Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,613 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
sorry to be beating a dead horse, but there's one thing I can 't get my head around in this (and related cases). Hamilton seems to be smarter than your average pro rider, so what possibly could this guy be thinking to continue a doping program after being warned? is there a time estimate for when his last transfusion would have been for the patterns taken from his Vuelta samples?

I'm really curious about what makes these guys risk so much -- is it just arrogance? I can understand the desire to win, but here's a guy who was arguably more successful because of the way he lost than any victories, like gritting it out during the tour with a broken collarbone. Was it a personal desire to beat Armstrong and he knew he couldn't unless juiced? Just seems beyond all rationality...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
86 Posts
When he was first warned he was at 10% foreign. It takes a while for the blood cells to die and be replace by new, non foreign cells so no matter what when he was tested over the following months he would test positive. A number of docotors have said that the decrease from 10% (Classics) to 4% (Olympics) to 3% (Vuelta) was consistent...its not like he could take the foreign blood out.

I think the bigger question that Tyler never gave a good explination for was why did he test positive 5 times and the 1000 tests of other riders have all been negative?....oh except one, his teamate who didn't even bother to fight the charges
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
stevesbike said:
sorry to be beating a dead horse, but there's one thing I can 't get my head around in this (and related cases). Hamilton seems to be smarter than your average pro rider, so what possibly could this guy be thinking to continue a doping program after being warned? is there a time estimate for when his last transfusion would have been for the patterns taken from his Vuelta samples?

I'm really curious about what makes these guys risk so much -- is it just arrogance? I can understand the desire to win, but here's a guy who was arguably more successful because of the way he lost than any victories, like gritting it out during the tour with a broken collarbone. Was it a personal desire to beat Armstrong and he knew he couldn't unless juiced? Just seems beyond all rationality...
What is an ever bigger mystery to me ... Why wouldn't he MAKE SURE only to use his own blood ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
Autologous blood doping

LSchoux said:
What is an ever bigger mystery to me ... Why wouldn't he MAKE SURE only to use his own blood ?
The problems with own blood doping (autologous) is that you have to extract the blood one month or more before the event.

And during this period, particularly if you are competing, your performances will suffer as it takes time for the body to recover from the blood donated (usually about 450ml of 5-6 litres total blood supply).

The other problem, as I understand, if you were to extract the stored blood for infusion in the off season when not competing or training the blood deteriorates over time even using the known best practices of preservation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,808 Posts
Why hasn't Hamilton ratted out the US Postal Squad?




stevesbike said:
sorry to be beating a dead horse, but there's one thing I can 't get my head around in this (and related cases). Hamilton seems to be smarter than your average pro rider, so what possibly could this guy be thinking to continue a doping program after being warned? is there a time estimate for when his last transfusion would have been for the patterns taken from his Vuelta samples?

I'm really curious about what makes these guys risk so much -- is it just arrogance? I can understand the desire to win, but here's a guy who was arguably more successful because of the way he lost than any victories, like gritting it out during the tour with a broken collarbone. Was it a personal desire to beat Armstrong and he knew he couldn't unless juiced? Just seems beyond all rationality...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,674 Posts
bas said:
Why hasn't Hamilton ratted out the US Postal Squad?
Because he has zero credability and couldn't afford the legal cost of slinging mud at LA and his mates.

Seriously who is going to believe an unrepentant convicted doper?

I don't believe LA was clean, but I don't believe anything that comes out of TH mouth. If he told me night followed day I'd doubt him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
650 Posts
Im reading book about blood dopeing now, written by one of the scientists who helped to develop the epo test in it it states TH had 4 different peoples blood other than his own in his blood. What i dont get is how a proven cheat is able to keep a medal he did not deserve. TH you cheated at least have the guts to admit it David Millar style. He may be a cheat but a bigger man as he is able to admirt his mistakes!!
 

·
Ya, what ATP said...!
Joined
·
2,140 Posts
Red blood cells die off after about 100 days in the system. The test he was warned with after the Romandie and the one he eventually failed once at the olypmics and twice at the Vuelta measures the percentage of your new cells to your old cells, thus a couch potato and an elite athelete could have the same score. His first excuse was a transfusion from a surgical procedure he had yet had no medical records to back up. Even fans know when Tyler farts let along goes under the knife. Then there was a second excuse, then he claimed he was Chimeric, a 1 in 60,000,000 medical condition known as the "vanishing twin". The UCI was happy about his since there is a relatively simple and cheap test that would confirm this, but Tyler refused to be tested. Instead, he began soliciting donations from his fan base to pay lawyers to fight the test's validity. Millions of dollars came in from the sale of Believe Tyler wrist bands and tshirts insuring that Tyler will still be able to keep a 5,000 sq ft roof over his head during these troubling times.

Yes, Santi Perez took his suspension and never said a word, even after they took his Giro placing away from him (2nd). Tyler makes me sick.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,859 Posts
Transfusion test, not EPO test

Fogdweller said:
Red blood cells die off after about 100 days in the system. The test he was warned with after the Romandie and the one he eventually failed once at the olypmics and twice at the Vuelta measures the percentage of your new cells to your old cells, thus a couch potato and an elite athelete could have the same score.
I think you are confusing a test for EPO usage and the test that Hamilton failed, which tests for homologous blood transfusions. The homologous transfusion test uses antigens to test for different markers on the cells, to detect if they there is mixed population of blood sub-types. In other words, if the blood of an athlete contains different sub-types, then they must have come from different people, which could only occur if the athlete had received a homologous blood transfusion in the recent past.

Since the blood from a transfusion would presumably contain the same normal ratio of new and old cells, mixing blood from two individuals should still have the same ratio of new and old cells.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,501 Posts
Tyler better hope he nevers needs an organ transplant. If he has had [at least] 4 different people's blood tranfused that will be a lot of potential donors knocked out because of prior sensitization.

I think micro dosing EPO makes much more sense from a health standpoint. The blood supply is still not screened for a number of rare but potentially dangerous pathogens. Plus that's the legitimate supply - who knows where his came from.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
Here is a contribution from another forum:

"Robin Parisotto was a sports scientist with the AIS who has recently released a book titled "Blood Sports – the Inside Dope on Drugs in Sport" (Hardie Grant, February 2006).

Here is an extract of a chapter making reference to Tyler Hamilton as presented on Peloton Press"

<I><B>HAS there been a more deceitful doping case than Tyler Hamilton's web of lies and playing the poor-me victim (Raimondas Rumsas comes pretty close, though)?</B>

What on earth was he thinking? To test positive twice (in A and B samples at the 2004 Vuelta a Espana) after results of an A sample taken at the Olympic Games a few weeks before showed blood doping but had to be ruled out because the B sample was frozen and be warned by officials should have been enough notice that the testers were on to him.

His snubbing of officials who warned him is beyond comprehension. The two unofficial positive transfusion tests were bad enough but in addition the HR-OFF score of 132.9 represented a level that was greater than the 1:10,000 cut-off score when detecting previous blood doping.

For those thinking that they can hide behind some medical excuse for such a high score, think again. There are none. Other questions remain. Whose blood was transfused? How did the athlete get the blood and did he receive medical assistance in the process? Did he act alone? What role, if any, did his team play?

Also, if Hamilton's frozen sample from the Athens Games is still stored, perhaps it could be brought out thawed and tested for antibodies to the three different blood cells found in his Vuelta sample.

The presence of these antibodies would be proof that he had transfused blood (or was still under the influence of a previous transfusion) during the Games.

Either way, his Olympic gold medal is forever tainted. Perhaps a .tell-all book by Hamilton may help to pay his much-publicised legal bills, but it certainly won't restore his reputation. As far as bleating about protecting the rights of athletes, he had a pretty fair go by all measures. What clean athlete would want him leading such a cause after his Wanton Mass Deceptions (WMDs)? </I>
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
608 Posts
Veloflash said:
<B>HAS there been a more deceitful doping case than Tyler Hamilton's web of lies and playing the poor-me victim (Raimondas Rumsas comes pretty close, though)?</B>
I don't see that Hamilton is any worse than Armstrong, Heras, VDB, Hamburger, etc. When these guys were caught, they lied through their teeth. If there was an opportunity to avoid punishment, they took it. Unfortunately, athletes like Hondo are being screwed because no one can trust any of the dopers to fess up so a zero tolerance policy has been implemented.
 

·
Ya, what ATP said...!
Joined
·
2,140 Posts
Mark McM said:
I think you are confusing a test for EPO usage and the test that Hamilton failed, which tests for homologous blood transfusions.
I don't think so. That was the way it was described in the CyclingNews articles last year, the Wire In The Blood series. They were pretty descriptive of the test and how his scores were derived.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,859 Posts
Test description in the "Wire In The Blood" articles

Fogdweller said:
I don't think so. That was the way it was described in the CyclingNews articles last year, the Wire In The Blood series. They were pretty descriptive of the test and how his scores were derived.
Go back and re-read that Cycling New Article. They do make mention of the consequences of blood cell life, haemoglobin and reticules, but that is not what is actually tested in the homologous transfusion test that Hamilton failed. The description of the test from the Wire In The Blood article is:

"Just as the body can detect the difference between its own and foreign red cells, so the test developed by Margaret Nelson at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney looks at minor blood group proteins to detect whether an athlete is carrying around someone else's blood.

"Everyone has a whole range of blood groups - not just the ABO set that everyone is familiar with," says Ashenden. "There are 10 or 20 minor blood groups.

"The test looks at the minor blood group antigens [proteins]. The test attaches to the red cells a fluorescent marker for, say, blood group X. If you have X then after the test your cells will glow [under ultra-violet light]. If you don't, they won't. So we look at 50-60,000 cells. When you have a mixed population some will have X and some won't, so some will glow and some won't. The only way that can happen is if the person whose blood you're looking at has had a transfusion - that there is someone else's blood there."

Ashenden is certain the test is reliable, not least because it's based on methods that have long been used to pick up possible problems with sensitivity in patients who have previously had transfusions. "This test has been used in hospitals for 10 years. You either have someone else's blood or you don't. You either have the blood group antigens or you don't."

There's no way, according to Ashenden, for an individual to have a mixture of red blood cells from different minor blood groups, other than for him to have had a transfusion."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,501 Posts
Mark McM said:
There's no way, according to Ashenden, for an individual to have a mixture of red blood cells from different minor blood groups, other than for him to have had a transfusion.
that's true when talking about the blood flowing in his body, but in the lab cross contamination could cause a positive result. Not that big of an issue in this case when you are dealing with things the size of blood cells but when you start looking at parts per billion contamination is almost universal.

But that was one reason they chose a non-zero standard for what was considered a positive.
 

·
Ya, what ATP said...!
Joined
·
2,140 Posts
Mark McM said:
Go back and re-read that Cycling New Article.
OK, I did and while I agree with your copy and paste, the thing that stuck out in my mind was the SI score, the original test that got him the warning letter. Ya, it was back in November and I didn't recall the part of the article that you quoted. The part that caught my attention was the following:
"The Stimulation Index is derived by taking into account both mean (or average) levels of haemoglobin (an oxygen-carrying protein carried in red cells, the average somewhere between 14 and 18 grams per 100 ml or g/dL) and reticulocytes (percentage of new or immature blood cells, the normal range between 0.5 and 2 percent). A simple formula that combines these two readings provides the off-score; whether you are an athlete or not, the values should be within this 85-95 range.

Robin Parisotto, principal scientist involved in the development of the EPO blood test implemented at the Sydney 2000 Games and the former manager and senior scientist at the Australian Institute of Sport's (AIS) haematology and biochemistry laboratory, said of Hamilton's test results taken at the 2004 Tour de Romandie: "The off-score of 132.9 registered by Hamilton in April 2004 represented one which had a less than 1 in 10,000 probability that it was a chance finding.""
Doesn't make me wrong, it just makes us both right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,859 Posts
Cross-contamination

terzo rene said:
that's true when talking about the blood flowing in his body, but in the lab cross contamination could cause a positive result.
Of course, cross contamination is always a concern in any type of test. This is why the second B sample is also tested (and why the athlete and/or their representative is allowed to attend and oversee the testing of the B sample to make sure there are no errors in the procedure).

Another thing that needs to be asked is, if Hamilton's positive test was due to cross-contamination, then how did this occur in 3 successive tests at two different labs, while not occuring in any other tests on other athletes (at the same labs)? The only other positive tests so far from this test were from Hamilton's team mate Perez, whose samples were tested at a different time than Hamilton's.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top