Road Cycling · Public discussion

IOC press release

Started by Email address hidden · · Last activity · 10 posts · 321 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Road Cycling
Published
23 September 2004
Last activity
24 September 2004
Original author
Email address hidden
Posts
10
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
321
Views / 30 days
0
Topics

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–10 of 10
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. IOC statement on pending anti-doping procedure

    On 21 September, Phonak spokesman Georges Luedinger announced that
    American cyclist Tyler Hamilton failed a blood anti-doping test during
    the Athens 2004 Olympic Games.

    As with all anti-doping procedures, the IOC had to wait for the process
    to be completed before communicating on this case. The facts are as
    follows:

    - on 22 August, the IOC was informed by the WADA accredited laboratory
    in Athens of a suspicious result following the analysis of Tyler
    Hamilton's blood sample provided on 19 August after the time-trial race
    that took place on 18 August in which he won the gold medal. At the
    request of the IOC, a group of experts examined the file and concluded
    on 16 September that Tyler Hamilton's A blood sample gave rise to an
    adverse analytical finding;

    - on the basis of this conclusion, the IOC decided on 16 September to
    launch a disciplinary procedure to be handled by Juridical Commission
    Chairman Thomas Bach, and Executive Board Members Denis Oswald and
    Sergey Bubka, and to immediately notify the National Olympic Committee
    and the athlete;

    - on 22 September, the laboratory analysis of the B sample was
    'considered as non conclusive because of lack of enough intact red blood
    cells';

    - on 23 September, the IOC informed Tyler Hamilton that, although the A
    sample gave rise to an adverse analytical finding on 19 August in
    Athens, the disciplinary procedure has had to be stopped because of the
    non-conclusive result of the B sample analysis. The IOC also informed
    him that therefore the Disciplinary Commission was being dissolved and
    that the IOC would not be pursuing sanctions regarding this matter.

    - the fact that the analysis of the B sample was not conclusive does not
    challenge the accuracy of the analysis of the A sample;

    the method used during the Olympic Games in Athens was authorized by the
    World Anti-Doping Agency after validation by the international
    scientific community in accordance with an established set of criteria.

  2. It looks like Tyler dodged the first bullet but got hit square between the
    eyes by the second (Vuelta/UCI). Two year suspension and the Phonak
    [censored] about the conflict in test is just that--[censored]. The IOC "B"
    sample does NOT in any way invalidate the IOC "A" sample positive.

    Tyler is a doper who got caught. Lets see if the UCI has the balls to give
    him a 2 year suspension.

    <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    IOC statement on pending anti-doping procedure

    On 21 September, Phonak spokesman Georges Luedinger announced that
    American cyclist Tyler Hamilton failed a blood anti-doping test during
    the Athens 2004 Olympic Games.

    As with all anti-doping procedures, the IOC had to wait for the process
    to be completed before communicating on this case. The facts are as
    follows:

    - on 22 August, the IOC was informed by the WADA accredited laboratory
    in Athens of a suspicious result following the analysis of Tyler
    Hamilton's blood sample provided on 19 August after the time-trial race
    that took place on 18 August in which he won the gold medal. At the
    request of the IOC, a group of experts examined the file and concluded
    on 16 September that Tyler Hamilton's A blood sample gave rise to an
    adverse analytical finding;

    - on the basis of this conclusion, the IOC decided on 16 September to
    launch a disciplinary procedure to be handled by Juridical Commission
    Chairman Thomas Bach, and Executive Board Members Denis Oswald and
    Sergey Bubka, and to immediately notify the National Olympic Committee
    and the athlete;

    - on 22 September, the laboratory analysis of the B sample was
    'considered as non conclusive because of lack of enough intact red blood
    cells';

    - on 23 September, the IOC informed Tyler Hamilton that, although the A
    sample gave rise to an adverse analytical finding on 19 August in
    Athens, the disciplinary procedure has had to be stopped because of the
    non-conclusive result of the B sample analysis. The IOC also informed
    him that therefore the Disciplinary Commission was being dissolved and
    that the IOC would not be pursuing sanctions regarding this matter.

    - the fact that the analysis of the B sample was not conclusive does not
    challenge the accuracy of the analysis of the A sample;

    the method used during the Olympic Games in Athens was authorized by the
    World Anti-Doping Agency after validation by the international
    scientific community in accordance with an established set of criteria.

  3. In article <[email hidden]>,
    [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:

    It looks like Tyler dodged the first bullet but got hit square between the
    eyes by the second (Vuelta/UCI). Two year suspension and the Phonak
    [censored] about the conflict in test is just that--[censored]. The IOC "B"
    sample does NOT in any way invalidate the IOC "A" sample positive.

    Tyler is a doper who got caught. Lets see if the UCI has the balls to give
    him a 2 year suspension.

    It is not a true positive unless both samples test positive. There is a reason
    why there are required to do tests on two samples. So if the UCI were to
    break the rules and try to suspend him for this, you can be sure his lawyers
    would remind them of the rules.
    -------------
    Alex

  4. In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,
    [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:

    It looks like Tyler dodged the first bullet but got hit square between the
    eyes by the second (Vuelta/UCI). Two year suspension and the Phonak
    [censored] about the conflict in test is just that--[censored]. The IOC "B"
    sample does NOT in any way invalidate the IOC "A" sample positive.

    Tyler is a doper who got caught. Lets see if the UCI has the balls to give
    him a 2 year suspension.

    It is not a true positive unless both samples test positive. There is a reason
    why there are required to do tests on two samples. So if the UCI were to
    break the rules and try to suspend him for this, you can be sure his lawyers
    would remind them of the rules.
    -------------
    Alex


    Isn't it a rule of law that if the evidence is equivocal then the law must side with the
    defendent? A positive and a negative result from the same sample would throw out the validity
    of the test.

  5. "Alex Rodriguez" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,
    [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:

    It looks like Tyler dodged the first bullet but got hit square between the
    eyes by the second (Vuelta/UCI). Two year suspension and the Phonak
    [censored] about the conflict in test is just that--[censored]. The IOC "B"
    sample does NOT in any way invalidate the IOC "A" sample positive.

    Tyler is a doper who got caught. Lets see if the UCI has the balls to
    give
    him a 2 year suspension.

    It is not a true positive unless both samples test positive. There is a
    reason
    why there are required to do tests on two samples. So if the UCI were to
    break the rules and try to suspend him for this, you can be sure his
    lawyers
    would remind them of the rules.
    -------------
    Alex

    Try to follow this. I know it's very complex.

    Tyler Hamilton tested positive at the Vuelta for homologous blood doping
    (sample A). Tyler Hamilton's Vuelta "b" sample also test POSITIVE for
    homologous blood doping. Two positives=doping charge sustained via testing.
    Required 2 year suspension under WADA rules signed onto by the UCI just
    prior to the Tour de France.

    Olympics. Tyler Hamilton tests positive for homologous blood doping (sample
    A). Tyler Hamiliton's Olympic "b" sample is found "inconclusive" (neither
    positive nor negiative) due to there not being enough viable red blood cells
    in the "b" sample. This means that even though the "a" sample was deemed
    positive, there can be no IOC disciplinary action as the positive "a" sample
    was not confirmed by the "b" sample. So Tyler keeps his medal even though
    the indicators, three positive homologous blood doping finding within
    roughly one month, are that he was doped at both the Olympics and the
    Vuelta.

  6. Alex Rodriguez said:

    It is not a true positive unless both samples test positive.

    More correct to say it's not an ACTIONABLE postive unless both samples test positive. His "A" sample showed evidence of homologous blood doping, but the IOC can't proceed with any action against Tyler because his "B" sample was non-conclusive (to use their term).

  7. In article <[email hidden]>,
    [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:

    Isn't it a rule of law that if the evidence is equivocal then the law must


    side with the

    Quoted message said:

    defendent? A positive and a negative result from the same sample would throw


    out the validity

    Quoted message said:

    of the test.

    Exactly the point. There is a good reason why two positive tests are required.
    -------------
    Alex

  8. In article <[email hidden]>,
    [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:

    Try to follow this. I know it's very complex.

    Tyler Hamilton tested positive at the Vuelta for homologous blood doping
    (sample A). Tyler Hamilton's Vuelta "b" sample also test POSITIVE for
    homologous blood doping. Two positives=doping charge sustained via testing.
    Required 2 year suspension under WADA rules signed onto by the UCI just
    prior to the Tour de France.

    Ok. So he is positive at the Vuelta, at least it seems that way at the
    moment.

    Quoted message said:

    Olympics. Tyler Hamilton tests positive for homologous blood doping (sample
    A). Tyler Hamiliton's Olympic "b" sample is found "inconclusive" (neither
    positive nor negiative) due to there not being enough viable red blood cells
    in the "b" sample. This means that even though the "a" sample was deemed
    positive, there can be no IOC disciplinary action as the positive "a" sample
    was not confirmed by the "b" sample. So Tyler keeps his medal even though
    the indicators, three positive homologous blood doping finding within
    roughly one month, are that he was doped at both the Olympics and the
    Vuelta.

    No B sample, so no positive at the Olympics. Not so complex after all.

    --------------
    Alex

  9. Both samples in the Vuelta DID test postive. What part of "tyler is a
    cheater" didn't you understand?

  10. Alex=Douche Bag

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.