Tyler Sacked: Its about time!

Why the rush to judgment? Can't you wait until his opportunity to tell
his story which he says will come in January? Why are you in such a
hurry to condemn the man? Will you be as quick to apologize if he is
vindicated? Gosh, you'd think you people were forced to make a call
because life and death depended on it. Lighten up! Your opinion is just
not that important that all the world is waiting with bated breath to
see what final pronouncement you make. Give the man his say and then
blast away if it falls short. Why the rush?
Gary

JayofMontreal said:

I must commend Tyler for his approach in trying to get away with being a
cheat. Much like a politician he's taken to the airwaves, and gives answers
with little to no meaning. He states that the tests are flawed, but when
asked, he can't say how. He states that he'll fight to his last euro, but
he's got a friend raising cash for him. He stands to lose millions, and this
is his whole motive in this charade of "I'm innocent" then he says he's not
doing it for the money, and won't even answer how much he stands to lose
when asked.

Your ludicrous statements regarding the test further prove to me that you
are under the influence of lawyers and spin doctors.

Tyler -- you're a cheater, and whether you admit it or not, the world knows
it.

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:41:13 -0600, Gary <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Lighten up! Your opinion is just
not that important that all the world is waiting with bated breath to
see what final pronouncement you make. Give the man his say and then
blast away if it falls short. Why the rush?

Actually, I'd be pretty much surprised that we could bate anyone's
breath. Anyway, we rush so that we can get the best part of the thread
over with before someone starts releasing facts. Most of us pretty
much lose interest when it descends to people using facts, which is
really pretty much discouraged around here. I personally have never
used a fact intentionally on rbr.

We do have a couple of posters that don't mind facts, but they're
delusional anyway.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)

We deal in the finest pure-grade rumors. No bits and pieces of fact
anywhere - just pure, unadulterated rumor. Especially if unadulterated
really does mean juvenile.

Gary said:

Why the rush to judgment? Can't you wait until his opportunity to

tell

Quoted message said:

his story which he says will come in January? Why are you in such a
hurry to condemn the man? Will you be as quick to apologize if he is
vindicated? Gosh, you'd think you people were forced to make a call
because life and death depended on it. Lighten up! Your opinion is

just

Quoted message said:

not that important that all the world is waiting with bated breath to

Quoted message said:

see what final pronouncement you make. Give the man his say and then
blast away if it falls short. Why the rush?
Gary

Rush to judgement? 3 positive tests and a sacking from the team that
was allegedly behind him tells a lot. Why would Phonak stand behind
him, and then dump him? Umm, most likely because he's guilty as
hell.

Tom

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Rush to judgement? 3 positive tests and a sacking from the team that
was allegedly behind him tells a lot. Why would Phonak stand behind
him, and then dump him? Umm, most likely because he's guilty as
hell.

Tom

I have no idea if Tyler is innocent or guilty but think that I can
understand why Phonak dumped him. I believe that they were desperately
trying to save the team and hoped that by dumping Tyler they would show the
UCI that they were willing to play by their rules. I don't think that it
has any reflection about Tyler at all.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Rush to judgement? 3 positive tests and a sacking from the team that
was allegedly behind him tells a lot. Why would Phonak stand behind
him, and then dump him? Umm, most likely because he's guilty as
hell.

Tom

I have no idea if Tyler is innocent or guilty but think that I can
understand why Phonak dumped him. I believe that they were desperately
trying to save the team and hoped that by dumping Tyler they would show
the UCI that they were willing to play by their rules. I don't think that
it has any reflection about Tyler at all.

If Phonak's independent panel of scientific experts had all said that the
test was invalid, Phonak might have stood by Hamilton. At least three of
the five said they had no problem with the test and two said they did but it
was unclear if their objection was to the underlying science or the
procedure of testing in place.

But it does have a reflection of Tyler, because if the team was trying
to make itself look better by releasing and or firing Tyler, then that
is a reflection of him onto the team. He is or was an ambassador for
his team, and with bad publicity for Tyler comes bad publicity for the
team. And hence, his firing.

Testing shows that Tyler is guilty. He has really provided no firm
proof as to refute that point, thus far. Unfortunately, with doping
in sport, lots of times it's guilty way before innocent.

Tom

Tom said:

Testing shows that Tyler is guilty. He has really provided no firm
proof as to refute that point, thus far. Unfortunately, with doping
in sport, lots of times it's guilty way before innocent.

no, he was innocent first, before he failed the drug tests.

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

Quoted message said:

I must commend Tyler for his approach in trying to get away with being a
cheat. Much like a politician he's taken to the airwaves, and gives answers
with little to no meaning. He states that the tests are flawed, but when
asked, he can't say how. He states that he'll fight to his last euro, but
he's got a friend raising cash for him. He stands to lose millions, and this
is his whole motive in this charade of "I'm innocent" then he says he's not
doing it for the money, and won't even answer how much he stands to lose
when asked.

Your ludicrous statements regarding the test further prove to me that you
are under the influence of lawyers and spin doctors.

Tyler -- you're a cheater, and whether you admit it or not, the world knows
it.

He can't say how the tests are flawed, because the IOC, UCI, WADA,
etc... won't release the protocol of what the specific test is or how
the tests are done.

Picture this: your employer decides to fire you due to a violation of
a 'no-drugs' policy at work. You ask for information on the specifics
of the testing protocol, details on the results, etc. so that you can
prepare a defense. Ooops, sorry, you can't have any of that. You
just have to trust that we collected your sample properly, tested it
properly (with a valid test, mind you) and that it's up to you to
prove a negative (that you didn't take the drugs you're accused of
taking).

Since proving a negative is impossible, you're only hope is to find
fault with the test. So, where do you go from here? Even your
cousin Vinny would know that you have a right to full disclosure.

Why should your place of employment, or Tyler's, be able to prosecute
you without full disclosure?

Quoted message said:

From: "B. Lafferty" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

I have no idea if Tyler is innocent or guilty but think that I can

Quoted message said:

understand why Phonak dumped him. I believe that they were desperately
trying to save the team and hoped that by dumping Tyler they would show
the UCI that they were willing to play by their rules. I don't think that
it has any reflection about Tyler at all.

If Phonak's independent panel of scientific experts had all said that the
test was invalid, Phonak might have stood by Hamilton. At least three of
the five said they had no problem with the test and two said they did but it
was unclear if their objection was to the underlying science or the
procedure of testing in place.

None of us are sure if Tyler is guilty or innocent, but it's pretty obvious to
me why Phonak would've bailed on him even if they do still think he's innocent.
It's called political pressure and the UCI's well known attitude about smacking
down anyone who dares question them. As I see it the choice was stand behind
Hamilton and be abused and relegated to minor races at best while having the
vindictive types at the UCI make your life miserable until you go under. You
have never truly experienced being miserable until you've [censored] the paper
pusher that controls your career and business. If you think the IRS can be
miserable think about how much more the UCI could srew over a team.
Brian you brought up Maichiavelli the other day, this is right out of his
philosophy. Guilty or innocent give the dog a bone.
Bill C

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From: "B. Lafferty" [email hidden]
None of us are sure if Tyler is guilty or innocent, but it's pretty
obvious to

me why Phonak would've bailed on him even if they do still think he's
innocent.
It's called political pressure and the UCI's well known attitude about
smacking
down anyone who dares question them. As I see it the choice was stand
behind
Hamilton and be abused and relegated to minor races at best while having
the
vindictive types at the UCI make your life miserable until you go under.
You
have never truly experienced being miserable until you've [censored] the
paper
pusher that controls your career and business. If you think the IRS can be
miserable think about how much more the UCI could srew over a team.
Brian you brought up Maichiavelli the other day, this is right out of his
philosophy. Guilty or innocent give the dog a bone.
Bill C

It appears from the following excerpt from ProCycling, that Phonak has been
under suspicion for a number of riders for quite some time. Even if the
test were invalid, the UCI still has a bone to pick with Phonak. Absent a
management change, like Cofidis, I don't see Phonak in the Pro Tour any time
soon.

"Although the Hamilton case has taken most of the headlines in recent weeks,
the UCI has been more concerned with abnormal blood levels recorded by a
number of Phonak riders throughout the past season than with just this one
issue. The UCI was so concerned about these readings that it launched an
inquiry into Phonak's stance with regard to anti-doping procedures.

As this inquiry continued, relations between Phonak and the UCI became more
difficult when the Swiss team initially backed Hamilton's challenge to the
validity of the UCI-approved blood doping test. Ultimately, the UCI was
reported to have been pushing for the replacement of Phonak's whole
management structure before it would consider allowing the team into the
ProTour. Although Hamilton has been sacked, Phonak's management currently
remains unchanged."

Niccolo came through on the Ouija board around an hour ago. He says that
he's a paid consultant to [censored] Pound.

Just up on CN:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/dec04/dec01news

From:Hamilton confirms sacking; UCI explains

Phonak's behaviour after Hamilton's positive tests for blood-doping did it no
favours at all with the UCI. Phonak cast doubt on the validity of the
blood-doping test and assembled a team of experts to attempt to discredit it.
"Though it is not in itself contentious for a team to defend its riders when
they are involved in a doping affair, at least while their guilt has not been
established, the attitude of this team, which has tried to cast doubt on the
validity of the tests which revealed the suspected doping in order to provide
its defence, is quite another thing," said the UCI.

Once again it's "How dare you question our methods!" They haven't given anyone
enough information to say whether their methodology and procedures are valid or
not.
It's never been about fairness, the athletes, and doping. It's about the raw
exercise of power, and the PR that they generate to stroke their egos.
I would love to see what an independent court ordered investigation into
their anti doping practices would show. Unfortunately we'll never see it
because they'll never allow it. They'll fold the tent first.
Bill C

I think Hamilton has gone passed questioning, and instead said that their
methods are wrong.

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

Quoted message said:

Once again it's "How dare you question our methods!" They haven't given

anyone

Quoted message said:

enough information to say whether their methodology and procedures are

valid or

Quoted message said:

not.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We deal in the finest pure-grade rumors. No bits and pieces of fact

anywhere - just pure, unadulterated rumor. Especially if unadulterated
really does mean juvenile.

What you say is true; the truth is at arms length to us here- however,
I don't believe the UCI or anybody would capriciously declare anyone
failing a blood test- and when it arises later at the Vuelta I will
believe that Tyler is guilty of earning his palmares by cheating. I
believe that Phonak, or anyone, has no reason to tie their boat to his
anchor. I believe that ejecting the guilty from the sport is the best
solution to help ensure those that truely deserve their place in the
sport are not victimized and sidelined by "super-scars".
Tyler is guilty. Let it be. Toss him out and move on.

Laz

Quoted message said:

From: [email hidden] (Laz)

Quoted message said:

What you say is true; the truth is at arms length to us here- however,
I don't believe the UCI or anybody would capriciously declare anyone
failing a blood test- and when it arises later at the Vuelta I will
believe that Tyler is guilty of earning his palmares by cheating. I
believe that Phonak, or anyone, has no reason to tie their boat to his
anchor. I believe that ejecting the guilty from the sport is the best
solution to help ensure those that truely deserve their place in the
sport are not victimized and sidelined by "super-scars".
Tyler is guilty. Let it be. Toss him out and move on.

Laz

So you say the same thing about people that Asscroft and his buddy Ridge are
holding on secret evidence too? You take their word for it, because they have
everyone's best interest at heart?
I have a huge problem with certifying a set of procedures that are going to
have a huge effect on people's lives and careers in-house while providing NO
access for outside review. If there are no real checks on a system you can sure
as hell bet it'll get out of balance.
Davey has made this argument over and over. He doesn't trust them, I don't
trust anybody. They have zero credibility in my mind until they allow impartial
external review by someone not chosen by them or indebted to them.
" It's guilty because we say so until proven innocent, ans oh yeah the
methodology is secret so you can't prove yourself innocent.
TFB have a nice life!"
Bill C

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From: "B. Lafferty" [email hidden]

None of us are sure if Tyler is guilty or innocent, but it's pretty
obvious to
me why Phonak would've bailed on him even if they do still think he's
innocent.
It's called political pressure and the UCI's well known attitude about
smacking
down anyone who dares question them. As I see it the choice was stand
behind
Hamilton and be abused and relegated to minor races at best while having
the
vindictive types at the UCI make your life miserable until you go under.
You
have never truly experienced being miserable until you've [censored] the
paper
pusher that controls your career and business. If you think the IRS can be
miserable think about how much more the UCI could srew over a team.
Brian you brought up Maichiavelli the other day, this is right out of his
philosophy. Guilty or innocent give the dog a bone.
Bill C

This is what I was trying to say, but you made the point much better that I
did.

Frank

But what would the uci have to gain by declaring a well liked cyclist
a doper and ruin his pro career without just cause ? this is something
that should be fairly easy to sucessfully sue for damages if it is
incorrect.

[email hidden] (Scott Hendricks) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

I must commend Tyler for his approach in trying to get away with being a
cheat. Much like a politician he's taken to the airwaves, and gives answers
with little to no meaning. He states that the tests are flawed, but when
asked, he can't say how. He states that he'll fight to his last euro, but
he's got a friend raising cash for him. He stands to lose millions, and this
is his whole motive in this charade of "I'm innocent" then he says he's not
doing it for the money, and won't even answer how much he stands to lose
when asked.

Your ludicrous statements regarding the test further prove to me that you
are under the influence of lawyers and spin doctors.

Tyler -- you're a cheater, and whether you admit it or not, the world knows
it.

He can't say how the tests are flawed, because the IOC, UCI, WADA,
etc... won't release the protocol of what the specific test is or how
the tests are done.

Picture this: your employer decides to fire you due to a violation of
a 'no-drugs' policy at work. You ask for information on the specifics
of the testing protocol, details on the results, etc. so that you can
prepare a defense. Ooops, sorry, you can't have any of that. You
just have to trust that we collected your sample properly, tested it
properly (with a valid test, mind you) and that it's up to you to
prove a negative (that you didn't take the drugs you're accused of
taking).

Since proving a negative is impossible, you're only hope is to find
fault with the test. So, where do you go from here? Even your
cousin Vinny would know that you have a right to full disclosure.

Why should your place of employment, or Tyler's, be able to prosecute
you without full disclosure?

On 12/01/2004 04:49 AM, in article
[email hidden], "Laz" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

But what would the uci have to gain by declaring a well liked cyclist
a doper and ruin his pro career without just cause ? this is something
that should be fairly easy to sucessfully sue for damages if it is
incorrect.

They can't get popular Rider A, so they go after popular Rider H, just to
prove that they are "doing something in the war on doping" ... Even to the
extent of denying Rider H the chance to prove his innocence by denying
access to the testing protocols and refusing to DNA test the sample to
verify whether or not the sample actually belongs to Rider H.

--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [foreword] slash

"Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 12/01/2004 04:49 AM, in article
[email hidden], "Laz"
<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

But what would the uci have to gain by declaring a well liked cyclist
a doper and ruin his pro career without just cause ? this is something
that should be fairly easy to sucessfully sue for damages if it is
incorrect.

They can't get popular Rider A, so they go after popular Rider H, just to
prove that they are "doing something in the war on doping" ... Even to the
extent of denying Rider H the chance to prove his innocence by denying
access to the testing protocols and refusing to DNA test the sample to
verify whether or not the sample actually belongs to Rider H.

Assume for the moment that Hamilton is fully denied access to the protocols.
At the CAS hearing the USADA verdict is upheld. At that point I would argue
that they would have the right to challenge the CAS verdict in a civil court
(Federal District in all probability) claiming a denial of fundamental
procedural due process. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Getting the same result with a DNA test might be a bit more difficult to
argue, but I think they should be allowed to conduct a DNA test, and I think
most judges would rule that way.

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de :
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 12/01/2004 04:49 AM, in article
[email hidden], "Laz"
<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

But what would the uci have to gain by declaring a well liked cyclist
a doper and ruin his pro career without just cause ? this is something
that should be fairly easy to sucessfully sue for damages if it is
incorrect.

They can't get popular Rider A, so they go after popular Rider H, just to
prove that they are "doing something in the war on doping" ... Even to
the
extent of denying Rider H the chance to prove his innocence by denying
access to the testing protocols and refusing to DNA test the sample to
verify whether or not the sample actually belongs to Rider H.

Assume for the moment that Hamilton is fully denied access to the
protocols. At the CAS hearing the USADA verdict is upheld. At that point
I would argue that they would have the right to challenge the CAS verdict
in a civil court (Federal District in all probability) claiming a denial
of fundamental procedural due process. It will be interesting to see what
happens. Getting the same result with a DNA test might be a bit more
difficult to argue, but I think they should be allowed to conduct a DNA
test, and I think most judges would rule that way.

Beg to differ. Under the NY convention, the issue is whether or not the
contemplated arbitration conforms to the agreement of the parties, as the
choice of law is left to them to decide.

To own a UCI valid license, one agrees to abide by the rules of the UCI.
Arbitration, as well as all contractual or membership points of agreement.
So, the issue of fairness was agreed to already ; not to disclose
information is not a grievance, if the issue of disclosure has been
previously agreed on.

There was a recent Swiss supreme court ruling that may attack that position
slightly, but not entirely. It condemned the arbitrators for using
unclaimed legal points in coming to an award, where the litigating parties
did not know that the arbitrators were looking at that specific
jurisprudence. (1) Uci, in Switzerland, may have to deal with this or not -
I doubt it.

But to get such a decision enforced in the USA may well be difficult, as it
is likely to go to an appellate level, given the typical creativity of the
judiciary there.

--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

1. http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=29429&searchresults=1