• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

ARD link Kittel to German blood doping investigation

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
think the "anoymous" 6% is extraordinarily low also. some with inability to tell the truth to themselves, bit Amrstrong'ie methinks
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
blackcat said:
think the "anoymous" 6% is extraordinarily low also. some with inability to tell the truth to themselves, bit Amrstrong'ie methinks
needless to say....

i think we can safely quintuple that number. and then times 2. roughly.
 
Apr 13, 2011
847
0
0
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.
As we all know now, you dont need to have a positive test to be banned for life these days.
 
Jul 9, 2010
118
0
0
Tyler'sTwin said:
I know and I think that's wrong. An athlete who smokes pot is no cheater (at least not by smoking pot) and should not be treated as such.
It's only banned in-competition. And there's something to be said for that, I think.
 
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?
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
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?
Kittel difficult call.
he's been quite vocal against armstrong fans, but then again in germany there is quite a bit more public pressure for cyclists to speak out against doping than, say, in spain or belgium. He has also been quite honest and open about the number and nature of his treatments in Freiburg. e.g. here

Wrt Freiburg: José Aramendi (ONCE doping doctor and later linked to USPS/Del Moral) was a frequent visitor there. Aramendi in turn was on the doctoral thesis committee of ex-Garmin doc Carlos Gonzalez Haro in 2005. I know, this is smearing by association. But goes to show again how linked up all these docs and physiologists are (or at least have been).
 
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
Netserk said:
He would've faded by now if he was clean.

No way a fatso like him should be fresh just after the mountains.
but it is relative. if all are clean, all fade to the same degree.

/devils advocate (i agree with your inference)
 
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.

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.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
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.
i said this one page back :rolleyes: 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:
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.
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.

Note that anti-doping in germany at present is not very stringent.
The NADA has been asking for more money without getting anything, and some recent investigations into the history and present state of doping in germany have been frustrated from above, just when the investigations threatened to shed some really nasty light on german topsport.

I reckon there are plenty of clinics in Germany similar to the Freiburg one.
And the Freiburg docs haven't been severly punished.
Fazit: It's not too difficult to get away with doping in Germany at present.
 
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
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.

and i do not see it as defamation. you may. i dont see it as a character or ethical issue. i see it as a cycling issue. no probs.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,108
0
0
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.
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.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,108
0
0
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.
.
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.

While I don't know anyone is clean besides myself, I belief Tuft is riding clean, so I thought that him busting out a top 10 in the TT was a good sign. That said, in reality that time in a dope-free field probably should have put him on the podium. So, I'm not really sure how good a sign that is. It meets the Vaughters test, "well, you can be competitive clean". But top 10 isn't the podium...
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
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.
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".
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,108
0
0
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".
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.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts