Possible Links between Kittel and Blood Doping Investigation
by Vlaanderen90 on Jan 30, 2012 3:35 AM EST
Email
Print
A developing story has come out of Germany, ARD's Sportschau, has come out with allegations that Marcel Kittel is among 28 athletes that received black light blood transfusions from Dr. Andreas Frank at his clinic in Erfurt. A police investigation has been going on for almost a year and has been centered around Frank. Former Olympic Gold medalists Neils Schumann (800 meters) and Claudia Pechstein (speed skating) were also named by the show. Both have had previous doping cases opened up against them with Pechstein serving a two year ban. Sportschau also named Kittel's ex-Thüringer Energie teammate Jakob Steigmiller as an athlete that received treatment from Frank.
Project 1t4i GM Iwan Spekenbrink has stated that he has talked to Kittel, who told him that he did visit Frank's clinic in Erfurt in 2008. Kittel told Spekenbrink that he did have an UV treatment for an apparent sickness but that was the extent of his visits with Frank and there was no money transferred between the two parties. Team management has not taken out any disciplinary action on Kittel.
63 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This feels a bit like getting kicked in the teeth and balls at the same time.
Hopefully the investigators can move quickly on this and bring a case to the table or close the matter.
that article now includes
the video of the german tv broadcast that Mr Kittel is referring to watching in the CN article
Can somebody clarify . . . .
. . . . when this UV treatment would be medically appropriate?
‘Cause I can’t seem to identify one in the 2 minutes I searched online
What would Deming do? (+8:00 GMT)
viewed in Western medicine more as an "alternative treatment"
and the whole subject of light related therapies have been more popular in eastern europe and russia for a lot longer (some argue primarily for cost reasons during soviet era etc remained an area of interest there) Many claims made for its benefits including helping fight infections, increased blood oxygenation. The one thing that does seem apparent is when “zapping” the blood like this and reintroducing it into the body, the rest of the blood in the body also becomes “zapped” by some process or other.
Remember reading a serious magazine article on it in the very early nineties discussing why trips to Russia were becoming popular for this kind of treatment. Intriguingly it was primarily being advertised as the new painless way to give up smoking, as the “zapped” blood was supposedly nicotine free on reintroduction, and hence the rest of the blood in the body was nicotine free quite soon thereafter being the theory behind it. Though heard/read little more about it after that. At the time of that article the only animals light therapies had been approved for use by the UK regulators were apparently horses and cattle (which also piqued my interest), but seems clinics here now able to offer it as an alternative therapy with the various attendant claims for its benefits.
The only research publications are in obscure Russian and Chinese journals.
No sign of any randomized controlled trial published in a respectable medical journal.
This means almost certainly that it’s totally ineffective.
However I can’t find any decent analysis of its history from the usual sources, probably because it’s never been pushed seriously as an alternative treatment in the West, and hasn’t warranted much skeptical attention.
If Kittel gets busted for quackery it would be quite distressing. Perhaps the UCI should put homeopathic remedies on their list of banned substances? I wonder what the threshold would be for the detection of water in an athlete’s blood?
I guess from the UCI’s perspective, the infringement is simply autologous blood doping, the UV irradiation is irrelevant.
I believe this falls under
Sequential withdrawal, manipulation and reintroduction of any quantity of whole blood into the circulatory system.
WADA. It doesn’t really matter what they do to the blood, it’s the method in itself that’s banned.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Jan 30, 2012 8:59 AM EST up reply actions
the thing that bothers me most about this
is that the doctor had access to so many athletes, being based in the olympic training center. reminds me of the anti-doping experts in austria.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Indeed. Basically Kittel went to the doctor assigned by the federation.
Still not completely sure what really happened though (did he or did he not get a blood transfusion?)
by blackswangreen on Jan 30, 2012 8:46 AM EST up reply actions
The treatment involves removing blood, UV-irraditiating, and putting the blood straight back in.
There are also milder forms using longer wavelengths to irradiate the blood within the body at places like the nose where the skin is thin, but I don’t think this is what is supposed to have happened here.
The ironic thing is that this is almost certainly quackery with no benefit whatsoever. And of course the blood transfusion is not being used in the usual way to cheat, since it’s being put straight back in the body right away. Yet technically, I guess he would still be guilty of autologous blood transfusion.
This things, I meant tube in the nose, emitting UV light, was very popular in USSR. Every clinic was equipped with one.
And funny thing, that this things actually works! It shortened duration of common cold, upper respiratory deceases and even flu.
In loving memory of the HTC- Highroad
.
What evidence is there that it works?
As in, randomized double-blind trials? I can’t find any. If there was evidence that it worked, don’t you think that there would be a huge market in the West to sell these devices? Cure the common cold – a mutli-billion dollar market if ever there was one.
I call bullshit. If somebody gets sick, and he receives some treatment or medication, then he gets better…. trying to convince that man that there may be no causal connection between the intervention and the fact that he got better is almost impossible. But the simple fact is that most things just get better with time anyway. That’s why evidence-based medicine has such rigorous standards of proof.
Hehe! Westerner!
In the former Soviet Union, if the Party and Ministry of Health, says it works, then it is works! :)
In loving memory of the HTC- Highroad
.
much under investigated subject
see http://www.rense.com/general38/heal.htm and many others.
Pioneered with horses and would also testify seems to work for some ailments.
Go back twenty years and noone would have believed lasers could help healing either
Yes, very clearly illegal today.
Section M2 of the WADA prohibited list:
Sequential withdrawal, manipulation and reintroduction of any quantity of whole blood into the circulatory system
Intravenous infusion is prohibited. In an acute medical situation where this method is deemed necessary, a retroactive Therapeutic Use Exemption will be required.
Luxembourg is very close to Belgium--Frank Schleck
Or possibly this, since irradiation is supposed to help oxygenate blood:
Artificially enhancing the uptake, transport or delivery of oxygen, including but not limited to perfluorochemicals, efaproxiral (RSR13) and modified haemoglobin products (e.g. haemoglobin-based blood substitutes, microencapsulated haemoglobin products).
Luxembourg is very close to Belgium--Frank Schleck
an article on the Austrian ski case in 2002
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/news/2002/05/26/ioc_meetings_ap/
indicates IOC/WADA always taken a dim view of the practice.
Let's see: "received treatment but no money was exchange"...
…bullshit. Doctor’s don’t work for free.
i think they meant kittel did not pay the doctor himself
sounds like he’s paid by the german olympic federation.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Ahh.
I was going to add that this means either there was an insurance or some other payment, and so a record of this, or it’s crap. But that’s at least somewhat encouraging.
it is in a way
at least as it relates to kittel. the worrying aspect is that it’s easy for a rider to know not to frequent a shady gynecologist that requires payment in cash and tell you to call him on an unregistered cell phone. on the other hand, someone your federation pays comes with some pre-established credentials. sounds like in this case, kittel had no intention to dope. sure, the athlete is always responsible for what goes into/is done to his body, but still. this is almost like taking tainted supplements. athletes get screwed because they didn’t test everything they put in their body or know the WADA code like the back of their hand and always consult with a doping lawyer before trusting anyone perform any medical treatment on them. now, of course, kittel could be one of those evil dirty dopers, but i based on what i’ve read so far, sounds like some kid getting screwed by a federation that didn’t police/oversee its doctors well enough.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Yeah.
Pretty much to all of this. The more time I spend with these issues, the more ‘strict’ codes of athlete liability seem to me as if they’re far too often functioning as a juridical fig leaf for systemic problems / abuses by others. Of course, some of that is also a result of how the press reports this stuff, rather than where the athletes end up once the investigatory process is actually complete. Unfortunately, those press reports have more to do with their employability, at least in the short term, than any official process.
Ugh.
Sure
but in fairness most of the explanations here could have been copy pasted from the the early comments on the Freiburg connection at T-Mob. Not saying this is the same but the spin works both ways sometimes.
if the german olympic federation was paying that is truly effed up
at that stage i start to think it really may not be his fault…
Warning... not everything I say should be taken entirely seriously
don't take my comment as fact
but that’s what it looks like to me, reading the gnomified version of the news article.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Ooh a post about Kittel...German hege....FUCK ME SIDEWAYS!!!
"Weltmeister!!" Zwei mal: 2010-2011...und weiter gehts
In the grand scheme of things
hard to take a totally negative view of a rider that may have had just a singular “treatment” when he was 19 years of age, “dispensed” by an accredited NOC doctor he was probably ordered to attend – at least until further information received.
Especially as his subsequent success years down the line seems to be the only reason he is banner headlines in the matter alongside Pechstein and others – different story.
1t4i has now come out and said that Patrick Gretsch and John Degenkolb also saw Frank at some point
Gretsch got the UV treatment, Degenkolb did not
“The UV-treatment concerned does not improve performance, according to various experts. It is a method that is mainly used in Eastern Europe with patients to increase their resistance to infection.
Dr. Franke applied the following method for the mentioned syndrome. He took a very small amount (a few cc) of blood from the body via a syringe and put this under UV lighting immediately to fight the infection in the blood. This blood was subsequently reinserted into the body. The entire treatment did not take more than a few minutes. It did not involve an infusion or transfusion.” -part of the statement from 1t4i management; full here
the "it did not involve an infusion or transfusion" part is interesting.
how was it “reinserted” then?
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
I was thinking the same thing...confused face
by Vlaanderen90 on Jan 30, 2012 2:03 PM EST up reply actions
Damn myself for not reading down first
so I’ll say warlock like bidness
"Weltmeister!!" Zwei mal: 2010-2011...und weiter gehts
These are not the droids you seek.
This is not the infusion or transfusion you seek.
Maybe the team name makes me think of that Star Wars scene…or maybe it’s the statement.
by JustJoshinYa on Jan 30, 2012 3:00 PM EST up reply actions
the 2007 prohibited list would appear
to disagree (but only if you accept it is not a legitimate medical treatment)
the 2008 prohibited list is slightly more draconian, mentioning acute and TUEs.
The dictionary definition of infusion being sufficient to “outlaw” the practice (doubt they reintroduced the blood via an artery) and a NOC doctor should at least know that a TUE was required.
It will be ironic if
Kittel is penalised for a treatment administered when he was what, 19? Ordered by the Olympic Federation and that probably didn’t do anything anyway. Depending on what comes out of course.
"These are my principles and if you don't like them....well I have others." Groucho Marx
Has to be some lenience
when a young kid is ordered to do something, if that’s the finding of fact.
De cross gaat out that door.
by Chris Fontecchio on Jan 30, 2012 4:52 PM EST up reply actions
Hmmm...
Well I guess it’s possible to argue something like that, that Kittel and the others should get a reduced or eliminated sanction if they had no reason to suspect that the doctor was doing something wrong. Though it’s not necessarily the same thing when it’s a method that’s banned a not a substance.
Anyway, the WADA code says age and experience can be a factor when deciding on a sanction:
While Minors are not given special treatment per se in determining the applicable sanction, certainly youth and lack of experience are relevant factors to be assessed in determining the Athlete’s or other Person’s fault under Article 10.5.2, as well as Articles 10.3.3, 10.4 and 10.5.1
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Jan 30, 2012 5:23 PM EST up reply actions
sensible.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
would vote for lenience also
the main culprit here is the doctor concerned. His credentials and position bestow on him a respectability above and beyond the norm. Strict liability puts it on the athlete also, and technically the maximum reduction in any sanction is from two years to one.
If the benefits claimed are true the it helps fight infection as well as boost oxygen carrying potential, then bygones be bygones for me – but Kittel potentially caught in the same predicament as Contador, the lack of flexibility in the rules at times can be problematic in itself.
(By that mean if a tribunal decides it is 51% transfusion/49% meat there is no real latitude under the rules to vary a sentence, the same as (when over 18) the rules usually also hold athlete totally responsible regardless of circumstances for prescence/use – then the type of drug/method can become more important in sentencing than the reasons for it being in a sample/used)
Assuming the current explanation pans out, this...
technically the maximum reduction in any sanction is from two years to one
…really begins to make me question the justice of the current strict liability regime. If we’re being forced to hand out one-year bans in this circumstance, three years later, then the emperor truly, truly needs a new wardrobe.
generic problem of having mandated minimum sentences
enshrined in rulebooks. Not really the problem of a strict liability, more one of the sentencing options available.
To use a crass analogy – two shoplifters, one has stolen two or three loaves of bread to eat, one has been going down the high street lifting rolex and cartier items from jewellers. One gets two years for a first offence, second gets a year under maximum discount available. Both remain shoplifters though.
Kittel also benefiting a little, certainly in my pov, from a little willingness to dismiss the offence as potential quackery or unproven at best, his age at the time, that I am choosing to focus on it being to benefit from the claims it helps to treat infection, he was probably sent there and that i quite like the guy.
Am choosing to overlook that in any order of things it seems like blood tampering of some sort, the claims it helps blood oxygen capabilities, regardless of his age he could have raised a question or two, and that at that point in his career he was making his way as a young time triallist rather than as a sprinter so such benefits could have been sought for/by him. If I was arguing about Pechstein having the same treatments I would be less willing to overlook these things and others – which just makes me a hypocrite at worst, or an advocate of greater sentencing “bandwidth” at best.
The problem is, if you allow discretion in sentencing, it must be applied consistently.
With local federations sentencing their own athletes, this will never happen.
Need to resolve that problem at the same time – independent panel of adjudicators for all doping cases, then you can give them some room to use common sense.
Yeah. I'd thought of this too, but as Straw Dog points out below, there is a sensible reason for the minimums...
…which sort of takes us back to the problem of how ‘fault’ is being assigned here.
It’d also help if there were are more robust mechanism for sanctioning non-athlete participants in rule-breaking, even and especially at the institutional level.
Is that true?
10.5.1 says “exceptional circumstances” can lead to elimination of the period of ineligibility. Though of course, there’s also a comment:
a sanction could not be completely eliminated on the basis of No Fault or Negligence in the following circumstances:
(a)…
(b) the administration of a Prohibited Substance by the Athlete’s personal physician or trainer without disclosure to the Athlete (Athletes are responsible for their choice of medical personnel and for advising medical personnel that they cannot be given any Prohibited Substance
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
by TheFigurehead on Jan 31, 2012 3:03 AM EST up reply actions
yep, should point out am assuming chances of a no fault ruling if a case ever comes about (and it is found to be a prohibited method) to be next to nil
“While it is understandable for an athlete to trust his/her medical professional, reliance on others and on one’s own ignorance as to the nature of the medication being prescribed does not satisfy the duty of care as set out in the definitions that must be exhibited to benefit from finding No Significant Fault or Negligence. It is of little relevance to the determination of fault that the product was prescribed with "professional diligence" and "with a clear therapeutic intention". To allow athletes to shirk their responsibilities under the anti-doping rules by not questioning or investigating substances entering their body would result in the erosion of the established strict regulatory standard and increased circumvention of anti-doping rules.
A player’s ignorance or naivety cannot be the basis upon which he or she is allowed to circumvent the very stringent and onerous doping provisions. There must be some clear and definitive standard of compliance to which all athletes are held accountable” as they regularly say.
And that's the problem.
That ‘clear and definitive standard’ may also be completely fucking unrealistic. I’m beginning to think the possibility that it is matters more than a little bit.
Because Kittel was not the focus of this whatsoever...Allegations broke out about Frank with other athletes
and since his clinic is funded by taxpayer dollars, the police got involved. Investigation was opened and everything and they got names of athletes. What I HATE is how they name only a few athletes at once and not the other 24 or so. All or nothing, I believe.
by Vlaanderen90 on Jan 30, 2012 6:16 PM EST up reply actions
Meh
Pechstein will probably make more headlines in Germany than the cyclists. Of course there are likely footy players on the list but if they are German they shall not be mentioned! And rightfully so, we have Euros to win!!
"Weltmeister!!" Zwei mal: 2010-2011...und weiter gehts
Look at the bright side
1. At least the story mentions that athletes besides cyclists are involved.
2. 1t4i seems to be handling it fairly well.
"Oh man, it’s going to take days to kill all these people!"
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Celebrate the Giro d'Italia at Podium Cafe!
Check our Giro Section for race updates, on-the-scene reports, and other hijinx.
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
