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

panamagrl

I am new to this discussion, but over the years have followed various forums with interest.
Liek may of you, I woudlike to believe that Tyler is innocent (the spirit of cycling), but the "data" may suggest otherwise (the reality of science).

Let's take a look at the recent presidential elections as evidence of the need to question the selectively transient nature of reality and facts. Tyler could be as guilty as hell--and be willing to fight to the last cent to prove his false innocence, or he could be completely innocent and willing to fight for the same--will any of us really know that? Isn't this entire discussion about faith, and the dangers of having blind faith in an image or persona, whether it's a young fresh-faced cycling star who was portrayed, supported by, (or created by?) the media, or the pretense that many of the supposed watchdogs in international organizations are as suspect to the weaknesses of human nature as we ordinary folks are? We either choose to believe he is innocent based on what we know of him that's been carefully presented to us, or we believe he is guilty based on the validity of scientific data. And yes, scientists are the same group of smart folks who not too long ago affirmed that the sun revolved around the earth.

To quote a Florida election official, "we just don' t know what we don't know."
To pretend otherwise is dangerous

Saucy

A false positive on 3 of 4 tests? How can that be possible?

I still think Tyler is probably a guilty bastard, but the wording in that report was pretty strong:

"There is always a risk, when new methodologies are fast tracked, that problems relating to the very newness of a process will occur."

"the follow-up action on the A sample's analysis was cause for concern, as was the change declaring the sample negative to declaring it positive"

These words do not inspire confidence in the test and in doping control procedures. "Fast-tracked" was a very poor choice of words for WADA to use about a test they approved!

Beastt

Thank you for posting this information, Saucy. To do speaks especially well of you considering your former stance on the subject. I continue to be impressed.

As to those who have already proclaimed his guilt, even busy judges make sure they're in the presence of the evidence when it is presented -- all of the evidence. To do otherwise simply opens the door for a mistrial. And yes, I know it's not a criminal situation at this point. Principles are still principles.

I'm glad that most systems don't limit their evidence to statistical probabilities to determine guilt, meehs. Minorities would always be guilty.

VeloFlash

From my reading of the report there was no criticism directed at the test, only the handling of the test.

"The impression from reading this part of the IO report is that the Athens DCL did not possess the competence to use the Australian-developed test to detect homologous blood transfusions."

__________________
VF

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

meehs

Yeah, and three "false positives" just happened to be the result of three out of four samples taken from one rider. Gee, what a strange and unfortunate coincidence! My guess is it would have been four "false positives" if the fourth sample had not been botched. C'mon, gimme a break!

meehs

Good point Beastt. But I think there's more going on here than "statistical probabilities". I've said it before; I really do sincerely hope that TH has a plausible explanation for all of this and that he somehow manages to clear himslef. Logic is telling me it won't happen though. My guess is that if he does avoid a suspension, it'll be because he dodges a bullet based on some technicality involving the test.

elmosferrari

We can not look at whether you think he or any other rider would be the last person to dope or not. People dope because they want to win. Especially having worked so hard to get so far, but they know they need that LITTLE edge, they will dope to get it. There must be a lot of pressure in the TDF and the vuelta to win. I am not saying TH doped dont get me wrong. Even though he has tested positive, even if he has doped, he is still a better rider than a lot of people. Sure it is wrong what he did. I hope that the tests that have been taken arent very accurate and are proven wrong but we dont know. I have to say though, arguing like this with each other is stupid because who cares about each others opinions? If you dont care about theirs, chances are, they dont care about yours. You think Tyler cares? Anyway, all we can do is just wait to see what happens, hope he doesnt get banned and can maybe win a TDF or 2.

__________________
GO ITALIA!

Why do we need a 28th,29th, and 30th gear?
Bike #1= Lemond Reno.
Bike #2= Looking for new mountain bike

Perro Loco

Unfortunately, it is hard to come to a definitive conclusion without all the facts.

We can speculate all we want to, other than the pre-clinical data from the article in haematologica we know little about the flase positivity of the test. What little info there is- suggests it is low. If Tyler and Santi are false positives then that is only 3 samples (I'm counting A+B as one) in over 300 tests. After reading the article, and seeing that the authors acknowledge potential problems, I would be surprised that these were not worked out and that further pre-testing was not done. Furthermore, in the past the U.C.I. has always been concerned about whether tests can hold up to legal challenges, thus the 50% hematocrit rule is a "health check" not a doping test since is does not conclusively prove doping. Also WADA and the U.C.I. are have stated to the effect that they welcome the legal challenge to the test. Although, I initialy was supportive of Tyler, I am having doubts. Two seperate positive tests, and the U.C.I. warning him about irregular blood values at the Dauphine and Romandie. Two other members of the same team tested positive (one for Epo the other also for transfusions). Add in an ambitous rider who is late in his career (Tyler is soon to be 34). Looking at this objectively, it doesn't look good for Tyler.
My hope is that after the legal challenges this is resolved definitively on way or the other.

James Felstead

exactly - and isn't that the very essence of the problem with this sport?

There seems such a lack of will to actually tackle the problem. Say for instance Hamilton is aquited on a technicality - as per the Olympics - how do you think the outside world will view it? All those long held prejudices are just re-inforced.

Okay - there is a principled point being raised about at which point someone is judged to be guilty - I think that point has been hammered home by now. Now, maybe I've misread the situation here (and if so - apologies) but i can't help but feel that a large majority of the 'don't judge him yet' camp don't want to accept the situation and that this is fairly symptomatic of the sport as a whole.

I honestly believe that the sport doesn't really have the ethical credit any more to take the 'innocent until proven guilty' stance (only my own opinion I accept). It has hidden behind inaction and technicalities for so long and issued so many denials that provde to be a crock s*** I think if any meaningful progess is to be made we need to take a tougher line in order regain the outside world's trust again.

I mean - why should the public believe a rider when he says he's innocent? David Millar anyone? And he's not the only one.

My allegiance is to the sport before it goes to any rider and right now I think the sport is at a crucial point. This year has been spectularly bad in terms of doping - okay nothing as headline grabbing as Festina but how many deaths, doping infringements of all kinds, involving so many prominant riders - this must be just as bad surely?

The Tyler situation will play it's course and who knows - maybe the 'fantastic' story he has alluded to will make a fool of me yet - if so I'll be the first to apologise. Unfotunatley I've become so cynical about it all I can't really be that bothered.

Don't get me wrong - I don't think the riders are entirely to blame and I think the teams have got away with murder - quite literally.

I just wish we could tackle the problem rather than argue some technicality - somehow that never provides much of a moral victory.

James

donhix1

Every kind of medical test has false positives. I am not claiming that they were, I am just acknowledging that the possibility exists.
Maybe you are a PhD who has gone over the methodology and witnessed the whole process with the IOC and UCI. Me I only know what I read from the press so I don't don't know everything.

__________________
Happiness is a choice that requires effort at times.

meehs

I'm not denying that the potential for false positives exists. I'm sure it does. But the odds of three out of three samples taken from one single rider resulting in "false positives" (when virtually all of the other riders tested clean) has to be all but impossible. There's definitely something up with Hamilton's blood samples. It sure doesn't take a PhD to recognize that!

Beastt

If you know of a tougher line which is accurate, then I don't disagree. The problem is that by lowering the standards of proof, innocent riders will be banned from the sport along with the guilty. I don't think that helps cycling.

I don't think anyone wants to see Tyler slip through on a technicality. If there is a legitimate reason that his blood seems to cause false positives, then it will be up to him to prove that. If he can do so, then he has proved his innocence. If he can't prove that the tests were wrong, then whether or not he slips through, it's hard to see him as innocent. But all of that depends on his particular line of defense and since none of us have seen that yet, speculation is the best we have.

Certainly there is a big problem in the sport. Many young, otherwise healthy, riders are dying. Certainly there is a reason for this which eludes coincidence but I'm somewhat troubled by the automatic assumptions that each and every instance is linked to doping. No one deserves to have their name blackened, even posthumously, without proof. It's quite rare but sometimes young people who appear healthy do seem to spontaneously drop dead. I know of one such situation myself and no drugs were involved. The autopsy showed that a critically thin artery wall had ruptured in the brain - a massive stroke. One second he was standing on a softball field and the next he was lying on the ground. He was dead by the time the first player reached him. I'm not trying to say that this explains the high number of deaths among young riders or even a significant fraction of those deaths. I'm just saying that if even one of them is the result some similar situation, then it's wrong to proclaim them a "doper" without an autopsy report which backs that up. Perhaps most of the people here have never been wrongly accused of anything. Remember that once found guilty in the public eye, no aquittal can ever completely clear your name.

How many think O.J. was guilty? (My hand is up too.)

James Felstead

well I've got many ideas on what could be changed but I won't go into all that here and now.

I'm talking about an attitude change more than anything else.

I've always believed in people having a right to fair trial - no arguments there.

But doesn't it strike you as amazing - the latest rider rider tests positive and immediately everyone talks about false positives. Jeez - there must be more false positives in sports drug tests than actual geniune results.

It strikes me that half the people out there would rather take the riders plea of innocence over the validity of a test. Doesn't that indicate something about the culture of the sport - fans, participants, teams - everyone.

Yes there should be an opportunity for the case to be heard, for the rider to put forward a defense or refute the test but this whole issue of false positives needs to be kept in some sort of perspective - surely they're a rarity?

I'm quite happy for a proper legal procedure to run it's course and that should be the means of judgement - not the whims and views of the public but let's be realistic about the probabilities of the situation.

Beastt

I can't disagree with what you've posted here but perhaps the out of proportion talk about false positives is being evaluated improperly. Before saying anything else I should reiterate that, like everyone else, I have no idea if Hamilton's defense will involve false positives. It's hard to imagine what other line of defense might be available but we'll know for sure once it has been presented.

Certainly there is a lot of talk about false positives and such things are indeed a rarity. Since this testing method is said to be fairly new, I don't suppose the actual error rate is known. But the point of talking about false positives isn't in proportion because we're not talking about statistical analysis. We're talking about one particular person. If the odds were 2.5 billion to one, it wouldn't preclude the possibility that Hamilton might be that one. We don't know if Hamilton is one of those rare situations or not and if he intends to prove that he is, he certainly has his work cut out for him. We may never know for sure whether he is guilty or not. Unless his argument is extremely compelling, it's likely that even after the appeals and whatever may follow, there will still rage a debate concerning his guilt/innocence. I would hope that whatever evidence pushes the final decision one way or the other will be suitably strong as to leave little doubt but people often judge such things from a position of anger or denial. With those two tools working overtime, and with a belief already selected, people can cling strongly to some pretty unreasonable beliefs.

Much has been said about the number of tests performed and that three out of four have shown the same positive results. But do we know that there isn't a condition, an anomally that someone might have which would cause a false positive? Could improperly healed broken bones result in the existence of bone marrow which produced blood cells that don't match? I have no idea since I know little about the test or exactly what it detects and how. But unless someone here knows that such can't be the case, then that is but one possibility. Perhaps it's not as much about the number of tests performed as the individual the test is performed upon. Maybe not. I don't know so I'm waiting to see and until then, I find him not guilty on the grounds that he hasn't yet been proven guilty.