Motor doping thread

[King Boonen]

Re:

Very fair points Nicko.

@kb, u may be right. I think I am seeing ghosts now.

I think there is a huge amount of confirmation bias going on. A few extracts get pulled out and because people are wanting to see motors they see motors. The only one I think that looks strange is the one above where the wheel slips wide and keeps spinning, but I've done this myself on slippy boardwalk while on my MTB so it's certainly possible without a motor. I honestly think if people went to cross races and picked through footage they'd find a lot of examples like the ones posted of Van Aert.

That said I'm sure there are motors in CX, it would be stupid to believe Femke was the only person with one, I just don't think any of these videos can seriously be attributed to one (apart from Femke blowing people away on the climbs).

 

[sniper]

Fair points, KB. I do think the speculation is warranted (as you seem to do too), but no doubt some cases posted here as suspicious are likely to be red herrings.

One of the most motor-suspicious performances of 2016 was Hayman's PR. Look how he overtakes Boonen in the sprint (starting at ca. 8:15 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUDhLC7kUNI). Effortless, whereas he's not known as a sprinter.
Then this:
https://twitter.com/letouzet/status/814611302710702081
A CLEAN rear wheel on "Dad's dirty bike" which "should never be cleaned or touched."

 

[sniper]

Re:

Van der Poel's reaction when Femke got caught:

Mathieuvanderpoel @mathieuvdpoel 18m
Positive side to this story: the cheater got caught! Good job @UCI_cycling!

 

[yaco]

Re:

Fair points, KB. I do think the speculation is warranted (as you seem to do too), but no doubt some cases posted here as suspicious are likely to be red herrings.

One of the most motor-suspicious performances of 2016 was Hayman's PR. Look how he overtakes Boonen in the sprint (starting at ca. 8:15 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUDhLC7kUNI). Effortless, whereas he's not known as a sprinter.
Then this:
https://twitter.com/letouzet/status/814611302710702081
A CLEAN rear wheel on "Dad's dirty bike" which "should never be cleaned or touched."

What a poor example - You pick out nearly the world's slowest sprint which was closely contested - Hayman would have had PR won outside the velodrome if he had a motor.

 

[sniper]

The odds were against hayman playing any kind of role in PR, let alone him winning the sprint in such fashion. Listen to the Belgian commentators when Boonen rides away from the rest of the group together with Hayman, they call it the "ideal scenario".

That day you could have made good money betting on a Hayman win.

 

[yaco]

Re:

The odds were against hayman playing any kind of role in PR, let alone him winning the sprint in such fashion. Listen to the Belgian commentators when Boonen rides away from the rest of the group together with Hayman, they call it the "ideal scenario".

That day you could have made good money betting on a Hayman win.

This posts shows you have no idea - Was Hayman a surprise winner ? Yes, especially considering his restricted preparation - But to use the sprint finish to PR as evidence of motor doping is bizarre - It was a sprint finish by tired riders.

 

[hrotha]

Belgian commentators may not be the most objective lot. Hayman is a former sprinter/leadout man.

 

[GJB123]

Re:

I haven't seen the worlds, but hearing about Van der Poel's four or five mechanicals made me raise an eyebrow or two.
Did his motor jam?

Van der Poel won in Zeven last year beating Van Aert after an impressive comeback following a mechanical:

“In the sandpit, someone touched my rear wheel and some spokes went out. I couldn’t get in my light gear anymore and it was a lot of time before I could change my bike.”
...
Despite the early setback, he remained calm and trusted his training as he slowly worked his way back up through the field. His comeback could have easily been derailed by trying to make up too much ground too quickly or railing it too fast through some of the technical sections. Instead he worked his way up spot by spot and left enough in his legs to launch his impressive performance on the definitive seventh lap

http://www.cxmagazine.com/2016-zeven-world-cup-mathieu-van-der-poel-wins-overcomes-mechanical-results

Nope, he had five flat tires, the last one quite some way away from the zone where he could change his bike. With a motor though that might not have been such an issue, now he had just totally blew op trying to keep the pace as high as possible with a flat rear tyre. In short don't speculate if you haven't watched it, because now it it clogs the tread unnecessarily.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Nope, he had five flat tires, the last one quite some way away from the zone where he could change his bike. With a motor though that might not have been such an issue, now he had just totally blew op trying to keep the pace as high as possible with a flat rear tyre. In short don't speculate if you haven't watched it, because now it it clogs the tread unnecessarily.

I already settled the issue with Tienus and Valvepiti. edit: here you go: viewtopic.php?p=2061142#p2061142
The only clogging is you bringing it up again.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

The odds were against hayman playing any kind of role in PR, let alone him winning the sprint in such fashion. Listen to the Belgian commentators when Boonen rides away from the rest of the group together with Hayman, they call it the "ideal scenario".

That day you could have made good money betting on a Hayman win.

This posts shows you have no idea - Was Hayman a surprise winner ? Yes, especially considering his restricted preparation - But to use the sprint finish to PR as evidence of motor doping is bizarre -

In isolation, yes it would be bizarre.

It was a sprint finish by tired riders.

So what? You'd still expect Boonen to bag it 9 out of 10 times.

 

[kingjr]

Re:

The odds were against hayman playing any kind of role in PR, let alone him winning the sprint in such fashion. Listen to the Belgian commentators when Boonen rides away from the rest of the group together with Hayman, they call it the "ideal scenario".

Because, and they said so immediately afterwards, "Hayman will be happy with 2nd place", meaning that he wouldn't mind taking big turns and thus leading out Boonen instead of playing games trying to go all or nothing.

Boonen lost similar sprints to Vanmarcke and Klier earlier in his career, it's not unheard of.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

The odds were against hayman playing any kind of role in PR, let alone him winning the sprint in such fashion. Listen to the Belgian commentators when Boonen rides away from the rest of the group together with Hayman, they call it the "ideal scenario".

Because, and they said so immediately afterwards, "Hayman will be happy with 2nd place", meaning that he wouldn't mind taking big turns and thus leading out Boonen instead of playing games trying to go all or nothing.

Boonen lost similar sprints to Vanmarcke and Klier earlier in his career, it's not unheard of.

Losing the sprint to Vanmarcke is not the same as losing the sprint to a 38 year old Hayman.

Klier is a fair example.
But let's look at Gent-Wevelgem 2003.
Boonen is still on the podium.
Hayman at the peak of his carreer finishes 10th.

But fair enough, taken in isolation I concede there wouldn't be much overly suspicious about Hayman's PR win. It could be one of those surprise wins by an uberdoped oldtimer.

Still curious about why he changed the rear wheel of a bike he said "should never be touched or cleaned".

 

[red_flanders]

Probably worth noting that sport doesn't always go the way one expects. Kind of the beauty of it. Favored riders get tired, especially in a race like PR. Especially older riders.

Maybe Hayman was motor doping. Maybe not. Beating Boonen in a sprint is evidence of nothing either way. That he was in the lead group at all is light years more surprising than him out-sprinting Boonen. That is still incredibly weak as evidence of motor-doping.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Probably worth noting that sport doesn't always go the way one expects. Kind of the beauty of it. Favored riders get tired, especially in a race like PR. Especially older riders.

Maybe Hayman was motor doping. Maybe not. Beating Boonen in a sprint is evidence of nothing either way. That he was in the lead group at all is light years more surprising than him out-sprinting Boonen. That is still incredibly weak as evidence of motor-doping.

Agreed on all accounts.

I would never present it as stand alone evidence of motor doping.

And reversely, we wouldn't be talking about him changing his rear wheel either if he hadn't outsprinted Boonen at PR.

In other words, one event is meaningless without the other; as always it's the sum of events that gives reason to speculate and/or be suspicious.

 

[Tienus]

Re: Re:

Lol, Vayers own "Wout Van Aert motorbike compilation"
https://youtu.be/rUGNKwcbbDw
Tweet: https://twitter.com/festinaboy/status/828564395387187202

Nota bene: the first one in that clip is new to me and looks extremely weird.
Thoughts?

He pushes the pedal down and the wheel turns. How does that look extremely weird?

The front wheel lifting looks weird to me. It could be just because he pushes with his right leg but the torque from a hub motor would sure help.

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

The odds were against hayman playing any kind of role in PR, let alone him winning the sprint in such fashion. Listen to the Belgian commentators when Boonen rides away from the rest of the group together with Hayman, they call it the "ideal scenario".

That day you could have made good money betting on a Hayman win.

This posts shows you have no idea - Was Hayman a surprise winner ? Yes, especially considering his restricted preparation - But to use the sprint finish to PR as evidence of motor doping is bizarre -

In isolation, yes it would be bizarre.

It was a sprint finish by tired riders.

So what? You'd still expect Boonen to bag it 9 out of 10 times.

Stop changing the subject - You inferred Hayman's performance was because he used a motor - Yeah have a motor and then wait to use in the last 200 metres - What dummy would follow this script.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Stop changing the subject

I think we're still talking about Hayman and motors.

- You inferred Hayman's performance was because he used a motor - Yeah have a motor and then wait to use in the last 200 metres - What dummy would follow this script.

If he used it *before* the sprint, it would still give him an advantage *during* the sprint. Every dummy can understand that. But how do you know what script he would have followed anyway?
And "last 200 meters"? Lol. This is 2017. Not 1998.
But as you seem to know how long his battery lasts, do expand.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

The odds were against hayman playing any kind of role in PR, let alone him winning the sprint in such fashion. Listen to the Belgian commentators when Boonen rides away from the rest of the group together with Hayman, they call it the "ideal scenario".

That day you could have made good money betting on a Hayman win.

This posts shows you have no idea - Was Hayman a surprise winner ? Yes, especially considering his restricted preparation - But to use the sprint finish to PR as evidence of motor doping is bizarre -

In isolation, yes it would be bizarre.

It was a sprint finish by tired riders.

So what? You'd still expect Boonen to bag it 9 out of 10 times.

Stop changing the subject - You inferred Hayman's performance was because he used a motor - Yeah have a motor and then wait to use in the last 200 metres - What dummy would follow this script.

plenty of dummies in sport as history has shown.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Probably worth noting that sport doesn't always go the way one expects. Kind of the beauty of it. Favored riders get tired, especially in a race like PR. Especially older riders.

Maybe Hayman was motor doping. Maybe not. Beating Boonen in a sprint is evidence of nothing either way. That he was in the lead group at all is light years more surprising than him out-sprinting Boonen. That is still incredibly weak as evidence of motor-doping.

Agreed on all accounts.

I would never present it as stand alone evidence of motor doping.

And reversely, we wouldn't be talking about him changing his rear wheel either if he hadn't outsprinted Boonen at PR.

In other words, one event is meaningless without the other; as always it's the sum of events that gives reason to speculate and/or be suspicious.

I don't think it adds anything to a larger discussion. Not even sure what the sum of events to which you're referring actually are. There is (nothing to my mind) about that finish that serves as evidence of motor doping either for Hayman in that particular race or the discussion overall.

What is the "sum of events" to which you refer, and how does this finish by this rider fit in the overall picture? I honestly don't get what you're saying. If it's not evidence of him motor-doping in this race (what you seem to be agreeing with) how is it evidence of a (presumably) larger picture?

 

[sniper]

^the wheel change, posted up thread.

He says his PR winning bike "should not be cleaned, or touched". He deliberately left the mud on.

Yet he changed the rear wheel.

I'm asking myself why, and the most plausible answer is to hide the motorized rear wheel from whomever came close to his bike after the race (that usually includes press, maybe also bike testers).

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

^the wheel change, posted up thread.

He says his PR winning bike "should not be cleaned, or touched". He deliberately left the mud on.

Yet he changed the rear wheel.

I'm asking myself why, and the most plausible answer is "to hide the motorized wheel that won him the race"

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[sniper]

You find a photo of his finish bike, with fresh/clean rear wheel, and his statement ("Dad's dirty bike should not be cleaned, or be touched") in this chain of tweets:
https://twitter.com/letouzet/status/814611302710702081

 

[Mr.38%]

vdP uses Hayman's rear wheel during winter.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re:

^the wheel change, posted up thread.

He says his PR winning bike "should not be cleaned, or touched". He deliberately left the mud on.

Yet he changed the rear wheel.

I'm asking myself why, and the most plausible answer is to hide the motorized rear wheel from whomever came close to his bike after the race (that usually includes press, maybe also bike testers).

Thats interesting, actually. My only question would be why he would post the picture of the bike in his home with changed wheel and almost invite people like you to question that. That seems a tad stupid, doesn't it?

But considering Hayman's performance definitely was extremely impressive and out of line with what we would expect from him (plus his injuries), it certainly raises question.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

You find a photo of his finish bike, with fresh/clean rear wheel, and his statement ("Dad's dirty bike should not be cleaned, or be touched") in this chain of tweets:
https://twitter.com/letouzet/status/814611302710702081

I think it's just a bit of an optical illusion. If you take a look at these photos, all taken after the race you can see a wide range how dirty the rear wheel looks based on angle and lighting. Check out pics 10, 11, and 14. They all look wildly different.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/meet-the-aero-bike-that-won-paris-roubaix-mathew-haymans-scott-foil-gallery/

Here's the same bike, still at the velodrome. Now the front wheel looks squeaky clean.

http://www.roadbikereview.com/reviews/amazing-on-bike-video-footage-goes-inside-paris-roubaix/pr4

John Swanson