Article on Tyler Hamilton doping case in the NY Times

[Jeff]

Talks about "chimeras" etc.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/10/health/10bloo.html?

[Tom Kunich]

One point that is rather stupid is that they don't mention that:

1) The test used never had a study for false positives
2) They never mentioned that in the study that was done they only used
24 people ALL KNOWN TO BE POSITIVE and that one of them tested negative
and another as "questionable".
3) That Tyler's sample was interpretted by the testing laboratory as
negative and was later changed to positive by the man who developed the
test and who has a financial interest in it.
4) That blood doping was touted as being the ONLY way that the
hematocrit in the peloton could possibly be so high and that Tyler and
his roommate were the only two to test positive demonstrating a VERY
strong possibility that false positives might be the majority of
findings.
5) That the hearing stated that they wouldn't even QUESTION the
efficacy and accuracy of the tests despite strong scientific data
demonstrating that the tests could not be used for any medical purposes
in the USA without a strong possibility of medical malpractice.
6) That Tyler and his team were 'warned' months ahead of time that his
blood was testing 'funny' according to their lights.
7) That both Hamilton's and Perez's positives were led by a phone call
warning to the Phonak Team management (reported to police when it
occurred ) that unless blackmail was paid that they would have some
'positive' drug tests on the team.

Personally, I believe that WADA has lost all credibility.

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

Jeff wrote:

> Talks about "chimeras" etc.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/10/health/10bloo.html?
>


I sometimes blame things on my brother, but this is ridiculous!

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

[Jonathan v.d. Sluis]

"Tom Kunich" > schreef in bericht
ups.com...
> One point that is rather stupid is that they don't mention that:
>
> 1) The test used never had a study for false positives

I don't think such a test is necessary.

[Patricio Carlos]

It was not a great choice of defence for Tyler given that later tests
on his blood were negative for homologous transfusion (in Nov '04). If
he really were a chimer and that was the reason for a false positive
test result, he would always be positive.

[Tom Kunich]

"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom Kunich" > schreef in bericht
> ups.com...
>> One point that is rather stupid is that they don't mention that:
>>
>> 1) The test used never had a study for false positives
>
> I don't think such a test is necessary.

Uh, why would you think that? Would you want to be tested for a serious
disease with a test that hadn't gone through a peer reviewed process?

[Tom Kunich]

"Patricio Carlos" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> It was not a great choice of defence for Tyler given that later tests
> on his blood were negative for homologous transfusion (in Nov '04). If
> he really were a chimer and that was the reason for a false positive
> test result, he would always be positive.

Patricio, what is your thoughts on the circumstances where Phonak was warned
that they would have positive drug tests, that the implication is that these
guys were "topping up" which would indicate HC's very close to maximum IF
they were doing that (and hence of very little performance gain) and the
fact that we have YET to get some significant information such as if Tyler
and Santi had the same blood type?

I would think that WADA would want to put a lot of public confidence into
these tests and plainly are hiding a whole lot.

[Patricio Carlos]

>From the info I have seen, I am guessing that some of the Phonak riders
were having strange fluctuations in their haematocrit levels. As you
have written (I think it was you), there is about a 10% error in most
lab readings like this so it would need to be a substantial variation
eg 42% out of competition and 49.3% in a major race.

If it was differences between, for example, 47 and 48%, that would be
easily explained by lab error or drinking a lot of fluid before the
lower reading, and, as you said, would not lead to a substantial
performance benefit if it was from 'topping up'.

It would be nice to know the blood types of TH & SP. That would only
really show us that, if different, there could not have been a stuff up
by the team medical staff switching autologous blood between those two
riders. If they have the same blood type, we can't say too much either
way but it does raise the question of a team stuff up. Perhaps Phonak
or the riders are choosing to keep that info quiet???

[Stewart Fleming]

Patricio Carlos wrote:
> It was not a great choice of defence for Tyler given that later tests
> on his blood were negative for homologous transfusion (in Nov '04). If
> he really were a chimer and that was the reason for a false positive
> test result, he would always be positive.
>

all tyler has is a legal strategy to cast doubt on the test

therefore, whatever is
"beyond reasonable doubt"
at the time
wins

unfortunately time is against
it's a bit like cluedo combined with mastermind I think to get an admission
"Did you blood dope?" No.
"Did you, with the assistance of someone else, blood dope?"
"Did you etc..."

Retiral, rather than retrial, will be the eventual outcome

[Jonathan v.d. Sluis]

"Tom Kunich" > schreef in bericht
.net...
> "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Tom Kunich" > schreef in bericht
> > ups.com...
> >> One point that is rather stupid is that they don't mention that:
> >>
> >> 1) The test used never had a study for false positives
> >
> > I don't think such a test is necessary.
>
> Uh, why would you think that? Would you want to be tested for a serious
> disease with a test that hadn't gone through a peer reviewed process?

The test produces a graph that shows if there are multiple types of red
blood cells in the blood. Nobody in Hamilton's case disputed the validity or
reliability of that graph. Such graphs have been used in medical treatments,
so people have already relied on it.

[Jonathan v.d. Sluis]

"Patricio Carlos" > schreef in bericht
oups.com...
> It was not a great choice of defence for Tyler given that later tests
> on his blood were negative for homologous transfusion (in Nov '04). If
> he really were a chimer and that was the reason for a false positive
> test result, he would always be positive.

Hamilton never actually claimed to be a chimer(a?). He just wanted to point
out that there are alternatives. I am of the opinion that if he points to
such an alternative, he should at least make it credible that it applies to
him (like also testing positive in repeated tests).

[Tom]

Can we all just leave this thing alone. It has been decided once by
the American court for arbitration and sport, and is now going to be
decided by the international CAS. Let's just let them decide who's
guilty and who's not guilty shall we instead of playing armchair
scientists around here. None of us (well, most of us anyway) probably
know anything about this test, the testing procedure, and or the
science behind it enough to really comment on it. Aside from that,
aren't we all just sick of hearing about this case? It's just a
freakin' bike racer for crying out loud. This ain't life and death.

Tom

[Jonathan v.d. Sluis]

"Tom" > schreef in bericht
oups.com...
> Can we all just leave this thing alone. It has been decided once by
> the American court for arbitration and sport,

And I think they made a reasonable decision.

and is now going to be
> decided by the international CAS. Let's just let them decide who's
> guilty and who's not guilty shall we instead of playing armchair
> scientists around here. None of us (well, most of us anyway) probably
> know anything about this test, the testing procedure, and or the
> science behind it enough to really comment on it. Aside from that,
> aren't we all just sick of hearing about this case? It's just a
> freakin' bike racer for crying out loud. This ain't life and death.

I don't see why you would suggest it is life and death to me. What I resent
is that any decision against Hamilton is taken as evidence of authorities
like WADA being corrupt, a viewpoint that is seen in many letters to
cyclingnews.com. Otherwise I felt the case was clear enough for me after I
read the arbitrator's report.

>
> Tom
>

[Jeff]

The public disgrace of such a well known and popular rider as TH is
terrible for the sport. Thus it surprises me that so many people feel
that he is being railroaded by WADA. What is the motivation there?

Jeff

[Marc]

Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
> "Tom Kunich" > schreef in bericht
> .net...
>
>>"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>"Tom Kunich" > schreef in bericht
ups.com...
>>>
>>>>One point that is rather stupid is that they don't mention that:
>>>>
>>>>1) The test used never had a study for false positives
>>>
>>>I don't think such a test is necessary.
>>
>>Uh, why would you think that? Would you want to be tested for a serious
>>disease with a test that hadn't gone through a peer reviewed process?
>
>
> The test produces a graph that shows if there are multiple types of red
> blood cells in the blood. Nobody in Hamilton's case disputed the validity or
> reliability of that graph. Such graphs have been used in medical treatments,
> so people have already relied on it.
>
>

I don't see how that statement makes any sense.

yes, the test results say that there is a mixed population of cells in
his blood sample.

some researchers claim that the presence of chimera's is much more
common than previously thought, and that as test sensitivity increases,
they find more and more of them.

but without establishing a rate for false positives at a given
sensitivity, there is no way to ascertain how likely it is that an
alternative to doping could explain the results.

the fact that the test has been used before really proves nothing, since
plenty of test fall well short of 100% accurtacy but are considered
useful in medical diagnostics.

and the fact that the test is presumably +/- rather than quantitative (I
guess that's what's meant by the "i know it when i see it standard")
isn't convincing either.

karyotyping (ie looking for a Y chromosome) was seen as a clear way to
keep men from posing as women at the olympics- a simple +/- result...
but the test was abandoned after it was found that the false positive
rate was actually high enough to disqualify numerous women from
competition. ie a substantial percentage of women carry a Y chromosome,
so the basis of the test was flawed. they subsequently abandoned doing
the test.

without knowing the error rate in your population of interest, how can
you possibly evaluate how likely a false postive is?

marc

[Marc]

Jeff wrote:

> The public disgrace of such a well known and popular rider as TH is
> terrible for the sport. Thus it surprises me that so many people feel
> that he is being railroaded by WADA. What is the motivation there?
>
> Jeff
>

while I hope that TH is innocent, I fear that he isn't. and I have no
reason to think he is being railroaded.

but it's also clear that well meaning people can make mistakes.

I think the example I gave of sex typing at the olympics is
illuminating. at the Atlanta Olympics they tried to improve their test
for cheaters (men passing as women) by using a DNA-based test (PCR I
suppose) to dectect the SRY gene. But even with this suppossedly more
sophisticated test, 8 women were flagged with false positives, and all
were allowed to compete.

so, while I don't think the WADA is trying to target anyone, they may
be unintentionally unfairly damaging athletes by using questionable
methodology.

it seems clear that you need to empirically determine the error rate of
the test, and not rely on the assumption that the test must be 100% (or
insignificantly different from 100%) based on a very small number of tests.

-marc

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article >, says...
>
>
>"Tom Kunich" > schreef in bericht
ups.com...
>> One point that is rather stupid is that they don't mention that:
>>
>> 1) The test used never had a study for false positives
>
>I don't think such a test is necessary.

Why?
-----------
Alex

[[email protected]]

Marc wrote:

> so, while I don't think the WADA is trying to target anyone, they
may
> be unintentionally unfairly damaging athletes by using questionable
> methodology.

They may be, but more likely, in every case of a doping positive, it is
a true positive and the cheater will deny it to the grave. After all,
that's what a clean athlete would do if they tested positive.

[Bob Schwartz]

Marc > wrote:
> so, while I don't think the WADA is trying to target anyone, they may
> be unintentionally unfairly damaging athletes by using questionable
> methodology.

I think WADA did target Hamilton. I also think he did it. But
targeting people is why the process is so important. They made
some major mistakes. Even if he is guilty, making major mistakes
is not a good thing. There is no way the panel of experts that
declared his sample positive should have known it was his. That
is just a basic procedure to avoid the appearance of bias. Not
giving a **** about bias is not a good thing.

The USADA targets the **** out of people. If they are going
to do that it is essential that the process be unimpeachable.
It isn't currently.

Bob Schwartz

[Marc]

wrote:
> Marc wrote:
>
>
>>so, while I don't think the WADA is trying to target anyone, they
>
> may
>
>>be unintentionally unfairly damaging athletes by using questionable
>>methodology.
>
>
> They may be, but more likely, in every case of a doping positive, it is
> a true positive and the cheater will deny it to the grave. After all,
> that's what a clean athlete would do if they tested positive.
>

i agree there's a dilemma- the guilty do generally have the same set of
excuses.

but all the more reason to make sure you've got a rock-solid battery of
drug tests. that way you can say: 'there's only one chance in a million'
(or whatever) of a false positive, instead of saying: 'no need to
establish an error rate, we're sure it's always right'

we obviously can't generally count on the accused to admit it when 'caught'.


-marc

[[email protected]]

I can tell just by lookin' at 'em if their guilty or not. just like
this winner, just look at 'im:

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/051105_ns_zion.html

[Kurgan Gringioni]

Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
..
>
> I don't see why you would suggest it is life and death to me. What I
resent
> is that any decision against Hamilton is taken as evidence of
authorities
> like WADA being corrupt, a viewpoint that is seen in many letters to
> cyclingnews.com. Otherwise I felt the case was clear enough for me
after I
> read the arbitrator's report.



Dumbass -

Hamilton is banned for 2 years by WADA.

Why do you give a **** what the opinions of non-relevant people are?
You can't do anything to change their opinion.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[gwhite]

Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> One point that is rather stupid is that they don't mention that:

One point 1-7?

> 1) The test used never had a study for false positives
> 2) They never mentioned that in the study that was done they only used
> 24 people ALL KNOWN TO BE POSITIVE and that one of them tested negative
> and another as "questionable".
> 3) That Tyler's sample was interpretted by the testing laboratory as
> negative and was later changed to positive by the man who developed the
> test and who has a financial interest in it.
> 4) That blood doping was touted as being the ONLY way that the
> hematocrit in the peloton could possibly be so high and that Tyler and
> his roommate were the only two to test positive demonstrating a VERY
> strong possibility that false positives might be the majority of
> findings.
> 5) That the hearing stated that they wouldn't even QUESTION the
> efficacy and accuracy of the tests despite strong scientific data
> demonstrating that the tests could not be used for any medical purposes
> in the USA without a strong possibility of medical malpractice.
> 6) That Tyler and his team were 'warned' months ahead of time that his
> blood was testing 'funny' according to their lights.
> 7) That both Hamilton's and Perez's positives were led by a phone call
> warning to the Phonak Team management (reported to police when it
> occurred ) that unless blackmail was paid that they would have some
> 'positive' drug tests on the team.
>
> Personally, I believe that WADA has lost all credibility.

[Patricio Carlos]

Even if there are many chimera amongst us, this test does not seem to
detect them. Chimerism is detected using other techniques, particularly
PCR.

People with a particular interest in chimerism claim it is very common.
So why aren't many elite athletes flagging as positive (falsely) for
homologous transfusions? Because this test isn't sensitive enough to
detect the few if any 'different' red cells in a chimer.

[dga]

Tom:

I want you to know that although I have not posted to this
group in quite some time (ten years, perhaps), I do read
it from time to time and I appreciate your posts.

I am 51 years old and have been riding a bicycle as a way
of life for over 30 or those years. Although I avidly follow
racing, I have not raced much, but I can hammer and hammer
hard and long. I don't do drugs and wouldn't. And neither
does Tyler, I am sure, as I try to explain below.

One thing I have learned in my years of riding and in other
places in life is to judge people by their actions and their
words and, in short, by their character.

If the sampling of those who have posted to this newsgroup
in criticizing Hamilton is a measure of the average mentality
and character of those who would assume Tyler is guilty based
on the findings thus far, then we have a problem. But then
again, we knew that already. Look at how the world works.

>From a purely logical point of view, nothing has been proved
yet. I don't believe Tyler would dope. And I certainly hope
he did not. But that is my emotional reaction. Instead of
being emotional, I prefer to look at science. There are many
cases in history where science mislead. We believed, for example,
that Newtonian mechanics was true until well into the 20th
century when Einstein proved it to be false.

When a biologist who is a member of the Academy of Science tells
me that there are reaons to doubt the validity of this test, I
do not respond emotionally. I listen. Do those who would accept
this verdict carte blanche do likewise?

See:
http://www.danhousman.com/blogger/archive/2005_04_01_danhousman_archive.html

Many people also don't care if the human race is accelerating
global warming. After all, we've had ice ages before, we'll have
them again. Who gives a ****, really? Know what I mean?

However, my concern here goes beyond what one member of the
Acadamy of Sciences would say. Tom Kunich outlined some points
well:

Tom Kunich wrote:
> ...they don't mention that:
>
> 1) The test used never had a study for false positives
> 2) They never mentioned that in the study that was done they only
used
> 24 people ALL KNOWN TO BE POSITIVE...
> 3) Tyler's sample was interpretted by the testing laboratory as
> negative and was later changed to positive...
> 4) That blood doping was touted as being the ONLY way that the
> hematocrit in the peloton could possibly be so high...
> 5) ... the tests could not be used for any medical purposes
> in the USA without a strong possibility of medical malpractice.
> 6) <the extortionist>

> Personally, I believe that WADA has lost all credibility.

I disagree with Tom about WADA, whatever that is, losing it
credibility. I just chalk WADA and *any* other organization up
to a mechanism that has merits and has faults and in all cases
cannot be relied upon to produce a fool proof opinion, especially
a scientific opinion.

Beyond that, it is hard to trust Science itself to produce an
iron clad opinion in most areas. And THAT is where we need to
keep a really open mind in this case.

Science itself cannot produce a fool proof opinion. The only
person who *knows* the truth is Tyler. I believe him.

The only way he will redeem himself is to cut through the mass of
moronic opinion, amply represented in postings to this newsgroup,
and find a way to positively cast more doubt upon the veracity of
both the tests that were conducted on him as well as the methodology
used for this type of testing in general. He has good people working
toward that end.

I think Tyler can still win the Tour de France at the age of 36.

This year, I don't care as much about the Tour as in past years
because of my admittedly emotional reaction to what I view as an
injustice happending to Tyler.

On that note, I would like to know if there are others who would
like to help set up a defense fund for Tyler and contribute money
to that fund? If so, please send me email. My email address is
.

See you on the road,
Dennis G. Allard

[B. Lafferty]

I'd be interested in hearing your views on the existence, or non-existence
of God.



"dga" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Tom:
>
> I want you to know that although I have not posted to this
> group in quite some time (ten years, perhaps), I do read
> it from time to time and I appreciate your posts.
>
> I am 51 years old and have been riding a bicycle as a way
> of life for over 30 or those years. Although I avidly follow
> racing, I have not raced much, but I can hammer and hammer
> hard and long. I don't do drugs and wouldn't. And neither
> does Tyler, I am sure, as I try to explain below.
>
> One thing I have learned in my years of riding and in other
> places in life is to judge people by their actions and their
> words and, in short, by their character.
>
> If the sampling of those who have posted to this newsgroup
> in criticizing Hamilton is a measure of the average mentality
> and character of those who would assume Tyler is guilty based
> on the findings thus far, then we have a problem. But then
> again, we knew that already. Look at how the world works.
>
>>From a purely logical point of view, nothing has been proved
> yet. I don't believe Tyler would dope. And I certainly hope
> he did not. But that is my emotional reaction. Instead of
> being emotional, I prefer to look at science. There are many
> cases in history where science mislead. We believed, for example,
> that Newtonian mechanics was true until well into the 20th
> century when Einstein proved it to be false.
>
> When a biologist who is a member of the Academy of Science tells
> me that there are reaons to doubt the validity of this test, I
> do not respond emotionally. I listen. Do those who would accept
> this verdict carte blanche do likewise?
>
> See:
> http://www.danhousman.com/blogger/archive/2005_04_01_danhousman_archive.html
>
> Many people also don't care if the human race is accelerating
> global warming. After all, we've had ice ages before, we'll have
> them again. Who gives a ****, really? Know what I mean?
>
> However, my concern here goes beyond what one member of the
> Acadamy of Sciences would say. Tom Kunich outlined some points
> well:
>
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> ...they don't mention that:
>>
>> 1) The test used never had a study for false positives
>> 2) They never mentioned that in the study that was done they only
> used
>> 24 people ALL KNOWN TO BE POSITIVE...
>> 3) Tyler's sample was interpretted by the testing laboratory as
>> negative and was later changed to positive...
>> 4) That blood doping was touted as being the ONLY way that the
>> hematocrit in the peloton could possibly be so high...
>> 5) ... the tests could not be used for any medical purposes
>> in the USA without a strong possibility of medical malpractice.
>> 6) <the extortionist>
>
>> Personally, I believe that WADA has lost all credibility.
>
> I disagree with Tom about WADA, whatever that is, losing it
> credibility. I just chalk WADA and *any* other organization up
> to a mechanism that has merits and has faults and in all cases
> cannot be relied upon to produce a fool proof opinion, especially
> a scientific opinion.
>
> Beyond that, it is hard to trust Science itself to produce an
> iron clad opinion in most areas. And THAT is where we need to
> keep a really open mind in this case.
>
> Science itself cannot produce a fool proof opinion. The only
> person who *knows* the truth is Tyler. I believe him.
>
> The only way he will redeem himself is to cut through the mass of
> moronic opinion, amply represented in postings to this newsgroup,
> and find a way to positively cast more doubt upon the veracity of
> both the tests that were conducted on him as well as the methodology
> used for this type of testing in general. He has good people working
> toward that end.
>
> I think Tyler can still win the Tour de France at the age of 36.
>
> This year, I don't care as much about the Tour as in past years
> because of my admittedly emotional reaction to what I view as an
> injustice happending to Tyler.
>
> On that note, I would like to know if there are others who would
> like to help set up a defense fund for Tyler and contribute money
> to that fund? If so, please send me email. My email address is
> .
>
> See you on the road,
> Dennis G. Allard
>

[Marc]

Patricio Carlos wrote:

> Even if there are many chimera amongst us, this test does not seem to
> detect them. Chimerism is detected using other techniques, particularly
> PCR.
>
> People with a particular interest in chimerism claim it is very common.
> So why aren't many elite athletes flagging as positive (falsely) for
> homologous transfusions? Because this test isn't sensitive enough to
> detect the few if any 'different' red cells in a chimer.
>

I didn't think the defense hinged on a chimerism defense- it's just an
example of how a mixed population could be present.

The Nelson et al Haemotological article that is cited as the basis for
this test states that some antibodies tested give ambiguous results.
Both the establishemnt of the proper antibody concentration and use of
appropriate antigen targets are imperative to get convincing results.

I think the burden is on the testing bodies to establish a rock-solid
standard, not on the accused to provide explanations for why a poorly
standardized test might be wrong.


-marc

[Jonathan v.d. Sluis]

"Marc" > schreef in bericht
...
> Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
> > "Tom Kunich" > schreef in bericht
> > .net...
> >
> >>"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>"Tom Kunich" > schreef in bericht
> ups.com...
> >>>
> >>>>One point that is rather stupid is that they don't mention that:
> >>>>
> >>>>1) The test used never had a study for false positives
> >>>
> >>>I don't think such a test is necessary.
> >>
> >>Uh, why would you think that? Would you want to be tested for a serious
> >>disease with a test that hadn't gone through a peer reviewed process?
> >
> >
> > The test produces a graph that shows if there are multiple types of red
> > blood cells in the blood. Nobody in Hamilton's case disputed the
validity or
> > reliability of that graph. Such graphs have been used in medical
treatments,
> > so people have already relied on it.
> >
> >
>
> I don't see how that statement makes any sense.
>
> yes, the test results say that there is a mixed population of cells in
> his blood sample.
>
> some researchers claim that the presence of chimera's is much more
> common than previously thought, and that as test sensitivity increases,
> they find more and more of them.

The arbitrators weighed the chance that Hamilton is a chimera and came to
the conclusion that it was too unlikely. I believe them, because I think
they made a fair and rational assessment.

By the way, a chimera would not be a case of a false positive. Since the
tests detects different RBCs and a chimera has those, the graph produced by
the test would be a reliable graph. It just wouldn't be the result of a
blood transfusion. But, as the arbitrators' report states, the test is not a
test for a blood transfusion. So therefore, a chimera does not produce a
false positive but a reliable positive or a false negative.

Jonathan.

[Jonathan v.d. Sluis]

"Alex Rodriguez" > schreef in bericht
...
> In article >, says...
> >
> >
> >"Tom Kunich" > schreef in bericht
> ups.com...
> >> One point that is rather stupid is that they don't mention that:
> >>
> >> 1) The test used never had a study for false positives
> >
> >I don't think such a test is necessary.
>
> Why?

Because there is no reason to believe the test detects anything other than
different red blood cells.

> -----------
> Alex
>

[Jonathan v.d. Sluis]

"Marc" > schreef in bericht
...
> Patricio Carlos wrote:
>
> > Even if there are many chimera amongst us, this test does not seem to
> > detect them. Chimerism is detected using other techniques, particularly
> > PCR.
> >
> > People with a particular interest in chimerism claim it is very common.
> > So why aren't many elite athletes flagging as positive (falsely) for
> > homologous transfusions? Because this test isn't sensitive enough to
> > detect the few if any 'different' red cells in a chimer.
> >
>
> I didn't think the defense hinged on a chimerism defense- it's just an
> example of how a mixed population could be present.

If the chimerism isn't relevant to the Hamilton case, then why did he bring
it in? If he is a chimera, he should always test positive. If he is not,
then it has no relevance for his case.

[Jonathan v.d. Sluis]

"Bob Schwartz" > schreef in bericht
...
> Marc > wrote:
> > so, while I don't think the WADA is trying to target anyone, they may
> > be unintentionally unfairly damaging athletes by using questionable
> > methodology.
>
> I think WADA did target Hamilton.

That is difficult, because as far as I know, samples used for doping tests
are handled anonymously by the labs. They don't know who they are testing
and cannot 'make' someone test positive.

> ...I also think he did it. But
> targeting people is why the process is so important. They made
> some major mistakes. Even if he is guilty, making major mistakes
> is not a good thing. There is no way the panel of experts that
> declared his sample positive should have known it was his.

I don't think they did.

> That
> is just a basic procedure to avoid the appearance of bias. Not
> giving a **** about bias is not a good thing.
>
> The USADA targets the **** out of people. If they are going
> to do that it is essential that the process be unimpeachable.
> It isn't currently.
>
> Bob Schwartz
>

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article om>,
says...
>
>
>
>Marc wrote:
>
>> so, while I don't think the WADA is trying to target anyone, they
>may
>> be unintentionally unfairly damaging athletes by using questionable
>> methodology.
>
>They may be, but more likely, in every case of a doping positive, it is
>a true positive and the cheater will deny it to the grave. After all,
>that's what a clean athlete would do if they tested positive.

Some of the dopers have admitted their doping and come back to the sport.
Not all dopers will continue to deny it.
---------------
Alex

[Bob Schwartz]

Marc > wrote:
> I think the burden is on the testing bodies to establish a rock-solid
> standard, not on the accused to provide explanations for why a poorly
> standardized test might be wrong.

Yes. Especially if they are going to ignore issues of bias and
double especially if they are going to ignore issues of bias
while targeting people.

Bob Schwartz

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article >, says...

>"Alex Rodriguez" > schreef in bericht
...
>> In article >, says...
>> >"Tom Kunich" > schreef in bericht
>> ups.com...
>> >> One point that is rather stupid is that they don't mention that:
>> >>
>> >> 1) The test used never had a study for false positives
>> >
>> >I don't think such a test is necessary.
>>
>> Why?
>
>Because there is no reason to believe the test detects anything other than
>different red blood cells.

You mean the guys who came up with the test couldn't think of any reason. That
doesn't mean there isn't one. Which is why you do want to do a study on false
positives. If you don't look for it, you won't find it.
-----------
Alex

[Bob Schwartz]

Jonathan v.d. Sluis > wrote:
> "Bob Schwartz" > schreef in bericht
> ...
>> Marc > wrote:
>> > so, while I don't think the WADA is trying to target anyone, they may
>> > be unintentionally unfairly damaging athletes by using questionable
>> > methodology.
>>
>> I think WADA did target Hamilton.

> That is difficult, because as far as I know, samples used for doping tests
> are handled anonymously by the labs. They don't know who they are testing
> and cannot 'make' someone test positive.

Exactly. The panel of experts that decared his result positive knew it
belonged to him. Even if he did it, and I think he did, this is wrong.

Bob Schwartz

[h squared]

Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
> "Bob Schwartz" > schreef in bericht
> ...
>
>
>>...I also think he did it. But
>>targeting people is why the process is so important. They made
>>some major mistakes. Even if he is guilty, making major mistakes
>>is not a good thing. There is no way the panel of experts that
>>declared his sample positive should have known it was his.
>
>
> I don't think they did.
the pdf file (posted here sometime before):

USADA's expert witness, Dr. Bruce H. Davis, M.D., testified that the
WADA Criteria and testing method could be very quantitative. Dr. Davis
stated:

"if you have a rule-based approach such that everybody would set the
same region, positions, and gate, the red cell cluster the same, you
would get exactly the same result no matter who did it or where you
were...it could [be spelled out in an SOP]...[So it wouldn't be
difficult to have consistency in protocol so that every lab would have
similar data that would be objective, verifiable, and not just visually
interpreted]...and that was the point of the ...Nelson articles
that...when laboratories are set up with rules, they get exactly the
same result and interpretation with this test...[That's just not done
here]...it would seem [that the Lausanne and Athens labs are gating
differently]"

Dr. Davis' testimony makes it clear that an objective and quantitative
approach can be used in this case. Given this admission, such an
objective approach should be required. UCI v. Hamburger, CAS
2001/A/343,18-19.

An objective and quantitative approach is also consistent with the very
foundation of sound scientific practice- objective, reproducible
results. This is not obtainable with the WADA Criteria's subjective
approach. Nothing demonstrates the problem with the subjective Testing
Method like what happened with Mr. Hamilton's Athens Olympic Games blood
test.

The truth is Mr. Hamilton did not test positive at the Athens Olympic
Games. The laboratory analysis report dated August 22, 2004 and signed
by the Laboratory Director ruled Mr. Hamiton's *sample to be negative*.
The Athens laboratory was not incompetent. It passed all proficiency
testing before the Athens Olympic Games.

Nevertheless, on September 16, 2004, almost a month later, the IOC
formed an external expert group that ruled Mr. Hamilton's Athens sample
was positive. This group of experts apparently consisted of individuals
paid for developing the Testing Method and individuals who knew the
sample belonged to Mr. Hamilton. Two of the cardinal rules of drug
testing are that the individual doing the analysis (1) should not have a
vested interest in the outcome, and (2) should not know the identity of
the individual providing the sample. So, if this subjective Testing
Method is so reliable and is an "I know it when I see it" type of test,
why did it take an expert committee to rule that Hamilton's sample was
positive one month after the Athens Olympics? There have been a number
of bizarre and inappropriate occurrences related to this Testing Method
in Mr. Hamiltons's case. This is an example of just one of them.

It should also be noted that Mr. Hamilton's Vuelta sample, the sample in
question in this case, had a significantly lower reading of second RBC
populations then the Athens' sample. Therefore it could logically be
concluded that the Athens Laboratory would also have ruled the Vuelta
sample negative. If an IOC accredited laboratory trained in the Testing
Method could rule Mr. Hamilton's sample negative, how can this panel be
comfortably satisfied that Mr. Hamilton tested positive? These
inconsistencies and problems illustrate the need for objective criteria.

[h squared]

h squared wrote:


> the pdf file
that should be "from the pdf file"
http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/AAA_CAS%20Decision%20-%20Hamilton.pdf
h

[Marc]

Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
> "Marc" > schreef in bericht
> ...
>
>>
>>
>>I didn't think the defense hinged on a chimerism defense- it's just an
>>example of how a mixed population could be present.
>
>
> If the chimerism isn't relevant to the Hamilton case, then why did he bring
> it in? If he is a chimera, he should always test positive. If he is not,
> then it has no relevance for his case.
>
>

not that it is irrelevenat, but just one of many arguments they made.

looking at the document kindly posted by h squared...

http://tinyurl.com/akjtz

the tyler defense had several main challenges, and chimerism is one of 4
examples given in one of these arguments.

and an expert in the NY times article says that expression from stem
cells can be transitory, so that changing population distribution
levels does not prove transfusion.

marc

[B. Lafferty]

"Marc" > wrote in message
...
> Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
>> "Marc" > schreef in bericht
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I didn't think the defense hinged on a chimerism defense- it's just an
>>>example of how a mixed population could be present.
>>
>>
>> If the chimerism isn't relevant to the Hamilton case, then why did he
>> bring
>> it in? If he is a chimera, he should always test positive. If he is not,
>> then it has no relevance for his case.
>>
>>
>
> not that it is irrelevenat, but just one of many arguments they made.
>
> looking at the document kindly posted by h squared...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/akjtz
>
> the tyler defense had several main challenges, and chimerism is one of 4
> examples given in one of these arguments.
>
> and an expert in the NY times article says that expression from stem cells
> can be transitory, so that changing population distribution levels does
> not prove transfusion.
>
> marc

If you view the defense of chimerism as an affirmative one, the burden is on
the one claiming the defense to prove it. For the defense to succeed it
must be causally linked to the one claiming the defense. To claim the
defense of chimerism and then not prove to a reasonable certainty one is a
chimera is to fail to make the defense.

In another context, consider someone claiming an alibi defense in a murder
case and then failing to establish that they were at another place when the
crime was committed.

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
ink.net,
B. Lafferty > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> "Marc" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
>>> "Marc" > schreef in bericht
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I didn't think the defense hinged on a chimerism defense- it's
>>>> just an example of how a mixed population could be present.
>>>
>>>
>>> If the chimerism isn't relevant to the Hamilton case, then why did
>>> he bring
>>> it in? If he is a chimera, he should always test positive. If he is
>>> not, then it has no relevance for his case.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> not that it is irrelevenat, but just one of many arguments they made.
>>
>> looking at the document kindly posted by h squared...
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/akjtz
>>
>> the tyler defense had several main challenges, and chimerism is one
>> of 4 examples given in one of these arguments.
>>
>> and an expert in the NY times article says that expression from stem
>> cells can be transitory, so that changing population distribution
>> levels does not prove transfusion.
>>
>> marc
>
> If you view the defense of chimerism as an affirmative one, the
> burden is on the one claiming the defense to prove it. For the
> defense to succeed it must be causally linked to the one claiming the
> defense. To claim the defense of chimerism and then not prove to a
> reasonable certainty one is a chimera is to fail to make the defense.

I think of this differently. Hamilton offered several alternative
explanations, suggesting that the testing as done did not take into
consideration such possibilities, and in some ways failed to establish the
cycling federation's claims. His side failed to be convincing enough,
that's all.

The arbitral award, against Hamilton, is not required to be either unanimous
or correct. It is to be conducted in a "fair" manner, and the result is
subject to (in courts, where this could end up) no scrutiny, providing it
does not offend reason and procedural structures.

I think people were looking for a Perry Mason turn-about. Dissatisfaction
is a typical reaction by losing parties. Hamilton is (for the moment) the
loser, and wrong, by the accepted rules. This is a lot less dramatic than
people believe. My impression is that Hamilton has done a good job of
getting (partial) popular support for his rant. Somewhat like Michael
Jackson seems to get.
--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

[Bob Schwartz]

dga > wrote:
> One thing I have learned in my years of riding and in other
> places in life is to judge people by their actions and their
> words and, in short, by their character.

So what do you make of his initial claim of this being the
result of a past surgical intervention? If you are going to
judge him by his words, then judge him by his words. Not
just the words you want to believe.

This guy is a total stranger to you. What do you know of his
character?

Bob Schwartz

[CyclePro]

"Sandy" > wrote in message
...
> Dans le message de
> ink.net,
>> I think of this differently. Hamilton offered several alternative
> explanations, suggesting that the testing as done did not take into
> consideration such possibilities, and in some ways failed to establish the
> cycling federation's claims. His side failed to be convincing enough,
> that's all.

To the extent that chimerism, if widely existent in the human species, would
render the test meaningless, Hamilton failed to prove to a reasonable
certainty that such is the situation for humans. I don't think this is the
thrust of what Hamilton's attorney tried to do with the chimera defense.
Hamilton did not dispute that there was a mixed blood cell population in his
sample that was tested. He presented chimerism as a possible explaination
for that mixed population. Chimerism would explain the mixed cell
population in his sample. Hamilton failed to demonstrate the reasonable
likelihood of his being a chimera. Hamilton also challenged the legitimacy
of the test and test procedures on other grounds which is a different issue
from chimerism.

>
> The arbitral award, against Hamilton, is not required to be either
> unanimous or correct. It is to be conducted in a "fair" manner, and the
> result is subject to (in courts, where this could end up) no scrutiny,
> providing it does not offend reason and procedural structures.

Add to that (this is my understanding) the manner of arbitrator selection
and you have even weaker grounds for a court challenge. IIRC, each party
selects an arbitrator from a list and those two select the third, subject to
objections for the parties. Care to guess which arbitrator was Hamilton's
selection? ;-)

>
> I think people were looking for a Perry Mason turn-about. Dissatisfaction
> is a typical reaction by losing parties. Hamilton is (for the moment) the
> loser, and wrong, by the accepted rules. This is a lot less dramatic than
> people believe. My impression is that Hamilton has done a good job of
> getting (partial) popular support for his rant. Somewhat like Michael
> Jackson seems to get.

If Perry had been Tyler's attorney, he would have put Dick Pound on the
stand and gotten him to confess to rigging the test results.

[B. Lafferty]

"Sandy" > wrote in message
...
> Dans le message de
> ink.net,
> B. Lafferty > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> "Marc" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
>>>> "Marc" > schreef in bericht
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't think the defense hinged on a chimerism defense- it's
>>>>> just an example of how a mixed population could be present.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If the chimerism isn't relevant to the Hamilton case, then why did
>>>> he bring
>>>> it in? If he is a chimera, he should always test positive. If he is
>>>> not, then it has no relevance for his case.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> not that it is irrelevenat, but just one of many arguments they made.
>>>
>>> looking at the document kindly posted by h squared...
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/akjtz
>>>
>>> the tyler defense had several main challenges, and chimerism is one
>>> of 4 examples given in one of these arguments.
>>>
>>> and an expert in the NY times article says that expression from stem
>>> cells can be transitory, so that changing population distribution
>>> levels does not prove transfusion.
>>>
>>> marc
>>
>> If you view the defense of chimerism as an affirmative one, the
>> burden is on the one claiming the defense to prove it. For the
>> defense to succeed it must be causally linked to the one claiming the
>> defense. To claim the defense of chimerism and then not prove to a
>> reasonable certainty one is a chimera is to fail to make the defense.
>
> I think of this differently. Hamilton offered several alternative
> explanations, suggesting that the testing as done did not take into
> consideration such possibilities, and in some ways failed to establish the
> cycling federation's claims. His side failed to be convincing enough,
> that's all.

Both IMO. Neither apparently worked with the arbitrators.

>
> The arbitral award, against Hamilton, is not required to be either
> unanimous or correct. It is to be conducted in a "fair" manner, and the
> result is subject to (in courts, where this could end up) no scrutiny,
> providing it does not offend reason and procedural structures.

Indeed. All those innocent people rotting in the prison hulks.

>
> I think people were looking for a Perry Mason turn-about. Dissatisfaction
> is a typical reaction by losing parties. Hamilton is (for the moment) the
> loser, and wrong, by the accepted rules. This is a lot less dramatic than
> people believe. My impression is that Hamilton has done a good job of
> getting (partial) popular support for his rant. Somewhat like Michael
> Jackson seems to get.
> --
> Bonne route,
>
> Sandy
> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 18:58:15 GMT, "CyclePro" > wrote:

>If Perry had been Tyler's attorney, he would have put Dick Pound on the
>stand and gotten him to confess to rigging the test results.

And killing the dog. I always thought Pound had something to do with
that.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[Patricio Carlos]

Re: "Chimerism would explain the mixed cell population in his sample.
Hamilton failed to demonstrate the reasonable likelihood of his being a
chimera"

Rather, this should read chimerism might possibly explain the mixed
cell population. The test used for homologous transfusion is not the
test to detect chimera. Other tests eg PCR are. Even if chimerism is
common, this test does not seem to detect it.

P.S. I think 'Chimer' is singular & 'Chimera' is plural.

[Sandy]

Dans le message de .net,
CyclePro > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> The arbitral award, against Hamilton, is not required to be either
>> unanimous or correct. It is to be conducted in a "fair" manner, and
>> the result is subject to (in courts, where this could end up) no
>> scrutiny, providing it does not offend reason and procedural
>> structures.
>
> Add to that (this is my understanding) the manner of arbitrator
> selection and you have even weaker grounds for a court challenge. IIRC,
> each party selects an arbitrator from a list and those two
> select the third, subject to objections for the parties. Care to
> guess which arbitrator was Hamilton's selection? ;-)
>
My recollection of AAA panel formation is that a list of available
arbitrators is sent to both sides, they strike ones they don't like, and
that continues until a panel is formed. Choices don't easily coincide. An
alternative is to arrive at two designated arbitrators who select, between
themselves, a third, also from a list. But my memory of US arbitrations is
rather stale, and it's too late to look it up. Help gratefully accepted.

--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

[Ewoud Dronkert]

On 12 May 2005 15:14:52 -0700, Patricio Carlos wrote:
> P.S. I think 'Chimer' is singular & 'Chimera' is plural.

No, 'chimera' or 'chimaera' is from Greek mythology, for a she-monster
with the head of a lion, the body of a goat, and the back of a dragon or
snake. She was the mother of the sphinx.

Of course, and I stumbled upon this while googling, it was also the name
for one of the Imperial Star Destroyer ships from the battle of Endor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimaera_%28Star_Wars%29


--
Firefox Web Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/

[Jonathan v.d. Sluis]

"Alex Rodriguez" > schreef in bericht
...
> In article >, says...
>
> >"Alex Rodriguez" > schreef in bericht
> ...
> >> In article >, says...
> >> >"Tom Kunich" > schreef in bericht
> >> ups.com...
> >> >> One point that is rather stupid is that they don't mention that:
> >> >>
> >> >> 1) The test used never had a study for false positives
> >> >
> >> >I don't think such a test is necessary.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >
> >Because there is no reason to believe the test detects anything other
than
> >different red blood cells.
>
> You mean the guys who came up with the test couldn't think of any reason.
That
> doesn't mean there isn't one. Which is why you do want to do a study on
false
> positives. If you don't look for it, you won't find it.

To the best of our collective knowledge, there is no other cause that can
produce the result that Hamilton got. Rulings in court cases are always made
to the best of current knowledge. For example, there is no way we believe
that the same person can be in two places at the same time. But perhaps
magic is possible. Still that philosophical acknowledgement doesn't prevent
us from jduging people on what we think we know of the world.

The arbitrators have looked at the scientific studies surrounding the test.
They came to the conclusion that the literature provided them with enough
information to come to a conclusion and that the test is reliable. It should
be noted that Hamilton (and his defense) never disputes that the test
detects different RBCs, so that part was settled from the beginning.

[Donald Munro]

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:

> Of course, and I stumbled upon this while googling, it was also the name
> for one of the Imperial Star Destroyer ships from the battle of Endor.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimaera_%28Star_Wars%29

I knew all along that Darth Vader had something to do with Tyler's
downfall.

[Jonathan v.d. Sluis]

"Ewoud Dronkert" > schreef in bericht
...
> On 12 May 2005 15:14:52 -0700, Patricio Carlos wrote:
> > P.S. I think 'Chimer' is singular & 'Chimera' is plural.
>
> No, 'chimera' or 'chimaera' is from Greek mythology, for a she-monster
> with the head of a lion, the body of a goat, and the back of a dragon or
> snake. She was the mother of the sphinx.
>
> Of course, and I stumbled upon this while googling, it was also the name
> for one of the Imperial Star Destroyer ships from the battle of Endor.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimaera_%28Star_Wars%29

Even though 'A long time ago' would presumably mean before the time when
Greek myths were conceived....

[Jonathan v.d. Sluis]

"Bob Schwartz" > schreef in bericht
...
> Jonathan v.d. Sluis > wrote:
> > "Bob Schwartz" > schreef in bericht
> > ...
> >> Marc > wrote:
> >> > so, while I don't think the WADA is trying to target anyone, they
may
> >> > be unintentionally unfairly damaging athletes by using questionable
> >> > methodology.
> >>
> >> I think WADA did target Hamilton.
>
> > That is difficult, because as far as I know, samples used for doping
tests
> > are handled anonymously by the labs. They don't know who they are
testing
> > and cannot 'make' someone test positive.
>
> Exactly. The panel of experts that decared his result positive knew it
> belonged to him. Even if he did it, and I think he did, this is wrong.

If they didn't stick to the procedure, then Hamilton should have used it in
his defense and he would have been let off.

However, the panel of experts had no influence since the result from the
olympics was invalid because of the lack of a B-sample.

>
> Bob Schwartz
>

[Marty]

Donald Munro wrote:
> Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
>
>
>>Of course, and I stumbled upon this while googling, it was also the name
>>for one of the Imperial Star Destroyer ships from the battle of Endor.
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimaera_%28Star_Wars%29
>
>
> I knew all along that Darth Vader had something to do with Tyler's
> downfall.
>

I knew I'd seen that weird aero helmet somewhere before!

Marty

[Stewart Fleming]

Donald Munro wrote:
> Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
>
>
>>Of course, and I stumbled upon this while googling, it was also the name
>>for one of the Imperial Star Destroyer ships from the battle of Endor.
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimaera_%28Star_Wars%29
>
>
> I knew all along that Darth Vader had something to do with Tyler's
> downfall.

"I am your father, Luke".

Oh no, hang on, that's the other guy.

[Tom Kunich]

"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom Kunich" > schreef in bericht
> .net...
>> "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Tom Kunich" > schreef in bericht
>> > ups.com...
>> >> One point that is rather stupid is that they don't mention that:
>> >>
>> >> 1) The test used never had a study for false positives
>> >
>> > I don't think such a test is necessary.
>>
>> Uh, why would you think that? Would you want to be tested for a serious
>> disease with a test that hadn't gone through a peer reviewed process?
>
> The test produces a graph that shows if there are multiple types of red
> blood cells in the blood.

Almost but not quite. It produces a graph that shows if there are various
antibodies left after the cells have been washed. These antibodies are
supposed to attach to one TYPE of bloodcell on one end and have a glow plug
on the other and each color is specific to the type of antibody.

The idea is that you mix these antibodies into the blood, the specific
antibody that's a match for your blood attaches to those cells. You then
wash the blood and all the others which didn't attach to cells are washed
away. You then put the blood into a machine that makes it glow and then
graphs the colors that are present.

Up to now it sounds good. The problem is that everyone's blood reacts to ALL
of these antibodies to some extent. The problem with not having a false
positive test is that we can't be sure how often someone's blood reacts to
the OTHER antibodies enough to be recorded.

And remember that Typer's blood made such a small reaction that he was noted
as negative but questioned. It took the man who designed to test to
determine that the test was "positive" and now we've found out that there
isn't any actual numeical value which separates "positive" from "negative".

The more we find out about this test the stickier it gets.

> Nobody in Hamilton's case disputed the validity or
> reliability of that graph. Such graphs have been used in medical
> treatments,
> so people have already relied on it.

No one is disputing the rest results. They're disputing what they mean.

[Tom Kunich]

"Patricio Carlos" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> People with a particular interest in chimerism claim it is very common.
> So why aren't many elite athletes flagging as positive (falsely) for
> homologous transfusions?

Because "common" can be 1% or less when previously they were thinking that
it was .001%.

[Tom Kunich]

"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" > wrote in message
...
>
> > If the chimerism isn't relevant to the Hamilton case, then why did he
> > bring
> it in? If he is a chimera, he should always test positive. If he is not,
> then it has no relevance for his case.

In the American judicial system there is a practice that you are innocent
until proven guilty. This led to the legal precident that you must be found
guilty BEYOND a reasonable doubt.

By providing a means by which he could demonstrate that a false positive
COULD happen, he could raise a reasonable doubt that the test cannot be
useful without a study that actually determines a rate of False Positives.

This appears to have had no effect on the US-CAS here. And that might very
well end up with their heads on pikes outside of the IOC offices sooner or
later.

If Tyler can take this case to an American court it is likely that they will
take an especially dim view of a "I know it when I see it" standard.

[Steven L. Sheffield]

On 05/13/2005 09:20 PM, in article
, "Tom Kunich"
> wrote:

> "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>> If the chimerism isn't relevant to the Hamilton case, then why did he
>>> bring
>> it in? If he is a chimera, he should always test positive. If he is not,
>> then it has no relevance for his case.
>
> In the American judicial system there is a practice that you are innocent
> until proven guilty. This led to the legal precident that you must be found
> guilty BEYOND a reasonable doubt.


In criminal cases, this is true. In civil matters, the standard is
"preponderance of the evidence", in which case it really comes down to
"which side produced the more likely story" ...


> By providing a means by which he could demonstrate that a false positive
> COULD happen, he could raise a reasonable doubt that the test cannot be
> useful without a study that actually determines a rate of False Positives.
>
> This appears to have had no effect on the US-CAS here. And that might very
> well end up with their heads on pikes outside of the IOC offices sooner or
> later.
>
> If Tyler can take this case to an American court it is likely that they will
> take an especially dim view of a "I know it when I see it" standard.
>
>

--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [foreword] slash

[B. Lafferty]

"Steven L. Sheffield" > wrote in message
...
> On 05/13/2005 09:20 PM, in article
> , "Tom Kunich"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>> If the chimerism isn't relevant to the Hamilton case, then why did he
>>>> bring
>>> it in? If he is a chimera, he should always test positive. If he is not,
>>> then it has no relevance for his case.
>>
>> In the American judicial system there is a practice that you are innocent
>> until proven guilty. This led to the legal precident that you must be
>> found
>> guilty BEYOND a reasonable doubt.
>
>
> In criminal cases, this is true. In civil matters, the standard is
> "preponderance of the evidence", in which case it really comes down to
> "which side produced the more likely story" ...
>

Preponderance=50.0000000000000001% although the saying amongst lawyers is
that you need 51%.

[Ewoud Dronkert]

On Sat, 14 May 2005 15:58:47 GMT, B. Lafferty wrote:
> Preponderance=50.0000000000000001% although the saying amongst
> lawyers is that you need 51%.

Are there ever juries of 1000000000000000000?


--
Firefox Web Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/

[B. Lafferty]

"Ewoud Dronkert" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 14 May 2005 15:58:47 GMT, B. Lafferty wrote:
>> Preponderance=50.0000000000000001% although the saying amongst
>> lawyers is that you need 51%.
>
> Are there ever juries of 1000000000000000000?

That depends on how many personalities the 6 or 12 jurors have.

[Jonathan v.d. Sluis]

"Tom Kunich" > schreef in bericht
k.net...
> "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Tom Kunich" > schreef in bericht
> > .net...
> >> "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > "Tom Kunich" > schreef in bericht
> >> > ups.com...
> >> >> One point that is rather stupid is that they don't mention that:
> >> >>
> >> >> 1) The test used never had a study for false positives
> >> >
> >> > I don't think such a test is necessary.
> >>
> >> Uh, why would you think that? Would you want to be tested for a serious
> >> disease with a test that hadn't gone through a peer reviewed process?
> >
> > The test produces a graph that shows if there are multiple types of red
> > blood cells in the blood.
>
> Almost but not quite. It produces a graph that shows if there are various
> antibodies left after the cells have been washed. These antibodies are
> supposed to attach to one TYPE of bloodcell on one end and have a glow
plug
> on the other and each color is specific to the type of antibody.
>
> The idea is that you mix these antibodies into the blood, the specific
> antibody that's a match for your blood attaches to those cells. You then
> wash the blood and all the others which didn't attach to cells are washed
> away. You then put the blood into a machine that makes it glow and then
> graphs the colors that are present.
>
> Up to now it sounds good. The problem is that everyone's blood reacts to
ALL
> of these antibodies to some extent. The problem with not having a false
> positive test is that we can't be sure how often someone's blood reacts to
> the OTHER antibodies enough to be recorded.

There is no dispute that thet method detects different types of blood in the
same body. Therefore, I don't see what argument there is that this is
possible other than 'perhaps we may find it it possible if a lot of tests
are done'. I think the science behind it is too well known to acknowledge
that possibility. It is revealing that Hamilton's defense concedes that the
test detects different blood types in the same sample, thereby acknowledging
that false positives are not possible. The test does not detect a blood
transfusion, it detects different RBCs.

>
> And remember that Typer's blood made such a small reaction that he was
noted
> as negative but questioned.

No, it was tested and noted as positive. That fact doesn't make it any
stickier for me.

> It took the man who designed to test to
> determine that the test was "positive" and now we've found out that there
> isn't any actual numeical value which separates "positive" from
"negative".

The criterium for what constitutes a separate peak in the graph are quite
conservative, but it was still identified in Hamilton's case. Therefore, it
was not the 'tail' from another graph, but a separate peak. Also, the peak
that was identified in Hamilton's sample was above a mixed population of 1,3
percent. The noise level, which is the error of the test, was 0,1 percent.
It was Hamilton's defense that argued the level of a positive should be 5%.
This is above what can actually be detected.

>
> The more we find out about this test the stickier it gets.
>
> > Nobody in Hamilton's case disputed the validity or
> > reliability of that graph. Such graphs have been used in medical
> > treatments,
> > so people have already relied on it.
>
> No one is disputing the rest results. They're disputing what they mean.

Exactly. The result means that Hamilton is a chimera, had a 'vanishing twin'
(or both), or had a blood transfusion. Since the first two options would
require him to always test positive, the only possible explanation is that
he had a blood transfusion.

[Patricio Carlos]

Re: "No, 'chimera' or 'chimaera' is from Greek mythology"
Doing a PubMed search, the medical literature seems to be chimer =
singular and chimera = plural. Medical language may not be following
the Greek mythology correctly.

[Dennis G Allard]

Bob Schwartz wrote:
> dga > wrote:
>
>>One thing I have learned in my years of riding and in other
>>places in life is to judge people by their actions and their
>>words and, in short, by their character.
>
>
> So what do you make of his initial claim of this being the
> result of a past surgical intervention? If you are going to
> judge him by his words, then judge him by his words. Not
> just the words you want to believe.

If he is innocent and befuddled by the positive result,
he may have made such a statement by way of offering
an explanation of the positive test result. Seems normal.

But, I've read his online log and don't recall that particular
claim. Where did you see that? I recall reading in the
actual judgement that one defense offered was the possibility
of blood from an unborn twin. But that was not claimed as
being the case, merely as one possible explanation that has
not yet been ruled out.

I have included Tyler's own statment he made on April 18,
below at the end of this post. I do not see any claim of
past surgery there and can't find it elsewhere. Please
refer me to where that claim has been published.

> This guy is a total stranger to you. What do you know of his
> character?

We all judge the character of many people we do not personally
know based on words and actions. For example, I voted against
George Bush based on my evaluation of him even though I do not
know him personally.

My comment (see your above inclusion) was referring to certain
postings in this newsgroup and was judging by the words of those
postings.

For Tyler, I have read his diaries and words of people who
know him.

>
> Bob Schwartz
>

Here is Tyler's April 18 posting...

(Begin posting from http://www.tylerhamilton.com, by Tyler Hamilton

April 18, 2005

The day they told me I had tested positive for the banned performance
enhancing method of homologous blood transfusing I threw forward my
arm, and said -- "It’s a mistake. Take another sample".

I was refused.

At that moment, sometime around 8 PM on September 16, 2004, I began
the long process of trying to get to the bottom of those results.

There has been a lot of speculation about my case so I’ll try to set
things straight the best I can issue by issue. Some of the details are
more complicated than others but I’ll try to keep things simple. I
have nothing to hide, and I don’t mind sharing all the twists and
turns of my story with you. Even the parts I can’t explain. Here goes
-

Spring Off Scores: An off score is a measurement based on an equation
incorporating hemoglobin and reticulocyte counts. These counts are
measured during random "health tests" conducted on riders during
races. They are also commonly referred to as "vampire tests"
-- because drug control officers visit the race hotel
to wake riders and take their blood before a start.

Health tests administered on my blood at Liege-Bastogne-Liege, the
Tour of Romandie and Dauphine Libere registered uncharacteristically
low reticulocyte counts, which is the count of new red blood cells.

Medical expert Jim Stray-Gundersen, who has conducted more than 10,000
blood tests on athletes participating in doping research programs,
testified during my hearing that my reticulocyte counts from these
three races were so low they "are not to be believed". Of the
thousands he’s evaluated in his career, he has only seen one test
come up as low as mine -- and it was an instance when
he knew for a fact, the sample had been "mishandled" during
transport to the lab.

My story really starts at the Tour of Romandie when Phonak disputed
the entire team’s hematocrit readings from one of the UCI’s morning
health tests . Riders who did both Liege and Romandie showed gains of
an average of 4 points in a span of 4 days. In addition, the readings
were also about 4-5 points higher than the team’s own results taken
the night before.

I had been health tested before the start of Stage 2. After the stage,
I was told I would have to provide an additional anti-doping test
because my hematocrit result from the morning was high. One of the
things I was tested for was EPO. The result was negative.

Hematocrit readings are meant to measure the percentage of red cells
in your blood. These readings can vary for a number of
reasons. Everything from the machine’s calibration to the way the
sample is drawn can affect the result. In 2004, multiple teams
complained to the UCI about scores they felt were inaccurate. In fact,
Dr. Zorzoli, of the UCI, testified to this fact in the Phonak/CAS
hearing in January.

My hematocrit score at Romandie was inaccurately high. I know this
because I can compare it to the UCI’s own test from Liege (45.3),
taken just four days before. To give you and idea of how variable
these numbers can be, the UCI test conducted on July 1st, the day
before the Tour de France started, registered my hematocrit at
38. Again, my team complained, but this time about the score being too
low. Inaccuracy of the readings can go both ways.

If someone’s hematocrit, hemoglobin or reticulocyte readings are
incorrect, the "off score" will be incorrect. This is why the off
score is not used to determine a doping offense. It is widely known
that the measurements used to calculate the score are prone to some
instability.

Warnings: There have been lots of rumors circulating that I had
received multiple warnings about irregularities in my blood tests in
2004. To clarify, the conversations about the results of my health
tests were actually more about mutual concerns than accusations.

The Phonak team was the first to raise a red flag about results
associated with my tests. The team felt there was something wrong with
the UCI’s health test measurements from Romandie. A meeting regarding
those measurements was requested by Phonak, and took place in
Switzerland in early May. I was not present, but the team management
and various UCI officials were.

The discussion boiled down to the fact that the Phonak team and UCI
were using hematocrit machines manufactured by different
companies. Phonak agreed to purchase the same machine the UCI uses so
if a discrepancy was ever noted again, there would be a similar
starting point at the basis of the argument. That machine was up and
running for the team by the Tour de France.

I also had a face to face meeting with Dr. Zorzoli in June to discuss
my health test results. We spoke at length about my reticulocyte
counts and what the medical explanations for those readings could
be. He recommended a specialist for me to see in Boston to try and get
to the bottom of the results. It was a friendly conversation, during
which the topic of the new blood transfusion test was
raised. Dr. Zorzoli noted that the test would be approved soon, but
pointedly noted that I was fine to continue racing.

I was also told that regardless of whether or not we agreed on the
accuracy of my hematocrit reading at Romandie, that result put me in
the out-of-competition testing pool for extra doping tests between
races. I did receive one letter after our meeting confirming
this. This news was not concerning to me because I already thought I
was in this pool for having met other criteria -- which
were; being ranked in the top 50 in the world, and for having won an
HC Stage race within the last year. In addition, I was already part of
the USADA out-of-competition testing program and had been since the
spring of 2000. So I didn’t protest being included. In fact, I
welcomed it.

I agreed to help Dr. Zorzoli with the development of the forms he
needed to design to determine the whereabouts of athletes in the
program. We traded multiple emails and faxes regarding this subject in
the days after our meeting.

So for me, nothing had really changed. I planned to follow up with the
hematology specialist in Boston during the off season, and started the
Tour de France two weeks later as planned.

Issues with the Blood Transfusion Test: The primary issues we raised
about this test during my hearing were:

1. Experts for both sides testified that flow cytometry, the test
methodology used for this test, can not prove a blood transfusion has
taken place.

2. If the minimum threshold stated in the sole peer review for the
test were applied to my test results from the Olympic Games and the
Vuelta Espana, both tests would have been declared negative.

3. There was no false positive study conducted during the validation
of this test.

4. The "visual criteria" used to determined the results of this test
boils down to an "I know it when I see it" evaluation - which when
applied in other doping tests, has been considered an unacceptable
level of detection that cannot stand alone in determining someone has
tested positive. Arbitration panels have stated in previous cases that
quantifiable criteria must confirm "visual" criteria. In my case
there was no quantifiable criteria used.

Issues with My Results: Of the number of unanswered issues regarding
my test results the most concerning are:

The fact the my Olympic A sample was originally declared negative and
there was no B sample test result to substantiate changing it to
positive.

The antigens declared positive for "mixed populations" in Athens and
the Vuelta are not the same.

Santi Perez: When Santi was declared guilty on the day my hearing
started - it took two key arguments off the table in my defense. We
could no longer contend my case was the first blood transfusion
case. Nor could we state that the test had not yet been validated
through a judicial process.

Santi Perez tested positive in the off-season but not during the
Vuelta where he provided multiple blood samples. And, his judicial
hearing was held without him being present. He plans to appeal his
case to CAS, the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

The Extortionist: My case is made even more confounding with the added
component of someone threatening the Phonak team with inside knowledge
about Santi and I being positive before either of us were declared
so. Issues and coincidences that cannot be ignored are:

1. On August 25, the extortionist sent his first message stating he
knew I would be announced as "positive" at the Olympics. According
to the IOC, that conclusion was not made until between September 10
and 16.

2. Out of all the Olympic athletes in Athens, and professional
cyclists competing in 2004, the extortionist correctly "guessed"
that Santi and I would test positive

3. The extortionist accepted a monetary bribe "to keep an additional
rider clean" and "the Phonak team clean in 2005" on November 3,
2004. At that time he stated he needed 9 days to determine if
everything would be okay. He was arrested by police after accepting
the bribe. Nine days later, the Pro Tour teams were announced and
Phonak was told for the first time, they would be left off the list

Circumstantial Support: When they told me I had tested positive I was
in discussions with Phonak for a two year extension to my contract
that would have taken me through 2007, when I would be 36 years old. I
had ten individual sponsors, a foundation, a touring company and a
film project on my plate. My life had never been more secure. This was
not a time to risk everything. And I never would have.

In addition, the allegations made during my hearing were that I
transfused once in the winter and again in early June. This simply
doesn’t make any sense. A transfusion in January or February would be
pointless since I did not start racing until March. In addition, a
wintertime transfusion would not result in low reticulocyte or high
hematocrit counts in late April or early May.

The spring is an important racing period, but it’s not a time when I
have any pressure on me to perform. I was happy to win the Tour of
Romandie in May, but my goal for the season was seeing how well I
could do at the Tour de France.

In June, I finished second at the Dauphine Libere but never once
attacked during the race. No one with objectives for the Tour wants to
be flying a month ahead of schedule. Winning the Dauphine was not
important to me or my team. Getting to the Tour healthy and ready to
go was. So there’s no logic in the argument that I could have taken a
transfusion in early June.

And finally, I would never risk my health or my wife’s health for the
sake of racing. That just goes without saying.

Normal Values: My hematocrit, hemoglobin and reticulocyte readings
-- that were of such discussion in the spring, were
absolutely normal for the key time periods of my season. My scores all
through the Tour de France, Olympics and Vuelta were in a range
consistent with ten years of health data I have saved. From my
perspective, this is an important point that seemed to have been
discounted during my hearing.

When you add my major injuries in the Tour de France that left me with
hematomas in my lower back and deep bruises to my kidneys and spine
-- plus two additional crashes in the Dauphine and
Vuelta where I suffered additional bruises and abrasions
-- it gets difficult to defend the presence of a
foreign blood transfusion taken in early June being visible in tests
conducted in mid September. My body would have been working over time
to heal those injuries -- especially the bruises. And
that recovery would have flushed away any evidence of the alleged June
transfusion.

One expert who helped develop the test and who also testified against
me during my hearing agreed that it would be a long shot for an early
June transfusion to be visible at the late date of 9/11
-- but went on to allege that I must have been
"topping off my blood supply with 100 milliliter transfusions
throughout the summer" for my tests to come out the way they did.

This raises a few questions -- the first being what
would topping off a blood supply with shot glass size transfusions
accomplish other than keeping the chances of testing positive alive?
And why would anyone go to the trouble or risk to their health to do
this? This allegation, above all, made me wonder just how invested
these researchers were in understanding the practice they were trying
to eradicate.

My case is a very complicated one. I could write on and on about the
issues we raised, the personal toll all this has had on me, my family
and my sponsors and why I think the anti-doping process could be
improved. In the days ahead I’ll share more.

Thanks for reading.

End posting from http://www.tylerhamilton.com, by Tyler Hamilton)

[Bob Schwartz]

Dennis G Allard > wrote:
> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>> dga > wrote:
>>
>>>One thing I have learned in my years of riding and in other
>>>places in life is to judge people by their actions and their
>>>words and, in short, by their character.
>>
>>
>> So what do you make of his initial claim of this being the
>> result of a past surgical intervention? If you are going to
>> judge him by his words, then judge him by his words. Not
>> just the words you want to believe.

> If he is innocent and befuddled by the positive result,
> he may have made such a statement by way of offering
> an explanation of the positive test result. Seems normal.

> But, I've read his online log and don't recall that particular
> claim. Where did you see that? I recall reading in the
> actual judgement that one defense offered was the possibility
> of blood from an unborn twin. But that was not claimed as
> being the case, merely as one possible explanation that has
> not yet been ruled out.

> I have included Tyler's own statment he made on April 18,
> below at the end of this post. I do not see any claim of
> past surgery there and can't find it elsewhere. Please
> refer me to where that claim has been published.

Well duh. If it's total horse**** you wouldn't expect him to
be talking about it months later, would you? You'd expect him
to shut up about it. And sure enough, that's exactly what he
did.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/sep04/sep21news3

"Hamilton has denied having a transfusion, saying the positive
test was the result of a surgical intervention he had some time
ago."

Surgical intervention involving a blood transfusion is pretty
rare. If fact, I'll bet it never happened in Tyler's case. Kind
of odd to grasp at that particular straw, don't you think?

>> This guy is a total stranger to you. What do you know of his
>> character?

> We all judge the character of many people we do not personally
> know based on words and actions. For example, I voted against
> George Bush based on my evaluation of him even though I do not
> know him personally.

> My comment (see your above inclusion) was referring to certain
> postings in this newsgroup and was judging by the words of those
> postings.

> For Tyler, I have read his diaries and words of people who
> know him.

I came to my decision on George Bush based on his policy history.
I don't know jack about his personal character other than what I
can infer based on his policies.

I have seen people I grew up with and have known for years do
things I never thought they were capable of. Like the guy whose
wife was screwing around on him. This guy had no criminal
record. He had everyone around him telling him to walk away.
But that's not what he did. He walked into the place where the
guy she was screwing around with worked, and shot him dead.
Not in the heat of passion mind you. He had plenty of time to
think it over.

I didn't know this guy well enough to expect that. I don't know
George Bush. I don't know Tyler Hamilton. And neither do you.

'One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions'
-Grace Hopper

It is a shame that the dope cops did such crap work on Tyler's
case. I wish they hadn't. But I am not buying any of this crap
about Tyler being innocent because of his character. His
character may well be spotless. But spotless with one or two
carefully concealed flaws is also a good possibility. I don't
know enough to say for certain one way or the other.

* And * neither * do * you *.

Bob Schwartz

[Dennis G Allard]

Bob Schwartz wrote:
> Dennis G Allard > wrote:
> ...
> It is a shame that the dope cops did such crap work on Tyler's
> case. I wish they hadn't. But I am not buying any of this crap
> about Tyler being innocent because of his character. His
> character may well be spotless. But spotless with one or two
> carefully concealed flaws is also a good possibility. I don't
> know enough to say for certain one way or the other.
>
> * And * neither * do * you *.

I accept that.

But I *believe* Tyler. Just my intuition about both people
and science. I could be wrong and would be sorry to
find out I am. But in my book this case is far from
proved. Btw, I don't believe in god, to answer one
other posters question. I believe in facts and I am
aware that we can never be totally sure about the facts.
Does not mean we should not seek them. (C.f. Socrates).

In any case, the weaknesses in the procedures used for
establishing the positive result of Tyler's test combined
with numerous circumstantial issues reinforce my
intuition. I'm inclined to agree with the MIT
genticist (Housman). I.e., the case is not closed, far
from it.

As for the dope cops... Test him again. I think Tyler
wants to be tested again. Lock him up in a quarantine
and test him again. If he tests positive (by the same
persons who said he was positive before - let's keep
the previous prejudice intact, please), then we have
a problem with the test. If he tests negative, then
the case is still open but stronger against Tyler.


Cheers,
Dennis

[Patricio Carlos]

He did test again in November and was negative.

[Donald Munro]

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
>>>Of course, and I stumbled upon this while googling, it was also the name
>>>for one of the Imperial Star Destroyer ships from the battle of Endor.
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimaera_%28Star_Wars%29

Donald Munro wrote:
>> I knew all along that Darth Vader had something to do with Tyler's
>> downfall.

Stewart Fleming wrote:
> "I am your father, Luke".
> Oh no, hang on, that's the other guy.

You must be planning a winter holiday on the riviera.

[Donald Munro]

Donald Munro wrote:
>> I knew all along that Darth Vader had something to do with Tyler's
>> downfall.

Marty wrote:
> I knew I'd seen that weird aero helmet somewhere before!

And it comes with an enriched oxygen re-breather as well.

[B. Lafferty]

"Patricio Carlos" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> He did test again in November and was negative.
>

I asked (via email) the director of his foundation if she knew Tyler and
Santi Perez's blood types. She claims to not know--and apparently doesn't
want to ask Tyler to find out about Perez. I presume Tyler know his blood
type.

[Bob Schwartz]

Dennis G Allard > wrote:
> As for the dope cops... Test him again. I think Tyler
> wants to be tested again. Lock him up in a quarantine
> and test him again. If he tests positive (by the same
> persons who said he was positive before - let's keep
> the previous prejudice intact, please), then we have
> a problem with the test. If he tests negative, then
> the case is still open but stronger against Tyler.

Indeed. And you know, this doesn't depend on the dope
cops. If Tyler wants to be tested again he can be tested
again. It'd be a lot cheaper than lawyers, even if you
figured in the cost of an independent third party to
observe and validate the test conditions.

If you read Voet's book he describes doing something
similar in a different context. He took a course of
Clenbuterol and then paid for his own dope tests in order
to determine the detection window. I believe that's why
the WADA is so secretive about the details of the test,
at least until the hearing.

Of course if he did it, this would not be a valid approach
for proving his innocence. He would be better off not
talking about it at all. If I were judging him by his
words and actions I would take note of that.

Bob Schwartz

[Robert Chung]

Bob Schwartz wrote:
> Indeed. And you know, this doesn't depend on the dope
> cops. If Tyler wants to be tested again he can be tested
> again.

Hamilton claims that he asked to be tested again immediately after being
told of the Vuelta results but was denied the chance.