Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2006/hamilton_appeal

They do a pretty good summary of the ruling. In the end all Hamilton was left with a claim that it was a false positive which if his Vuelta sample was all that was wrong might cast some doubt on the findings but he repeatedly showed signs of HBT during 2004 including measures independent of the HBT test.

Also, the report says he can ride for a protour team when his suspension ends this year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,501 Posts
I thought it was an excellent summary and really highlighted how weak his case was. Only complaint is that cyclingnews continue to say a very high ratio of RBC/reticulocytes is "caused" by blood doping. That's true of transfusions but is only true of EPO and it's derivatives when you decrease or stop using them. Putting it the way they do mistates the evidence and reasoning behind CAS rejection of his appeal somewhat.

I really don't understand why Hamilton requested the last sample be taken unless he was just crossing his fingers and hoping for the miniscule chance that he really was a chimera as well as a doper.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
985 Posts
Dwayne Barry said:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2006/hamilton_appeal

They do a pretty good summary of the ruling. In the end all Hamilton was left with a claim that it was a false positive which if his Vuelta sample was all that was wrong might cast some doubt on the findings but he repeatedly showed signs of HBT during 2004 including measures independent of the HBT test.

Also, the report says he can ride for a protour team when his suspension ends this year.
Summary is really good, especially as it clearly states that no real study for false positives where conducted.

"There was no false positive study conducted during the validation of this HBT test, and WADA experts have testified that they didn't need to do one. It is certainly possible to produce a false negative, as evidenced by Dr Ashenden's August 13, 2004 email to the Lausanne lab. The Sydney lab mistakenly identified a sample as negative when in fact it should have been positive, as the Lausanne lab showed. But what about false positives? "

This fact by itself invalidate the test. And any expert that testify that such study need not to be conducted deservs a lifetime ban (as expert).

By no means expert opinions can not replace experimental validation. If you would be able to collect best medieval experts in geography they would testify that Earth is flat and (likely) that they need not to coduct anystudy to prove it. Or, if you would collect the best physics of end of 19th century they would state that all important discoveries in physics are done at physics will not advanced any more (BTW some of them have stated this in reality).

There are another small niceties as well
"The final blood tests of note took place in December 2004 in January 2005, at Hamilton's instigation. He submitted a sample of his blood taken on September 20 to be screened at MIT using flow cytometry, and this time, it only showed the presence of one blood type. However, MIT is not a WADA accredited lab, nor was it one of the labs instructed on how to use the HBT test."

If translate this in normal languge it means
  1. MIT is not a WADA accredited lab
    MIT laboratory is not affiliated with WADA so it was really independent testing.
  2. nor was it one of the labs instructed on how to use the HBT test. - according to WADA test methodology description was published for peer reviews, so we have only 2 choices - or this description is sufficient to reproduce results (then no special instructions are needed), or this publication is of no value and bring nothing to uphold a test validity . Definitely, if MIT laboratory is not credible or not proficient enough in this area, this may change a things, but I doubt it (hopefully, somebody here is specialist in this field and can cast some light on MIT laboratory level).
 

·
Just Riding Along
Joined
·
1,024 Posts
It's a frustrating issue...

and we'll probably never know the "real truth".

UCI acted on the preponderance of the evidence, which was consistent throughout the period, and clearly showed repeated evidence of blood doping.

UCI didn't prove it was not vulnerable to false positives and successfully shifted the burden of the false positive issue to Tyler. Not surprisingly, Tyler couldn't prove any tests were false positives.

Is it possible that the repeated tests were all false positives? Apparently, UCI doesn't think so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
985 Posts
KeeponTrekkin said:
and we'll probably never know the "real truth".

UCI acted on the preponderance of the evidence, which was consistent throughout the period, and clearly showed repeated evidence of blood doping.

UCI didn't prove it was not vulnerable to false positives and successfully shifted the burden of the false positive issue to Tyler. Not surprisingly, Tyler couldn't prove any tests were false positives.

Is it possible that the repeated tests were all false positives? Apparently, UCI doesn't think so.
Repeated test may and would be false positive if this "false positivness" is caused by anyreason that differs from accidental error.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
It's not like there is a single positive that needs to be discounted and could exonerate Hamilton. You'd have to believe there were several samples (~5 thru out 2004) that yielded false positives, yet at other times he wasn't positive. Why aren't other guys getting popped with these false positives? There were the other blood parameters like hematocrit and reticulocyte counts that were behaving oddly and indicative of doping. His roommate got popped for the same thing after an entirely out of characteristic performance in the Vuelta. I believe it's also true that Phonak fired their doctor after those riders got caught. Why?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
985 Posts
  1. I do not state that Hamilton was not positive, even the less I'm interested was he positive or not. My main concern is that testing method that has not undergone proper "false positives" study was employed.
  2. Odd hematocrit/reticulocite results where shown by many athletes at that time - it was a big row about calibration of the machine used for oficial tests between UCI and 2 or even 3 commands (machines used by commands for preliminary testing have shown quite different results).
  3. Test (any test for that matter, or, even more generally, any measurment) is suspectible to 2 kinds of errors
    1. accidental errors - mostly different human mistakes while conducting tests or equipment malfunction
    2. systematical errors - e.g. some specific conditions that trigger test reaction in unsupposed way.
  4. Errors of latter kind are nicely reproducible and stable (while specific conditions are in place). Thus reproducibility of results do not warranty that they are valid - accidental errors are ruled out, but systematical errors not.
In this specific case fact that TH and his roommate results are similar only prove that test reaction was caused by the same condition, but does not prove that this condition was doping.

Nothing can be concluded from the test that has not undegone "false positives" study. As soon as this study has not taken place it is valid to guess that test has reacted for some minor viral infection that has hit TH and his roommate (even without clinical symptoms), or even some kind of popcorn that TH has shared with his roommate or other similar nonsense.

Dwayne Barry said:
It's not like there is a single positive that needs to be discounted and could exonerate Hamilton. You'd have to believe there were several samples (~5 thru out 2004) that yielded false positives, yet at other times he wasn't positive. Why aren't other guys getting popped with these false positives? There were the other blood parameters like hematocrit and reticulocyte counts that were behaving oddly and indicative of doping. His roommate got popped for the same thing after an entirely out of characteristic performance in the Vuelta. I believe it's also true that Phonak fired their doctor after those riders got caught. Why?
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top