Will Tyler Do The Right Thing?

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

Quoted message said:

Three positives and one "non-conclusive." Will he tell the truth?

Why do you assume he hasn't already?
-----------
Alex

B. Lafferty said:

Three positives and one "non-conclusive." Will he tell the truth?

YOU MEAN ABOUT LANCE?????!!!!!

Just thought people would want to see where you got non-conclusive from.

The below however brings into question several things that will truly hurt the fight against doping unless agencies get there act together.
1)Why not enough intact blood cells?
2)If as they state the test was already acceptable by the IOC and WADA through the scientific community did they have to convene a panel of experts for a month to determine the results?
3)Because of having to have a panel review the results, even though they state that it is a scientifically accepted and approved test, to determine what the results meant. Did this delay result in some type of degrading in cell samples for the B-Test to then make it it "non-conclusive"?

I know the doping issue is just a flame war between some people but the above questions I ask because if you are going to actually fight doping you must have a clear and decisive ploicy and procedures and the below mess just makes IOC,WADA and etc look like bumbling fools. My main point is if you accept the test then it shouldn't take a panel a month to determine the following
"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"
Action should have been taken on 08/22 with the "B" test done immediately and thus avoiding the current problem.

Official: Hamilton's Olympic B test dropped
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has announced that Tyler Hamilton's "B sample" taken during the Olympic Games in Athens has been considered as "non-conclusive because of lack of enough intact red blood cells". This means that although his A sample was positive, the IOC will not be pursuing sanctions against the American, and that he will keep his gold medal that he won during the time trial. However, according to his Phonak team, both Hamilton's A and B samples have come back positive from the Vuelta a España, which means that it's highly likely that a disciplinary process will be started against him by the UCI.

The IOC explained in a statement that, "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."

hawkes said:

Just thought people would want to see where you got non-conclusive from.

Non-conclusive is pretty obvious --- they didn't have enough material to rule anything out, or rule anything in.

They couldn't say with any certainty that the "B" sample proved blood doping, but the bad news for Tyler w/regard to the IOC is that they couldn't definitively say the "B" sample proved he WASN'T doping, either.

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

Quoted message said:

hawkes said:

Just thought people would want to see where you got non-conclusive from.

Non-conclusive is pretty obvious --- they didn't have enough material
to rule anything out, or rule anything in.

They couldn't say with any certainty that the "B" sample proved blood
doping, but the bad news for Tyler w/regard to the IOC is that they
couldn't definitively say the "B" sample proved he WASN'T doping,
either.

And the more significant bad news is that he has two homologous blood doping
positives from the Vuelta. Time for the surgery defense.

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

Quoted message said:

hawkes said:

Just thought people would want to see where you got non-conclusive from.

Non-conclusive is pretty obvious --- they didn't have enough material
to rule anything out, or rule anything in.
They couldn't say with any certainty that the "B" sample proved blood
doping, but the bad news for Tyler w/regard to the IOC is that they
couldn't definitively say the "B" sample proved he WASN'T doping,
either.

But the tests are not meant to prove someone was not doping. They are
meant to prove someone is doping. Just look at all of the accusations
against other riders that have never tested positive.
--------------
Alex

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

Quoted message said:

Three positives and one "non-conclusive." Will he tell the truth?

--
Peloton Pigs--Flying Since 1991

He sure knows how to fool guys like me in to thinking he already is.

Devastated Hamilton Asserts His Innocence
http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=534

This is the most siginificant and to me believable quote:

"Cycling is very important to me but not that important. If I ever had to
dope I'd hang the bike on the rack."

In article <i [email hidden]>,

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

hawkes said:

Just thought people would want to see where you got non-conclusive from.

Non-conclusive is pretty obvious --- they didn't have enough material
to rule anything out, or rule anything in.

They couldn't say with any certainty that the "B" sample proved blood
doping, but the bad news for Tyler w/regard to the IOC is that they
couldn't definitively say the "B" sample proved he WASN'T doping,
either.

And the more significant bad news is that he has two homologous blood doping
positives from the Vuelta. Time for the surgery defense.

Or the spontaneously aborted twin defense!

Listen, these motherf***ers are making this [censored] up as they go along...

1) They have a new test that was developed using an extremely small
sample population.

2) They tested it with minimal to no controls.

Why do you think they are infallible?

KP

--
Remove _me_ for e-mail address

Ken Prager said:

1) They have a new test that was developed using an extremely small
sample population.

2) They tested it with minimal to no controls.

Why do you think they are infallible?

Look, this type of testing has been in use in paternity tests for 10 years, and used successfully in life-and-death situations. This is not a new test. They did not introduce it after "minimal to no controls."

Where do you get your info? Oh wait, you made it up, that's right! *slaps forehead*

Dude, are you really that naive? I love Tyler, and somehow I'm
holding on to a glimmer that he's clean, but have you missed the 40
posts regarding this test procedure? Its been used for years and
simply adapted (slightly) to be used for doping control.

Doping is a part of cycling, like every other sport. Sticking our
head in the sand won't solve the problem. Tyler's defense smacks of
Pantani's million defenses, "OH, I was dehydrated...My Hct actually
increases with training...my Hct fluctuates naturally...My Hct was so
high because I ran into that jeep..."

The guys making it up as they go along are the riders. I would have
advised Tyler, whether he was guilty or not, to keep his mouth shut.
Because now this surgery thing will die slower than the Swift vote BS.

CH

Quoted message said:

Listen, these motherf***ers are making this [censored] up as they go along...

1) They have a new test that was developed using an extremely small
sample population.

2) They tested it with minimal to no controls.

Why do you think they are infallible?

KP