Hamilton's Olympic tests reveal conflicting results; test accuracy battle begins
Tyler Hamilton's Olympic "B" samples and Vuelta "B" sample testing was revealed today and low and behold, the Olympic sample shows conflictiong results. The Vuelta "B" sample is negative however.
What does this mean?
Well for starters it casts some real shadows on the testing reliability. 4 tests in a short time period on the same athlete and only 3 are the same. Which one's are right and which ones are off? Now it is also interesting to pose the question whether or not this same testing took place at the TDF (where Tyler also showed great Time Trialing)? I've yet to see this question addressed on any of the media sources or press releases. If this testing was done on Tyler at the Tour de France (speculating here), it could mean 3 positives and 3 negatives in a very short period of time. This would take the odds from 75/25 down to 50/50. Certainly not the kind of accuracy I'd want to try and hang my hat on and defend at this point for inquisiton proceedings. UCI and the IOC will definately have some more explaining to do, though the ball is squarely in their court regarding Tyler's racing fate.
It's also a very new test and neither the actual test data for the samples or the testing proceedures have been released. What is know is that top tier athletes do sometimes show actual physical differences and chemical differences from regular individuals due to the intense training and stress they put their bodies under. This test has never before been used in athletics for this purpose. Is it possible the accuracy is off due to athlete's training and chemical differences? Is it possible the testing proceedures weren't properly followed? Is it possible the data is subject to medical interpretation and different doctors would look at the same data and interpret a positive as a negative? What's the historical accuracy of the test in other studies and are their other factors that can influence false positives?
These are all unanswered questions at this point. The good news is Tyler does now have a "leg" to stand on. Be it "one leg", but his deck of cards isn't leaning quite as far over now that the negative test at the Olympics has been revealed.
And he may be getting a "second leg of support" . . . Phonak has announced that they will be setting up an independent board of experts to review the testing proceedures and data to make their own determination on Tyler's innocence or guilt. This is good news as it appears to be a very professional way for Phonak to support Tyler, while still keeping their distance so this incident doesn't risk bringing the whole team under sanction.
One thing's for sure . . . this one is far from over. As always, check out www.VeloNews.com for great coverage on the details.
What does this mean?
Well for starters it casts some real shadows on the testing reliability. 4 tests in a short time period on the same athlete and only 3 are the same. Which one's are right and which ones are off? Now it is also interesting to pose the question whether or not this same testing took place at the TDF (where Tyler also showed great Time Trialing)? I've yet to see this question addressed on any of the media sources or press releases. If this testing was done on Tyler at the Tour de France (speculating here), it could mean 3 positives and 3 negatives in a very short period of time. This would take the odds from 75/25 down to 50/50. Certainly not the kind of accuracy I'd want to try and hang my hat on and defend at this point for inquisiton proceedings. UCI and the IOC will definately have some more explaining to do, though the ball is squarely in their court regarding Tyler's racing fate.
It's also a very new test and neither the actual test data for the samples or the testing proceedures have been released. What is know is that top tier athletes do sometimes show actual physical differences and chemical differences from regular individuals due to the intense training and stress they put their bodies under. This test has never before been used in athletics for this purpose. Is it possible the accuracy is off due to athlete's training and chemical differences? Is it possible the testing proceedures weren't properly followed? Is it possible the data is subject to medical interpretation and different doctors would look at the same data and interpret a positive as a negative? What's the historical accuracy of the test in other studies and are their other factors that can influence false positives?
These are all unanswered questions at this point. The good news is Tyler does now have a "leg" to stand on. Be it "one leg", but his deck of cards isn't leaning quite as far over now that the negative test at the Olympics has been revealed.
And he may be getting a "second leg of support" . . . Phonak has announced that they will be setting up an independent board of experts to review the testing proceedures and data to make their own determination on Tyler's innocence or guilt. This is good news as it appears to be a very professional way for Phonak to support Tyler, while still keeping their distance so this incident doesn't risk bringing the whole team under sanction.
One thing's for sure . . . this one is far from over. As always, check out www.VeloNews.com for great coverage on the details.
1 Comments:
Tyler will keep his Olympic Gold Medal:
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/267/sports/Hamilton_will_keep_cycling_gol:.shtml
Post a Comment
<< Home