Tyler's Book

[mewmewmew13]

I ought through the iTunes store.

Me too and it downloaded on the 5th. No problem...

 

[silverrocket]

I'm surprised he's speaking that harshly about Sally Jenkins.

Good one

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Me too and it downloaded on the 5th. No problem...

Awwwwww stop showing off and give us sad individuals who can't get our mitts on it some more spoilers. I tried tunnel bear and another proxy server but somehow iTunes still knows I'm in NZ and won't let me download till the 12th. Bet it's the 12th 'merican time not NZ time too.

 

[Kender]

Awwwwww stop showing off and give us sad individuals who can't get our mitts on it some more spoilers. I tried tunnel bear and another proxy server but somehow iTunes still knows I'm in NZ and won't let me download till the 12th. Bet it's the 12th 'merican time not NZ time too.

they'll be able to tell from your credit card number if that's how you're paying

 

[bigmatt24]

Even easier: if you can show me the protocol where UCI conduct the arbitration proceedings, I will believe you.

USADA have AAA style "rules of engagement" with athletes. To wit:


Show me anywhere, where this is true for UCI, and you will have your victory.

Why else did UCI have to create some new fang-dangled "independent panel" for the first time in the history of the UCI to examine USADA's evidence to determine whether the case against the 71 VO2 max doper Lance Armstrong should proceed or not?

A panel for which there was NO PROCESS for creating it or handling it.




What is your understanding of the following?
249. When, following the results management process described in chapter VII, the UCI makes an assertion
that a License-Holder committed an anti-doping rule violation, it shall notify the License-Holder’s
National Federation and request it to instigate disciplinary proceedings. It shall also send a copy of
the test analysis report and/or other documentation. A copy of the request may be sent to the
License-Holder and/or the License-Holder’s club or team.
A copy of the request is sent to WADA and to the License-Holder’s National Anti-Doping Organization.

Because it looks pretty friggin' obvious to me.

Honestly.

Oh, and in case you still don't get it. The USAC (National Federation) automatically hands the case to the USADA. Not back to the UCI. That would just be ***.

A lawyer? Seriously? I should have done law. This is too simple.

Ah, but what about the protasis of that conditional of which you are emphasizing the apodosis?
249. When, following the results management process described in chapter VII, the UCI makes an assertion
that a License-Holder committed an anti-doping rule violation, it shall notify the License-Holder’s
National Federation and request it to instigate disciplinary proceedings. It shall also send a copy of
the test analysis report and/or other documentation. A copy of the request may be sent to the
License-Holder and/or the License-Holder’s club or team.
A copy of the request is sent to WADA and to the License-Holder’s National Anti-Doping Organization.

Has the UCI made any such assertion in the Armstrong case?

Just so you know, I'm not an Armstrong fanboy or apologist. I want to see him humiliated to an extent only exceeded by the humiliation to befall Hein and Pat.

 

[darkcloud]

I just had to laugh when I read this given all the arguing we went though about UCI vs. USADA jurisdiction in the Lance vs. USADA threads.

In this passage of the book, Tyler describes how, 29 days after the Olympics, he is notified by the UCI that his blood samples taken during the 2004 Tour of Spain showed the presence of someone else's blood.



C'mon.... the UCI did theses tests, and the UCI was going to be doing "results management", and the tests were done in Europe, in Switzerland, not the US. So what role would USADA have in this? Tyler went to Switzerland to fight with the UCI's lab analysis of not only his Vuelta B sample but also a sample from the Athens Olympics that also showed a positive. Any appeal of the UCI's findings would have been before CAS, not USADA, right? The bolded line just seems like such a throwaway, so gratuitous, and so calculated to plant in the mind of the reader the false notion that USADA has jurisdiction over all doping charges, no matter where they arise or who does the initial testing. And that's just not the case under the WADA Code or the UCI's ADR.

I'm guessing this is coming from Coyle and not Hamilton. I find it just as bad as the silly PR stuff Armstrong's people engage in; this is just a lot more subtle, but still just as wrong IMHO.

Let's not get too wrapped up around technicalities. Child molesters, rapists and murders get off on technicalities all the time.
HE DID IT OR HE DID NOT DO IT. Simple stuff here.

 

[the big ring]

Just so you know, I'm not an Armstrong fanboy or apologist. I want to see him humiliated to an extent only exceeded by the humiliation to befall Hein and Pat.

Wrong thread. Take it elsewhere. And LA PR BINGO to you too.

 

[QuickStepper]

Ah, but what about the protasis of that conditional of which you are emphasizing the apodosis?
249. When, following the results management process described in chapter VII, the UCI makes an assertion
that a License-Holder committed an anti-doping rule violation, it shall notify the License-Holder’s
National Federation and request it to instigate disciplinary proceedings. It shall also send a copy of
the test analysis report and/or other documentation. A copy of the request may be sent to the
License-Holder and/or the License-Holder’s club or team.
A copy of the request is sent to WADA and to the License-Holder’s National Anti-Doping Organization.

Has the UCI made any such assertion in the Armstrong case?

Just so you know, I'm not an Armstrong fanboy or apologist. I want to see him humiliated to an extent only exceeded by the humiliation to befall Hein and Pat.

And I'm not a linguist, but you learn something evey day.

Protasis

Apodosis

Regardless, I will admit to being mistaken about the results management and hearing when the alleged violation involves only an analytical positive. In such a case, I agree that the UCI ADR, specifically Chapters VII, VIII and IX make clear that the results management is first conducted by UCI, and then referred to the National Federation for the athlete, who retains a right to appeal any adverse decision to the CAS.

In cases though of NON-ANALYTICAL positives (not involving the collection of samples), Rule 10 seems to makes clear that the UCI has original jurisdiction and that any hearing challenging the imposition of sanctions is conducted as a matter of first impression before the CAS and not the national federation. Even the commentary to Rule 10 makes this abundantly clear, and I would hazard a guess that this is why there is now so much attention being paid to the existence of positive samples in the LA case rather than just reliance on testimonial evidence.

Likewise, for Olympic violations discovered by the IOC, the UCI's ADR Rule 11 also provides:

However, if the violation is discovered by the International Olympic Committee or the International Paralympic Committee, results management and the conduct of hearings shall be referred to the UCI as far as sanctions beyond Disqualification from the event or the results of the event.

Again, this why I think there's a problem with the statement in the book: The comment is made with respect to a positive A sample from a UCI sanctioned race in Europe, for which UCI would have results management, and which would then be referred for hearing to the NGB; but the passage in the book also refers to the IOC Olympics violation for which Hamilton was cited, and for which the NGB has no jurisdiction, and for which the hearing is conducted at the CAS in the first instance, not before USADA.

 

[hfer07]

Jork Jaksche:

"then as we're driving,he starts going through the menu of what is possible-testosterone, epo, transfusion, insulin, hgh, etc. I told him i was interested in doing the minimum, no risks. Then fuentes reaches into a cardboard box on the seat between us and pulls out some tablets. They were in foil packets, and he pops one out with his thumb and holds it up to me. It looked like a piece of candy. "these are russian anabolics",he says."undetectable. Want one? I said no thanks. "fine" he says, and he throws it up and catches it in his mouth, and swallows it, just like that. I was amazed!

so far so good

 

[bigmatt24]

Wrong thread. Take it elsewhere. And LA PR BINGO to you too.

HAHAHA!!! I love it. I wish I had been playing a couple of weeks ago.

I added that last bit to make it clear that I'm not trying to argue against USADA's jurisdiction over the case; I was just pointing out that using that section of code to justify USADA's jurisdiction requires that the UCI request it following completion of its results management process, which I don't think the UCI has done, since it now claims Armstrong has not failed any test.

 

[KayLow]

Ah, but what about the protasis of that conditional of which you are emphasizing the apodosis?
249. When, following the results management process described in chapter VII, the UCI makes an assertion
that a License-Holder committed an anti-doping rule violation, it shall notify the License-Holder’s
National Federation and request it to instigate disciplinary proceedings. It shall also send a copy of
the test analysis report and/or other documentation. A copy of the request may be sent to the
License-Holder and/or the License-Holder’s club or team.
A copy of the request is sent to WADA and to the License-Holder’s National Anti-Doping Organization.

Has the UCI made any such assertion in the Armstrong case?

The basic principle behind the WADA Code is that the responsible authority closet to an event is responsible for handling in-competition testing during that event and that the responsible authority closest to the athlete is responsible for prosecution of doping offenses. As it happens in the case of cycling, the UCI handles doping control testing for events its sanctions and, in the event of a positive test, the national anti-doping authorities prosecute the cases. Because the UCI is not a national anti-doping organization under the WADA code, its rules have no reason to define the jurisdiction of national anti-doping organizations such as USADA. Instead, its rules provide a procedure for turning over evidence of doping to national anti-doping authorities in the event that that the UCI obtains such evidence.

The rule cited here presumes that the UCI has evidence of an athlete's doping that leads the UCI to assert that the athlete has committed a doping offense. Under the rule, the UCI must notify the relevant national anti-doping organization. This rule limits the UCI's role. It in no way limits the role of national anti-doping authorities.

So, yes, the UCI may not have initiated a case against Lance Armstrong, but this is of no particular relevance. The UCI's rules do not and cannot limit the authority of USADA, because they only govern the actions of the UCI.

 

[bigmatt24]

The basic principle behind the WADA Code is that the responsible authority closet to an event is responsible for handling in-competition testing during that event and that the responsible authority closest to the athlete is responsible for prosecution of doping offenses. As it happens in the case of cycling, the UCI handles doping control testing for events its sanctions and, in the event of a positive test, the national anti-doping authorities prosecute the cases. Because the UCI is not a national anti-doping organization under the WADA code, its rules have no reason to define the jurisdiction of national anti-doping organizations such as USADA. Instead, its rules provide a procedure for turning over evidence of doping to national anti-doping authorities in the event that that the UCI obtains such evidence.

The rule cited here presumes that the UCI has evidence of an athlete's doping that leads the UCI to assert that the athlete has committed a doping offense. Under the rule, the UCI must notify the relevant national anti-doping organization. This rule limits the UCI's role. It in no way limits the role of national anti-doping authorities.

So, yes, the UCI may not have initiated a case against Lance Armstrong, but this is of no particular relevance. The UCI's rules do not and cannot limit the authority of USADA, because they only govern the actions of the UCI.

So, what you're saying is that this rule is inapplicable to the current situation. It applies when the UCI's testing protocols yield a positive test result, but that's not what happened here.

 

[KayLow]

And I'm not a linguist, but you learn something evey day.

Protasis

Apodosis

Regardless, I will admit to being mistaken about the results management and hearing when the alleged violation involves only an analytical positive. In such a case, I agree that the UCI ADR, specifically Chapters VII, VIII and IX make clear that the results management is first conducted by UCI, and then referred to the National Federation for the athlete, who retains a right to appeal any adverse decision to the CAS.

In cases though of NON-ANALYTICAL positives (not involving the collection of samples), Rule 10 seems to makes clear that the UCI has original jurisdiction and that any hearing challenging the imposition of sanctions is conducted as a matter of first impression before the CAS and not the national federation. Even the commentary to Rule 10 makes this abundantly clear, and I would hazard a guess that this is why there is now so much attention being paid to the existence of positive samples in the LA case rather than just reliance on testimonial evidence.

Likewise, for Olympic violations discovered by the IOC, the UCI's ADR Rule 11 also provides:



Again, this why I think there's a problem with the statement in the book: The comment is made with respect to a positive A sample from a UCI sanctioned race in Europe, for which UCI would have results management, and which would then be referred for hearing to the NGB; but the passage in the book also refers to the IOC Olympics violation for which Hamilton was cited, and for which the NGB has no jurisdiction, and for which the hearing is conducted at the CAS in the first instance, not before USADA.

Here is what UCI's rules say:

"10. Anti-doping violations where no Sample collection is involved

The UCI has jurisdiction for and these Anti-Doping Rules shall apply to any anti-doping violation committed by a License-Holder where no Sample collection is involved and that is discovered:
(i) by the UCI, by one of its constituents or member Federations, by one of their officials, officers, staff members, members, License-Holders, or any other body or individual that is subject to the regulations of the UCI or one of its member Federations; or
(ii) by a body or individual that is not an Anti-Doping Organization.

11. If an anti-doping violation where no Sample collection is involved is discovered by another Anti- Doping Organization, the anti-doping rules of that Anti-Doping Organization shall apply."


Note item (ii) of Rule 10 and Rule 11. The UCI does not claim to have jurisdiction in non-analytical cases where the doping offense is discovered by an Anti-Doping Organization such as USADA.

 

[KayLow]

So, what you're saying is that this rule is inapplicable to the current situation. It applies when the UCI's testing protocols yield a positive test result, but that's not what happened here.

You got it. Furthermore, the UCI's rules do not -- and cannot -- define the jurisdictional limitations of a national anti-doping organization such as USADA. Only the WADA Code or the individual national anti-doping organization's own rules can do that.

 

[MD FACG FACP]

I can see it now, Fuentes blood delivery service, "Here Brillo! Here Brillo!", Wait that's Bella's? No Tugboat... "Here Tubboat!"

That's what they get for using pet dog names.

Tyler used the number 4142, the last four numbers of a childhood friends phone number.

 

[perico]

Just finished it. Very good with all the doors blown open. Some come off looking better than I thought they would, particularly Cecchini, whose reputation seems to be blown way out of proportion by media and skeptics, of Tyler's experience is the norm. Others come off even more slimy than imagined, particularly Fuentes.

 

[QuickStepper]

Here is what UCI's rules say:

"10. Anti-doping violations where no Sample collection is involved

The UCI has jurisdiction for and these Anti-Doping Rules shall apply to any anti-doping violation committed by a License-Holder where no Sample collection is involved and that is discovered:
(i) by the UCI, by one of its constituents or member Federations, by one of their officials, officers, staff members, members, License-Holders, or any other body or individual that is subject to the regulations of the UCI or one of its member Federations; or
(ii) by a body or individual that is not an Anti-Doping Organization.

11. If an anti-doping violation where no Sample collection is involved is discovered by another Anti- Doping Organization, the anti-doping rules of that Anti-Doping Organization shall apply."


Note item (ii) of Rule 10 and Rule 11. The UCI does not claim to have jurisdiction in non-analytical cases where the doping offense is discovered by an Anti-Doping Organization such as USADA.

Kaylow, I agree. But in a situation in which the UCI does claim to have disocvered the violation, the jurisdiction would appear to rest initially with UCI, and not with the National Federation (or its designee, such as USADA).

I suppose though as it pertains to Armstrong, this question of UCI non-analytical jurisdiction may not even be relevant, unless UCI once again reverses its field and attempts to claim jurisdiction based on discovery (regardless of whether UCI did or didn't turn over the Landis letter to USADA for investigation). And I suspect this is why, at least to some extent, we're now hearing quite a bit in the papers about positive samples (analyticals) and at least some quasi-analytical results, i.e. to drive the nail into the coffin so UCI can't reasert this sort of argument, or at least will lose if they take it to CAS.

As it pertained to Hamilton, the book just really glosses over this with the statement I initially quoted, and at least as it pertained to the IOC testing post-Athens Olympics, that statement in the book was, at best, ambiguous and unclear because there were two separate analyticals involved. As things turned out though, and as I tried to indicate (but got drowned out by the shrillness of the response from Mr. Big Ring), the later passages in the book clarified things somewhat inasmuch as Hamilton never had to adjudicate any further the Olympic issue: he was allowed to keep his Gold Medal because the "B" sample had been frozen (mishandled) by the IOC testers and thus, the subsequent hearing was only with respect to Hamilton's positive analytical at the Vuelta.

The book really doesn't go into great detail about any of the legal or technical scientific issues involved in that hearing, and for those (like me) who really didn't pay close attention to the events involving Hamilton's transfusion doping violation hearing at the time, the book really just presents a pretty simple view of things from Hamilton's perspective, how he and his wife essentially sold all their property and devoted their lives to litigating the case, and ultimately lost, resulting in the sanctions against him, his divorce, etc.. That chapter is a much more personal account than any real attempt to give a comprehensive historical narrative of the events, and as a result, I found it helpful to read the actual AAA Arbitration decisionthat resulted in the sanctions in order to gain a real understanding of the science and the historical issues involved.

 

[the big ring]

Just finished it. Very good with all the doors blown open. Some come off looking better than I thought they would, particularly Cecchini, whose reputation seems to be blown way out of proportion by media and skeptics, of Tyler's experience is the norm. Others come off even more slimy than imagined, particularly Fuentes.

Were there any boring bits?

Did you feel it dramatised things at all?

Going to be a bit before I can get a hold of a copy.

 

[Ferminal]

Deleted a series of posts which had little to do with "Tyler's Book", please try and remain on topic.

 

[epo1999]

Just finished it. I thought it was an absolutely compelling piece of work. I take issue with some of the writing style, but who cares. Tyler lets it all out. It is a remarkable look into the shadowy world of top-level competition. The book makes it clear that all top cyclists in the last 20 years must have stood at a fork in the road. Stay clean and lose, or dope and maybe be competitive. It's pretty sad really. If you have been keeping up with the Clinic, or have been even peripherally interested in the world of doping in cycling, you must read it.

For me, the most interesting part was seeing the doping cycles in comparison to race results. Tyler had some awful results only a few weeks after huge wins. This was due to banking blood. I live in CA and I knew in Tour of CA a few years ago when the Schlecks couldn't even keep the pace that they must have dropped some blood prior to the race.

Say what you want about Tyler, but I think this has to be the clearest picture into the true world of cycling. I know plenty of folks are bashing him for capitalizing on his recent decision to come clean, but the fact is, we live in a capitalist society, and it is his story to sell. I personally think he would have come clean even if he couldn't have made a penny, but who knows. I think it's better for him to get paid for a book he co-wrote than for pro cyclists to continue doping unabated. Better to be paid for the truth than for a lie.

 

[sittingbison]

I find it funny how all of the insults LA has dished out over the years directed at his detractors describe himself perfectly....

There's nothing strange about this at all Fatclimber, its a major characteristic of being a sociopath, and the paranoia they live with.

 

[thehog]

Just finished it. Very good with all the doors blown open. Some come off looking better than I thought they would, particularly Cecchini, whose reputation seems to be blown way out of proportion by media and skeptics, of Tyler's experience is the norm. Others come off even more slimy than imagined, particularly Fuentes.

Ullrich's 2004 Tour is well explained also. Siberian frozen blood bags didn't help. He would have been mostly riding clean that Tour. Mighty effort to come 4th on bread and water.

 

[QuickStepper]

Deleted a series of posts which had little to do with "Tyler's Book", please try and remain on topic.

I am stunned that you deleted Kaylow's reasoned explanation about UCI, IOC and jurisdiction as it pertained to Hamilton's case. I'm also troubled that you would delete my last message which also contained a narrative description of that portion of Tyler's book which deals with his doping violations hearing following his positive tests from the 2004 Vuelta and the 2004 Olympics. Not on topic? Sheesh. I guess it's ok for the forum favorites to take a sledgehammer to me personally and to my posts, but it's not acceptable to try to give any sort of reply because it will be considered "off topic". Oh well.....

To paraphrase Nico Jalabert, who Tyler quotes in his book (who, when comforting Tyler when he abandoned from the 2004 TdF following his horrendous back injury and botched blood transfusion reminds him "It's only a bike race")....."It's only the internet.....it's not real life."

 

[BroDeal]

Ullrich's 2004 Tour is well explained also. Siberian frozen blood bags didn't help. He would have been mostly riding clean that Tour. Mighty effort to come 4th on bread and water.

Ullrich was sick for the first half of that Tour. He caught something from his child.

 

[neineinei]

I am in Australia and cannot wait for shipping. Anyone got a link for buying an electronic copy ? I can't find one anywhere. Thanks

Can't promise any of them will work for Australia, but the publisher is linking to some e-book sellers here:

http://www.randomhouse.com/book/212...osts-by-tyler-hamilton-and-daniel-coyle/ebook