Tyler Innocent?

meehs said:

Ummm, yeah. Sounds like an "urban legend" to me. Can you site your source for that bit of information?

It was all over the reputed cycling news sources, just type in "phonak extortion" on google and you come up with all kinds of info. Not urban legend sorry.

davidbod said:

We can pick this apart till the end of time here, but we were not at the hearing and we did not hear all of the evidence. Three individuals charged with hearing the evidence and rendering a decision did, and they could not agree on his guilt or innocence. And what if next time this test finds someone guilty and the decision is 2 to 1 in favor of the cyclist, what then.

What then. An appeal by the losing party to CAS in Lausanne, Switzerland.

meehs said:

I agee with you that it's not right to condemn TH and his character in a "human" context. That's what I was getting at.

But I have a tough time really condemning a cyclist for "cheating" in a sport where pretty much every top competitor is quite likely doing the same thing. I know it might sound silly. But is a cheat among cheats really a cheater? The whole sport is corrupt and in my opinion pointing to the few riders who happen to get caught and saying "Oh! Cheater! Doper! You're a cheater!" is absolutly absurd! Until the sport is cleaned-up, these riders are just the unfortunate few who happen to get caught. I'm not saying we should look the other way and do nothing. I'm not sure what can be done. But to condemn the ones who happen to get caught as cheaters is like going into a maximum security prison and pointing to an individual inmate and saying "Oh! You're a bad person! You're a criminal"! 🙄

It is an intersting question that you pose - is a cheat, a cheat amongst cheats ?
This crystallises the issue for me and why I have very very serious difficulty in accepting any sporting performance as being genuine.

The lack of ethical and moral character concerning the cheating issue is clearly manifest both in cyclists, team management and the UCI.

I don't know what the answer is Meehs.
James F. though is right - you only have to look here at the way in which people will still try to exonerate TH's role (and you can swap TH's name for Pantani/Virenque/Zulle/anyone you care to name from the rogues gallery)

limerickman said:

I think some perspective needs to be introduced here.

TH did cheat and was found to have cheated.

In absolute terms, what does the TH case tell us ?

It tells us that he did cheat.
It doesn't tell us why he cheated nor does it address the reason as to why TH decided to cheat.
These issues are the ones which I think, Flyer is attempting to address.

While it is right to condemn TH for the act of cheating, I think that to condemn him and his character for ever more, in a human context, is ridiculous and unfair.

Finally, it is worth re-iterating that all of the platitudes, all of the fervour to
smash drugs/doping, in the aftermath of Festina (1998), Pantani's death (2003) and all instances in between, have failed.

It is notable that TH has been branded a "liar."

In one aspect this is an acceptable defence by TH to deny having his blood boosted by homologous means (technically not taking drugs). An admission of artificially boosting performance is taken as a breach of the anti doping laws and would have dispensed with the hearing relating to whether TH had blood boosted.

It is nearly unanimous that all athletes initially deny a breach of the code until they can have their "B" sample tested. It appears to be acceptable behaviour to lie when the consequences of admission are known.

However, TH ran an unprecedented PR exercise to sway public opinion and, in my view, to influence the panel. This is where he screwed up badly.

There were two essential questions for the panel to consider as set out in the decision.

1. Did Tyler Hamilton have a mixed population of blood in his Vuelta sample?

2. If so, has Tyler Hamilton advanced a reasonable explanation as to the presence of this mixed population of blood other than by way of blood transfusion?

The panel found for 1. yes for 2. no.

The dissenting member of the panel adduced from the evidence provided by Mrs. Haven Hamilton that through media reporting there was pressure placed on the panel by high ranking IOC and WADA officials to find TH in breach. He was tacitly calling for a dismissal of the breaches on this ground that he could not receive a fair hearing.

Strange he never referred to the numerous comments TH had made to the media protesting his innocence culminating in donation seeking through SaveTyler.org ran from the address of his charitable foundation.

meehs said:

I agee with you that it's not right to condemn TH and his character in a "human" context. That's what I was getting at.

But I have a tough time really condemning a cyclist for "cheating" in a sport where pretty much every top competitor is quite likely doing the same thing. I know it might sound silly. But is a cheat among cheats really a cheater? The whole sport is corrupt and in my opinion pointing to the few riders who happen to get caught and saying "Oh! Cheater! Doper! You're a cheater!" is absolutly absurd! Until the sport is cleaned-up, these riders are just the unfortunate few who happen to get caught. I'm not saying we should look the other way and do nothing. I'm not sure what can be done. But to condemn the ones who happen to get caught as cheaters is like going into a maximum security prison and pointing to an individual inmate and saying "Oh! You're a bad person! You're a criminal"! 🙄

I have to disagree. The peloton will never clean up until the fans, the sponsors, the coaches, and the directors apply the moral opprobrium to doping and dopers that it deserves. Doping is cheating. "The everyone is doing it" excuse is just that: an excuse. And not one that can forgive the moral failing that an athelete sucumbs to when he or she decides to cheat.

Tyler cheated. And then he lied about it. I'm sure he's a nice guy on a lot of other fronts, but when it came to making a critical moral decision about his career, he made the wrong one.

I suppose I am not as pessimistic about the doping problem in the peloton as Flyer. I feel comfortable condeming the convicted and reluctant to throw stones at atheletes who have clean records. Perhaps this is naive. If it is, I do it because I love this sport and am eternally hopeful.

What Tyler's case shows, as with Hondo, and Millar and all the other tragedies, is that anger, vigilence, and incredibly strict doping controls are essential. Petacchi, Friere, and Armstrong have been whining about how much testing there is and the sport is fine, etc. Well, obviously it's not. Lifetime bans, offseason testing, and the outrage of fans are essential.

House said:

It was all over the reputed cycling news sources, just type in "phonak extortion" on google and you come up with all kinds of info. Not urban legend sorry.

Yeah you can find references to what the Phonak team reported as a mysterious man wearing a big, black fake moustache threatening that the team will suffer the consequences of positive drug tests if they didn't pay him money. But there's not a bit of evidence to add any credibility to what sounds like a very fantastic story. Various media outlets did report on the story as it was relayed by the team. They did not report the story as fact to the best of my knowledge. As far as I know it's a rumor perpetrated by the Phonak team itself.

tcklyde said:

I have to disagree. The peloton will never clean up until the fans, the sponsors, the coaches, and the directors apply the moral opprobrium to doping and dopers that it deserves. Doping is cheating. "The everyone is doing it" excuse is just that: an excuse. And not one that can forgive the moral failing that an athelete sucumbs to when he or she decides to cheat.

Tyler cheated. And then he lied about it. I'm sure he's a nice guy on a lot of other fronts, but when it came to making a critical moral decision about his career, he made the wrong one.

I suppose I am not as pessimistic about the doping problem in the peloton as Flyer. I feel comfortable condeming the convicted and reluctant to throw stones at atheletes who have clean records. Perhaps this is naive. If it is, I do it because I love this sport and am eternally hopeful.

What Tyler's case shows, as with Hondo, and Millar and all the other tragedies, is that anger, vigilence, and incredibly strict doping controls are essential. Petacchi, Friere, and Armstrong have been whining about how much testing there is and the sport is fine, etc. Well, obviously it's not. Lifetime bans, offseason testing, and the outrage of fans are essential.

All I can say is I admire your optimism. I sincerely wish I could believe that the majority of the riders that have not been caught for using PED's are in fact clean.

Well here goes.

There has never been independent, peer reviewed study of the blood transfusion detection method to detect doping in sports. Yes, we all know that the techniques and tools have been used for years in other settings, but this is a different setting, different population, etc. This is one of the main objections the dissenting dude Campbell raised. And this objection is scientifically valid and very powerful. With sooo much riding on the results, UCI WADA and all need to fund the study to prove that it is reliable instead of just asserting that it is.

The other problem is the outrageous claim that no false positives do or can exist. Simply outrageous and not in keeping with standard scientific protocol. Tyler's MIT expert made mincemeat out of the guys who developed this thing, but no one cared except the dissenter.

Third, the guys defending the test have a vested interest in terms of money and reputation in seeing this thing work and be used, (and Tyler not win) apart from their obviously "altruistic" motivation to rid the world of dangerous people like Tyler. Any published dollar amount on what these guys have made on the test and its use?

If Tyler were to win, it would be a huge embarassment for [censored] Pound, the scientists, and their whole approach. They would have to admit that mistakes were made in terms of not validating the test protocol etc and then every athlete who came along would tie them up in endless litigation--even if wrongful. This is why Tyler has to go down, to save the system.

Why was Tyler's test initially called negative at Athens and then later reversed by a panel--composed of these guys who developed the test? Can anyone explain why a special panel was convened? And why they violated the rules of anti-doping testing that all samples are tested blindly without knowledge of who the sample belonged to? A pretty major problem I think.

And if the test is so accurate and bloody black and white (which is also one of Tyler's assertions that it isnt) why was there disagreement between the first and second reading of the result? It leaves the impression that there is a grey area of subjectivity in reading the test, which violated the anti-doping procedures code.

I downloaded the arbitration committees findings and have to say that there are compelling facts on BOTH sides, but Tyler openly submitted repeat testing showing no mixed RBC population in February 2005 so the guy is being transparent about the whole thing. He is saying he doesnt know how or why. But it is important for folks to realize that sometimes there are false positives in labs and the sample could have been mishandled or other factors involved.

As for public opinion, Tyler has lost if Phil Liggett declares him guilty. So I guess it's over.

meehs said:

Yeah you can find references to what the Phonak team reported as a mysterious man wearing a big, black fake moustache threatening that the team will suffer the consequences of positive drug tests if they didn't pay him money. But there's not a bit of evidence to add any credibility to what sounds like a very fantastic story. Various media outlets did report on the story as it was relayed by the team. They did not report the story as fact to the best of my knowledge. As far as I know it's a rumor perpetrated by the Phonak team itself.

In other words you didn't really research it and it doesn't really say what you want it to say so you will just disregard it. Sounds very much like another poster on these forums who turns everything into his crusade. Whatever dude.

House said:

In other words you didn't really research it and it doesn't really say what you want it to say so you will just disregard it. Sounds very much like another poster on these forums who turns everything into his crusade. Whatever dude.

What? Read the reports for yourself! No I didn't research it but I do remember reading about the "mysterious extortionist with the large, fake, black moustache" that allegedy threatened the Phonak riders with positive tests if they didn't pay him. LOL! I remember thinking that it sounded ridiculous to me. Especially since no one bothered to mention it until after two Phonak riders tested positive. The only thing ever reported was the story told by the riders. No one ever reported the story as fact. It's not whether it says what I want it to say. It is what it is. I think maybe you should go reread the stories for yourself.

meehs said:

What? Read the reports for yourself! No I didn't research it but I do remember reading about the "mysterious extortionist with the large, fake, black moustache" that allegedy threatened the Phonak riders with positive tests if they didn't pay him. LOL! I remember thinking that it sounded ridiculous to me. Especially since no one bothered to mention it until after two Phonak riders tested positive. The only thing ever reported was the story told by the riders. No one ever reported the story as fact. It's not whether it says what I want it to say. It is what it is. I think maybe you should go reread the stories for yourself.

If we are doing the "no research, just what I remember" then I recall an article on either velonews or cyclingnews that mentioned the reporter being shown the text messages and number from this person. But I am sure that won't float in your world.

House said:

If we are doing the "no research, just what I remember" then I recall an article on either velonews or cyclingnews that mentioned the reporter being shown the text messages and number from this person. But I am sure that won't float in your world.

Dude, relax. I'm not trying to persecute anyone here. You're obiously just calling it the way you remember it too. I'm saying that the story sounded more than a bit fishy to me. I mean seriously, don't you think it's a bit odd that it didn't get reported until after Hamilton and Perez got busted? Why didn't they mention the mysterious extortionist before the positives came-out? And as far as showing a reporter a text message and a number; I could show a reporter a text message and a number from a "extortionist" too (sure it might be my mom). Believe me, I honetly wish that Tyler were innocent. I'm just not naive enough to buy it.

meehs said:

Dude, relax. I'm not trying to persecute anyone here. You're obiously just calling it the way you remember it too. I'm saying that the story sounded more than a bit fishy to me. I mean seriously, don't you think it's a bit odd that it didn't get reported until after Hamilton and Perez got busted? Why didn't they mention the mysterious extortionist before the positives came-out? And as far as showing a reporter a text message and a number; I could show a reporter a text message and a number from a "extortionist" too (sure it might be my mom). Believe me, I honetly wish that Tyler were innocent. I'm just not naive enough to buy it.

My point was never about buying it, but about the fact that you asked for sources, then when provided with them you didn't like them and now you don't like my memory compared to yours. You are acting like a certain obsessed poster who trys to turn everything into what supports his ideas no matter what. By the way I am relaxed, you are the one who got a little itchy there! Oh well.

House said:

My point was never about buying it, but about the fact that you asked for sources, then when provided with them you didn't like them and now you don't like my memory compared to yours. You are acting like a certain obsessed poster who trys to turn everything into what supports his ideas no matter what. By the way I am relaxed, you are the one who got a little itchy there! Oh well.

And my point was that the only "source" that can actually be sited for the story is the Phonak team itself. VeloNews and the rest just reported the story as it was relayed to them. With the original source being Phonak. Not very credible in my opinion.

It's not that I "didn't like" the sources you provided or that I don't like how you remember it vs. how I remember it. It's just that the only "source" (if you want to call it that) that can be sited is no more credible now than it was when the story came out. I'm 100% itch-free my friend.

Edit: Let me add that I could be wrong about this as I am just going on how I remember it. If someone can provide some info that adds some real credibility to the extortion angle I'd be more than interested in hearing it.

House cannot relax. His house is sliding down a steep hill.

A big fish got caught and if you read Tyler's Team appeal they had four aurguments---no evidence, only unproven theories.

His best argument was that he did not think enough tests had been done so as to validate it. Tyler just did not want to be the first one to get caught.

Hey, I bet Tyler would not want to go last either?

A Red Letter day for Cycling and yet another nail into House coffen.

Enjoy the ride.

meehs said:

Dude, relax. I'm not trying to persecute anyone here. You're obiously just calling it the way you remember it too. I'm saying that the story sounded more than a bit fishy to me. I mean seriously, don't you think it's a bit odd that it didn't get reported until after Hamilton and Perez got busted? Why didn't they mention the mysterious extortionist before the positives came-out? And as far as showing a reporter a text message and a number; I could show a reporter a text message and a number from a "extortionist" too (sure it might be my mom). Believe me, I honetly wish that Tyler were innocent. I'm just not naive enough to buy it.

Meehs- do you get who I was referring to now? Mr. Spelling King aka little puppy dog! LOL

It's cool man. You just came off like the person I was talking about at first.

Sorry to be so harsh wilmar13. I feel that the harmful consequences of performance doping are greatly understated.

My frustration stems from the fact that these monthly deaths are reported in a very quiet way--and quickly forgotten. Current events of winning and heorics rule the day.

But cycling involves much more than winning. What goes on behind the scences in the most important. The race day performances are what we focus on, by it is a very, very small part of the winning formula.

Am I the person who thinks it is odd that the last man to win the TDF not named Lance, never tested positive during the TDF, but was a doper--and died at age 34? If he were a Coke abuser, why did he NEVER test positive for Coke? Is that not one of the easiest drugs to detect?

From this we are to presume that Lance Armstrong won 6 tours on mineral water and that doping in the peleton has been arrested?

I guess David Millar, Oscar Camenzind, Tyler Hamilton, Danilo Hondo, Santiago Perez, Johan Museeuw never read that memo?

We know House did! Maybe Lance e-mails him the corporate PR scripts?

wilmar13 said:

If I ever wrote anything where I came across as a self-professed doping aficionado, I was in error. I am a guy that likes to ride and race bicycles at a terminal Cat 3 level. I also like to casually follow professional road racing. That is it, don't let my complaining about the many thread hijacks and troll-like posts confuse the issue. BTW, this is a good thread to get it all out of your system, as it is both applicable to road racing, and the topic of the thread. If you keep your opinions in threads like this all is good.

House said:

Meehs- do you get who I was referring to now? Mr. Spelling King aka little puppy dog! LOL

It's cool man. You just came off like the person I was talking about at first.

Yeah House I kinda figured you were referring to Flyer as I've read some of the verbal sparring between you two. I understand your frustration to some extent. Sometimes I agree with Flyer and sometimes I don't.

FWIW: It seems to me that Flyer is very well informed about doping in the pro cycling ranks and it's obvious that he's very passionate about the damage it's doing to the sport and the influence that it has on young cyclists. I totally respect that.

Edit: House - Did you take your username from the television show? I don't watch a lot of TV but I love that show!

And as I have written before:

Tous Dope!

Few are caught, yet all must follow the pharma sag wagon or be sent home packing.

This is how it works in the real world.

Marco Pantani was an EPO addict as much as a coke abuser. They often go together as does the Pot Belge/(Cocaine, heroin, morphine & corticosteroids)

Still Pantani NEVER went positive for any drug during a TDF appearance! Why not? Was he too important for the show?

Marco's Giro trouble in 1999 was for a hematocrit level of 52%. In 2001 it was Insulin and spent syringes in his San Remo Hotel room--which he claimed belonged to another rider.

No Cocaine or stimulant urine positives for the Double Tour Champion, Marco Pantani (1998 Giro & TDF) Is this not odd?

Something LA has never done!

Stephen Roche yes, LA no!