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

VeloFlash

These are the relevant UCI rules that are imposed on USADA:

224. When, following the results management process described in chapter VII,the Anti-Doping Commission makes an assertion that these Anti-Doping Rules have been violated, it shall notify the License-Holder’s National
Federation and request it to instigate disciplinary proceedings. It shall also send a copy of the test analysis report and/or other documentation. A copy of the statement may be sent to the License-Holder and/or the License-Holder’s club or team.

A copy of the statement is sent to WADA and to the License-Holder’s National Anti-Doping Organization.

License-Holder called before his National Federation

225. The License-Holder’s National Federation shall call the License-Holder before it to hear his grounds and explanations.

This summons must be sent within 2 (two) working days of the receipt of the statement under Article 224.

226. The summons shall be sent by registered letter. It shall indicate the nature of the case against the License-Holder. The summons must be accompanied by a copy of the test analysis reports and documents received by the Federation from the Anti-Doping Commission. If these enclosures are missing, the License-Holder must notify the National Federation without delay.

227. The summons must be sent at least 10 (ten) days before the hearing to which the License-Holder has been called. A copy of the summons shall be sent to the UCI at the same time.

The summons shall indicate the date, time and venue for the hearing.

228. A single postponement to the hearing may be granted of not more than 8 (eight) days, except where the party concerned establishes a case of force majeure.

229. The License-Holder may forgo the hearing in which event the case will be conducted in writing.

UCI require USADA to summons the rider within 2 days of receiving the notification from the UCI.

USADA must give at least 10 working days notice to the rider before the hearing date. USADA rules may precise the date a hearing must be called after this 2 weeks.

__________________
VF

"Remember, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat"

Beastt

He isn't guilty until all of the hearings, proceedings and appeals are over and he has failed to show sufficient reason for the presiding authorities to believe he is other than guilty. Until that time he is under suspicion regardless of what the rules for any particular organization might state. Guilt and innocence are basic fundamentals. They can't be changed by anyone's rule book.

antoineg

If you want to argue about basic fundamentals, then he is guilty. He is officially suspended from racing. Any post-Vuelta results would have been wiped out.

The burden of proof is now on him, not the UCI, not USADA, not WADA, to try to overturn the verdict -- and he has an official avenue in which to explore that possibility -- but make no mistake, the verdict has already been reached, and he is guilty of an "anti doping rule violation." He can not race.

Not to mention the existential guilt of having cheated to win a bike race. Who judges that I don't know.

You can try to think it's anything else, Beastt, but you really don't know what the hell you are talking about here.

donhix1

His suspension was done by Phonak and himself. There won't be an official suspension by any governing body until the whole process is done. It may be that his Vuelta results and post Vuelta results would have been wiped out but not until the whole process is over.

__________________
Happiness is a choice that requires effort at times.

antoineg

I don't think this is accurate. I am pretty sure that Tyler is suspended from racing by the UCI right now. That's what happens when your "B" result comes back positive.

VeloFlash

Correct.

UCI rules state that a rider is disqualified from the international event in which a violation is detected and all other international events until the hearing is decided.

Phonak and TH would have been in PR mode if they announced a voluntary suspension knowing a UCI suspension was automatic.

__________________
VF

"Remember, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat"

Beastt

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Some people, (as you've clearly demonstrated), don't understand the difference between having actually committed an offense and having been accused of committing an offense based on a set of rules. It's about the alleged offense, not about the way the rules are written or the testing methods or the color of one's eyes or the mean winter temperature in Marblehead Massechusettes.

Being guilty means that you have committed the offense - you have performed a prohibited act. It doesn't mean that some governing body has declared you to have committed the offense. It means you actually did.

As was mentioned on another similar thread, a full five percent of those executed for crimes in the United States were later found to be innocent of the crime for which they were executed. They were not guilty. They were punished as if they were guilty, but they did not commit the offense. They were innocent. It's not something laid out in any governing body's book of rules. It's a basic fundamental which seems to have escaped those so muddled down in rule books that the actual commission or failure to commit a wrongful act has been brushed aside and forgotten.

If the testing done on Tyler can be shown to be free of error and he actually has blood cells not produced within his own body in his bloodstream, which is what the tests show, then the rules may consider him to be guilty until such time that he can show adequate proof as to why he should not be considered guilty. If he can then show medical records outlining documented and medically necessary blood transfusions as in the case of some surgeries, and perhaps provide, through medical experts, further proof that the cells found in his blood are tied directly to such transfusions and mitigate that by showing that his red cell count is within a normal range, then he may well be found to be innocent. I find this all highly unlikely, but as long as a possibility still exists for reversal, saying he is guilty is simply inaccurate and premature.

Innocence or guilt are the results of either having commited a particular act or not having commited the act. It's not about being accused or someone's rules, regulations or written guidelines. If you didn't commit a forbidden act, then you're not guilty of commiting said act - period. The problem is in proving the situation one way or another. As long as there are avenues left open for Tyler to pursue to prove his innocence, then he cannot rightfully be proclaimed guilty despite what UCI, WADA, Dr. Suess or anyone else writes on paper. It's all about what he has or hasn't done. It's not about what is or isn't written. Please tell me you haven't forgotten that to be truly guilty, you have to actually commit a wrongful act.

In all likelihood, with what we know so far, Tyler has committed a forbidden act. But until he fails to present a compelling argument as to why that is not the case, the situation is still open. He is currently suspected of committing a prohibited act based on what is reported to be highly reliable, scientific and medical evidence. When/if he fails to produce proof of testing error or reasons why the presence of foreign blood cells in his bloodstream should not be considered a violation, then he has failed in his opportunity to prove himself not guilty. When all such potential to prove his innocence is exhausted, if he is still considered to be guilty by the rules written, then he may properly be considered guilty.

Consider that Santiago Botero was at one time suspended from racing for having a testosterone level that was above allowable levels. He later proved with substantiated medical evidence, that he has a naturally high testosterone level and the suspension was withdrawn. By your assessment, he was guilty when he was suspended. Yet, he was not guilty and managed to prove that to a degree found reasonable by those governing the sport. He now has to have special paperwork documenting his unusually high natural testosterone level in order to race, but he was not guilty of any violation despite the high testosterone levels, the positive tests and the suspension. Never at any time was he guilty because he never committed a prohibited act. He was suspected of having committed such an act based on testing but further testing and medical evidence proved that no such act was committed. Hence, he was innocent. Through the whole ordeal, he was innocent. His status changed from suspected to not suspected but at no time was he guilty.

Saying that a suspension is the same as a declaration of guilt is much like claiming that being jailed is a declaration of guilt. Being jailed is often the result of being accused but until the trial and appeals process is concluded, one is still considered to be "suspected", but not yet proven guilty. In a manner of speaking, one's right to move about at will has been suspended due to a suspicion of committing a prohibited act. But guilt is not properly established until the judicial process has concluded and acceptable argument against one's guilt has not been provided.


I have over 21 years of working within the judicial process, antoineg. It may we well recommended for you to consider the strong possibility that your saddle is mounted a little high on the horse.

VeloFlash

You are incorrect, Beastt.

Rule 224 of the UCI Anti Doping Rules states:

When, following the results management process described in chapter VII, the Anti-Doping Commission makes an assertion that these Anti-Doping Rules have been violated, it shall notify the License-Holder’s National Federation and request it to instigate disciplinary proceedings. It shall also send a copy of the test analysis report and/or other documentation. A copy of the statement may be sent to the License-Holder and/or the License-Holder’s club or team.

When a request is made to instigate disciplinary proceedings, ie sanctions, it is the equivalent in a criminal judicial process of having being found guilty and the judge pronouncing sentence.

But these are rules not law and the rules provide that at the disciplinary proceedings the rider is availed the opportunity to present his grounds and explanations. But he is under no compulsion and the overwhelming majority of riders found to have been in violation of the rules accept the tests results and present themselves to seek a reduction of the sanctions set by the rules.

The burden of proof to prove non violation of the rules, unlike criminal trials, rests with the rider.

__________________
VF

"Remember, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat"

donhix1

I couldn't find a news article were it said that the UCI suspended Tyler. I did find this:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php...ep04/sep22news3

Possibly the UCI doesn't announce official suspensions if the team does it first. That way Phonak can save some face.
I don't think this is a black and white affair given that Tyler is the first rider ever accused of blood doping with this new test. The test is as much on trial as Tyler.
There are probably only three people in the world that know the truth and I don't think any of them are journalists.

__________________
Happiness is a choice that requires effort at times.

antoineg

Beastt, by your standards then, a rider who has failed multiple drug tests and been suspended several times, but whom you believe has never actually doped, is innocent?

I guess you are talking about something different than the rest of us are talking about. You are talking about Cosmic Justice or some related abstract topic.

My bottom line: even if Phonak had not suspended him, Tyler would not be free to race, and the burden is now on him to try to get the verdict overturned that was reached when his Vuelta "B" sample came back positive.

You can call that what you want. I call it what everyone else officially calls it -- an "anti doping rule violation."

Hamilton has committed an anti doping rule violation. You can argue all you want, but he has. Let's just leave it at that for now, because you are so committed to changing the subject and taking tangents that I again wonder why that is.

Even in the U.S. people who are found guilty and sent to prison have appeals available to them. So are they not officially guilty until all the appeals have run out?

Virenque

He is not suspended by UCI yet! All investigations take some time! Official decisions are comming later if affair is big. It was the same with Millar. But it`s usually that riders are immediately suspenden by the team (club & national)..

Beastt

Which only goes to prove my point again. It's about whether or not he did it. It's not about whether the rule book says that he is considered guilty. Anyone can write anything in a rule book. Guilt is based upon action or a failure to act. It's a fundamental which can't be changed no matter what someone has written or what you have read in a rule book. I could write in a book that the next time you post, you are guilty of facilitation of murder. It would make no sense but it could still be written and if the forum authorities wished, they could adopt such a rule. Does that mean you knowingly provided the means for someone's murder? No, it does not. Writing a list of rules can't change fact.

Hamilton is guilty when he has taken the opportunity provided to explain the results and why those results should not be considered proof of wrong doing on his part and his argument is found not to be compelling to the authorities. Once he's failed to reverse the indications of the testing, and has exhausted all other appeals processes, then and only then can a final determination of guilt be made.

You could be arrested at any moment and charged with sexual assault. You would be booked and jailed. You know that you didn't assault anyone and that you have a strong alibi with over 30 witnesses, all willing to testify on your behalf. Are you guitly? You're in jail so you must be guilty, right? This is what you're saying about Hamilton. Now, should you go to court and produce these thirty witnesses who all testify that they were with you at a large social event at the time of the alleged crime and that you were nowhere near the crime scene, you have introduced reasonable doubt. Are you still guilty? Nothing has changed about the night in question, where you were or what you did. The jury is compelled by the testimony and your alibi and produces a verdict of not guilty. Are you still guilty? Has anything changed about the act in question? Were you ever guilty? No.

This is really very simple but apparently, before you can grasp the simplicity involved, you'll need to stop thinking that the UCI rule book is the word of some omnipotent entity, capable of changing the past actions of the accused and start reasoning things out for yourself. Guilt is about wrongful action/inaction.

Just as I stated above. Many people have been executed after having been found guilty of a crime, then after their execution, evidence was disclosed which proved their innocence. Were they guilty? Ever?

No, they were considered guilty and then only after they failed to provide to the courts sufficient argument as to why they were not guilty. As long as avenues of judicial process are still available, then guilt has not been established. It's really getting just a bit scary that so many people take the UCI rule book as the final word on everything and that they can't sort out the basic fundamentals and meanings of the words "guilt" and "innocence" for themselves.

Please, put your rule book down for a moment and try to follow this. In DUI (driving under the influence) cases, a test called a breathalizer is often used to determine a person's level of intoxication. The amount of alcohol in the breath is measured by a machine and processors then perform some basic calculations to arrive at the level of alcohol in the blood. Since people have a range of variance in their metabolic processes, the alcohol in the breath may be anything from 1/1500th to 1/3700th of that in the blood. No readily available testing method exists to determine the correct factor for any individual so the machine settles on using a factor of 2500. The alcohol level in the breath is multiplied by 2500 to determine the level in the blood. For some, this is correct. For others, 1500 or 3700 or somewhere in between is correct but not necessarily 2500. Because of this variance, many attorneys were winning their client's cases on the basis that the number used by the machines may not be the accurate number for their client. California responded by legislating that 2500 is an acceptably accurate figure. It's now on their revised statute books that 2500 is accurate for everybody. Has that changed everyone's metabolism so that a factor of 2500 is now correct? No, it hasn't. It's just as arbitrary a figure as it ever was and is no more or less accurate than it ever was. It only changes the rules, not the facts.

This is a similar situation to what we're dealing with here. You say Tyler is already guilty because of what is written in the UCI rule book and I say his true guilt or innocence is based upon his actions or inactions. It's what he did or didn't do that makes him guilty or innocent, not the text that the UCI approved for their books. You could rewrite the rule book and nothing would change about what Tyler did or didn't do. The crux of the problem is in proving what he did or didn't do. The UCI has decided that their testing methods alone are sufficient evidence, yet, Tyler still has an appeals process that he may utilize to present an argument. If you are correct and he has already been determined to be guilty, then the appeals process is pointless. If he is now guilty but that decision might possibly be reversed based on the outcome of the appeals, then how can he be guilty now, and not guilty after the appeals process? He can't go back and change what he did or didn't do. Nothing about what has happened to this point will change no matter what the outcome. So it stands to reason that a final determination has not been made. If one had been made, then the whole appeals process would be a pointless sham. The point of the appeals process is to provide the accused with an opportunity to provide explanation and/or mitigating evidence which may change the existing determination. You contend that the final determination has already been made despite the fact that the appeals process, which may alter the existing suspicion, hasn't even started. If any potential exists for Hamilton to eliminate the existing suspicion of wrong-doing, then whatever decision stands now cannot be considered final. Guilt/innocence is about what happened. What happened can't be changed. So put down the rule book and reason it through for yourself. Unless the UCI has at its disposal, a working time machine and can change the past, then your argument is without merit.

Again, Hamilton is likely guilty of the alleged prohibited action, but until he has exhausted the opportunity to explain why this is not the case, and failed at such explanation, no verdict can be established. Considering someone guilty before their trial is backward. Guilt or innocence is established after the trial and to the best of my knowledge, no trial or similar hearing has been held.

Again I'll ask the question, (in reference to my previous post), was Botero guilty?

Beastt

As I have stated repeatedly and you have obviously ignored repeatedly; Hamilton probably did violate an anti-doping rule. He very likely is guilty. But since he hasn't exhausted the opportunities to explain why this is not the case, we can't yet know for sure.

But... the officials contend that the foreign blood cells are proof of doping and Hamilton contends that they are the result of a legal and allowable blood transfusion during surgery. Since you state, "Hamilton has committed an anti doping rule violation", please provide us with the proof you surely must have that the blood cells in question are not the result of an allowable blood transfusion accompanying surgery.

Answer me this; was Botero guilty?

VeloFlash

TH abandoned the Vuelta during Stage 13 with "stomach problems" prior to the UCI notifying of the positive doping test for blood manipulation. So it was either convenient or co-incidental that this abandonment had come in advance of his inevitable disqualification from the Vuelta.

Under UCI rules TH was automatically disqualified from further UCI (ie international events) until the "tribunal" and legal (CAS) processes had been determined. There was nothing stopping TH from competing in non international events representing Phonak. Phonak's suspension would have been contractually related to ensure TH could not ride under Phonak's colours in any event, even a charity ride.

Under UCI rules the prima facie truth is in the result of the "A" sample laboratory analysis and the apparent fact the "B" sample analysis never challenged the results.

It is interesting that during the second week of the Vuelta 50 riders had abandoned the race for unusual reasons. Food poisoning being the most common.

__________________
VF

"Remember, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat"