Oh, this has become tedious. I really wanted to believe Tyler, but after the last round, it just doesn't look good.
While it's not infallible, a positive in the flow cytometry test points to a homologous blood transfusion. Not the only reason it happens, but the most likely. The fact that it went away in subsequent blood tests makes the accusation even stronger. Anyone remember Pantani's high haematocrit, and how it dropped after a night in the hospital? Or Mr. 60%?
In the documents published, I really didn't see anything that refuted this specific set of tests. No, the test isn't perfect. And if he were accused of murder, the evidence probably wouldn't hold up. But he's not accused of murder, only cheating in a commercial venture. The rules of evidence there are less stringent.
The fact that Santi Perez was also flagged points even stronger to this actually being a case of blood doping, rather than a peculiarity of Tyler's physiology. There is still a slight chance that an environmental condition that both riders were exposed to caused the positive. But Tyler didn't present any evidence that could back up that possibility. Tyler may have employed some excellent PR tactics, but his actual defence appears to be somewhat inept. And it appears that he was warned in advance, and given a chance to clean up. Warned that a blood doping test would be put in place, and warned that his haematocrit was borderline.
I still don't want to believe it. But in the absence of any concrete evidence to the contrary, this one seems to hold water.
I catch myself at this point, remembering that I became interested in cycling as a professional sport, for moments like Lance vs Jan on Alpe d'Huez in 2001, or the Tourmalet/Luz Ardiden battle of 2003. Here we are, bantering back and forth not about tactics, but homologous blood transfusions and flow cytometry tests. Clean this sport up so we can remember why we watched it in the first place.
Die, thread. Die!
While it's not infallible, a positive in the flow cytometry test points to a homologous blood transfusion. Not the only reason it happens, but the most likely. The fact that it went away in subsequent blood tests makes the accusation even stronger. Anyone remember Pantani's high haematocrit, and how it dropped after a night in the hospital? Or Mr. 60%?
In the documents published, I really didn't see anything that refuted this specific set of tests. No, the test isn't perfect. And if he were accused of murder, the evidence probably wouldn't hold up. But he's not accused of murder, only cheating in a commercial venture. The rules of evidence there are less stringent.
The fact that Santi Perez was also flagged points even stronger to this actually being a case of blood doping, rather than a peculiarity of Tyler's physiology. There is still a slight chance that an environmental condition that both riders were exposed to caused the positive. But Tyler didn't present any evidence that could back up that possibility. Tyler may have employed some excellent PR tactics, but his actual defence appears to be somewhat inept. And it appears that he was warned in advance, and given a chance to clean up. Warned that a blood doping test would be put in place, and warned that his haematocrit was borderline.
I still don't want to believe it. But in the absence of any concrete evidence to the contrary, this one seems to hold water.
I catch myself at this point, remembering that I became interested in cycling as a professional sport, for moments like Lance vs Jan on Alpe d'Huez in 2001, or the Tourmalet/Luz Ardiden battle of 2003. Here we are, bantering back and forth not about tactics, but homologous blood transfusions and flow cytometry tests. Clean this sport up so we can remember why we watched it in the first place.
Die, thread. Die!
