Log in:  

Register

Sunweb

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

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Tonton, King Boonen, Valv.Piti, Pricey_sky

Re: Re:

25 Oct 2017 15:37

Irondan wrote:I'm not "drinking the koolaid", but I could be missing something.
I doubt you're missing much...
Irondan wrote:What "hour" bike had a motor designed around the frame?
He built a bike for Abraham Olano, never used, but he said it was super fast. Obv, it was only super fast cause of the hidden motor, stands to reason, doesn't it?
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,061
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

25 Oct 2017 16:02

Such a lack of curiosity, fmk.

Irondan, much of it comes down to whether you believe Boardman was dabbling in motors in the early 90s, something we've looked at in the Boardman and Millar threads and the general motor thread (all overlapping), so nothing Sunweb related but feel free to PM me about it and I'll expand. Looking at results obtained by Giant bikes in the late 90s and early 2000s is rather informative, too. And then looking at bikeswitching patterns within those races. Etc. Again nothing I should elaborate on here but what it leads to is a sum of evidence that allows for informed speculation, in my humble view.

To keep it concise, I would ask those who think Burrows/Giant were not meddling with motors in the mid-90s a very simple question:
Why the hell not?
I'll settle for one reason.
No hyperbole responses please.

On a side, I think the involvement of Verbruggen is rather salient.
Last edited by sniper on 25 Oct 2017 16:15, edited 1 time in total.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

25 Oct 2017 16:13

That must be why Ullrich had his worst TdF-result ever the first year his team switched to Giant bikes.
kingjr
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,539
Joined: 09 Sep 2012 18:53
Location: Germany

Re:

25 Oct 2017 16:28

sniper wrote:To keep it concise, I would ask those who think Burrows/Giant were not meddling with motors in the mid-90s a very simple question:
Why the hell not?
I'll settle for one reason.
Let's follow that logic. Gitane. Owned by Renault. Motor doping. Obviously.Image
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,061
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

25 Oct 2017 16:54

As I thought. Just hyperbole deflection. No surprises there.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re:

25 Oct 2017 16:57

sniper wrote:As I thought. Just hyperbole deflection. No surprises there.
It is your logic I am using. If there's an error in the tools, well, what can I say.

As for Sunweb. They have team vehicles by Mini, don't they? Mini, they make things small, don't they? <lightbulb> Mini make small motors to fit in the Giant bikes, don't they!

This logic thing, it's sooo easy...
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,061
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re:

26 Oct 2017 21:43

kingjr wrote:That must be why Ullrich had his worst TdF-result ever the first year his team switched to Giant bikes.

You're fighting windmills here.
Why did Riis suck in 1997. Why did Indurain suck in 1996. We simply don't know yet you'll agree that "Because they decided not to cheat" isn't the answer.

As if Ulrich having a motor would automatically mean nothing else could go wrong in his preparation or execution of the race. Of course not. Regular PEDs need to be taken into account for instance, too, and shiploads could go wrong on that front.
Ow, and I dont see anybody claiming Ulrich was the only rider using a motor that year, either.

Bottom line, why Ulrich had a crap TdF that year is an interesting question but one that bears little if any relevance to the Giant motor issue. Rather, ask yourself why his team switched to Giant in the first place ;)
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re: Re:

27 Oct 2017 01:22

sniper wrote:
kingjr wrote:That must be why Ullrich had his worst TdF-result ever the first year his team switched to Giant bikes.

You're fighting windmills here.
Why did Riis suck in 1997. Why did Indurain suck in 1996. We simply don't know yet you'll agree that "Because they decided not to cheat" isn't the answer.

As if Ulrich having a motor would automatically mean nothing else could go wrong in his preparation or execution of the race. Of course not. Regular PEDs need to be taken into account for instance, too, and shiploads could go wrong on that front.
Ow, and I dont see anybody claiming Ulrich was the only rider using a motor that year, either.

Bottom line, why Ulrich had a crap TdF that year is an interesting question but one that bears little if any relevance to the Giant motor issue. Rather, ask yourself why his team switched to Giant in the first place
I'm just adding 2 and 2 together. The first part of your post doesn't make sense. The last part, well, if that question is not relevant, then neither is the bolded.
kingjr
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,539
Joined: 09 Sep 2012 18:53
Location: Germany

Re: Re:

27 Oct 2017 02:50

sniper wrote:
kingjr wrote:That must be why Ullrich had his worst TdF-result ever the first year his team switched to Giant bikes.

You're fighting windmills here.
Why did Riis suck in 1997. Why did Indurain suck in 1996. We simply don't know yet you'll agree that "Because they decided not to cheat" isn't the answer.

As if Ulrich having a motor would automatically mean nothing else could go wrong in his preparation or execution of the race. Of course not. Regular PEDs need to be taken into account for instance, too, and shiploads could go wrong on that front.
Ow, and I dont see anybody claiming Ulrich was the only rider using a motor that year, either.

Bottom line, why Ulrich had a crap TdF that year is an interesting question but one that bears little if any relevance to the Giant motor issue. Rather, ask yourself why his team switched to Giant in the first place ;)


Giant paid more than Pinarello
Pinarello with Petacchi and Fassa Bortolo won 9 stages at the Giro that year, and 4 at the Vuelta.
pastronef
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,981
Joined: 19 Aug 2011 08:25
Location: Italia

27 Oct 2017 08:07

Interesting. I'm not surprised by that at all. You guessed it, Pinarello are very high on the list of suspicious brands, already in th 90s in fact, for reasons i wont go into here but feel free to pm me.

Anyhow I should specify what I meant when I said Giant may have been "pioneers". What it does NOT mean is that I think they were the first to use motors. We'll never know who was the first, much like with EPO, although for a variety of reasons I think experimentation goes back to the 80s, and first efficient race models go back to the early 90s.

I think GIANT and Pinarello may have been pioneers in the sense that they were among the first brands to provide motorized bikes (and/or frames that were designed to fit a motor) to proteams. So while before it was kind of an individual thing organized at rider/team-level, those brands really changed the game. Trek and Cervelo are very dodgy too in that sense. Although by the time Cervelo join in I think it's already a widespread issue.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

27 Oct 2017 11:03

Vroomen was very vocal about being against doping and wrote about it constantly. https://gerard.cc/?s=doping With that in mind, I don't think Cervelo was active in bringing motors to the sport.

John Swanson
ScienceIsCool
Member
 
Posts: 1,551
Joined: 05 Jul 2009 15:34

27 Oct 2017 11:45

A couple of posts here, there's something odd: if you take out the words Giant and motors and insert the words LeMond and doping, you know what? You've got the exact same BS. Try it and see for yourself.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,061
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re:

27 Oct 2017 12:07

fmk_RoI wrote:A couple of posts here, there's something odd: if you take out the words Giant and motors and insert the words LeMond and doping, you know what? You've got the exact same BS. Try it and see for yourself.


I can't say that surprises me. Were you surprised?
Last edited by GJB123 on 30 Oct 2017 11:40, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar GJB123
Member
 
Posts: 1,090
Joined: 30 Sep 2010 13:47
Location: The Netherlands

Re:

27 Oct 2017 14:09

ScienceIsCool wrote:Vroomen was very vocal about being against doping and wrote about it constantly. https://gerard.cc/?s=doping With that in mind, I don't think Cervelo was active in bringing motors to the sport.

John Swanson

Off topic, but Jonathan Vaughters was/is/has been very vocal against doping too.
I'm not sure why you'd attach much value to that, even less so in the context of motors. That said, I can see how maybe they may have thought or hoped the advent of motors would make doping redundant :cool: (which of course never happened)
In fact, seeing how vocally antidoping both have been, their silence on motors is all the more deafening.

Another one who allegedly was kind of antidoping is a certain Luigi Cecchini (or at least he allegedly turned antidoping ever since the Italian police found drugs in his apartment). Hamilton, Cancellara, Jaksche, Dekker, Millar, Riis, all on the record saying Cecchini dont do no drugs. If not PEDs, I wonder what he had to offer :eek:
In this context, give Lucca and Schoberer some thought, too. All fwiw.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

15 Dec 2017 16:02

Tom Dumoulin now favored to win the 2018 Tour de France due to Froome's legal troubles.

The Sky Train will now have to make way for the Sunweb Express. I am expecting a first class performance.

Michael Matthews may be going Green once again but that might be a bridge too far.
DanielSong39
Member
 
Posts: 890
Joined: 15 Jul 2016 13:03

Re:

15 Dec 2017 16:43

DanielSong39 wrote:Tom Dumoulin now favored to win the 2018 Tour de France due to Froome's legal troubles.

The Sky Train will now have to make way for the Sunweb Express. I am expecting a first class performance.

Michael Matthews may be going Green once again but that might be a bridge too far.

Going green? :confused:
Would that be due to doping?
Else wrong forum ;)
User avatar TourOfSardinia
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,634
Joined: 16 Feb 2010 14:25
Location: Sardinia

Re: Sunweb

04 Jan 2018 12:02

Sunweb is going to pay for a new anti-doping program, by the Dutch anti-doping body.

https://twitter.com/afbdijkstra/status/948879906313850880
pastronef
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,981
Joined: 19 Aug 2011 08:25
Location: Italia

Re: Sunweb

04 Jan 2018 12:35



Yes, that was my association as well.

However, there are also some differences between the two cases.

The first difference is that in this case the money doesn't go through a major stakeholder in the sport (i.e., the UCI), but directly to an organization that should be relatively independent (an anti-doping agency). So, unlike Armstrong, Sunweb doesn't involve the UCI president in a secretive scheme involving money and payments.

The second difference is that the money isn't meant to finance (or dictate) a very specific testing regime. In Amstrong's case, he financed a very specific piece of lab equipment to analyze samples, thereby dictating how samples were going to be tested. We now know that one of the reasons for doing so was so he could manage his own blood values in order to not test positive as he had access to such a machine as well. It was basically a bribe to ensure the use of a testing method he could anticipate and take counter-measures against, all under the pretense of supporting the anti-doping effort.

In the case of Sunweb, this isn't really what's happening. They are basically financing the anti-doping agency to do more tests, without being involved in the details of the tests being performed, the selection of athletes, or the timing of the tests. I don't see how doing that would give Sunweb better means of anticipating and counter-measuring the anti-doping efforts. So, in principle, if we were living in a fully transparent world without scheming behind the scenes, then this wouldn't increase Sunweb's chances of defeating the tests.

The third difference is that in Armstrong's case it wasn't exactly sure where the results of the tests performed with the machine were ending up (did they only end-up at the UCI or were they send to WADA post 1999?). In Sunweb's case, the tests will be treated as regular tests, with their results being shared to WADA and recorded in the ABP. This should leave less room for selective favoritism from the UCI.

Now, everything I said here is "in theory if everything were to be fully transparent". If things aren't going to be transparent, then we have no way of knowing what actually happens to the money, with the testing regime, and the results. Still, I would rate funding an independent anti-doping agency to do additional tests above buying a specific machine for the UCI so you know how to defeat it.
Strange Loop
New Member
 
Posts: 25
Joined: 21 Dec 2016 12:34

Re: Sunweb

04 Jan 2018 18:07

pastronef wrote:Sunweb is going to pay for a new anti-doping program, by the Dutch anti-doping body.

https://twitter.com/afbdijkstra/status/948879906313850880


Smells of JV.

PR balaoney.
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,164
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

Re: Sunweb

04 Jan 2018 21:29

Strange Loop wrote:


Yes, that was my association as well.

However, there are also some differences between the two cases.

The first difference is that in this case the money doesn't go through a major stakeholder in the sport (i.e., the UCI), but directly to an organization that should be relatively independent (an anti-doping agency). So, unlike Armstrong, Sunweb doesn't involve the UCI president in a secretive scheme involving money and payments.

The second difference is that the money isn't meant to finance (or dictate) a very specific testing regime. In Amstrong's case, he financed a very specific piece of lab equipment to analyze samples, thereby dictating how samples were going to be tested. We now know that one of the reasons for doing so was so he could manage his own blood values in order to not test positive as he had access to such a machine as well. It was basically a bribe to ensure the use of a testing method he could anticipate and take counter-measures against, all under the pretense of supporting the anti-doping effort.

In the case of Sunweb, this isn't really what's happening. They are basically financing the anti-doping agency to do more tests, without being involved in the details of the tests being performed, the selection of athletes, or the timing of the tests. I don't see how doing that would give Sunweb better means of anticipating and counter-measuring the anti-doping efforts. So, in principle, if we were living in a fully transparent world without scheming behind the scenes, then this wouldn't increase Sunweb's chances of defeating the tests.

The third difference is that in Armstrong's case it wasn't exactly sure where the results of the tests performed with the machine were ending up (did they only end-up at the UCI or were they send to WADA post 1999?). In Sunweb's case, the tests will be treated as regular tests, with their results being shared to WADA and recorded in the ABP. This should leave less room for selective favoritism from the UCI.

Now, everything I said here is "in theory if everything were to be fully transparent". If things aren't going to be transparent, then we have no way of knowing what actually happens to the money, with the testing regime, and the results. Still, I would rate funding an independent anti-doping agency to do additional tests above buying a specific machine for the UCI so you know how to defeat it.


Good post.

Another problem is that by financing the doping authority they could influence the independency of it.

If sunweb's intentions are indeed bad you could compare it with the maffia giving money to the police.

That could still backfire though if the doping authority wont let themselves get bribed.

Still its unlikely the doping authority is corrupt in the netherlands... then again you never know these days.
User avatar Kwibus
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,216
Joined: 25 May 2010 05:54
Location: the Netherlands

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests

Back to top