Tyler

[OldDog]

Any news on hearing? Will he be competing in 2005?

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . of his case in the VN story a few days ago regarding a European court rejecting Santiago Perez' lawsuit about his case. The last graph said . . .

<<Hamilton's case, meanwhile, will be considered by the U.S. Anti-doping Agency and, after a slight delay, a hearing is expected sometime in February. Hamilton has steadfastly professed his innocence on charges of blood doping.>>

That's all I've seen lately. The most recent journal entry on Tyler's web site I saw a few days ago was from early December. I have heard no more public comment on the case from UCI or WADA figures lately, so I would imagine that without the necessity to defend himself publicly against any further blatantly prejudicial statements made by prosecutorial authorities, he's doing what he should be doing--keeping quiet and working on gathering as much reliable evidence as possible for his defense.

BBDave

[Richard]

"...keeping quiet and working on gathering as much reliable evidence as possible for his defense."

Ever the optimist. Maybe the evidence is in an attache case with the killer of OJ's wife and Robert Blake's wife.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . that my penchant for loyalty and dedication to those I admire is being misinterpreted again for being brainwashed.

I think his chances for exoneration are small at this point, but that does not change my opinion that anyone accused of something like this should, if possible, stay quiet and devote all their energy to preparing their defense.

I'll wait for the hearings and the decision with hope and good wishes, but without the blind faith you seem to ascribe to me. Sh*t almost always runs downhill, and I fear that in this affair Tyler is standing right at the bottom.

BBDave

[Big Dan]

Maybe take this time and do some update to the old resume..... :D

[victoryfactory]

Until I saw his site, I just assumed he was another dope.
But have you seen the story about some retired rider who was arrested
after trying to extort the phonak team manager?
Supposedly, he also threatened that another rider would test positive if
he wasn't paid, then after he was caught, he said it was just a joke....

Remember that tyler didn't test positive for drugs, but for someone else's
blood in the sample. Is it possible that he was set up?
If so it would have to have happend twice, Oympics and Vuelta

Now I'm confused and not so sure he is guilty

VF

[Tom Byrnes]

Like BBDave, I also have admired Tyler. Everything I have read about him, his character and beliefs makes the doping charges seem unusual and so out of character for him.

And, like BBDave, I want to wait for the presentation of credible evidence of his alleged offenses before a fair and unbiased tribunal for proof of his guilt (or innocence).

And, like BBDave, I do not feel that I am in denial or am brainwashed simply because I refuse to pass judgment on Tyler at this time. Even though there have been two separate positve test results, we are not privy to all of the evidence surrounding the testing and handling of the test results.

I have not ruled out the possibility that Tyler, with all of his otherwise admirable traits, integrity and character, may be "guilty as charged." Good people can do bad things.

But, I am continually surprised at how many people, with full knowledge that they may only possess some of the available information and "evidence", can quickly jump to final conclusions and judgment in all sorts of matters.

[weisan]

Like BBDave, I also have admired Tyler. Everything I have read about him, his character and beliefs makes the doping charges seem unusual and so out of character for him.

And, like BBDave, I want to wait for the presentation of credible evidence of his alleged offenses before a fair and unbiased tribunal for proof of his guilt (or innocence).

And, like BBDave, I do not feel that I am in denial or am brainwashed simply because I refuse to pass judgment on Tyler at this time. Even though there have been two separate positve test results, we are not privy to all of the evidence surrounding the testing and handling of the test results.

I have not ruled out the possibility that Tyler, with all of his otherwise admirable traits, integrity and character, may be "guilty as charged." Good people can do bad things.

But, I am continually surprised at how many people, with full knowledge that they may only possess some of the available information and "evidence", can quickly jump to final conclusions and judgment in all sorts of matters.

Words of wisdom. Thanks Tom.

[BumbleBeeDave]

<< But, I am continually surprised at how many people, with full knowledge that they may only possess some of the available information and "evidence", can quickly jump to final conclusions and judgment in all sorts of matters.>>

Funny how that works, ain't it? :rolleyes:

We've already waited for 3 months. What's a few more weeks until we can have a much more complete and accurate body of evidence on which to formulate an INFORMED opinion?

BBDave

[BBB]

On a related topic, Phonak were successful in their appeal to CAS against their exclusion from the Pro Tour.

[BumbleBeeDave]

I felt that was a REAL good decision. Not for Tyler’s sake, but more because it’s the CAS slapping down the UCI for assuming riders--and teams--are “guilty until proven innocent.” The UCI, in effect, had sanctioned Phonak as if the two riders were guilty, when no guilt had yet been proven in any kind of hearing.

I have no argument with the UCI and WADA wanting to clean up the sport, as long as they do it in a fair judicial manner. It’s that due process and attempt at fairness that has been sorely lacking.

BBDave

[Needs Help]

I have no argument with the UCI and WADA wanting to clean up the sport, as long as they do it in a fair judicial manner. It’s that due process and attempt at fairness that has been sorely lacking.
As far as I know, those dealings aren't criminal proceedings, so your notions of "a fair judicial manner" don't apply. I don't hear you protesting about how Serotta is violating your 1st Amendment rights to free speech(were they stricken from the record?), yet your cries demanding that the UCI be held to some standard of conduct commensurate with your admiration of Tyler Hamilton are heard regularly.

It seems to me if you really wanted to clean up the sport, you wouldn't care if a few innocent riders got taken down with all the cheats. No system can be 100% accurate in punishing the guilty, and an attempt to make it so, means more and more of the guilty will get off scott free--until the cheats end up running the thing because the system is completely paralyzed, e.g. the current state of pro cycling. In my opinion, if you want to be a pro cyclist, and a UCI board determines it was more likely than not, i.e. the UCI is just over 50% sure, that you cheated or you didn't turn in other people you witnessed cheating, you should be banned from the sport, and not for two years--life.

In my opinion it doesn't even matter if Tyler really is innocent. As long as the UCI is cracking down and trying to clean up the sport, then Tyler's unfortunate circumstance is part of the solution that this cycling fan is willing to embrace.

[BumbleBeeDave]

So nice to see you back!

So as long as they are HALF-sure he’s done something, it’s OK to kick him out? As long as they’re HALF-sure that ANYBODY has done ANYTHING, then it’s OK to kick them out their profession for life? You CANNOT be serious! But yeah, given your past comments, I guess you COULD be serious.

My only “demand” of the UCI is that they be held to some standard of conduct that could reasonably be expected from any professional organization that claims to be in pursuit of honesty in the sport.

As for admiring Tyler--yes, I do. I am not alone. I think there have been ample demonstrated reasons that he deserves the admiration that I and many others give him. But your seemingly irresistible urge to stoke the fires of sarcasm every time his name is mentioned also begs the question--why do YOU dislike him so much? Care to elaborate?

BTW, how do you like your new Serotta?

BBDave

[kyledmil]

but I don't think destroying an innocent person's career as collateral damage in attempting to catch cheaters is something I'm willing to accept to clean up the sport. If that is what it takes to make cycling clean I think I'll move on to another interest.

[vaxn8r]

Ah, but the average cycling fan can't win either way. I long ago tired of hearing the "I've never once tested positive" defense. It may be true but only because the science of testing is lagging behind the science of cheating. This is a fact. When a breakthrough test does come forth its immediately blasted as inaccurate and untested. Imagine that, everyone knows there never will be a test which is 100% reliable. In every day life we accept this fact, we make life and death decisions knowing that one can never be 100% certain. But in the world of big money sports we act like there is some magical way to make medical testing infallible. Hah! So if the defense is going to through that card on the table, we'll never get anywhere in defining who is, and who is not, cheating.

We are left to conclude it is all a farce and throw our hands up in frustration. This is not about Tyler Hamilton. As much as some would have this be personal, it isn't. It's philosophical about how you rein in cheating and attempt to make sports fair for all comers, not just a relatively few who are wealthy, morally bankrupt and willing to risk their health for success.

[BBB]

[QUOTE=Needs Help]As far as I know, those dealings aren't criminal proceedings, so your notions of "a fair judicial manner" don't apply.

It would seem that CAS disagrees with you. In the award relating to the Phonak case, the panel stated in reference to the process of granting a licence:

"In particular, the applicants should be allowed to present their case at such stage in an adversarial proceeding, ie having the right to know the allegations of the UCI representatives and of the UCI consultants, to examine in advance all the evidence submitted by the UCI to the Licence Commission and to question it or refute it with its own counter evidence. Otherwise, the right to be heard and the right to a fair proceeding would be breached. It is undisputable that the said rights are fundamental and that the CAS has always endeavoured to protect them."

Perhaps the term "a judicial manner" is better expressed in this instance as "procedural fairness". Tyler Hamilton, or any other athlete accused of a doping offence, has a right to expect procedural fairness when their case is being dealt with, no matter the generally accepted view that doping is inherently wrong.

This is perhaps inherent in the award in which the panel later states:

"Indeed, the Panel wishes to make clear that it has considerable sympathy with the UCI's anti-doping stance and efforts".

So by all means fight doping, I doubt we'd disagree with that, but the make the process fair to the parties involved.

[kyledmil]

I don't think it is a situation of all or nothing. We will catch cheaters, not all of them. But to err on the side of protecting the innocent is what my view of justice is all about. We don't stand at some crossroad, we stand pretty much at the starting line in our attempts to really root out drugs in sports. It has only been fairly recently that a true effort has been made and even now I would say many in charge of sport organizations are only beginning to actually do something. (baseball anyone?) When testing is given some time to catch up to the cheaters it will be harder to cheat. Let's just not drag a lot of innocent people down in the process just to prove we're doing something about it. If it takes a while longer then so be it. It's not those who play fairly who are responsible, it's the people in charge who turned a blind eye for so long and did nothing. Why should innocent people be expected to pay the price just so we can throw out as many bad ones as soon as possible. Cheaters have been around for years, the pools have been poisoned and it will take time to clean them up.

[BumbleBeeDave]

<<This is not about Tyler Hamilton. As much as some would have this be personal, it isn't. It's philosophical about how you rein in cheating and attempt to make sports fair for all comers, not just a relatively few who are wealthy, morally bankrupt and willing to risk their health for success.>>

Incredibly well said. This is exactly my feeling. Unfortunately, some have seized upon my professed admiration for Tyler as the only issue I am concerned with, which is of course, not true.

But I must politely disagree with the rest of your contention. There will be a certain minority who label every new test as “unreliable” because it serves their own interests--honest or otherwise. But I feel that other tests that have been introduced have had far more defensible clinical testing and prior record than this particular blood doping test.

As much as I hate to consider it, Tyler MAY have doped, and the test in his case MAY have really worked because he really DID do something wrong. But that’s where the politicial issue comes in. I think the UCI rushed this latest suite of tests into usage with far too much political pressure, rather than clinical review. If they had simply waited a year--heck, even 6 months--and engaged independent medical authorities to establish that record of clinical reliability, then I would be far more willing to accept that the test is right, Tyler is a cheat, and he should be OUT.

BBDave