to why this occurred. There is no great conspiracy theory. There was no "leak". It was all by the book.



Quit wasting bandwith. And cut it out with the defensiveness and condescension. Your passive-aggressive ******** is really getting tiresome. You're just trying to bait people into a fight. Antoineg at least takes people head on. You hide behind your victim complex.

If you want an example of how to express an contrarian viewpoint without talking down to people, look at Roadrash Dunc' post further up.
 

musette

New Member
Aug 29, 2003
2,434
0
0
I find it suspicious that Tyler's initial response to the doping results was that he had had surgery. That is suspicious because (1) Tyler is no longer maintaining that position, and has shifted to a "faulty science" defense, (2) Tyler would have no need to make up a "surgery"-based explanation for his test results if he knew he did not have another person's blood in his system and were innocent, (3) the surgery would have had to occur no more than a few months before the Vuelta and Olympic testings, as the life span of a red blood cell is limited, (4) nobody was aware of Tyler having undergone surgery prior to the Vuelta, and (5) Tyler's injuries in the TdF did not require surgery.

It's as if, on Law & Order, somebody had initially provided an alibi to a crime that is proven later to be false. There may be reasons for the person to have lied, but one major explanation would be that he committed the crime in question.

There needs to be greater scrutiny of why Tyler made up his surgery defense in the first place.
 

run_and_ride

New Member
Aug 6, 2004
47
0
0
Is there any proof that he actually said that? For that matter, is there any proof that he actually has ever said anything at all. I have seen press releases attributing quotes to him but I have never actually heard him speak. I watched almost all the OLN coverage of the TDF and I never actually saw him speak.

Kate and I will be needing to see evidence that Tyler actually has vocal chords before we believe that he actually spoke. Thanks.

musette said:
I find it suspicious that Tyler's initial response to the doping results was that he had had surgery. That is suspicious because (1) Tyler is no longer maintaining that position, and has shifted to a "faulty science" defense, (2) Tyler would have no need to make up a "surgery"-based explanation for his test results if he knew he did not have another person's blood in his system and were innocent, (3) the surgery would have had to occur no more than a few months before the Vuelta and Olympic testings, as the life span of a red blood cell is limited, (4) nobody was aware of Tyler having undergone surgery prior to the Vuelta, and (5) Tyler's injuries in the TdF did not require surgery.

It's as if, on Law & Order, somebody had initially provided an alibi to a crime that is proven later to be false. There may be reasons for the person to have lied, but one major explanation would be that he committed the crime in question.

There needs to be greater scrutiny of why Tyler made up his surgery defense in the first place.
 

Roadrash Dunc

New Member
Aug 19, 2004
259
0
0
Cant say i ever heard Tyler play the surgery card yet.Thats all paper talk.

He has been water-tight with his statements and will no doubt only come out and put his side of the story when his lawyers/doctors tell him to.
I hope for his sake (and his fans which i include myself) that he gets it right and can prove a reasonable excuse as to why his test results are positive (without doping)
If it was nearly any other rider though , id say he was guilty bang to rights.But i've followed this guy for a while , watched him race , heard him talk and he deserves the benefit of the doubt for now.He isnt just _another_schmuck_doper in the peloton.Although i'm not going to argue against the cynics who say he is already guilty - afterall his tests proved he has failed.I will just wait and cross my fingers.
 

Perro Loco

New Member
Jul 14, 2004
121
0
0
A little off topic, but here is a 3 part series by Joe Lindsey from bicycling Magazine on doping in cycling written earlier this year.
I think his article I posted earlier is one of the better ones written since this story came out and these are written in a fairly objective even tone.


http://www.bicycling.com/article/0,3253,s1-8861,00.html?category_id=441

http://www.bicycling.com/article/0,3253,s1-9901,00.html?category_id=441

http://www.bicycling.com/article/0,3253,s1-10081,00.html?category_id=441
 

mareblu

New Member
Mar 16, 2004
363
0
0
Perro Loco said:
The test is for homologous blood (someone elses) not autologous (your own)
THe test measures red cell antigens and has a high probability of detecting a transfusion from some one else. The probability of finding someone that is an exact match (these are minor antigens not ABO and Rh) is quite low.
http://www.haematologica.org/2003_11/1284.htm


http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2004/tour04/?id=features/doping
The method of doping via blood transfusions has been partially addressed by the new tests. Dr Zorzoli confirmed that homologous blood transfusions are now detectable, but auto-transfusions are not.

I am not sure about the false positivity of this test- may depend on the % of transfused blood found.
Red cells in circulation have a half life of ~60 days (ave lifespan 120 days)- transfused cells tend to last a shorter time. If he had a transfusion for a surgical procedure it would have to have been in early early spring.



Perro Loco, do you think he did it? or could he be one of those cases were he shows a false positive? just wondering.... :confused:
 

Perro Loco

New Member
Jul 14, 2004
121
0
0
mareblu said:
Perro Loco, do you think he did it? or could he be one of those cases were he shows a false positive? just wondering.... :confused:
I don't know. I'm on the fence so to speak.
Also I wish I could see the primary data (yeah like that would happen) talk to the test developers etc..
So far the people who developed the test and perform it seem confident that it is accurate and in 300+ samples his is the only positive.
I am also a little bothered by **** Pounds overzealous comments. I wan't "cheats" caught too, but not at the expense of sullying the innocence.

I admit I am a fan of Tylers- if I wasn't or if it had been a Euro pro who I knew nothing about I might say probably.
But 2 failed tests from 2 different labs ? If the story attributed to L'Equipe is true that the U.C.I. warned Hamilton about flucuations in blood counts at Romadie and Dauphine is true my opinion might change.

So I'am copping out and saying I don't know, but hope this definitively resolved for the sake of cycling.
 

Brunswick_kate

New Member
Aug 16, 2003
515
0
0
All right sports fans, at the risk of band width a-wasting, time for some people to answer a few simple questions:

1) What is the false-positive rate on the test used by the IOC to determine homologous blood doping?

2) By what means was the false-positive rate on the test determined?

3) Which of the minor blood group antigens were tested?

4) Are those antigens stable in physiologically stressed individuals?


Anybody got answers? I'd love to hear them.
 

Similar threads

B
Replies
0
Views
164
Road Cycling
Breaking News
B