Bike Doping II - Martin's illegal saddle

[Dear Wiggo]

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.'

Are you seriously going to quote a post with no mention of EPO anywhere as a basis for supporting your claim that

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

Are you trolling?

Is that you, Martin?

 

[bobbins]

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.

The new Dogma F8 was designed by the same designer and looks remarkably close to the UKSI bikes that incidentally are for sale, well as far as sticking to the UCI rules they are but don't expect to be able to buy one.

BC members should be asking why BC design work is being given to commercial entities to use and what payback BC get.

 

[Hawkwood]

Are you seriously going to quote a post with no mention of EPO anywhere as a basis for supporting your claim that



Are you trolling?

Is that you, Martin?

What `post' it's from Cinelli's own website? Ask Cinelli why it didn't mention EPO.

And who on earth is `Martin'?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

What `post' it's from Cinelli's own website? Ask Cinelli why it didn't mention EPO.

And who on earth is `Martin'?

You mentioned EPO. I quoted your post. You wrote it.

Got any evidence of that, or are you just making stuff up?

PS: a post is a valid noun for something posted to a website. Just.. you know... the vernacular is sound.

 

[Hawkwood]

You mentioned EPO. I quoted your post. You wrote it.

Got any evidence of that, or are you just making stuff up?

PS: a post is a valid noun for something posted to a website. Just.. you know... the vernacular is sound.

I am trying to recall an article I read back in the 1990s, so if I've got some of it wrong I'm sorry. I think it might have been after the famous Gewiss 1,2,3. The UCI person (it might have been Verbruggen) was asked about increasing speeds, and his response was that it was down to developments in equipment. I don't recall EPO being mentioned in the interview, but clearly it was being widely used at that time, so trying to make a case that performance increases were based mainly on equipment, and not on EPO, was rather avoiding the issue. The UCI did ban certain types of equipment around that time, citing increased speed in the bunch being more dangerous. If, and it's a big if, I can find the article I'll post any relevant content. I think I have conflated in my mind increased speeds due to EPO, a UCI official claiming the increased speeds were due to equipment, and the UCI banning equipment citing increased speeds being dangerous.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

a UCI official claiming the increased speeds were due to equipment, and the UCI banning equipment citing increased speeds being dangerous.

There was no (approved) test in 1997 for EPO - to combat it they introduced the 50% Hct rule early in 1997.

The first race using the rule, they tested 20 riders and 3 were pulled from competition, fined, and given a 2 week holiday.

I do not understand the fascist attitude and ongoing fetish UCI have towards equipment regs but EPO was on their rader most definitely, IMO.

They were happy for speeds to be up, however, don't get that bit wrong. Hein loved the spectacle and said audiences wouldn't watch without it. He was an idiot even back then.

 

[blackcat]

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.

no, D-Queued was merely using this as a cypher to demonstrate slippery slope/thin end of wedge.

 

[proffate]

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...

yes. And you can have an aeroshell on your helmet, but only if it's cold, raining, or glued in place by the manufacturer.

 

[blackcat]

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.

is it like Track Cycling or IOC. The product must be a commercial product on the shelves for the layperson also

 

[blackcat]

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

maslows hammar.

when you have a bureaucracy in aigle running things, bureaucracy needs work

 

[Hawkwood]

no, D-Queued was merely using this as a cypher to demonstrate slippery slope/thin end of wedge.

I know. The mere mention of `lawyer tabs' sends me into a spin! When the UCI first broached this rule some technical official said that he thought that possibly one wheel had come out of front drop-outs in a pro race ever. He thought this was a crash Cavendish was in. When I checked the video it looked more like the front drop-outs had snapped clean off in the crash. So certainly for the pros the rule was brought in to address a problem that didn't exist.

 

[Hawkwood]

I do not understand the fascist attitude and ongoing fetish UCI have towards equipment regs but EPO was on their rader most definitely, IMO.

They were happy for speeds to be up, however, don't get that bit wrong. Hein loved the spectacle and said audiences wouldn't watch without it. He was an idiot even back then.

Agreed.

Just spent an hour going through old copies of Cycling Weekly in my attic, lots of interesting stuff from the 1990s, but no sign as yet of the interview I was searching for.

 

[D-Queued]

I know. The mere mention of `lawyer tabs' sends me into a spin! When the UCI first broached this rule some technical official said that he thought that possibly one wheel had come out of front drop-outs in a pro race ever. He thought this was a crash Cavendish was in. When I checked the video it looked more like the front drop-outs had snapped clean off in the crash. So certainly for the pros the rule was brought in to address a problem that didn't exist.

I'm not mentioning L***** T***.

But, I agree with you.

The UCI's duplicity and over-regulation of equipment is underscored by Martin's non-compliant saddle.

Guarantee:

1. That it will *never* be offered for sale, thus violating the commercially available clause.

2. That if some Cat 4 rider actually got a copy and showed up for a TT that had a bike check, the bike would be DQ'd.

The UCI's equipment focus is duplicitous and ridiculous.

Dave.

 

[Hawkwood]

I'm not mentioning L***** T***.

But, I agree with you.

The UCI's duplicity and over-regulation of equipment is underscored by Martin's non-compliant saddle.

Guarantee:

1. That it will *never* be offered for sale, thus violating the commercially available clause.

2. That if some Cat 4 rider actually got a copy and showed up for a TT that had a bike check, the bike would be DQ'd.

The UCI's equipment focus is duplicitous and ridiculous.

Dave.

I agree, and does the sport actually need the `ROMER Bike Measurement System, a mobile 3D measurement solution fully approved by the International Cycling Union (UCI) for the measurement of bike frames at racing events.'? Lost and plot come to mind.

 

[MatParker117]

The new Dogma F8 was designed by the same designer and looks remarkably close to the UKSI bikes that incidentally are for sale, well as far as sticking to the UCI rules they are but don't expect to be able to buy one.

BC members should be asking why BC design work is being given to commercial entities to use and what payback BC get.

Team Sky pays BC for the work.

 

[DirtyWorks]

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

No. This is like the helmet rules. It's about projecting the image of safety for the cyclists that watch than anything else.

It affects every team equally. It's the right thing to do.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I agree, and does the sport actually need the `ROMER Bike Measurement System, a mobile 3D measurement solution fully approved by the International Cycling Union (UCI) for the measurement of bike frames at racing events.'? Lost and plot come to mind.

Ridiculous? Yes.

But, the industry knows that if stuff shows up on pro bikes, it boosts sell-through like crazy. The UCI wants a piece of the action. For this very, very specific thing, I don't fault them for monetizing the sport.

It's the consumers buying carbon kit, oval chainrings, and whatnot that are to blame.

I get that there are intricate rules and the UCI doesn't enforce a third of them, but that's a different topic. Unfortunately, bike racing needs specs and intricate rules because of people mining for the exception to rules.

Regarding this behaviour, my favorite way to limit this exception seeking behaviour was to make every race a "claiming race." Meaning, if someone showed up with a clever exception, the promoter had the power to buy the whole bike (in this case) for USD$50. It keeps the rule book VERY thin.

 

[blackcat]

I know. The mere mention of `lawyer tabs' sends me into a spin! When the UCI first broached this rule some technical official said that he thought that possibly one wheel had come out of front drop-outs in a pro race ever. He thought this was a crash Cavendish was in. When I checked the video it looked more like the front drop-outs had snapped clean off in the crash. So certainly for the pros the rule was brought in to address a problem that didn't exist.

actually, you misintepreted this.

I meant, the slippery slope of cheating, and doping.

Like if Cavendish will hang on over a climb, and get back on the grupetto whcih manages to catch the peloton and contest for the win, and Cavendish continues in the race, and wins that stage (giro circa 2010, ask Tyler Farrar)

 

[proffate]

I know. The mere mention of `lawyer tabs' sends me into a spin! When the UCI first broached this rule some technical official said that he thought that possibly one wheel had come out of front drop-outs in a pro race ever. He thought this was a crash Cavendish was in. When I checked the video it looked more like the front drop-outs had snapped clean off in the crash. So certainly for the pros the rule was brought in to address a problem that didn't exist.

Actually, for the pros this rule probably increases the danger, because a hastily tightened skewer may be too loose and fail. When the tabs aren't there, you can have the QRs correctly pre-tightened.

But the rule is more likely there to discourage copy-cat behavior from amateurs than to actually protect the pros directly.

 

[oldcrank]

Regarding the 'Lawyers Tabs' or 'Lawyers Lips'
ruling: I would not blame the UCI for this. It is
part of the EU's CEN Bicycle Safety Regulations
that the UCI was obliged to respect, if I am not
mistaken, my learned friends.

 

[D-Queued]

Regarding the 'Lawyers Tabs' or 'Lawyers Lips'
ruling: I would not blame the UCI for this. It is
part of the EU's CEN Bicycle Safety Regulations
that the UCI was obliged to respect, if I am not
mistaken, my learned friends.

Hmm. Good data.

Still, taking away an opportunity to criticize the UCI doesn't improve my day.

Dave.

 

[Hawkwood]

Regarding the 'Lawyers Tabs' or 'Lawyers Lips'
ruling: I would not blame the UCI for this. It is
part of the EU's CEN Bicycle Safety Regulations
that the UCI was obliged to respect, if I am not
mistaken, my learned friends.

And I guess there's a link to US safety legislation as well? Funny that I don't think there're any corresponding regulations to ensure that car wheels can't come off if the wheel nuts are incorrectly tightened up, and I've been in a car where this happened!

 

[Hawkwood]

Actually, for the pros this rule probably increases the danger, because a hastily tightened skewer may be too loose and fail. When the tabs aren't there, you can have the QRs correctly pre-tightened.

But the rule is more likely there to discourage copy-cat behavior from amateurs than to actually protect the pros directly.

I recently bought some very nice, though heavy, Campagnolo skewers. The instructions are quite precise, with information on at what angle the cam action should start to bite. There are dire warnings as to the danger of serious injury, or even death if the skewers are not correctly tightened. But as you've highlighted above the UCI/EU regulations take no notice of this. Quick release skewers were never designed to work with lawyer tabs.

 

[Hawkwood]

No. This is like the helmet rules. It's about projecting the image of safety for the cyclists that watch than anything else.

It affects every team equally. It's the right thing to do.

I see your point. I'd prefer it if skewers were designed in some way that made it absolutely self evident that they were on or off. And the safety issue here really is for non-pros who don't appreciate how skewers work (and I've seen loads of these). I think the quicker a wheel can be changed securely, the less time the rider is spending in a high speed, and potentially dangerous, chase through the caravan. I guess some of the teams will be looking at the spin type skewers as these will be faster, but still secure.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Let's put it this way. To my knowledge, a wheel has never bounced out of a pro rider's forks in a pro race.

But a Tour car has driven into a rider, sending them through a barbed wire fence.

Then this year, a slow, media car got between the friggin yellow jersey wearer and the rest of the front bunch down a friggin descent.

Ironically, Mavic were the factory where testing of wheel integrity was being conducted after that stupid rule was introduced. But again, to the best of my knowledge, only Mavic wheels have exploded on impact. And then done so again after their design was updated.