Psychology of doping denials?

"Darrell Criswell" wrote in message
...
I am continually amazed at pro cyclists who repeatedly fail doping
tests (Tyler Hamilton is the most recent one) and totally deny what
are almost unrefutable facts, and try to act as if they were the
person wronged. Hamilton has tried to go on as normal after failing
three blood doping tests.

While true there is still some pretty serious questions about the testing
procedures that they were using. Personally if the tests are reliable I
don't care if Tyler WAS blood doping, he should not be framed by faulty
procedures.

If I tested positive on three breath tests for DUI most people would
accept that I had been drinking while driving.

True but then the tests have very extensive testing procedures performed
before the tests were approved to be used in courts.

What makes Tyler act so innocent when the objective evidence indicates
he is guilty, and he knows that he is guilty.

We go back to the fact that he was informed that some of his blood tests
were showing "questionable" as far back as LBL. If that's the case either
Hamilton is the world's biggest idiot OR he's the innocent person he
proclaims himself to be.

Of course there is
always a one in a multi-million chance that the methodology is flawed
or he gives an anomalous result, but the chance of that is close to
zero.

You mean one in a million chances that a test that was only tested on a few
hundred KNOWN POSITIVES and NO CONTROLS is that reliable?

I'm opting for the world's biggest idiot myself but am flexible enough to
wait for the results without reaching hard conclusions like you appear to be
doing with about as much real information as you do on weather conditions on
Titan.