Big (bad) News in the Pro Peloton

[RockyMtnMerlin]

I know a few of you follow at least the big Pro Tour races. There have been big developments in the doping scandal from Spain called "Operation Puerto." :mad: Big name racers including Ivan Basso and Tyler Hamiliton are in big trouble. There are several big threads in the Road Cycling and Road Bike Racing forums that you might want to check out. Did I say this was big?

[cyclezen]

yeah, followin it loosely, also
thing I can;t understand - maybe cause I haven't been reading ALL thats out on it - is, Tyler Hamilton again in the mix?
He's been 'away' for at least 2 yrs now, how'd he get caught up in this one?

or is he just there 'on account'?

[skinny]

I never give these things a second thought when I'm participating in cycling events.

[BSLeVan]

yeah, followin it loosely, also
thing I can;t understand - maybe cause I haven't been reading ALL thats out on it - is, Tyler Hamilton again in the mix?
He's been 'away' for at least 2 yrs now, how'd he get caught up in this one?

or is he just there 'on account'?


He had contact with the dreaded Dr. Eufemiano Fuentes.

Editorial up next: We in the U.S. sometimes lose sight of how precious the innocent until proven guilty rule of law is.

[skinny]

Isn't a positive test proof of guilt?

[BSLeVan]

Isn't a positive test proof of guilt?

Only if the test procedures and handling from start to finish can be challenged in a public, open and un-baised way... AND that innocence is presumed until such a time as the one accused can face his accusers. The presumption of guilt based on a test is faulty. The burden of proof that the test is, in fact, fair accurate and reliable should rest with those who perform the test or offer it as proof.

[skinny]

Only if the test procedures and handling from start to finish can be challenged in a public, open and un-baised way... AND that innocence is presumed until such a time as the one accused can face his accusers. The presumption of guilt based on a test is faulty. The burden of proof that the test is, in fact, fair accurate and reliable should rest with those who perform the test or offer it as proof.Here you make a subtle yet discernible shift away from "proof of guilt", to "proof that the "proof of guilt" is valid", which is what Landis is doing. This is of course what drunk drivers often fall back on in court.

Of course your post also begs other questions: Why are perpetrators of a crime arrested and incarcerated if they are presumed innocent? Doesn't a perpetrator face his accuser at the time of arrest?

[SaiKaiTai]

Here you make a subtle yet discernible shift away from "proof of guilt", to "proof that the "proof of guilt" is valid", which is what Landis is doing. This is of course what drunk drivers often fall back on in court.

Of course your post also begs other questions: Why are perpetrators of a crime arrested and incarcerated if they are presumed innocent? Doesn't a perpetrator face his accuser at the time of arrest?

Invalid proof is not proof. I think it's a fair question

[skinny]

Invalid proof is not proof. I think it's a fair questionI think it's a necessary question that should be answered before the test is accepted as a measure of proof of guilt. Of course continued proof of a tests validity is also necessary.

But, this tangent still doesn't address the question, "If an accepted measure of proof, say a breath analyser or a urine test, is positive, isn't it proof of guilt?".

[BluesDawg]

The fact that guilty people sometimes look for loopholes does not erase the fact that innocent people sometimes get accused. The burden of proof should be on the accuser.

[BluesDawg]

On the other hand, when I saw Tyler Hamilton at the Tour de Georgia last month, I was a little excited about seeing a rider I had once admired so much. But when his name was announced at the start I heard myself saying "dopers suck".

As individuals, we don't have the same burden of fairness as a court or governing body. It has not been proven to me that Tyler doped, but in my heart, I believe he did.

[skinny]

It has not been proven to me that Tyler doped...So you don't believe that his positive tests where valid evidence, proof that he doped?

[Bud Bent]

There weren't even any tests involved in this one. All those riders were dq'd before last year's TDF without any tests.

So many people argue for zero tolerance for doping in all our major sports, but this is the kind of bs you have if you attempt that, especially with organizations as flaky as the ones involved here.

[BluesDawg]

So you don't believe that his positive tests where valid evidence, proof that he doped?

Evidence, yes. Proof, no.

[skinny]

Evidence, yes. Proof, no.What would constitute proof to you?

[BluesDawg]

There weren't even any tests involved in this one. All those riders were dq'd before last year's TDF without any tests.

In Operation Puerto, that is correct. But Tyler has been tested and found positive for doping in the Olympics and the Vuelta (or was it the Giro? I forget). The Olympics test was not conclusive because the B sample had been frozen before it could be tested. The other was validated by the B sample.

[BluesDawg]

What would constitute proof to you?

I don't know and I don't owe you an answer. You decide for yourself. I'll decide for me.

I don't like cheaters, but I also don't trust authorities, especially in matters of drug testing.

[skinny]

I don't know and I don't owe you an answer.You certainly do not. Cheers.:beer:

[BSLeVan]

Of course your post also begs other questions: Why are perpetrators of a crime arrested and incarcerated if they are presumed innocent? Doesn't a perpetrator face his accuser at the time of arrest?


Perhaps I was not as careful in my choice of words as I could have been. I'll give it another shot. Facing the accuser means that you have the opportunity to refute and "evidence" that the accuser brings forth (such as the results of a test). It is, with my limited understanding of these matters, one of the things that keep people from having false evidence used as proof. While it is sloppy logic to use singular examples to make and argument, I think it can make a point within the argument. Hence, imagine a police officer who finds that his wife has had an affair with his neighbor. As such, he now wants to damage this individual. Is it not possible that he could offer false evidence as a way to damage him? Of course he could, and being human, he might. This is one of the reasons we have the burden of proof placed on those making the charges. Even an individual who is arrested must have his case come before a judge to determine if the evidence is sufficient to continue incarceration. While one can argue that this allows people who have actully commited a crime to roam free, it also protects those who have false evidence brought against them from being unjustly incarcerated. With that said, the basic point I was making in my original post is that mere association with, or the introduction of evidence without challenge, is something that is punishable in many places outside of the U.S. My point was not about the guilt or innocence of the riders in question, it was that I believe we are fortunate to have a rule of law that goes to great length to protect the innocent.

[skinny]

With that said, the basic point I was making...is that mere association with, or the introduction of evidence without challenge, is something that is punishable in many places outside of the U.S.But, in the context of this thread, do you think this is the case with Tyler and Floyd? Haven't both been given the opportunity to challenge the evidence presented in their specific cases?

[BSLeVan]

But, in the context of this thread, do you think this is the case with Tyler and Floyd? Haven't both been given the opportunity to challenge the evidence presented in their specific cases?


I don't really know. My inclination is to believe that Tyler has had full opportunity, but I have no facts on which to base this inclination. In Floyd's case, I think he is in the process of trying to do that. The most recent indication that Floyd is not getting an honest, open, and fair deal is that one of the arbitrators in the case was not consulted by the other arbitrators before a ruling was made concerning the case. This is so against the code of ethics for arbitrators in the U.S. that one must wonder what's going on. http://www.abanet.org/dispute/commercial_disputes.pdf

[RockyMtnMerlin]

yeah, followin it loosely, also
thing I can;t understand - maybe cause I haven't been reading ALL thats out on it - is, Tyler Hamilton again in the mix?
He's been 'away' for at least 2 yrs now, how'd he get caught up in this one?

or is he just there 'on account'?
Really long story. Short answer, it appears that he may have been involved with Dr Fuentes for different performance enhancing drugs/additional blood doping and at different times from those for which he suffered the two year ban. SOME argue that if those things are true, it would constitute a second offense and a result in a life time ban. His current sponsor (Tinkoff Credit) has suspended him for the time being and he will not ride in the Giro. That race was his major goal for the year (although his results to date for the year would indicate that he would probably not have done very well).

[The Weak Link]

You guys, settle down and look at the bright side. If enough people get banned from racing because of this, there is some chance you and I might get to participate in the TdF. Heck, one of us might be able to win the dumb thing if you stay clean. I'd say I have a shot at it if Starbucks and Advil don't get on the list of banned substances.

[BSLeVan]

You guys, settle down and look at the bright side. If enough people get banned from racing because of this, there is some chance you and I might get to participate in the TdF. Heck, one of us might be able to win the dumb thing if you stay clean. I'd say I have a shot at it if Starbucks and Advil don't get on the list of banned substances.


I know I wouldn't pass the drug tests.

[asgelle]

I'd say I have a shot at it if Starbucks and Advil don't get on the list of banned substances.
What makes you think they're not (or don't contain trace amounts of things that are)?

[Tom Bombadil]

The international committees have made some questionable rulings on drug tests. Consider the case of Andrea Raducan, who won the gold medal as the best all-around gymnast at the 2000 Olympics. The night before the competition, she was suffering from a cold & fever. Her official team doctor gave her an OTC cold medication, which contained pseudophedrine. After winning the gold, she tested positive and was stripped of her medal. This despite that there was no performance advantage from taking that level of pseudophed.

One of her teammates had taken the same medication and they found the same drugs in her system. But as she weighed a few pounds more, her levels were below the allowed limit, so she was allowed to keep her medal.

I saw a list of OTC meds that could cause positive results in a drug test and it included: Ibuprofen, Vicks 44 cough syrup, a variety of nasal sprays, Midol, and Sudaphed. And then there is a much larger list of perscription drugs that will do the same:
http://www.norchemlab.com/drugreferences/dt_pharmpos.html

[Bud Bent]

In Operation Puerto, that is correct. But Tyler has been tested and found positive for doping in the Olympics and the Vuelta (or was it the Giro? I forget). The Olympics test was not conclusive because the B sample had been frozen before it could be tested. The other was validated by the B sample.

We were actually talking about Operation Puerto when the thread started, so I, way out in left field, I know, was still talking about that.