Page 19 - **** Breaking News: Hamilton Tested Positive? ***

29-09.-2004, 09:29 PM

#271

Perro Loco

Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2004

Posts: 121

Re: **** Breaking News: Hamilton Tested Positive? ***

Quote:

Originally Posted by gntlmn

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Tyler's test positives truly were indications of doping. If he submitted to testing in some kind of facility where no access to additional doping products were available, then the test results would disappear over a period of time, and he would test negative over a period of time. Chimera results, if I'm reading you correctly, would not disappear. He would still get the same result in a few months.

I bet that the Olympics was not the first place that Tyler's blood was tested using the new procedure. Was it? If not, then he would also have a positive if he's a chimera for the tests before the Olympics. We would have heard of this.

Don't you think that he would be scrambling now to confirm this if he were a chimera? I don't think he is.

While chimerras and mosaics are probably more common than thought they are still exceedingly rare. Yes, his blood results should stay positive if one of these conditions existed.

29-09.-2004, 11:43 PM

#272

tamman2000

Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2004

Location: Ithaca, NY

Posts: 89

Re: **** Breaking News: Hamilton Tested Positive? ***

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perro Loco

While chimerras and mosaics are probably more common than thought they are still exceedingly rare.

Has anyone been able to find any data on just how rare they are? (besides the random anal extraction of a computation I did...)

30-09.-2004, 12:23 AM

#273

Perro Loco

Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2004

Posts: 121

Re: **** Breaking News: Hamilton Tested Positive? ***

Quote:

Originally Posted by tamman2000

Has anyone been able to find any data on just how rare they are? (besides the random anal extraction of a computation I did...)

Probably completely unknown. Why- to some extent no one has tried to figure the incidence. People who have this are asymptomatic and discovered incidentaly. Also if the contribution is from one population is low routine testing may not detect it.
If you search through the medical Literature you will find only a few case reports- not series.

30-09.-2004, 03:50 AM

#274

gntlmn

Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2003

Location: Anchorage, Alaska, USA

Posts: 1,672

Re: **** Breaking News: Hamilton Tested Positive? ***

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perro Loco

Funny but now I recall that Stephen King used this concept of having part of the dna of a twin inside another person in at least one of his horror novels. Of course, he takes it beyond science to the realm of fantasy with body parts intact within the whole twin.

30-09.-2004, 08:17 AM

#275

Perro Loco

Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2004

Posts: 121

Re: **** Breaking News: Hamilton Tested Positive? ***

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perro Loco

back on topic from

http://www.cycling4all.com/
According to L'Equipe Tyler Hamilton (Usa) = Phonak was already warned ("yellow card") by the Medical Committee of the UCI after his final victory in the Tour de Romadie. They told him already about "strange fluctuations" in his blood-values.

Anybody read L'Equipe and can verify this?

I put this up a day or so ago and wondered if anybody else saw this- or could verify this was in L'Equipe?
If this is true this would be further damning evidence.
I have often wondered if the U.C.I. keeps closer tabs on riders with "flucuating numbers". However the part that seems strange is why would they tell the person under suspicion.

30-09.-2004, 10:56 AM

#276

gntlmn

Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2003

Location: Anchorage, Alaska, USA

Posts: 1,672

Re: **** Breaking News: Hamilton Tested Positive? ***

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perro Loco

I think that link has gone stale. I don't see anything about Hamilton there.

30-09.-2004, 11:52 AM

#277

Saucy

Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 277

Re: **** Breaking News: Hamilton Tested Positive? ***

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perro Loco

I checked L'Equipe's official site but couldn't find this story. Maybe they have more content in their paper than on the site?

01-10.-2004, 07:18 AM

#278

Perro Loco

Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2004

Posts: 121

Re: **** Breaking News: Hamilton Tested Positive? ***

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saucy

I checked L'Equipe's official site but couldn't find this story. Maybe they have more content in their paper than on the site?

Per
http://www.bicycling.com/article/0,...category_id=441
It looks like some substance to the story- not sure how reliable L'Equipe tends to be..
Overall a very good article.

The Hamilton Question
Plus cycling makers recall components, Kryptonite expands lock replacement program, and why urban sprawl takes years off your life.
By Joe Lindsey, Contributing Writer

Did he or didn't he?

That question (and various riffs on the answer) have been lighting up e-mail inboxes, message boards and news reports since the revelation that Tyler Hamilton tested positive for blood doping at the Tour of Spain and had a similar case in the Olympics dismissed on a rather embarrassing (for the IOC) technicality: that the second sample was ruined by the authorities.

I've already reported extensively on the case for BICYCLING, and you can find the articles in the Race Scene section. But I caution people about jumping to conclusions one way or another. The simple fact is that this is the first case involving this test and will likely drag on for months, if not longer.

At its heart is an issue that I've not seen reported on much of anywhere: that whether or not this is a provable case of doping has its roots in a sea change in the efforts and approach of the anti-doping authorities.

Before the World Anti-Doping Agency was created in 2000, sporting federations were almost autonomous in their efforts to police doping. They set their own standards, performed their own tests and had their own rules on the standard of proof. Some, like the UCI, held that a positive result could only come from an admission of doping, the possession of substances or a positive test; that it had to be beyond a reasonable doubt. Other international governing bodies relied on a lower standard of proof, a phrase known as "comfortable satisfaction," which is often used in internal medical and legal review boards (such as malpractice) and has a long history in arbitration hearings (since doping in sport is in most countries not a criminal offense, the justice system has little jurisdiction, leaving it to arbitrators).

But the WADA code, which every IOC-recognized governing body is required to sign (or face expulsion from the Olympics), standardized the burden of proof to the comfortable satisfaction requirement. Dr. Michael Ashenden, head of the Science and Industry Against Blood Doping consortium, told me the definition of comfortable satisfaction lies "between probability and beyond a reasonable doubt."

Much was made of the news this summer that USADA would lower its standard of proof to the "comfortable satisfaction" bar, as it allowed previously circumstantial evidence - such as an allegation from a coach that he doped a particular athlete - and seemed tailor-made to produce a guilty verdict in cases Tim Montgomery, a top sprinter accused in the BALCO scandal. But the proof burden has more far-reaching implications as well.

Last week, I spoke with Dr. Ashenden, who supervised much of the research that produced the test for homologous blood doping. In our conversation, he outlined how the new standard of proof had changed how tests are approved for sporting use.

In the past, a test had to satisfy two bars of scrutiny: one scientific and one legal - that is, to be used by an organization like the UCI, which put the level of proof required at beyond a reasonable doubt, any prospective test not only had to show evidence of doping, but be so clear about it that it was difficult to challenge the test results in a court setting.

That changed with WADA, said Ashenden. "[Any] test must satisfy WADA's criteria, which includes being published in a peer-reviewed journal," Ashenden said. "It must satisfy that peer review and expert panel review methodogy. Then it must be validated and replicated in a lab other than the one that created the test. All of that is a lock-step process.

"Once that's in place and WADA accept the test, then it's in the realm of the code - labs must follow principles, guidelines and standards for conducting the test. Assuming all that, the level of proof is beyond probability, but not beyond a reasonable doubt."

Ashenden is of the opinion that the change is for the better. "The scope to impose sanctions is strengthened, and that's a very important point to recognize" he told me. "Not just for research, but to tailor the tests to that principle and to let athletes know that before, they could hide under the skirts of lawyers, get off on technicalities, but that is no longer the case."

But is the standard for approving tests rigorous enough to stand up to challenge? The authors of the homologous blood doping test published their findings last year in the Italian journal Haematologica, and at that time noted that a significant variation in the accuracy of test results ocurred depending on the quality of the antiserum available. When I asked Dr. Ashenden if this issue had been resolved since the study was published, he declined to answer directly, saying that he could not comment on the specifics of the test methodology while Hamilton's case was still pending.

In its September 23 edition, the French sports daily l'Equipe reported that the UCI sent letters of notification to Hamilton after both the Tour de Romandie (which he won) and the Dauphine Libere (where he was a close second to Iban Mayo), warning him of what l'Equipe called "strange fluctuations" in certain values of his blood tests.

If that is true, since Hamilton was put on notice, as it were, more than two months prior to his first suspect sample at the Athens Olympics, then a positive result at the Tour of Spain would seem to indicate one of two possibilities: that he was possessed of such hubris that he believed the authorities would not be able to identify blood doping even if they thought his samples looked odd, or that he is completely innocent and was at a loss to understand what the UCI was supposedly warning him about.

The issues surrounding the accuracy of the homologous doping test certainly do not rule out the latter possibility, although the possible reasons - aside from four separate instances of laboratory error - for a rider returning a false positive on four separate occasions four months apart are far-fetched indeed. Gaudiest among them is that Hamilton is a natural chimera, with blood and possibly other body tissues are composed of cells derived from two separate genetic lineages, a vestige of unknown loss of a twin at some point in-utero.

Whatever the result, Hamilton's case is likely to drag on in court for months. His attorney, Howard Jacobs, told me that he hopes to have it resolved by the Spring Classics, but Hamilton could at that point already be suspended by the UCI and fighting it on appeal. He faces a two-year ban.

But the case will be more than a hearing on whether or not one drug test is accurate enough to warrant a suspension. It will be a referendum on the approach to and scope of the fight against doping.

Before WADA, rumors of corruption in dope-testing were widespread. To name one example, Wade Exum, formerly head of the US Olympic Committee's anti-doping operation, filed a lawsuit (later dismissed) alleging coverups of positive tests in that organization. The competing interests - clean sport versus exciting sport - pitted morals against money, with each governing body serving not only as police, judge and jury, but chief marketer and a cheerleader for the defense: why catch the world's top riders at doping when the catch would result only in another black eye for the sport and alienate fans and sponsors? (Another form of this hypocrisy can be seen in American sports, which happily police against recreational drugs like marijuana, which hurt a league's marketability, but refuse to impose stricter rules on performance enhancers, which arguably make the game more exciting. Chicks dig the long ball.)

The risk we run now is a swing too far back the other way. WADA is aggressively pursuing dopers and has made no bones of being unafraid of going after sports' top names. But sometimes the cops are too zealous.

Phonak held a press conference to announce the results of Hamilton's A samples from both Athens and Spain, before the B samples had been tested. I asked Jacobs, Hamilton's attorney, why they would prematurely announce the results when the news had to hurt Hamilton's reputation even if he was later absolved by negative B tests. Jacobs said that Phonak had been getting calls that week about the tests and felt it necessary to make a pre-emptive strike on the rumors before they got out of hand. "Someone at the IOC, the UCI or the labs leaked it," he said of the A sample results.

While the leaker was likely not paid and stood to gain little from the action, the leak calls into question the impartiality of the anti-doping authorities, much as did news in 2000 that the French police investigating Lance Armstrong's United States Postal Service team had topped the dossier with a photo of Armstrong on it, with a crudely drawn syringe protruding from the American's butt. As in journalism and politics, the appearance of impropriety may be more important than any actual impropriety. At the very least, such news is not encouraging.

The unfortunate aspect of all of this is twofold. First, Hamilton may not ever be sanctioned, but it is doubtful he can ever be fully cleared, either. Already his gold medal has been tainted by the lack of a clear test result. Arne Ljungqvist, head of the IOC's medical commission, declined to say if Hamilton was innocent or simply fortunate that his B sample could not be analyzed. "It's up to everyone to reach his own conclusions," he said sourly, even though dope testing is supposed to preclude that very outcome.

Second, if the test is shown to be unreliable, it will be a huge setback for the fight against doping, instantly calling into question the methods and means by which the authorities go about their work. In order to make any positive impact, the fight against doping absolutely must be above reproach. For some, who are convinced that sport is simply too corrupt to clean itself up, a few innocent people caught in the wringer are an acceptable price to pay for making sure no dope cheat walks free. But the point of legislating sporting ethics is to hold ourselves to a higher standard of behavior - again, doping is not wrong on the face of it, but by the ethics with which we choose to judge sport. Those ethics also apply to those who would clean it up. Hamilton's case is important not simply for itself, but for all those who have gone before, and who are still to come. For their sakes and our own, we owe it to ourselves to do it right.

Last edited by Perro Loco : 01-10.-2004 at 08:27 AM.

01-10.-2004, 09:12 AM	#279
Roadrash Dunc Registered User Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 259	Re: ** Breaking News: Hamilton Tested Positive? * Thanks for the cut/paste of that article Loco.Interesting point of view, one with which i agree with.I freely admit my bias towards Tyler in this case as im a huge fan.Its pretty heartbreaking to hear but not nearly as bad as being in his shoes. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt until i hear more from his side of the story because of who he is.This new doping test proceedure is so new i believe it possible to be faulty.Thats my incredibly bias opinion - i can understand how others see the worst in the situation though. Very sad.

01-10.-2004, 09:53 AM	#280
Brunswick_kate Registered User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: New Brunswick, Canada Posts: 514	Re: ** Breaking News: Hamilton Tested Positive? * Thank you Perro Loco for sending in that article. Contrary to the opinions of the "rush to judgement crowd", there are several issues surrounding this matter. These include legal, scientific, procedural questions, articulated elsewhere, that need to be answered before Hamilton is "guilty" in any moral or legal sense. And before the hypersensitive and more easily offended members of this forum get all in an uproar, I would like announce publicly that I support and encourage your right to express your opinion, regardless of how you may have derived said opinion; however, I do reserve the right to disagree with the contents of your conclusions. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. __________________ Insanity has its price -- Please have exact change.

01-10.-2004, 09:58 AM

#281

Saucy

Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 277

Re: **** Breaking News: Hamilton Tested Positive? ***

Quote:

In its September 23 edition, the French sports daily l'Equipe reported that the UCI sent letters of notification to Hamilton after both the Tour de Romandie (which he won) and the Dauphine Libere (where he was a close second to Iban Mayo), warning him of what l'Equipe called "strange fluctuations" in certain values of his blood tests.

This story just gets more odd by the minute. If TH knew about this why didn't he resolve this problem when he received these warnings?!? Like the article states, it takes incredible audacity or stupidity to continue racing when authorities have alerted you to borderline results.

Also, how can TH now claim to be so utterly shocked by the IOC/Vuelta results if he was warned after two races?

Dick Pound weighs in on the issue

From the article:

Quote:

Without mentioning Hamilton by name, Pound told a meeting of Toronto's business community, "It appears a cyclist might have escaped this net because of human error, but I can assure you it's no longer a gold medal in the eyes of the world.

"But if nothing else, we got him on the second bounce."

No sympathy from Mr. Pound. Not that I expected any...

Its worth noting that Pound is a lawyer and even he apparently doesn't believe in "innocent until proven guilty".

01-10.-2004, 11:07 AM

#282

Brunswick_kate

Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2003

Location: New Brunswick, Canada

Posts: 514

Re: **** Breaking News: Hamilton Tested Positive? ***

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saucy

If nothing else, we got him on the second bounce....

Wow. Now that's a testimonial to the "impartiality and objective native nature" of this entire process, from the head of WADA nonetheless. Pretty much contaminates the credibility quotient for the Veulta test process.

__________________
Insanity has its price -- Please have exact change.

01-10.-2004, 01:27 PM

#283

antoineg

Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2003

Posts: 246

Re: **** Breaking News: Hamilton Tested Positive? ***

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brunswick_kate

If nothing else, we got him on the second bounce....

Wow. Now that's a testimonial to the "impartiality and objective native nature" of this entire process, from the head of WADA nonetheless. Pretty much contaminates the credibility quotient for the Veulta test process.

What exactly does Dick Pound have to do with the Vuelta test process? Did he take the blood, package it, hand-deliver it to the lab, run the tests, compile the results?

01-10.-2004, 01:34 PM

#284

antoineg

Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2003

Posts: 246

Re: **** Breaking News: Hamilton Tested Positive? ***

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saucy

Also, how can TH now claim to be so utterly shocked by the IOC/Vuelta results if he was warned after two races?

Quote from Hamilton on 9/22, as reported on cyclingnews.com:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyler Hamilton

The results were like a bolt of lightning out of the blue for me. I have no idea what has happened.

Hm. He'd already been warned twice about "strange fluctuations,", yet these results were like a "bolt of lightning out of the blue."

You'd think an innocent person would have said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innocent Tyler Hamilton

The UCI had previously notified me of some odd blood readings. Given these findings, I'm very confident that either (a) the tests are wrong or (b) my blood physiology is such that I fall outside of the normal ranges the testers look for and I will immediately seek out the best independent lab experts to determine what my normal ranges are

The fact that he hid the fact of the prior two notifications from the UCI does not look good for him.

01-10.-2004, 01:53 PM

#285

antoineg

Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2003

Posts: 246

Re: **** Breaking News: Hamilton Tested Positive? ***

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saucy

No sympathy from Mr. Pound. Not that I expected any...

Its worth noting that Pound is a lawyer and even he apparently doesn't believe in "innocent until proven guilty".

WADA is not like the US and "innocent until proven guilty" is not the foundation of their system, nor is their primary mission to protect the innocent.

As a fun exercise, check out the World Anti-Doping Code at http://www.wada-ama.org/docs/web/st...ode/code_v3.pdf and do a search for the terms "fair" and "fairness". Aside from section 8, which deals with hearings, the terms are all used in terms of protecting clean riders from the dopers.. It's important to note that perspective.

The comments in section 2.1.1, which deal with strict liability, are also telling:

Quote:

Originally Posted by WADC

Furthermore, it appears to be a laudable policy objective not to repair an accidental unfairness to an individual by creating an intentional unfairness to the whole body of other competitors

An even more fun exercise: search the document for the word "innocent"

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode