# Kittel proves that he's clean (this will convince the doubters)



## eyebob (Feb 3, 2004)

So, here's a piece of good news. Frankly, I think that it's a perfect PR move for any rider who is clean to consider. As an employer that supposedly cares about hiring only clean riders, I'd pay MORE for a guy that's proven he's clean. Yes, Froome, I'm looking at you (and others).

Kittel Takes Lie Detector Test To Prove He Is Clean | Cyclingnews.com
Argos-Shimano rider takes test for German magazine

A lie detector test has shown that Marcel Kittel “has never used doping and is a clean athlete,” according to the psychologist who conducted the test. The Argos-Shimano sprinter, who won four stages at this year's Tour de France, took the test at the request of SportBild magazine

Kittel was asked a variety of questions, and when asked if he had ever used drugs or illegal substances, or whether they had ever been offered to him, he replied no. The polygraph indicated that this was the truth.

“The things that we measure during the interview remained very even. That is a sign of credibility,” said forensic psychologist Holger Leutz. 

“Kittel makes us believe in a pure generation of cyclists. I dare say in response to what the detector indicates that Marcel Kittel has never used doping and is a clean athlete.”

Kittel said that he had no problem taking a lie detector test. “I have nothing to hide, so I did it. I stand for clean sport and this test has confirmed that.”

He noted doping protests at the Tour, and said that those individuals “are not coming for the sport, but come dressed as a syringe. All we do is fight for credibility and trust.”

Kittel underwent UV light blood treatments “a few times” when he was 18-year-old and training at the Erfurt Olympic Center. Last month the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled that such treatments were not considered to be doping.

He is an outspoken anti-doping critic, who recently called for doping to be criminalized.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

eyebob said:


> So, here's a piece of good news. Frankly, I think that it's a perfect PR move for any rider who is clean to consider. As an employer that supposedly cares about hiring only clean riders, I'd pay MORE for a guy that's proven he's clean. Yes, Froome, I'm looking at you (and others).
> 
> Kittel Takes Lie Detector Test To Prove He Is Clean | Cyclingnews.com
> Argos-Shimano rider takes test for German magazine
> ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NLf7XwLpyQ


----------



## anotherguy (Dec 9, 2010)

Polygraphs are not the wonder machines they are in the movies. There is a reason they aren't admissible in court in many jurisdictions. Even the best polygraph operators in the world can be duped by someone is is blatantly lying. Google Aldrich Ames fr an excellent example.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I'm pretty sure this just proved that cycling is clean and doping is a thing of the past.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

> Argos-Shimano rider takes test for German magazine


Great... a German magazine proves that a German cyclist is clean. Yet the tool used is not admissible in The Federal Court of Germany since polygraph evidence is inherently inconclusive.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

I'll take a stand for polygraphs here. I think they are effective tools. I've got a minute here so I'll try to explain. Here is the correct way to ask questions. Let's say that a guy robbed the bank. And on his way out he dropped a glove (the recovered glove is only known to the bank robber and the police). After a series of baseline questions and warmups, the suspect is asked:

Q: Did you drop your hat after robbing the bank?
A: No. 

Q: Did you drop a glove after robbing the bank?
A: No.


If the suspect did rob the bank, the second question will illicit a different physiological response. Questions can be designed in a way to test things that only the criminal would know buried in a group of red herrings. These questions can go on and on. (eg Did you drive off in a red car? Did you drive off in a blue car?) It's not a matter of asking, "Did you rob the bank?!" 


Of course there are countermeasures that lower the effectiveness, such as polygraph counter-training and beta blockers (test for those!). But for the most part a polygraph administered correctly under the right circumstances can be an effective tool.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Local Hero said:


> I'll take a stand for polygraphs here.


Do you have any first hand experience? What you describe (and what VeloNews wrote as the procedure) is far removed from the way I've seen polygraphs administered. And while people are fixated on false negative results, no one has mentioned false positives or ambiguous readings. 

My advice to an innocent person is stay as far away from a polygraph as possible. Unless you have been through it and know you give reliable results, the risk from a false positive or ambiguous result is much much greater than any benefit from a true negative.


----------



## RaptorTC (Jul 20, 2012)

Reliability of polygraphs aside, I think its still pretty cool of Kittel to do this. A magazine asks him to take a polygraph regarding doping and he did it. He didn't back down or shy away. I think that confidence says a lot. It would have been an absolutely terrible P.R. move if he went ahead with it and it the polygraph popped him for lying.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

asgelle said:


> Do you have any first hand experience? What you describe (and what VeloNews wrote as the procedure) is far removed from the way I've seen polygraphs administered. And while people are fixated on false negative results, no one has mentioned false positives or ambiguous readings.
> 
> My advice to an innocent person is stay as far away from a polygraph as possible. Unless you have been through it and know you give reliable results, the risk from a false positive or ambiguous result is much much greater than any benefit from a true negative.


No, I do not have first hand experience with polygraphs. But I have read some studies and did work for a criminal defense attorney while in school. He actually uses polygraphs in his defense work. He convinced me of their effectiveness. 

I agree that they can be misused and false positives are a problem. Yet I still think they can be effective tools. 

If a rider started doping in 2007, a series of questions asking, "Did you start in 2006?...Did you start in 2007?...Did you start in 2008?" may illicit a physiological response from the relevant question. This can be done in any number of imagined ways. Of course, it is better when the examiner does not know the "hot" question. 

Of course there are countermeasures that lower the effectiveness which I mentioned above. But a polygraph is administered correctly under the right circumstances can be effective. 

Again, feel free to take my opinion on this for what it's worth. 

Can you talk a little about your experience, what you've seen, and why you think they are ineffective?





RaptorTC said:


> Reliability of polygraphs aside, I think its still pretty cool of Kittel to do this. A magazine asks him to take a polygraph regarding doping and he did it. He didn't back down or shy away. I think that confidence says a lot.


I agree.


----------



## Rich Gibson (Jul 26, 2013)

Perhaps I missed it in the thread, but hasn't blood irradiating been banned now? True, it may not be doping but as far as I know it's now illegal.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Rich Gibson said:


> Perhaps I missed it in the thread, but hasn't blood irradiating been banned now? True, it may not be doping but as far as I know it's now illegal.


What's your point?


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

I bet he was on beta blockers when he took the test


----------



## Nubster (Jul 8, 2009)

What's the purpose of UV light blood treatment? Outside of treating an illness.


----------



## Rich Gibson (Jul 26, 2013)

asgelle said:


> What's your point?


"Last month the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled that such treatments were not considered to be doping."

Either they are or aren't legal. I'm seeking clarification.



> However O’Rorke noted the timeframe when it came into play. “I can confirm that M2.3 was added to the List of Prohibited Substances and Methods in 2011 in response to a number of blood manipulation methods brought to WADA's attention,” he stated then.
> 
> The German Sports Arbitration court interpreted things as such in its November ruling, saying that treatments prior to that date did not appear to violate the anti-doping code.




So..it wasn't then, but it is prohibited now.


----------



## eyebob (Feb 3, 2004)

but seriously, who else in the peloton has had the balls to do this? none that I know of.

bt


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

So maybe there should be a 'polygraph passport'. You take a lie detector test at the start of the season to establish your 'bullsh!t parameters'. Then subsequently get tested randomly throughout the season. All stage winners automatically get tested. 

Didn't Armstrong offer to take a lie test when things were getting desperate for him last year?

If I was clean I wouldn't take one, makes me look like I'm a little desperate to 'prove' I'm clean. If I was a doper..mmm, that's a difficult one.

I guess now Kittel can dope with impunity since his little PR stunt has won over public opinion.


----------



## hicksycle (Jan 8, 2013)

Stupid, stupid, stupid. I bet Lance could have passed any Polygraph in his day.
And if an innocent person feels threatened by the tester, s/he will usually fail.
If a sympathetic person is administering the test, the subject will usually pass.
A subject who has strong self belief (and a lot of criminals do) will usually pass no matter what the tester's attitude is.
A subject who is used to being abused and accused unfairly will usually have strong self doubt, and will usually fail no matter what the tester's attitude is.
Complete garbage and I think a lot less of Kittel now for promoting psuedo-science.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

hicksycle said:


> Stupid, stupid, stupid. I bet Lance could have passed any Polygraph in his day.
> And if an innocent person feels threatened by the tester, s/he will usually fail.
> If a sympathetic person is administering the test, the subject will usually pass.
> A subject who has strong self belief (and a lot of criminals do) will usually pass no matter what the tester's attitude is.
> A subject who is used to being abused and accused unfairly will usually have strong self doubt, and will usually fail no matter what the tester's attitude is.


It's certainly true that polygraphs have limitations and can be used incorrectly.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Rich Gibson said:


> "
> So..it wasn't then, but it is prohibited now.[/FONT]


yes
and?


----------



## mikerp (Jul 24, 2011)

hicksycle said:


> Stupid, stupid, stupid. I bet Lance could have passed any Polygraph in his day.
> And if an innocent person feels threatened by the tester, s/he will usually fail.
> If a sympathetic person is administering the test, the subject will usually pass.
> A subject who has strong self belief (and a lot of criminals do) will usually pass no matter what the tester's attitude is.
> ...


The Bild magazine is anything but sympathetic.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

RaptorTC said:


> Reliability of polygraphs aside, I think its still pretty cool of Kittel to do this. A magazine asks him to take a polygraph regarding doping and he did it. He didn't back down or shy away. I think that confidence says a lot. It would have been an absolutely terrible P.R. move if he went ahead with it and it the polygraph popped him for lying.


A German Magazine, has a German forensic psychologist, issue a polygraph to a German cyclist.
Surely there wouldn't be an bias going on during the testing. 

He should take 5 polygraphs from 5 different countries. We'll take the 3/5 results as I bet they'd all be different.


----------



## mikerp (Jul 24, 2011)

tlg said:


> A German Magazine, has a German forensic psychologist, issue a polygraph to a German cyclist.
> Surely there wouldn't be an bias going on during the testing.
> 
> He should take 5 polygraphs from 5 different countries. We'll take the 3/5 results as I bet they'd all be different.


You obviously don't get the present day German mindset.
Bild/Spiegel etc would love to make headlines, there are no headlines with someone passing the test. In today's environment it is not German to be German.


----------



## mikerp (Jul 24, 2011)

What's really funny about Kittel and second guessing him at this point, he placed 166 out of 169, +4h, 10', 08".
Classifications - Tour de France 2013
He is a good sprinter, if his team gets him in position.


----------



## cyclisme! (Sep 6, 2012)

anotherguy said:


> Polygraphs are not the wonder machines they are in the movies. There is a reason they aren't admissible in court in many jurisdictions. . .


Yuh huh! Seinfeld tried to lie that he'd never watched Melrose Place and got busted... Clearly, they cannot be fooled.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

mikerp said:


> What's really funny about Kittel and second guessing him at this point, he placed 166 out of 169, +4h, 10', 08".
> Classifications - Tour de France 2013
> He is a good sprinter, if his team gets him in position.


Doesn't really matter what his overall placing was, he was there only to try to win select stages... I'm sure sprinters have an interested in doping as well. I don't see why it would not enhance their sprint, and at the very least getting to the line fresher is also more ideal.


----------



## SauronHimself (Nov 21, 2012)

If he can squeeze his sphincter tightly, which all cyclists can, he can beat the polygraph.


----------



## cyclisme! (Sep 6, 2012)

Or as George Costanza famously uttered: "It's not a lie if YOU believe it".


----------



## brainer23 (Sep 6, 2012)

eyebob said:


> but seriously, who else in the peloton has had the balls to do this? none that I know of.
> 
> bt


Pretty sure Hamilton took one and passed, was in his book "The Secret Race"


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

SauronHimself said:


> If he can squeeze his sphincter tightly, which all cyclists can, he can beat the polygraph.


That's a pretty good way to create "inconclusive" results. Hamilton claims to have done this to "pass" a test.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

If sprinters didn't dope, maybe more would get cut and we would see the yellow jersey contending the Champs stage like in the good old days.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Local Hero said:


> That's a pretty good way to create "inconclusive" results. Hamilton claims to have done this to "pass" a test.


could you quantify the difference between "pass" and "inconclusive"?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

den bakker said:


> could you quantify the difference between "pass" and "inconclusive"?


quantify? no


Inconclusive means that the examination fails to show whether the subject is truthful or untruthful.

Any number of factors can cause the examination to be inconclusive, such as inconsistent/erratic baseline responses. 

Again, this can also be caused by the administration of the test. It's a little more nuanced than asking "Did you murder your wife?!" while the murder subject sweats it out under an interrogation light.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

A polygraph only tests intentionality and is not foolproof. We need to know what's in his blood, not in his mind. This is a total red herring.


----------



## Chainstay (Mar 13, 2004)

The German public is very cynical about cyclists and doping. After winning four sprints in the tour, Kittel is trying to win them over to his cause. 

I would feel more confident that Kittel was clean if he didn't do that stupid thing with withdrawing his blood, irradiating it and transfusing it back in. That was really idiotic and of course it's now illegal.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Local Hero said:


> quantify? no
> 
> 
> Inconclusive means that the examination fails to show whether the subject is truthful or untruthful.
> ...


thanks for confirming it's one part crystal ball and one part hand reading.


----------



## SauronHimself (Nov 21, 2012)

Polygraphs try to determine truth or lies by comparing responses to the critical questions against baseline questions. Baseline questions are ones that ask mundane things like your name, birthday, where you grew up, etc. You're most likely to be very relaxed during those questions, so during the questions that ask the critical things such as, "Did you ever use PEDs?", the expectation is to see your heart rate either remain normal (consistent with baseline) or spike (might indicate a lie). However, it's easy to fool a polygraph by manipulating the baseline. By squeezing your sphincter, you mimic the spiked heart rate and adrenaline from getting nervous when you answer with a lie. Also, during the critical questions you can manipulate those responses by holding your breath in between answers, because that lowers your heart rate.


----------



## r1lee (Jul 22, 2012)

If you know the questions and if you are confident and believe even your own lies, the lie detector is useless machine. It measures fluctuations in heart hate, big deal.


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

somebody mentioned it, so I had to go look.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

den bakker said:


> thanks for confirming it's one part crystal ball and one part hand reading.


really?




SauronHimself said:


> Polygraphs try to determine truth or lies by comparing responses to the critical questions against baseline questions. Baseline questions are ones that ask mundane things like your name, birthday, where you grew up, etc. You're most likely to be very relaxed during those questions, so during the questions that ask the critical things such as, "Did you ever use PEDs?", the expectation is to see your heart rate either remain normal (consistent with baseline) or spike (might indicate a lie). However, it's easy to fool a polygraph by manipulating the baseline. By squeezing your sphincter, you mimic the spiked heart rate and adrenaline from getting nervous when you answer with a lie. Also, during the critical questions you can manipulate those responses by holding your breath in between answers, because that lowers your heart rate.


They are not always mundane. In addition to the typical biographical information, baseline questions can be challenging and designed to push the comfort levels of the subject. For example, asking about sexual infidelity, lying, stealing, or even asking a heterosexual male if he has ever been sexual aroused by the sight of another male's naked body. There are countless ways to ask someone uncomfortable questions. And there are questions to test whether a person is being honest such as, _Do you always tell the truth?_ 

Your description of the critical questions misses the nuance of the test. I tried to explain it earlier in the thread:
_

Let's say that a guy robbed the bank. And on his way out he dropped a glove (the recovered glove is only known to the bank robber and the police). After a series of baseline questions and warmups, the suspect is asked:

Q: Did you drop your hat after robbing the bank?
A: No. 

Q: Did you drop a glove after robbing the bank?
A: No.


If the suspect did rob the bank, the second question will illicit a different physiological response. Questions can be designed in a way to test things that only the criminal would know buried in a group of red herrings. These questions can go on and on. (eg Did you drive off in a red car? Did you drive off in a blue car?) It's not a matter of asking, "Did you rob the bank?!" 


Of course there are countermeasures that lower the effectiveness, such as polygraph counter-training and beta blockers (test for those!). But for the most part a polygraph administered correctly under the right circumstances can be an effective tool._


One last note on countermeasures such as clenching the ass or holding breath. Recent studies have shown that subjects do WORSE on polygraphs after reading about countermeasures on the internet.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

r1lee said:


> If you know the questions and if you are confident and believe even your own lies, the lie detector is useless machine. It measures fluctuations in heart hate, big deal.


Most polygraphs are 3 axis machines. They also monitor blood pressure and the degree that one sweats. That's where the "poly" part of the name comes from. The machine creates multiple graphs of physical reactions that are, in theory, indicative of stress.

Also, anyone can hang out a shingle and call him or herself a polygraph examiner. YMMV in the results. In the hands of a skilled examiner, it can be a worthwhile investigative tool. Not admissible in court, but not totally worthless.


----------



## Spunner (May 31, 2006)

If I was "telling" the truth I think I'd fail with Dr Phil's guy doing the test...scary


----------



## 86TDFWinner (Jul 22, 2013)

Local Hero said:


> I'll take a stand for polygraphs here. I think they are effective tools. I've got a minute here so I'll try to explain. Here is the correct way to ask questions. Let's say that a guy robbed the bank. And on his way out he dropped a glove (the recovered glove is only known to the bank robber and the police). After a series of baseline questions and warmups, the suspect is asked:
> 
> Q: Did you drop your hat after robbing the bank?
> A: No.
> ...


You ALSO "believe"(albeit, posting ZERO proof to backup your ridiculous claim, which btw we're all STILL waiting for you to post) That LeMond doped, or(as you claim) was "doped to the gills".

How would anyone take anything you say with anything other than a chuckle, since your credibility has been shot for some time? They simply can't.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

It's fascinating that you bumped this thread from three days ago in order to revive an argument from another thread! 

You bring up an interesting point. LeMond has *never* taken a polygraph. What's he hiding from? Is your hero is too afraid to take a polygaph because of what the results might show?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Local Hero said:


> It's fascinating that you bumped this thread from three days ago in order to revive an argument from another thread!
> 
> You bring up an interesting point. LeMond has *never* taken a polygraph. What's he hiding from? Is your hero is too afraid to take a polygaph because of what the results might show?


durh hur


----------



## 86TDFWinner (Jul 22, 2013)

Local Hero said:


> It's fascinating that you bumped this thread from three days ago in order to revive an argument from another thread!
> 
> You bring up an interesting point. LeMond has *never* taken a polygraph. What's he hiding from? Is your hero is too afraid to take a polygaph because of what the results might show?


Well, if you must know, I only did so(bumped up this thread) because you've failed to provide your factual/credible proof you kept going on about having that LeMond was (as you claimed)" Doped to the gills"..... So, I'm asking YOU: Are YOU "too afraid" to post your said proof because it doesn't exist? Why do you continue to refuse to post it, what are you trying to hide? Would you be willing to take a polygraph that leMond "100% positively" doped? And, it has to be C-R-E-D-I-B-L-E proof, not something your step uncle in law's dog told you. As for LeMond, ask him, I'll bet he would take one in a heartbeat, but that would prove you are clueless about a great many things, and I would imagine you wouldn't want that to get out.


It's simple really: just post your 100% factual proof you claim to have about LeMond doping, can you do that please? 

Also, please post your proof that you claim LeMond "never took a polygraph", where did you get this information? How do you know he hasn't? we'd all love to read it...please post that info as well, or are you trying to hide something? if not, post what I've asked you to post.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

86TDFWinner said:


> Well, if you must know, I only did so(bumped up this thread) because


I'm flattered that you're following me around!


86TDFWinner said:


> Also, please post your proof that you claim LeMond "never took a polygraph", where did you get this information? How do you know he hasn't? we'd all love to read it....


Agreed. It's possible that LeMond has kept secret the results of a failed polygraph.


----------



## 86TDFWinner (Jul 22, 2013)

> I'm flattered that you're following me around!




Don't flatter yourself, you're not worth it. We're all still anxiously awaiting your posting of the proof you claim to have about LeMond being "doped to the gills", when are you going to post that info for all of us to see?



> Agreed. It's possible that LeMond has kept secret the results of a failed polygraph.



You agree that there is no proof LeMond has never taken a polygraph test? nice of you to finally come around & admit it. Now, there's that little matter of you posting the "LeMond doped too" info you claim to have, how about it?(crickets chirp)


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

86TDFWinner said:


> We're all still anxiously awaiting
> ...
> when are you going to post that info for all of us to see?


What makes you think you speak for everyone?



> You agree that there is no proof LeMond has never taken a polygraph test?


It makes sense that a doper would keep the results of his polygraph secret.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

The trolling never stops.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Fireform said:


> The trolling never stops.


It's awful isn't it?

When will 86TDFWinner stop following me around in threads and trolling me up?


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

asgelle said:


> Do you have any first hand experience? What you describe (and what VeloNews wrote as the procedure) is far removed from the way I've seen polygraphs administered. And while people are fixated on false negative results, no one has mentioned false positives or ambiguous readings.
> 
> My advice to an innocent person is stay as far away from a polygraph as possible. Unless you have been through it and know you give reliable results, the risk from a false positive or ambiguous result is much much greater than any benefit from a true negative.


Polygraphs can be useful...it's all in how you use them...BUT they do have limits. The issue with polygraphs is this...the control on the suspect. Example...Ames the infamous traitor convicted of spying for the Soviets passed 2 polygraph tests. 

So if the person has very good control...is sociopathic... or simply does not believe that was he is doing fits the definition of the question they can get away with it because the test is basically recording physiological reactions to stress.

I say the above because...tbh...I would have doubts that someone with a sprinter's "typical" temperament would have the control to keep his physiological reactions under control. Now he could be a sociopath...you would be surprised how many successful people are clinically sociopathic... but such antisocial personalities are rare. Without knowing the exact questions atm it is possible he simply does not think he doped. Example I think he got UV blood treatments. The ADAs have decided that is not doping so he could honestly say he did not dope. So the exact context of the questions would be important.


----------



## 86TDFWinner (Jul 22, 2013)

> What makes you think you speak for everyone?


What makes you think what you're saying is at all credible or truthful,since you refuse to post any proof?


It makes sense that a doper would keep the results of his polygraph secret.[/QUOTE]

Again with unfounded accusations you've yet to prove, how about it sport? Where's the proof you have claiming Lemond was "doped to the gills"?


----------

