Tyler's Book

[airstream]

Surely, no one states Sastre or Evans raced clean. As Tyler points out US Postal dropped out of the bunch on flat stages without EPO in 1996, not to mention about mountains. I really shudder to think what diabolical edge doping gives. Plus, There's a bit of psychological phenomen too. Using doping helps a rider to feel that others are lingering even faster that encourages more. This story has no end - too much money and fame is at stake. Riders will always bluff.

 

[Tubeless]

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.

UCI has been accused of covering up a positive - but not cooking up one. How would it work logistically if indeed you believe this happened? Vino was caught in 2007 so this would have already been a year under the WADA rules for testing.

Sastre did all 3 grand tours twice - in 2006 (43rd - 3th - 4th) and 2010 (8th - 20th - 8th). Being the 2008 TdF champ, and a leader in Bjarne Riis' team, he was obviously doping like the rest of them in this era. Freezing blood permits a potentially unlimited amount of blood to be stored so that's not a technical limitation. Sastre is unique (together with Evans) that there have been few rumors about their doping practices - but it's more likely both are quiet professionals who knew to stay quiet and not brag to their buddies like Lance did. Who would have ever thought of the quiet and likeable George Hincapie being a doper? Yet now we know he was a long-term participant in all of it.

 

[roundabout]

After 2005-2006, everyone.

That was an equivalent of, say, Pozzato becoming a GC rider.

 

[airstream]

UCI has been accused of covering up a positive - but not cooking up one.

Yes, but Landis said UCI kind of attached his the 2005 Tour testosteron plasters to the 2006 tour probe and declared about positive while he did only transfusion. That's something I tend to listen for. Or, say... Rasmussen is the only rider in the light of whom a term 'dynepo' was used by UCI. Could anyone believe he was the only who used that stuff in the most doping Tour for the last decade? To me, this was an obvious 'cooking up one'.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

UCI has been accused of covering up a positive - but not cooking up one. How would it work logistically if indeed you believe this happened? Vino was caught in 2007 so this would have already been a year under the WADA rules for testing.

Did you miss Paul Kimmage's tweet? A week ago or more.

22nd Sept:

'J'ai les moyens de vous faire un coureur positif quand je veux...'

Attributed to Hein Verbruggen.

 

[Tubeless]

Yes, but Landis said UCI kind of attached his the 2005 Tour testosteron plasters to the 2006 tour probe and declared about positive while he did only transfusion. That's something I tend to listen for. Or, say... Rasmussen is the only rider in the light of whom a term 'dynepo' was used by UCI. Could anyone believe he was the only who used that stuff in the most doping Tour for the last decade? To me, this was an obvious 'cooking up one'.

Given that UCI knew everyone was doping, and the riders were often given advance warnings about the tests performed by UCI, all it would take is to start targeting a rider for more frequent testing to produce a positive test. This is how UCI caught Andrej Kaschechkin in 2007 - a rare surprise test when Andrej was vacationing in Turkey.

So if that's what you mean by "cooking up" a positive, I can concur. But making a clean rider turn up doping positive is not something that's technically possible, given the process of how the samples are handled.

Landis' testosterone positive could well be another mistake in handling blood bags - or Landis thought he was taking HgH (undetectable in tests at the time) and in fact ingested testosterone in the days before he gave up blood for storage.

 

[python]

,snip> But making a clean rider turn up doping positive is not something that's technically possible, given the process of how the samples are handled.

tubeless, the operative words 'not possible' in this case should be replaced with 'not likely'. if we are talking about an 'arranged' epo positive, yes, it would take an elaborate conspiracy. that's why ashenden's interview to velonation about armstrong's epo positives should be read by those interested in the details. however, if we are talking about non-hormonal positves, the conspiracy could be as easy as mixing some banned substance in your drink or food.

i will not comment on landis' positive now (though i expressed my opinion earlier several times) however, kash's hbt positive, according to his own interview 2 days ago was due to 'bruyneel's and biver's ambitions against him'. form your own opinion, but i think he's full of it.

former dopers are still misrepresenting and distorting if they feel it will help them to maintain their income.

 

[airstream]

Landis' testosterone positive could well be another mistake in handling blood bags - or Landis thought he was taking HgH (undetectable in tests at the time) and in fact ingested testosterone in the days before he gave up blood for storage.

Anyways, it's strange that members of one well-off team always bumped into BB problems, whereas others (Discovery, CSC) elegantly avoided this . It hardly can be explained by a simple coincidence.

 

[Tubeless]

tubeless, the operative words 'not possible' in this case should be replaced with 'not likely'. if we are talking about an 'arranged' epo positive, yes, it would take an elaborate conspiracy. that's why ashenden's interview to velonation about armstrong's epo positives should be read by those interested in the details. however, if we are talking about non-hormonal positves, the conspiracy could be as easy as mixing some banned substance in your drink or food.

i will not comment on landis' positive now (though i expressed my opinion earlier several times) however, kash's hbt positive, according to his own interview 2 days ago was due to 'bruyneel's and biver's ambitions against him'. form your own opinion, but i think he's full of it.

former dopers are still misrepresenting and distorting if they feel it will help them to maintain their income.

The question was whether UCI can "cook up" a positive. My point here was that once a rider gives a test sample, the process thereafter is out of UCI's hands. UCI is corrupt and has been accused of covering up positives, but have there ever been credible claims that they'd be guilty of making clean riders dirty? Selective catching of dopers yes, but none who've been caught have been innocent to date - correct?

Many riders who've been caught positive have offered the explanation that they were subject to contamination or even intentional sabotage - but is there any evidence of this actually happening to even a single rider? There are clearly cases where the rider seems sincerely confused why a positive has taken place (Hamilton, Landis, Contador) - but the complexity of storing blood bags and carelessness of greedy doping doctors handling dozens of clients is the likely cause, not a conspiracy by UCI or by a rival team or rider.

 

[python]

The question was whether UCI can "cook up" a positive.

i think we are on the same page here. theoretically yes, but the answer needs some qualification. the easiest way, of course, would be to assume that most riders are on some banned substance most of the time. then ‘cooking up’ would be as easy as more targeted testing of some riders the uci wants to sack whilst issuing advance warnings to those they want to protect if tested by another ado. did this happen in the uci history ? i suspect it did. during the verbruggen’s tenure I am almost sure it had happened. i sincerely hope that kimmage’s lawyers do their home work. is this still happening ? i don’t have hard proof but it would be reasonable to assume that doping is still a serious problem. through various monitoring tools like passport, the uci has a pretty good idea about ‘who-where-when’. phat just has to be more careful than heiny…having an opportunity to witness phat's actions, i doubt he'd have the brain to execute w/o leaving a tonne of dirty footsteps behind.

My point here was that once a rider gives a test sample, the process thereafter is out of UCI's hands.

technically yes, at least until the results management process kicks in if the local testing was uci-sponsored (as opposed to afld or usada sponsored, for example). generally, a test is given to (or taken by) the uci medical officer. then, the sample handling (security, storage, transportation, is passed on to a uci sub-contractor (there are only so few in Europe) until it arrives at a given lab. during this stage indeed there are opportunities for sabotage. but that would require a well planned conspiracy. i have no idea if the uci would engage in that. technically, as you said, the uci is out of the picture during the ‘lab stage’ but as we know from the swiss lab example they still have some leverage if the result is not what the uci wanted. i would agree that nowadays with wada involved this leverage is small. but in the heiny days it was considerable.

UCI is corrupt and has been accused of covering up positives, but have there ever been credible claims that they'd be guilty of making clean riders dirty?

the technical term is false negative. leaving the uci aside for a moment (i will get back to them), it happens in every wada lab often when they run SCREENING tests - the 1st stage of testing (i‘ll omit the good technical reasons for simplicity). to become an adverse analytical finding the sample still has to fail the second stage, in fact 3 times - the confirmation. this does happen occasionally - the labs do screw up, though very rarely. Wada proficiency testing programme and their withdrawal of a sinned lab accreditation guard against such errors. but can uci come into the picture ? well, short of a downright criminal activity ( say, a bribe for data and records manipulation) only in a very limited way.
specifically, only when a sample is inconclusive or a border-line. then, the lab informs uci of the inconclusive and may provide a recommendation. that was exactly the case with Armstrong’s 2001 tds epo sample. We know how the uci behaved.

Many riders who've been caught positive have offered the explanation that they were subject to contamination or even intentional sabotage - but is there any evidence of this actually happening to even a single rider?

contamination did happen. many times. but that would be a transporter or a lab error. as to sabotage, i am sure in the 100-year long history of cycling that happened but i don’t know if the uci would stoop that low.

 

[ToreBear]

Thanks Python! That was a very informative post.

 

[airstream]

python, can anyone touch uci really closely or they are insubmersible?

 

[python]

python, can anyone touch uci really closely or they are insubmersible?

even if i knew, you'd be NOT reading it on this forum

that said, it is not about the uci 'in-submersible', rather their shrinking - by the day - room for maneuvering. 2 factors play against them. as i mentioned above, one, is the diligence and competence of kimmage's lawyers in properly shaping up a bunch of well known compromising facts (i listed about a dozen some place). and, two, the amount of evidence of the uci corruption in the coming usada report.

then, the uci can start back pedaling, flipping etc or the opposite - continue to pretend. if i was kimmage's lawyer, i'd like them keep pretending

 

[Tubeless]

even if i knew, you'd be NOT reading it on this forum

that said, it is not about the uci 'in-submersible', rather their shrinking - by the day - room for maneuvering. 2 factors play against them. as i mentioned above, one, is the diligence and competence of kimmage's lawyers in properly shaping up a bunch of well known compromising facts (i listed about a dozen some place). and, two, the amount of evidence of the uci corruption in the coming usada report.

then, the uci can start back pedaling, flipping etc or the opposite - continue to pretend. if i was kimmage's lawyer, i'd like them keep pretending

It is surprising that UCI has chosen to go ahead with the defamation lawsuit against Kimmage in light of the evidence already in public domain about the apparent corruption - and the upcoming release of the Armstrong dossier. The Landis lawsuit made more sense as it was clear to UCI they'd win by Landis choosing not to contest (no money, different continent, little evidence to fight back at the time that lawsuit was filed in April 2011). If anyone wants to expose UCI publicly and legally, they should donate generously to the Kimmage defense fund.

The atmosphere is markedly changing where it's becoming possible / acceptable to name UCI names, as witnessed by the recent accusations by David Millar, Tyler Hamilton, Michael Ashenden and others. UCI has used the same tactic as Armstrong - sue and intimidate all your opponents into submission, which serves as a deterrent and warning to others. The Kimmage lawsuit may be a serious miscalculation by Pat & Hein - it shall be interesting to watch.

 

[thehog]

The full Tyler transcript has been printed here: http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderr...icycling-_-Content-Blog-_-hamilton-transcript

From an earlier interview with BiCycling.

B: Do you think your first encounter with doping was like other racers’?

TH: To be honest, I can’t imagine otherwise. I can’t imagine people starting out wanting to dope. I don’t think anyone enjoys it. I didn’t. It was more controlling—and the more you did the more controlling it was. Working with Fuentes when he had “Siberia” (the freezer), the trips to Madrid, it was every 3 to 4 weeks, to just change the blood. It was super stressful because you were always late. So I’d drive 200 kilometers an hour to the airport, barely make the flight, and then when I landed I’d try to get Fuentes and he’d never answer the phone. And it’s not like you have a lot of time; there’s the flight home later that day. So you’re sitting at a café, just waiting, waiting for him to call, and then you get it and go in for the transfusion, but even then, you can’t relax, because you’re rushing to make the flight home.

B: You mention going to Madrid pretty much once a month to change blood. But you also say that not that many guys were doing things to that degree. So it never was a level playing field even with doping, was it?

TH: No. If you have money, you have knowledge, like good doctors, and you have the equipment … it’s crazy to talk that a plane can win the tour, but you don’t have to worry about sneaking a (blood) bag into France on a private plane—I don’t know that for a fact but I have heard it. I think when you have that stuff at your beck and call, with new drugs that seem to work that aren’t even on the market yet but are available to you, I think it’s hard not to take it one step beyond.

B: That bit about not being on the market yet—that happened with a number of drugs. Who pushed that? Where did this stuff come from if you couldn’t get it in a pharmacy?

TH: I don’t know all the details. From what I hear, the Spanish doctors, it seems like they, from the sounds of it, they took the risks on some of the new products on the black market. It always seemed like Lance had something up his sleeve. It’s just a suspicion. There were pieces of information throughout the year, and you heard all sorts of rumors but nothing factual. He would be riding well at Dauphiné, like level 20 and the rest of us were level 19 or 20, and then three weeks later at the Tour he’d be at like, level 30, and would make you look like the AA team. I did EPO, transfusions, testosterone, I tried growth hormone, but I didn’t like how it made me feel or ride, but I never tested any of the PFC or CERA or anything like that—it wasn’t available to me. And it didn’t sound very safe.

 

[Merckx index]

There is some new stuff here, that wasn’t in the book.

More implication of George:

I wasn’t super friendly with Lance after Postal, but I’d still let George (Hincapie) know [that the testers were coming] and he’d let Lance know.

Disguising themselves during training rides to avoid testers:

Guys would start training in blank kit—I totally forgot about that [in the book]. And Lance said it’s because everyone recognized me so it was the only way he could go train. But there was a time when people did that a lot.

All the stuff USADA didn’t know about doping techniques:

When I sat down to talk with them and they didn’t know some of this stuff, it was disturbing...it’s pretty clear—when I talked to USADA and gave them my statement, I spoke with them a couple of times and they took notes and I did notice they looked surprised quite a bit.

If LA had confessed:

What if he had admitted a little? In those dark ages it was an ugly time, the majority of the pack was doping to some degree; he could say that he crossed the line a few times, and then he doesn’t have to fight those accusations anymore—he’d be a five-time winner and his fans would still call him a seven-time winner. And then he’s got the monkey off his back and doesn’t have to address it anymore.

On Riis:

I don’t think Riis needs to be pushed out, but if he continues to lie, then he needs to leave. I did this for a long time, so I can’t fault him, and you’ve got to give him time, but if he continues to deny it, it’s wrong. Anyone in those years, come clean and you can stay.

I told this to Travis and Bill: Maybe there’s a better way to let an athlete know of a positive and for it not to be so crazy where you have to make a judgment in 30 seconds of whether you admit you did it or deny it. Like, there’s a two- or three-day window to take some time and look at long-term and short-term consequences and think it through.

Not a bad idea. Anyone doping should be prepared for a positive, but of course these guys always think they’re invulnerable, they probably couldn’t do it if they didn’t.

He can’t shed any more light on his positives. It needs to be emphasized, though, that his two positives for homologous blood doping—the Olympics and the Vuelta—were not the result of the same blood. The antigens were different in those two tests. This is what makes it so difficult to explain what happened. If it was the result of a mixup at the lab, then it happened twice. It would be extremely unlikely for two separate mixups to occur for the same rider, unless mixups were relatively quite common—but in that case, there should have been more positives for other riders.

 

[thehog]

There is some new stuff here, that wasn’t in the book.

More implication of George:



Disguising themselves during training rides to avoid testers:



All the stuff USADA didn’t know about doping techniques:



If LA had confessed:



On Riis:





Not a bad idea. Anyone doping should be prepared for a positive, but of course these guys always think they’re invulnerable, they probably couldn’t do it if they didn’t.

He can’t shed any more light on his positives. It needs to be emphasized, though, that his two positives for homologous blood doping—the Olympics and the Vuelta—were not the result of the same blood. The antigens were different in those two tests. This is what makes it so difficult to explain what happened. If it was the result of a mixup at the lab, then it happened twice. It would be extremely unlikely for two separate mixups to occur for the same rider, unless mixups were relatively quite common—but in that case, there should have been more positives for other riders.

There needs to be a doping hotline and counseling service. Protected by doctor/lawyer patient/client privilege that dopers can talk through their options without fear of reprisals or sanction.

 

[PosterBill]

"All the stuff USADA didn’t know about doping techniques"

I would have thought USADA would have known just about everything through back channels with the govt, or sources within cycling. That part of his quote is shocking to me as well

 

[Dear Wiggo]

"All the stuff USADA didn’t know about doping techniques"

I would have thought USADA would have known just about everything through back channels with the govt, or sources within cycling. That part of his quote is shocking to me as well

It looks dodgy to me. Not shocking. Dodgy.

 

[python]

i am surprised there was no mention much less a discussion here of a significant fact from the book. at least that was a news for me ...

apparently the government has joined floyd's whistle-blower case. tyler was talking to both the usada and federal investigators. i'd think the witnesses are largely the same with the government focusing on a different angle - concealment and fraud. no ?

 

[Pandora]

The full Tyler transcript has been printed here: http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderr...icycling-_-Content-Blog-_-hamilton-transcript

Does anybody care to explain what is being implicated with this (speaking of Riis, page 3 of the transcript):

I don’t think he’s been transparent with the riding side of things. He didn’t just dope for the 1996 Tour.

I simply don't understand.

 

[thehog]

Does anybody care to explain what is being implicated with this (speaking of Riis, page 3 of the transcript):




I simply don't understand.

Meaning he doped most if not all of his career and it was never alone.

ie he taught Jan!

 

[hrotha]

Meaning he doped most if not all of his career and it was never alone.

ie he taught Jan!

Riis had already admitted to doping at least in 1993-1998 though. Maybe Hamilton wasn't aware of that, but regardless it's a very minor point.

 

[Pandora]

Riis had already admitted to doping at least in 1993-1998 though. Maybe Hamilton wasn't aware of that, but regardless it's a very minor point.

English isn't my native speech, and it could be I got it wrong, but still... It seems to me that TH is not referring to the dope in that quote, but to something else (...not transparent with the riding side..., ...didn't just dope, ie. was doing something else besides doping), and I could not imagine what would that be, so I asked.

 

[Cloxxki]

Just finished reading it. Cost me a couple hours of sleep over the past few days, but worth it.
I am not a book reader, and Lance's first few fiction titles were among my latest book reads. My life since changed, in that I have taught myself to notice sincerity. I found need for that after finding The Clinic, and truth sources on other fields of interest.
I'd heard even at the height of Tyler's controversy that he was supposed to be such a cool guy to hang out with. Just reading the book, and I can tell that to be true.
Not sure what to feel now. If such immensely kind people can dope, and dope the heck out of themselves, it gets hard to be a simpler doper hater. I may need a new rap.
Yeah, I'd been a shallow Floyd fan before he tested positive, and believed him for quite a while (regarding testosterone, I and still 50/50 or better in his favor), and I am a fan of how he handled being a non-liar for a change.

I am not one to get all warm and fuzzy about guys known to wear spandex most of the day, but do feel like I could be friends with both of them. I would learn a lot as a human from Tyler, and would have a heck of a time hanging with Floyd. Expressing this, as the dope-hater that I am, is confronting.
They are role models as far as dopers go. Doping found their darkest spots, and occupied them, controlled them to become what they didn't set out to be. While I rode against neither of them, their kind did cheat me out of prize money. They did their part keeping me off elite teams, they did help set the threshold needlessly high. And yes, I still cannot bear watching cycling. It needs to clean up, confess en masse, and then I'll try it again.

As some parts of Tyler's book came so close to quoting The Clinic, I'll address you here: thanks for being honest and elaborate. You could have sufficed with "I doped, we all did, even Lance", but you instead raised our understand of the doping mind to a new level. You took the guesswork out. Lies are not written in such language. Good luck with you training company, I wish you well. The past days I've come to realize that I might actually consult an ex-doper to train me in XC skiing, running, and getting back on the bike, to take on my own big race goal, and unlikely result result there. I need to let that sink in for a while. I may not be religious, but at I am seeing a new side of myself emerging, I am warming up to the idea of forgiving someone who's guilty. Thanks for that.

J, The Netherlands