Bike Doping II - Martin's illegal saddle

[D-Queued]

I may have missed it, but it is surprising that there is either no thread on Tony Martin or that it is very difficult to find given his dominance in the TT.

That aside, Martin's TdF bike was sporting a clear violation of UCI rules:

Martin's customised Specialized saddle has grippy material cut in to the surface.


The UCI rules state:

"...Whether it is a matter of modifying the length of the saddle, adapting approved wheels, filing off fork drop-out safety lugs, meeting the 3:1 rule by adding tape to handlebars or adding a nonslip system on the saddle, no modification of equipment that is not conducted by the manufacturer is authorised ..."

Busted.

I am not a defender of the equipment rules, but more of a critic. The enforcement of most TT bike rules typically go way beyond the stupid, particularly when applied to novice cyclists who are the people most often in violation. However, here we have a very notable case of double standard.

Extend that double standard to the banned position of Landis, and the banned aero bottle of Cancellara. But Martin is ok? Stupid.

Surprised? Not.

Dave.

 

[William H]

Is it not "carried out by the manufacturer"?

 

[Hawkwood]

I may have missed it, but it is surprising that there is either no thread on Tony Martin or that it is very difficult to find given his dominance in the TT.

That aside, Martin's TdF bike was sporting a clear violation of UCI rules:

Martin's customised Specialized saddle has grippy material cut in to the surface.


The UCI rules state:

"...Whether it is a matter of modifying the length of the saddle, adapting approved wheels, filing off fork drop-out safety lugs, meeting the 3:1 rule by adding tape to handlebars or adding a nonslip system on the saddle, no modification of equipment that is not conducted by the manufacturer is authorised ..."

Busted.

I am not a defender of the equipment rules, but more of a critic. The enforcement of most TT bike rules typically go way beyond the stupid, particularly when applied to novice cyclists who are the people most often in violation. However, here we have a very notable case of double standard.

Extend that double standard to the banned position of Landis, and the banned aero bottle of Cancellara. But Martin is ok? Stupid.

Surprised? Not.

Dave.

Don't get me started on `filing off fork drop-out safety lugs' it's the most stupid rule of all time. Seeing mechanics having to wind up quick release skewers makes me want to punch whichever official came out with this pathetic regulation! I don't care whether Martin had non-slip material on his saddle or not, tweaking bikes has been part of the sport from day one, please let's not go down the golf route to doom by regulation.

 

[Granville57]

I see you've fallen victim to CN's atrocious attemtp at posting pics.

Allow me to assist.

That aside, Martin's TdF bike was sporting a clear violation of UCI rules:

Martin's customised Specialized saddle has grippy material cut in to the surface. It must suit Tony Martin's phenomenal ability, but it looks like it'd soon wear out an expensive lycra skinsuit

 

[thehog]

Saxo have the same on their bikes.

Prologo grip surface.

 

[Granville57]

I guess grip tape doesn't show up on the x-ray machine.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I may have missed it, but it is surprising that there is either no thread on Tony Martin or that it is very difficult to find given his dominance in the TT.

That aside, Martin's TdF bike was sporting a clear violation of UCI rules:


The UCI rules state:

"...Whether it is a matter of modifying the length of the saddle, adapting approved wheels, filing off fork drop-out safety lugs, meeting the 3:1 rule by adding tape to handlebars or adding a nonslip system on the saddle, no modification of equipment that is not conducted by the manufacturer is authorised ..."

Busted.

I am not a defender of the equipment rules, but more of a critic. The enforcement of most TT bike rules typically go way beyond the stupid, particularly when applied to novice cyclists who are the people most often in violation. However, here we have a very notable case of double standard.

Extend that double standard to the banned position of Landis, and the banned aero bottle of Cancellara. But Martin is ok? Stupid.

Surprised? Not.

Dave.

Show me the rule.

I can't find a UCI rule with those words.

There is

1.3.002
The UCI shall not be liable for any consequences deriving from the choice of the equipment used by licence holders, nor for any defects it may have or its non-compliance. Equipment used must meet applicable official quality and safety standards.
A licence holder is not authorised to modify, in any way, the equipment given by the manufacturer used in competition.

Says nothing about being supplied something made that way by the manufacturer. There is no rule specific to saddle grips as far as I can see but I'm only looking at the rules as currently posted on UCI website, sometimes they take a while to post updates/changes.

Mind you, when you see what mechanics do to all sorts of parts (e.g. gear levers and bar grip points) there are no doubt many breaches.

Then there is

Technical innovations
1.3.004
Except in mountain bike racing, no technical innovation regarding anything used, worn or carried by any rider or license holder during a competition (bicycles, equipment mounted on them, accessories, helmets, clothing, means of communication, etc.) may be used until approved by the UCI. Requests for approval shall be submitted to the UCI, accompanied by all necessary documentation.

Participation to the examination costs is to be paid by the applicant and is determined by the UCI Management Committee according to the complexity of the submitted technical innovation.

At Material Commission’s instigation, the UCI executive bureau studies the admissibility of the tech- nical innovation from a sporting point of view and answers within 6 months from the submission date. The innovation comes into force as from the acceptance date.

There is no technical innovation in the sense of the present article if the innovation entirely falls within the specifications foreseen in the regulations.

What I don't like about this rule is the lack of transparency. How do we know which technical innovations have and have not been approved?

 

[proffate]

so all those guys who kept hopping up on the sidewalks after the no-sidewalk rule was put in place, are they "course doping"?

The bike and position rules are so hazy, ill-explained, contradictory, and pointless, that it's really a matter of whatever the officials decide to enforce. If something like saddle grip tape, which is completely out in the open and in no way hidden, gets past the officials --- that can't be considered cheating.

 

[42x16ss]

so all those guys who kept hopping up on the sidewalks after the no-sidewalk rule was put in place, are they "course doping"?

The bike and position rules are so hazy, ill-explained, contradictory, and pointless, that it's really a matter of whatever the officials decide to enforce. If something like saddle grip tape, which is completely out in the open and in no way hidden, gets past the officials --- that can't be considered cheating.

What I like best is how the manufacturer can put it there but the team can't

Totally moronic rule from the UCI, I bet they finally enforce this 30 mins before the Vuelta TT...

 

[sniper]

no surprises here. OPQS, Saxo.
if you dope, you might as well put some grip on your saddle.

 

[Cycle Chic]

D Queued

So contact the UCI and see what the answer is...be interesting.

 

[Hawkwood]

What I like best is how the manufacturer can put it there but the team can't

Totally moronic rule from the UCI, I bet they finally enforce this 30 mins before the Vuelta TT...

I wonder if some of the rules are there to support the big three equipment manufacturers, and to prevent teams customising bikes for their riders? Certainly the UCI did not like Obree turning up on bikes made of old washing machine bits.

Watching the lawyer tab rule in operation is painful, Tullio Campagnolo must be turning in his grave.

 

[King Boonen]

This came up last year, they're fine because the manufacturer is producing them for the riders.

Technically there are things that are being done still that fail these rules. The biggest is electronic satellite shifters on TT bikes. These require the mechanics to remove the Di/EPS gubbins from the levers and slightly modify them to connect to the satellite shifters. If this kind of thing was so expensive that only a couple of teams could afford it I could see the point of the rule, but that's not the case.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I wonder if some of the rules are there to support the big three equipment manufacturers, and to prevent teams customising bikes for their riders? Certainly the UCI did not like Obree turning up on bikes made of old washing machine bits.

What Obree did and customising bikes are two entirely separate issues.

UCI are a bunch of bunts. End of.

 

[deValtos]

I wonder if some of the rules are there to support the big three equipment manufacturers, and to prevent teams customising bikes for their riders? Certainly the UCI did not like Obree turning up on bikes made of old washing machine bits.

Watching the lawyer tab rule in operation is painful, Tullio Campagnolo must be turning in his grave.

UCI kept bringing in more and more rules purely to stop Obree winning. They felt he was devaluing their competitions (namely the hour) by beating established names like Boardman on his £100 washing machine.

As to DQ, how do we know the saddle modification wasn't conducted by the manufacturer ?

 

[Night Rider]

The front 80% of that saddle looks like a direct copy of a Fizik Ares, which coincidentally is what Martin used to use. Patent?

Technically Specialized are obliged to offer that saddle for sale within 12 months to be legal. Or is that rule gone now?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

The front 80% of that saddle looks like a direct copy of a Fizik Ares, which coincidentally is what Martin used to use. Patent?

Technically Specialized are obliged to offer that saddle for sale within 12 months to be legal. Or is that rule gone now?

Relevant UCI rule:

Type
1.3.007
Bicycles and their accessories shall be of a type that is sold for use by anyone practising cycling as a sport.

As a result of production imperatives (time constraints), an exception may be requested from the UCI for equipment that is a final product and that will be marketed in the nine months after its first use in competition. The manufacturer must however publish information on the equipment in ques- tion in advance and announce the date of its market launch.

The use of equipment designed especially for the attainment of a particular performance (record or other) shall be not authorised.
(text modified on 1.11.10; 1.10.11).

 

[Hawkwood]

What Obree did and customising bikes are two entirely separate issues.

UCI are a bunch of bunts. End of.

It looks like we're heading down the golf route, interminable equipment rules that achieve little except increasing equipment sales.

 

[veganrob]

Shiv

When the Specialized Shiv first came out it was deemed illegal by the UCI and they were forced to modify the front end before it could be used in competition.

And who could forget the Cervelo P4 with the stupid water bottle that one coud not drink out of? That was a beauty also. hahah

 

[Hawkwood]

Relevant UCI rule:

`The use of equipment designed especially for the attainment of a particular performance (record or other) shall be not authorised.'

Do special tyres made for Paris-Roubaix come under this?

 

[King Boonen]

`The use of equipment designed especially for the attainment of a particular performance (record or other) shall be not authorised.'

Do special tyres made for Paris-Roubaix come under this?

I think if they are on sale to the public it's fine.

Otherwise anything related to TT bikes should also fall under that clause.


It's very poorly worded...

 

[Beech Mtn]

Did the UCI ever do anything about Wiggins and Froome riding Secret Squirrel Society bikes that had no more connection to Pinarello than a couple of stickers slapped on?

The rule about making it available for public sale never really has been properly enforced WRT the Sky bikes, as far as I can tell. Someone (INRNG maybe) had a great blog post about the mostly fake website "for sale" attempts Sky/BC put up to try to skirt that rule.

 

[Hawkwood]

Did the UCI ever do anything about Wiggins and Froome riding Secret Squirrel Society bikes that had no more connection to Pinarello than a couple of stickers slapped on?

The rule about making it available for public sale never really has been properly enforced WRT the Sky bikes, as far as I can tell. Someone (INRNG maybe) had a great blog post about the mostly fake website "for sale" attempts Sky/BC put up to try to skirt that rule.

Okay so I'm British so I would say this wouldn't I, however what's the point, why shouldn't the teams use/modify what they want within reason? I can't go out and buy a Formula 1 car, pro golfers get clubs handmade for them, tennis players custom rackets, I don't see the problem. Back around 1997 I bought a heavy steel Bianchi frame, complete with curly rear stays to `absorb road shock', I then discovered it was illegal to race it because the UCI had banned squigly tubes. In the 1990s the UCI decided that the increase in performance was based on equipment and not EPO so it went around banning stuff!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

In the 1990s the UCI decided that the increase in performance was based on equipment and not EPO so it went around banning stuff!

Er no.

 

[Hawkwood]

Er no.

I think it was following the 1997 season that the UCI banned some equipment inclusing Spinaci bars, increased speed was one of the reasons cited. There was an interview with a UCI official where he put the increased speed down to equipment and not drugs, I've got the article somewhere amongst thousands of cycling mags. The following is from Cinelli's website:

`8th October: the UCI made the drastic decision, suspending the use of Spinaci extensions and giving to the carbon spokes wheels a waiting period before the final decision, giving time to technicians to modify the product."It is purely a safety issue" - said the UCI president - "the bars have increased speeds and the position prevents a rider from reaching the brakes quickly, so we have stopped them from being used." There are no technical and scientific documents to support and prove the UCI’s decisions.'