Tyler?

[bostondrunk]

Any update on his case? Isn't this supposed to be done? I'm going with Occam's Razor on this one.....I think he's done...
What about his teammate who was positive as well?

[Richard]

'Fess up, you're just trying to generate a long thread that rehashes all of the same issues.

USADA has not closed the case and will not report out until they do. The teammate was suspended.

[bostondrunk]

Sorry, didn't mean to take people's attention away from Sandy's "I can't climb" thread....;)

[Richard]

Jebus knows how important that is.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . is why the hearing are being left hanging officially "open" . . . The hearing officers need to fish or cut bait . . .

BBDave

[Bruce K]

Actually Dave, they don't NEED to do anything. :crap:

They can sit like this until it's too late for Tyler (if not already so) and then say "Ooops, we goofed."

At that point what is his recourse? He has his name and reputation back, but no career.

Sad, but if one were a conspiracy theorist, that's one.

BK

[bostondrunk]

ahhh....let the debate begin...;)

Would Tyler be allowed to take out a US license in the meantime? Since it is not a UCI license? He could race domestic for a year while the UCI drags its feet...

[e-RICHIE]

he could do wells ave.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . That thought HAS occurred to me.

But I would think if they want serious consideration for ProTour events over here, then it would not be in their best interests to pull something like that. UCI would be PO'd. Also, it would seem they would be leaving themselves open to court action from Tyler.

But I am ignorant of what the rules are. Are they REQUIRED to make any decision? All I've heard is that once they have officially closed the hearing they have to render a decision in 10 days.

BBDave

[Bruce K]

No idea what the rules are.

It certainly seems to be taking an exceptionally long time to bring this to conclusion.

As for legal action, where? In the US? The UCI could probably care less. In Europe? Not knowing the laws there that might be a non-starter.

Besides, he would have to prove negligence, malice, or something else along those lines. My bet is that would not be all that easy.

So basically we wait and get to have "watercooler conversations" ad nauseum. ;)

I think e-Richie has a point. Wells Ave. is just the place for Tyler to keep is legs in shape. :D

BK

[e-RICHIE]

there's no testing at wells ave.
it's the perfect place to hide.

[J.M. White]

Here's my guess (and it's only that) re: the delay. Hamilton's lawyers have raised technical issues concerning the accuracy of the tests. Remember, the test can show non-negatives but may also show false positives. The UCI boys will have to decide just how much inaccuracy is acceptable. This is an unenviable task, and could leave UCI without advanced testing for new banned substances. On the other hand, false positives are, in my opinion completely unacceptable. I say throw out the latest freaking technology (and the bans) altogether if there's even a 1% error. With the hundreds of cyclists tested dozens of times each year, that's too high, and the consequences are too great. Better to risk having a cheat win than to convict an innocent rider.

[BBB]

I read in Cycling Weekly yesterday that the UCI said they will appeal to CAS if Hamilton is cleared as they believe the test is accurate. And along the lines of something that was discussed a while back, the UCI are of the view that if he is cleared by the USADA and the UCI do appeal to CAS that he will not be able to race in the interim. I'm not so sure how correct this last part is, but presumably the UCI hold a pretty big stick when it comes to participation, ban or not.