Hamilton okayed to ride ProTour this year

[Steve D]

According to Bicycling Magazine's website, Tyler Hamilton should be able to ride on a ProTour team this September.

"The appeals board, however, did provide Hamilton with at least one bit of good news as it adjusted his two-year ban, ending it on September 23 of 2006, two years after he voluntarily suspended himself from his Swiss Phonak team, rather than on April 17, when his first appeal was rejected. The move is significant because in 2005 the UCI ProTour teams voted to double any suspension. Hence if the date of the ban took place in April of 2005 rather than September of 2004 he would actually be suspended from racing at the highest level of sport for four years instead of two years. As a result of the adjusted ban, Hamilton will actually be able to race at the end of this year at the age of 36."

[saab2000]

I wonder if anyone will take him? Someone will as he will be very cheap and wanting to prove himself. Saunier Duval anyone? Rides the Giro di Lombardia and the Zueri Metzgete and does well. I predict.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . since I don't think I've made any secret of my liking for Tyler. I would not be surprised if Phonak picks him up again. The owner made it clear that the only reason he suspending him in the first place was because the UCI was threatening not to give them a ProTour license unless they did.

BBD

[Climb01742]

i'd like to see him ride again. he's been penalized, so why not? it'd be funny if for his first race he showed up on a tandem...for his twin.

[Len J]

i'd like to see him ride again. he's been penalized, so why not? it'd be funny if for his first race he showed up on a tandem...for his twin.


without cheating?........that would be the interesting question.

Of Course he could always blame it on his age.

Len

[BdaGhisallo]

Color me naive if you wish but, despite all of officialdom's protestations to the contrary, I still don't believe that he did it.

But having laid my biases bare, he brings up very good points. Those developing the tests shouldn't be responsible for applying them and there should be more of a division between those applying the tests and those handing out penalities. Too many folks have too much invested in the whole infrastructure of drug testing to see it challenged in any shape or form.

As for the ProTour, since his infraction occurred before the birth of the Protour, he is not liable to the additional time penalty. And think about that for a minute. An athlete serves his time, as directed by the sports governing body, with the length of suspension dictated by them, and he still can't participate again once he serves it. That would be like IBM saying they won't hire anyone who has served time until an equal amount of time to their time served has passed since their release from prison. Don't imagine that would stand up in a court of law at all.

[BarryG]

Whether or not he did it, I wish him a successful comeback and I sure wish IMAX would re-edit their movie and put all the Tyler CSC footage back in :)

[andy mac]

isn't it a 30 year old test that just hadn't been used in this application before?

[BdaGhisallo]

I don't want to rehash what's already been hashed around so many times, and I am not a doctor so I might...hash this up a bit, but weren't there issues with the validation protocols? Something about not establishing false positives rates? The test was originally developed to facilitate safe blood transfusions and to type blood properly. The test showed if the two blood samples were different. False positives are not a problem in that case since the blood tested is simply discarded and new blood tried. In this case, false negatives are this issue as they would cause real problems in blood transfusion situations.

[slowgoing]

I want to see his test results the next time he rides. If he's negative on the same test, there goes his vanishing twin defense.

It would be nice to see him riding again.

[ergott]

Two days before the Worlds. Can you say, time trial??

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . a false positive rate was one of the central points of his defense. As I understood it, any new test is generally not accepted for binding use in the medical community until studies have been done to establish a false positive rate and therefore give doctors some context in which to judge results.

While the general method of the UCI's blood test has been around for quite a while, this particular test is a modification to the older test and no new false positive studies were done. So one of Tyler's contentions was that the reliability of the test had not been established. It was rushed into use before being proven just so the UCI could have it in use for the 2004 Tour so they could say they were doing something about doping. Of course, the guy who developed the test and the UCI both insist the test is "100% accurate" so no false positive study needed to be done. But NO test is truly "100% accurate"--there are always SOME false positives. Tyler's contention was that his was a false positive but the UCI could not (or would not) even tell him what the false positive rate was for the test.

The UCI and WADA were stonewalling and steamrolling through this whole affair, and they have been doing that to other riders, too. Not just Tyler, and it's an issue totally independent from his guilt or innocence. The other Phonak rider (I forget his name) was given three days notice of his hearing and was refused any delay. He had no time to hire a lawyer or put together a defense.

Anyone who declares thet these guys MUST be guilty just because they've been accused and accepts the UCI's campaign of public relations ridicule of any rider who tries to defend themselves is simply buying into the UCI's propaganda. The UCI and WADA must have as close to a 100% conviction rate as they can get because any other result makes them look like their campaign to rid the sport of doping is either A) inneffective or B) not justified in the first place.

Ironically, the UCI has set themselves up in a situation where they can NEVER make any declaration of victory in their campaign because they have set themselves up as the ultimate arbiter and connected their reputation to it so closely. Much like President Bush and the war on terrorism, they have gone into the "war on doping" without any advance determination of exactly how to tell if or when they've achieved victory. As has been shown to me in Hamilton's case, almost any type of bending of the rules of medicine, evidence, or justice seems to be OK with them as long as it's in the service of victory in the "war"--a victory they can't define to anyone who asks anyway.

BBD

[ergott]

. . . a false positive rate was one of the central points of his defense. As I understood it, any new test is generally not accepted for binding use in the medical community until studies have been done to establish a false positive rate and therefore give doctors some context in which to judge results.

While the general method of the UCI's blood test has been around for quite a while, this particular test is a modification to the older test and no new false positive studies were done. So one of Tyler's contentions was that the reliability of the test had not been established. It was rushed into use before being proven just so the UCI could have it in use for the 2004 Tour so they could say they were doing something about doping. Of course, the guy who developed the test and the UCI both insist the test is "100% accurate" so no false positive study needed to be done. But NO test is truly "100% accurate"--there are always SOME false positives. Tyler's contention was that his was a false positive but the UCI could not (or would not) even tell him what the false positive rate was for the test.

The UCI and WADA were stonewalling and steamrolling through this whole affair, and they have been doing that to other riders, too. Not just Tyler, and it's an issue totally independent from his guilt or innocence. The other Phonak rider (I forget his name) was given three days notice of his hearing and was refused any delay. He had no time to hire a lawyer or put together a defense.

Anyone who declares thet these guys MUST be guilty just because they've been accused and accepts the UCI's campaign of public relations ridicule of any rider who tries to defend themselves is simply buying into the UCI's propaganda. The UCI and WADA must have as close to a 100% conviction rate as they can get because any other result makes them look like their campaign to rid the sport of doping is either A) inneffective or B) no justified in the first place.

Ironically, the UCI has set themselves up in a situation where they can NEVER make any declaration of victory in their campaign because they have set themselves up as the ultimate arbiter and connected their reputation to it so closely. Much like President Bush and the war on terrorism, they have gone into the "war on doping" without any advance determination of exactly how to tell if or when they've achieved victory. As has been shown to me in Hamilton's case, almost any type of bending of the rules of medicine, evidence, or justice seems to be OK with them as long as it's in the service of victory in the "war"--a victory they can't define to anyone who asks anyway.

BBD


Just devil's advocate, but it is interesting that the same protestations aren't heard for his teamate at the time. To team members with positives in the same race does raise suspicion. My memory is fuzzy on this, but weren't these cases identical?

[BumbleBeeDave]

I think there are a number of reasons that could be blamed for lack of further mention from the teammate. He most likely does not have the financial resources Tyler does to hire lawyers, nor does he have the long career of accumulating friends in the sport willing to speak on his behalf. Also consider that Phonak's owner is a big Hamilton fan and may have been more willing to offer help to Hamilton than the other guy. And yes, it could also be because he did it, he knows he did it, and he's gonna move on.

BBD

[Skrawny]

If he really does have a mixed group of RBCs because of a "vanished twin" like he contends, it stands to reason he will just test positive again.

If that is true, he cannot ride again or it will either prove he was confabulating before (if his future tests are negative) or he will have to go through the same suspension process again (if he is positive again)
-s

[Tom]

Reminds me of the scene in Raising Arizona where they're robbing the bank and John Goodman yells "Everybody hold still and get on the floor!" Nobody moves and the old man says "Well, which is it, sonny? Do you want us to get on the floor or do you want us to hold still?"

[bigdeal]

Two days before the Worlds. Can you say, time trial??

Hamilton vs Millar in the 2006 Worlds TT....that'll be one for the books. Maybe Graham Watson will come up with a poster of them head to head like Lance vs Jan.

[BdaGhisallo]

BBD,

In one erudite post you conveyed what I, in two incoherent rambling posts, could not.

Chapeau my friend!

Geoff

[Steve D]

If he really does have a mixed group of RBCs because of a "vanished twin" like he contends, it stands to reason he will just test positive again.

-s


Actually, Tyler does not contend that he is chimeric or had a vanashing twin. On his website he states that he was tested and shown not to be chimeric.

His contention all along seems to be that while the test shows different types of blood, it can not tell whether the result is from a blood transfusion or from something else.

[andy mac]

Just devil's advocate, but it is interesting that the same protestations aren't heard for his teamate at the time. To team members with positives in the same race does raise suspicion. My memory is fuzzy on this, but weren't these cases identical?



5 guys on the phonak team tested positive in 12 months. the team doc was then fired suprise, surprise...

[christian]

. . . a false positive rate was one of the central points of his defense.


But NO test is truly "100% accurate"--there are always SOME false positives. Tyler's contention was that his was a false positive but the UCI could not (or would not) even tell him what the false positive rate was for the test.


For the sake of argument, let's assume that the type one (false positive) error of the test is a huge 5%, 10%, or even 20%. Then, let's stipulate that despite the B-sample debacle at the Olympics, Tyler tested positive at the Vuelta and the Olympics.

In the first case (5% type one error), the likelihood of two false positives is: 5/100 x 5/100 or one quarter of one percent (0.25%).

In the second case (10% type one error), the likelihood of two false positives is: 10/100 x 10/100 or one percent (1%).

In the third case (20% type one error), the likelihood of two false positives is: 20/100 x 20/100 or four percent (4%).

So, if the test were to return a false positive one out of every five times (this strikes me as pretty unlikely, given that it was a modification of an existing testing protocol), the likelihood is 96% that Hamilton was guilty. I'd say the vast preponderance of the evidence is that Tyler Hamilton blood doped.

If he returns, I hope he races clean.

- Christian

[BBB]

. . . a false positive rate was one of the central points of his defense. As I understood it, any new test is generally not accepted for binding use in the medical community until studies have been done to establish a false positive rate and therefore give doctors some context in which to judge results.

While the general method of the UCI's blood test has been around for quite a while, this particular test is a modification to the older test and no new false positive studies were done. So one of Tyler's contentions was that the reliability of the test had not been established. It was rushed into use before being proven just so the UCI could have it in use for the 2004 Tour so they could say they were doing something about doping. Of course, the guy who developed the test and the UCI both insist the test is "100% accurate" so no false positive study needed to be done. But NO test is truly "100% accurate"--there are always SOME false positives. Tyler's contention was that his was a false positive but the UCI could not (or would not) even tell him what the false positive rate was for the test.

The UCI and WADA were stonewalling and steamrolling through this whole affair, and they have been doing that to other riders, too. Not just Tyler, and it's an issue totally independent from his guilt or innocence. The other Phonak rider (I forget his name) was given three days notice of his hearing and was refused any delay. He had no time to hire a lawyer or put together a defense.

Anyone who declares thet these guys MUST be guilty just because they've been accused and accepts the UCI's campaign of public relations ridicule of any rider who tries to defend themselves is simply buying into the UCI's propaganda. The UCI and WADA must have as close to a 100% conviction rate as they can get because any other result makes them look like their campaign to rid the sport of doping is either A) inneffective or B) not justified in the first place.

Ironically, the UCI has set themselves up in a situation where they can NEVER make any declaration of victory in their campaign because they have set themselves up as the ultimate arbiter and connected their reputation to it so closely. Much like President Bush and the war on terrorism, they have gone into the "war on doping" without any advance determination of exactly how to tell if or when they've achieved victory. As has been shown to me in Hamilton's case, almost any type of bending of the rules of medicine, evidence, or justice seems to be OK with them as long as it's in the service of victory in the "war"--a victory they can't define to anyone who asks anyway.

BBD

This is all actually very tricky.

The testing was pushed through to be ready in time for the Athens Olympics. The CAS award discusses the history of the development of the test between page 10 and 12 (or paragraphs 30-34).

While the reasons for wanting the test up and running are reasonably obvious, it's odd that such things end up being rushed through at the last minute. And this has happened before, as if you cast your mind back to the Sydney Olympics in 2000 'they' tried to get a blood test to detect the use of EPO up and running before the Olympics, but failed to do so (if my memory serves me right). Ironically enough the blood test for EPO is still proving problematic 5 plus years down the track.

While WADA or at least its boss seem to be steamrolling the process, you need to remember that it is the national federations that take action against the riders. So in the case of Perez (the team mate) it was the Spanish Federation that pushed the process and not WADA or the UCI. It's odd that not much emphasis has been placed on this, but Perez did not have the profile or the money that Hamilton has (or had). By the same token, it's equally odd that Hamilton failed a blood test three out of four times (remembering of course that the B sample from the Olympics was destroyed), while his team mate failed the same test twice. Indeed it is even more odd that since Perez was caught after the Vuelta last year no one else has been pinged by this blood test (again from memory).

Guilt of innocence aside, there seems to be a lot of funny business going on from both the rider's side of the fence and the regulatory bodies' side of the fence. In the circumstances it is hard to be confident in either side or put another way, neither side can be said to have completely clean hands.

This saga will drag on as no doubt Hamilton will make a comeback in September and will, ala Armstrong, set down his thoughts on paper.

'It's not about the blood' maybe...???

[Kevin]

. . . since I don't think I've made any secret of my liking for Tyler. BBD

BBDave,

I am shocked. You are a Tyler fan? I would have never guessed. The next thing you are going to tell me is that you like the look of black and yellow on a bicycle frame. :D

Kevin

[BumbleBeeDave]

Put your money where your mouth is! Come to Smiley's ride in May and I'll see just how much yellow and black I can wear for you!

BBD

[Kevin]

Put your money where your mouth is! Come to Smiley's ride in May and I'll see just how much yellow and black I can wear for you!

BBD

BBD,

I don't have any money. I am just a poor sharecropper's son. As far as Smiley's ride, I'm not sure I could keep up with you. You will have to wear very bright yellow so I can still see you when you are 10 miles ahead of me. When is Smiley's ride?

Kevin