**** Pound says Tyler is a cheater cheater pumpkin eater...



R

Robert Chung

Guest
Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> Some interesting notions by a few doctors on today's letters page on CN.


They must be clutching at straws.

>> I make an income high in the three figures

>
> Old francs?


Anciens francs.
 

run_and_ride

New Member
Aug 6, 2004
47
0
0
Alex Rodriguez said:
According to olympic rules Tyler was not positive. So the idiots who
should know the olympic rules should shut up. Olympic rules say if you
get a non-negative A test, then you have to test the B sample. If the
B sample is also non-negative, then it is positive. Otherwise, it is a
negative.
---------------
Alex

That is just plain ridiculous. The Olympic Rules on drug testing allowed him to keep his Gold Medal on a technicality, and if not for the failed Vuelta test I could even support your argument.

The fact is that of the testable samples Tyler has given he is 3 for 3 as a doper. If not for a lab tech that doesn't know the difference between urine and blood he would be 4 for 4. He knows it and you know it.

He sounds like a politician now and we all know they never tell the truth. Hey Tyler, how about some proof of this surgery where you had a blood transfusion. Maybe a EOB from your Insurance Company or a note from your Doctor.
 
G

gym gravity

Guest
B. Lafferty wrote:

>
> And all Tyler has to do is come up with medical proof that he is in fact a
> chimera. AFAIK, he hasn't mentioned that as a possibility--just the
> unspecified surgical intervention. So let him have another blood test done
> for homologous blood doping around Christmas time. If he's negative for
> Christmas, he gets a two year suspension.
>
>

My position since the day the story broke ( http://tinyurl.com/4mw8q )
was taking Tyler's coment about a surgically necessary transfusion at
face value. I couldn't beleive that he actually wanted anyone to
beleive that he had a run-of-the-mill surgery (not quite run-of-the-mill
if things go so wrong that you need a homologous transfusion...lots of
planned surgeries use autologous transfusions as well as spilled blood
harvesting techniques specifically to minimize the use of homologous
transfusion, saving the donated blood for real emergencies). And to
recover from such a surgery that was close enough to the date of the
tests such that the transfusion could be detected (assuming that the
transfusion was run-of-the-mill and that the red cells would be
cleared), yet far enough away from the any of the races...where he
decimated the field at Romandie, get second in the Dauphine, won the
Olympic TT and won Stage 8 of the Vuelta.

The only thing I could think of at the time was a rare long term
chimerism from the transfusion (the word escaped me at the time) and
that if he was telling the truth, he would always "fail" the test.
Warren posted links about chimerism and that brought to light that even
if Tyler did or didn't get a transfusion, there are people that walk
around with two different types of blood (not all of them are sick,
either, as someone here keeps saying...it's true, there are a bunch of
cases where people have certain autoimmune diseases and it was found out
that often they were chimeric, but not all chimeras are sick, and not
all the people with Lupus (or whatever) are chimeras)

Lots of people were quick to say "never", and "impossible". My favorite
chemistry professor used to say, "don't trust people that use words like
never, always, impossible or absolutely". So my attention tends to
wander whenever I read or hear those words.

The most striking fact is that since the first knee jerk excuse of "I
had a transfusion once for a surgery, I think.", there hasn't been a
single re-statement of that, or any suggestion from Tyler or Phonak that
he be tested again, which is what I would have done if I knew I didn't
accept a transfusion. All we've seen (and we only see it through the
press) is that Phonak is trying to take the legal and moral low-road by
challenging the validity of the test in order to get the results thrown
out. I presume it's in their legal best interest to keep quiet about
the re-testing, and maybe they are doing it behind closed doors, cuz
what the ****, he's probably guilty and if it is a suprise to Phonak
that Tyler was transfusing, they want to know as bad as we do.
 
G

gym gravity

Guest
Robert Chung wrote:

> high in the three figures because students,


hundreds?
 
G

gym gravity

Guest
patch70 wrote:

> Robert Chung Wrote:
>
>>He's already had two tests (or perhaps three?): one at the Olympics and
>>one at the Vuelta. If they measured about the same proportion of
>>foreign cells at those two dates, that would be at least some evidence
>>of microchimerism.

>
>
> Methinks people are clutching at straws with this whole microchimerism
> belief. Most of the studies about it are from people with disease
> states or incorrect gender that would prevent competing in the men's
> Tour de France or any other elite pro cycling.


Not all chimeras are sick, it is thought that many people with certain
autoimmune diseases are chimeras, though.

> Has Tyler had a transfusion in the distant past?
>
> If microchimerism occurs in never transfused healthy males, why haven't
> more cyclists been found to be positive?


because they've only tested 300 or so people with this array of antibodies?

> And would the % of non-Tyler
> red blood cells be enough to give a +ve result using the FACS testing?
> In these studies, the basis of the belief in microchimerism comes from
> PCR or in situ hybridization testing, not from FACS.
>
>
 
R

Robert Chung

Guest
gym gravity wrote:
> Robert Chung wrote:
>
>> high in the three figures

>
> hundreds?


Nothing succeeds like success.
 
G

gym gravity

Guest
L. Seer wrote:

> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<AE%[email protected]>...
>
>>"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:bt%[email protected]
>>
>>>"patch70" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:p[email protected]
>>>
>>>>Chris Wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps Tyler is not aware the transfusions from many years ago can
>>>>>also
>>>>>cause a positive.
>>>>
>>>>Why would Tyler be "aware" of something that is completely wrong?
>>>>The test will become negative 120 days after the transfusion, probably
>>>>earlier.
>>>
>>>Not necessarily. Do a Pubmed search on 'microchimerism'.
>>>
>>>Andy Coggan

>>
>>And all Tyler has to do is come up with medical proof that he is in fact a
>>chimera. AFAIK, he hasn't mentioned that as a possibility--just the
>>unspecified surgical intervention. So let him have another blood test done
>>for homologous blood doping around Christmas time. If he's negative for
>>Christmas, he gets a two year suspension.

>
>
> Correct, but there is no need to wait for Santa. He says that it must
> be from an earlier transfusion during a surgical intervention which
> most likely would have had to have happened since May. He seemed
> pretty busy for that though.


Yup, Romandie win, Dauphine second, Olympics, and Vuelta.

Remember, blood transfusions are only
> done if there is MAJOR blood-loss. If this transfusion took place AND
> he is a chimera, as some claim is reasonably possible, it seems LIKELY
> there should be three cell "species" in his blood...unless...his
> mother provided the blood for this surgical transfusion. It doesn't
> sound like this is the case, and the chimera thing has not been
> offered by Tyler as an explanation, which, I agree, you would think he
> would have offered by now if it was indeed possible.
>

I should have read this post before I posted, huh.

> It seems reasonable to rule out beyond any SIGNIFICANT doubt right now
> any non-transfusion/transplant (of course there would be records of
> these anyway) induced chimera by comparing Tyler's mother's blood with
> the "odd cells out" blood in the three samples...assuming that the two
> times he was tested have the SAME odd "species" present.
> Whoa...wouldn't that be wild if each test provided a different 2nd
> "species". Who knows what the IOC and UCI know right now.
>
> Forget waiting for Santa...heck...he could just infuse from the same
> donor and say, "LOOK! I'm a chimera!" anyway. Anyone know if chimera
> is something that would have been detected earlier in life?


No, not routinely. If they are a blood chimera and they are going to
recieve a transfusion, some odd features might show up when being
cross-matched, but they probably wouldn't get to the "bottom of it" if
the patient was waiting for a pint, they would just keep cross matching
until they found a pint that was acceptable. If the bone marrow wasn't
affected by the chimerism, DNA testing would be the way to tell if
someone was a chimera, and then, you don't know where the distribution
of the differnt cell populations are, like what organ do you compare
with what other organ? How many people do you know have had any DNA
testing? How many of those people have had more than one tissue tested?
Somewhere I read that there were 30 incidences of chimerism reported
as of 2003.

I wonder if this little guy (scroll to the bottom) has any innate fear
of the sound of a zipper:

http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/genetics/medgen/chromo/mosaics.html

> Especially for a guy who has undergone surgeries and has had plenty of
> heath-check blood-testing? It may not normally be something that
> would show on the standards tests. Opinions?
 
L

L. Seer

Guest
"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
> >
> > So let him have another blood
> > test done for homologous blood doping around Christmas time.

>
> He's already had two tests (or perhaps three?): one at the Olympics and
> one at the Vuelta. If they measured about the same proportion of foreign
> cells at those two dates, that would be at least some evidence of
> microchimerism.


An earlier post here seems to have not made it...so if it is does
show, sorry for the repetition...

There's no reason to wait for Santa! Comparing the odd "species" out
in the two samples taken with his mother's blood could go a long ways
in clearing him in the extremely minute chance he has microchimerism
all the time. Of course, that assumes it is the SAME odd "species" in
the two samples. So, unless he is a maternal-fetal chimera (minute
chance) or has had some major transplant (marrow is a possibility) or
had a legitimate transfusion since Mayish...the odds of him being a
chimera start to get into the neiborhood of the odds of having two
non-twins come up as matches on a DNA test if the species don't match
his mother.

Now, if Tyler is truthful in his statements about this possibly being
something left over from a surgical procedure, if this procedure
included a transfusion (since May or so) or a transplant, there would
already be plenty of records to release in an effort to clear his name
in the public eye. Did he lie, or was his statement just inadvertant?

Anyone know if non-transitive microchimerism is something that is
noticed early in life or at least during pre-surgical tests etc.?
 
C

chris

Guest
Unfortunately he hasn't even suggested this as a possibility. Sadly,
RBRer's are coming up with better excuses than Tyler and his team has.
Maybe he should hire some of you guys to spin this one.

IMO, I admire Tyler, but I find it hard to believe he's a chimera, or
even that he made it this far without knowing it.

Chris Harnish
"Excuses are like assholes; we all have'em and they both stink!"


"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
> >
> > So let him have another blood
> > test done for homologous blood doping around Christmas time.

>
> He's already had two tests (or perhaps three?): one at the Olympics and
> one at the Vuelta. If they measured about the same proportion of foreign
> cells at those two dates, that would be at least some evidence of
> microchimerism.
 
G

gym gravity

Guest
chris wrote:
> Unfortunately he hasn't even suggested this as a possibility.


I think he's been told to shut the **** up. Either that, or he knows it
isn't true.

Sadly,
> RBRer's are coming up with better excuses than Tyler and his team has.
> Maybe he should hire some of you guys to spin this one.
>
> IMO, I admire Tyler, but I find it hard to believe he's a chimera, or
> even that he made it this far without knowing it.
>
> Chris Harnish
> "Excuses are like assholes; we all have'em and they both stink!"
>
 
R

Robert Chung

Guest
chris wrote:
> I find it hard to believe he's a chimera, or even that he made it this

far without knowing it.

I don't know whether he is a chimera or not, but I don't have any
difficulty believing that there are people who are, and don't know it.
 
B

B. Lafferty

Guest
"gym gravity" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> chris wrote:
>> Unfortunately he hasn't even suggested this as a possibility.

>
> I think he's been told to shut the **** up. Either that, or he knows it
> isn't true.


Bingo. He has a good lawyer who has undoubtedly told him to not comment for
now.
 
G

gym gravity

Guest
B. Lafferty wrote:

> "gym gravity" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>>chris wrote:
>>
>>>Unfortunately he hasn't even suggested this as a possibility.

>>
>>I think he's been told to shut the **** up. Either that, or he knows it
>>isn't true.

>
>
> Bingo. He has a good lawyer who has undoubtedly told him to not comment for
> now.
>
>

Really, is that all it takes to be a good lawyer?
 
M

Mike Murray

Guest
"L. Seer" <[email protected]> asked:
> Anyone know if non-transitive microchimerism is something that is
> noticed early in life or at least during pre-surgical tests etc.?


It would be very unlikely that this would be noted by any standard testing.

Mike Murray MD
 
B

B. Lafferty

Guest
"gym gravity" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>
>> "gym gravity" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>
>>>chris wrote:
>>>
>>>>Unfortunately he hasn't even suggested this as a possibility.
>>>
>>>I think he's been told to shut the **** up. Either that, or he knows it
>>>isn't true.

>>
>>
>> Bingo. He has a good lawyer who has undoubtedly told him to not comment
>> for now.

> Really, is that all it takes to be a good lawyer?


I recall being at a dinner function in the early 1980s where a partner from
Sullivan and Cromwell remarked that the most important thing that a good
lawyer knows, is when to shut up. So the answer to your question is, no.
 
K

Kurgan Gringioni

Guest
B. Lafferty wrote:
>
> > Really, is that all it takes to be a good lawyer?

>
> I recall being at a dinner function in the early 1980s where a

partner from
> Sullivan and Cromwell remarked that the most important thing that a

good
> lawyer knows, is when to shut up. So the answer to your question is,

no.



Dumbass -

Hmmphhh. Clearly you are unable to take the advice of that lawyer to
heart.

Surely you can guess the repetitive tedium spewing forth from you of
which I speak.
K. Gringioni



"brevity is the soul of wit" - W. Shakespeare
 
K

Kurgan Gringioni

Guest
Chris wrote:
> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > It's fools gold now.

>
>
> That is total ********. I am confident that some time in the next 6

months
> we will have a definitive answer as to why this positive result

happened.



Dumbass -

You mean who the non-homologous blood came from?

3 positive tests out of 3. That's a pretty good average.
K. Gringioni
mourning for the lost soul of Tugboat
 
B

B. Lafferty

Guest
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>
>> > Really, is that all it takes to be a good lawyer?

>>
>> I recall being at a dinner function in the early 1980s where a

> partner from
>> Sullivan and Cromwell remarked that the most important thing that a

> good
>> lawyer knows, is when to shut up. So the answer to your question is,

> no.
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> Hmmphhh. Clearly you are unable to take the advice of that lawyer to
> heart.
>
> Surely you can guess the repetitive tedium spewing forth from you of
> which I speak.
> K. Gringioni
>
>
>
> "brevity is the soul of wit" - W. Shakespeare


:)
 
T

trg

Guest
"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de
news:%[email protected]
>
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> >
> > B. Lafferty wrote:
> >>
> >> > Really, is that all it takes to be a good lawyer?
> >>
> >> I recall being at a dinner function in the early 1980s where a

> > partner from
> >> Sullivan and Cromwell remarked that the most important thing that a

> > good
> >> lawyer knows, is when to shut up. So the answer to your question is,

> > no.
> >
> >
> >
> > Dumbass -
> >
> > Hmmphhh. Clearly you are unable to take the advice of that lawyer to
> > heart.
> >
> > Surely you can guess the repetitive tedium spewing forth from you of
> > which I speak.
> > K. Gringioni
> >
> >
> >
> > "brevity is the soul of wit" - W. Shakespeare

>
> :)
>

"Brevity is the soul of lingerie" - D. Parker
 
K

Kyle Legate

Guest
Chris wrote:
> "Clovis Lark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>>
>>>> It's fools gold now.

>>
>>
>>> That is total ********. I am confident that some time in the next 6
>>> months we will have a definitive answer as to why this positive
>>> result happened.

>>
>> "These positive results" and over a month in completely different
>> jurisdictions...

>
> And what is your point? It sounds like anyone that is indicated as
> "positive" will remain so for years. Is that not so?
>

Yes, but so far Tyler has only remained positive for a month.