These are les sujets de joie of our obsession, not B-samples and WADA and Pro Tour bosses fighting with UCI bosses and grand tour bosses. Can we, the velo-sport aficionados, please get back to the sport?
Jess Raphael
Napa, California

What about WADA corruption?
Dear Editor,
I, too, am still amazed at the self-righteousness and contrived certainty from some of your readers who have completely written off Tyler Hamilton, especially when there has always been much uncertainty about his case. (See Monday’s Mailbag.)

I for one still have serious doubts about his guilt, especially after reading about the trail of errors in his lab reports during his trial, and after the fact that one of his three arbitrators dissented and decided he was innocent (as also happened in Floyd’s case). As for his association with Operación Puerto, the evidence was not “quite credible and completely damning” as Perry Brown writes; in fact, Tyler was never even formally charged, nor presented with actual evidence against which he could mount a defense. Let's also remember that Puerto was in mid-2006, when Tyler was serving out his ban, so it seems strange to me that he would be doping while not competing.

But, I can’t be certain, so I refrain from absolute claims of Tyler’s innocence, just as I think those who want to string Tyler up should exercise restraint. Tyler was only found “guilty” through a highly specious process that has clear interests in covering its own ass and clinging to an illusion of infallibility. It occurs to me that riders like Tyler and Floyd are found guilty because it's much easier to write off a single rider than to admit the possibility that there is corruption and incompetence rife throughout the anti-doping establishment. Since there can be corruption throughout the military (Abu Ghraib), corruption throughout a corporation (Enron), corruption throughout police departments (take your pick), why couldn’t there be corruption in an anti-doping organization?

Regardless, let's remember that this was a world-class rider who won countless races with grace and humility long before his questionable conviction, all while dutifully taking time to share his trials and tribulations in daily journal entries, opening himself up to the world. That and his (effectively) three years served for a crime he may have not committed should earn him at least a second chance. I support you, Tyler, and hope to cheer you on at the Tour of California in February.
Mark Radcliffe
Los Angeles, California

There is a difference
Dear editors,
A few of the letters from the Mailbag on December 26 seemed to question why people hold Tyler Hamilton and David Millar in different regard when it comes to doping.

I think that there is a big difference in how the two handled their respective situations. Hamilton took the deny-deny-deny approach and still denies that he ever took performance-enhancing drugs. On top of that many regard his defense as questionable at best.

Millar's case, on the other hand, was never taken to arbitration, there were no positive tests. After his flat was raided, he admitted use outright. With the absence of hard evidence - they were simply empty vials, after all - he possibly could have fought it in the system, but he chose to take the high road. Since then he has been an outspoken opponent of doping.

I believe that it is for this reason that David Millar is regarded as a sinner-turned-saint, and Tyler merely a sinner.
Drew Downing
Dallas, Texas

You can stop using 'alleged' now
Editor,
I read Pat Pecknold's letter in the December 26 Mailbag and it brings to mind one of the great misuses of the English language, namely the frequent and unnecessary use of the word "alleged."

Tyler Hamilton is not an alleged cheat, he is a convicted cheat. What sets him apart from David Millar is the fact that Hamilton continues to deny that he doped after two panels (by a combined vote of 5-to-1) found that he had injected someone else's blood.

Redemption begins with the admission of guilt. Mr. Hamilton has yet to admit anything.
Mike Pearson
Sacramento, California

Millar v. Hamilton
Dear Velo,
In reading the Mailbag from December 26, I have to say that I am rather dismayed at my fellow fans for lumping David Millar with Tyler Hamilton. The difference between the two is that Millar admitted to doping, suffered greatly as a result and has now come back humbler and willing to speak out about doping. We forget that Millar after coming clean hit rock bottom as the majority of those around him left him hanging in the proverbial breeze. And honestly why shouldn't they have? After all, he cheated and admitted to it. Unlike Hamilton, who has continuously had support - very vocal support. I might add.

Indeed, Hamilton still declares his innocence even while his name is linked to Puerto. Yes, I understand that link that as yet has not been substantiated, but the doubts linger. Conversely, David Millar has come clean and now espouses drug-free sport. Where is Tyler in the drug-free-sport cause?

It makes perfect sense that an ex-doper would be the person to preach to the masses about the evils of drugs in sports. Millar has been there, experienced and succumbed to temptation, and come out of the experience changed for the better. Now Mr. Hamilton chooses to race for a team that from the outset will be better known for controversy than results.

As far as I am concerned, it's Millar Time!
Chris Wright
Exeter, New Hampshire