Pointing out a sample of problems with TH's CyclingNews interview. It should be noted this is not an oral interview but answers responded by TH through email.
(Although we were able to contact Tyler, a face-to-face interview was impossible at the present time, and his responses came via email.).
CN: You mentioned that the UCI hematocrit test was inaccurate before the Tour. What was the reading arrived at by the team's centrifuge?
TH: The night before my Tour de France medical checkup the team measured my hematocrit at 43. The next morning the UCI measured my hematocrit at 38. So we noted to the medical staff there that we thought the reading was low. If anything, you expect to be a little dehydrated in the morning, and for your hematocrit reading to be slightly higher. This reading proves that hematocrit scores can be off going in both directions. Sometimes they can be high and sometime they can be low. This is why teams have their own hematocrit machines and monitor values independently.
Teams do not have centrifuge machines to obtain their rider's hct levels as a challenge to any UCI result. There has been no recorded challenge to any rider requested to stand down by the UCI for 14 days after a 50%+ result.
It is obvious why teams maintain the presence of these machines. To prepare their riders for testing which only occurs between 7.30am and 9.00am of the next stage. The exception was poor Marco Pantani in the Giro when he was found with a 60% reading.
TH: ....Each of our arguments were dismissed by two of the arbitrators, but the majority decision provides little explanation for why these arguments were rejected. At the very minimum, we absolutely expected to see a series of recommendations made regarding how the test could be improved, or at least a comprehensive analysis of all of the arguments that were made. The hearing lasted four days, and the Panel had six weeks to write the decision.
No, the panel did not have 6 weeks to write the decision. An extension was granted to TH and his team for over a month to introduce new evidence. This extension was to early April 2005. Then the panel had the stipulated 10 days to prepare their decision. From my experience, extensions are only granted on the application of one of the parties. TH did not introduce any new evidence but now says new evidence will be introduced in his appeal.
Speculation. On 24 March 2005, the TH Foundation was holding its
annual gala day in Boston, MA. TH wanted to deliver his address without the possible stigma of being found by USADA of being in breach of the doping rules.
TH: ....Hematocrit levels can vary for a number of reasons. For example: machine calibration or the way samples are drawn can influence the readings. So can dehydration, fatigue or illness. When you are putting your body through as much as an endurance athlete does it's not unusual to see some fluctuation in these results. Training at altitude or using altitude machines also plays a role in influencing levels. So there's no hard and fast number for anyone.
The marketers of altitude machines do not claim they provide increased hct levels (ref: Shaun Wallace Altitude Tent). Training at altitude, as opposed to living at altitude and training low, has provided mixed results. Refer to this
review of altitude training studies.
TH: I don't think it's fair for officials from any governing body to speak out about a case before athletes have had the chance to defend themselves. At the onset of my case I was told things would remain confidential until there was a conclusion. But before my B sample testing could begin news of my case was leaked to the press. What if my B samples came back negative all the way around? It seems that some folks are comfortable with trying cases through the media before the judicial process resolves them. I don't think this is appropriate. Nor am I comfortable with the concept of guilty until proven innocent.
The dissenting panel member, Campbell, went further and asserted that media comments were prejudicial to a fair hearing for TH and was one of his three grounds to have the charges dismissed.
Media comments can only be prejudicial in a jury trial where the jury forms a verdict without having to provide the basis of its decision. These decisions are in danger of being preconceived if jury members have been exposed to media comment.
A judge or an arbitration panel member is in a different position. They are required to explain their decision in writing from the evidence pleaded by both parties. As jurists they are trained and experienced to block out any external noise and concentrate on the evidence.
