|
|
|
|
#1
04-24-2006, 10:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
FYI - tyler hamilton responds to an email
I friend of mine forwarded this email to me in which Tyler Hamilton responds to a question from another cyclist (a very good one at that!). Note - I have delated the names from the email addresses.
------------------------------------------------ To: xxxxxxxxxx@yahoogroups.com cc Subject: An e-mail from Tyler Hamilton This is worth reading...especially you NIH people. I was impressed that he responded in such detail. It's difficult to think that he's not innocent... at least of what he's accused of. I'll be pulling for him in September. Tyler Hamilton <xxxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote: Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 06:47:10 -0700 From: "Tyler Hamilton" <xxxxxxx@gmail.com> To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx@yahoo.com Subject: TH Guest Book Dear Jxxx. Great question. When I had my first hearing and expected to return to racing in April of 05, this was my first question as well. The truth is we have never pin pointed the exact reason why my tests turned out the way they did although we are fairly sure what went wrong. There is a remote chance something about me physically caused the results. I do suffer from a number of medical conditions - the most concerning of which are hormonal that may or may not be at the root of all this. The better explanation however, is lab error. The methodology they use to conduct the HBTT is called flow cytometry. It's a very finicky method and is primarily used for white cell analysis not red. In this instance, the labs are using a methodology in an unorthodox way, testing protein cells (antigens) that little is known about, and using reagents (antibodies) to conduct this test outside of their intended use. The reagents used in this test were designed for agglutination testing, not flow cytometry. Even the authors of the methodology noted in their published papers that more work needed to be done to validate these reagents and in an ideal world -- better materials would be preferred. When they ran my test, they didn't even have reagents that were AS GOOD as those used in the published methodology. And the published methodology recommended finding better reagents, so this is very concerning. Especially since the reagents were never validated for flow cytometry to begin with. The labs who ran my test did some proficiency testing in the weeks prior. They found that some of the reagents they used that were manufactured by certain suppliers created test results that appeared to be mixed populations when they knew they were working with single population blood. What we know is that in August and Septemeber of 2004 the labs were having difficulty securing enough reagents to run the test. There were absolutely not enough to run validation testing AND the actual test so they just decided to run the actual test. This was actually a large part of USADA's defense for why they didn't do validation testing - they said there was not enough antibody available that could be validated and used for testing. This is because antibody is released from manufacturers by batch and vary in quality batch to batch. So, in theory every batch needs to be validated before it's used for testing. USADA said there was not enough time or money or materials available to do this. What we assume now, is that over the last 18 months, the labs have secured the best antibody available to run this test. The test is being performed in 5 labs in Europe and was reinstated for the Turino Games. (It was on hold while my case was pending). We assume they have corrected things because my case was very expensive to adjudicate and the labs don't want to have to keep facing people like me fighting the charges against them. My own medical experts from MIT, Harvard Medical School, Puget Sound Blood Center, Georgetown U, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Institute, etc., were never able to duplicate my test results or explain them. Part of this is due to the fact that if you do not have access to the batch of reagents used for your test - you cannot exactly duplicate the test. We also tested my blood for chimerism and ruled that out as a cause. My samples were DNA tested by USADA and a chimerism expert I hired from Austria. So, upon my return to competition, as difficult as it is for me to do - I have to have faith that they've corrected the problems with this method and I will not test positive. Some conventional thinkers say that if I did test positive again - that it would be a nightmare for everyone involved. First, they would have to allege I was certifiable to chance testing positive at this point in my life - and second they'd have to combat that doping actually caused the 1st and 2nd results. A 2nd result would almost certainly prove there was a problem with the test. So it would be a risk for them. I'm not really sure why this test exists in the first place. In all my years in sport, I've never heard of anyone doing this. People die in hospitals every day from well matched transfusions. Certainly we would have heard of an athlete having complications by now if this was really going on. And, it's worth noting that a single unit of transfused blood would only provide performance enhancing benefits for 3-5 days. But - on the flip side, you could potentially test positive for up to 4 months (the detection period of a homologous transfusion). Who could rationalize risking their life, health or stroke to race fast for a few days? Why would anyone do this? That's what I know. It's hard to trust this system at this point in my career but it's what I have to do. Thanks for writing in. Best wishes, Tyler Tyler, I just read the interview you gave with dailypeloton.com. I appreciate the offer to ask you a question. I'm going to take you up on it: I'm not entirely read-up on the science behind the "homologulous" test, but I understand some basics. If the test is still administered, and you do have a chimeric twin or otherwise are prone to test positive for this test without doping, aren't you concerned about testing positive again upon your return to sanctioned racing? Along the same lines, if you're blood condition wasn't a temporal quirk, can't you demonstrate through tests on stored blood or a string of current samples that you naturally test positive for the test? (In the way that some get medical exception for exceeding 50% hematocrit through demontrating that they're naturally high) I've been wondering about that for a while. Anyways, I wish you the best with your upcoming return to racing. You're easy to route for b/c you don't cloak your suffering and I'll continue to be a fan. --Jxxx Jxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx, XX USA Mar 23, 2006 at 4:25 PM E-mail:xxxxxxxxxxxxxx@yahoo.com 
|
|
#2
04-24-2006, 11:08 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Sorry but what he said in the email has been said many times.
Blood doping has been there for too long (ask those on the US cycling team in the 1984 Olympic)...What he said sounds like something Lance said" I have never heard about EPO when I won the world championship in 1993." The test used in the original research paper Tyler referred to showed "NO false positive" in their report. Where is the solid evidence to prove his innocence? If he got caught again, is that a double jeopardy? No.**
|
|
#4
04-24-2006, 12:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wonder what he thinks of his old teammates.
what's the latest count? 6 during the last 14 months caught i think?
__________________
Olympic hopefull 2008/2112/2116/2020/2024
|
|
#5
04-24-2006, 12:10 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Atmo bis
|
|
#7
04-24-2006, 12:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#8
04-24-2006, 12:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
www.fatcatbicycles.com
|
|
#9
04-24-2006, 12:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
P.S. Perez is not Tyler's new dog.
|
|
#10
04-24-2006, 02:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Johny . . .
. . . "Sorry but what he said in the email has been said many times. "
Yes, of course it has, because Tyler has been trying to defend himself for so long. He may have done it, but in this case the UCI and WADA have behaved just as badly as Tyler may have. They've done this by using whatever tactics they can to divert attention from the more salient facts. They are more concerned about giving the appearance they are doing something about doping--and making scads of money while pretending they are--than they are about whether someone who tests positive really IS guilty. They have stonewalled, delayed, obscured, and spun every which way they can to keep from having to admit that either they may have been wrong or that the tests were rushed into use before being totally proven strictly for political and publicity purposes. The question for me now has moved on from whether he really did do it or not to what kinds of under-the-table pressure the UCI is going to try to exert to prevent Tyler from getting back in the pro peloton. They have already shown through their sudden dedication to enforcing domestic rules about the rides he was doing in Boulder that he will be under their microscope. He's cost them a lot of money and time--they obviously want to squash him and make him disappear. I think Tyler is right that if he comes back to race and tests positive again, it will be a difficult situation for the UCI. They will be very hard pressed to make anyone believe that he's THAT stupid. Their best bet is to do whatever it takes--reputable or otherwise--to keep him from getting back on a team. And I'll go out on a limb here and predict that's exactly what you will see them do come this fall. BBD
__________________
--- __0 __0 __0 ----_-\<,_ -\<, _(_)(_)/_(_)/ (_) A thing of beauty is a joy forever--Keats
|
|
#12
04-24-2006, 04:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I'm with you. The test sucks, WADA knows it and it doesn't care. Tyler was an important enough rider to pack his own blood if he was going to pack anything like others have done before and since.
|
|
#13
04-24-2006, 04:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
i've been a friend of tylers for 20 years. i sold him his first 2-3 bikes...and funny enough, after that he started to get 'em for free.
he is still a good friend and i believe what he says. i am in the bike business and get 300 questions about this whole thing a week from friends and acquaintances. dont ask me technical questions about his case. can't bear to read the whole schtick from duesling experts and don't knoy shiite about it anyway. i just want this whole thing behind him/ me and i want to see the kid on the bike racing again. simple as that. he is a natural and a gentleman to boot. and i have 50 hilarious stories about his ascent that i will throw in from time to time. cheer for him when he gets back. he is a genuine human being...no facade there. watch for the kid to be on the worlds road team 06. decent chance. my favorite win for him will likely always be lbl. toughest one day race in the world. that photo peers down from the wall above my desk..
|
|
#14
04-24-2006, 04:45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
good one pooch atmo
__________________
Atmo bis
|
|
#15
04-24-2006, 04:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
