Hamilton Doping?

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by Ride-A-Lot, Sep 21, 2004.



  1. Ride-A-Lot

    Ride-A-Lot Guest

  2. BB

    BB Guest

    On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:31:03 GMT, Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
    > Ride-A-Lot wrote:
    >> Ride-A-Lot wrote:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/6984.0.html

    >>
    >> I guess we all saw this at the same time.

    >
    > Waah waaah waah. The media creates news where there doesn't need to be any.


    Damn right. They just should let those roadies take all the drugs they
    want, then they won't have to fuss over it all the time.

    --
    -BB-
    To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)
     
  3. MattB

    MattB Guest

    BB wrote:
    > On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:31:03 GMT, Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
    >> Ride-A-Lot wrote:
    >>> Ride-A-Lot wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/6984.0.html
    >>>
    >>> I guess we all saw this at the same time.

    >>
    >> Waah waaah waah. The media creates news where there doesn't need to
    >> be any.

    >
    > Damn right. They just should let those roadies take all the drugs they
    > want, then they won't have to fuss over it all the time.


    I loved the old SNL "All Drug Olympics" with Beloushi smoking cigs and
    eating the chocolate donettes after having been on a multi-day multi-drug
    binge.
    "The chocolate ones make me faster."

    I especially agree when it comes to non-performance enhancing drugs, like
    that stoner Canadian snowboarder a while back. So what? They say he's a bad
    role model, but we would have never even known about that facet of his
    lifestyle if he wasn't tested and then it was publicized!

    Of course if you know many snowboarders, it's isn't much of a stretch of the
    imagination, but I digress...

    Matt
     
  4. kantspel

    kantspel Guest

    MattB wrote:

    >
    > Of course if you know many snowboarders, it's isn't much of a stretch of the
    > imagination, but I digress...
    >
    > Matt
    >
    >


    paraphrased from the daily show...

    "...Olympic officials first became suspicious of so&so when they found
    out he was a snowboarder."
     
  5. Phil Squire

    Phil Squire Guest

    "BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    SNIP
    > >
    > > Waah waaah waah. The media creates news where there doesn't need to be

    any.
    >
    > Damn right. They just should let those roadies take all the drugs they
    > want, then they won't have to fuss over it all the time.
    >

    Absolutely cause those pro mtb racers are all clean ;-)

    Phil
    > --
    > -BB-
    > To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)
     
  6. JD

    JD Guest

  7. bri719

    bri719 Guest

    MattB wrote:

    >Of course if you know many snowboarders, it's isn't much of a stretch of the
    >imagination, but I digress...
    >
    >


    well that J. Kerry sure is a dope, but you can't say we're all on the
    stuff :)

    I actually find it funny that I enjoy all the same hobbies as the guy
    (except windsurfing) but can't stand him & won't vote for him.

    bri


    --

    * enjoying the karma *
    remove LKJSDFJSD from address to email
     
  8. Shawn

    Shawn Guest

    bri719 wrote:

    > MattB wrote:
    >
    >> Of course if you know many snowboarders, it's isn't much of a stretch
    >> of the imagination, but I digress...
    >>
    >>

    >
    > well that J. Kerry sure is a dope, but you can't say we're all on the
    > stuff :)
    >
    > I actually find it funny that I enjoy all the same hobbies as the guy
    > (except windsurfing) but can't stand him & won't vote for him.


    OK, we're talking about Tyler Hamilton here. Con-cen-trate. Focus, I
    know its hard, but you can do it...
    He was framed. That's what I'm going with until that argument is shot
    down in a massive fireball of evidence and confessions.
    Athletes were told before the Olympics that samples would be saved for
    later testing as better tests came along. "You may not get busted now,
    but when you're 50 we may still strip you of your medal." Sure some are
    stupid enough to doubt, but I have a hard time believing Hamilton
    ignored the USOC, and USCF pounding the fact into his skull.
    But then again, we're a win at all cost kind of society.
    Just ask W.


    Shawn
     
  9. bri719

    bri719 Guest

    Shawn wrote:

    > OK, we're talking about Tyler Hamilton here. Con-cen-trate. Focus, I
    > know its hard, but you can do it...
    > He was framed. That's what I'm going with until that argument is shot
    > down in a massive fireball of evidence and confessions.
    > Athletes were told before the Olympics that samples would be saved for
    > later testing as better tests came along. "You may not get busted
    > now, but when you're 50 we may still strip you of your medal." Sure
    > some are stupid enough to doubt, but I have a hard time believing
    > Hamilton ignored the USOC, and USCF pounding the fact into his skull.



    what I heard as of this morning is, the Olympic re-test is in, and they
    said it tested negative. the one from the race in Spain(?) came back
    positive (again).

    so what does the IOC (or USOC) make of THAT?? sounds inconclusive at
    best. and I'm no conspiracy theorist but I'm starting to think along
    the same lines as you... clearly someone else's blood was in there, but
    how it got there is anybody's best guess. it should definitely become
    more clear over the next days or weeks.

    whatever happens I believe the guy and not out of blind allegiance but
    past history and his after listening to his statements as well. go Tyler.

    bri

    p.s. I just heard a blurb on the radio that said they're allowing him to
    keep the gold...so I'll be waiting to hear the full explanation or
    searching out over the web later

    --

    * enjoying the karma *
    remove LKJSDFJSD from address to email
     
  10. tcmedara

    tcmedara Guest

    bri719 <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Shawn wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > what I heard as of this morning is, the Olympic re-test is in, and
    > they said it tested negative. the one from the race in Spain(?) came
    > back positive (again).
    >

    From Velonews: http://tinyurl.com/54rua

    "On Thursday officials notified Hamilton that the case has been closed
    because tests on the B-Sample was "considered as non conclusive because of
    lack of enough intact red blood cells."
    IOC medical chief Arne Ljungqvist said in a conference call Thursday that
    the second sample had been damaged because testers inadvertently froze the
    second sample, ruining red blood cells."

    It'll be interesting to see where this goes now, eh?

    Tom
     
  11. TM

    TM Guest

    "tcmedara" <[email protected]> wrote in
    >
    > It'll be interesting to see where this goes now, eh?
    >


    He'll keep the gold on a technicality. He'll probably get a two year
    suspension from racing pro for both the A and B sample coming back positive
    in Spain.

    Long story short, 4 tests and 3 positives. One inconclusive. No negatives.

    Pretty clear that he is guilty, but he'll keep living the lie as long as he
    can.
     
  12. bri719

    bri719 Guest

    TM wrote:

    >He'll keep the gold on a technicality. He'll probably get a two year
    >suspension from racing pro for both the A and B sample coming back positive
    >in Spain.
    >
    >Long story short, 4 tests and 3 positives. One inconclusive. No negatives.
    >
    >Pretty clear that he is guilty, but he'll keep living the lie as long as he
    >can.
    >
    >


    what about the possibility that samples were somehow tainted with
    someone else's blood (I'm not suggesting how, simply that it was
    possible)? all somebody has to do is sneak in a few drops of somebody
    else's sample or they accidentally become mixed and it automatically
    fails. if the monkeys running the IOC doping agency can "mistakenly"
    freeze a sample (think of the number of samples taken and the number of
    athletes, and how stupid one has to be to mess that up), there are
    obvious issues outside of whether he really did or did not have some
    kind of blood doping going on. I believe the guy did not have a
    transfusion, until proven guilty. it's quite a serious charge and I
    just don't believe he would intentionally slip up that badly. the guy's
    been a top rider for years and there's too much at stake to risk it.

    I wonder where this leaves him with the team, but I think it will be
    resolved in his favor. when you're this good and this close to winning
    without outside help, there's no reason to cheat. I simply want to know
    what happened as far as treatments and whatnot after he was forced to
    dropped out of the TDF from a fall, but hopefully everything will come
    out in the clear.

    bri

    --

    * enjoying the karma *
    remove LKJSDFJSD from address to email
     
  13. Shawn

    Shawn Guest

    bri719 wrote:

    > what I heard as of this morning is, the Olympic re-test is in, and they
    > said it tested negative. the one from the race in Spain(?) came back
    > positive (again).
    >
    > so what does the IOC (or USOC) make of THAT?? sounds inconclusive at
    > best. and I'm no conspiracy theorist but I'm starting to think along
    > the same lines as you... clearly someone else's blood was in there, but
    > how it got there is anybody's best guess. it should definitely become
    > more clear over the next days or weeks.
    >
    > whatever happens I believe the guy and not out of blind allegiance but
    > past history and his after listening to his statements as well. go Tyler.
    >
    > bri
    >
    > p.s. I just heard a blurb on the radio that said they're allowing him to
    > keep the gold...so I'll be waiting to hear the full explanation or
    > searching out over the web later
    >

    The lame thing about the test claims is that, if the samples were taken
    with reasonable care to avoid contamination during handling, testing
    could easily be done to look for someone else's DNA in the sample.
    People can be identified by the spit they leave on a postage stamp
    (thank heaven for self stick, or I'd be so busted...um, never mind),
    it'd be a snap to identify DNA from two different people in a blood
    sample (especially with a clean sample of Tyler's blood).

    Shawn
     
  14. SuperSlinky

    SuperSlinky Guest

    Shawn said...

    > The lame thing about the test claims is that, if the samples were taken
    > with reasonable care to avoid contamination during handling, testing
    > could easily be done to look for someone else's DNA in the sample.
    > People can be identified by the spit they leave on a postage stamp
    > (thank heaven for self stick, or I'd be so busted...um, never mind),
    > it'd be a snap to identify DNA from two different people in a blood
    > sample (especially with a clean sample of Tyler's blood).
    >
    > Shawn


    Red blood cells don't have a nucleus or mitochondria, thus no DNA. I
    think we can assume he didn't have a whole blood transfusion that would
    contain white blood cells with DNA.
     
  15. Shawn

    Shawn Guest

    SuperSlinky wrote:
    > Shawn said...
    >
    >
    >>The lame thing about the test claims is that, if the samples were taken
    >>with reasonable care to avoid contamination during handling, testing
    >>could easily be done to look for someone else's DNA in the sample.
    >>People can be identified by the spit they leave on a postage stamp
    >>(thank heaven for self stick, or I'd be so busted...um, never mind),
    >>it'd be a snap to identify DNA from two different people in a blood
    >>sample (especially with a clean sample of Tyler's blood).
    >>
    >>Shawn

    >
    >
    > Red blood cells don't have a nucleus or mitochondria, thus no DNA. I
    > think we can assume he didn't have a whole blood transfusion that would
    > contain white blood cells with DNA.


    There's still plenty of DNA to PCR up a useable amount.

    Shawn
     
  16. TM

    TM Guest

    "Shawn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > SuperSlinky wrote:
    > >
    > > Red blood cells don't have a nucleus or mitochondria, thus no DNA. I
    > > think we can assume he didn't have a whole blood transfusion that would
    > > contain white blood cells with DNA.

    >
    > There's still plenty of DNA to PCR up a useable amount.
    >


    Let's skip over the fact that you can't get dna from mature red blood cells
    and pretend for a moment that you can.

    Why would you even consider that red blood cells of different minor types
    could be created by cells with the same dna profile?

    Think about it.

    Your hypothetical dna test is redundant in this instance.

    The fact is he has the red blood cells of two individuals in his system. He
    needs to explain it. There are explanations; surgery, chimera,
    maternal/fetal transfer; he needs one quick.

    If he is innocent he should demand to be regularly tested and he will
    continue to test positive and be cleared. If he is guilty then you'll see
    him question the test and the labs and keep his blood to himself. Time, not
    a dna test, will make the answer clear to everyone.
     
  17. Shawn

    Shawn Guest

    TM wrote:

    >>
    >>There's still plenty of DNA to PCR up a useable amount.
    >>

    >
    >
    > Let's skip over the fact that you can't get dna from mature red blood cells
    > and pretend for a moment that you can.


    Packed RBCs aren't purified by flow cytometry (last I heard). There is
    other stuff in there.
    >
    > Why would you even consider that red blood cells of different minor types
    > could be created by cells with the same dna profile?


    I didn't.

    > Think about it.


    duh!
    >
    > Your hypothetical dna test is redundant in this instance.
    >
    > The fact is he has the red blood cells of two individuals in his system. He
    > needs to explain it. There are explanations; surgery, chimera,
    > maternal/fetal transfer; he needs one quick.


    I thought the chimera defense would be really interesting.
    "Why is Tyler so good?"
    "He's two people in one body."
    If he could prove it, it'd make a good JAMA article.
    Actually he doesn't need to explain it if the case is dropped, or he
    chooses to take the two year suspension.
    With the IOC "We had too many samples." argument, all the results for
    the entire Athens Games are suspect. We'll see if this is used as a
    grounds for appeal by other athletes who've been stripped of medals, or
    otherwise sanctioned.
    The Vuelta results are a different story.


    Shawn
     
  18. bri719

    bri719 Guest

    TM wrote:

    >Your hypothetical dna test is redundant in this instance.
    >
    >The fact is he has the red blood cells of two individuals in his system. He
    >needs to explain it. There are explanations; surgery, chimera,
    >maternal/fetal transfer; he needs one quick.
    >
    >


    what about.....mixed samples (not as likely because two different tests
    produced the same issue) -- or a loss of blood from an accident which
    required administration of a volume of someone else's blood to his system.

    does that equate "blood doping"? I sure would hope not. but if that's
    the case I'm sure it would be explained, and if he needs to be banned
    for something as minor as replacing a lost pint of his own blood, that's
    pretty sad.

    bri
     
Loading...
Loading...