Tyler Innocent?

Lonnie Utah

Well that's the way the cookie crumbles. What I don't understand is that the 2 years starts yesterday on April 17. Why not from the time of the initial positive. He hasn't raced since then. Seems to me this way it works out to 2.5 years....

L

__________________
Cheap, Strong and Light.
Pick any Two.

tcklyde

He'll be 36 either way. Oh, and if he bothers to stay clean, without the benefit of dope. I'd say his career is effectively over.

__________________
Harry

Roadrash Dunc

His career is over.No ifs or buts.
I hope Tyler one day faces upto what he has done and helps future riders from making the same mistakes he did.
If he can do that sooner rather than later , he can still prove he is a class man.All this says to me is that doping is more prevelent in the peloton than ANYONE can imagine.

limerickman

I'll bet the film producer for the CSC 2003 documentary is pretty pissed off now
that his leading actor has been banned for doping.
All the film reel, for nothing.

On a more serious note, TH was always going to be in a tough spot.
Santiago Perez accepted his fate and got on with it.
Defence based on twins sounded like grasping at straws to me.

wilmar13

You know it is funny that you say that because I was seriously looking forward to seeing an IMAX movie with cycling as the subject... hopefully they still go through with it. But yeah it would kind of suck to have chosen the american golden boy nice as can be to be your subject, then to have it be totally tainted before ever even reaching release...ooops!

limerickman

RD,

Yes, TH maintained that he was innocent from day one.
I read soemwhere that his wife said that they have forked out hundreds of thousands trying to defend him and that fans were donating money on line to
help him fund his defence.
TH also said that he would never jeporadise his wife and his future by doping.

Obviously his fans will be upset with this outcome.
But it is a good day for the sport, I think.
I don't want to kick the man while is down - but to me the state of the sport is what this whole drugs issue is really about.

Roadrash Dunc

Limerick i dont think we have always agreed on things , at least , i think we essentially want the same thing from the sport , but have different expectations from the riders and the fans.
I see myself as a typical armchair fan who gets out at the weekend and in Tyler i saw a character who i could admire.He never won a classic or a GT , but he was still a rdier i respected.For me , this outcome , while not surprising , is a kick to the balls.
I respect the decision even if i still give some benifit of doubt (or character?) to Tyler , but i now want to see the episode closed and cycling to move on.For this to happen , Tyler needs to either accept the guilty verdict or maintain his innocence 'passively' whilst helping the governing bodies clean up the sport.
Being branded along with Millar and Virenque would not be a fitting end to Tylers career.Its a crying shame.I dont know him from Adam but he strikes me as a decent bloke caught up in a cutthroat busines.He isnt alone in that peloton by any means.

limerickman

Well, for what it's worth, and from reading and listening to him, I like TH as a person.
He came across as being a grounded sort of guy and he seemed to be a very
pleasant, well mannered guy.
The outcome to todays hearing should not obsecure these good qualities.

JohnO

Just as I view with scorn those who accuse Lance of doping without a shred of tangible evidence, I cannot also support Tyler when he really didn't offer a shred of tangible evidence to the contrary. 'may have been a chimera' Well, was he or wasn't he? That's easy to establish. I'm still willing to bet that he may not have been blood doping, but he was doing something he shouldn't have been doing.

If anything, this should underline the seriousness of the problem. Look at the great stars that have been nailed - Virenque, Millar, Pantani, Hamilton... these were among the top riders, the very heart and soul of cycling. This isn't a momentary lapse of character, it strikes at the very core of the sport. While I don't care for the autocratic style of the UCI, or the foaming-at-the-mouth ranting of WADA, nor can we continue to have the sport held in disrepute. If there must be a few sacrifical lambs to clean up the sport, then get on with it. Whack the lambs, get the drugs out, and move on. It's better than people dropping dead from heart attacks at age 25, or retiring with a host of mysterious ailments. These are cyclists, not gladiators.

In a way, I hold the cycling establishment in general partially responsible. They came up with the promotions, lucrative endorsements, and huge purses that tempt people to juice up. They profited from the success. Yet they failed to act when the evidence of doping first came out. It should never have come to the point where it is necessary to slam the top stars, not to mention those who have died as a result, directly or indirectly, of doping. I still wince when I think of Marco's end, that should not have happened. Drug controls should be so well established that even thinking about it gets you in trouble.

Shame on the lot of them for ever letting it get out of control.

S-WORKS

JohnO is right, the shame is spread much wider than just TH and it hurts every one of us, fans, racers, and weekend warriors.

A two year suspention is a drop in the bucket for a problem that runs deep through the sport.

__________________
What doesn't kill us makes us stronger.

hombredesubaru

Well I think the story is far from clear.

For the sake of argument, if one assumes Tyler really did dope, he is going farther and to more extremes to prove he is innocent. That to me does not make so much sense.

If one assumes he really did not dope, then he has to go and disprove that he is guilty till proven innocent. On his website, he cited these "foolproof" lab tests from the UCI which had his hamtaoctir at Romandie at 49.7% nd the Tour de France 38%. Now NO ONE, doper or not, shows up to the Tour with a Hct of 38. And both those values were way off from the team tests Phonak checked the night before.

The clincher to me is that the antigens indicating a mixed red blood cell polulation in Athen were different from the antigens in Vuelta indicating mixed RBC population, although his blood counts even by the opposing experts did not indicate any substantial transfusion between the events.
So their explanation, Tyler was transfused with shot-glass sized transfusions to "top off" his hematocrit. This is more far-fetched to me that Tyler's explanation.

No way. those small transfusions wouldnt even help to start with. But assuming that he did so is the only explanation the accusing side could come up with.

People who don't know science or medicine don't like it and have trouble accepting it. The chimera or vanishing twin doesnt sound like a winning defence, but it is unfortunately quite plausible and perhaps likely. More likely to my mind than what the accusers contend: that TYler had 2 major transfusions in January and June, then topped himself off multiple times in July and August and September. January? like, why? would any cyclist do that?

But no matter, Tyler is screwed and WADA will feel vindicated, and that freekin ass Dick Pound will make more disparaging comments. I hope Dick doesnt visit Marblehead or Boston any time soon.