LeMond: Six Steps to Eradicate Moto-fraud

[blackcat]

Re:

Lemond was an innovator with tech when he was a rider so what he has to say is very important.
Whether he wants the attention or is doing it out of his love for cycling, or both, it doesn't matter. People with this kind of drive really don't settle for second in anything in life so get over it.
He's correct on a lot of points.
1. All the bikes used in a race should be controlled.....period. Keep honest people honest.
2. His solutions to speed up yet keep checks thorough and spontaneous are good start.
3. Clear penalties.
4. Taking it seriously

Life is full of gray areas but putting a motor in your bike sucks a$$.

I read his CdA for when he used his triathlon aero kit for his record speed before the Australian Rohan Dennis was actually inferior/slower in a hypothetical v the ponytailed frenchman with the glasses.

Can someone wade/weigh in on this to confirm or deny. I definitely had read this, however, the story does read from the page of the apocryphal... it cannot be proven/disproven anyhow, if they never get in a wind tunnel, see the direction of the wind, yaw angles etc... moot and mute

 

[blackcat]

femke's family steal parakeets

a more droll comedy I could never script, and I am pretty droll.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

I confess I don't know my history as well as you. Can you explain "why banning bike changes is pointless and unfair and leads to even more cheating"?

People always find a way around the problem. Take the well known story of Anquetil in the 1963 Tour. Géminiani, his DS, wanted him to switch to a lighter bike for the main climb of the day on a key stage late in the race. The rules of the time allowed bike changes only when there was a mechanical. So when Anquetil needed to change his bike ahead of the start of the climb, Géminiani raced up to it before a commissar could get there and cut a cable. Anquetil changed bikes and won the Tour.

I don't suggest the same would happen today, that De Jongh or whoever would have a cable cutters in his pocket ready to justify Contador changing bikes. The point is that it was always a bad rule, it was always open to abuse. And always will be.

LeMond's retort, of course, might be to only allow fresh bikes to come from neutral support, not the team car. In which case we are back to 1930 when Desgrange instituted standardised bikes for all.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

I confess I don't know my history as well as you. Can you explain "why banning bike changes is pointless and unfair and leads to even more cheating"?

People always find a way around the problem. Take the well known story of Anquetil in the 1963 Tour. Géminiani, his DS, wanted him to switch to a lighter bike for the main climb of the day on a key stage late in the race. The rules of the time only allowed bike changes only when there was a mechanical. So when Anquetil needed to change his bike ahead of the start of the climb, Géminiani raced up to it before a commissar could get there and cut a cable. Anquetil changed bikes and won the Tour.

I don't suggest the same would happen today, that De Jongh or whoever would have a cable cutters in his pocket ready to justify Contador changing bikes. The point is that it was always a bad rule, it was always open to abuse. And always will be.

LeMond's retort, of course, might be to only allow fresh bikes to come from neutral support, not the team car. In which case we are back to 1930 when Desgrange instituted standardised bikes for all.

LeMond, who has some experience in the matter, seems to think that not being allowed bike changes would be less of a problem than allowing them, in view of the need to control for motor usage. You can see his point, I hope, in that if motors aren't effectively controlled for there is no sport at all. You might have bikes on the road, but it won't be sport.

He also takes into account that bikes will still be changed at times. He says when bike changes do occur, they need to go to inspection immediately.

Desgrange was a sadist but he had a lot of good ideas (also a lot of bad ones) and he wasn't afraid to experiment. Standardized bikes was one of the good ideas, but from a practical point of view it probably couldn't be done today.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

LeMond, who has some experience in the matter, seems to think that not being allowed bike changes would be less of a problem than allowing them, in view of the need to control for motor usage. You can see his point, I hope, in that if motors aren't effectively controlled for there is no sport at all. You might have bikes on the road, but it won't be sport.

You might be able to see his point, I don't. A nineteenth century rule for a twenty-first century problem is not the way to go.

He also takes into account that bikes will still be changed at times. He says when bike changes do occur, they need to go to inspection immediately.

So before Anquetil could have hopped on his new bike the commissars would have had to x-ray it? Why not just x-ray all the bikes anyway?

Desgrange was a sadist but he had a lot of good ideas (also a lot of bad ones) and he wasn't afraid to experiment. Standardized bikes was one of the good ideas, but from a practical point of view it probably couldn't be done today.

Again, we can agree to disagree. Especially as the standardised bikes weren't really standardised and preferred riders were allowed supply their own, provided they were painted to look like the rest. As for doing it today: yes, let's drive off the few remaining manufacturers, we don't need Cannondale, Trek are a waste of space, BMC no one wants, the rest no one cares about. We can make up the revenue shortfall by sharing TV rights.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

LeMond, who has some experience in the matter, seems to think that not being allowed bike changes would be less of a problem than allowing them, in view of the need to control for motor usage. You can see his point, I hope, in that if motors aren't effectively controlled for there is no sport at all. You might have bikes on the road, but it won't be sport.

You might be able to see his point, I don't. A nineteenth century rule for a twenty-first century problem is not the way to go.

He also takes into account that bikes will still be changed at times. He says when bike changes do occur, they need to go to inspection immediately.

So before Anquetil could have hopped on his new bike the commissars would have had to x-ray it? Why not just x-ray all the bikes anyway?

I believe LeMond is calling for all bikes to be inspected, tagged, and then sequestered after used. You might try reading the article linked in the OP. I imagine the point in eliminating unnecessary bike changes is to ensure that un-inspected bikes aren't slipped in.

Desgrange was a sadist but he had a lot of good ideas (also a lot of bad ones) and he wasn't afraid to experiment. Standardized bikes was one of the good ideas, but from a practical point of view it probably couldn't be done today.

Again, we can agree to disagree. Especially as the standardised bikes weren't really standardised and preferred riders were allowed supply their own, provided they were painted to look like the rest. As for doing it today: yes, let's drive off the few remaining manufacturers, we don't need Cannondale, Trek are a waste of space, BMC no one wants, the rest no one cares about. We can make up the revenue shortfall by sharing TV rights.

yeah, like I said, probably couldn't be done.

 

[zigmeister]

Re: Re:

Cookson: "sooner or later they will pay"

Did he provide a price list? Armstong paid 1 million, not sure what the guys today are paying...

No bike changes, how stupid is that LeMond...nobody said LeMond is very smart.

Much easier if you just put RFID tags on bikes that basically can't be removed, embedded in the frame, some manuf do this already to track the frame throughout the manuf process.

Same thing, that way, if somebody changes a bike, well, busted, simple RFID scanner will tell you that.

If a bike is swapped, they are required to hand it over to the sweeper/organizer/3rd party Van to handle and inspect themselves, they aren't allowed to just throw it on the roof/car never to be seen again.

For cylocross, I know, harder because they can ride around and swap bikes. Ok, no problem, somebody has to take the bike that isn't part of the team/mechanic, 3rd party for inspection...so simple.

But he makes some good points on certain things, that he likely got from smarter people he has talked with around the dinner table while drinking wine.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

yeah, like I said, probably couldn't be done.

So we're agreed: it's a stupid - unworkable - suggestion and LeMond really should know better than to toss it on the table.

 

[King Boonen]

Fixed wheel bikes is the answer.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

yeah, like I said, probably couldn't be done.

So we're agreed: it's a stupid - unworkable - suggestion and LeMond really should know better than to toss it on the table.

Reading comprehension . Arguably an important skill for forum discussion, if not modern living itself.

You, not LeMond, brought up Desgrange and his experiment with standarized bikes. I said it was a good idea but not workable today. LeMond never mentioned standardized bikes. LeMond merely suggested limiting unnecessary bike changes. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

yeah, like I said, probably couldn't be done.

So we're agreed: it's a stupid - unworkable - suggestion and LeMond really should know better than to toss it on the table.

Reading comprehension . Arguably an important skill for forum discussion, if not modern living itself.

You, not LeMond, brought up Desgrange and his experiment with standarized bikes. I said it was a good idea but not workable today. LeMond never mentioned standardized bikes. LeMond merely suggested limiting unnecessary bike changes. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

You'll wrap yourself around an axle trying to reason with those who are looking to discredit Lemond, rather than looking at what he actually says.

Good thread OP by the way. Hadn't read those suggestions. Most of them would be completely feasible if there was actually a will to combat doping, mechanical or otherwise.

It has long ago been decided that shoving it under the rug is cheaper and better for business than combating it.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

yeah, like I said, probably couldn't be done.

So we're agreed: it's a stupid - unworkable - suggestion and LeMond really should know better than to toss it on the table.

Reading comprehension . Arguably an important skill for forum discussion, if not modern living itself.

You, not LeMond, brought up Desgrange and his experiment with standarized bikes. I said it was a good idea but not workable today. LeMond never mentioned standardized bikes. LeMond merely suggested limiting unnecessary bike changes. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

You'll wrap yourself around an axle trying to reason with those who are looking to discredit Lemond, rather than looking at what he actually says.

Good thread OP by the way. Hadn't read those suggestions. Most of them would be completely feasible if there was actually a will to combat doping, mechanical or otherwise.

It has long ago been decided that shoving it under the rug is cheaper and better for business than combating it.

Thanks, red. Yeah, I'm afraid you're right. About combating dope, I mean. Now if only I could get myself from around this axle.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Good thread OP by the way. Hadn't read those suggestions. Most of them would be completely feasible if there was actually a will to combat doping, mechanical or otherwise.

agreed.
i thought these were excellent suggestions from lemond, and i like how he unequivocally calls out UCI's failure to act on a threat that was visible years ago.

it's remarkable that it takes Lemond to point out the need for independent testing, whilst Cookson, father of Oliver, pretends all is good and under control.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Fixed wheel bikes is the answer.

Damn the derailleur. It's made cyclists lazy.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Reading comprehension . Arguably an important skill for forum discussion, if not modern living itself.

My apps. I thought we were agreeing that banning bike changes was a moronic idea that displayed no understanding of reality.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

You'll wrap yourself around an axle trying to reason with those who are looking to discredit Lemond, rather than looking at what he actually says.

Show me where I've sought to discredit LeMond. If you look at what I've said so far I have talked about what he actually said (or is reported to have said) by reference to the historical precedent for banning bike changes.

Just because someone doesn't agree with LeMond on something doesn't mean they are out to discredit him. He's human, prone to being wrong.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Fixed wheel bikes is the answer.

Damn the derailleur. It's made cyclists lazy.

Yep. Pick a gear and live with it!

 

[Maxiton]

They're going to have to do something. Something credible. It won't do for UCI to treat this as they have doping, making token gestures against it while using it to control riders and race outcomes. That just won't fly, because the performances aren't credible, and there is just too much suspicion, and there are people like LeMond calling them out on it..

I see two ways of proceeding. Either implement, seriously, some version of LeMond's six points; or, completely change the nature of the sport and allow racing with motors. This latter option is radical, of course, but whatever they do they have to restore the credibility and integrity of the race.

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

the lady doth protest too hard methinks

But, if so, what do you think is behind his excessive protest? Jealousy? Complicity? Neurosis? Political maneuvering? Something else entirely? And what of his six point list?

i) stay relevant
ii) do an Adidas on Armstrong's Nike. that is, allow Nike's branding to be seen as expedient and corrupt and you take the moral high ground. He is seeking to beat Lance.
iii) guilty conscience from his career. I am taking a leaf out of Helmut Roole's book on this.

If the peloton seek to destroy the "sport" from within, and I use the term sport tentatively. If they all Cancellara to get away with it, and have not rectified it from within, it does not deserve any following or commodification or an economy. It is a joke. The players needed to unionise against Cancellara, if they felt he was moto-doping.

Greg... meh. relevance deprivation syndrome.

Interesting. Your three reasons might explain his motivation (conscious and unconscious), but that doesn't necessarily mean his role is pernicious. Could be constructive.

I came back to this forum thinking the sport is gone, a joke as you say, and beyond redemption. I haven't followed it since 2011. News of the found bike motor brought me back, just to put the full stop on the end of the sentence. But having spent the better part of two days here trying to locate Alberto Contador within the context and trajectory of the sport, and having found to my surprise that my estimation of him is pretty high, I now think that there is still hope for reforming pro cycling. The teams themselves will reform it, along with the sponsors remaining, when the situation forces them to. Their economic self-interest is at stake.

Core fans have a say in it, too. We proved that, arguably, in how the Armstrong thing played out.

I continually read this plea - Sport is a joke or I want clean sport - This is yet another myth - Sports have record revenues etc, so people are following sport - But I continually read people have lost interest in sport.

 

[yaco]

WADA is independent - Give me a break !

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

You'll wrap yourself around an axle trying to reason with those who are looking to discredit Lemond, rather than looking at what he actually says.

Show me where I've sought to discredit LeMond. If you look at what I've said so far I have talked about what he actually said (or is reported to have said) by reference to the historical precedent for banning bike changes.

Just because someone doesn't agree with LeMond on something doesn't mean they are out to discredit him. He's human, prone to being wrong.

You may be assuming I'm solely referring to you, which would be a mistake.

You argue that bike stopping bike changes isn't feasible–but simply calling it a 19th century rule isn't an argument. When he referred to changed bikes being inspected, he was of course referring to it being done at the end of the race. Suggesting otherwise sounds obtuse to me.

Lemond's suggestions would call for a lot of extra effort and expense. Which is why those cheating and those policing the cheating won't do it and will make up all kinds of nonsense on why such simple, if expensive changes "can't" be made.

The reality is that the suggestions are just fine. Bike changes could be limited to mechanicals, easily. And bikes could be inspected after the race if tagged. Easily.

The problem is the UCI doesn't want to make the effort, flag the issue as real, and the riders are fine with the cheating because for the most part, that's what goes on.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

the lady doth protest too hard methinks

But, if so, what do you think is behind his excessive protest? Jealousy? Complicity? Neurosis? Political maneuvering? Something else entirely? And what of his six point list?

i) stay relevant
ii) do an Adidas on Armstrong's Nike. that is, allow Nike's branding to be seen as expedient and corrupt and you take the moral high ground. He is seeking to beat Lance.
iii) guilty conscience from his career. I am taking a leaf out of Helmut Roole's book on this.

If the peloton seek to destroy the "sport" from within, and I use the term sport tentatively. If they all Cancellara to get away with it, and have not rectified it from within, it does not deserve any following or commodification or an economy. It is a joke. The players needed to unionise against Cancellara, if they felt he was moto-doping.

Greg... meh. relevance deprivation syndrome.

Interesting. Your three reasons might explain his motivation (conscious and unconscious), but that doesn't necessarily mean his role is pernicious. Could be constructive.

I came back to this forum thinking the sport is gone, a joke as you say, and beyond redemption. I haven't followed it since 2011. News of the found bike motor brought me back, just to put the full stop on the end of the sentence. But having spent the better part of two days here trying to locate Alberto Contador within the context and trajectory of the sport, and having found to my surprise that my estimation of him is pretty high, I now think that there is still hope for reforming pro cycling. The teams themselves will reform it, along with the sponsors remaining, when the situation forces them to. Their economic self-interest is at stake.

Core fans have a say in it, too. We proved that, arguably, in how the Armstrong thing played out.

I continually read this plea - Sport is a joke or I want clean sport - This is yet another myth - Sports have record revenues etc, so people are following sport - But I continually read people have lost interest in sport.

That may be true for the major sports - football, NFL, hockey, and so on. But cycling is a marginal sport. Already, if you go to websites that cover sport in general, oftentimes you'll see nothing about cycling. Already, after the Armstrong debacle, cycling coverage was curtailed in Germany, and successful teams have lost their sponsors at the end of successful seasons.

The only thing that enables the sport to exist on a paying basis is that companies want their name associated with it, and broadcasters want to broadcast it. Neither of those is a given. If the sport loses much more credibility than it already has, it could very quickly come about that the major sponsors and broadcasters pull out. It could happen in a hot second. Think defective lithium-ion battery exploding in a downtube.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

You argue that bike stopping bike changes isn't feasible–but simply calling it a 19th century rule isn't an argument.

I went a helluva lot further than simply calling it a nineteenth century rule.

If a changed bike can be checked at the end of the race, all bikes can be checked at the end of the race, making totally pointless the argument that we need to ban bike changes. Bike changes are not the problem and banning them will - as in the past - simply create yet more problems.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

You argue that bike stopping bike changes isn't feasible–but simply calling it a 19th century rule isn't an argument.

I went a helluva lot further than simply calling it a nineteenth century rule.

If a changed bike can be checked at the end of the race, all bikes can be checked at the end of the race, making totally pointless the argument that we need to ban bike changes. Bike changes are not the problem and banning them will - as in the past - simply create yet more problems.

at the risk of overlooking previous arguments (i havent closely followed this discussion), it seems to me that even if there are going to be rigorous bike checks, the bike changes will keep the door wide open for fraud.
See Cancellara, see Froome, see Femke. Bike changes were always involved.
And note also that the state of technology of motorization seems to be such, that it benefits the rider only on shorter distances, and arguably mainly on the flat.
So if you rule out bike switches, (a) you make the bike checking so much easier and (b) you cancel out some of the benefits of motorization, i.e. the negative aspect of having to carry around dead weight becomes more apparent.

 

[dwyatt]

Re:

[quote="Maxiton"
I see two ways of proceeding. Either implement, seriously, some version of LeMond's six points; or, completely change the nature of the sport and allow racing with motors. This latter option is radical, of course, but whatever they do they have to restore the credibility and integrity of the race.[/quote]

They'll always go for the hidden 3rd option - pretend no problem exists and ignore it.