Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

Yes. I think motors are widespread. I think all the TT bikes are motored. Once these guys cross the line of cheating anything goes. They dont see it as a sport. It is a job. They have a limited time to make the most money they can. Some are happy enough to be water carriers others want much more.

I also think that teams are favoured.

So when bikes are checked for some riders after certain races, and no motors are found, do you believe:

a) the technology isn’t good enough to find the motor;
b) motors are found, but this is covered up;
c) the bikes that have the motors have by chance never been checked in the races where they’ve been used;
d) the bikes that have the motors have intentionally never been checked in the races where they’ve been used.

It was reported that Froome’s bike was checked on at least six different occasions in the Giro, including after stage 19, so presumably c) and d) would not apply if Froome was using a motor in the Giro. So for Froome in the Giro, it seems you either believe a) or b), is this correct? Which of those?

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

The only guessing is what he is taking with the huge doses of Salbutamol.

PEDs and a motor are in use, no guessing needed. To break it down to what chemicals and who makes the motor is all that is left.

You seriously think Froome has used a motor? Do you think he used one in the Giro?

Yes. I think motors are widespread. I think all the TT bikes are motored. Once these guys cross the line of cheating anything goes. They dont see it as a sport. It is a job. They have a limited time to make the most money they can. Some are happy enough to be water carriers others want much more.

I also think that teams are favoured.

I think that's absurd.

 

[Merckx index]

Now, for my own conspiracy theory: Is it possible that Froome leaked the AAF himself, i.e., gave the information to someone sworn to strict secrecy about the source?

Why, you ask, would Froome do this? For the same reason Floyd put all the details of his case on the internet: in the hope that maybe crowd-sourcing would come up with an explanation that would exonerate him. By that time, the middle of December, Froome probably had been in communication with scientific experts for a couple of months, and presumably they told him there was no obvious or simple answer, other than that he really did take too much salbutamol. Maybe if the case were made public, some scientist out there would come up with a theory that his own experts had overlooked. It might be a long shot, but simply from the perspective of trying to win the case, what was there to lose?

If Froome really wanted to do this, why didn’t he announce the positive himself? Well, for one thing, it would look very strange to announce the AAF several months after the fact. There would be all kinds of questions about why he had waited so long to do it. Also, if he had announced it himself, either in December or back in September, he would have been pressured to suspend himself, which he didn’t want to do. Of course he was pressured, anyway, but if the official story was that the positive had been leaked by someone against Froome’s wishes, no one would have expected him to suspend himself, even if many thought he should. Froome could play the role of someone victimized by an unknown insider breaking the rule of confidentiality. Whereas if he had announced the positive, a sign of willingness to be transparent, it would have looked very strange for him to resist suspending himself.

Another reason for leaking the positive would be as a signal to Vegni and the Giro. If Froome had announced the positive himself back in September, it might have torpedoed the discussion that led to an agreement that he would ride in return for a large sum of money. By waiting till after he had made the agreement, he could be ensured of the money, assuming he could actually ride the Giro; and by leaking the news later, he at least gave Vegni some warning. He also protected Vegni, and the cycling public in general, from being blind-sided by a suspension right before or even during the Giro. At least if that happened, everyone would have known it was possibly coming.

Now granted, the big problem with this theory is that Froome has been under great stress ever since the AAF leaked. He has been pressured to stop racing, and there have been threats, whether serious or not, that a GT might bar him from racing. Not to mention that those those of us who have long suspected Froome of doping have had a field day with this news. All of this might have been avoided if the case had proceeded in secret.

But unless Froome was very certain of winning, he had to assume it all might come out, anyway. And since his priority was to win the case, why not do anything that might increase that possibility? Periodically, there have been reports that Froome’s team has come up with some possible explanation for the high salbutamol level. In light of this theory, those reports could be interpreted as trial balloons. A physiological hypothesis is floated, and the team waits for a response from other scientists—all free advice. Sure, Froome can afford the best scientific minds on his team, but he can’t afford every relevant scientific mind. By getting the debate into the public domain, he gets some of this potentially valuable input.

The Heuberger paper, in fact, appears to be the outstanding example. The researchers were motivated by Froome's case, which they presumably would not have known about had it not been leaked. As I've discussed here before, I don't think their model will be enough to clear Froome, but if it should turn out that it does, Froome could well conclude that the leak of the AAF, whoever did it, was the best thing that ever happened to him. Think about that. Even if he isn't cleared, the value of this paper arguably justifies all the negativity Froome has had to endure because his case has gone public.

Do I think this scenario is very likely? No. But I wouldn’t absolutely rule it out.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Yes. I think motors are widespread. I think all the TT bikes are motored. Once these guys cross the line of cheating anything goes. They dont see it as a sport. It is a job. They have a limited time to make the most money they can. Some are happy enough to be water carriers others want much more.

I also think that teams are favoured.

So when bikes are checked for some riders after certain races, and no motors are found, do you believe:

a) the technology isn’t good enough to find the motor;
b) motors are found, but this is covered up;
c) the bikes that have the motors have by chance never been checked in the races where they’ve been used;
d) the bikes that have the motors have intentionally never been checked in the races where they’ve been used.

It was reported that Froome’s bike was checked on at least six different occasions in the Giro, including after stage 19, so presumably c) and d) would not apply if Froome was using a motor in the Giro. So for Froome in the Giro, it seems you either believe a) or b), is this correct? Which of those?

I dont believe UCI are looking.

Too many things suggest motors are in use across the peloton. Apart from the visuals. The idea that femke was unique is laughable. The heart rates are a flag. That UCI are talking about motors and Parissotto mentioned them.

As has been said so many times, if a rider gets done for a motor that is it for cycling as a sport. Public perception of non cycling fans is that they all dope so add a motor to that and it no longer becomes as sport. Sponsors would disappear in an instant.

So waving a tablet at a bike is PR. Sticking a bike in a trailer with an x-ray machine and no truly independent verification is all PR.

 

[rick james]

i'm sure they take the bikes apart as well

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

I dont believe UCI are looking.

Too many things suggest motors are in use across the peloton. Apart from the visuals. The idea that femke was unique is laughable. The heart rates are a flag. That UCI are talking about motors and Parissotto mentioned them.

As has been said so many times, if a rider gets done for a motor that is it for cycling as a sport. Public perception of non cycling fans is that they all dope so add a motor to that and it no longer becomes as sport. Sponsors would disappear in an instant.

So waving a tablet at a bike is PR. Sticking a bike in a trailer with an x-ray machine and no truly independent verification is all PR.

More than anything it's the end of UCI as the governing body of the sport, which is exactly why they don't want to find anything.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

I dont believe UCI are looking.

Too many things suggest motors are in use across the peloton. Apart from the visuals. The idea that femke was unique is laughable. The heart rates are a flag. That UCI are talking about motors and Parissotto mentioned them.

As has been said so many times, if a rider gets done for a motor that is it for cycling as a sport. Public perception of non cycling fans is that they all dope so add a motor to that and it no longer becomes as sport. Sponsors would disappear in an instant.

So waving a tablet at a bike is PR. Sticking a bike in a trailer with an x-ray machine and no truly independent verification is all PR.

More than anything it's the end of UCI as the governing body of the sport, which is exactly why they don't want to find anything.

Which also means they cannot use it as a threat against teams, because it would be suicide.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

i'm sure they take the bikes apart as well

Of course they do. Just not bikes with motors in them.

 

[veganrob]

Re:

i'm sure they take the bikes apart as well

And how the f&ck are you sure of that?

 

[Blanco]

Re: Re:

The only guessing is what he is taking with the huge doses of Salbutamol.

PEDs and a motor are in use, no guessing needed. To break it down to what chemicals and who makes the motor is all that is left.

You seriously think Froome has used a motor? Do you think he used one in the Giro?

And you seriously think he didn't?!

 

[thehog]

Re:

Now, for my own conspiracy theory: Is it possible that Froome leaked the AAF himself, i.e., gave the information to someone sworn to strict secrecy about the source?

Why, you ask, would Froome do this? For the same reason Floyd put all the details of his case on the internet: in the hope that maybe crowd-sourcing would come up with an explanation that would exonerate him. By that time, the middle of December, Froome probably had been in communication with scientific experts for a couple of months, and presumably they told him there was no obvious or simple answer, other than that he really did take too much salbutamol. Maybe if the case were made public, some scientist out there would come up with a theory that his own experts had overlooked. It might be a long shot, but simply from the perspective of trying to win the case, what was there to lose?

If Froome really wanted to do this, why didn’t he announce the positive himself? Well, for one thing, it would look very strange to announce the AAF several months after the fact. There would be all kinds of questions about why he had waited so long to do it. Also, if he had announced it himself, either in December or back in September, he would have been pressured to suspend himself, which he didn’t want to do. Of course he was pressured, anyway, but if the official story was that the positive had been leaked by someone against Froome’s wishes, no one would have expected him to suspend himself, even if many thought he should. Froome could play the role of someone victimized by an unknown insider breaking the rule of confidentiality. Whereas if he had announced the positive, a sign of willingness to be transparent, it would have looked very strange for him to resist suspending himself.

Another reason for leaking the positive would be as a signal to Vegni and the Giro. If Froome had announced the positive himself back in September, it might have torpedoed the discussion that led to an agreement that he would ride in return for a large sum of money. By waiting till after he had made the agreement, he could be ensured of the money, assuming he could actually ride the Giro; and by leaking the news later, he at least gave Vegni some warning. He also protected Vegni, and the cycling public in general, from being blind-sided by a suspension right before or even during the Giro. At least if that happened, everyone would have known it was possibly coming.

Now granted, the big problem with this theory is that Froome has been under great stress ever since the AAF leaked. He has been pressured to stop racing, and there have been threats, whether serious or not, that a GT might bar him from racing. Not to mention that those those of us who have long suspected Froome of doping have had a field day with this news. All of this might have been avoided if the case had proceeded in secret.

But unless Froome was very certain of winning, he had to assume it all might come out, anyway. And since his priority was to win the case, why not do anything that might increase that possibility? Periodically, there have been reports that Froome’s team has come up with some possible explanation for the high salbutamol level. In light of this theory, those reports could be interpreted as trial balloons. A physiological hypothesis is floated, and the team waits for a response from other scientists—all free advice. Sure, Froome can afford the best scientific minds on his team, but he can’t afford every relevant scientific mind. By getting the debate into the public domain, he gets some of this potentially valuable input.

The Heuberger paper, in fact, appears to be the outstanding example. The researchers were motivated by Froome's case, which they presumably would not have known about had it not been leaked. As I've discussed here before, I don't think their model will be enough to clear Froome, but if it should turn out that it does, Froome could well conclude that the leak of the AAF, whoever did it, was the best thing that ever happened to him. Think about that. Even if he isn't cleared, the value of this paper arguably justifies all the negativity Froome has had to endure because his case has gone public.

Do I think this scenario is very likely? No. But I wouldn’t absolutely rule it out.

Doubtful. With a Cookson won election this never would have leaked and closed itself down fairly swiftly with the general public none the wiser. Cookson was already talking about reinstating Sky’s “reputation” with full knowledge of the AAF.

A Lappartient victory changed a few aspects one being the iPad leak just prior to the election then the Froome AAF leak. I’d say there’s more to come just prior to the Tour.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

And you seriously think he didn't?!

I seriously believe the report that Froome's bike was checked for a motor after six different stages, and none was found. Now maybe that's fake news, or maybe a motor was found and not reported, or maybe the technology can't find the motor that Froome used. Maybe Dumo had a motor, too, but his wasn't quite as powerful.

But if it's fake news, then anything else I read might not be true, either. For example, how do i even know Froome won the Giro? If CN and other cycling media would falsely report that his bike was checked for a motor, why wouldn't they falsely report that he won the race? Sure, I saw some of the race streamed, but why should I believe the people who streamed it? Anything can be faked. Or if that seems too much even for you to swallow, how about all these reports of injuries to riders, even deaths in some cases? Why should I believe any of that if I can't trust the media to report about motor checks?

Or maybe you think that motors were found, and UCI covered that up? Yes, that's possible, but if they would do that, they would also make sure Froome didn't get sanctioned for his salbutamol AAF, wouldn't they? If you don't want Froome to lose the Giro because of a motor, you don't want him to lose it because of salbutamol, either. They didn't have to give him a ban, so that he would take the case to the Tribunal. They could have let him off, and since in that case the decision doesn't have to be published, no one would know why.

Or maybe motors are different, it's OK for riders to get sanctioned for doping, the sport can survive that, but it can't survive motors? Well, it couldn't survive the news that Froome is paying UCI massive amounts of money to ensure he wins GTs, either, so does that mean he must be doing that? The sport probably couldn't survive if it turned out that sexual harassment of female staff members was rampant on all the teams, and that UCI knew about it and did nothing. So should we believe that, too? There are lots of things that could be going on that we don't know about. Should we believe they're going on and being covered up just because we think that if they came to light, UCI would be finished?

Also, this argument cuts both ways. Yes, if a motor were discovered and publicized, UCI would take a massive hit. But so would the rider whose bike it was found in. If Froome used a motor in the Giro, and it was discovered, he wouldn't just lose that race. He would be finished--he would never race again. And while he couldn't be stripped of his previous wins, no one would take them seriously any more. In fact, most people would now accept the idea that his sudden transformation resulted from a motor, and everything else after that as well. He would become even more of a pariah than LA.

Or maybe you think the technology doesn't work? If lots of riders are using motors, then the kind of motors they're using can't be much of a secret. There must be a lot of people familiar with them. In that case, wouldn't it be pretty obvious if the technology wasn't able to detect those motors?

So, yeah, call me gullible and naive, but I think motor use is quite rare in the pro peloton, if going on at all, and I don't think Froome used one in the Giro. The one attractive feature of the theory I like is, as I alluded to above, that it provides a simple explanation for the miraculous transformation in 2011. I will give it that. But if he needed a motor then, he must have continued to need it for all his subsequent great performances, and as I've just made clear, I really have trouble believing that. I'm not sure that's not the case--not as sure as some seem to be that motors are being used--but my doubt is pretty small.

Doubtful.

Probably. But if Froome wins on the Heuberger defense, all his supporters who have been whining about how unfair it was that his AAF was leaked will have a lot of crow to eat. Really, given that it seems to be his best shot, they ought to be apologizing right now. Rick, Yaco, Parker, Sam, et al...hello?

 

[yaco]

The strangest thing is I am not a Froome supporter in any shape,size or form - I merely support the part of the Anti-Doping code that allows the athlete confidentiality for part of the process, and support any athlete's RIGHT to provide a strong and robust defence of an AAF

 

[bebellion2]

Stupid question: wouldn't it be possible for a spectator to use some kind of device to catch a glimpse of the bike's content on-the-go? Like a heat camera or something, while they're doing an MTF.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

I dont believe UCI are looking.

Too many things suggest motors are in use across the peloton. Apart from the visuals. The idea that femke was unique is laughable. The heart rates are a flag. That UCI are talking about motors and Parissotto mentioned them.

As has been said so many times, if a rider gets done for a motor that is it for cycling as a sport. Public perception of non cycling fans is that they all dope so add a motor to that and it no longer becomes as sport. Sponsors would disappear in an instant.

So waving a tablet at a bike is PR. Sticking a bike in a trailer with an x-ray machine and no truly independent verification is all PR.

More than anything it's the end of UCI as the governing body of the sport, which is exactly why they don't want to find anything.

I disagree....The UCI finding a motor in use would be a very bad situation for them and for cycling, but handled correctly it would be recoverable.

However, if it was discovered that motors were being used, and the UCI were complicit in their use, then that would indeed be the end of the UCI as we currently know it.

So of course they don't want to find anything, but that is not necessarily the same thing as saying they are not trying to find anything, and certainly very far removed from the notion that they are actively allowing it.

 

[Blanco]

Re: Re:

And you seriously think he didn't?!

I'm not sure that's not the case--not as sure as some seem to be that motors are being used--but my doubt is pretty small.

I'm also not sure that motors are being used, but my doubt is not so small like yours, and if someone in the current peloton is using them, my money is on Froome without a doubt!

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

I dont believe UCI are looking.

Too many things suggest motors are in use across the peloton. Apart from the visuals. The idea that femke was unique is laughable. The heart rates are a flag. That UCI are talking about motors and Parissotto mentioned them.

As has been said so many times, if a rider gets done for a motor that is it for cycling as a sport. Public perception of non cycling fans is that they all dope so add a motor to that and it no longer becomes as sport. Sponsors would disappear in an instant.

So waving a tablet at a bike is PR. Sticking a bike in a trailer with an x-ray machine and no truly independent verification is all PR.

More than anything it's the end of UCI as the governing body of the sport, which is exactly why they don't want to find anything.

I disagree....The UCI finding a motor in use would be a very bad situation for them and for cycling, but handled correctly it would be recoverable.

However, if it was discovered that motors were being used, and the UCI were complicit in their use, then that would indeed be the end of the UCI as we currently know it.

So of course they don't want to find anything, but that is not necessarily the same thing as saying they are not trying to find anything, and certainly very far removed from the notion that they are actively allowing it.

sort of Like when the IAAF were found to be complicit in the doping and payment scandal with Russian athletes (or wider)...sort of like the end of them as we know it?

oh...wait a minute....

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

And you seriously think he didn't?!

I seriously believe the report that Froome's bike was checked for a motor after six different stages, and none was found. Now maybe that's fake news, or maybe a motor was found and not reported, or maybe the technology can't find the motor that Froome used. Maybe Dumo had a motor, too, but his wasn't quite as powerful.

But if it's fake news, then anything else I read might not be true, either. For example, how do i even know Froome won the Giro? If CN and other cycling media would falsely report that his bike was checked for a motor, why wouldn't they falsely report that he won the race? Sure, I saw some of the race streamed, but why should I believe the people who streamed it? Anything can be faked. Or if that seems too much even for you to swallow, how about all these reports of injuries to riders, even deaths in some cases? Why should I believe any of that if I can't trust the media to report about motor checks?

Or maybe you think that motors were found, and UCI covered that up? Yes, that's possible, but if they would do that, they would also make sure Froome didn't get sanctioned for his salbutamol AAF, wouldn't they? If you don't want Froome to lose the Giro because of a motor, you don't want him to lose it because of salbutamol, either. They didn't have to give him a ban, so that he would take the case to the Tribunal. They could have let him off, and since in that case the decision doesn't have to be published, no one would know why.

Or maybe motors are different, it's OK for riders to get sanctioned for doping, the sport can survive that, but it can't survive motors? Well, it couldn't survive the news that Froome is paying UCI massive amounts of money to ensure he wins GTs, either, so does that mean he must be doing that? The sport probably couldn't survive if it turned out that sexual harassment of female staff members was rampant on all the teams, and that UCI knew about it and did nothing. So should we believe that, too? There are lots of things that could be going on that we don't know about. Should we believe they're going on and being covered up just because we think that if they came to light, UCI would be finished?

Also, this argument cuts both ways. Yes, if a motor were discovered and publicized, UCI would take a massive hit. But so would the rider whose bike it was found in. If Froome used a motor in the Giro, and it was discovered, he wouldn't just lose that race. He would be finished--he would never race again. And while he couldn't be stripped of his previous wins, no one would take them seriously any more. In fact, most people would now accept the idea that his sudden transformation resulted from a motor, and everything else after that as well. He would become even more of a pariah than LA.

Or maybe you think the technology doesn't work? If lots of riders are using motors, then the kind of motors they're using can't be much of a secret. There must be a lot of people familiar with them. In that case, wouldn't it be pretty obvious if the technology wasn't able to detect those motors?

So, yeah, call me gullible and naive, but I think motor use is quite rare in the pro peloton, if going on at all, and I don't think Froome used one in the Giro. The one attractive feature of the theory I like is, as I alluded to above, that it provides a simple explanation for the miraculous transformation in 2011. I will give it that. But if he needed a motor then, he must have continued to need it for all his subsequent great performances, and as I've just made clear, I really have trouble believing that. I'm not sure that's not the case--not as sure as some seem to be that motors are being used--but my doubt is pretty small.

Doubtful.

Probably. But if Froome wins on the Heuberger defense, all his supporters who have been whining about how unfair it was that his AAF was leaked will have a lot of crow to eat. Really, given that it seems to be his best shot, they ought to be apologizing right now. Rick, Yaco, Parker, Sam, et al...hello?

Agreed...but not just all of his great performances, but every single moderately competitive stage of every GT (and most non GT's) he's ridden ever since.

Considering the oft quoted notion that Froome has next to no natural talent/ability, i struggle to recall a single really bad day he's had in competitive stage racing since the 2011 transformation.

Even in warm up races where he's nowhere near peak form, he's never far from the lead groups, in GT's he's always with the lead group. Yes, he may have the odd 'off day', but for him that means losing 20-30 seconds towards the conclusion of summit finishes. Unless i've forgotten something, we've never seen a Yates/Aru type of bad day. The worst single day time loss i can recall was Vuelta 2016 (?) but that was a Team Sky tactical fail rather than Froome weakness.

So, if we're to believe that motors are behind the 2011 transformation from no hope donkey who couldn't hang on to the back of the peloton when things got tough, then we have to believe that he's used one almost every time he's stepped on a bike in competition ever since.

I struggle with that...

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

I dont believe UCI are looking.

Too many things suggest motors are in use across the peloton. Apart from the visuals. The idea that femke was unique is laughable. The heart rates are a flag. That UCI are talking about motors and Parissotto mentioned them.

As has been said so many times, if a rider gets done for a motor that is it for cycling as a sport. Public perception of non cycling fans is that they all dope so add a motor to that and it no longer becomes as sport. Sponsors would disappear in an instant.

So waving a tablet at a bike is PR. Sticking a bike in a trailer with an x-ray machine and no truly independent verification is all PR.

More than anything it's the end of UCI as the governing body of the sport, which is exactly why they don't want to find anything.

I disagree....The UCI finding a motor in use would be a very bad situation for them and for cycling, but handled correctly it would be recoverable.

However, if it was discovered that motors were being used, and the UCI were complicit in their use, then that would indeed be the end of the UCI as we currently know it.

So of course they don't want to find anything, but that is not necessarily the same thing as saying they are not trying to find anything, and certainly very far removed from the notion that they are actively allowing it.

sort of Like when the IAAF were found to be complicit in the doping and payment scandal with Russian athletes (or wider)...sort of like the end of them as we know it?

oh...wait a minute....

Ahh but......now we're talking motors not doping. I'm just going with the flow, the consensus on here seems to be doping is one thing, cycling has before and will again bounce back from any doping scandals.

Motors, OTOH, would be the end of cycling. Apparently

 

[samhocking]

It doesn't matter even if UCI were pretending to not find motors. Riders crash all the time, frames get broken in half in front of suspicious fans and live TV all the time. None of that is controllable. Wheels fold in half on impact, anyone with an iPad can scan a riders bike, set up a thermal camera, as can any press motorbike or other team directly within the race if they wanted to.

I would also add team bikes get stolen all the time, teams have to carry all equipment with them or fly it when out of Europe. The invisible nature of doping is relatively easy to hide, it just wouldn't be possible to hide a motor very long. You've also got to factor in relative unreliability of a motor. Di2 which isn't even trying to be invisible has scuppered plenty of riders chances. You could almost argue that a rider cracking beyond expectations could be using a motor that stopped working. Remember when a motor stops working it becomes the opposite.
He other factors is no teams use bespoke wheels anymore. Everything is corporate. A motor found in Froomes Shimano hub, rim or Pinarello frame would be the end of Shimano, Pinarello and Team Sky and would be the same for any team. Plenty of team owners have also commented it would be the end of the team if a motor was found. You think they leave it up to UCI and their amazing track record to protect their motor use, think again. They barely trust them to organise themselves letalone anything so fundamental as a teams very survival.

 

[brownbobby]

Re:

It doesn't matter even if UCI were pretending to not find motors. Riders crash all the time, frames get broken in half in front of suspicious fans and live TV all the time. None of that is controllable. Wheels fold in half on impact, anyone with an iPad can scan a riders bike, set up a thermal camera, as can any press motorbike or other team directly within the race if they wanted to.

I would also add team bikes get stolen all the time, teams have to carry all equipment with them or fly it when out of Europe. The invisible nature of doping is relatively easy to hide, it just wouldn't be possible to hide a motor very long. You've also got to factor in relative unreliability of a motor. Di2 which isn't even trying to be invisible has scuppered plenty of riders chances. You could almost argue that a rider cracking beyond expectations could be using a motor that stopped working. Remember when a motor stops working it becomes the opposite.
He other factors is no teams use bespoke wheels anymore. Everything is corporate. A motor found in Froomes Shimano hub, rim or Pinarello frame would be the end of Shimano, Pinarello and Team Sky and would be the same for any team. Plenty of team owners have also commented it would be the end of the team if a motor was found. You think they leave it up to UCI and their amazing track record to protect their motor use, think again. They barely trust them to organise themselves letalone anything so fundamental as a teams very survival.

Exactamundo

In this day and age one of the last things you actually need to worry about is the authorities/governing bodies...

 

[dacooley]

I think had froome really used a motor, he could have chosen a more orthodox way of winning the giro.

 

[Singer01]

Re:

I think had froome really used a motor, he could have chosen a more orthodox way of winning the giro.

and wouldn't have finished 2nd so frequently in the vuelta.

 

[dacooley]

a motor theory is more of a sign of despair IMO. the transformation froome underwent was so sweeping, that it's difficult to explain it in full by any ever the most thermonuclear doping ever. I also tend to think if motors were wide-spread, info sooner or later would have leaked. in fact, each of sky's competitors is in a good know about what a gearing and cadence froome is on when launching his killing accelerations, the outputs he is able to deliver, etc. they know, but does't look it helps them much, so there is some deeper secret.

 

[Angliru]

Re:

It doesn't matter even if UCI were pretending to not find motors. Riders crash all the time, frames get broken in half in front of suspicious fans and live TV all the time. None of that is controllable. Wheels fold in half on impact, anyone with an iPad can scan a riders bike, set up a thermal camera, as can any press motorbike or other team directly within the race if they wanted to.

I would also add team bikes get stolen all the time, teams have to carry all equipment with them or fly it when out of Europe. The invisible nature of doping is relatively easy to hide, it just wouldn't be possible to hide a motor very long. You've also got to factor in relative unreliability of a motor. Di2 which isn't even trying to be invisible has scuppered plenty of riders chances. You could almost argue that a rider cracking beyond expectations could be using a motor that stopped working. Remember when a motor stops working it becomes the opposite.
He other factors is no teams use bespoke wheels anymore. Everything is corporate. A motor found in Froomes Shimano hub, rim or Pinarello frame would be the end of Shimano, Pinarello and Team Sky and would be the same for any team. Plenty of team owners have also commented it would be the end of the team if a motor was found. You think they leave it up to UCI and their amazing track record to protect their motor use, think again. They barely trust them to organise themselves letalone anything so fundamental as a teams very survival.

Riders have been known to and still do use non-sponsored equipment, often rebadged with a sponsor name or with no badge/label at all.