skydive69

Yeah, but he should be able to submit his BEST story for award consideration.

spiderbike

Hahahah

do they have any protections?

Enthalpic

It seems like you guys feel that a doping is a continuous action that only deserves one punishment, regardless of how many times used, number of substances, or events entered.

Is storing a bag of blood and then following that up with a few micro doses of EPO and HGH one crime (doping) or three separate crimes (yes real crimes in most of Europe)? I can kind of understand that being a single doping violation if it was continuous and based around peaking for a single event. However, if the guy has been doping for years and doing all sorts of drugs while entering and winning multiple events, that is not one crime that a two year vacation pays off.

This is not double jeopardy it is multiple accounts of similar crimes.

Namenda

He's close to beating a pretty big one. And no matter where you get your news from (TV, internet, newspaper, word-of-mouth), you'll know all about it as the moment draws near.

Maybe he'll celebrate by having forehead-reduction surgery. Hank Aaron could hit him in the head with an axe.

Bacciagalupe

Well, here's the thing. He got nailed for one adverse finding in one specific stage of the Vuelta (2004), so that counts as one offense, hence the 2 year ban.

El Pais claims that Hamilton had financial dealings with Fuentes in 2002 and 2003, and a full course meal of PED's to boot -- EPO, anabolic steroids, HGH, IGF-1. So if this is a) an accurate report, and b) can be substantiated by the evidence, then this would unquestionably qualify as a second offense and would result in a lifetime ban.

Now in theory, it's possible that if the Vuelta stage and Fuentes records coincided (i.e. if Hamilton had exclusively used Fuentes right before the Vuelta), maybe he could claim double jeopardy. But most doping regimens tend to be season-long, and few PED's kick in that fast. So the idea that someone only doped on one specific stage is possible, but unlikely.

More info:

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...n06/jun26news2

Trevor98

I concede that he was doping prior to his official bust but should he receive further punishment for doping prior to his ban? We are not simply talking about disqualifying him from events we may now know he doped during but rather the governing bodies are threatening to give him a lifetime ban for doping during a time when they have already proven that he was doping.

My greatest dismay at the reinvestigation of this case is that it violates what I know about the initial two year ban. Everything I have read about the matter indicates that a shorter ban is to allow athletes to learn from their mistakes and come back to their sport. Millar is held up as the example of how this works. He admitted to doping (eventually), served his two years, and is now supposedly racing clean. If you take away this option by giving lifetime bans based on new evidence of old doping (rather than new evidence of new doping) then an athlete does not have a true second chance and will always be waiting for the other shoe to drop on them as evidence of prior doping is uncovered.

This further investigation of Hamilton ignores his current doping status in favor of a vindictive retribution for failing to admit his doping. The precedent of this move is striking, for example, if further evidence surfaces about Millar's past doping should he too receive a lifetime ban? No one is credibly alleging that Hamilton is doping again so this suspension is merely about his prior doping.

How is this a second offense. This is merely more proof of the known offense rather than proof of subsequent doping. He would be punished for the same doping twice (otherwise known as double jeopardy). Do you honestly believe that any busted doper only used PEDs the time they got caught?

Somehow I think this effort to punish Hamilton is more about his refusal to admit to doping rather than a real attempt to stop doping. Unfortunately professional cycling reveals itself as extremely petty by behaving this way. I don't like petty.

Enthalpic

I think the two year ban followed by forgiveness is suitable for someone who violates the doping rules due to ignorance or a temporary lack of judgment. By ignorance I mean athletes who accidentally took a banned substance like when Silken Laumann accidentally took the wrong cold medication. I could also understand an athlete having a mental slip during an especially bad period and taking a banned recreational substance, a single course of steroids etc, or even a guy who pops a stimulant one race.

This is not the same as someone who sets up a whole network designed to elude investigators- for years- while employing sophisticated micro-dosing and masking techniques.

The first case it is a guy doing something dumb that he may actually regret in the future all while having a high chance of getting caught. Let’s compare the first case to 2nd degree murder or manslaughter.

The second case is a person who premeditates the crime (1st degree) and will feel little to no guilt when doping because by the 50th time they stick themselves with a perfectly micro-dosed needle they will have been all but desensitized.

The key differences are premeditation and motive.

Bacciagalupe

If he did in fact dope for 3 years in a row (an as yet unproven claim), then yes.


The only time they have proven, so far, was one stage in the Vuelta.

The difference between Hamilton and Millar should be obvious. Millar admitted guilt; Hamilton has steadfastly proclaims his innocence. Millar presumably outlined all the dates (or, at least, the general time frame) that he was using PED's. Hamilton has not. Millar gets lenience for an admission of guilt; Hamilton insists he never used PED's, inclduding in 2002 and 2003, so he is in no position to request lenience.

This is not to say that "Millar is a hero," but simply an indication that there is an advantage to admitting guilt when a) you are, in fact, guilty as charged and b) they have you dead to rights.


That's all nice and stuff, but rules are rules. And there's nothing that I know of in the WADA or UCI codes that explicitly or implicitly states that the rules were designed for this purpose.

If I get arrested, plead not guilty, get sent to jail for 2 years, and the cops find I've committed similar offenses earlier on, chances are pretty good they will open a new case and have an additional trial for the alleged offenses. Nor would a judge regard this as double jeopardy.


*If* they fight the charges, *and* there is more evidence that can be found to definitively prove that they doped 1 or 2 years prior, then I have no sympathy for that rider.


Obviously I do not. See my previous post.

But again, we're talking about him doping in 2002, 2003 and 2004. If the Fuentes evidence only covered the summer of 2004, I'd agree with you and Hamilton may have a double jeopardy argument. But we're not, so he doesn't, thus he isn't making that argument.


Odd, I thought you just didn't like any anti-doping activities in cycling.

I agree the motivation is high to nail Hamilton. And let's face it, they have his fingerprints on the cookie jar, a photo of him reaching into the cookie jar, a video of him eating the cookies, crumb samples on his jersey, and a hearing that says "yes Hamilton stole the cookies from the cookie jar," and he still proclaims his innocence. So there's no indication that he "learned his lesson."

Last but not least, he's getting treated pretty much the same as the other accused riders. Possibly better, since Basso is currently under investigation and Hamilton currently is not.

And what, exactly, has Hamilton done to qualify for any lenience in this matter?

Trevor98

Both Hamilton and Millar were found guilty of doping and served two year bans. This is the standard for any amount of PED doping (recreational drugs and accidental doping are often treated differently) in the first offense. Had all this evidence of doping come to light in 2004 then Hamilton would have served the same two year ban. It is fundamentally wrong to punish him for the same infraction twice- regardless of admission of guilt or discovery of new evidence.

Hamilton was banned for doping. The specific evidence of his doping was for specific samples during a specific event but the ban was for doping in general. He now gets a second chance, that is how the system was created. Denying him the second chance by showing that he really was doping when he got busted is just pathetic.

If the authorities were merely trying to strip Hamilton of his PED tainted wins I would back them 100% but this is vindictive.

Hamilton is now just a symbol of the wrongness of the anti-doping system. He seems to be a past his prime, two years out of competition old guy that has very little hope of obtaining greatness (if his recent performances are analyzed). He may come back from his ban but only for a limited time. His recent treatment reveals a lot about professional cycling's administration and it disappoints me and should raise so moral and ethical questions for everyone involved.

Just to clear up an accusation against me, the statement "I thought you just didn't like any anti-doping activities in cycling." is flat wrong. You may believe it but you are wrong. I dislike doping tremendously but dislike injustice more. The actions of the UCI & co over the past couple of years is disgraceful and far more unacceptable than the doping they are trying to stop.

So I pose this question: What good will come of banning Hamilton for life?

If it is merely a PR move or retribution for his refusal to admit the Truth then fans should be sickened for the system they support.

USAZorro

You'd ban someone for two years for a violation that was clearly accidental, or for something they weren't even aware of? I understand the potential for abuse - "uh, gee. I didn't know that stuff I injected was illegal." but in an instance where that truly was the case, 2 years seems exceptionally harsh. To use your odd analogy, that would be more like involuntary manslaughter. I'd think that for a first offense under those circumstances, a couple months and a hefty fine for the team would be much more fair.

Even though I have no sympathy for someone who would engage in a deliberate regimen of doping, I think the intent of the rule is to give everyone a second chance. They really should put those guys under the microscope and test them from the start of their 2nd year of banning onward. Any confirmed violation from then on should result in the lifetime ban.

Obviously, a lot of this is just my semi-uninformed opinion, but I think most people don't interpret the rules the way you did in your post.

Enthalpic

No, I'm not that harsh; the example was more a sensationalized juxtaposition to what TH did. However, the onus is still on the athlete to ensure they are not consuming anything restricted. Ignorance is not a legal defence, even if sometimes it seems morally justified. Now when it comes to sentencing it can/should play a huge role.

USAZorro

ok - then it sounds like we have relatively similar perspectives - even though we expressed them quite differently initially.

VT Biker

Maybe I do not understand the overall punishment Tyler incurred when he received the 2-year ban. But I feel that once banned, and once he comes back, he has a clean slate up the point the ban ended.

A similar situation would be a bank robber, who is caught after the fact, and is persecuted based on eye witness reports. He goes to prison for 4 years. He comes out, an ex-con, and allowed to re-start his life. 6-months after the release, video from the robbery comes out, proving he really was at the bank. You guys want to re-convict him again.

Enthalpic

Agreed up to a point. There should be a second chance, but not a clean slate.

Well of course not; but if he did 5 other bank robberies and a **** he would certainly stand trial, no?

Trevor98

Ok, different hypothetical crime than the separate incidents of bank robbery. A guy is convicted of embezzling $5 million and is tried, convicted and serves a sentence in jail. He is also ordered to repay the money. After his release new evidence surfaces that it was actually $10 million. Merely trying to recoup the money is different than retrying him to send him to jail again for a longer time because the official knowledge of the crime was originally lacking in the first place.

The analogy is close to Hamilton, he hasn't (as far as we know) committed a new offense, but rather we have discovered how much worse his original offense was. Recoup the damages from the more extensive crime (strip his tainted wins) but issue a new ban only for new offenses.

By the way, unintentional or recreational violations often recieve with much shorter sanction than the two year ban. For example, Ullrich received a 6 month ban for amphetamine use.

Grasschopper

Yea but what about other sports? Rafeal Palmero had the balls to get up in front of Congress and under oath say he had never taken steroids...and then fail a test about a month later. There has to be some bonus for pure balls.

Bacciagalupe

Uh, sorta "not."

Tyler was nailed in 2004 for one specific violation of the rules: doping in one stage in the Vuelta.

1) At that time, there was no proof of any other violations (even though it is reasonable to assume that was the case).
2) He was not stripped of any of his previous wins or titles.
3) He was not punished on the basis of "doping for 3 years prior to the Vuelta stage." If he was, chances are that would have been treated as multiple violations, thus possibly an instant lifetime ban.

The OP evidence, if and only if the reports are correct and the evidence is valid, is that Tyler was using Fuentes' services in 2002 and 2003. So we are talking about two years earlier than the 2004 action. That is one heck of a stretch for a "single violation."

If he only used Fuentes in the summer of 2004, I think you'd have a valid argument. But if and only if the OP allegations turn out to be true and supported by evidence: he didn't, so you don't.


This is not analagous to Hamilton's situation.

The proper equivalent would be: Joe is arrested for robbing a house in August, 2004. He pleads not guilty, is convicted, maintains his innocence and does not express remorse (as is his right), is sentenced to and serves 2 years in jail. 6 months after Joe's release, an unrelated investigation turns up evidence that Joe robbed multiple homes in 2002 and 2003. Should the prosecutor let these earlier episodes slide? Or hope that Joe "learned his lesson?"

What would happen, by the way, if they "just" revoked his past wins? Would he have to repay the prize money? Would there be a dozen retroactive ceremonies? What kind of amounts are we talking about here? Do you believe Hamilton, or his supporters (are there any left?) would accept a six-figure fine and no ban...?

Trevor98

If all the doping Hamilton did was revealed at the time of his hearing then his ban would have still been the same two years. It doesn't really matter how much doping he did to earn his first ban the fact of the matter is that the first offense would be the same two year ban and a second (numerically subsequent to the first) doping charge would merit the lifetime ban. The imperfect knowledge of his doping is not justification for increasing his original punishment.

The bank analogy is wrong because you take each doping injection as a separate infraction of the doping rules that should each be punished rather than treating the individual injections (or whatever) as a part of systematic doping which needs to be stopped. He was not punished for the individual acts of doping but rather he was punished for doping as shown by the specific failed test(s).

If it can be shown that Hamilton's specific wins were ill gotten then he is responsible for the repayment of those winnings. Regardless of the UCI decisions on him stemming from OP I would guess that those harmed by his alleged doping (those athletes that received lesser (or no) prize money as a result of his doping) may attempt to recoup their losses in civil courts.

As for the fan acceptance of such a financial loss without a ban, you can't make everyone happy. Plenty of Hamilton fans refuse to accept the original case against him and will be disappointed regardless of the outcome of this case- unless he is totally acquitted. Should the USADA, USAC, WADA, UCI, etc strive for universal approval? Regardless of the outcome of doping cases some fans will be unhappy.

DocRay

No one blood dopes once.
Regardless, his career is essentially over anyway.

Trevor98

Hasn't it been essentially over since 2004?

garysol1 

sucks to be them link ...Looks official now. Tyler Hamilton and Jörg Jaksche will not race the 2007 Giro d'Italia and have been suspended indefinitely

dmotoguy

ha, anyone want to guess his next career?

Flynko

For a double jeoparty defense to work would Hamilton have to finally 'fess up about his origional doping? I think it would be worth opening the investigation just for the possibility that he would.

Then I could finally put my Tyler Hamilton Foundation jersey in the crapper.

Dubbayoo

how stupid does TH look for spending all that money on his defense now? His retirement nest egg is gone. I predict we'll see Tyler Hamilton cycling tours......and this is the stage where I maxed my dose and showed everyone a clean pair of heels.

jqnj

Salesman, specifically selling sand to the Arabs. Although at least a year away with plenty of statements from TH, master spin doctor, I think once the OP evidence has been digested, TH will be shown to have been a fraud. I wonder what his management fee was for handling the sucker funded legal defense? How can any elite cyclist be trusted to speak the truth nowadays about self doping ?