Tyler's next phase

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by bobke, Apr 28, 2005.

  1. bobke

    bobke New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,134
    Likes Received:
    1
    Tags:


  2. Catabolic Jones

    Catabolic Jones New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    I saw that.

    Made me a bit sad.

    He got caught, and (NPI) should swallow his medicine.
     
  3. tcklyde

    tcklyde New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,437
    Likes Received:
    0
    How many positives and inappropriate blood readings would it take to convince you otherwise? Poor Santi doesn't have the lawyers to stretch every minor thing into an excuse.

    There was, quite clearly, obviously, something up with Tyler's blood. Evidence doesn't lie. Unfortunately, Tyler does.
     
  4. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,130
    Likes Received:
    115
    You got to wonder.

    I think that Perez accepted his fate and comes out of this entire issue with some credit, albeit having cheated.

    Hamilton on the other hand - I think he continues to dig deeper and deeper.
    He does himself or the sport, no good.
     
  5. Virenque

    Virenque New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,211
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the same - that Santi accepted because he is not complaining. He just didn`t admit, but almost all do that..
    Heh..what a question, wondering what the answer will be..
     
  6. VeloFlash

    VeloFlash New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  7. JohnO

    JohnO New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    I tend to think that since he didn't offer any credible alternative, Tyler should pack it in at this point. But I do have to address some of VH's comments....

    Altitude training machines not claiming to to raise hct levels? Quite a few top cyclists train at altitude. Must be for the scenery... altitude training is generally regarded to be a blood thickening exercise, for all aerobic sports, regardless of what one tent maker might say.

    And the media comments were most certainly prejudicial. The judgment of any panel carries with it a great deal of subjective influence, in that they choose what to place emphasis on.

    Dick Pound is a loose cannon. His public persona is one long prejudicial statement. Shout first, think later, seems to be his credo. Long before USADA took up an official review of the Hamilton case, Pound pronounced Hamilton guilty (read the December/January VeloNews interview), without any explanation of how he arrived at that conclusion, other than reading the public statements from an on again/off again blood test. Considering the relationship between WADA and USADA, that statement was most certainly prejudicial. He should have held comment until USADA had completed it's work.

    For that matter, Vebruggen made prejudicial statements well before an official judgment was made. Same here - couldn't he just pass on comment until the process had run it's course? Granted, I tend to think that Tyler got caught, but when the heads of the two organizations charged with policing doping leap to this conclusion in public statements, long before any officially sanctioned due process has occurred, one has to wonder just how impartial they are.

    Does it seem unreasonable to expect the governing bodies of cycling to be held to reasonably acceptable standards of integrity and impartiality? While it does look like Tyler and Santi did the bad thing, the heads of the UCI and WADA didn't exactly act like angels during the process, either.
     
  8. bobke

    bobke New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,134
    Likes Received:
    1
    From above: "Evidence doesn't lie."

    I think this is the central pint, for people who don't know how scince and logic work, this appears to be the case. But evidnce does lie if the result is a false positive. That is the whole point. I will quote from a letter to Velo News but exclude the author's name:

    Majority just wrong
    Dear VeloNews
    I finally got around to reading the WADA ruling on Tyler's case, and I must say I am amazed and appalled. The dissenting opinion is written on a much more objective and scientifically sound basis than the majority ruling, to the point that I would be embarrassed to be an arbitrator in the majority.

    I have been involved in the measurement of trace levels of contaminants in humans and environmental media for about 20 years, and there is not one scientist I know who would use data from any method whose limit of detection and false positive/false negative rate were not well known, or at least well studied.

    The scientific community I work with never reports results, especially positive ones, simply because they are 'comfortable' with the related measurement. I am a member of an international consensus standards committee, and all of our published methods require validation and a discussion of the uncertainties related to the measurement. It is unthinkable that this blood doping test with its huge consequences (destruction of a career and reputation) could be used as described in the ruling.
     
  9. Dead Star

    Dead Star New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2004
    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    0
    hear hear.
     
  10. Chris_E

    Chris_E New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    0
    Shades of Virenque, Millar, Museeuw and all those other drug deniers.

    Of course the burden of proof has now changed for Tyler. Now he's gulty untill proven innocent.

    Call me a cynic but i believe he's guilty.
     
  11. VeloFlash

    VeloFlash New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    You do not have to "believe" he is guilty. He is guilty, subject to the outcome of his pending appeal.

    Hamilton never disputed during the hearing that he had a mixed population of two or more blood cells in his Vuelta blood samples. He had a machine gun defence to the reason for this existence. That he was either a human chimeric or it was the result of a intrauterine twin-twin transfusion (the vanishing twin).

    Despite Hamilton's claim in his CyclingNews interview:

    CN: What made you believe that you could have been a chimera or had a vanishing twin? Does the fact that Santi Perez, a Phonak teammate, failed the same test make your case difficult, re arguing the chimera defense?

    TH: I need to make something very clear; the theories you mention above were examples we provided while making our case that a false positive study should have been conducted before this test was implemented.


    the findings made it clear that Hamilton had presented an alternate defence of the existence of the mixed blood population was either the vanishing twin intrauterine transfusion or he was chimeric. Not a theory. Read PDF pages 8-11 of the findings.

    When EPO testing was first introduced, Hamburger failed the EPO test and his only desperate defence was to challenge the new test methods. Like Hamilton, his challenge failed.
     
Loading...
Loading...