Marcel Kittel has released a statement defending himself after a number of media outlets reported the German sprinter as saying that cyclists with severe asthma should compete in the Paralympics.
The original story by Stefan Tabeling of dpa, the German news agency, was entitled Kittel on Wiggins: “That’s why we have the Paralympics”.
The quote in question has been translated elsewhere as: “When someone has bad asthma then he has nothing in elite sport to do. That’s why we introduced the Paralympics, so that the one-legged had a chance to measure themselves against others.”
Kittel, communicating via the Bund Deutscher Radfahrer (the German Cycling Federation) said: “I distance myself entirely from this report which takes things totally out of context and say again very clearly that I have the greatest respect for the performance of the disabled athletes.”
According to Kittel, a general question was posed as to how to deal with therapeutic use exemptions (TUEs) in cycling. Wiggins’ name was not mentioned.
The German says his comparison between disabled and non-disabled sport was simply a means of highlighting the difference between a healthy world-class athlete and one who is ill and takes various medications.
Kittel’s statement finishes with what the Bund Deutscher Radfahrer says is an accurate transcript of what was said.
“If someone has serious asthma, they do not belong in high-performance sport. The Paralympics were introduced so that those with one leg could have the chance to compare themselves against others. It is logical that they would not have a chance against those with all their limbs. But they have the chance to measure themselves against others on the same level.
“If someone has serious breathing problems, then for me he does not belong in that group, because he needs help. Disclosing that is difficult because it involves privacy issues. That is very important in Germany.
“I believe that athletes generally make themselves very transparent and so you can forestall it all and say, okay, if someone has a bad asthma attack, then he either can’t be a high-performance athlete because it is chronic, or if it just happens occasionally, then he has to leave that competition. If I crash and break my collarbone, I can also take 100 pain pills, but I am in fact ill and have to abandon the race.”
15 thoughts on “Kittel clarifies comments about Wiggins, asthmatics and Paralympics”
Defending himself by saying
Defending himself by saying someone with serious asthma does not belong in high-performance sport. Which is what he said in the first place or am I missing something?
Muppet.
If you want a drug free
If you want a drug free environment then should anyone who needs drugs be racing?
People comment on the number of pro sports people with excercise induced asthma….
Kittel = Fool
Kittel = Fool
Question??? Is it humanly
Question??? Is it humanly possible to compete in say, TDF without any stimulants whatsoever. It appears to me that you would have to be superhuman to recover as quickly as the competitors do and cycle in excess of 120 miles plus per day for three whole weeks with the odd rest day. IMO!! Then go on to compete in subsequent similar events throughout the annual cycling calendar.
just can’t get my head around it!
Jimnm wrote:
totally possible, next?
Agree with him 100% – people
Agree with him 100% – people with asthma have no place in elite sport if they need to take banned drugs to be able to compete.
If things were only black and
If things were only black and white, life would have been so much easier, right? But it isn’t, so this statement is extremely naive, and quite frankly, I find it malicious…
nowave7 wrote:
The current shades of grey situation isn’t working, though, is it? TUEs and their applications are a farce that are undermining sports that haven’t convinced the public and fans that they’re remotely clean. These sports, the public, and fans, right now, need black and white.
How is it ‘right’ that some riders, suffering from some conditions or other, because of the opinions of certain doctors, are able to access drugs that have performance-enhancing side effects, while other riders are not?
On the other hand, occasional genuine need for medicine that might be on the banned list can be justified, can’t it?
It’s up to governing bodies and WADA to justify and explain the current TUE situation. The fact that they’re not doing quickly and satisfactorily leaves us with a vacuum currently being filled by the likes of pro and ex-riders who aren’t quite qualified to do so, and Web commenters who are even less so. ‘Nothing to see here’ might be accurate, but it won’t cut it while Lance still grabs more column inches than current riders, and while Wiggo risks slipping into the ‘they were all at it’ pile in the public consciousness, right as he’s retiring.
I also agree with everything
I also agree with everything he says in the full quote at the end of the article. It’d be interesting to see what specific points people are disagreeing with, other than the ad-hominem and general digs on this thread that don’t address anything he’s raised.
davel wrote:
the bit where he says if you have “serious” asthma (all asthma is serious) you dont belong in high performance sport or can possibly be a high performance athlete , I think the quote actually translates as “have no business”, which is absolute rubbish, and demonstrates his and the general misunderstanding of what asthma is, how it affects you and how you treat it. Let alone hamfistedly saying paralympians cant compete against able bodied athletes, theres no rule that prevents that anyway, and the likes of Dame Sarah Storey prove that. I also saw Oscar Pistorius run the 400m at the London 2012 Olympics and qualify for the semi final against able bodied athletes.
If I was being generous and what he was actually trying to say was to tie up with his example of breaking a collar bone, that if you had a bad asthma or allergy attack during a race, and you required something that needed a TUE to sort you out, then you should leave the race, and thats probably a reasonable thing, but ignores actually again how allergies and asthma are generally treated.
the only thing I can see he clarified was that he didnt mention Wiggins.
Good to know that Kittel is
Good to know that Kittel is now the spokesman for which treatments are morally acceptable and ethical.
Kittel has always called
Kittel has always called bulls*** when he sees it. Case in point. It’s good to see the younger guys, Kittel, Dumoulin, Phinney etc. calling it for what it is – cheating.
Jackson wrote:
You’re talking about the Kittel who was banned for having his blood removed, treated with UV light and re-infused, in the hopes of performance gains? Who got away with on a technicality only after appealing to CAS (the “There’s no scientific evidence it works, therefore it’s quackery and OK – even though my team did it to enhance performance” defence)? A case which led to the WADA Code being updated, in part, to close that technicality?
The same Kittel who a number of years later on German telly said he had *never* seen anything that looked like doping in his career? Despite having been the subject of said CAS case on his weird blood re-infusion treatment?
Yeah, yay for the new generation!
Super-clean and hypocrisy free.
I think he’s heading towards
I think he’s heading towards a valid point, whether he’s articulated it adequately is another question (not that I’m going to do any better now – so apologies in advance) Essentially if we want a sport without the grey areas of TUEs and their mis(use) then we need to go truly drug free. If that means that cyclists with asthma or other conditions currently treated under TUEs are no longer “fit” enough to perform to the same level as when they were medicated then that is something that we will have to accept. Whether this is a permanent drop in performance or only on “bad” days, to a certain extent, isn’t really an issue.
If we assume that athletes with asthma (and other conditions) are legally able to use “banned” substances to attain a “level playing field” then we will always have questions raised about the possible unethical use of TUEs. In my opinion the only option for a level playing field is if everyone competes with access to the same legal options with no products banned/exempted dependant on personal circumstances.
Are you thinking of Dolph
Are you thinking of Dolph Lundgren in Rocky IV