Proposal--A Tyler Moratorium

B. Lafferty said:

until the "B" sample result comes it. If it's positive, Tyler can reveal the
secret surgery that he had in June at that clinic in Bogotá.

Doesn't he need to protest BOTH "A" samples? That would mean he'd have
to show negative on BOTH "B" samples, unless whatever excuse he comes up
with explains both of them.

I guess if the Olympic B sample comes back negative he could keep his
medal and then if the Vuelta B sample shows positive he could still be
suspended from UCI races. I can see all kinds of interesting
developments if the two tests are done by different labs and come up
with conflicting results.

--
My bike blog:
http://diabloscott.blogspot.com/

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

Quoted message said:

until the "B" sample result comes it. If it's positive, Tyler can reveal

the

Quoted message said:

secret surgery that he had in June at that clinic in Bogotá.

--
Peloton Pigs--Flying Since 1991

A nice idea, if it was only one test. I thought he tested positive at the
Vuelta as well as the Olympics. In any case, it doesn't sound like he's
disputing the results, just the cause.

-T

Lafferty,

why give someone who's tested positive twice now the benefit when someone who
hasn't tested positive is subject to all your slings and arrows...??

is it a Mass. thing?

mind you i hope it comes out that he has a valid reason...

Diablo Scott said:

B. Lafferty said:

until the "B" sample result comes it. If it's positive, Tyler can
reveal the secret surgery that he had in June at that clinic in
Bogotá.

Doesn't he need to protest BOTH "A" samples? That would mean he'd
have to show negative on BOTH "B" samples, unless whatever excuse he
comes up with explains both of them.

I guess if the Olympic B sample comes back negative he could keep his
medal and then if the Vuelta B sample shows positive he could still be
suspended from UCI races. I can see all kinds of interesting
developments if the two tests are done by different labs and come up
with conflicting results.

I just scanned all the sources and news services I have and as of right now
there isn't a Peep about the ``B'' sample.

It should have been analyzed by now, unless they are arguing about where to
send it for analysis

--
le Vent a Dos, Davey Crockett
Six Day Site: http://sixday.741.com/
Latest news at http://sixday.741.com/news.html

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

Quoted message said:

Lafferty,

why give someone who's tested positive twice now the benefit when someone
who
hasn't tested positive is subject to all your slings and arrows...??

is it a Mass. thing?

mind you i hope it comes out that he has a valid reason...

Cause he's a nice, quiet, polite, unassuming guy who doesn't have a [censored]
gene in his lineage. That is, unless the "b" samples come back positive in
which case he's probably just another peloton [censored]--and a stupid one at
that to have been caught. Is at trip to Amore e Vita in that case. The
Pope will give him absolution, even if the IOC won't.

It all kind of makes one wonder about Mr. Phoenix rising over at CSC.

B. Lafferty said:

Quoted message said:

is it a Mass. thing?

mind you i hope it comes out that he has a valid reason...

Cause he's a nice, quiet, polite, unassuming guy who doesn't have a

[censored]

Quoted message said:

gene in his lineage.

<snip>

The Objectiveness in Brian Lafferty comes out.

T. Hamilton tests positive and we should have a moratorium.

I also remember how, according to B. Lafferty, T. Hamilton asking for
dope from Dr. Steffen was somehow negative news for L. Armstrong.

Yep. Objective you are indeed. Impressively so, as is everything else
about you.

K. Gringioni

THis is all fine, but I'm not clear how the B sample will be
different. He was busted using "the blood test" which looks at blood
markers. So I guess its possible that on two occassions his A blood
sample showed anomolies and the B won't, but I think he's just trying
to buy some more time to come up with an explanation.

Now I'm not saying Tyler is doped, though he does look high, but this
blood test is hard to beat and his excuse about surgery is laim.
Maybe something did go wrong and things are screwed up, but I think he
might be screwed.

Personally, I like Tyler, irregardless of his bike handling skills,
and I'm bummed to see this, but god damn they need to send these bike
racers to a class on keeping their mouth shut. Because they come up
with worse blather than than G.W.!

CH

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

Quoted message said:

until the "B" sample result comes it. If it's positive, Tyler can reveal the
secret surgery that he had in June at that clinic in Bogotá.

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

Quoted message said:

Because they come up
with worse blather than than G.W.!

No politics, please. ;-)

Quoted message said:

CH

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

Quoted message said:

until the "B" sample result comes it. If it's positive, Tyler can reveal
the
secret surgery that he had in June at that clinic in Bogotá.

B. Lafferty said:

It all kind of makes one wonder about Mr. Phoenix rising over at CSC.

Funny that there kit has / had feathers on it.

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

Quoted message said:

Lafferty,
why give someone who's tested positive twice now the benefit when someone who
hasn't tested positive is subject to all your slings and arrows...??
is it a Mass. thing?
mind you i hope it comes out that he has a valid reason...

From what I have read, the test he tested 'positive' for only tells you
that not all his red blood cells are the same. Besides illegal doping,
there are other possible legal explanations for this, so he should be given the
benefit of the doubt.
---------------
Alex

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 12:09:51 -0400, Alex Rodriguez <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Lafferty,
why give someone who's tested positive twice now the benefit when someone who
hasn't tested positive is subject to all your slings and arrows...??
is it a Mass. thing?
mind you i hope it comes out that he has a valid reason...

From what I have read, the test he tested 'positive' for only tells you
that not all his red blood cells are the same. Besides illegal doping,
there are other possible legal explanations for this, so he should be given the
benefit of the doubt.
---------------
Alex

Yes, in addition, if you think about it, it seems very improbable that a
pro who's been around would resort to something so crude and dangerous
(read:AIDS) as getting blood from another person (homologous transfusion)
as their doping method. The more I think about it the more I think it might
have been sample contamination or something.

-B

Alex Rodriguez said:

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

Quoted message said:

Lafferty,
why give someone who's tested positive twice now the benefit when
someone who hasn't tested positive is subject to all your slings and
arrows...??
is it a Mass. thing?
mind you i hope it comes out that he has a valid reason...

From what I have read, the test he tested 'positive' for only tells
you
that not all his red blood cells are the same. Besides illegal
doping,
there are other possible legal explanations for this, so he should be
given the benefit of the doubt.
---------------

Could you list them please. I'm sure others are interested.

quote='Kyle Legate'Alex Rodriguez said:

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

Quoted message said:

Lafferty,
why give someone who's tested positive twice now the benefit when
someone who hasn't tested positive is subject to all your slings and
arrows...??
is it a Mass. thing?
mind you i hope it comes out that he has a valid reason...

From what I have read, the test he tested 'positive' for only tells
you
that not all his red blood cells are the same. Besides illegal
doping,
there are other possible legal explanations for this, so he should be
given the benefit of the doubt.
---------------

Could you list them please. I'm sure others are interested.[/QUOTE]

Improper handling of the blood can cause small but definite denaturations of the immunogobulin G glycoproteins on the cell membranes of the erythocytes, making them look foreign on the flow cytometry test. There is a reason these cells have a very short lifespan. They are the most abused cells in the body, having to be forced through capillaries smaller than their minor dimensions, transporting a very hazardous substance (oxygen and its free-radical cousin).

Other false positives can be from improper equipment preparation, cross-contamination, platelet contamination, incomplete labeling of the IgG with fluorscein, structural abnormalities in Tyler's bone marrow, frequent injuries to his large bones...

The possibilities are far too numerous to post here in entirety. While it can be shown that 100% of the people who got transfusions tested positive, it cannot be shown that 100% of those testing positive had transfusions. Its inexhaustive proof.

Weisse Luft said:

Kyle Legate Wrote:

Quoted message said:

Other false positives can be from improper equipment preparation,
cross-contamination, platelet contamination, incomplete labeling of

the

Quoted message said:

IgG with fluorscein, structural abnormalities in Tyler's bone marrow,
frequent injuries to his large bones...

Quoted message said:

--
Weisse Luft

Is there a single rider who has had more injuries to his "large bones"?
RVD

That is a funny line..

<<Improper handling of the blood can cause small but definite
denaturations of the immunogobulin G glycoproteins on the cell
membranes of the erythocytes, making them look foreign on the flow
cytometry test>>

That's a mouthful. Can we get that in layman's terms? I like the "large
bones" theory, since he's crashed way too many times.

John

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

Quoted message said:

Kyle Legate said:

Alex Rodriguez said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
> Lafferty,
> why give someone who's tested positive twice now the benefit when
> someone who hasn't tested positive is subject to all your slings

and

Quoted message said:

> arrows...??
> is it a Mass. thing?
> mind you i hope it comes out that he has a valid reason...

From what I have read, the test he tested 'positive' for only tells
you
that not all his red blood cells are the same. Besides illegal
doping,
there are other possible legal explanations for this, so he should

be

Quoted message said:

given the benefit of the doubt.
---------------

Could you list them please. I'm sure others are interested.

Improper handling of the blood can cause small but definite
denaturations of the immunogobulin G glycoproteins on the cell
membranes of the erythocytes, making them look foreign on the flow
cytometry test. There is a reason these cells have a very short
lifespan. They are the most abused cells in the body, having to be
forced through capillaries smaller than their minor dimensions,
transporting a very hazardous substance (oxygen and its free-radical
cousin).

Other false positives can be from improper equipment preparation,
cross-contamination, platelet contamination, incomplete labeling of the
IgG with fluorscein, structural abnormalities in Tyler's bone marrow,
frequent injuries to his large bones...

The possibilities are far too numerous to post here in entirety. While
it can be shown that 100% of the people who got transfusions tested
positive, it cannot be shown that 100% of those testing positive had
transfusions. Its inexhaustive proof.

--
Weisse Luft

Weisse Luft said:

Kyle Legate said:

Quoted message said:

---------------

Could you list them please. I'm sure others are interested.

Improper handling of the blood can cause small but definite
denaturations of the immunogobulin G glycoproteins on the cell
membranes of the erythocytes, making them look foreign on the flow
cytometry test.

I don't think you understand how flow cytometry works. Surface markers are
recognised by antibodies which are fluorescently tagged for detection. If a
surface marker denatures due to poor handling the epitope for the antibody
may be lost, but since antibodies are highly specific for their antigens the
denatured marker will not now be recognised by a different antibody to a
different surface marker. If all of a cell surface molecule on an
erythrocyte gets denatured that cell will be invisible to the test and not
be counted.

By the way, erythrocytes don't display IgG. You're thinking of B cells.

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

Quoted message said:

Kyle Legate said:

Alex Rodriguez said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
> Lafferty,
> why give someone who's tested positive twice now the benefit when
> someone who hasn't tested positive is subject to all your slings

and

Quoted message said:

> arrows...??
> is it a Mass. thing?
> mind you i hope it comes out that he has a valid reason...

From what I have read, the test he tested 'positive' for only tells
you
that not all his red blood cells are the same. Besides illegal
doping,
there are other possible legal explanations for this, so he should

be

Quoted message said:

given the benefit of the doubt.
---------------

Could you list them please. I'm sure others are interested.

Improper handling of the blood can cause small but definite
denaturations of the immunogobulin G glycoproteins on the cell
membranes of the erythocytes, making them look foreign on the flow
cytometry test. There is a reason these cells have a very short
lifespan. They are the most abused cells in the body, having to be
forced through capillaries smaller than their minor dimensions,
transporting a very hazardous substance (oxygen and its free-radical
cousin).

So the "denaturation" would produce a non-Hamilton antigen that is
specifically recognized by the other antisera used?

Quoted message said:

Other false positives can be from improper equipment preparation,
cross-contamination, platelet contamination, incomplete labeling of the
IgG with fluorscein,

We must assume that labs attempt to follow good laboratory practices,
otherwise they would be useless.

structural abnormalities in Tyler's bone marrow,

Quoted message said:

frequent injuries to his large bones...

You made this last one up, right?

Quoted message said:

The possibilities are far too numerous to post here in entirety. While
it can be shown that 100% of the people who got transfusions tested
positive, it cannot be shown that 100% of those testing positive had
transfusions. Its inexhaustive proof.

I'm impressed (so far) with the test from what I have read.
-Mike

I should have read the rest of this post before sending....more comments:

Weisse Luft said:

Other false positives can be from improper equipment preparation,
cross-contamination, platelet contamination, incomplete labeling of
the IgG with fluorscein, structural abnormalities in Tyler's bone
marrow, frequent injuries to his large bones...

1. Improper equipment preparation: It is more than likely that a positive
test will be contested, and therefore the data will be scrutinized again by
scientists and lawyers, and compared with the negative and/or positive
control samples run during the same batch of tests. Anomalies in the
controls (which, if science is conducted properly, are run first) would
reveal problems with the equipment, and the samples would not be run.

2. Cross-contamination: That's why there are B samples, and we'll have to
wait for the results of those.

3. Platelet contamination: I don't understand what you're getting at here.
Are you suggesting the platelets clog the apparatus and cause a positive
result, or that platelets expressing histocompatibility markers magically
appear in the test sample?

4. Incomplete labeling with fluorescein: It's commercially available and
assayed at high labelling efficiency and purified. Also, even if it was
incompletely labelled, two peaks (representing two populations of blood) is
still two peaks.

5. Tyler's alleged structural abnormalities: Have no bearing on the finding
of two populations of blood. The structural abnormalities would be all
Tyler's. Some of the blood allegedly wasn't.

6. Injuries to his large bones: See 5.

Quoted message said:

The possibilities are far too numerous to post here in entirety.

Don't bother.

B. Lafferty said:

"Jim A" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Cause he's a nice, quiet, polite, unassuming guy who doesn't have a [censored]
gene in his lineage. That is, unless the "b" samples come back positive in
which case he's probably just another peloton [censored]--and a stupid one at
that to have been caught. Is at trip to Amore e Vita in that case. The
Pope will give him absolution, even if the IOC won't.

Jeez, Brian, if I didn't know that you've often pronounced that you
have no illusions about the state of pro cycling, I'd think you
are a little disillusioned today.

It's not obvious that being a nice guy versus a [censored] is at all
correlated with being a doper. Earlier this year, when Javier
Pascual Llorente (IIRC) got positive, Vaughters wrote an interesting
article about all the nice things Llorente had done for him when
he (Vaughters) was suffering through the Santa Clara experience.

Quoted message said:

It all kind of makes one wonder about Mr. Phoenix rising over at CSC.

Perhaps. Although, Hamilton rides for Phonak. And Bobby Julich (CSC)
was on the Olympic podium (along with other decent results this year)
and doesn't appear to have set off any alarms. OTOH, Cecchini is
closely associated with Riis.