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

gntlmn

I don't exactly agree with you on this point because he may not have had the exact information on hand. If he says one thing, and then later determines that he made a misstatement, the general public may only remember the fact that his information is erroneous. Also, he may not have thought to say this either. He certainly must be feeling like he's going through the wringer now. He may not be thinking too clearly as a result.

I agree that specific disclosure would have been much better and that he should have gathered that information as soon as he heard the allegations to be armed at the press conference. That's what I would have done if I had a surgical blood transfusion.

Another thing I was thinking it would be good to be able to do is to identify the DNA of the foreign blood cells. If this could be done, and they matched those of the surgery blood donor, then he would be vindicated. This technology does not exist, I think.

gntlmn

Yeah, that's the way it's supposed to work. That's why I feel a little uncomfortable if the Olympics people communicated with the UCI/Vuelta people. Why would they have to do that? I would prefer that they just did their tests independently without a "tip" and see what the results show.

It really bothers me that the Olympics result took so long when other athletes, especially quite a few Greeks, were being eliminated immediately at the Olympics.

gntlmn

Yeah. That would be very interesting. I want to know that the tests are working without having to get testers looking extra hard. They should be able to get it without help. I doubt that we will learn the inside story. Hopefully, we will.

sportzgurl

LOL. Yeah it was full of spin!!

It seems to me to be common sence to tell the officials what you are doing with regards to taking pints (well put someone) or any other substance, medical help etc that may be banned or have some link to banned drugs. I have read that when some riders have really bad roadrash (ouch) they are given a cream with steroids in. I believe they have to have this cleared by officials before they can use it. This im sure is avoid any suspision with regards to doping. And if you had to have this kind of medical intevention, it would make alot of sence to cover all your bases, and avoid an uncomfortable situation.

IF, and i mean IF, Tyler took had this blood without telling the UCI i have to say i would have some serious doubts as to his innocence. Wouldn't you?

I guess i can't really comment on wether he told someone or not because nobody really knows other than Tyler himself, so I should't jump to conclusions.

P.S My spelling is really bad-im sorry!!

sportzgurl

I agree with you totally. You would definatley think he would have shed some light as to the 'operation' has claimed is the reason. Im sure he is under the guidence of lawyers and i bet they have told him what to say. I would have thought they would have told him to stay quiet and not to comfirm or deny anything. But it is the cyclist way, to say they are innocent right from the start.

the other thing I thought of, is what kind of operation whould require a fit, healthy person to have a blood transfusion?? I mean its no small thing to have that done, i know as a family member of mine has had many. Can anyone think of anything that would medicaly require him to have such a thing??

philoakley

Tyler Hamilton must have had a major operation to require blood transfusions. If this is the case, I wouldn't expect anyone to recover in time to ride the Olympic games and Vuelta.

Let's wait for the B test. It will use the same blood as the A test so the result is likely to be the same. It is not surprising that Hamilton says he is innocent. Who wouldn't.

As for the 1% doping issue, this seems to be an issue of lies, damn lies and statistics. This 1% only concerns the pool of athletes that are tested whilst many are not tested at the right time. With all the medical back up involved these days it is not surprising that the athletes can beat the testing procedures. Hopefully the doping agencies are closing the gap.

I would like to see a hard line taken on doping involving life bans. The sponsors and governing bodies should also take a hard line with offenders by looking at withdrawal of sponsorship and exclusion from key events. When all riders' incomes are put at risk by the actions of the cheaters perhaps the law of silence that exists in the peloton will crumble leaving us with a cleaner and more honest sport.

sportzgurl

Thanks. I was trying top think of what may cause him to have to have a BT, but for a healthy guy i couldn't really think. I don't think he woould be able to recover in time either. The more we talk about it - the more the 'surgery' reason seems a little far fetched. Not that I am saying tyler is gulity!!

When do the B tests come back??

And yeah i think they are going to have to start to take a harder line with doping in any sport. A 2 year ban??? What is that going to do? It might make a dent in their income but surely they could go and get a job like the rest of us - even if it is s supermarket or something lol. Its only 2 years.
Thats no where near long enough if they are trying to get zero doping in any sport.

gntlmn

I agree with you on the doping sanctions; they need to be tougher. But I don't agree with you that your notion or gut feel about the amount of riders doing some kind of doping is more reasonable than the testers' results.

If you expose 1% as dopers, and it's drummed up in the press each and every time someone tests positive, I can see how you start to think the 1% is not right. But there are a lot of riders in the sport that we never even hear about because they aren't in the middle of a doping scandal. So it's easy to think that the number, the 1% must be higher. After all, that seems like all we hear about these days, sometimes. Maybe it is higher, but even if it is 5 times as high, that's still only 5%. It's not a rampant, out of control problem. The way you and many others on this forum make it sound is that it's 99% doping, and the clean athletes are rare. You don't have any evidence to make that assertion. So why do it?

I like the way the testing gets better and better all the time. I'm starting to feel like cycling might be squeaky clean in a few years.

gntlmn

I wouldn't be surprised if Tyler has to have surgery every once in a while for all the bones he seems to break all the time. He might have to have a pin here and a screw there, maybe even a plate. If the doctor cuts into a blood vessel he shouldn't, then that can result in loss of blood requiring a transfusion. And if the transfusion is done for this reason, then very likely, he would bounce back almost instantly from it. He has shown remarkable determination with pain. Remember his 2003 performance in the Tour de France with a broken collarbone? So I don't buy that argument that a procedure requiring a blood transfusion will result in an extra long recovery period. If he had open heart surgery, of course it would take a while, but we know he's not getting that. Most likely, if there is a grain of truth to his story, it was for injuries from accidents/crashes and broken bones. He can ride the next day if that's the case. We've already seen him ride with broken bones and win a stage in a remarkable breakaway not many days later.

philoakley

I think that you are right that the doping issue might have been overblown by the press. I have never said that there is 99% doping in cyling and of course have no evidence to have made this assertion - just as you have no evidence to say that cycling is 95% clean apart from one study.

The reason that I continue to be sceptical on the performance of the top endurance athletes (notice top rather than all) is that I do not believe that huge advances in average speeds in the major cycling tours and the speed up the mountains can have been achieved by training alone. I am fairly sure that the vast majority of TDF cyclists struggling up the mountain passes in the autobus the Tour are fairly clean even if some od these guys have the right height/weight ratios to be good climbers. The main reason that they are in the bunch is that they cannot recover whilst some of the riders up front (though not all) undoubtedly take doping products to aid recovery. I could be wrong but I don't think that the Festina affair was a figment of my imagination yet the Tour is faster today than in 1998.

If the top riders were not doping there would not be stories about David Millar, Oscar Camenzind, Dave Bruylandts (arguably not a top rider) and Tyler Hamilton. Add in rumours of Bjarne Riis having a haematocrit level of 60% in 1996 and the cases of Manzano and Simeoni (who made his statements under oath, although admittedly he was guilty of cheating himself) then I think we have a problem.

I am not making accusations but asking questions. Tell me and everybody else why the Tour continues to get faster, why Tyler Hamilton has abnormalities in his blood sample, why David Millar is guilty of EPO abuse despite never having tested positive?

Gntlmn, I think that you post some very good and insightful views on this forum but that you and others perhaps are too accepting of the performances in today's cycling. I hope you are right and that I am wrong, but I don't think we will ever agree on this issue. Anyway, I think that this is what makes a good debate.

sportzgurl

Ok yeah you are right. If the BT wasn't for a serious problem then he shouldn't suffer much of a set back. But honestly, a blood transfusion because of broken bones and pins??? I am not 100% convinced that repeated injuries would cause him to have to have a blood transfusion. I mean i would belive it if his doctor or someone like that came out and said that that was the reason but it just dosn't seem right to me.

All i can say is: the plot thickens!!

wadoflove

have searched the scientific literature for publications on this methodology. I have found a single publication, by Nelson et al. November 2003 Haematologica 1284-1295 in which they describe using this technology on a total of 25 patients. It appears to me that, given the difficulties in getting antibody dilutions correct for flow cytometry analysis and the relative novelty of this technology and its lack of validation in other laboratories, that this should be treated as an experimental technology. It is by no means foolproof. Using the results of such a novel technique to make decisions that threaten the career of any professional cyclist, let alone one of Tyler Hamilton's stature, is outrageous. To make such results public before further testing can be done is libelous. Why would they make an A result public before the B test is completed?

Several questions must be asked at this point:
How valid is the test on a larger population of athletes and normal people?
Can the tests be reproduced in other labs not associated with the one who published the above paper?
Is there any other evidence for blood doping such as high hematocrit or large changes in hematocrit from test to test?
If the test is working is there another possible source of the homologous blood such as surgical procedures?

I hope that Tyler Hamilton can be cleared of this charge as quickly as possible and that there is no lasting taint from this scandal.

__________________
The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

cheapie

holy crap. thanks antoineg vbmenu_register("postmenu_1368457", true); for turning this thread to ****. i wish this forum had an ignore option like the others i frequent.

Irish Indurain

If the tests are accurate it is yet again another disaster for the sport. The tabloids are going to crucify the sport. 'Cycling gold medalist in drugs scandal' i presume. I dont think i'll be able to acknowledge some of the performances from the peloton in the future if a rider like Tyler Hamilton is doping. It's really a depressing situation.

He was one of my heroes after his performance in the 2003 tdf. It's truly a sad day for the sport. I'm losing my faith here...