Kittel polygraph

2»

Comments

  • B3rnieMac
    B3rnieMac Posts: 384
    It's definitely a grey area, many cyclists are fond of the ol' beetroot juice, and its definitely legal and performance enhancing, should people who down litres of the stuff be treated as dopers?

    Is it the fact that it's playing about with blood that makes it a no-no?
  • thomasmc
    thomasmc Posts: 814
    brettjmcc wrote:
    Didn't Tyler say in his book he took a polygragh and passed?

    You can be trained to pass a polygraph apparently.

    Think what he meant was in the mid / late 90's if was asked if he was cheating & answered no, he would pass the lie detector test. He felt it wasn't cheating as most of the other guys were on drugs too.
    Don't think he actually took the test
  • Bo Duke
    Bo Duke Posts: 1,058
    Lance Armstrong (remember him?) was so fanatic in his insistence and 'belief' he was clean => would he pass a lie detector due blocking out any willing to even consider he had ? Interesting....
    'Performance analysis and Froome not being clean was a media driven story. I haven’t heard one guy in the peloton say a negative thing about Froome, and I haven’t heard a single person in the peloton suggest Froome isn’t clean.' TSP
  • ocdupalais
    ocdupalais Posts: 4,314
    B3rnieMac wrote:
    swapping my kebab intake for salad would be performance enhancing, and i'm sure it's legal to do so.....

    So much of this topic seems coloured by the method of administration: have you tried injecting or snorting your kebab?
    It gets into your system so much quicker and you get into a whole new World of performance.
    I can't recommend it highly enough. I really can't...
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,451
    Pokerface wrote:
    ThomThom wrote:
    Pokerface wrote:
    While I still have issues with Kittel over his previous UV blood doping and him trying to be the poster boy for clean cycling, I will at least concede the gesture of doing a polygraph is admirable.

    Which turned out years ago that it wasn't blood doping..


    Uhhhmmnnnn.... yeah. It was and still is blood doping. It just wasn't illegal at the time. It is now. It was still doping back then, even if it wasn't illegal.

    Prior to any form of blood doping being illegal - is it still doping when first conceived? Yes.

    It's not blood doping though, in any way, shape or form. At best it might help fight an infection, at worse it's quackery. There is no performance gain whatsoever.
  • jonomc4
    jonomc4 Posts: 891
    Polygraphs are total Bo11ocks and very easy to beat - they only work because people think they work.
  • Pokerface
    Pokerface Posts: 7,960
    andyp wrote:
    Pokerface wrote:
    ThomThom wrote:
    Pokerface wrote:
    While I still have issues with Kittel over his previous UV blood doping and him trying to be the poster boy for clean cycling, I will at least concede the gesture of doing a polygraph is admirable.

    Which turned out years ago that it wasn't blood doping..


    Uhhhmmnnnn.... yeah. It was and still is blood doping. It just wasn't illegal at the time. It is now. It was still doping back then, even if it wasn't illegal.

    Prior to any form of blood doping being illegal - is it still doping when first conceived? Yes.

    It's not blood doping though, in any way, shape or form. At best it might help fight an infection, at worse it's quackery. There is no performance gain whatsoever.


    OK - I know the 'claimed' reason it was done was to help fight a cold. Or infection. Or whatever. But how many times is a treatment given for one claimed reason just to make it seem OK? The Pro Peleton seems to be full of asthmatics that need Salbitmol, etc.

    My knowledge of UV Blood treatment is vague, but is it not now banned by WADA? Surely if it is then there must be SOME possible benefit outside of treating infection?

    A quick search of the net gave me this:


    Other reported benefits of UV Blood treatment include:

    Improved circulation
    Oxygenation of tissues
    Balancing effect (homeostasis)
    Reduction of tissue pain
    Increased immune and pain tolerance of the body towards radiation or chemotherapy
    Cardiovascular protection through increased metabolism of cholesterol, uric acid, and glucose
    Anti-inflammatory effects
    Powerful anti-infection properties
    Stimulation for production of red blood cells
    Improvement in the flow and properties of the blood


    Some of those items would seem to be pretty handy for a cyclist.


    As for other comments on what is and isn't performance-enhancing (i.e., supplements, various foods, altitude training, etc) - I just go by what WADA dictates. And I think they frown upon anything that involves manipulating blood, needles, things that may cause a serious health risk, etc. If you can't get it naturally in some form, chances are it's banned.
  • Daz555
    Daz555 Posts: 3,976
    Pokerface wrote:
    ThomThom wrote:
    Pokerface wrote:
    While I still have issues with Kittel over his previous UV blood doping and him trying to be the poster boy for clean cycling, I will at least concede the gesture of doing a polygraph is admirable.

    Which turned out years ago that it wasn't blood doping..


    Uhhhmmnnnn.... yeah. It was and still is blood doping. It just wasn't illegal at the time. It is now. It was still doping back then, even if it wasn't illegal.

    Prior to any form of blood doping being illegal - is it still doping when first conceived? Yes.
    UV blood doping is the equivalent of taking homeopathic EPO.
    You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
    If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
    If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.
  • mmacavity
    mmacavity Posts: 781
    Some sports are a bit less worried about what drugs people take.

    http://www.irishpeloton.com/2012/02/dru ... other-one/

Categories