Motor doping thread

[Freddythefrog]

Floyd had a thousand sticky bottles that day, so he was motorized, but not in the way you people are thinking. Go back and check threads about it, and you'll see bottle counts and everything. ...........

It is certainly a performance of interest for this topic, I don't mean to dismiss that completely. However, it is critical to examine it in full context.

So how many km was Floyd on his own for and how many bottles and whilst he moved into and dropped the break how many sticky bottles did he receive ?

Landis' performance was still other-worldly.

As for the motor doping possibilities, known concealed motors at the time would only be able to generate ~50-100 watts over 15-30 minutes so Landis would've had to do a lot on his (drug-aided) own...................

Are you sure about that ? Commercial battery powered model planes and helicopters were being mass produced over 4 years earlier and development in this period was rapid.

[Ferminal]

It's a moot point, whatever was going on the performance (analytically) wasn't different to what other top GC riders of the time could have done (and probably already did in the Pyrenees).

[brownbobby]

With my interest piqued by this discussion, i watched highlights of the stage in question again on Youtube. One of the commentators came up with a theory for Floyds performance along the lines of the following:

"When you bonk really badly (as Floyd clearly did the previous day) then you empty your body completely, not only of good energy, but also the bad stuff that has built up. Therefore, once you rehydrate and refuel the next day you will be fresh as a daisy and superstrong"

So now we know, all perfectly normal

[Robert5091]

With my interest piqued by this discussion, i watched highlights of the stage in question again on Youtube. One of the commentators came up with a theory for Floyds performance along the lines of the following:

"When you bonk really badly (as Floyd clearly did the previous day) then you empty your body completely, not only of good energy, but also the bad stuff that has built up. Therefore, once you rehydrate and refuel the next day you will be fresh as a daisy and superstrong"

So now we know, all perfectly normal

Who was that? Kirby?

[Tienus]

Landis did not do a bike swap towards the end of the stage. On stage 17 he swapped at the beginning of the col de la colombiere. If you look at the altitude profile its more like mid stage. He did the same trick on stage 15, on both stages he gained the yellow jersey.

Its interesting to note that he was riding a different bike (yellow edition) on stage 16 when he had his off day.

During the ITT stage 7 he also changed bike and gained time on his competitors.

[brownbobby]

With my interest piqued by this discussion, i watched highlights of the stage in question again on Youtube. One of the commentators came up with a theory for Floyds performance along the lines of the following:

"When you bonk really badly (as Floyd clearly did the previous day) then you empty your body completely, not only of good energy, but also the bad stuff that has built up. Therefore, once you rehydrate and refuel the next day you will be fresh as a daisy and superstrong"

So now we know, all perfectly normal

Who was that? Kirby?

Yes, i think it was!

[ontheroad]

http://www.petitbleu.fr/article/2017/12/25/81198-alexandre-geniez-ca-va-peter-un-jour.html (fr)
Interesting comments by Geniez following the news of the oncoming investigation.

"To me, at first, it can only concern one team, one of the best in the world, its leader and probably other of its riders, but also the UCI and the British federation."

"They never miss their goals, they're always ahead of the competition in the big events and they win what they have programmed. It's like the British on the track, we often believe that there is something. I think that it will blow up some day, that we will learn things."

"Electric bikes have existed for a long time and maybe more than you think but it has concerned, in my opinion, only four or five riders. We know the names."

I've watched the UK sports media over the last week and to the best of my knowledge I have seen absolutely no coverage of Geniez's comments regarding motor usage by Froome and Sky.

Are journalist's scared to even broach this subject, even some of the better journalists have been very silent on the subject of motors in the peloton. I'd be a bit more confident that might change since the defeat of Cookson in the presidential election. A proper investigative journalist would have a field day with this topic whch will blow up at some stage in the near future.

Walsh is working closely (or at least was until fairly recently) with Froome and Sky, why does he not pose Geniez's claims to Sky to see what they have to say. Walsh has been with Sky for 4-5 years but how many actual interviews has he published with staff where he asked the hard questions that a credible journalist might. All we got was puff propaganda pieces to sell the illusion.

In trying to figure out why Geniez would have broken the Omerta about a topic completely off limits (far worse than pharmaceutical doping) to date, I think we can go back to this season's Vuelta when Sky reported Geniez and Denz for holding onto the AG2R team car resulting in their eviction from the race.

[Wiggo's Package]

http://www.petitbleu.fr/article/2017/12/25/81198-alexandre-geniez-ca-va-peter-un-jour.html (fr)
Interesting comments by Geniez following the news of the oncoming investigation.

"To me, at first, it can only concern one team, one of the best in the world, its leader and probably other of its riders, but also the UCI and the British federation."

"They never miss their goals, they're always ahead of the competition in the big events and they win what they have programmed. It's like the British on the track, we often believe that there is something. I think that it will blow up some day, that we will learn things."

"Electric bikes have existed for a long time and maybe more than you think but it has concerned, in my opinion, only four or five riders. We know the names."

I've watched the UK sports media over the last week and to the best of my knowledge I have seen absolutely no coverage of Geniez's comments regarding motor usage by Froome and Sky.

Are journalist's scared to even broach this subject, even some of the better journalists have been very silent on the subject of motors in the peloton. I'd be a bit more confident that might change since the defeat of Cookson in the presidential election. A proper investigative journalist would have a field day with this topic whch will blow up at some stage in the near future.

Walsh is working closely (or at least was until fairly recently) with Froome and Sky, why does he not pose Geniez's claims to Sky to see what they have to say. Walsh has been with Sky for 4-5 years but how many actual interviews has he published with staff where he asked the hard questions that a credible journalist might. All we got was puff propaganda pieces to sell the illusion.

In trying to figure out why Geniez would have broken the Omerta about a topic completely off limits (far worse than pharmaceutical doping) to date, I think we can go back to this season's Vuelta when Sky reported Geniez and Denz for holding onto the AG2R team car resulting in their eviction from the race.

It's a while now since I read Walsh's dire Inside Team Sky book but IIRC it opens with Walsh eulogising about how he was allowed acces to Sky's mechanics and soigneurs and how when he asked them if anything dodgy was going on they denied it in a way which he perceived to be entirely believable. There was even some crap about one of the Italian soigneurs having children as if parenthood and dishonesty are mutually exclusive concepts

Walsh then moved on to describe how ruthless Brailsfraud was in managing the mechanics and soigneurs with anyone stepping out of line in even small ways sacked with no second chances. But dear old Walshy doesn't make the connection (which jumped off the page at this cynic) between Brailsfraud's culture of fear management techniques and the mechanics and soigneurs spouting Stepford Wives platitudes

A case study in how not to be an investigative journalist

[brownbobby]

http://www.petitbleu.fr/article/2017/12/25/81198-alexandre-geniez-ca-va-peter-un-jour.html (fr)
Interesting comments by Geniez following the news of the oncoming investigation.

"To me, at first, it can only concern one team, one of the best in the world, its leader and probably other of its riders, but also the UCI and the British federation."

"They never miss their goals, they're always ahead of the competition in the big events and they win what they have programmed. It's like the British on the track, we often believe that there is something. I think that it will blow up some day, that we will learn things."

"Electric bikes have existed for a long time and maybe more than you think but it has concerned, in my opinion, only four or five riders. We know the names."

I've watched the UK sports media over the last week and to the best of my knowledge I have seen absolutely no coverage of Geniez's comments regarding motor usage by Froome and Sky.

Are journalist's scared to even broach this subject, even some of the better journalists have been very silent on the subject of motors in the peloton. I'd be a bit more confident that might change since the defeat of Cookson in the presidential election. A proper investigative journalist would have a field day with this topic whch will blow up at some stage in the near future.

Walsh is working closely (or at least was until fairly recently) with Froome and Sky, why does he not pose Geniez's claims to Sky to see what they have to say. Walsh has been with Sky for 4-5 years but how many actual interviews has he published with staff where he asked the hard questions that a credible journalist might. All we got was puff propaganda pieces to sell the illusion.

In trying to figure out why Geniez would have broken the Omerta about a topic completely off limits (far worse than pharmaceutical doping) to date, I think we can go back to this season's Vuelta when Sky reported Geniez and Denz for holding onto the AG2R team car resulting in their eviction from the race.

Good link, i hadn't thought of this but seems obvious now you say it.

Does raise the question though; is someone with a vendetta, a score to settle, more or less credible?

[ontheroad]

http://www.petitbleu.fr/article/2017/12/25/81198-alexandre-geniez-ca-va-peter-un-jour.html (fr)
Interesting comments by Geniez following the news of the oncoming investigation.

"To me, at first, it can only concern one team, one of the best in the world, its leader and probably other of its riders, but also the UCI and the British federation."

"They never miss their goals, they're always ahead of the competition in the big events and they win what they have programmed. It's like the British on the track, we often believe that there is something. I think that it will blow up some day, that we will learn things."

"Electric bikes have existed for a long time and maybe more than you think but it has concerned, in my opinion, only four or five riders. We know the names."

I've watched the UK sports media over the last week and to the best of my knowledge I have seen absolutely no coverage of Geniez's comments regarding motor usage by Froome and Sky.

Are journalist's scared to even broach this subject, even some of the better journalists have been very silent on the subject of motors in the peloton. I'd be a bit more confident that might change since the defeat of Cookson in the presidential election. A proper investigative journalist would have a field day with this topic whch will blow up at some stage in the near future.

Walsh is working closely (or at least was until fairly recently) with Froome and Sky, why does he not pose Geniez's claims to Sky to see what they have to say. Walsh has been with Sky for 4-5 years but how many actual interviews has he published with staff where he asked the hard questions that a credible journalist might. All we got was puff propaganda pieces to sell the illusion.

In trying to figure out why Geniez would have broken the Omerta about a topic completely off limits (far worse than pharmaceutical doping) to date, I think we can go back to this season's Vuelta when Sky reported Geniez and Denz for holding onto the AG2R team car resulting in their eviction from the race.

It's a while now since I read Walsh's dire Inside Team Sky book but IIRC it opens with Walsh eulogising about how he was allowed acces to Sky's mechanics and soigneurs and how when he asked them if anything dodgy was going on they denied it in a way which he perceived to be entirely believable. There was even some crap about one of the Italian soigneurs having children as if parenthood and dishonesty are mutually exclusive concepts

Walsh then moved on to describe how ruthless Brailsfraud was in managing the mechanics and soigneurs with anyone stepping out of line in even small ways sacked with no second chances. But dear old Walshy doesn't make the connection (which jumped off the page at this cynic) between Brailsfraud's culture of fear management techniques and the mechanics and soigneurs spouting Stepford Wives platitudes

A case study in how not to be an investigative journalist

Why has he not arranged to interview Gary Blem for instance and published the full transcript? There is a skill in asking questions which might not amount to much at the time but if the correct questions are asked in the correct manner, it can be useful to have them on record. Witness Dan Martin's none too convincing response to the motor question in a recent Kimmage interview where he neatly deflected his answer onto one about moto pacing. It's not incriminating in itself but is revealing at the same time.

It's only years later that the full picture becomes more transparent, Walsh has done absolutely zippo in terms of investigative journalism. Got a book deal, a few free junkets and got to hung out with his mates. As a journalist, pathetic however.

[ontheroad]

http://www.petitbleu.fr/article/2017/12/25/81198-alexandre-geniez-ca-va-peter-un-jour.html (fr)
Interesting comments by Geniez following the news of the oncoming investigation.

"To me, at first, it can only concern one team, one of the best in the world, its leader and probably other of its riders, but also the UCI and the British federation."

"They never miss their goals, they're always ahead of the competition in the big events and they win what they have programmed. It's like the British on the track, we often believe that there is something. I think that it will blow up some day, that we will learn things."

"Electric bikes have existed for a long time and maybe more than you think but it has concerned, in my opinion, only four or five riders. We know the names."

I've watched the UK sports media over the last week and to the best of my knowledge I have seen absolutely no coverage of Geniez's comments regarding motor usage by Froome and Sky.

Are journalist's scared to even broach this subject, even some of the better journalists have been very silent on the subject of motors in the peloton. I'd be a bit more confident that might change since the defeat of Cookson in the presidential election. A proper investigative journalist would have a field day with this topic whch will blow up at some stage in the near future.

Walsh is working closely (or at least was until fairly recently) with Froome and Sky, why does he not pose Geniez's claims to Sky to see what they have to say. Walsh has been with Sky for 4-5 years but how many actual interviews has he published with staff where he asked the hard questions that a credible journalist might. All we got was puff propaganda pieces to sell the illusion.

In trying to figure out why Geniez would have broken the Omerta about a topic completely off limits (far worse than pharmaceutical doping) to date, I think we can go back to this season's Vuelta when Sky reported Geniez and Denz for holding onto the AG2R team car resulting in their eviction from the race.

Good link, i hadn't thought of this but seems obvious now you say it.

Does raise the question though; is someone with a vendetta, a score to settle, more or less credible?

The question I always ask is why would he make this up, he has far more to lose than he has to gain from his career. The motive for him making the statement could well be the fact that Sky outed him and his team mate during the Vuelta, however whilst there is no hard evidence, it is certainly very believable to me. If it is not well then let them comment on his claims to refute the allegations. They have yet to make a comment on them to date afaik.

[MarkvW]

http://www.petitbleu.fr/article/2017/12/25/81198-alexandre-geniez-ca-va-peter-un-jour.html (fr)
Interesting comments by Geniez following the news of the oncoming investigation.

"To me, at first, it can only concern one team, one of the best in the world, its leader and probably other of its riders, but also the UCI and the British federation."

"They never miss their goals, they're always ahead of the competition in the big events and they win what they have programmed. It's like the British on the track, we often believe that there is something. I think that it will blow up some day, that we will learn things."

"Electric bikes have existed for a long time and maybe more than you think but it has concerned, in my opinion, only four or five riders. We know the names."

I've watched the UK sports media over the last week and to the best of my knowledge I have seen absolutely no coverage of Geniez's comments regarding motor usage by Froome and Sky.

Are journalist's scared to even broach this subject, even some of the better journalists have been very silent on the subject of motors in the peloton. I'd be a bit more confident that might change since the defeat of Cookson in the presidential election. A proper investigative journalist would have a field day with this topic whch will blow up at some stage in the near future.

Walsh is working closely (or at least was until fairly recently) with Froome and Sky, why does he not pose Geniez's claims to Sky to see what they have to say. Walsh has been with Sky for 4-5 years but how many actual interviews has he published with staff where he asked the hard questions that a credible journalist might. All we got was puff propaganda pieces to sell the illusion.

In trying to figure out why Geniez would have broken the Omerta about a topic completely off limits (far worse than pharmaceutical doping) to date, I think we can go back to this season's Vuelta when Sky reported Geniez and Denz for holding onto the AG2R team car resulting in their eviction from the race.

Good link, i hadn't thought of this but seems obvious now you say it.

Does raise the question though; is someone with a vendetta, a score to settle, more or less credible?

The question I always ask is why would he make this up, he has far more to lose than he has to gain from his career. The motive for him making the statement could well be the fact that Sky outed him and his team mate during the Vuelta, however whilst there is no hard evidence, it is certainly very believable to me. If it is not well then let them comment on his claims to refute the allegations. They have yet to make a comment on them to date afaik.

In any event, this is some real omerta-breaking spitting in the soup.

[brownbobby]

http://www.petitbleu.fr/article/2017/12/25/81198-alexandre-geniez-ca-va-peter-un-jour.html (fr)
Interesting comments by Geniez following the news of the oncoming investigation.

"To me, at first, it can only concern one team, one of the best in the world, its leader and probably other of its riders, but also the UCI and the British federation."

"They never miss their goals, they're always ahead of the competition in the big events and they win what they have programmed. It's like the British on the track, we often believe that there is something. I think that it will blow up some day, that we will learn things."

"Electric bikes have existed for a long time and maybe more than you think but it has concerned, in my opinion, only four or five riders. We know the names."

I've watched the UK sports media over the last week and to the best of my knowledge I have seen absolutely no coverage of Geniez's comments regarding motor usage by Froome and Sky.

Are journalist's scared to even broach this subject, even some of the better journalists have been very silent on the subject of motors in the peloton. I'd be a bit more confident that might change since the defeat of Cookson in the presidential election. A proper investigative journalist would have a field day with this topic whch will blow up at some stage in the near future.

Walsh is working closely (or at least was until fairly recently) with Froome and Sky, why does he not pose Geniez's claims to Sky to see what they have to say. Walsh has been with Sky for 4-5 years but how many actual interviews has he published with staff where he asked the hard questions that a credible journalist might. All we got was puff propaganda pieces to sell the illusion.

In trying to figure out why Geniez would have broken the Omerta about a topic completely off limits (far worse than pharmaceutical doping) to date, I think we can go back to this season's Vuelta when Sky reported Geniez and Denz for holding onto the AG2R team car resulting in their eviction from the race.

Good link, i hadn't thought of this but seems obvious now you say it.

Does raise the question though; is someone with a vendetta, a score to settle, more or less credible?

The question I always ask is why would he make this up, he has far more to lose than he has to gain from his career. The motive for him making the statement could well be the fact that Sky outed him and his team mate during the Vuelta, however whilst there is no hard evidence, it is certainly very believable to me. If it is not well then let them comment on his claims to refute the allegations. They have yet to make a comment on them to date afaik.

In any event, this is some real omerta-breaking spitting in the soup.

It's the concept of omerta applied to this topic, and Geniez statement in particular that raises more questions than answers for me.

Now Omerta applied to old school doping makes sense. Anyone is free to dope, if you choose not to it's your choice, but the opportunity is there for anyone to dope or become a better doper to keep the playing field level.

But if we indulge what Geniez is saying, it's Sky, and only Sky who are using motors. I don't buy this. I think Omerta only applies if the practice is rife through the peloton.

Let's look at the cases of Porte and Landa. Both riders who I think it's safe to assume would have been one of the chosen 4 or 5 riding motorbikes.

Yet they've both moved on from Sky supposedly due to ambitions to win their own GT's. This doesn't make sense. If they know that Sky, and only Sky have motorbikes, they surely know their chances of winning a GT are extremely low. And in Porte' s case in 2014, surely he'd have been given Froomes top of the range motorbike to easily cruise to a TDF victory following Froomes early bath.

So I struggle to believe that we have riders knowingly training their asses off all year then lining up against people on motorbikes and keeping schtum due to the old Omerta.

Maybe Sky just have better motors at the minute, but IF I were to accept that motors are in use, then the only way it makes sense to me is if most of the top teams were involved in the technological arms race, with riders like Porte and Landa heading for new teams hoping that their motors will be as good as the ones they leave behind.

That's why the whole motors thing at the top level remains a big IF for me.

[red_flanders]

He's not saying it's only Sky, he's simply addressing it first. I think one could infer that he thinks their use is the most obvious, egregious, consistent or the most widespread, but not sure you could even draw that conclusion.

As such I don't think the discussion of omerta above has much relevance.

[brownbobby]

He's not saying it's only Sky, he's simply addressing it first. I think one could infer that he thinks their use is the most obvious, egregious, consistent or the most widespread, but not sure you could even draw that conclusion.

As such I don't think the discussion of omerta above has much relevance.

But in the quote above he specifically says "it can only concern one team

He also talks about motors being used for many years but only by 4 or 5 riders. Again I read between the lines here an inference that the use is very isolated to a specific team.

I haven't read the full article so maybe I'm missing some context, if so I'm happy to be corrected...

[red_flanders]

He's not saying it's only Sky, he's simply addressing it first. I think one could infer that he thinks their use is the most obvious, egregious, consistent or the most widespread, but not sure you could even draw that conclusion.

As such I don't think the discussion of omerta above has much relevance.

But in the quote above he specifically says "it can only concern one team

He also talks about motors being used for many years but only by 4 or 5 riders. Again I read between the lines here an inference that the use is very isolated to a specific team.

I haven't read the full article so maybe I'm missing some context, if so I'm happy to be corrected...

He says, "To me, at first, it can only concern one team..."

There is some translation there as well, when he says "it can only concern" what I read that as is "the primary concern is of course with..."

[absolutely_not]

He's not saying it's only Sky, he's simply addressing it first. I think one could infer that he thinks their use is the most obvious, egregious, consistent or the most widespread, but not sure you could even draw that conclusion.

As such I don't think the discussion of omerta above has much relevance.

But in the quote above he specifically says "it can only concern one team

He also talks about motors being used for many years but only by 4 or 5 riders. Again I read between the lines here an inference that the use is very isolated to a specific team.

I haven't read the full article so maybe I'm missing some context, if so I'm happy to be corrected...

Actually he is reacting to the news in Le Canard enchainé that french judges are investigating about motors. It's said he knew nothing about it before the media contacted him, and that he was surprised by the words "escroquerie" and "corruption"
The expression «Pour moi, comme ça, au premier abord, ça ne peut concerner qu'une équipe, une des meilleures du monde" can be translate by
"IMO, without having thought much about it/if I had to guess, it must be about a team, one of the best of the world"

The translation of the quote makes for spectacular headline, but in reality if you read it in french and in totality, he is indeed making it clear that he thinks about Team Sky, but he also makes it very clear he is only guessing in reaction to the information brought to him seconds ago.
The words used by canard enchainé indeed lead to believe the jugdes are investigating a sofisticated scheme, not just some guys doing things on the side (à la Femke) : so we're are thinking about a team - and obviously the most powerfull one.

It's not such a big omerta breaking. There is so few riders talking about motors that it's still big what he said. But he is not really saying anything new here. Just mostly reacting to what's already public and giving his opinion (used only by 4 or 5 riders in total in his opinion)

[brownbobby]

He's not saying it's only Sky, he's simply addressing it first. I think one could infer that he thinks their use is the most obvious, egregious, consistent or the most widespread, but not sure you could even draw that conclusion.

As such I don't think the discussion of omerta above has much relevance.

But in the quote above he specifically says "it can only concern one team

He also talks about motors being used for many years but only by 4 or 5 riders. Again I read between the lines here an inference that the use is very isolated to a specific team.

I haven't read the full article so maybe I'm missing some context, if so I'm happy to be corrected...

Actually he is reacting to the news in Le Canard enchainé that french judges are investigating about motors. It's said he knew nothing about it before the media contacted him, and that he was surprised by the words "escroquerie" and "corruption"
The expression «Pour moi, comme ça, au premier abord, ça ne peut concerner qu'une équipe, une des meilleures du monde" can be translate by
"IMO, without having thought much about it/if I had to guess, it must be about a team, one of the best of the world"

The translation of the quote makes for spectacular headline, but in reality if you read it in french and in totality, he is indeed making it clear that he thinks about Team Sky, but he also makes it very clear he is only guessing in reaction to the information brought to him seconds ago.
The words used by canard enchainé indeed lead to believe the jugdes are investigating a sofisticated scheme, not just some guys doing things on the side (à la Femke) : so we're are thinking about a team - and obviously the most powerfull one.

It's not such a big omerta breaking. There is so few riders talking about motors that it's still big what he said. But he is not really saying anything new here. Just mostly reacting to what's already public and giving his opinion (used only by 4 or 5 riders in total in his opinion)

Ahh ok, thanks for clarifying. As always, full context shines a different light...

[ricatelli]

New book from sports journalist Philippe Brunel "Rouler plus vite que la mort" to come out on Jan 10 2018

Brunel tracking the Lance Armstrong motor doping story via Istvan Varjas.

Review https://www.24heures.ch/sports/dopage-mecanique-mecanique-mensonge/story/19557784
Excerpt http://www.grasset.fr/rouler-plus-vite-que-la-mort-9782246812647

[Wiggo's Package]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/can-cyclings-centre-hold-in-2018/

"Renowned French journalist Philippe Brunel is about to publish a new book, thought to provide the most revealing expose yet of the extent of technological fraud - motor doping - in the professional peloton"