Ok it appears it isn't new but it is new in the news. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2005/hamilton_appeal

Still a large number of supporters?

Ok it appears it isn't new but it is new in the news. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2005/hamilton_appeal

Still a large number of supporters?
Man I read that whole thing and it is to say the least, complicated. It will be interesting to see what the "final results are" after the last part of the hearing is done in Jan. Guess I will also read part two when it comes out.

very interesting article, also pretty damning if you ask me.
I like Tyler, always thought he was one of cyclings good guys,
however this makes me wonder if his squeaky clean isn't
so clean. . .
personally I don't think he has a snowballs chance in hell.

marty

A rather poorly written article. The following was not only in the text but also repeated in one of the boxes of large print excerpts:

"The off-score of 132.9 registered by Hamilton in April 2004 represented one which had a greater than 1 in 10,000 probability that it was a chance finding."

It should read a LESS than 1 in 10,000 probability if it is to have any usseful meaning. A greater than probability means it is more likely than 1 in 10,000.

If an error like this is included not once, but twice, one has to wonder just how accurate the article is in other areas.

His two years will be over before this thing is clear to everyone. It sounds like fromthe artical that he became a dopping suspect target early in the season. If he was dopping then he was just stupide to continue to push the edge of detection.

very interesting article, also pretty damning if you ask me.
I like Tyler, always thought he was one of cyclings good guys,
however this makes me wonder if his squeaky clean isn't
so clean. . .
personally I don't think he has a snowballs chance in hell.

marty

Yeah I agree with you 100%, after the 60 minutes piece and my inner hope that he didn't dope, I was thinking he'd be found innocent. After reading this and the fact that he'd been bumping the limit for some time I'm now thinking he's done.

Yeah I agree with you 100%, after the 60 minutes piece and my inner hope that he didn't dope, I was thinking he'd be found innocent. After reading this and the fact that he'd been bumping the limit for some time I'm now thinking he's done.

I agree. Hopefully he returns as Richard Virenque did and still have a successful continuation of his career. But I think he's wasting his time fighting it. It only continues to erode his reputation which was beneficial for marketing and charity work.

the fact that sealed my decision on Hamilton is that his teamate was caught doing the exact same thing and he admitted it, but will not comment on TH's doping. At the time, they thought there was no reliable test. Hamilton doped his red blood cells with another person's blood-this is insanely dangerous.

the fact that sealed my decision on Hamilton is that his teamate was caught doing the exact same thing and he admitted it, but will not comment on TH's doping. At the time, they thought there was no reliable test. Hamilton doped his red blood cells with another person's blood-this is insanely dangerous.
Not that I doubt you but wonder if you could point me to a source on Perez's confession. I seem to have completely missed that and I could not find it despite an extensive google search and a search of this forum.

A rather poorly written article. The following was not only in the text but also repeated in one of the boxes of large print excerpts:

"The off-score of 132.9 registered by Hamilton in April 2004 represented one which had a greater than 1 in 10,000 probability that it was a chance finding."

It should read a LESS than 1 in 10,000 probability if it is to have any usseful meaning. A greater than probability means it is more likely than 1 in 10,000.

If an error like this is included not once, but twice, one has to wonder just how accurate the article is in other areas.Read it again. It basically says that it's NOT a chance finding, more likely than 1 in 10,000.

Part II of the article is up. More bad news for TH.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/nov05/nov23news

Ok it appears it isn't new but it is new in the news. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=features/2005/hamilton_appeal

Still a large number of supporters?

I'll support him because I think he's a nice guy and I think it's important that people exercise their rights to due process. But as far as actually believing his claims...eh

Not that I doubt you but wonder if you could point me to a source on Perez's confession. I seem to have completely missed that and I could not find it despite an extensive google search and a search of this forum.

He never contested the charge. He cheated, got caught, and took it like a man.

Hamilton cheated, got caught, and hired a lawyer and made himself a victim on that stupid blog -classic lying defence.

Hamilton had some heavy scientific supporters at MIT that have since dropped the cause.

Hamilton cheated, got caught, and hired a lawyer and made himself a victim on that stupid blog -classic lying defence.

It's always odd - human nature.
We can "reason" ourselves to do anything - not to put anything in the same magnitude, but -
I can reason myself to buy a Colnago C-50 for 7000 CAD for 'heritage' & '__insert reason__'

So - I can see one guy 'reasoning' to dope because he won't get caught & wants to win
Others decide to jump the wagon - some get caught, some don't...
Ultimately, it was 'reason' that brought them to this decision and situation...
My point being is that objective decisions can rarely be made by emotional machines.
Ie. Doping to us is a rule that can't be broken, doping to pros is 'Find Loopholes'. Why? We've never been in their shoes....
It's something we'll have to pull out of a Lance Armstrong @ age 75 - autobio titled - "It's not about the bike, It's about the drugs..."

Who can say that they wouldn't dope to stay pro? If your career - esp. in North American limelight - was hanging on the balance? I'm sure we'd all be tempted...

I like Hamilton's balls up - I doped.
But the victim thing? - I concur, typical... point the finger @ some external mechanism...

-Peter

Impressed as I was by Hamilton's courage in the 'tooth-grinding' Tour and his victory at Liege...............

none of the monster threads on this topic would have happened if he'd been a Latvian.

After all this time, can cycling fans really express surprise or disappointment when we are told that another of our heroes has been accused of doping? It's woven into the history of our sport, from it's very beginning.

Impressed as I was by Hamilton's courage in the 'tooth-grinding' Tour and his victory at Liege...............

none of the monster threads on this topic would have happened if he'd been a Latvian.

After all this time, can cycling fans really express surprise or disappointment when we are told that another of our heroes has been accused of doping? It's woven into the history of our sport, from it's very beginning.
I agree. In fact, it may have been woven into all sports from the very beginning. Be interesting to see what happens at the January conclusion of the hearing.

FYI - Tyler's appeal is set to resume Tomorrow. I don't know much about the evidence against him, but even in the unlikely event the original ruling is overturned, is his career over anyway? I mean he's already 34 years old and he's highly tainted no matter what the courts say. Would a victory for tyler be anything more than way to help restore his damaged name?

Hamilton faces CAS again

Tyler Hamilton will have his second and final hearing in front of the Court of Arbitration for Sport on Tuesday, January 10 in Denver, Colorado. The American is attempting to overturn his two year ban for blood doping, after he tested positive for the offence during the Vuelta a España in September, 2004.

Hamilton was given the ban on April 18, 2005, then appealed it to CAS in June. His first hearing was on September 8, 2005, almost a year after the positive test. It's expected that the final decision of CAS will be handed down several weeks from now.

Talk about dragging on...sheesh.

Talk about dragging on...sheesh.
And its not even really over. CAS may take,"weeks" to reach a final decision.

I figure the team was doping them and accidentally switched their evening cocktails, giving both a failed test.

I figure the team was doping them and accidentally switched their evening cocktails, giving both a failed test.

Couldn't have happened. Their blood types were not compatible and they both would have gotten very ill.

I figure the team was doping them and accidentally switched their evening cocktails, giving both a failed test.

Goodness...one does read some interesting things out here....ever take a biology class? Know what happens when you mix incompatible blood types??

And its not even really over. CAS may take,"weeks" to reach a final decision.



Urggggggggg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



He just very well make 4 years before he gets this cleared up, heck if Eki can ride in his late 30s, why not Tyler!

http://cheapestbmw.com/welcome_

Check it out... Matt Decanio's view of cycling in the Pro ranks isn't soo peachy, and drug-free.

Matt makes some interesting points however he would be better served
if he toned it down a bit (not his points his web site).
Firedude?
2 minutes on his web site has me thinking about black helicopters and
assination theories. BTW I belive that the greys taught us about epo.

marty

Couldn't have happened. Their blood types were not compatible and they both would have gotten very ill.

Any two people with the same ABO/MN blood type can transfuse to another. It happens every day in a hospital with donor blood. What is dangerous is using unchecked blood to pass viruses.
Perez did not confess to blood doping, his just accepted his suspension without contesting. He and Hamilton were both caught doing the same thing -no vanishing twin for Perez.

Hamilton was caught and convicted, he was not "targeted", he was one of several riders tested for blood doping. His blog is just ridiculous rantings of someone trying to weasel out of a mistake.

I'm getting irritated by threads that confirm a European rider as a doper, but always question the validity of tests of American riders caught doping.

I'm getting irritated by threads that confirm a European rider as a doper, but always question the validity of tests of American riders caught doping.

I hope you don't think that was my intent with this thread...I think the dude was cheating and got busted...I would however like to know how his court case turns out and am interested in the science that is being used to find the dopers.

I'm getting irritated by threads that confirm a European rider as a doper, but always question the validity of tests of American riders caught doping.

Dude you are irrated by anything that is pro U.S. Your hatred for this country is only exceeded by EURO's. BTW I think Tyler is guilty. I think Lance is guilty. I think that 90% of the pro peleton is on some type of non-allowed substance. But the key phrase here is "I think". I don't know for sure and that is true for everyone on this board.

Perez did not confess to blood doping, his just accepted his suspension without contesting. He and Hamilton were both caught doing the same thing -no vanishing twin for Perez.


Incorrect. Perez is in fact contesting his suspension and positive test, and denied doping.

"Pérez gave blood samples voluntarily during an out-of-competition test during a visit to the UCI headquarters in Switzerland in early October. Efforts by Pérez to have the blood samples thrown out were rejected by a civil court last month.

Like Hamilton, Pérez has vehemently denied he was blood doping and promised to appeal the ruling to a national sport disciplinary committee. If the sanction is confirmed, Pérez could then appeal to the international Court of Arbitration for Sport. "

Perez didn't protest because his case got railroaded through. He is not as vinokurtov says
above taking it like a man.

Dude you are irrated by anything that is pro U.S. Your hatred for this country is only exceeded by EURO's.

I didn't even read his posts, but being irritated by bias isn't the same thing as being biased.

BTW I think Tyler is guilty. I think Lance is guilty. I think that 90% of the pro peleton is on some type of non-allowed substance. But the key phrase here is "I think". I don't know for sure and that is true for everyone on this board.

There is a lot of information out there.
The question becomes, what is proof? I guess it could be said about most things that people believe, that they don't know for sure. But percentage can vary from nearly 0% certainty to nearly 100% certainty.

I didn't even read his posts, but being irritated by bias isn't the same thing as being biased.

Agreed but you have to read the full body of his work to understand.

As for the blood types not matching, in this months CycleSport the interview with Tyler states that if they had mixed up their doses they both would have gotten very sick. Tyler states that they have a blood incompatibility issue.

He also states that the reason Perez isn't fighting his suspension as hard as Tyler is because he doesn't have the financial means to do so.

Hamilton, like all famous pro atheletes caught committing crimes and cheating to win races, will deny he ever cheated until his dying day. He will be the "Pete Rose" of American cycling. And, the "my hero can't do wrong" bunch will support Hamilton forever.

And, that is why the those Pro cyclists who ride "clean" are at a serious disadvantage...the majority of fans will always support the cheaters, as long as the cheaters are "winners".

well said Alan

Maybe I see thing through rose colored glasses, but I still think that he got screwed by a witch hunt.

Maybe I see thing through rose colored glasses, but I still think that he got screwed by a witch hunt.

The biggest problem with the dope tests employed by the UCI (the one Hamilton was 'nailed' with included) is that there seems to be considerable disagreement among very reputable 'experts' that the tests are valid or verifiable beyond a reasonable doubt. This includes the EPO test methodology (to a lesser degree than Hamilton's test). In fact the UCI removes a rider whose hemocrit levels are too high 'for his own safety' - a euphemism for 'we sort of think we nailed you but we're not 100% certain'. Which is one helluva way to destroy a pro athlete's career in my opinion. In their defense, they're between a rock and a hard place - trying to keep the playing field level and the sport clean and trying to be fair to competitors.

The UCI did show the right approach by condemning the tabloid media doping allegations of L'Equipe. If riders think they might be 'hunted down' in such a questionable and unverifiable way 5+ years after the fact, who the hell will submit to dope testing? It throws the whole system into a tailspin, and that is a bigger and separate issue whether Lance was doping or not.

Was Lance doping in 1999? I don't know. Does anyone but Lance? Of course not. And that's where it lies. Which falls in to the 'innocent until proven guilty' dept. And it's really unproveable in any way that any court system would ever accept. In which case it's allegation/inuenndo/aspersions pure and simple. Case closed. Get over it. To pursue it further only damages the image of pro cycling - to no end but to sell newspapers for those jerkoffs @ L'Equipe. That ******* TDF director should be keel hauled for making those anti-Lance comments. What a massive jerk. Don't get me started.

Did anyone catch HBO's "Real Sports" show last year on this very subject?

http://www.hbo.com/realsports/stories/2005/episode.100.s1.html

This show made a very compelling case for Tyler's innocence. They brought up several points; however the fact that I remember best was when the show interviewed the doctor who came up with the blood doping test that ultimately busted Tyler. This doctor stated that the test threshold that Tyler came in at was below the number he came up with for a positive test. The doctor was quite angered that the UCI had changed the threshold limit. Under the guidelines of the doctor (who created the test), Tyler would not have tested positive.

Did anyone else see this show????????????