- Mar 13, 2009
think the "anoymous" 6% is extraordinarily low also. some with inability to tell the truth to themselves, bit Amrstrong'ie methinks
As we all know now, you dont need to have a positive test to be banned for life these days.WillemS said:Kittel will walk if it is a valid medical treatment and they can only prove he has taken it once while visiting a doctor for having flu. His credibility might be damaged, but hey, he can eat a freaking UV-lamp for all I care, currently my opinion is that it doesn't make him go any faster.
Let's face it, he did not test positive and no judge is going to sentence him for going to a medical doctor while having flu. They either have to prove him taking it more than once without medical need or provide a positive doping test, both of which are probably going to be difficult. He has a valid reason to visit that doctor, according to the Olympic support point story, and they are probably not going to find any financial transactions between Kittel and the doctor in question. So without a criminal conviction or a positive doping test, he's not going to get banned.
But I agree with some of you above, criminal investigations or the like can indeed help maintain doping rules. Tracing money, hearing witnesses, proving more evidence than just a micro-gram per liter positive test, it all helps to create a more solid case. And we get to catch the sellers and doping doctors.
Kittel difficult call.More Strides than Rides said:Not that I'm particularly suspicious, but I'm wondering what other people are thinking? He does keep himself out of the intermediate sprints, and his wins come from some savvy final meters, rather than blow out sprints. Does the German Lab story taint his reputation?
i said this one page back and also noted that public pressure in germany to speak out against doping is obviously much higher, so it doesn't necessarily mean much when he calls out armstrogn fans (though i welcome it of course). pressure on kittel to speak out is even bigger due to the freiburg connection.skidmark said:Kittel was pretty honest about his experience with the light therapy stuff, and seemed distraught. He's more outspoken than any top rider against doping or even suspected doping, to the point where people here who want that rag on him for it (and yeah, there is a problem with picking on continental riders from Turkey and keeping silent about suspicions about Froome for example, but he's still said more than any other top rider I can name). It seems impossible to be at the top level of cycling without having at least some interaction with someone formerly associated with doping, and he has less strong associations than most riders. Thinking anecdotally about testimonies of, say, Landis and Hamilton, who I have no reason to doubt, they went a couple of seasons clean as neo-pros in the dirtiest era ever without really knowing what was going on, there's no reason to believe Kittel has been knowingly involved in doping necessarily.
well, you do have to believe that he's been rather naive.skidmark said:Other than the argument that he's a top level professional cyclist and there's been lots of doping in cycling, I can't really think of any reason not to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Umm...he was 18 years old at the time. I'm sure he was naive, particularly since the doctor in question was employed by the German federation and he was in the junior national program.sniper said:well, you do have to believe that he's been rather naive.
pechstein has been dragged through the mud for going to the same doc.
Given cycling's history, that's a totally reasonable position. I guess the tough thing is "proving you wrong". I mean, pretty much the only way to demonstrate that you're clean is by going really slow! As far as Kittel goes, only he knows for sure, and if he is clean, he can be happy with that.blackcat said:i give ALL riders benefit of the doubt. My default setting is dopage, i give them benefit of the doubt that all subscribe to dopage.
i think this is the better starting point. cycling may well be getting cleaner. but i give them the benefit of the doubt, i round up to dopage.
good points. but most dopers have good intentions.131313 said:Umm...he was 18 years old at the time. I'm sure he was naive, particularly since the doctor in question was employed by the German federation and he was in the junior national program.
Not saying he's clean or dirty, I have no clue. But going to a doctor when you're sick as an 18 year old? Fact is, you can find doping "links" to anyone who's ever ridden a bike professionally. At a certain point, you have to have something remotely close to evidence, or even reasonable suspicion. It seems many have reached a point that crossing the line first, regardless of circumstance, means you're doping. That's a bit over the top for me.
Have you ever met an 18 year old bike racer? By and large they're pretty dumb. My limited understanding of the UV blacklight procedure is that it's just quacky medicine, not doping. Who knows, maybe he was sent out with the whole white lunch bag of goodies, too.sniper said:good points. but most dopers have good intentions.
and he didn't just go to a doctor. he had blood extracted, then radiated and pumped back into his body. and that a couple of times. i don't see how being 18 or 25 makes much of a difference there. if he's still that naive, and still under guidance of topsport coaches, he's probably still doping.
"here lad, your lunchbox".