Log in:  

Register

Moto-fraud: first rider caught

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

17 Feb 2017 10:32

Mayo from Mayo
New Member
 
Posts: 47
Joined: 30 Jun 2014 08:16

20 Feb 2017 16:21

One thing I find somewhat puzzling about the speculation here is that there seem to be a couple of arguments which don't reconcile well. The first is that bike changes are potentially indicative of motor-doping, the second being that the UCI testing is fairly obviously a joke.

As individual phenomena, both seem entirely reasonable to accept given what we know. But if we here know the testing is a joke, why would racers bother with bike changes? Certainly the teams/racers know far better than we do what to fear from testers?

On a separate note, why change into a motorized bike before the finish, where the motor would presumably be the most useful? I mean I get it, you coiuld save energy by using a motor early than ditching it before the finish, relying on your own power. But when I think of the classic examples of suspicion like Cancellara at Flanders and Froome on Ventoux, these are finishing efforts. Presumably those riders crossed the line with a motorized bike.

Do the UCI do the testing at the end of races? If yes, why change into a motorized bike? If no, why not just use the motorized bike the whole way? Weight? That doesn't make sense given the UCI limit and how light bikes are now.

Does someone have a good summary of the testing process in terms of when they test bikes? Seems it's before the races, yes? Wouldn't it make more sense to take the podium finishers and the bikes they're using right off the finish line just like drug testing? Or mix it up? A combo of both?

I don't really understand the testing protocol enough to answer my first couple of questions. Would appreciate any insight.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,366
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

20 Feb 2017 16:39

^Fair questions.
Some general comments/thoughts:

1. Beyond or besides being *a joke*, more to the point imo is that the testing is *rigged*.

2. I would indeed argue that the purpose of the bike changes is first and foremost to recharge (at least for Cance 2010 it quite clearly was) and/or to switch from a non-motorized to a motorized bike/wheel.

3. As you allude to, the other thing that might prompt wheel and/or bike changes is weight considerations. Although what/how/why exactly remains guess work.

4. I agree motors will be most useful at the end of the race. If there is any testing at all at the finish, again see under #1.

5. In the context of the Van Aerts rumors it was reported on twitter recently that there has been no, zero, nada, bike testing at any of the pro cyclo cross races post-worlds. Also, the UCI has been in the habit of putting out press releases whenever they tested for bikes. The absence of such press releases in recent months seems to indicate that bike testing has been rare.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,121
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re:

20 Feb 2017 17:59

sniper wrote:^Fair questions.
Some general comments/thoughts:

1. Beyond or besides being *a joke*, more to the point imo is that the testing is *rigged*.

2. I would indeed argue that the purpose of the bike changes is first and foremost to recharge (at least for Cance 2010 it quite clearly was) and/or to switch from a non-motorized to a motorized bike/wheel.

3. As you allude to, the other thing that might prompt wheel and/or bike changes is weight considerations. Although what/how/why exactly remains guess work.

4. I agree motors will be most useful at the end of the race. If there is any testing at all at the finish, again see under #1.

5. In the context of the Van Aerts rumors it was reported on twitter recently that there has been no, zero, nada, bike testing at any of the pro cyclo cross races post-worlds. Also, the UCI has been in the habit of putting out press releases whenever they tested for bikes. The absence of such press releases in recent months seems to indicate that bike testing has been rare.


Thanks–I think I still have the same questions.

I don't really understand the weight argument with the UCI limit. If one is using a crank or hub motor, and all bikes (motorized and not motorized) are right at the limit, why bother changing? It seems likely that you can put a motor in the bike and be right at the weight limit. No weight advantage in changing to/from a lighter bike, as all bikes must be over the limit. Presumably this equation changes with a wheel motor, but I don't think there is any evidence that the Cancellara or Froome examples are wheel motors.

That leaves the notion that the testing, however it's conducted, happens before the races.

That still leaves one wondering a bit, as I tend to doubt they're examining the EXACT bike, in the hands of the rider, as they approach the start line. Rather they're examining a lot of bikes in the pit area before the race.

So assuming the latter, why not just roll to the start with the motorized bike? Maybe teams are saving the "hot" bike for the last in case there are accidents or mechanicals. That does seem to make sense.

I guess I kind of answered my own question, but would love to hear others' thoughts on when they do testing or any of the rest.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,366
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

Re: Re:

21 Feb 2017 09:08

red_flanders wrote:
sniper wrote:^Fair questions.
Some general comments/thoughts:

1. Beyond or besides being *a joke*, more to the point imo is that the testing is *rigged*.

2. I would indeed argue that the purpose of the bike changes is first and foremost to recharge (at least for Cance 2010 it quite clearly was) and/or to switch from a non-motorized to a motorized bike/wheel.

3. As you allude to, the other thing that might prompt wheel and/or bike changes is weight considerations. Although what/how/why exactly remains guess work.

4. I agree motors will be most useful at the end of the race. If there is any testing at all at the finish, again see under #1.

5. In the context of the Van Aerts rumors it was reported on twitter recently that there has been no, zero, nada, bike testing at any of the pro cyclo cross races post-worlds. Also, the UCI has been in the habit of putting out press releases whenever they tested for bikes. The absence of such press releases in recent months seems to indicate that bike testing has been rare.


Thanks–I think I still have the same questions.

I don't really understand the weight argument with the UCI limit. If one is using a crank or hub motor, and all bikes (motorized and not motorized) are right at the limit, why bother changing? It seems likely that you can put a motor in the bike and be right at the weight limit. No weight advantage in changing to/from a lighter bike, as all bikes must be over the limit. Presumably this equation changes with a wheel motor, but I don't think there is any evidence that the Cancellara or Froome examples are wheel motors.

That leaves the notion that the testing, however it's conducted, happens before the races.

That still leaves one wondering a bit, as I tend to doubt they're examining the EXACT bike, in the hands of the rider, as they approach the start line. Rather they're examining a lot of bikes in the pit area before the race.

So assuming the latter, why not just roll to the start with the motorized bike? Maybe teams are saving the "hot" bike for the last in case there are accidents or mechanicals. That does seem to make sense.

I guess I kind of answered my own question, but would love to hear others' thoughts on when they do testing or any of the rest.

I tend to agree that risk of damage to the bike would be the major factor in keeping the bike until necessary.
The risk of damage/puncture is quite high so why risk when you know when you will need to use.

I'm not sure there is any structure to the testing for motors , it seems ad hoc testing with great fanfare if they don't find anything . Happy to be wrong on that.
noddy69
Member
 
Posts: 531
Joined: 04 Oct 2011 07:37

21 Feb 2017 10:04

Agreed, the potential for a mechanical is a good point.

As I posted upthread, when the UCI introduced their I-Pad + software to the press, the argument for why they went with the I-pad and not with infra-red cams was that the I-Pad method was cheap(er) and allowed for a high quantity of testing at as many races from different disciplines as possible.
But in bleak contrast to what they promised the press at that press conference, there has not been a single bike check in cyclo cross post-worlds and, as far as I can tell, there has hardly been any testing at pro tour road races either post-TdF.

Roglic just won the Volta Algarve and it looks like there wasn't any bike testing.
It's piss take.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,121
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

21 Feb 2017 19:34

Welcome back, Sniper.
Benotti69 wrote:I don't believe anything from Astana any more than Sky.
Beech Mtn
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,962
Joined: 06 Oct 2009 16:50

Re:

21 Feb 2017 20:05

red_flanders wrote:One thing I find somewhat puzzling about the speculation here is that there seem to be a couple of arguments which don't reconcile well. The first is that bike changes are potentially indicative of motor-doping, the second being that the UCI testing is fairly obviously a joke.

As individual phenomena, both seem entirely reasonable to accept given what we know. But if we here know the testing is a joke, why would racers bother with bike changes? Certainly the teams/racers know far better than we do what to fear from testers?

On a separate note, why change into a motorized bike before the finish, where the motor would presumably be the most useful? I mean I get it, you coiuld save energy by using a motor early than ditching it before the finish, relying on your own power. But when I think of the classic examples of suspicion like Cancellara at Flanders and Froome on Ventoux, these are finishing efforts. Presumably those riders crossed the line with a motorized bike.

Do the UCI do the testing at the end of races? If yes, why change into a motorized bike? If no, why not just use the motorized bike the whole way? Weight? That doesn't make sense given the UCI limit and how light bikes are now.

Does someone have a good summary of the testing process in terms of when they test bikes? Seems it's before the races, yes? Wouldn't it make more sense to take the podium finishers and the bikes they're using right off the finish line just like drug testing? Or mix it up? A combo of both?

I don't really understand the testing protocol enough to answer my first couple of questions. Would appreciate any insight.

How many times did Greg change his bike back in the day?

I think if you think about it ,,,,,,, whats with all the bike changes? Is it a arms race?
User avatar Semper Fidelis
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,096
Joined: 07 Dec 2010 15:53
Location: New Orleans

Re:

21 Feb 2017 20:21

sniper wrote:Agreed, the potential for a mechanical is a good point.

As I posted upthread, when the UCI introduced their I-Pad + software to the press, the argument for why they went with the I-pad and not with infra-red cams was that the I-Pad method was cheap(er) and allowed for a high quantity of testing at as many races from different disciplines as possible.
But in bleak contrast to what they promised the press at that press conference, there has not been a single bike check in cyclo cross post-worlds and, as far as I can tell, there has hardly been any testing at pro tour road races either post-TdF.

Roglic just won the Volta Algarve and it looks like there wasn't any bike testing.
It's piss take.

Yep watched Roglic climb like Dan Martin then TT like Tony Martin. When they said he had a big engine they might have been right :)
noddy69
Member
 
Posts: 531
Joined: 04 Oct 2011 07:37

21 Feb 2017 21:02

Bike changes could be due to battery depletion depending on motors and usage.
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,190
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

Re: Re:

21 Feb 2017 22:31

Semper Fidelis wrote:How many times did Greg change his bike back in the day?


No idea. Don't recall it being a thing even 10-15 years ago, was too young in Greg's day to be noticing stuff like that. Not sure what he has to do with my questions though...

I think if you think about it ,,,,,,, whats with all the bike changes? Is it a arms race?


Seems quite odd.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,366
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

Re: Re:

22 Feb 2017 15:02

red_flanders wrote:
Semper Fidelis wrote:How many times did Greg change his bike back in the day?


No idea. Don't recall it being a thing even 10-15 years ago, was too young in Greg's day to be noticing stuff like that. Not sure what he has to do with my questions though...

I think if you think about it ,,,,,,, whats with all the bike changes? Is it a arms race?


Seems quite odd.


It was a rhetorical question. Nobody ever changed a bike unless it was broken. Stopping to change a bike takes what? 30 seconds? At 40 km/hr that puts you ~350 meters behind and in the wind. Why on earth would you do that voluntarily? These days some guys are changing bikes more often than they change gears. It's really weird.

John Swanson
ScienceIsCool
Member
 
Posts: 1,136
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 15:34

Re: Re:

22 Feb 2017 16:08

ScienceIsCool wrote:
red_flanders wrote:
Semper Fidelis wrote:How many times did Greg change his bike back in the day?


No idea. Don't recall it being a thing even 10-15 years ago, was too young in Greg's day to be noticing stuff like that. Not sure what he has to do with my questions though...

I think if you think about it ,,,,,,, whats with all the bike changes? Is it a arms race?


Seems quite odd.


It was a rhetorical question. Nobody ever changed a bike unless it was broken. Stopping to change a bike takes what? 30 seconds? At 40 km/hr that puts you ~350 meters behind and in the wind. Why on earth would you do that voluntarily? These days some guys are changing bikes more often than they change gears. It's really weird.

John Swanson


I know it was rhetorical, thanks.

There are opportunities to make changes in the course of a race, just as there are opportunities for "natural breaks", and why riders can recover from flats. 5 hour races are not run full gas the entire time, even classics. This is why breaks get time. The group slows for significant amounts of time. Obviously if the point of the change is to swap for a power-assisted bike, it's worth doing.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,366
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

Re: Re:

22 Feb 2017 16:18

ScienceIsCool wrote:
red_flanders wrote:
Semper Fidelis wrote:How many times did Greg change his bike back in the day?


No idea. Don't recall it being a thing even 10-15 years ago, was too young in Greg's day to be noticing stuff like that. Not sure what he has to do with my questions though...

I think if you think about it ,,,,,,, whats with all the bike changes? Is it a arms race?


Seems quite odd.


It was a rhetorical question. Nobody ever changed a bike unless it was broken. Stopping to change a bike takes what? 30 seconds? At 40 km/hr that puts you ~350 meters behind and in the wind. Why on earth would you do that voluntarily? These days some guys are changing bikes more often than they change gears. It's really weird.

John Swanson


I wouldn't say nobody. I remember a lot of comment about Heras doing it when he won the Vuelta (can't remember which year). The fact that he was doing it excited comment, though, is interesting.
User avatar MarkvW
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,085
Joined: 10 Aug 2010 20:13

Re: Re:

22 Feb 2017 20:08

red_flanders wrote:
Semper Fidelis wrote:How many times did Greg change his bike back in the day?


No idea. Don't recall it being a thing even 10-15 years ago, was too young in Greg's day to be noticing stuff like that. Not sure what he has to do with my questions though...

I think if you think about it ,,,,,,, whats with all the bike changes? Is it a arms race?


Seems quite odd.

I just thought since Greg thinks something is going and he did not change his bike out 2 to 4 times a stage, maybe it would point out that these bike changes are suspicious by themselves.
User avatar Semper Fidelis
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,096
Joined: 07 Dec 2010 15:53
Location: New Orleans

Re: Re:

22 Feb 2017 21:26

Semper Fidelis wrote:
red_flanders wrote:
Semper Fidelis wrote:How many times did Greg change his bike back in the day?


No idea. Don't recall it being a thing even 10-15 years ago, was too young in Greg's day to be noticing stuff like that. Not sure what he has to do with my questions though...

I think if you think about it ,,,,,,, whats with all the bike changes? Is it a arms race?


Seems quite odd.


I just thought since Greg thinks something is going and he did not change his bike out 2 to 4 times a stage, maybe it would point out that these bike changes are suspicious by themselves.

I get that. What I don't really understand is the connection between your comments and my post.

Nothing in my post argues that motor doping isn't happening or that multiple bike changes aren't suspicious. Quite the contrary.

Having a discussion too often seems to involve wading through the sludge of others' incorrect assumptions about intent.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,366
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

23 Feb 2017 15:06

How dodgy is this (honest question) from Cadel Evans 2009 Giro.
Neutral service car and a motor are unable to change his wheel.

The story: http://www.velonews.com/2009/09/news/evans-puncture-probably-cost-me-the-win-of-the-vuelta_97851

The footage from different angles:

1. "this is a real slow wheel change, one of the slowest i've ever seen"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl_eqDVRnJc

2. some not so convincing commentary from evans himself post-race:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIvaNrQpCKw

3. cyclocosmos commentray --> 2m40sec: "one of the most shambolic wheel changes ever"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl1l5zmp6B8
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,121
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re: Re:

23 Feb 2017 16:56

red_flanders wrote:
Semper Fidelis wrote:
red_flanders wrote:
Semper Fidelis wrote:How many times did Greg change his bike back in the day?


No idea. Don't recall it being a thing even 10-15 years ago, was too young in Greg's day to be noticing stuff like that. Not sure what he has to do with my questions though...

I think if you think about it ,,,,,,, whats with all the bike changes? Is it a arms race?


Seems quite odd.


I just thought since Greg thinks something is going and he did not change his bike out 2 to 4 times a stage, maybe it would point out that these bike changes are suspicious by themselves.

I get that. What I don't really understand is the connection between your comments and my post.

Nothing in my post argues that motor doping isn't happening or that multiple bike changes aren't suspicious. Quite the contrary.

Having a discussion too often seems to involve wading through the sludge of others' incorrect assumptions about intent.

Ok next time I will not reply post.

Better to just post a reply generic type.
User avatar Semper Fidelis
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,096
Joined: 07 Dec 2010 15:53
Location: New Orleans

23 Feb 2017 18:51

Have no idea what Sniper's post is trying to show - Neutral service slow to change a tyre and Evan's team car is down the road on a winding,twisting mountain.
yaco
Member
 
Posts: 1,778
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

Re:

23 Feb 2017 20:42

sniper wrote:How dodgy is this (honest question) from Cadel Evans 2009 Giro.
Neutral service car and a motor are unable to change his wheel.

The story: http://www.velonews.com/2009/09/news/evans-puncture-probably-cost-me-the-win-of-the-vuelta_97851

The footage from different angles:

1. "this is a real slow wheel change, one of the slowest i've ever seen"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl_eqDVRnJc

2. some not so convincing commentary from evans himself post-race:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIvaNrQpCKw

3. cyclocosmos commentray --> 2m40sec: "one of the most shambolic wheel changes ever"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl1l5zmp6B8


It was the 2009 Vuelta not the Giro ;)

I don't understand why you've posted this in the Moto-Fraud thread. The only thing suspect about this is that the neutral service did such a poor job with the wheel change, perhaps it had more to do with Evans being in contention to win the race with his 2 main challengers being Spaniards and the neutral service doing a poor job wanting a Spanish rider to win the race.
This is Cocaine...This is Chloroform...In short we ride on Dynamite!
User avatar StryderHells
Member
 
Posts: 1,151
Joined: 10 Oct 2015 16:03
Location: Melbourne-ish

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], gmarsden and 15 guests

Back to top