Tyler's Book

[Jalina]

We've already answered your questions: they did not think that it was morally wrong (except for Betsy). Once they reached that decision, it was just another aspect of being married to a bike racer, like filling water bottles before a ride. It's not that complicated.

Exactly. You have answered the questions. Men (I presume, correct me if I'm wrong) who haven't been in that position, are explaining a woman's motivations and feelings and how that ultimately affected a relationship. That's the equivalent of me explaining how it feels to be kicked in the n*ts. I can guess, but at the end of the day I have NFI. The questions I'm throwing out here are not necessarily to be answered here, but more to be thought about in a wider context in the life of the doper.
Bassons brought up the relationship and family dynamic, to fill a need (love, money), as a possible motivation for a doper. Most people would assume the doper dopes simply to win, Bassons believes there are far more complex psychological factors at play. I believe the same about the enablers, the partners. So yes, I do think it is more complicated than you do. That doesn't make either of us right or wrong, it just means we see it differently.

You are over thinking this. Substitute "filling water bottles" for "doping" and you have your answer.

You don't think that knowledge, or dirt, equates to power in relationship? If reports are to be believed, you don't think what Kik Armstrong knew equated to power at the settlement table? You don't think she was well rewarded for her silence?
You don't think a doping athlete that wants out of a relationship has to be very careful about how they extract themselves from that relationship and how they treat their former partner considering the knowledge the partner has?
I'm astounded anyone is that naive.

Like I said, I've read most of the research out there on the athlete relationship. The use of power within those relationships is anything but simple. I can't see the dynamic for cyclists would be all that different. Add in the doping, and I would guess it would become more complicated. Not in every relationship, but in some.

I was mainly throwing questions out there hoping someone had read something, anything from the view of the partners. But it seems no-one has. All anyone has done is guess as to the motivations, as have I. I'll just keep looking.

 

[fepate]

"Should know better" simply means understanding right from wrong? Does that honestly need explaining? I understand that for many doping isn't that black and white, but IMO it should be.

Everything else you wrote is very interesting and well reasoned. The bit above, however seems way too simplified. Right and wrong are not so easy. It varies from person to person. Environment plays a big role. As does emotional state. You also mentioned health implications. That is relative, too. Different people are willing to abuse their bodies to different degrees to pursue their life dream or just to have fun. Professional bike racing is already dangerous without doping anyway. Applying such a simple view that what is your wrong is also someone else's wrong to the same degree can't help your understanding of what motivated the wives to assist with the doping.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I'd lay money on the former. I think even Tyler finally realized is that maybe doping doctors aren't the best doctors. The dude was dealing with a 100+ clients when he was busted. How was he supposed to remember that many dog owners?

There were 220 BBs in the frigde and freezer. Not all of them would have been storing 2 BBs, some of them none, some 3. The assistant couldn't remember / look up Hamilton's BB code, so a couple of possibilities:
1. mistakes were made and / or
2. due to the money involved and the conflict of interest, one rider could have paid extra to have a stuff up applied to another rider - same blood type, different rider or similar.

 

[veganrob]

Exactly. You have answered the questions. Men (I presume, correct me if I'm wrong) who haven't been in that position, are explaining a woman's motivations and feelings and how that ultimately affected a relationship. That's the equivalent of me explaining how it feels to be kicked in the n*ts. I can guess, but at the end of the day I have NFI. The questions I'm throwing out here are not necessarily to be answered here, but more to be thought about in a wider context in the life of the doper.
Bassons brought up the relationship and family dynamic, to fill a need (love, money), as a possible motivation for a doper. Most people would assume the doper dopes simply to win, Bassons believes there are far more complex psychological factors at play. I believe the same about the enablers, the partners. So yes, I do think it is more complicated than you do. That doesn't make either of us right or wrong, it just means we see it differently.



You don't think that knowledge, or dirt, equates to power in relationship? If reports are to be believed, you don't think what Kik Armstrong knew equated to power at the settlement table? You don't think she was well rewarded for her silence?
You don't think a doping athlete that wants out of a relationship has to be very careful about how they extract themselves from that relationship and how they treat their former partner considering the knowledge the partner has?
I'm astounded anyone is that naive.

Like I said, I've read most of the research out there on the athlete relationship. The use of power within those relationships is anything but simple. I can't see the dynamic for cyclists would be all that different. Add in the doping, and I would guess it would become more complicated. Not in every relationship, but in some.

I was mainly throwing questions out there hoping someone had read something, anything from the view of the partners. But it seems no-one has. All anyone has done is guess as to the motivations, as have I. I'll just keep looking.

I agree with you. It is far more complicated than just "filling water bottles". And that is both for the man and the woman. Many must do a lot of soul searching before the needle goes in the arm for the first time. It may get easier as time goes on but the doubt still is there. Some overide the guilt feelings quicker and then justify the deed by the results. Satisfying some emotional deficiency. Others have no qualms whatsoever and are full speed ahead from the get go.
The partner must go through a bit different thought process but still decide. I can't answer that.
I am certainly no pychologist, these are just my thoughts and observations.

 

[hrotha]

There were 220 BBs in the frigde and freezer. Not all of them would have been storing 2 BBs, some of them none, some 3. The assistant couldn't remember / look up Hamilton's BB code, so a couple of possibilities:
1. mistakes were made and / or
2. due to the money involved and the conflict of interest, one rider could have paid extra to have a stuff up applied to another rider - same blood type, different rider or similar.

I think 2 is very unlikely. The doctor/shaman would be willingly jeopardizing his reputation and his potential income.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I think 2 is very unlikely. The doctor/shaman would be willingly jeopardizing his reputation and his potential income.

How would you tell the difference?

 

[python]

T

Everytime he recounted his number for a delivery he was translating the number via broken Spanish to a dslexic. It inevitably got mixed up.

this is a good point. yet, the mix up could occur for other likelier reasons. some were proposed by ashenden. i also have a theory of my own (don't feel it would be on topic here). we know, for example, that vino was fuentes ' client and he got busted with the same test as tyler. hamilton also described that there were examples of more mix ups - not just crossing the blood types. like when he got sick from a transfusion with too many dead blood cells or when he relayed the rumour about ulrich, another fuentes' client, getting sick from a bad transfusion.

@StyrbjornSterki
you are incorrect. ME and others explained. you are basically oversimplifying the dope testing to the following -'police is no good because crimes still occur', 'medical profession is no good because peole still die from so many deceases....'. i am on record for criticizing some aspects of wada code and procedures but it does not mean that what they do is incompetent as a whole.

@jalina
imo you have touched upon the impossible to systematically study issue. my personal position is very close to iwcij's. i also believe it is a transgender issue. it applies equally to ANY deep friendships both between couples and just friends of the same sex. co-participation in morally questionable deeds could be driven by a range of single factors or a mix of them. some could be very rational and practical, some purely emotional, some calculated and long-term designs, some hooks swallowed on the spur of the moment...all because real life is very complicated and different people experiences their own unique circumstances. to systematize them on the basis of morality would be bad science in my opinion.

 

[hrotha]

How would you tell the difference?

Both cases make you look bad. Incompetence without malevolence isn't good for business either.

 

[Tubeless]

There were 220 BBs in the frigde and freezer. Not all of them would have been storing 2 BBs, some of them none, some 3. The assistant couldn't remember / look up Hamilton's BB code, so a couple of possibilities:
1. mistakes were made and / or
2. due to the money involved and the conflict of interest, one rider could have paid extra to have a stuff up applied to another rider - same blood type, different rider or similar.

Tyler's book has a section on this, quoting a theory offered by Dr Ashenden which has to do with the complexity of freezing blood for long term storage (where glycol has to be mixed with blood a bit at a time). When this process is performed for multiple blood bags from different riders at the same time, a careless operator can make a mistake and mix up traces of blood from two blood bags. Tyler had gotten a bad blood bag earlier (as reportedly did Ullrich) so there was a precedent of Fuente's lab not being top notch.

The conspiracy theory (where someone intentionally caused Tyler to be caught) is hard to believe. He was caught in 2004 twice - at the Athens Olympics and at the Vuelta - so a single lab conspiring with UCI on LA's orders just doesn't seem credible. The contamination needed to happen with just one blood bag - a blood cell from a homologous infusion stays in the body up to 90 days, the standard life cycle of a blood cell. Having someone intentionally contaminate a blood bag (before infused) is even more far-fetched.

 

[Cloxxki]

It was pretty obvious that Kik and Haven would have been involved. The one I'm still curious about is Stephanie Mcillvine.....no squeak that she was a mule yet, maybe that 7hr grand jury grilling was just about witness tampering after all...maybe. She just seems quite entangled and invested in the whole mess, which begs an explanation IMO.

As truth is usually more bizarre than fiction... I heard she has a young child, born with disabilities? Are we sure as to the identity of the biological father? And yeah I know she married an Oakley colleague of sorts, although I've very fuzzy on details.
But seee, that's about the level of entanglement that might get a woman to lie under oath, let alone a double or nothing. It's sensationalist to suggest, but I sincerely hope she's just friggin' nuts as a comfirmed and only true explanation. Poor woman, regardless of the truth...

 

[fatandfast]

tyler everybody knows there were never brown Ford Astro vans..

 

[Tubeless]

tyler everybody knows there were never brown Ford Astro vans..

The direct quote from the book (Chapter 15: Hide-and-Seek) is:

"One time there were two guys who sat in a tan Ford Astro van in front of our apartment for several hours..."

So not quite a brown one. If you want to dissect the accuracy of this sentence, a better angle is to claim there never was a Ford Astro van - Astro is a trademark of Chevy, Ford's van brand was Aerostar.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The conspiracy theory (where someone intentionally caused Tyler to be caught) is hard to believe. He was caught in 2004 twice - at the Athens Olympics and at the Vuelta - so a single lab conspiring with UCI on LA's orders just doesn't seem credible. The contamination needed to happen with just one blood bag - a blood cell from a homologous infusion stays in the body up to 90 days, the standard life cycle of a blood cell. Having someone intentionally contaminate a blood bag (before infused) is even more far-fetched.

I was meaning Fuentes can be bought, not the labs. He would know their blood types, so give one guy the same blood type, but someone else's blood.

It's a theory. Not saying it's likely. Just looking at what is possible. What explains the outcome. Money was clearly the driving force here, not helping your rider win per se. Yes you get more money if they win or place, but Tyler had already coughed up $50k for the freezer for the year.

 

[thehog]

The direct quote from the book (Chapter 15: Hide-and-Seek) is:

"One time there were two guys who sat in a tan Ford Astro van in front of our apartment for several hours..."

So not quite a brown one. If you want to dissect the accuracy of this sentence, a better angle is to claim there never was a Ford Astro van - Astro is a trademark of Chevy, Ford's van brand was Aerostar.

Excellent observation.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Excellent observation.

English is funny like that. You can describe something the wrong way and everyone knows what you're talking about anyway.

From Tyler's book:

What's June 4th, 2006 + 1000 days = ?

 

[Bosco10]

The direct quote from the book (Chapter 15: Hide-and-Seek) is:

"One time there were two guys who sat in a tan Ford Astro van in front of our apartment for several hours..."

So not quite a brown one. If you want to dissect the accuracy of this sentence, a better angle is to claim there never was a Ford Astro van - Astro is a trademark of Chevy, Ford's van brand was Aerostar.

lol.. Maybe Dan Coyle can add one of his clarifying footnotes to the 2nd edition.

 

[Tubeless]

I was meaning Fuentes can be bought, not the labs. He would know their blood types, so give one guy the same blood type, but someone else's blood.

It's a theory. Not saying it's likely. Just looking at what is possible. What explains the outcome. Money was clearly the driving force here, not helping your rider win per se. Yes you get more money if they win or place, but Tyler had already coughed up $50k for the freezer for the year.

It'd difficult to see why Fuentes would risk getting caught in a crime (accepting a bribe to defraud his own customer) when he was being careful to operate within the Spanish law that did not prohibit doctor-assisted doping. And even when thinking through the economics of it - he'd be certain to lose a steady paying customer and his professional reputation amongst his clients in exchange for a one-time fee?

There's a clear pattern for most of the doping positives amongst the top riders. Their doping system is designed such that there is little chance to get caught. You'd only test positive if you made a mistake. Blood doping introduces an additional complexity - the rider is more dependent on the doctor and his assistants to handle the blood properly, compared to self-administered EPO, HgH and Testosterone.

It's notable that another top rider, Aleksander Vinokourov was caught 3 years later at the 2007 TdF for the same reason - homologous blood transfusion. He was also listed as one of Dr Fuentes' clients in Tyler's book. You can rule out the scenario that Vino would have taken a bag of someone else's blood intentionally - a professional suicide - rather it's likely another example of a similar mistake of handling blood, and how ironic that it was possibly the same Dr.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Tyler's book has a section on this, quoting a theory offered by Dr Ashenden which has to do with the complexity of freezing blood for long term storage (where glycol has to be mixed with blood a bit at a time). When this process is performed for multiple blood bags from different riders at the same time, a careless operator can make a mistake and mix up traces of blood from two blood bags. Tyler had gotten a bad blood bag earlier (as reportedly did Ullrich) so there was a precedent of Fuente's lab not being top notch.

The conspiracy theory (where someone intentionally caused Tyler to be caught) is hard to believe. He was caught in 2004 twice - at the Athens Olympics and at the Vuelta - so a single lab conspiring with UCI on LA's orders just doesn't seem credible. The contamination needed to happen with just one blood bag - a blood cell from a homologous infusion stays in the body up to 90 days, the standard life cycle of a blood cell. Having someone intentionally contaminate a blood bag (before infused) is even more far-fetched.

I thought his and Tyler's BB-courier was stopped at customs? Did he also get a bad bag, like Tyler?

 

[Berzin]

I don't see the mislabeling of blood bags as a conspiracy by Fuentes. I see it as downright incompetence from a quack.

This is one of the reasons why Dr. Ferrari was not only so highly paid but also in demand.

Then again, Ferrari probably wasn't the one administering the blood transfusions-that was probably left to the individual team doctors, because it wasn't like any of Ferrari's clients never got caught-quite a few went down during this era.

 

[thehog]

I don't see the mislabeling of blood bags as a conspiracy by Fuentes. I see it as downright incompetence from a quack.

This is one of the reasons why Dr. Ferrari was not only so highly paid but also in demand.

Then again, Ferrari probably wasn't the one administering the blood transfusions-that was probably left to the individual team doctors, because it wasn't like any of Ferrari's clients never got caught-quite a few went down during this era.

Fuentes was Walmart - doping to the masses. Ferrari was Sacks on 5th - only for the wealthy.

Stock was bound to missing on those shelves at Walmart.

 

[Tubeless]

I thought his and Tyler's BB-courier was stopped at customs? Did he also get a bad bag, like Tyler?

Tyler's bad blood bag happened early during the 2004 TdF - blood bag #1. Tyler says in the book that he had heard rumors that Ullrich had also gotten a bad bag. The case where Fuente's courier was stopped by the police happened later during the same TdF - blood bag #2. The courier had thrown the blood bags away in the ditch. A friend told Tyler later that the same had happened to Ullrich.

It is curious that both these unusual events happened after Tyler had beaten Lance at the Dauphine uphill TT and gotten Lance all worried about a new TdF rival. According to Landis, Lance had called UCI to invite Tyler to UCI headquarters to receive a verbal warning "to be careful" with respect to his blood values. The UCI doctor suggested that Tyler had received a transfusion from another person.

So there's proof that Lance was involved in trying to get Tyler in trouble. It's possible Lance's operatives tipped French police to be on a lookout for Fuentes' courier. But the bad blood bag was still likely caused by a mistake in handling the blood - it was Fuentes' first year freezing the blood for long term storage.

The mix-up where Tyler received someone else's blood probably happened in the blood bag Tyler received before Dauphine - which gave UCI the reason to call him in and also caused him to fail the tests at the Olympics and at the Vuelta. Dauphine was in mid June, Olympics and Vuelta in August which fall into the 90-day life cycle of a blood cell.

So two mistakes by Fuentes. First mistake when freezing the blood bag for Dauphine, careless assistant mixes traces from another blood bag with Tyler's. Second mistake when unfreezing blood bag #1 for TdF, most of the blood cells have died by the time it's re-infused into Tyler.

 

[Cloxxki]

It'd difficult to see why Fuentes would risk getting caught in a crime (accepting a bribe to defraud his own customer) when he was being careful to operate within the Spanish law that did not prohibit doctor-assisted doping.

Yet a few years later, more stringent laws in place, what does he do? And what does that tell us about his work ethics prior to those laws being implemented?
Fuentes has been so reckless, it's almost like he wants to be caught. Hear of his war stories in prison? His cell mates had to listen to him yapping about doping up most of the Spanish soccer team that defeated The Netherlands. That story may or may not have slowed down progress in his case. It does tell us (if indeed he said such a thing) something about his customer loyalty.

 

[airstream]

Apparently, OP taught riders many things. At least, very likely elite gc riders have nowadays special exclusive agreements as Lance had with Ferrari. As for Vino's case, to me, this is rather the matter of UCI's willingness to catch than say the doctor's rude mistake. UCI can cook up a positive test against any. As we remember, Vino was the guy who refused to sign anti-doping charter to the last on the eve on the 2007 Tour. Probably, it could affect on him being caught.

That's interesting that such a powerful team as Phonak was nailed for 3 years conspicuously due to absence of their people in UCI. IMO, any new PT team has 2 options: either at once to pay UCI a lot so that their riders wouldn't be popped; or not to pay to become an object using which UCI will implement their alleged strong anti-doping policy... Obviously, Garmin and Sky used Phonak experience wisely...

Astoundingly vicious system.

Oh, hog's avatar reminded one thing. Sastre. What do you think about him in the light of Tyler's book? The man was riding 3 grand tours in one year, showing great results. That's impossible to store blood for all 3 - blood system doesn't endure such perturbations... Perhaps, he had a natural hematocrit of 49 and EPO and transfusions couldn't help him much and hence he's the only relatively honest champion of that era. It's only my personal assumption, though.

 

[Maillot Vert]

Oh, hog's avatar reminded one thing. Sastre. What do you think about him in the light of Tyler's book? The man was riding 3 grand tours in one year, showing great results. That's impossible to store blood for all 3 - blood system doesn't endure such perturbations... Perhaps, he had a natural hematocrit of 49 and EPO and transfusions couldn't help him much and hence he's the only relatively honest champion of that era. It's only my personal assumption, though.

With all the systematic doping going on at the time, it's difficult to arrive at any conclusion other than, Sastre had to be on a doping programme also. Particularly when one takes his Grand Tour results into consideration. We all know that your natural hematocrit level drops a certain percentage during three week Grand Tours. In other words, for example; given Sastre's 10th place finish in the overall general classification at the 2002 Tour De France. That result would not have been possible for him without oxygen vector doping, given that this illegal practice was widespread amongst the peloton.

 

[Cloxxki]

With all the systematic doping going on at the time, it's difficult to arrive at any conclusion other than, Sastre had to be on a doping programme also.

First we thought cycling was all so secretive. Now it seems to me like only Sastre and Evans were not bragging about it to everyone and their sister, or being blatantly obvious about in the style of their riding. Like the Riis mention in the book, where he was using a climb where clean Tyler was suffering, as a 40rmp training ride, and other folks were all but picking their noses.
Side step : if Tyler wasn't overstating his recollections, the performance gain for doping may be closer to 30% than to 10% for some. My shape can easily vary 10% in performance, but if my out of shape fat azz version gets to ride against the relatively fit one, he can follow for a long time, especially of there is a draft to be had.
My own experiences when I rode against pros (I was a bit of a freak of nature in my own right) was that I needed not dream about competing there, the difference was too great. A pro would take looooong leads straight into a 8Bft headwind on the beach, holding 33-34kph. In the pack behind, I'd sit there having it easy at 150bpm. When I joined the leads to do my part, I could do that for only seconds, as the effort level was way north of what would get me my 195rpm max. Sitting in the lead felt like a 550-600W effort to me (no powermeasuring for me, especially on the beach), whereas 500W was about as high as I'd been tested. I cannot reconcile that to just training effort and talent. And with 10% of petty doping, I would still not have been a factor in such circumstances, which is odd to me. I've won races, and this particular race was probably my best performance ever, hanging with the pro's this long, and dropping some of them on the way way with tail winds. It's easy to say that I was just so much weaker than the pros and even doping would not have made me a champion, but then, my power output wasn't all that bad. I am leaning towards doping offering up to 30% or better to some, making it a different race all together. Perhaps their legs would not endure the full 30% at VO2max levels for long, but the same effort over 1 hour may have netted such power gains. Making a super-VO2max effort (like 600W would have been for me) a LT type of effort. That makes it a motorbike type or ride in my view.