As I re-call from news reports in the fall, the ruling by USA Cycling on the Vuelta charges was supposed to occur in January 2005. I've goggled but can't find any specifics.

Does anyone know when the hearing/ruling on the doping charges for Tyler is supposed to happen ?

Thanks
Scot

The 25th of this month.

He had better get a really good lawyer and instruct him to go to war, no pulled punches. If he tries to be nice then the USADA will just go the route of least resistance and suspend him for two years. That would be enough to end Hamilton's career, but with the agreement of Pro Tour teams not to hire someone found guilty of a doping offense for four years, all doping punishments are now really four years. That is long enough to end the careers of nearly anyone, no matter what their age.

His lawyer need to demand a complete description of the testing procedure, test data for the test, and testing done to assess the false positive rate. He needs to make it very clear he will sue if solid information that proves the test is effective is not produced and Hamilton gets banned. With the iffy positive stuff from the Olympics, it looks like there is quite a bit of subjective analysis done for the test; that opens up a can of worms.

What was iffy about the positive from the Olympics? The one portion of the sample they tested was positive, the other portion wasn't tested.

His defense should only go the route you're suggesting if thay can't show that Hamilton's blood is an anomaly and that the test is detecting a real phenomenon, yet a natural one not due to blood doping. I suspect they will go the route you suggest though, because I think they caught Hamilton with his hand in the cookie jar. Do you think they've sampled Hamilton's blood again? I'd certainly would like to know what it looks like now if I were on the panel deciding his fate.

Let's not forget the circumstantial evidence as well, as in Phonak had multiple riders doping (Camenzind and Perez, etc.), and Hamilton's roommate at the Vuelta failed the test as well.

What was iffy about the positive from the Olympics?

Hamilton's Olympic test was positive only after being initially ruled negative and then ruled positive by another commitee, leading me to believe there is a lot of subjectiveness to the test. It doesn't appear to be something like "we've found X amount of drug Y in a sample of size W" so the sample is positive. We don't really know because the UCI has refused to release details of the test. For all we know it was someone throwing a dart against a list of riders tacked up to the wall.

What seems clear is that Hamilton was targetted by the UCI, maybe even more so after the Olympics testing screwup. If the test cannot be shown to be objective then I don't see that going over too well in a U.S. court if Hamilton is willing to fight. It also does not appear that any testing has been done to assess a false positive rate. With subjective analysis of the results I would think the false positive rate would be quite large. That combined with the UCI's desire to "get" Hamilton should open up a good argument against the validity of the test.

The circumstantial evidence means nothing. If we banned cyclists based on circumstantial evidence then there wouldn't be anyone left.

Regardless, Hamilton is f*cked. Unless he can show absolute proof that the test was wrong then it doesn't matter what the U.S. ADA does. No Pro Tour team will hire him.

Regardless, Hamilton is f*cked. Unless he can show absolute proof that the test was wrong then it doesn't matter what the U.S. ADA does. No Pro Tour team will hire him.
too bad. he seems like a really nice, humble guy in person.

With subjective analysis of the results I would think the false positive rate would be quite large. That combined with the UCI's desire to "get" Hamilton should open up a good argument against the validity of the test.

If the false positive rate would be quite large, it's curious that the only two positives (out of thousands of riders tested with the same test) are two riders on the same team who both had career best results last year.

And if it's the case that Hamilton was evidencing 'anomalies' since the 2004 Tour de Romandie, I would certainly hope that the UCI would make sure he got tested. That's their job.

Two points: I can't see how it would be in the UCI's self-interest to frame one of their more popular riders. And if Hamilton is innocent - what's his excuse for the Vuelta positives? Forget about the Olympics (although if he was such a stellar character, he might give Eki the gold until he proves his innocence.) Hamilton had two positives at the Vuelta, as did his teammate. We've heard no defense for those other than "I'll hire my own doctors to disprove the test."
And those doctors, even though they were paid by Hamilton and his team, could not do so.

I think Hamilton makes a likeable public figure. I have found insipration in his performances, and will continue to watch tapes of his wins at Liege and TDF. I think it's swell that he really loved his dog. But at the end of the day nobody, not even his dutiful wife, has any idea to what lengths he was willing to go to win. Our only evidence is testing.

The circumstantial evidence means nothing. If we banned cyclists based on circumstantial evidence then there wouldn't be anyone left.

Regardless, Hamilton is f*cked. Unless he can show absolute proof that the test was wrong then it doesn't matter what the U.S. ADA does. No Pro Tour team will hire him.

Well, sure in the end there must be a black/white positive/negative decision but I imagine the data are not so simple, the panel of experts previously, and the people on the USADA will take all of the info. that is available into account, I would presume. And in this instance, I would say circumstantial evidence comes into play as well when determining the final question of whether he blood doped or not.

And I'll say it again, if he's really innocent I think his blood should still look like it did in the spring (when Phonak was warned) at the Olympics and the Vuelta, in which case you wouldn't want to argue the test is flawed, but that it is reliable and detecting a real, albeit natural phenomena (blood chimera).

So, today is the day. Anybody heard anything ? I've been popping out to cycling and velo news looking for breaking news, but so far, nothing. It might not be over (or maybe not have started yet) but in any event anybody got any unofficial or offcial knowledge about what may be happening.

Thanks
Scot

So, today is the day. Anybody heard anything ? I've been popping out to cycling and velo news looking for breaking news, but so far, nothing. It might not be over (or maybe not have started yet) but in any event anybody got any unofficial or offcial knowledge about what may be happening.

Thanks
Scot

CAS just heard Phonak's case.

Tyler's case in front of USADA is in March.

March?!?! yikes that's a long way away... this is dragging. looks like santi perez's will soon be ban for 2 years....

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/jan05/jan29news

I just read somewhere maybe on his website's guestjournal that hearing is in early Feb.

March?!?! yikes that's a long way away... this is dragging. looks like santi perez's will soon be ban for 2 years....

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/jan05/jan29news
Read the article, the Spanish court just said that it has no civil jurisdiction, it made no ruling on the merits of the case.