• rss icon
  • itunes logo

Tyler Hamilton

Posted by John on 09/3/10 • Categorized as Blog

Hey folks
I’ve spent the last 24 hours since our live chat with Tyler pondering. The feedback from the interview has been very positive and both Scott and I really enjoyed chatting to Tyler and there were a good number of folk who said they felt much better disposed towards Tyler after the interview than they had before it.

So, the Galloway perspective? Here it is in completely frank and forthright form.

How did I feel going into the interview? Well, slightly conflicted. Tyler has provided many of my best memories of cycling from the start of the 21st century. I loved his riding, I loved his attitude, I admired his resilience, his results speak for themselves…..but, there the whole doping thing.

What was my view re Tyler and doping? Before the interview I assumed Tyler was probably a doper but due to his problems with depression (which I can empathise with) and the fact that I loved his riding style I was prepared to cut him some slack. To be frank, I believed that if Tyler was juiced he was competing on a level playing field……hell, everybody was (is?) doing it!

So, after the chat? Well there’s a fair bit of conversation before and after the broadcast that was informal and unstructured but nonetheless very informative…….however…….even with just the podcast to listen to, I think it’s clear that Tyler’s responses are calm, thoughtful and have a ring of honesty. His enthusiasm for our sport shows. He said, without prompting, that he was happy for us to ask him absolutely anything. Scott got straight into the phantom twin issue and his question was answered openly, as was our raising of Operation Puerto.

Here’s the thing. Am I sure TH is/was clean? No, but I’m in a waaay different place than I was before the interview. Puerto? He hasn’t been contacted (this is a common complaint in this case, not just Tyler), UCI less than transparent?…No SHIT!……….

We’ve said since day one of the Velocast that there’s no point demonising riders in doping enquiries, the issue is in the underlying underbelly of the sport. All I can say re Tyler is that he came across as honest and passionate. I’m a lot less sure about “facts” than I was two days ago., Naive? Maybe… but I’m usually brutally intolerant of bullshit (ask Scott) and I really enjoyed Tyler’s company. He’ll be back on the Velocast if we have anything to do with it, leave your preconceptions at the door and enjoy the man’s insight. Remember there’s always a human being behind all of the hype/propaganda/press.

John

  • The under 23 doping doesn't surprise me any more than at elite level Stumpy. Behind every top level junior there's usually a VERY keen parent who will likely pass on their moral standpoint to their offspring, and if other "kids" are cheating to get ahead then "so will mine". I always think back to Breaking The Chain and how Willy Voet's dad encouraged him to dope as a young bike racer and then ostracised his son when he decided to pack in juicing. Depressing though the thought is, I doubt that many of the junior riders are PED virgins when they step up to elite level.
  • Oh, what a bleak outlook you have, Mr G. Or so I thought, until I started really thinking about it. Nearly all of the big Pro Tour teams still have some links to - or suggestions of - a darker past which surely casts some clouds over the present. Okay, lots of it’s speculation and insinnuendo ( © Don Logan), but here’s a list off the top of my head:

    Astana – Vino (Le Dopage du. Twat. Why are you still here?); And, let’s face it, they’re from Kazakhstan ;-)
    Saxobank – Bjarne Riis (96 Tour), Frank Schleck (just what were you buying from Dr Fuentes, Frank?)
    Garmin – Dave Millar (repentant, but still busted)
    Radio Shack – Kloden (willkommen in Freiburg, Herr Kloden); Steegmans (wouldn’t sign Katusha anti-doping clause); Lance (’99 samples, ‘The Hospital Room Confession’, Stephanie McIlvain, Betsy Andreu, IMgate, etc)
    Quick Step – Tom Boonen (the Columbian marching powder is still banned, Tom)
    Caisse d’Epargne – Valverde (woof!)
    HTC Columbia – Remnants of T-Mobile: Rolf Aldag, Erik Zabel

    What’s particularly depressing tho’ is when you hear of cases like the Szczepaniak brothers getting popped for EPO at U23 level. U23, ferchrissakes!! Or that tube in the States whose name escapes me. Who’s helping them make these choices?

    There’s part of me thinks that in cases like the Szczepaniak, Astana, etc, it has something to do with former Soviet and Soviet-bloc teams/countries being desperate to establish themselves on a global stage. But that’s hardly an excuse.
  • Cyclingfansanonymous wrote an excellent piece on Steegmans & the Katousha contract thing - I don't think I'd have signed it either.

    "I agree with his refusal, which may sound odd, but Katusha is an absolutely classic example of a totally hypocritical team where the shady old-school management demand results and place enormous pressure on the riders to deliver, while at the same time pretending to be strictly anti-doping by announcing with much trumped-up PR drama this useless contract clause, which does nothing to actually support riders staying clean, and which likely no rider would ever actually pay anyway. (Just like no one has paid the UCI's anti-doping charter's one year salary penalty.)"

    It's a good read, and can be found here; http://cyclingfansanonymous.blogspot.com/2009/06/monday-update.html

    The next step in addressing the problem is looking at teams & doctors. If teams started getting thrown out of events (and in a consistent, predictable way) minds would be focussed rather more, I think.
  • thesituationist
    it's such a complicated issue, and giving it the human perspective in an effort not to demonize riders complicates it more, i find.

    every rider in the peloton is a human being who loves cycling or he wouldn't suffer the burden of effort necessary to go pro. i enjoyed the hamilton interview and find him quite likeable--but i also enjoy listening to floyd landis. there's a 50-minute you-tube video of him giving a q+a at google the summer after the '06 tour, and he's a remarkably well-spoken man whose real intelligence (the man isn't the half-meathead so many pros seem to be) and whose love for cycling come through in every minute. i'm new to cycling history and in my poking around in the recent history and its dope scandals (landis, millar, hamilton, zirbel--hell, armstrong--and the TONS of others) i find it impossible to look at the issue with the certainty others seem to possess. it seems an absolute mess. we humanize the riders and their transgressions seem forgivable--but if we demonize them their humanity vanishes, and possibly our will to offer redemption with it.

    how do we fix cycling (or sport at large) and stay human? and if that's even possible, how do we handle the very real possibility of institutional blunders or meddling that could lead to false positives? isn't there at least a cloud of question around organizations like the LNDD, after armstrong and landis? don't we at least wanna tell USADA that maybe zirbel should get an ear?

    rough-ass question, gents.
  • I certainly believe he doped. I am also prepared to cut him some slack for the DHEA doping offence which ultimately resulted in his lifetime ban - I know the destructive power of depression & wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. I don't believe for a minute, however, that the earlier doping offences at the Olympics and Vuelta came about directly or indirectly as a result of his illness - and to be fair I'm not sure that I have ever actually heard him make this connection.

    My problem, as with all convicted dopers, is honesty. Plenty of them protest their innocence loudly until their court case finds them guilty. Then they go strangely quiet. With Tyler's openness & honesty about his depression, he is very well placed to extend this honesty and do his part to lift the veil of mystery surrounding the extent of doping in the sport. My respect for him would increase exponentially if he was more open and honest about his earlier offences. I have a niggling feeling that the circumstances surrounding the DHEA offence allow him to be honest about that whilst also allowing him to gloss over the Olympic & Vuelta offences. During the interview he cast doubt over the court proceedings but didn't ever say, "I was clean and I'm convinced it was a false positive". Most innocent people would not tire of the opportunity to broadcast their innocence.

    But it was a great interview & he is an engaging and intelligent personality. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
  • So, for the sake of argument,......;o).....do you think that if Tyler did dope it changed what his results would have been or do you think it was still a level playing field? Do you have any confidence that the sport is cleaner now? My opinion is that a lot (most?) of today's hopes for the future etc have feet of clay. Thomas Dekker anyone? ;o(

    J
  • I suspect it was somewhat of a level playing field - although we must be careful not to do the clean riders the dis-service of a universal assumption of doping. But if the playing field was level, and doping was (is?) as widespread as we fear, why do the majority of convicted dopers maintain their silence? Someone must have the conviction (no pun intended) to tell the inside story, to break the omerta. The very reason that I want someone like Tyler to come clean is that he most certainly was not the only one to be on the juice. Yet he is one of the few who was busted, ending his career and ensuring that he would forever carry the epithet "doper". That is an injustice and a burden that he shouldn't have to carry - but wouldn't he go some way to easing the burden if he came clean? (Again - no pun intended)

    I am, however, prepared to accept the charge of naivety on my part. Keeping quiet and slipping into the shadows ensures a hassle-free existence and allows someone like Tyler to continue working in the sport he loves. Pointing the finger would ensure that the doors of opportunity would slam firmly in his face & he would forever be a pariah - just ask Paul Kimmage. If I had to choose, I would choose the hassle-free life for him, every time.
  • rEPO doping doesn't result in a level playing field (where ability to ride well + rEPO boost = performance).

    what you actually get is something like ability to process rEPO effectively + rEPO boost = performance. (At least, according to most of the stuff I've read). so in a doping peleton, you have a contest that is, effectively, about how well you can process rEPO - natural ability is somewhere in the mix, but not quite the factor you'd think.

    And of course you have all the health risks associated with turning your blood to treacle.

    I liked Tyler too - I do have problems with what he did though, that aren't going anywhere - however, I think it's fair to say that the pro cycling of the early 2000s was a different period to that, say, post 2007. I hope that the post 2007 trend towards a cleaner sport (and taking doping seriously) is going to continue.

    In terms of that, it's very encouraging to see teams like Garmin, who have an "open" bus (Kimmage talked about this in '08) and those like Sky who are committed to clean racing. They, and riders who want to race clean need the support of ASO & the UCI in doing so.
  • I enjoyed the interview. That's the thing with doping, it's not a black and white thing with easily identifiable swarthy villains on one side and shining white knights of purity on the other. Nice guys dope and in many ways most of the riders here are victims, being "professional" was part of the job in the past. The real villains are partly the UCI (who were paralysed by their conflict of interest, wanting to promote the sport to wider audiences and corporate sponsors whilst also being in charge of rider health) but above all the team management and the "doctors" involved, some have made fortunes illegally selling medicines and not explaining the risks to the riders.

    One medical point to note is that some studies have found a possible link from EPO use to depression, in that erythropoietin can be an anti-depressant. A hypothesis is that taken in large doses it keeps an athlete functioning; stop the doses and the rider gets the blues. Obviously no clinical test is going to be able to follow this but we can bear it in mind.
  • I think that given Tyler's family history the reason for his depression is probably far simpler...Occam's Razor etc. On a similar, slightly more sinister vein, what do we think of Lemond's assertions that anti depressives etc are being used to manipulate cyclist's moods and then, when they retire, it's just cold turkey (I must confess poor Thierry Claveyrolat springs to mind here).
    I completely agree about who the real villains are though. Scotty and I have said as much ad naus.
    Tyler? I just liked him. Subjective and entirely unscientific on my part, but completely human.

    J
blog comments powered by Disqus