Cancellara

[Hawkwood]

On the Tour of Flanders, he attacked on the Molenberg and not the Koppenberg, along with Boonen. But it's only on the Kapelmuur that you could say he was weird, attacking seating on the saddle, casually. Then of course, his bike changes around Mater, just shortly before the Molenberg was feeding conspiracy theories but what does it lead to? We have no evidence anyway.

My non-expert opinion is that Cancellara had taken a look at Boonen on the climb and realised he was cooked, possibly even cramping. Cancellara looked comfortable on the gear he was using and simply turned the screws slightly. Boonen was in and out of the saddle and clearly in trouble. The `attack' was a relatively small acceleration by Cancellara, but a big collapse by Boonen. I don't find it odd at all that big guys should want to attack from in the saddle. This I think is Boonen's account of what happened as well. So me it's a no to motorised doping, chemical doping well that's a different matter.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

boonen 2011 is an interesting point.
blackcathimself also pointed it out in that older motorthread:
viewtopic.php?p=1731463#p1731463
as i think one or two posters in that thread suggested, Boonen using a motor in 2011 could explain why he and Lefevere decided to shut up about it after 2010.

not sure I made a call earlier, cos I cant recall it. I mentioned in this thread a coupla days back, and the first one in this thread(I think). I may have, tho I have a austistic level memory, tho Libertine Seguros gets me on the cycling esoterica from 2002-2006. In my defense, I retired from follwing the sport about a decade back, and only come into the doping fora for the laffs.

but Sniper, I may well have. You of all people know my defacto position is conspiracy on any and all doping/motor-doping allegation. I am a hangman.


am I allowed to say I think. I know it is a stretch, me and thought. But last time I used those words, a bunch of cats came down on me like a bag lady.

 

[DFA123]

On the Tour of Flanders, he attacked on the Molenberg and not the Koppenberg, along with Boonen. But it's only on the Kapelmuur that you could say he was weird, attacking seating on the saddle, casually. Then of course, his bike changes around Mater, just shortly before the Molenberg was feeding conspiracy theories but what does it lead to? We have no evidence anyway.

My non-expert opinion is that Cancellara had taken a look at Boonen on the climb and realised he was cooked, possibly even cramping. Cancellara looked comfortable on the gear he was using and simply turned the screws slightly. Boonen was in and out of the saddle and clearly in trouble. The `attack' was a relatively small acceleration by Cancellara, but a big collapse by Boonen. I don't find it odd at all that big guys should want to attack from in the saddle. This I think is Boonen's account of what happened as well. So me it's a no to motorised doping, chemical doping well that's a different matter.

I agree that is by far the most likely scenario. At that stage in a tough race when both riders are close to their limit, its perfectly logical that one might have a bit more power and be able to put in one last attack which the other just can't respond to. If he had a motor, surely it would have made sense to use it to make a gap earlier, rather than wait until the last 200m of the climb; risking that Boonen could respond or get back on during the descent.

And, like you said, it's entirely normal to attack on cobbles while in the saddle. Trying to attack while standing on a 15%+ cobbled section is asking for trouble.

 

[sniper]

here you go lads:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7745
As you'll see going through that thread, the jump on the Muur was probably the least suspicious bit about Cance's 2010 RvV. Take your time to read it and get back to us afterwards.

 

[blackcat]

Re:

There is one big difference between both Cancellara incidents and the one confirmed case of motor-doping that we have seen (Femke). The latter created a gap and rode away from the best riders in the world on the Koppenberg - where everyone is at their maximum going 100%.

Cancellara in PR rode away from the bunch when no one really wanted to go to the front and when there was a bit of looking around.. There was certainly not a concerted effort to chase him and its conceivable that he could have been putting out 200 watts more than the rest to create the gap - without needing a motor. In RVV he rode away from only one rider on a brutal climb towards the end of a really tough race - again its possible that he was just able to put out 200 watts more at that stage in the race - perhaps Boonen was just cooked.

That's not to say that Cancellara didn't necessarily have a motor - but just that the way the gap grows is not really a smoking gun, because it's dependent on two factors. The power of Cancellara, and also the power that the other riders are putting out at that moment. In Femke's case, it was much more clear cut, because she easily rode away from several of the best riders in the world at a place on the course where everyone would be going 100%.

the boonen femke link is delicious.

remember boonen had the muse at a tour de curacao in the dutch east indies in about 2006 with Sophie van Vliet the daughter on the promoter Van Vliet

 

[blackcat]

^^^tommeke does an eiffel tower, or was that a phonetic foreplay? whoops, I meaning Leaning Tower or Pisa, but the joke has lost all currency now #FAIL

 

[DFA123]

Re:

here you go lads:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7745
show the Clinic some respect. Not by agreeing with the accusation of motorization, mind.
But merely by addressing the many arguments and pieces of evidence that have been put forth in the course of this discussion. As you'll see going through that thread, the jump on the Muur was probably the least suspicious bit about Cance's 2010 RvV.
Seems fair to either address those arguments or withhold judgement.

The tired old arguments in that thread have been done to death. The new evidence we have in the last couple of weeks is that someone has been confirmed as using an engine; and we have been able to see what that looks like in a pro bike race. That is what we are discussing here in relation to Cancellara.

For me, there are clear differences between what Femke did and what Cancellara did. Using Femke's performance and disqualification as a way of saying for sure that Cancellara must also have used an engine, is wrong imo.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
remember boonen had the muse at a tour de curacao in the dutch east indies in about 2006 with Sophie van Vliet the daughter on the promoter Van Vliet

that'd be the West Indies! but yikes, we don't use those terms anymore, only in history class.
anyway, lots of parakeets there.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
The tired old arguments in that thread have been done to death.

certainly not by you they havent.

The new evidence we have in the last couple of weeks is that someone has been confirmed as using an engine; and we have been able to see what that looks like in a pro bike race. That is what we are discussing here in relation to Cancellara.

fair enough, but then don't link it to the [motor yes/no] question, because as i said, there is more compelling evidence for that than just the Muur. So either address those arguments in full, or withhold judgement on whether or not he was using a motor.

Using Femke's performance and disqualification as a way of saying for sure that Cancellara must also have used an engine, is wrong imo.

that's why nobody is doing that.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

...
remember boonen had the muse at a tour de curacao in the dutch east indies in about 2006 with Sophie van Vliet the daughter on the promoter Van Vliet

that'd be the West Indies! but yikes, we don't use those terms anymore, only in history class.
anyway, lots of parakeets there.

Sniper, you are not supposed to quote me verbatim. It is licence and Wildean drollery afterall. I will give you a wide berth cos you big-upped my parakeet import/export

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

...
The tired old arguments in that thread have been done to death.

certainly not by you they havent.

The new evidence we have in the last couple of weeks is that someone has been confirmed as using an engine; and we have been able to see what that looks like in a pro bike race. That is what we are discussing here in relation to Cancellara.

fair enough, but then don't link it to the [motor yes/no] question, because as i said, there is more compelling evidence for that than just the Muur. So either address those arguments in full, or withhold judgement on whether or not he was using a motor.

Using Femke's performance and disqualification as a way of saying for sure that Cancellara must also have used an engine, is wrong imo.

that's why nobody is doing that.

I'm not the one making a judgement on whether or not he was using a motor. It's impossible to know for sure. Just that I don't see anything from Cancellara that would not also be possible to do without a motor. That is not the case with Femke.

I would certainly be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt though without any firmer evidence. Just the logistics of it take a leap of faith to believe. Cancellara wasn't a lone wolf like Femke, providing his own bikes. So if it was a team decision, does that mean that the Schlecks were also using them? Did Riis continue using them with Contador? Perhaps Porte took the technology to Sky. It seems pretty incredible that not a peep has come out from anyone involved. This isn't like normal doping - if anyone in the peloton found out it wouldn't just be accepted as part of the sport.

 

[Escarabajo]

I can't believe that people are still so naive. Listen, this is not Verbier, or Armstrong riding away from everybody in 1999. This is worst and it is clearer. I don't care about the strategy of the other riders that day. After watching clearly what he did and how he did it I do not see the need to discuss strategy or average speeds or whatever. There are always going to be excuses. And cheaters will always find them. To the naked eye it is clear that something is wrong with those pictures. The movement of the fingers, the gears, the acceleration without virtually any movement. In PR he almost took off like in the cartoons LOL.

 

[rainman]

Its a horrible thought that the sport has possibly been so violated and desecrated, that somehow even PED's seem mundane by comparison. Its understandable to feel a degree of deniability, of hope that we have not been massively deceived, especially by a legend of a rider. I feel that hope but I also did with Armstrong long after it was obvious what he was up to. I'm more ready to accept a negative view this time.

 

[glassmoon]

Re:

I can't believe that people are still so naive. Listen, this is not Verbier, or Armstrong riding away from everybody in 1999. This is worst and it is clearer. I don't care about the strategy of the other riders that day. After watching clearly what he did and how he did it I do not see the need to discuss strategy or average speeds or whatever. There are always going to be excuses. And cheaters will always find them. To the naked eye it is clear that something is wrong with those pictures. The movement of the fingers, the gears, the acceleration without virtually any movement. In PR he almost took off like in the cartoons LOL.

that's the weirdest part to me.

 

[sniper]

here you go lads:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7745
As you'll see going through that thread, the jump on the Muur was probably the least suspicious bit about Cance's 2010 RvV. Take your time to read it and get back to us afterwards.

...because as i said, there is more compelling evidence for that than just the Muur. So either address those arguments in full, or withhold judgement on whether or not he was using a motor.

[...
I would certainly be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt though without any firmer evidence. Just the logistics of it take a leap of faith to believe. Cancellara wasn't a lone wolf like Femke, providing his own bikes. So if it was a team decision, does that mean that the Schlecks were also using them? Did Riis continue using them with Contador? Perhaps Porte took the technology to Sky. It seems pretty incredible that not a peep has come out from anyone involved. This isn't like normal doping - if anyone in the peloton found out it wouldn't just be accepted as part of the sport.

 

[Carstenbf]

Dunno about Fabi using a motor tbh. Was a massive fan years back till he caught Shleck-litis and turned all soft and whiny, neutralizing descents etc.

Arguments 4a and b a few posts above did strike me as somewhat weak. I thought staying in your seat would be somewhat self-explanatory on cobbled climbs to prevent rear wheel slippage? (in wet conditions surely, but also on steep gradients otherwise) And a motionless upper body a sign of efficiency and superior riding style, something that he's certainly known for?

I saw the thumbflick-vid mentioned dozens of times, and I can't really say that is very convincing to me either tbh. If anything I'd rather point to the final K attack in the '07 Tour, when he held off a number of top tier sprint trains to win. Probably one of the most remarkable things I've seen over the years.

Then again it could all be true, and knowing pro cycling I wouldn't be particularly shocked to discover that the rumours had merit. I'm just not ready to pass judgement at this point, and would fear disrespecting an otherwise magnificent athlete. Coz motor or not he is that. Just gotta watch the guy doing a full speed descent to see that.

I DO think that Ryder's giro crash and Froome's mutant Ventoux attack looks pretty suspicious, knowing what we know now, but thb not ready to call those out just yet either. <shrug>

In my defense I never raced or used my bike for anything but getting from A to B. I did watch A LOT of bikeraces however, though from the comfort of my couch.

 

[DFA123]

Re:

I can't believe that people are still so naive. Listen, this is not Verbier, or Armstrong riding away from everybody in 1999. This is worst and it is clearer. I don't care about the strategy of the other riders that day. After watching clearly what he did and how he did it I do not see the need to discuss strategy or average speeds or whatever. There are always going to be excuses. And cheaters will always find them. To the naked eye it is clear that something is wrong with those pictures. The movement of the fingers, the gears, the acceleration without virtually any movement. In PR he almost took off like in the cartoons LOL.

It's nothing like the situation with Armstrong. Where are Cancellara's ex- team mates getting done for using an engine? Where are his former mechanics accusing him? Where are his blatant links with the best bike-engine mechanic in the world? Why didn't he dominate races for years if he had such an advantage?

The only evidence against Cancellara is that he won a couple of races by being much stronger than everyone else. Strong enough to be suspicious? Perhaps, but its certainly not a shut and closed case. The other stuff about the cadence, gears and staying seated is absolute nonsense and is just his riding style. He's never been one to put in huge standing attacks with loads of exaggerated upper body movement.

 

[Benotti69]

Cancellara rode away from chasing groups and he made it look so easy. The gap just increased and increased and he barely looked in trouble flashing his lucky charm to the cameras etc....no suffering from the lactic acid burning his legs at the end of a monument.......big smiles.

 

[Escarabajo]

DFA, Cancellara was called out few months after those wins by the Italian newspaper. For Lance it took more time. A lot more time and it was harder to prove. After that I am sure that other riders that were using a motor had to be more discrete on the logistics on how to use them. Cancellara was the "first obvious" one for me. IMHO.

 

[Escarabajo]

Cancellara was caught red handed on the way he used the motor. I think, for as bad as it looked, that Froome's performances falls more in the classic doping category. He would be more exposed to a motor check after those climb finishes. He would need a lot more people involved in his scam. Something that nowadays is harder to do (even if you don't think so). When Cancellara did it there was nothing in place to check anything at the end of stages.

 

[sniper]

Re:

to anybody calling in doubt the motor hypothesis: please address the bike changes, in full, including the breschel fiasco, the mechanic standing alongside the road, the missing finish bike, etc.
There have been many pages dedicated to those bike switches in the old "the doped bike exists!" thread i just linked. To discard the motor hypothesis without addressing those arguments, that doesn't cut it.
Ow, and also address the Roux accusations discussed in that thread.

 

[DFA123]

Re:

DFA, Cancellara was called out few months after those wins by the Italian newspaper. For Lance it took more time. A lot more time and it was harder to prove. After that I am sure that other riders that were using a motor had to be more discrete on the logistics on how to use them. Cancellara was the "first obvious" one for me. IMHO.

Lance wasn't harder to prove at all. There were numerous witness testimonies, failed tests and a huge red flag due to his association with Ferrari. It was swept under the carpet and not persued by the powers that be for a long time, but the firm evidence was there almost from the moemnt he started winning.

With Cancellara there is none of that. There is a pile of circumstancial evidene which I agree looks somewhat suspicious - but it is nowhere close to being proof. Its disingenuous to try to claim that he is 100% culpable or 100% clear based on what we know.

 

[Carstenbf]

Re: Re:

to anybody calling in doubt the motor hypothesis: please address the bike changes, in full, including the breschel fiasco, the mechanic standing alongside the road, the missing finish bike, etc.
There have been many pages dedicated to those bike switches in the old "the doped bike exists!" thread i just linked. To discard the motor hypothesis without addressing those arguments, that doesn't cut it.
Ow, and also address the Roux accusations discussed in that thread.

Well excuse me for expressing a point of view, and adding a bit of perspective. Wasn't even claiming knowledge either way.

In hindsight I guess, I was sorta talking to myself, I'll give you that. But I'll take the liberty to adress whatever tf I wan't thank you very much!

 

[Escarabajo]

Re: Re:

to anybody calling in doubt the motor hypothesis: please address the bike changes, in full, including the breschel fiasco, the mechanic standing alongside the road, the missing finish bike, etc.
There have been many pages dedicated to those bike switches in the old "the doped bike exists!" thread i just linked. To discard the motor hypothesis without addressing those arguments, that doesn't cut it.
Ow, and also address the Roux accusations discussed in that thread.

I agree with you with the bike changes. That still doesn't explain the motor bike on the last climbs of the Tour de France unless you have people on the UCI working for you.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

to anybody calling in doubt the motor hypothesis: please address the bike changes, in full, including the breschel fiasco, the mechanic standing alongside the road, the missing finish bike, etc.
There have been many pages dedicated to those bike switches in the old "the doped bike exists!" thread i just linked. To discard the motor hypothesis without addressing those arguments, that doesn't cut it.
Ow, and also address the Roux accusations discussed in that thread.

Well excuse me for expressing a point of view, and adding a bit of perspective. Wasn't even claiming knowledge either way.

i said "to anybody calling in doubt the motor hypothesis". If that wasn't you, then i wasn't talking to you.

In hindsight I guess, I was sorta talking to myself, I'll give you that.

sure, me too.

But I'll take the liberty to adress whatever tf I wan't thank you very much!

but of course that's obvious and i wouldn't want it any other way. I used an imperative, but just for the sake of time economy.
Maybe I c/should reformulate it thus: "I would be very much in your debt if you could be so kind to also address..."