Hamilton suspended for two years

herbler wrote:

If Wejo told you to vote for GWBush would you agree with him on that too? Make up your own damn mind instead of relying on Wejo's opinion.

Yes, I do need to make up my own mind, but.....you have it backwards. My point was: wejo, IMHO, is very ONE-SIDED towards thinking anyone who tests positive for anything must be guilty. Now I myself believe that the high majority of people busted are INDEED guilty, but I think I have more doubts about the tests than wejo, and feel that false positives are are a real possibility. until today, I had NEVER heard wejo mention the possibility of a false positive. I think he is pretty hard-core on the issue.

SO......a better analogy (than yours) would be if wejo suddenly started BASHING a republican. That would get my attention and make me notice, because I know that wejo is very strongly biased in favor of republicans. So if HE bashed a GOP'r, then I would KNOW that the guy was scum! :-)

That is more analagous to what is going on here than your comment.

(another good analogy would be: if wejo was complimenting the training progam of a runner and it contained low volume of training, then I would know that such a program must have at least something special about it, because I know that wejo is a "high volume" guy, and it would take a lot for a "low volume" approach to get his attention and praise)

Bad Science wrote:

hmmmm wrote:

that is way too suspicious for me. What are the odds of a teammate having the dissappearing fetus thing as a child too?...

they should have tested the entire team

This chimerra was not the crux of the argument!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This chimerra was not the crux of the argument!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This chimerra was not the crux of the argument!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This chimerra was not the crux of the argument!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This chimerra was not the crux of the argument!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can you people get this out of your heads!!!!!!

The test was scientifically flawed on numerous levels

and the testing was performed in astonishingly un-ethical way!!!!

The very results are at question! not whether he had a twin vanished or not, but whther the testing proceedure can be used to confirm that he had a mixed RBC population

Try the decaf soldier. Unless you are Tyler it's not that big of a deal.

i'm not a scientist, i just play one on t.v., but after reading the ruling, hamiltion is guilty as HELL.

guilty. no ifs about the shiizzle.

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

[quote]herbler wrote:

If Wejo told you to vote for GWBush would you agree with him on that too? .

Hell yes!

So many of us suspect cycling and or running to be pretty dirty. But we all agree give the benefit of the doubt. And many of us doubt the testing systems. SO WHY WATCH THE SPORT???

hey man, calm down. I was being sarcastic about the fetus thing. I was just pointing out that it's VERY suspicious that a teammate was also caught, where we haven't heard of other high profile cyclists from other teams getting caught for this. This kinda sounds like a Mcguire/Canseco thing, except they both got busted.

My guess is that they rolled the dice thinking that the test wouldn't be completed in time and they got burned. Yes, i read all the info on it. The test seems reliable to me. There may be a small chance for false positives, but how could there be 2 false positives in a row? or i guess 3 with the A from Athens, and then the A, B samples from september. Doesn't really add up to a plausible defense for me at all.

no he is not a chimera, no he has not lost fetus, and no the test is not biased against him

I work with flow cytometry and antibodies everyday. False positives are very common. There are tons of issues with antibody specificity etc. Perhaps the best point made by the one dissenter is that the levels of a second peak were insufficent to declare Tyler negative by the IOC lab following the Olympics (remember, originally the lab found his results negative, i.e. not a significant second peak) but later, the same test applied at the Vuelta found him positive with a second peak which was lower in amplitude than the histogram from the Olympics test. The validity of flow cytometry relies on large data sets, not n=1 or 2. This would never meet acceptable scientific standards. Also, the chimera arguement was utilized to show that exceptions to the rule that 2 peaks = doping do occur, not to claim that Tyler is a chimer or anything, only to make that point that the test is not infallable.

Out.

Here is the way I see it.

Tyler Hamilton's "challenge is whether the identification (of a mixed population of cells) means the cause is a homologous blood transfusion." They suggest chimera, etc.

I think this says a lot: there were two separate times that his cells had only one peak (one by his experts and USADA 2/5/2005) so the question is whether or not so called chimeras sometimes produce a small population of RBCs that react with secondary RBC antibody. This is Tyler's defense.

The dissenting judge was the one that thinks that the test is invalid, you can read about it in the proceedings.

that is my scientific opinion.

andrew

Dude, you seriously need to crawl out of wejo's jock. Sure, he's a great runner and does a great job on this site, but that doesn't make him any more qualified to talk about politics or drug testing than anyone else on this site. Almost everyone on this board is one-sided when it comes to drug testing and obviously people split on TH in particular so you're free to come down on either side on Hamilton without all this wejo ass-kissing that if wejo were to say something, some guy is "scum" or there must be "something special about it." You're still not thinking for yourself man.

Run Dawg wrote:

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

[quote]herbler wrote:

If Wejo told you to vote for GWBush would you agree with him on that too? .

Hell yes!

I thought you guys let Bill O'Reilly make up your mind for you.

I agree that the the process with the non-anonymous re-testings don't sound very fair. But I still think Tyler is guilty.

Did anyone read this article?

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-cyclist17apr17,1,6404105.story

Here's an exerpt from the article about his irregular blood tests that drew the attention of testers. It seems way damning to me.

___________________________________

In Hamilton's case, documents reveal a pattern of suspicious results from so-called "health tests" he underwent last spring and summer. Such health tests can examine urine, heart and lung functions, and are a regular feature of life on the pro racing circuit. Athletes receive these extensive tests at least four times a year, in addition to blood tests typically administered at 7 a.m. the day of a race.

Under sports protocol, health tests are not be used to prove a doping offense. "It's an indicator, but it's not a proof," testified Mario Zorzoli, medical director for the International Cycling Union, which goes by the acronym UCI.

However, a rider can be kept from starting a particular race if, according to a complex formula that factors in levels of both hemoglobin and reticulocytes, or immature blood cells, the reading tops 133. In cycling, such an index is called an "off score."

Last April 24, in testing before one of cycling's oldest classics, the Liege-Bastogne-Liege race in eastern Belgium, Hamilton's off score totaled 123.8. The mean score for UCI riders is around 90, Zorzoli said.

Five days later, in testing at the Tour de Romandie in Switzerland, Hamilton's off score was 132.9. His hematocrit level — the percentage of red blood cells in the system — read 49.7; the allowable limit is 50. His reticulocyte index measured a very low 0.22.

Hamilton said the numbers can't be viewed as gospel, contending that the testing machines are prone to varied readings. "The machines aren't absolute," he said.

For authorities, the combination of a high hematocrit level and low reticulocyte reading amounts to a red flag. The thinking goes this way: If immature cell readings are low — meaning few new red blood cells are in the works — a hematocrit reading cannot come out high unless there has been manipulation of some sort, like an infusion of blood.

In June, UCI officials sent Hamilton a letter saying he was going to be watched because his "blood values showed strong signs" of "a possible manipulation."

_________________________

Tyler 49.7 hematocrit -> limit 50

Tyler "off score" 123.8 and 132.9! -> average of UCI cyclists 90 (and everyone thinks all cyclists are doping!) -> limit 133

Bad Science wrote:

Madein_82 wrote:

Believe whatever the hell, you want. if you read the report there is no indication whatsoever, that the test is any way flawed or SIGNIFICANLTY prone to error.

this was the last cyclist i would have expected to dope.

i actually had respect for him, thats what i get for respecting a cyclists.

what a worthless sport.

Prove this statement dude. the only evidence I can find about false positive rates gives them at about 1.1% and that a non-biased lab would have likely found all tests performed on tylers blodd to be negative.

Last time i checked >5% is signif. , Not 1.1%

"Tyler 49.7 hematocrit -> limit 50

Tyler "off score" 123.8 and 132.9! -> average of UCI cyclists 90 (and everyone thinks all cyclists are doping!) -> limit 133"

i bet if you looked at the numbers of any of the top guys, they would be similar.

herbler wrote:

Dude, you seriously need to crawl out of wejo's jock. Sure, he's a great runner and does a great job on this site, but that doesn't make him any more qualified to talk about politics or drug testing than anyone else on this site. Almost everyone on this board is one-sided when it comes to drug testing and obviously people split on TH in particular so you're free to come down on either side on Hamilton without all this wejo ass-kissing that if wejo were to say something, some guy is "scum" or there must be "something special about it." You're still not thinking for yourself man.

HOW STUPID ARE YOU?????????

Do you just start typing words that randomly come into your head, or do you think about what you are attempting to say first and while typing???

Let me try this ONE MORE TIME:

** I am HARDLY in "wejo's jock" as you suggest. Do you know HOW many times I have bashed him for his love of George W Bush, and how many times I have attacked his site for removing anti-Bush posts???? Well, I will tell you: MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY times. I have been banned probably 3 dozen times at least for such comments! I have also accused him of being absurd for stating that he has "no talent", and that "JK is the greatest coach in the world." I have also criticized JK for his comments implying that no distance runner can be great without running at least 120-150 miles a week. Attacking wejo, attacking his site, attacking his coach.......DOES THAT SOUND LIKE SOMEONE WHO IS "ASS-KISSING" WEJO ????? NO. For crissakes, can you read????

**** What I wrote WAS: SINCE wejo happens to be very one-sided about drug testing, if he holds out the chance that the tests were flawed, than THAT makes me take notice. Understand how that works??? I will try a couple more examples: if Tom Delay says another politician is "too conservative", or Ted Kennedy said another politician is "too liberal", would you take notice of such comments??? Even if you did not agree with lots that they normally say, would such statements make you say: if THAT guy is making THOSE COMMENTS, then I tend to think there is something there. It has NOTHING to with overall respect or love of the person making the statement, but about that person's typical biases, and then making a statement that goes against those biases. It is a lot more significant than if it happened the other way around ie, if Ted Kennedy called someone "too conservative", or wejo declared after a postive drug test, even a controversial one, that the "person must be guilty." THOSE comments would be "par for the course." The OTHER comments are not, and get/would get my notice.

it takes a LOT to make someone go against their normal biases and normal standard opinions

DO YOU GET IT ???????????????????

And for the record, after reading the dissenting opinion of the arbitration, it appears that these tests were VERY FLAWED and NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME. Whether Hamilton used a blood transfusion or not, I don't know, but he should NOT have been convicted by these tests. He did not receive a fair trial.

There, that is MY opinion.