Log in:  

Register

Motor doping thread

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

Moderators: Eshnar, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

Re: Re:

27 May 2018 13:52

silvergrenade wrote:
Saint Unix wrote:We also have to consider the implications of a rider like Froome getting caught with a motor in 2018. The guy has been tearing it up for seven years and has won a handful of Grand Tours after a miraculous transformation, but he only started using motors recently? Nope. That doesn't wash. If he gets caught with a motor UCI has to answer for why they couldn't find a motor in his bike during all those alleged bike checks.

If Froome gets caught using a motor, every ounce of logic and common sense says that he has been doing it for several years and that the UCI have either not checked for motors or have done, but turned a blind eye to them being used. It's a charade that has gone on for too long, and UCI know that they will be directly implicated if motor use gets exposed. It might not be the downfall of cycling as a sport, but it will be the downfall of UCI as its governing body.

So, they can tell him not to ride without making it public. Retire immediately. There have been syspicious retirements in sport for decades.
Happens in sport all the time.
But yeah, it really fits in with your version of events. So, UCI helps Froome by buying him his ebike. Right :lol:

It is those points, which is why I think he has played a blinder. What if he had the warning and was told - you've won enough, walk away and he turned around and said "No - what are you going to do about it - expose me now? You can't because it is the end of you." He then wins the giro and they know and he knows they know. They are powerless to do anything but to continue to pin their hopes on the pathetic Salbutemol AAF. Which then rings true with the fact that the Salbutemol AAF was leaked in the first place, in fact it points to the showdown conversation having taken place some time ago.
Freddythefrog
Member
 
Posts: 697
Joined: 10 Jul 2010 06:50

Re:

28 May 2018 14:10

Saint Unix wrote:How is telling him to retire into obscurity to avoid a motor scandal any different from letting him ride with a motor without exposing him? In both cases a motor is being used, but they aren't letting the public know. In both cases Froome gets away with it. The only difference is Froome doesn't get to win more races in your scenario.

And your attitude sucks. Try to discuss topics with people without acting like a childish w*nker.


Crikey you're lucky brother. I got an official warning here for saying that women like to boss their husbands around. ha ha ha
Craigee
Junior Member
 
Posts: 287
Joined: 18 Aug 2016 06:18

Re: Re:

28 May 2018 15:05

Craigee wrote:Crikey you're lucky brother. I got an official warning here for saying that women like to boss their husbands around. ha ha ha

Bulletproof, just like Froome :cool:
User avatar Saint Unix
Member
 
Posts: 771
Joined: 14 Feb 2014 11:00
Location: Norway

28 May 2018 23:17

terribleone
New Member
 
Posts: 29
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 09:27

Re:

29 May 2018 01:32


Since you are posting that here you are implying that it has something to do with a motor. How exactly is that driving anything? Plus, that's were chain catchers used to be before moving to the derailer mount.
jmdirt
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,228
Joined: 06 Dec 2013 17:33

Re: Re:

29 May 2018 07:20

jmdirt wrote:

Since you are posting that here you are implying that it has something to do with a motor. How exactly is that driving anything? Plus, that's were chain catchers used to be before moving to the derailer mount.


Any fool can see that's an integrated motor/battery/2-speed gearbox. :Neutral:
Bolder
Member
 
Posts: 573
Joined: 25 Jun 2015 07:29

Re: Re:

29 May 2018 12:56

jmdirt wrote:

Since you are posting that here you are implying that it has something to do with a motor. How exactly is that driving anything? Plus, that's were chain catchers used to be before moving to the derailer mount.


I was just curious because as a long time tech geek, I've never seen a chain catcher underneath the bottom bracket like that. It's location doesn't really make sense to me. It looks like it would weigh more than a conventional derailleur fitted or dog tooth item. On a chain stay, yes. Attached to derailleur mount, yes, but never in THAT location.
terribleone
New Member
 
Posts: 29
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 09:27

Re: Re:

29 May 2018 13:40

terribleone wrote:
jmdirt wrote:

Since you are posting that here you are implying that it has something to do with a motor. How exactly is that driving anything? Plus, that's were chain catchers used to be before moving to the derailer mount.


I was just curious because as a long time tech geek, I've never seen a chain catcher underneath the bottom bracket like that. It's location doesn't really make sense to me. It looks like it would weigh more than a conventional derailleur fitted or dog tooth item. On a chain stay, yes. Attached to derailleur mount, yes, but never in THAT location.


I also don't see what this has to do with motor doping?

In the article they state there is a second piece in a more conventional position (They actually say near the bottom of the seat stay but I'm sure they mean seat tube). This piece looks like it's there to prevent chain suck, K-edge made something to do this for Ibis that fitted onto the BB and sat in a similar place. Maybe they have found that the Oval chainrings are prone to this happening? This is the K-edge device:

Image
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Administrator
 
Posts: 7,461
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

Re: Re:

30 May 2018 00:57

terribleone wrote:
jmdirt wrote:

Since you are posting that here you are implying that it has something to do with a motor. How exactly is that driving anything? Plus, that's were chain catchers used to be before moving to the derailer mount.


I was just curious because as a long time tech geek, I've never seen a chain catcher underneath the bottom bracket like that. It's location doesn't really make sense to me. It looks like it would weigh more than a conventional derailleur fitted or dog tooth item. On a chain stay, yes. Attached to derailleur mount, yes, but never in THAT location.

All dirt rigs used to have anti suck devices either mounted under the chainstay or the BB.

http://forums.mtbr.com/attachments/vintage-retro-classic/518070d1265319888-when-chainsuck-cured-trekantichainsuck.jpg
jmdirt
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,228
Joined: 06 Dec 2013 17:33

Re:

30 May 2018 11:20

ebandit wrote:
Cycle Chic wrote:Would it be possible to have a motor which could be put on and off the bike by the rider ? this would explain how motors are being used but not detected.

quoted for truth.....oops! the secrets out

if only I could think out of the box and have come up with this

Mark L

" You can activate it remotely by bluetooth or by a watch" Varjas says "It can be controlled from the team car and the rider may not even be aware that he has a motor. It could just feel like tey are having a very good day. That model is designed for high speeds, for time trials"

https://twitter.com/Digger_forum
User avatar Cycle Chic
Member
 
Posts: 1,815
Joined: 26 Sep 2009 18:24
Location: United Kingdom

30 May 2018 15:25

Froome could ride this and the UCI scanners wouldn't pick up on it.


http://sportsmanflyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Home-page-2a.jpg
Craigee
Junior Member
 
Posts: 287
Joined: 18 Aug 2016 06:18

Re: Motor doping thread

06 Jun 2018 09:53

so Kwiatkowski slides out on a corner - HOW MANYS THAT NOW ? Froome uphill, Thomas sliding out on a corner and now Kwiatkowski on a roundabout - AND ITS ALL ON THE REAR WHEEL
User avatar Cycle Chic
Member
 
Posts: 1,815
Joined: 26 Sep 2009 18:24
Location: United Kingdom

21 Jun 2018 09:32

Is it possible that the motor isn't in the bike, but rather on the rider? For example, could something be fashioned from an electroactive polymer that is sufficiently thin and flexible that it can be hidden under the bike shorts and, with electrical stimulus, help drive the upper legs down (or help pull them up)? If so, using such a device would possibly not require collaboration with the team (at least not to the same extent or with greater prospects for credible deniability from the team), and wouldn't be detected if the bike and the rider's bodily fluids are the only two things being tested.

I can imagine that using such a device might take some practice, especially to synchronise the stimulation with the gearing on the bike. Also, in order not to injure/bruise the rider, it might be better to have it work at lower levels of force, but higher frequency. Could such a device explain a donkey-to-racehorse transformation (which even took the rider's team by surprise), egg-beater cadence, occasional yo-yoing and crashing going uphill (i.e. synchronisation problems), etc.?
User avatar Marmot
Junior Member
 
Posts: 63
Joined: 13 Jun 2009 02:43
Location: Warsaw

Re:

21 Jun 2018 11:44

Marmot wrote:Is it possible that the motor isn't in the bike, but rather on the rider? For example, could something be fashioned from an electroactive polymer that is sufficiently thin and flexible that it can be hidden under the bike shorts and, with electrical stimulus, help drive the upper legs down (or help pull them up)? If so, using such a device would possibly not require collaboration with the team (at least not to the same extent or with greater prospects for credible deniability from the team), and wouldn't be detected if the bike and the rider's bodily fluids are the only two things being tested.

I can imagine that using such a device might take some practice, especially to synchronise the stimulation with the gearing on the bike. Also, in order not to injure/bruise the rider, it might be better to have it work at lower levels of force, but higher frequency. Could such a device explain a donkey-to-racehorse transformation (which even took the rider's team by surprise), egg-beater cadence, occasional yo-yoing and crashing going uphill (i.e. synchronisation problems), etc.?


So what you're suggesting, basically, is some sort of thin robotic exo-skeleton powerful and strong enough to make a material difference to pedalling force but thin enough not to be obvious underneath closing designed to be worn as closely fitting to the body as possible? Hmm.
simoni
Member
 
Posts: 435
Joined: 11 Mar 2010 20:45

Re: Motor doping thread

21 Jun 2018 12:23

Cycle Chic wrote:so Kwiatkowski slides out on a corner - HOW MANYS THAT NOW ? Froome uphill, Thomas sliding out on a corner and now Kwiatkowski on a roundabout - AND ITS ALL ON THE REAR WHEEL

Well, that's just as much a sign of a rider being jacked or overly pumped.

I am very skeptical about motors. Whatever is going on is the modern version of full retard though.
User avatar Ripper
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,628
Joined: 14 Sep 2009 03:41
Location: It's a surprise!

Re: Re:

21 Jun 2018 14:06

simoni wrote:
Marmot wrote:Is it possible that the motor isn't in the bike, but rather on the rider? For example, could something be fashioned from an electroactive polymer that is sufficiently thin and flexible that it can be hidden under the bike shorts and, with electrical stimulus, help drive the upper legs down (or help pull them up)? If so, using such a device would possibly not require collaboration with the team (at least not to the same extent or with greater prospects for credible deniability from the team), and wouldn't be detected if the bike and the rider's bodily fluids are the only two things being tested.

I can imagine that using such a device might take some practice, especially to synchronise the stimulation with the gearing on the bike. Also, in order not to injure/bruise the rider, it might be better to have it work at lower levels of force, but higher frequency. Could such a device explain a donkey-to-racehorse transformation (which even took the rider's team by surprise), egg-beater cadence, occasional yo-yoing and crashing going uphill (i.e. synchronisation problems), etc.?


So what you're suggesting, basically, is some sort of thin robotic exo-skeleton powerful and strong enough to make a material difference to pedalling force but thin enough not to be obvious underneath closing designed to be worn as closely fitting to the body as possible? Hmm.


Yes. Of course, apart from the issue you mention, it also needs to look like something that could legitimately be there, just in case the wrong part of the clothing is torn open by a crash (e.g. kinesthetic tape). Clearly, it's not very plausible. But I wonder how much less plausible it is than squeezing a motor into a hub alongside everything else that needs to be in the hub, without the hub increasing in size to any meaningful extent.
User avatar Marmot
Junior Member
 
Posts: 63
Joined: 13 Jun 2009 02:43
Location: Warsaw

Re:

21 Jun 2018 14:27

Marmot wrote:Is it possible that the motor isn't in the bike, but rather on the rider? For example, could something be fashioned from an electroactive polymer that is sufficiently thin and flexible that it can be hidden under the bike shorts and, with electrical stimulus, help drive the upper legs down (or help pull them up)? If so, using such a device would possibly not require collaboration with the team (at least not to the same extent or with greater prospects for credible deniability from the team), and wouldn't be detected if the bike and the rider's bodily fluids are the only two things being tested.

I can imagine that using such a device might take some practice, especially to synchronise the stimulation with the gearing on the bike. Also, in order not to injure/bruise the rider, it might be better to have it work at lower levels of force, but higher frequency. Could such a device explain a donkey-to-racehorse transformation (which even took the rider's team by surprise), egg-beater cadence, occasional yo-yoing and crashing going uphill (i.e. synchronisation problems), etc.?


Please tell me this is satire :eek:
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 898
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Motor doping thread

21 Jun 2018 14:36

Cycle Chic wrote:so Kwiatkowski slides out on a corner - HOW MANYS THAT NOW ? Froome uphill, Thomas sliding out on a corner and now Kwiatkowski on a roundabout - AND ITS ALL ON THE REAR WHEEL


Thomas was freewheeling too quickly into a corner and lost his front wheel. It was as natural a slide on a bike as you're ever likely to see :confused:
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 898
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Re:

21 Jun 2018 14:42

brownbobby wrote:
Marmot wrote:Is it possible that the motor isn't in the bike, but rather on the rider? For example, could something be fashioned from an electroactive polymer that is sufficiently thin and flexible that it can be hidden under the bike shorts and, with electrical stimulus, help drive the upper legs down (or help pull them up)? If so, using such a device would possibly not require collaboration with the team (at least not to the same extent or with greater prospects for credible deniability from the team), and wouldn't be detected if the bike and the rider's bodily fluids are the only two things being tested.

I can imagine that using such a device might take some practice, especially to synchronise the stimulation with the gearing on the bike. Also, in order not to injure/bruise the rider, it might be better to have it work at lower levels of force, but higher frequency. Could such a device explain a donkey-to-racehorse transformation (which even took the rider's team by surprise), egg-beater cadence, occasional yo-yoing and crashing going uphill (i.e. synchronisation problems), etc.?


Please tell me this is satire :eek:
It's actually been in development since the 1950s. Dynamo Joe, they called him.
Image
We've come a long, long way. Look at him now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT3vfSQePcs
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,871
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

21 Jun 2018 21:22

Marmot wrote:Is it possible that the motor isn't in the bike, but rather on the rider? For example, could something be fashioned from an electroactive polymer that is sufficiently thin and flexible that it can be hidden under the bike shorts and, with electrical stimulus, help drive the upper legs down (or help pull them up)? If so, using such a device would possibly not require collaboration with the team (at least not to the same extent or with greater prospects for credible deniability from the team), and wouldn't be detected if the bike and the rider's bodily fluids are the only two things being tested.

I can imagine that using such a device might take some practice, especially to synchronise the stimulation with the gearing on the bike. Also, in order not to injure/bruise the rider, it might be better to have it work at lower levels of force, but higher frequency. Could such a device explain a donkey-to-racehorse transformation (which even took the rider's team by surprise), egg-beater cadence, occasional yo-yoing and crashing going uphill (i.e. synchronisation problems), etc.?


When I first read this, I thought you were proposing technology that would send electrical signals to the muscles, forcing them to contract faster. But I think what you mean is a mechanical force—albeit resulting from electrical input—that acts upon the entire leg, and is independent of (though as you point out, in synchrony with) contractions of the leg muscles.

In addition to the problems mentioned by other posters, there seems to be a more fundamental one: for something attached to the leg to move the leg, it has to be attached to something else as well. E.g., forgetting all attempts at hiding, you could have a rod attached to the frame of the bike that would rotate, sort of like a super-crank. If the other end of the rod was attached to the rider’s leg, it would drive the leg up and down. This could in theory work because the movement is relative to something independent of the leg. In fact, mechanically, this would be analogous to a motor that turns the crank; the crank is attached to the rider’s leg, via the clip-on shoes, but is also attached to the frame of the bike. But if you have the apparatus attached only to the leg (or to clothing that in this context is part of the leg), I don’t understand how it’s going to move the leg. Move it relative to what?

At the very least, I think it would have to be attached to some part of the rider's upper body, which would function as the stationary point relative to which motion of the legs would occur.

Clearly, it's not very plausible. But I wonder how much less plausible it is than squeezing a motor into a hub alongside everything else that needs to be in the hub, without the hub increasing in size to any meaningful extent.


Well, I wonder how much less plausible old-fashioned chemical doping is than any kind of motor.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,786
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 19 guests

Back to top