skuke
captain
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 322
|
|
While I really, really, really(!) want to believe Tyler Hamilton is innocent, I have always also believed in our court system. True, this court is not a United States court, but neither is it a "kangaroo court" in some dictator controlled country. Our court system is part of the foundation for equality in this country and it is a system in which I have placed my faith. However, they do make mistakes and I hope this is one of those instances.
Since OJ was found not guilty and I believe the court's decision, I guess I must also believe the court's decision on Tyler's guilt. The irony is that I don't believe OJ himself and I do believe Tyler. Ying/Yang kinda thing.
I'm gonna go climb some hills this weekend and HAMMER away some sorrow.
--------------------
Skuke
95 Carbonframes Tetra Pro
92 Bridgestone MB-1
90 Moser 51.151
|
skagwayroadie
contributor
Reged: 12/20/03
Posts: 141
Loc: Alaska
|
|
Skuke...
I feel your pain!
...Mark
|
Bruce
contributor
Reged: 12/27/03
Posts: 133
Loc: North of NYC
|
|
Have you read the opinion?
I have a couple issues with it. First, they never said or showed Hamilton's graph. They showed an example, but I don't believe it was his, maybe I misread it.
Also, they did not backup the science behind the test in any way. I would expect some more real world experience with this test before it is used on a top athlete like Hamilton.
They also did not test the sample in a true double blind, meaning the testers knew who's blood it was. To me, this leaves the door wide open for fraud. Just add a drop of your blood to his sample, and bingo, provable blood doping.
So in the end, did he do it? Unknown. I might not have convicted him without a lot more background. Also, you have to look at the politics of the situation. Who has Hamilton pissed off and who wants to get him. Without strict double blind testing, this becomes a real possibility. If I were his defense, this is the tact I would take. Reasonable doubt. That is all you need.
|
PsyDoc
friend
Reged: 01/14/04
Posts: 37
|
|
...that they can post Tyler's graph as it could fall under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) guidelines. There are a lot of questions that "we" would like answered, but perhaps some of these were answered behind closed doors.
|
skuke
captain
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 322
|
|
Quote:
Bruce wrote:
Just add a drop of your blood to his sample, and bingo, provable blood doping.
Also, you have to look at the politics of the situation. Who has Hamilton pissed off and who wants to get him.
Reasonable doubt. That is all you need.
I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories.
This isn't a criminal case, is 'reasonable doubt' all you need in Arbitration court? Apparently not since Hamilton's suspension was upheld.
Reading Hamilton's arguments on his website certainly put doubt in my mind as to the competancy of his legal team. I mean if all he wrote is true and accurate, then it should have been a slam dunk! But I'll admit that I am biased in favor of Tyler and more importantly, we never heard the counter arguments.
To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes: When all the poop is cleared out, whatever is left over must be the truth.
--------------------
Skuke
95 Carbonframes Tetra Pro
92 Bridgestone MB-1
90 Moser 51.151
|
skuke
captain
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 322
|
|
Quote:
PsyDoc wrote:
...that they can post Tyler's graph as it could fall under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) guidelines.
I think Hamilton could release them if he chooses. Doesn't HIPPA allows the patient to decide if info can be released and to whom?
Regardless, if the "experts" have difficulty reading them, I certainly have no false illusions.
--------------------
Skuke
95 Carbonframes Tetra Pro
92 Bridgestone MB-1
90 Moser 51.151
|
PsyDoc
friend
Reged: 01/14/04
Posts: 37
|
|
...release them if he so chooses. However, I would imagine his legal team would advise against it as one never knows what could come down the pipe at a later date. Of course, Tyler could go against any and all legal advice and do what he wants, but it does not look like that is the path he has taken so far.
|
flythebike
captain
Reged: 08/26/04
Posts: 272
Loc: N. Virginia, USA
|
|
This isn't a criminal case and the standard for reasonable doubt doesn't apply here. They just have to decide that based on all the factors, if it more likely that he did it or not. The majority found that his defense wasn't convincing, despite the limitations of the test.
I think that the International Court for Aribitraition of Sport will overrule this decision because of the bit about the test having no firm standard and so forth.
|
garygromet
friend
Reged: 01/28/04
Posts: 36
Loc: Miami, FL, USA
|
|
Nobody but an idiot gets a blood transfusion unless his life is in danger.
Personally, I doubt if anyone ever used a homologous blood transfusion for performance enhancement. Someone might have used his own blood stored some how, but not somebody else's no matter how close the match of blood types was supposed to be.
My father died from a blood transfusion reaction during open-heart surgery at Miami Heart Institute.
The American Cancer Society webpage
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_1_4x_Possible_Risks_of_Blood_Product_Transfusions.asp?sitearea=ETO
tells some of the risks of homologous blood transfusions, and see the bold print for why even infections cannot be prevented.
An athlete desiring a blood transfusion needs the help of medical personnel, medical laboratory and lots of privacy to accomplish his desire. The athlete might be nutty enough to risk his life, but the others would not risk long-term incarceration if the athlete died.
Duke Reviews Transplant Guidelines Feb 2003
By Gillian Bolsover, Staff Writer
Seventeen-year-old Jesica Santillan's death Saturday as a result of a heart and lung transplant of the wrong blood type has prompted Duke University Medical Center to review its communication procedures.
http://www.cbbsweb.org/enf/abo_organtx.html
Possible Risks of Blood Transfusions
Although blood transfusions can be life-saving, they are not without possible risks, the most serious of which are transfusion reactions and infections.
Many precautions are taken before a transfusion is started to prevent a reaction from happening. The blood type of the unit is checked several times, the unit is crossmatched for compatibility with the person who will receive it, and a nurse and blood bank lab technician verify both the patient and blood unit information before releasing it for use. The information is double-checked once more at the bedside before the transfusion is started.
Transfusion Reactions
Blood product transfusions sometimes cause transfusion reactions. There are several types of reactions and they vary in their severity. Some reactions may occur as soon as the transfusion is started, while some take several days or longer to develop.
Allergic reaction: This is the most common type of reaction. It occurs during the transfusion because of the body’s reaction to plasma proteins in the donated blood. Usually the only symptoms are hives and itching, which can be treated with antihistamines such as diphenhydramine (Benadryl). In rare cases these reactions can be more serious.
Febrile reaction: Febrile transfusion reactions involve the spiking of a fever during or within 24 hours of the transfusion. Headache, nausea, chills, or a general feeling of discomfort may accompany the fever. Acetaminophen (Tylenol) may help lessen these symptoms. These reactions are a response by the body to white blood cells in the donated blood. They occur most commonly in people who have had previous transfusions and in women who have had several pregnancies.
Patients who have had febrile reactions or who are at risk are usually given blood products that are leukoreduced (the white blood cells have been removed by filters or other means).
Acute immune hemolytic reaction: This is the most serious type of transfusion reaction, although fortunately it is very rare. It occurs when donor and patient blood types do not match. Patient antibodies attack the transfused red blood cells, causing them to hemolyze (break open), releasing harmful substances into the bloodstream. Patients may have chills, fever, chest and lower back pain, and nausea. The kidneys may be severely damaged, and dialysis may be required. A hemolytic reaction can be life threatening if the transfusion is not stopped as soon as the reaction occurs.
Delayed hemolytic reaction: This type of reaction occurs when the body slowly attacks antigens (other than ABO antigens) on the transfused blood cells. The blood cells break down days or weeks after transfusion. There are usually no symptoms, but the transfused red blood cells are destroyed and the patient's red blood cell count falls. In rare cases the kidneys may be affected, requiring treatment.
People don’t usually have these types of reactions unless they have had several transfusions in the past. People who have this type of reaction need special blood testing before any more blood can be transfused. Units of blood that do not have the antigen that the body is attacking must be found.
Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD): GVHD occurs when white blood cells in transfused blood attack the tissues of a transfusion recipient who has a severely weakened immune system. Within a month of the transfusion, the patient may have fever, liver problems, rash, and diarrhea. To prevent white blood cells from causing GVHD, donated blood can be treated with radiation before transfusion. Radiation stops white blood cells from functioning but does not affect red blood cells.
Infections
Blood transfusions can transmit infections caused by bacteria, viruses, and parasites. The chance of an infection being transmitted is very rare, but the exact risk for each type of infection varies. Testing units of blood for infectious organisms has made the blood supply extremely safe, but no test is 100% accurate.
Hepatitis B and C: Viruses that attack the liver cause these forms of hepatitis. Hepatitis is the most common disease transmitted by blood transfusions. According to the American Red Cross, about 1 blood transfusion in 205,000 transmits a hepatitis B infection, and 1 blood transfusion in 1,935,000 transmits hepatitis C. In most cases there are no symptoms, but hepatitis can lead to liver failure and other problems.
Several steps are routinely taken to reduce the risk of hepatitis from blood transfusion. Potential donors are asked questions about hepatitis risk factors and symptoms of hepatitis, and blood is tested to find hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, and liver problems that might point to other types of hepatitis.
Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV): HIV causes acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Testing the blood supply for HIV began in 1985, and several tests for HIV are now used on all donated blood. With improved testing for HIV, the number of transfusion-related AIDS cases continues to drop. The risk of HIV transmission through transfusion is about 1 in 2,135,000. In addition to testing, the risk is reduced by asking donors questions about HIV risk factors and symptoms.
Other infections tested for: In addition to the tests noted above, all blood for transfusion is tested for syphilis, as well as HTLV-I and HTLV-II, viruses linked to human T-cell leukemia/lymphoma. An investigational test for the West Nile virus is now being used as well.
Other possible infections: Diseases caused by certain bacteria and parasites, such as babesiosis (protozoan type), Chagas disease (another parasitic infection manifesting itself 10 years or so after infection, referred to as the kiss of death), malaria, and Lyme disease can also be spread by blood product transfusions.
|
flythebike
captain
Reged: 08/26/04
Posts: 272
Loc: N. Virginia, USA
|
|
Gary
You're making the highly dubious assumption that athletes value a long life more than athletic success. That just shows you're sane. That is good. But it isn't realistic.
I remember that 'they' polled Olympic athletes and asked them if they could take a pill that would guarentee them an Olympic medal but it would kill them in a year, and like more than half said ok, they'd do it. The number of positive doping tests at the last Olympics would tend to bear that out.
I think blood doping became popular because the authorities developed a test for EPO that everyone knew about. If they searched your room you could get busted with it even if you had a variant that wouldn't be detected with the test.
Blood doping has the 'advantage' of being undetectable save for this new test. No drugs to get caught with while crossing international borders. Just a rig to transfuse and a (team) doctor could provide that.
Remember all the dozen plus Dutch riders who died in the early 90s, probably because they were experimenting with EPO, and didn't know how to modulate it properly? Lots of people are willing to collude with athletes who will aim to win despite the cost.
To be clear, I'm not attempting to comment on Tyler Hamilton's guilt or innocence, rather the win-at-all-costs culture of sport.
This even affects local racing, maybe not so much with drugs, but with attitude. People cut each other off, causing horrible accidents, in races that pay 100 dollars to three places. It is due to a lack of perspective that we place winning above good general health and above all that we elevate winning above good sportsmanship.
|
skuke
captain
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 322
|
|
Quote:
garygromet wrote:
Duke Reviews Transplant Guidelines Feb 2003
By Gillian Bolsover, Staff Writer
<snip>
Several steps are routinely taken to reduce the risk of hepatitis from blood transfusion. Potential donors are asked questions about hepatitis risk factors and symptoms of hepatitis,...
<snip>
Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) <snip> In addition to testing, the risk is reduced by asking donors questions about HIV risk factors and symptoms.
<snip>
Questionaires??? If I were an smack addict and needed some cash for my next fix, I sure in the heck wouldn't admit to the cash cow that I am a needle sharing, drug using, prostitute!
--------------------
Skuke
95 Carbonframes Tetra Pro
92 Bridgestone MB-1
90 Moser 51.151
|
vaxn8r
contributor
Reged: 12/19/03
Posts: 222
|
|
Yes, all those are possible side effects or risks with blood transfusions but in reality none of them are very likely. Just like there are real and dangerous side effects with HGH, testosterone, anabolic steroids and EPO. Most people know the side effects are farely rare and or won't show up for many years.
When you are talking major $$$ contract or not making a team what do you think people choose? Why are 4% of high school girls and 6-8% high school boys on anabolic steroids and or testosterone? This is a true fact and they are only trying for PT and maybe a scholarship offer.
Fame, money and pride make you do stupid stuff.
|
Limace
journeyman
Reged: 03/09/05
Posts: 54
Loc: Oregon
|
|
I haven't been following Tyler's case. Is it correct to infer from the thread that he did get blood transfusions and he is claiming they were for an innocent purpose?
If so, mind boggling if there was no independent medical reason he needed them. It's hard to imagine anything closer to finding him with a smoking gun in his hand if that is the case.
There was a very good and interesting interview with Andy Hampsten in one of the major cycling mags a month or so ago. One of the things he talked about was the years late in his career where his results went down but he believed his power had remained the same. He mentioned a discussion he had with a doctor who graphically displayed for him the effects of age on the oxygen carrying capacity of blood and the additional handicap that created if the younger members of the peloton were already boosting their natural advantage.
Hampsten said he decided he was too close to retirement to screw around with blood doping and would let things take their natural course.
A good friend who is a die hard rower said years ago that the biggest problem with getting old isn't losing muscle power, it is the decline of VO2. Real simple, you don't process and transport as much oxygen with each breath as you do when you are younger.
All the comments about athlete's perspectives on performance and the lack of perspective on having a life after sports ring true. As does the foolishness of having a transfusion if you don't need it. Yes, screening is much better today than it was twenty years ago. No, they don't rely just upon asking donors questions about their habits, they screen the blood itself. Yes, problems are statistically small.
Does that mean you think it's a good idea to spice up your Wednesday nights by playing russian roulette? Do you think it would be a good idea for you kids to be holding the gun?
Bread and circuses. The effect on society and the effect on the performers. Probably wouldn't happen if they all rode Calfees, right?
|
flythebike
captain
Reged: 08/26/04
Posts: 272
Loc: N. Virginia, USA
|
|
Hamilton says he didn't blood dope.
The interpreters of the test say he did.
He says the test has no false positive ratio and no objective standard.
I think he has a point and CAS will overrule the USADA. However, that doesn't prove he either did or didn't dope, just that the test is inadequate.
Only TH knows for sure if he doped.
|
Insightdriver
captain
Reged: 03/07/04
Posts: 472
|
|
Pertaining to VO2 decline, actually current research indicates that those athletes who maintain their fitness level have a very minor decline in V02 uptake. The studies that indicate that V02 capacity decreases with age do not take into account that in the study population the decline correleates with reduction in athletic performance. In other words, often said, and inherant truth: use it or lose it. There is actually good data that indicates that even if you start at age 50, if you eat right and excercise vigorously that you can improve your health and performance to be as good at age 80 as most who are at age 50.
|
skuke
captain
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 322
|
|
Quote:
flythebike wrote:
Hamilton says he didn't blood dope.
The interpreters of the test say he did.
He says the test has no false positive ratio and no objective standard.
Only TH knows for sure if he doped.
I believe red blood cells have a ~90 day life span. It's been well over 200 days since his positive in the Vuelta. I just wonder why he doesn't have his blood tested now and see if there is still an anomalous reading. Two results:
If positive: He has been doping continueously since last September for no apparent reason (since he's been on suspension) other than to prepare for this day (of testing). Or one of the other explanations apply (chimera, "vanishing twin"...)
If negative: He's hosed. Or, somebody did sabotage his Olympic and Vuelta samples.
Or, the test is not that conclusive and too much "interpretation" and "judgement" is required.
But like you said Fly, only TH knows for sure.
--------------------
Skuke
95 Carbonframes Tetra Pro
92 Bridgestone MB-1
90 Moser 51.151
|
flythebike
captain
Reged: 08/26/04
Posts: 272
Loc: N. Virginia, USA
|
|
He has asked them to test him again. He did so when they notifed him of his positive test. They refused.
The main thing about his defense isn't about whether he returned a positive test or not. The point is that a) the test is flawed because there is no false positive ratio or that it is ridiculously high b) it is too subjective and furthermore the testers knew they were testing his sample which is against the rules, and furthermore they were the people who invented the test, so they were biased to prove that their test works. And further furthermore Dick Pound (WADA president as much as pronounced him guilty in the press while the case was under appeal. That is unethical. The whole process was flawed, unfair, and it totally skinks to high heaven. It was a witch hunt, because they suspected him, then they found a subjective criteria where they could declare him guilty. He already got hosed.
I believe that CAS is likely to throw out the case and invalidate the scientific viability of the test, because it was patently unfair. Again, I don't know if he doped or not, but the test isn't reliable, and it isn't right to ruin someone's career over it.
It is a two year ban which is bad enough, but no protour team can hire him for four years from the date of suspension. He'd be 38 and four years out of competition. Imagaine if this happened to a young rider without all his resources. He'd be ruined, with no recourse or resources to fight it.
|
OldBones
new member
Reged: 01/30/04
Posts: 17
Loc: NJ
|
|
Your dead on. This test is unvalidated. If you read the original research publication, it was very sketchy on false positive rates, a fact TH's side tried to raise in the proceedings. The Aussie group has repeatedly stated this technology has been used for decades but that was for a completely different purpose. It's one thing to measure drug or hormone levels in a well understood and validated test and another to use a technology in a novel and unvalidated way. I don't know whether TH is guilty or not but the onous is on WADA and USADA to demonstrate that this is not railroading of justice.
|
vaxn8r
contributor
Reged: 12/19/03
Posts: 222
|
|
"It was a witch hunt, because they suspected him, then they found a subjective criteria where they could declare him guilty. He already got hosed."
Wow. That is a huge, huge reach. Why in the world would WADA have it out for TH before he ever tested positive? The fact is he tested positive. Repeat test was positive. Then another one. The test is not brand new, untested science. They've been using that type of test to check matenal-fetal transfusions for years.
Cheating is rampant in all pro sports and somewhat common all the way down to college and high school level. Cheating technology is far, far ahead of testing technology.
I predict the test will prove valid. The real shame is if he gets off on another technicality.
|
garygromet
friend
Reged: 01/28/04
Posts: 36
Loc: Miami, FL, USA
|
|
TH says that the testers that declared TH positive knew the samples were his.
A prerequisite to the validity of drug test results for persons on Federal parole/probation is that the testers do not know whose blood they are testing. The sample carries a number, no name, it is anonymous.
TH says that the same requirement exists in the sports world.
 Is he lying about this?
|
Insightdriver
captain
Reged: 03/07/04
Posts: 472
|
|
Likely he is lying. Put yourself in his shoes. Admiting guilt is the same as deciding to retire in shame for the rest of your life. Those who think he is innocent are naive. If anyone, Lance Armstrong should be the prime target simply because he is on top of the heap being a record winner of the Tour De France.
Cheating is rampant in professional sports. Reports are even girls in high school now are using steroids for muscle tone. Vanity runs rampant.
I don't know the truth and no one else on this forum knows either. Let us all just watch the news and courts and when the smoke clears accept the outcome.
|
Bruce
contributor
Reged: 12/27/03
Posts: 133
Loc: North of NYC
|
|
It seems to me, that if you wanted to blood dope, you would simply draw your own blood in the off season and add it back in durring the racing season. The test they used would not detect this.
Why mess around with someone elses blood when yours is 100% compatible and undetectable?
|
skuke
captain
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 322
|
|
Quote:
Bruce wrote:
It seems to me, that if you wanted to blood dope, you would simply draw your own blood in the off season and add it back in durring the racing season. The test they used would not detect this.
Why mess around with someone elses blood when yours is 100% compatible and undetectable?
Somebody will correct me if I'm wrong.
You can't freeze red blood cells, the oxygen carrying part of the stuff flowing through your body. If you freeze them, they burst rendering them useless. You can freeze the plasma parts, but that's not of any value as far as oxygen carrying ability is concerned.
--------------------
Skuke
95 Carbonframes Tetra Pro
92 Bridgestone MB-1
90 Moser 51.151
|
flythebike
captain
Reged: 08/26/04
Posts: 272
Loc: N. Virginia, USA
|
|
Quote:
Bruce wrote:
It seems to me, that if you wanted to blood dope, you would simply draw your own blood in the off season and add it back in durring the racing season. The test they used would not detect this.
Why mess around with someone elses blood when yours is 100% compatible and undetectable?
The reason is that you risk getting caught with your own blood in your possession. That would be an infraction. Using someone elses blood, there is less chance of getting caught becuase there is no evidence except what is in the blood.
|
flythebike
captain
Reged: 08/26/04
Posts: 272
Loc: N. Virginia, USA
|
|
Quote:
vaxn8r wrote:
"It was a witch hunt, because they suspected him, then they found a subjective criteria where they could declare him guilty. He already got hosed."
Wow. That is a huge, huge reach. Why in the world would WADA have it out for TH before he ever tested positive? The fact is he tested positive. Repeat test was positive. Then another one. The test is not brand new, untested science. They've been using that type of test to check matenal-fetal transfusions for years.
Cheating is rampant in all pro sports and somewhat common all the way down to college and high school level. Cheating technology is far, far ahead of testing technology.
I predict the test will prove valid. The real shame is if he gets off on another technicality.
If you read the statement on Tyler Hamilton's website, he claims that they had flagged him as suspect because he had returned high hemotocrit readings in May of last year. Therefore they already thought he was cheating, calling into question the neutral stance of WADA as he was tested in this other test. Furthermore, he was tried by Dick Pound, WADA head, in the media last December.
My point is that whether or not he is a cheater, I don't know. But the test wasn't conducted fairly, and there is a problem with the test, because it doesn't have an false positive ratio, and because the test is subjective, not objective in the way it returns a positive. It is like a strike zone, it depends on the umpire, and all the biases that umpire has. And in this case, the umpires knew who they were judging, they designed the test, he had already been called guilty, and they had a bias towards upholding that. They didn't go into it blind and neutral.
How is justice pictured? WITH A BLINDFOLD. The process wasn't fair. Whether Tyler cheated or not is beside the point, unfortunately.
Lastly, just because the test has been used on pregnant women doesn't meen that the data that it can return meet the standards required for doping violations. Furthermore as Hamilton has pointed out, he is neither pregnant, nor female.
Again, I'll be interested to hear the ruling of CAS in a few months. Won't we all!
|
Lon
sage
Reged: 12/20/03
Posts: 595
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
You can use your own blood. As stated though it wouldn't last from the "off season." The problem with doing it while training is it depletes you red blood cells and screws up your training.
|
flythebike
captain
Reged: 08/26/04
Posts: 272
Loc: N. Virginia, USA
|
|
Quote:
Lon wrote:
You can use your own blood. As stated though it wouldn't last from the "off season."
It will last for up to ten years, in fact, according to this article:
http://www.tc.cc.tx.us/~mstorey/beckham.html
The 84 Olympic blood dopers used their own blood, drawn months prior, allowing their normal RBC population to recover, and then added all that other blood too.
Again, nobody wants to get caught red handed in a doping raid or at a border. That is why they use other people's blood, not because of any problem with freezing.
|
vaxn8r
contributor
Reged: 12/19/03
Posts: 222
|
|
Yeah the test has a false positive ratio. It's like one in a zillion.
If there is one hump it's negative. If you got two humps you cheated. Not so hard to figure out.
If your crit is 49.9% you deserve to be scrutinized more closely...forever.
The TH apologists would have the status quo be for rampant doping. Doping technology will always be ahead of the testing. So any new test will always be, well, untested. Right? The problem is this test isn't new, only the application of it's use in testing athletes.
|
flythebike
captain
Reged: 08/26/04
Posts: 272
Loc: N. Virginia, USA
|
|
Quote:
vaxn8r wrote:
Yeah the test has a false positive ratio. It's like one in a zillion.
From what I read it was actually 1%.
Quote:
vaxn8r wrote:
If there is one hump it's negative. If you got two humps you cheated. Not so hard to figure out.
Then why was the first opinion on his olymipic test that it was negative, then later it was ruled positive? Sounds like somebody had a problem figuring out the subjective criteria.
Quote:
vaxn8r wrote:
If your crit is 49.9% you deserve to be scrutinized more closely...forever.
Well, that is a fair point, but it doesen't prove anything. A weak later I think he returned about 39%, and he claims that shows that their test wasn't accurate.
Quote:
vaxn8r wrote:
The TH apologists would have the status quo be for rampant doping. Doping technology will always be ahead of the testing. So any new test will always be, well, untested. Right? The problem is this test isn't new, only the application of it's use in testing athletes.
Your first sentence doesn't describe my position in any way; it is a baseless hyperbolic assertion. You make it sound like I'm some kind of advocate for cheating. That isn't fair. In fact I'm all for fairness in sportsmanship, fairness as regards creating a level playing field by excluding doping and for fairly applied doping tests. As to the newness of the test, that is my point exactly. That is a problem, allright. Taking a test designed for one thing and using it on another thing without working out the problems is reckless.
Clearly my bias as a Tyler Hamilton fan shows. But you have no right to demonize me for that.
|
vaxn8r
contributor
Reged: 12/19/03
Posts: 222
|
|
"From what I read it was actually 1%."
My post was sort of tongue in cheek. but yeah I do get annoyed with the TH apologists. There is no way that test has a false positive of 1%. Are you implying that 1% of the general population is chimeric? Or that the test is just bogus?
The problem I have, is that no matter what test the athletes get caught with, there is always an extenuating circumstance. The test isn't valid, or I was dehydrated, or the test is only for childbearing women and clearly I'm no woman. I still find that excuse laughable. The test was not designed for chidbearing women. It was designed to see if a person has been exposed to someone else's blood. Yes, they use it to detect maternal fetal transfusions. But because that is true, to say it doesn't apply to athletes is IMHO, smokescreening. If TH throws enough smoke out there maybe, there'll be a shadow of a doubt that he really did it. It's OJ all over again.
I wonder why the only two positive results we've seen reported were both Phonak riders? Probably just a coincidence...
I'm sorry if I offend. It isn't you I mean to take it out on. I just have more faith in science than I do any pro athlete.
Peace.
|
flythebike
captain
Reged: 08/26/04
Posts: 272
Loc: N. Virginia, USA
|
|
Fair enough...I totally feel your doubt and skepticism. Very few riders actually admit any wrongdoing when returning a positive test.
I'm trying to express general frustration here...the testing process was messed up, but that may cause a guilty party to 'get away with it.' This situation is bad any way you look at it. The authorities need to hold the procedures to higher standards so that when they declare a positive, it is done so without doubt.
|
Bruce
contributor
Reged: 12/27/03
Posts: 133
Loc: North of NYC
|
|
You have to register, but it is free.
NY Times article on Hamilton
It sounds to me like the test is not accurate enough to be applied like it has been. Hamilton needs to be more aggressive about it. The science behind the test is not 100%. It should have reproducable results and it sounds like it does not.
|
Previous
Thread Index
Next
Threaded
Bummed
Edit
Reply
Quote
Re: Bummed
Re: Bummed