lotek 

Just read this at VeloNews:

https://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7242.0.html

While I'm not going to argue tyler's innocence or quilt I will say
he brings up some very interesting and disturbing points.
He totally brings into question the Olympics test and
results and new info on the freezing of the B sample

Marty

Grasschopper

Can anyone other than Tyler prove what he has said about the Athens test? To me it sounds like that test was boarderline but passed but then reviewed and the "pannel of experts" decided he had in fact doped. Without the evidance who is to say what happened? That said he doesn't really say why he failed 2 tests in Spain other than make the excuse that the test may be flawed in his opinion. Add to that that other members of his team have failed this same test and I just have a hard time siding with Tyler on this one.

IMO he is tarnished no matter what the outcome. Even if he and his lawyers find a way to bring the test results into question enough that they are thrown out the fact is that he tested positive at least 2X and close enough on a 3rd occasion that it had to be reviewed and then determined he doped from that test too.

Smoothie104

3 for 3, with a teamate who was 2 for 2, and a team doctor who just "retired"......

don d.

For someone who seems so fixated on presuming guilt on the drug issue, you should keep your facts straight. Tyler has only tested positive on 2 out of 4 samples. His initial test was ruled NEGATIVE by the lab director in Athens. It was later changed to positive when DICK POUND GOT INVOLVED.

The Phonak team doctor retiring was obviously a move to placate the UCI in an effort to secure a Pro Tour position. It was not unexpected, and I wouldn't be surprised if the team manager also retired. The doctor may quite possibly be a real victim of the rider's drug use. This kind of move would only be interpreted as evidence of Tyler's guilt by someone who presumes guilt.

I also cannot understand why the IOC and UCI cannot provide more info to the athletes other than a "finding" of positive or negative. They are starting to appear as the ones who have something to hide to me.

You really need to start looking for an objective point of view in life, Smoothie 10-4(the truckers should love that handle ).

VintageSteve

Remaining neutral one would tend to side with the cautious approach of the IOC and Spanish testing authorities.

His statement sounds like he's reverse-engineering his defense. He is resorting to character attacks (and using such for his defense) rather than the rules already accepted by sports' governing bodies and in place.

Besides the assumptions and suddenly seeing things as not black and white (they are gray so I can find a way out), his words may actually work against him.

I like what the late Indian Larry said, "Don't lie, it makes it easier to remember what you said."

don d.

Who's character has Tyler attacked? I thought his character was the one which has been attacked.


Please direct me to a statement that Tyler has made that you know to be a lie. When you insinuate that someone is a liar, you certainly aren't remaining neutral.

Phatman

damn. I really want tyler to be innocent. but then again, he seems to show the signs of a doper, most notably the fact that he went from a nobody to somebody really quickly. I mean, face it, what did tyler do except be a domestique unitl 2003? maybe I just wasn't paying attention, but it seems like he suddenly improved very quickly (nobody in 2002, tour contender (sort of) in 2004?)

but nonetheless, I admire his goofiness (interviews with sunglasses on, taking off perscription sunglasses on climbs, then squinting like crazy at the top, his boniness, his crashes...etc.) makes him seem more like a real person. so I'm hoping he's innocent.

VintageSteve

Since you asked:
First the lies...The statement wherein he states the (sic) "test results" from Spain are one of only three possibilities.

The statement "Doesn't that sound odd?" To whom?

And the statement "...livelihood can be eliminated with an inaccurate test." (italics mine).

As to attacking character, he is saying his character is being attacked, and he is then attacking others character.

He is playing on emotion more than fact as a defense. It's like a cop that takes a vow and then is tested positive for drug usage. The rules are accepted by the participant, you can't say the rules are a personal attack or aren't fair, especially when you are caught going against them.

don d.

How do you know this is a lie? Do you know what the other two possibilities are that he is referring to? Please post them if you do. Do you know in fact that there are not two other possibilities that the test results could be? If you do, then could you please explain to us why there could not be two other possibilities.

If you cannot, you're insinuation that he is a liar is groundless on this charge.


To me! And how can the words, "Doesn't that sound odd?" be read as a lie? That is a query, an interogative.


Livelihood CAN be eliminated with an innacurate test. This is not a lie. This is a statement of fact.


Let me see if I have this straight...you are saying that because Tyler is saying his character has been attacked, that is an attack by him on anothers character?

Any accusation made against an individual is an attack on that individuals character. It is for this reason that accusations must be made only with cause and they must be provable in a court of law. Tyler is calling the accusations what they are, and he is forcing the accusers to prove the validity of their accusations. He is not attacking anyone's character by calling something what it is.

Your statements have a similar ring to Smoothie 10-4's staements in his thread, "Look what Tyler started..." where 10-4 implied that because Tyler was defending himself, that was evidence of his guilt.

People are entitled to a defense, no matter what rules they agree to before hand. Have you ever heard of a social contract? If one breaks that contract, that doesn't mean one isn't entitled to a vigorous defense, unless of course one is a fascist or lives in a fascist state.

bac

That's just silly. The statement of "doesn't that sound odd" is a lie? You may be reaching a bit, eh?

VintageSteve

The results are already in. The tests have been done. It is Tyler that is saying they are false. Therefore it is up to him to prove his innocence if he thinks he is. But the facts show he is not. Therefore in his statement, it appeared to me, he was appealing to emotion more than fact; after all, he doesn't have any new facts to prove his innocence.

And don d, people can argue semantics but I won't.

hockey

What about the DNA test? Shouldn't an accused athlete at least have the opportunity to question the validity of the original tests?
Hockey

motomickey

the tests indicate-they are not cut in stone....It isn't like they have a video of him doing it or something. Anytime it has to be reviewed and initial findings are chnged shows that there is no clear cut intrepretation of the results. Innocent until proven guilty.

don d.

Don't you mean he hasn't come out in the Velonews article with any new facts to prove his innocence? You don't know what he has.


It's always best not to argue something when you have no basis to support your view.

don d.

Well said.

VintageSteve

Actually he is guilty. He failed the tests. He therefore has to prove the results are not valid somehow. The burden of proof lies with him.

And DNA testing is not part of the responsibility or procedure of the IOC or UCI, therefore I don't blame them for not doing it.

Trying to throw responsibility onto someone else is irresponsible.

GingerPrince

Surely it would be to their own benefit if they did perform the DNA testing requested, if that is possible? Is this not an issue where the IOC/UCI would want to make absolutely sure that everything that they were doing with regards to testing was as transparent as possible so that there would be fewer loopholes for an accused cyclist to attack? Would it not benefit them to now publically address all of Tyler's points?


I'm not sure if this is a witty remark or a serious statement. If it was a serious statement, then surely the counter-argument would be that the responsibility to prove whether the tests were correct was thrown on Tyler, and therefore the testers were originally irresponsible?

VintageSteve

The testing was accepted by all governing bodies of all sports involved, not just cycling, which happens to be just one of many sports in the Olympic Games. All the athletes therein agreed to the rules of the games, the rules of each sport, and any questions (or procedures for appeal like DNA testing) would have been addressed before implementing the testing and through proper channels.

He knows they won't do DNA, so it is one thing he is using against them. That was my point of where responsibility lies.

Otherwise, it is Tyler's responsibility to show the results are wrong. And he can only do that with facts, not emotional appeal, which is what I feel he's based his latest statement on. (That and conjucture.)
The thing is, he could be innocent, but he has to prove it now.

GingerPrince

I agree to an extent. I realise that essentially they make the rules and he is aware of them before he joins in competition. If he doesn't agree, he is free to not compete. However, that does also seem like a bit of a blanket catch-all to me. The problem is that realistically, this is not much of an option for him.

When I signed my contract at work, I agreed that my company can fire me for gross misconduct which includes theft from the company. If I accidentally walk out the office with a pen in my pocket, the company can deem that theft and fire me. Surely I should at least have the right to say "Is that really theft? Is that bad enough to warrant me losing my job?" Techinically I shouldn't because I agreed to the conditions beforehand, but in fact I didn't consider that when signing as it is impossible to consider every possible scenario before it happens.


That is one way of looking at it. On the other hand, why won't they do the DNA test? Is it impossible? Is it too expensive? Is it unreliable? Would it harm them to do it if it did actually help clarify things?


But how can he prove it? Is he allowed to carry out further tests on the same specimens? If he just provided a negative specimen now, would they let him off? Unfortunately, there is not a lot he can do apart from asking them to do everything they possibly can with the specimens they already have from him which, as far as I can see, is what he has done.

VintageSteve

To answer a couple points quickly...if the company had a means to search you before you walked out, and found items, they'd have rightful accusations-just like tests showed you had another person's blood in you.

DNA testing is very expensive and has to meet certain prerequisites (don't ask me what they are).

Procedures are laid out in the appeal process. That's what is going on now. I have no idea of the specifics. That what lawyers are for...

GingerPrince

I guess that's my problem with the whole issue. The general populace doesn't know what is going on. They have no idea what the appeal process is. They have no idea what is involved in the DNA testing etc. When accusations come out about any athlete, the immediate response by the public is to assume they are guilty. This straightaway puts pressure onto sponsors etc, and often everyone ends up distancing themselves from the athlete just in case they catch any flak. This is all harmful for the athlete's career. Now anyone caught in that position is going to fight for their career, whether guilty or not. An obvious defence is "The tests results were incorrect". In order to improve things, the testers need to be as sure as possible that they are doing the tests correctly. It is in their best interests to make that as clear as they possibly can. The best way for them to do this is to explain up front exactly what they are doing, how and why. Any accusations made against them should be answered swiftly and exactly. If Tyler claims the first test actually came up negative, they should have a press statement out immediately denying the fact and showing exactly what they did find. If they don't then it will just make more people believe that in fact Tyler may be right after all.

In the end, why be secretive?

Devil

Through all of this, I still can't believe that the guy's name is Dick Pound.

VintageSteve

The first test was negative with questions on that determination, so was set aside for further analysis. It wasn't just negative without question.
Further testing was done to insure accurate results, as per convention, and a second test of the same sample showed positive. If it had been just negative, there never would have been a second test of the same sample.
After that a second sample was supposed to be tested, but was frozen so could not show enough cells for testing.
It seemed that Tyler is diverting attention when he says it wasn't frozen inadvertently, to further suggest the result was just negative, not questionably negative.

don d.

This is not entirely accurate. Tyler's first test was judged negative, apparently after being analyzed twice, but was annotated as suspicious of a blood transfusion. The B sample was frozen because the A sample was determined to be negative. Then Dick Pound intervened in the Athen's Drug Control Lab and reviewed the lab's original test results, changing them to positive. Suddenly, they had to come up with a reason they could not prove Tyler was doping, so the B sample was claimed to be "accidentally" frozen. That was the lie.

Please don't make this stuff up if you don't know. You damage someones reputation with irresponsible speculation.

GingerPrince

Not to start an argument, but how do you know that this lie is in fact the correct version of events? Have you read something I haven't? To me, this just emphasises the point that they need to act quickly to end speculation about what occured. If the procedures in the drug testing have not been followed and the testers have lied to cover themselves then it casts a huge shadow on all tests that have been conducted and throws the whole system into more doubt which would be an extremely bad thing to happen in my view. Why has there been no official statement? How can the test results be "Not Sure" when they should be Positive or Negative?