Marcel Kittel provided some of the greatest memories of a wonderful centenary Tour de France, as he ruthlessly dismantled Mark Cavendish’s five-year stranglehold on sprint finishes.
In just his second Tour de France, Kittel won four stages including the showpiece finale on the Champs Elysses, an outcome that was “way more than [he] expected,” despite “a lot of planning and analysing.”
We’d all like to believe what we saw was down to superior planning and no small amount of talent. But in 2013, sadly, predictably, the emergence of new cycling stars is accompanied by question marks as to whether what we’re seeing is ‘real’?
And in Marcel Kittel’s case, he still has some major doubters to overcome, starting with the TV executives in his homeland.
A string of doping confessions by German riders resulted in a black-out of the Tour de France TV coverage, commencing mid-race in 2007 after Patrick Sinkewitz tested positive.
Contractual obligations meant a return to live coverage in 2009, but when those deals were renegotiated in 2012, the Germans weren’t at the table.
And while we can understand why media organisations would be reluctant or simply unwilling to invest millions of dollars into a sport that is clearly struggling for credibility, it is harsh on riders like Kittel that represent the future of cycling.
But apart from pass whatever doping tests they take and speak out candidly against drugs in the media, what else can cyclists do to prove they are clean?
The fact is some people are simply not prepared to believe a thing any rider says when it comes to denying doping.
Perhaps Marcel Kittel is struggling to convince the doubters, because he recently allowed himself to undertake a lie detector test for the German magazine ‘Sport Bild’.
According to the man who supervised the test, Forensic Psychologist Holger Leutz, the results showed Kittel was “clean”.
“The things that we measure during the interview remain very even,” Leutz said.
“This is a sign of credibility.
“Kittel makes us believes in a pure generation of clean cyclists.”
And Kittel was also convinced by the results.
“I have nothing to hide, so I did it,” Kittel said.
“I stand for a clean sport and this test has confirmed it.”
Now I really want to believe Kittel is clean, and on the basis of any evidence to the contrary, we have to assume he is telling the truth.
But can we really believe he is?
Does a lie detector test convince you?
In 2004, barely a month after winning Olympic Gold, Tyler Hamilton was notified about a positive test for blood doping from the Vuelta Espana.
Two days later, he learnt of another positive A-sample test from the Athens Games.
In his book ‘The Secret Race’, Hamilton describes the chaos his life descended into after this double-blow:
“We barely slept, working seven days a week, twelve hours a day, racing through an endless jungle of problems and legal strategies. We hired experts from MIT, Harvard Medical School, Puget Sound Blood Centre, Georgetown University Hospital, and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Centre.
“I travelled to Athens, and got more seemingly useful material—emails from lab techs questioning the tests accuracy.”
And so it went on; “petitioning the UCI” to release Tour de France blood test results and visiting more labs in Lausanne looking for more paperwork.
He learned to lie.
“I’ve always been a hard worker.
“I’ve tested clean dozens of times.
“I even took a lie detector test to help prove my innocence, and passed.”
He passed.
Apparently clenching his buttocks helped beat the test.
Benjamin Koh is a Doctoral Researcher, Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the University of Technology in Sydney.
In March, he co-authored a piece, ‘Lie Detectors and anti-doping, who’s kidding who?‘
To get to the point, he doesn’t believe lie detectors are a real guide to “genuineness”.
“Unfortunately, there is no credible scientific evidence to show any pattern of physiological response is unique to telling the truth or lying.
“Both anxious but honest and non-anxious but dishonest individuals exist. A machine used to detect physiological response is unable to differentiate between the two.
“Moreover, there is evidence to indicate countermeasure strategies used to “beat” polygraph examinations are often effective.
“These may include the use of simple physical movements (such as increasing one’s respiratory rate or by self-inflicting of pain).”
…Butt-clenching, anyone?
He finishes his piece by saying polygraphs are not the answer to solving sport’s doping problems, instead calling for a “better evidence-based policy”.
As I said earlier, the only evidence about Marcel Kittel’s doping status is that he hasn’t failed any tests, so he may well be telling the truth.
Personally, I’m no more suspicious of him as I am of any other rider, and I’ve really enjoyed watching him ride this season.
I do wonder though whether he’ll live to regret undergoing a lie detector test.
Was it a wise or dumb idea? I fall in the latter camp.
Over to you.
Daryl Adair
Guest
Orjan, Polygraphs are estimated to be 90% (or perhaps even 95%) accurate. Wow. Case closed. How is this even a serious proposition? Generally inadmissible in court (for logical reasons around questions of validity and reliability).
Ørjan Hesjedal
Guest
Yes... the myth is believed by the justice system. There are also other myths, or wrong teachings regarding polygraph accuracy that are belived by courts and others around the world. If your are able to understand anything using google translate, I've written a little about it on www.polygraf.no/noyaktighet That said, I do not think courts should be opened to polygraph examinations. But polygraph examinations should be admitted or declined case by case. But before courts open to this type of evidence or supported evidence, courts and lawyers should be educated in understanding polygraph. They should know how examinations should be carried out, how they should not be carried out etc, and there should be rules and routines to make sure examiners used by the court is extremely competent and not bought or influenced or threatened by any of the parties in a case.
Bobo
Guest
I am no expert on polygraphs, so I bow to your better judgement. Having said that, if it be a myth, that myth has been believed by the justice system.
Ørjan Hesjedal
Guest
It is nothing more than a myth that sociopaths/psychopaths can beat the polygraph. Several studies conducted on this subject show that there is not a big difference in accuracy on sociopaths/psychopaths and "normal" people. The biggest difference in accurcay seems to stem from examiner competency and chosen polygraph method.
Ørjan Hesjedal
Guest
A polygraph tests accuracy depends on several factors. The examiners competency and experience, if the examination was conducted as it should according to the method chosen for the test, which method was applied, herunder preparation and pre test interview, equipment, herunder which sensors was used to detect possible countermeasures, correct use of equipment, the environment the test was conducted in (was it on a pavement of a busy street, or in quiet and controlled environment?) To say that this polygraph examination was bad or not, depends on how it was done. That we know nothing about. Contrary to many peoples belief, polygraph examinations conducted with the best equipment and methods available today have a high accuracy. 8 methods (or techniques) has an average accuracy above 90%. Some of those 8 methods have an average accuracy above 95%. Humans ability to detect deception are comparably from 45-55%. Although polygraph tests are not infallible, it doesn't seem like blood or urine samples are 100% reliable either. Ørjan Hesjedal Polygraph Examiner
Bobo
Guest
Lie detector tests are unreliable, which is why they cannot be used as evidence in judicial proceedings. Sociopaths in particular will pass lie detector tests. The German experience is the opposite to the Australian one - in Australia (as in the US and UK), we assume that 'our' riders are clean until the proof otherwise punches us in the face. Over the years, watching ever-more-ridiculous leaps in logic as fans sought to rationalise the behaviour of O'Grady/Stephens/White/Vinnicombe/Armstrong/Hamilton/Landis/Millar/etc has almost become a spectator sport. In Germany, they were scarred by the Telekom scandals involving their superstars - Ullrich, Kloeden, Sinkewitz, Zabel. They start from the other side and assume that all cyclists are doping unless proven otherwise. It may not be fair, but unfortunately it's more likely to be correct. As one cannot prove a negative, cyclists like Kittel are reduced to stupid stunts like lie detector tests to 'prove' their innocence. Admittedly, with the blacklight 'blood re-infusion' shenanigans, Kittel has not exactly discouraged those who might question his cleanliness. Ultimately, one cannot know if a cyclist is not doping. However, some of those who are, are obvious. However, you can't ban a rider just because he 'looks like a duck and sounds like a duck'. You just have to try harder to catch him in the act.