Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Cat 6
Joined
·
4,695 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I haven't had a chance to but glance at it...it would seem the net is that a test that used to have a 5% margin of error up until just before his positive was lowered to 1.5% and that caused him to fail. Anyone have any more details? I'll post more when I read it...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,501 Posts
The detail you missed was that he tested 10% in the unnanounced tests before the test became official and that was what precipitated the infamous late spring meeting where the UCI told him to knock it off. Miraculously his twin immediately started to vanish and his foreign blood percentage decreased from that point forward until it was down to the 1.5% when they nailed his ass. He can try all the misdirection and spin he wants but he got caught.

They also verified that the foreign blood was not related to either his family (as would be the case with the chimera story) or to Santi Perez (the other favorite theory).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
chuckice Anyone have any more details? I'll post more when I read it...[/QUOTE said:
Lots more...Go over to the doping forum and check out some of the threads on the case. In which you can find the link to the actual ruling from the final court of arbitration. IIRC, it is not true there was a 5% limit. At one point one of the test developers suggested 5% as the cut-off. However this was rejected as unnecessarily high since the test can reliably detect very small amounts of exogenous blood (I think they site a case of .04% or there abouts).

Besides he didn't just show up 1 time with funky blood. He has to explain his multiple failed tests, yet multiple clean tests and why other blood parameters were out of whack and indicative of blood doping (in the general sense).

In the article If he talks about the testers ignoring a "known" false positive case then he's lost absolutely all credibility and it is 100% clear he is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of unsuspecting (and ignorant of the facts) fans.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
terzo rene said:
was not related to either his family (as would be the case with the chimera story) or to Santi Perez (the other favorite theory).
At some point cyclingnews.com reported they actually have different blood types which ruled out the popular "mixed-up" bags theory. Of course, if you read the report it is clear this was not an isolated incident anyway and therefore unlikely to have been a one-time occurance even if they were of the same blood type.
 

·
Cat 6
Joined
·
4,695 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
terzo rene said:
The detail you missed was that he tested 10% in the unnanounced tests before the test became official and that was what precipitated the infamous late spring meeting where the UCI told him to knock it off. Miraculously his twin immediately started to vanish and his foreign blood percentage decreased from that point forward until it was down to the 1.5% when they nailed his ass. He can try all the misdirection and spin he wants but he got caught.

They also verified that the foreign blood was not related to either his family (as would be the case with the chimera story) or to Santi Perez (the other favorite theory).
LOL! Ouch! I honestly haven't kept up on it at all...once he got busted I was so disgusted I stopped reading until he came up with his "defense". The whole doppelganger conspiracy was about the dumbest thing I'd ever heard. Did the article go into what you just said? I'm hoping so...I'd like more info rather than wading thru the endless garbage on this subject. Which at this point is a dead one...just found it interesting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
chuckice said:
I haven't had a chance to but glance at it...it would seem the net is that a test that used to have a 5% margin of error up until just before his positive was lowered to 1.5% and that caused him to fail. Anyone have any more details? I'll post more when I read it...
Kind of off the subject but If he was to race at end of his ban, wouldn't he be signed by a team by now? Millar is signed but won't be racing til the tour start. So wouldn't Hamilton have any offer by now?

No, I'm not fan of his. I was til he got busted.
 

·
Cat 6
Joined
·
4,695 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Noël said:
Kind of off the subject but If he was to race at end of his ban, wouldn't he be signed by a team by now? Millar is signed but won't be racing til the tour start. So wouldn't Hamilton have any offer by now?

No, I'm not fan of his. I was til he got busted.
I was a huge Tyler fan up until then...who wasn't after the 03 Tour?! :( You'd have to be crazy to sign Tyler now. Millar is alot younger and at least admitted his mistakes...that's a better bet than TH these days. So sad...the pressure to win as team lead must be brutal...Heras, Hamilton...if they ever find out Boonen or Ulrich doped then I give up on cycling entirely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
chuckice said:
I was a huge Tyler fan up until then...who wasn't after the 03 Tour?! :( You'd have to be crazy to sign Tyler now. Millar is alot younger and at least admitted his mistakes...that's a better bet than TH these days. So sad...the pressure to win as team lead must be brutal...Heras, Hamilton...if they ever find out Boonen or Ulrich doped then I give up on cycling entirely.
Technically, you'll only have to wait for Boonen to give up cycling.
 

·
Back from the dead
Joined
·
20,626 Posts
Dwayne Barry said:
Lots more...Go over to the doping forum and check out some of the threads on the case. In which you can find the link to the actual ruling from the final court of arbitration. IIRC, it is not true there was a 5% limit. At one point one of the test developers suggested 5% as the cut-off. However this was rejected as unnecessarily high since the test can reliably detect very small amounts of exogenous blood (I think they site a case of .04% or there abouts).

Besides he didn't just show up 1 time with funky blood. He has to explain his multiple failed tests, yet multiple clean tests and why other blood parameters were out of whack and indicative of blood doping (in the general sense).

In the article If he talks about the testers ignoring a "known" false positive case then he's lost absolutely all credibility and it is 100% clear he is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of unsuspecting (and ignorant of the facts) fans.
You have to wonder why he spent so much money on that ridiculous legal defense. It seems that he laid down some serious cash. Did he really think he could win, or is he just stupid?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
616 Posts
chuckice said:
I was a huge Tyler fan up until then...who wasn't after the 03 Tour?! :( You'd have to be crazy to sign Tyler now. Millar is alot younger and at least admitted his mistakes...that's a better bet than TH these days. So sad...the pressure to win as team lead must be brutal...Heras, Hamilton...if they ever find out Boonen or Ulrich doped then I give up on cycling entirely.
Ullrich will get caught eventually...

'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
...when they start testing for Gateau au Chocolat!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,501 Posts
I forgot the other interesting part of the story was that Hamilton, after the cut it out meeting with the UCI, asked if he could have time to "explain" his results and according to Tyler was told that he could have until the next off season to do so. Since he was cutting back on his doping after the meeting his indignation and legal battle are probably the result of feeling that he was doing what was asked and was wronged by the system in still being caught and punished.
 

·
jaded bitter joy crusher
Joined
·
19,723 Posts
Dwayne Barry said:
Of course, if you read the report it is clear this was not an isolated incident anyway and therefore unlikely to have been a one-time occurance even if they were of the same blood type.
How do you figure this? The foreign blood concentration kept declining in Tyler's tests throughout the season, so it's quite consistent with him having received a transfusion sometime in the spring and not again. What I thought the article said was that the 1.5% numbers that you see in August are consistent with the notion that he was last transfused in April or May.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
Fredke said:
How do you figure this? The foreign blood concentration kept declining in Tyler's tests throughout the season, so it's quite consistent with him having received a transfusion sometime in the spring and not again. What I thought the article said was that the 1.5% numbers that you see in August are consistent with the notion that he was last transfused in April or May.
Where are those numbers from? They're not in the CAS decision. Regardless, he would still be guilty of blood doping under the WADA/UCI rules.
 

·
jaded bitter joy crusher
Joined
·
19,723 Posts
Dwayne Barry said:
Where are those numbers from? They're not in the CAS decision. Regardless, he would still be guilty of blood doping under the WADA/UCI rules.
No question about guilt. I agree that he's bad. There are big problems with the way the test is done, but none of those problems are relevant to Tyler: he was clearly doping and CAS was right to uphold the finding.

The detail is that foreign (transfused) blood stays in the bloodstream for a long time and is detectable for about 4 months after you get the transfusion. Typically, if you got a transfusion of one or two pints worth of packed erythrocytes that would increase your packed cell volume by something like 10-20% (there are about 10 pints in your body). This means that right after a transfusion, the test would find 10-20% of your blood in a separate immunological group.

Erythrocytes last around 120 days (4 months) so if you don't continue to transfust then the amount of foreign blood in your body will gradually fall off to zero. The fact that Tyler had only about 1.5% foreign blood in him means either that 90% of the blood from his last transfusion had broken down, meaning that the transfusion was several months in the past, or that he had recently transfused a tiny quantity of blood---no more than 75 ml, or around 5 tablespoons---which would be much too little to give him any athletic advantage.

None of this lets him off the hook,. but it does underscore why homologous transfusion is probably the stupidest way to cheat: unlike EPO or other drugs, transfusions boost your performance for maybe a month at most, but remain very detectable for four months or more, so you can be caught long after you lost the benefit.
 

·
Self-Banned
Joined
·
16,905 Posts
chuckice said:
I was a huge Tyler fan up until then...who wasn't after the 03 Tour?! :( You'd have to be crazy to sign Tyler now. Millar is alot younger and at least admitted his mistakes...that's a better bet than TH these days. So sad...the pressure to win as team lead must be brutal...Heras, Hamilton...if they ever find out Boonen or Ulrich doped then I give up on cycling entirely.

That's all it would take? So you just follow the sport? You don't love riding a bike? You're not a cyclist? You're only a spectator?

P.S. These aren't just rhetorical questions.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top