Motor doping thread

[sniper]

It was watered down significantly after legal threats from team Armstrong.

There is still plenty of evidence/indications though.
For instance, Varjas managed to show the CBS editors how to fit an old big-assed motor into a Trek replica from 1999. It's not proof, but downtubes were on average really small in the 90s, whilst motors were on average really big, and so it can be taken to suggest the Trek's downtubes were calculated to fit the motor in.
Of course it's also a matter of how (non)credible you find Varjas, but the CBS 60 Minute makers, the Lemonds, Ger Gilroy and several other sports journos clearly seem to find him credible (enough).

If you look upthread, you'll furthermore find that Lance for some reason clung on to downtube shifters and in 2003 refused to switch to an upgraded Trek model. You'll also see him make dodgy hand movements on his left hand break lever (whilst riding with downtube shifters) shortly before pacing away from Ulrich uphill with incredible ease.

None of which is *proof* of a motor. But a motor seems to be the hypothesis with most explanatory power.

NB: the search engine doesn't respond to key words "Lance" or "Armstrong" so you'll need to do some digging. If you look through Tienus' posts you're bound to find the goodies.

 

[StryderHells]

Re:

It was watered down significantly after legal threats from team Armstrong.

There is still plenty of evidence/indications though.
For instance, Varjas managed to show the CBS editors how to fit an old big-assed motor into a Trek replica from 1999. It's not proof, but downtubes were on average really small in the 90s, whilst motors were on average really big, and so it can be taken to suggest the Trek's downtubes were calculated to fit the motor in.
Of course it's also a matter of how (non)credible you find Varjas, but the CBS 60 Minute makers, the Lemonds, Ger Gilroy and several other sports journos clearly seem to find him credible (enough).

If you look upthread, you'll furthermore find that Lance for some reason clung on to downtube shifters and in 2003 refused to switch to an upgraded Trek model. You'll also see him make dodgy hand movements on his left hand break lever (whilst riding with downtube shifters) shortly before pacing away from Ulrich uphill with incredible ease.

None of which is *proof* of a motor. But a motor seems to be the hypothesis with most explanatory power.

NB: the search engine doesn't respond to key words "Lance" or "Armstrong" so you'll need to do some digging. If you look through Tienus' posts you're bound to find the goodies.

Armstrong wasn't the only one, Ullrich and Beloki also stuck with a downtube shifter for the front derailleur

 

[sniper]

Yes, and interestingly, in 2006 the two Astana riders on the Vuelta podium also had downtube shifters.

 

[Baldinger]

If you search for images of Ulrich and Armstrong, you'll see Armstrong use a downtube shifter in the mountains but not on the easy final stage to Paris.

 

[DanielSong39]

It's obvious that Lance has learned nothing...

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

Pavement is the new "marginal Gain" not just the norm but the recycled low weight power pavement.

Not to argue but just makes me recall how people argued the pavement was smoother when Armstrong went nuclear up Hautacam. Those who want to believe will find a way...

I do remember that. Back on another forum it was an "excuse" used to explain the performance. That was such a long time ago now.

Pavement technology has changed a great deal since then and thus we have High Performance Pavement HPP which is a "marginal gain" and we also have "Light Weight Graphs" another "marginal gain". Technological advances just so much a factor now.

 

[ontheroad]

Given What we learned from Varjas and the detectability of motors, are the UCI going to weigh bike wheels at this years tour or has the process changed any?

 

[DanielSong39]

Does UCI actually want to catch a rider using a motor and throw him out of the race?
Given their track record I'd say it's unlikely. Doubly so if it involves a top rider.

 

[ontheroad]

Re:

Does UCI actually want to catch a rider using a motor and throw him out of the race?
Given their track record I'd say it's unlikely. Doubly so if it involves a top rider.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-refute-tour-de-france-mechanical-doping-allegations/

It is highly doubtful given the previous comments from Varjas and the obstrction from the UCI to the French Police in checking the bikes in the correct manner. Then we had the UCI sending Dave Brailsford an email thanking them for being the most co-operative team in the peloton. How hard is it to weigh the bikes and ensure that the checks are carried out properly if the police have requested this and if they wish to properly combat potential mechanical fraud. The previous comments from Varjas and Lemond are telling of itself:


"This is the scandal - not if they're being used or not used. If there is an organisation that is supposed to stop this problem, and they don't do it, I think they are complicit or something like this," Varjas added.

Kathy LeMond confirmed to Cyclingnews that Varjas spoke to French police, saying: "The gendarmes were not able to test the bikes themselves and were relying on the UCI to carry out the tests. The UCI refused to test the bikes in the manner Stefano recommended to uncover motor usage. Stefano believes the manner in which the UCI carried out the tests was insufficient to detect the motors."

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

Does UCI actually want to catch a rider using a motor and throw him out of the race?
Given their track record I'd say it's unlikely. Doubly so if it involves a top rider.

I would imagine they would not, but they would also not like someone else (journalist) to prove a rider was using a motor. I would guess they would perceive such a scandal as very damaging to sponsorship and the bottom line.

The incentive would seem to be to know about who is using motors, if anyone. If they found someone doing it I am pretty sure they'd be well incentivized to deal with it quietly.

 

[Tienus]

"This is the scandal - not if they're being used or not used. If there is an organisation that is supposed to stop this problem, and they don't do it, I think they are complicit or something like this," Varjas added.

Exactly this.

I have seen stuff where it looks like the UCI is more than complicit. Let me post one example:

Tour 2013 Alpe d'huez, the stage where Froome had a bad day and got a 20s penalty but arguably also the day he won the tour.
The other incident that day got less attention.

http://www.velonews.com/2013/07/tour-de-france/froome-contador-others-targeted-for-bike-weight-checks-at-alpe-dhuez_295850
Contador made two bike swaps during the stage, one prior to the first ascent up l’Alpe d’Huez, and one on the flat road before the second accent. The bike checks were announced between the two swaps, leading to speculation that Contador was forced to back off a long-range attack to swap back onto a UCI-legal bike for the finish climb.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x276afp_tour-de-france-2013-stage-18_shortfilms
The first 20s you hear the Saxo plan.
2:41:40 attack contador in descent
2:51:00 race radio bike weighing anouncement
2:52:50 20s gap
2:55:45 race radio feedzone anouncement
Contador and Kreuziger freewheeling after this and caught back.
3:01:20 Contador behind the group for a bike change.
3:19:17 Froome attacks with high cadence
3:36:00 illegal feed incident starts


A lot of coincidences:

Two anouncements within five minutes on rr which seem to influence the result of the stage.

Froome's team car breaks down and this is the reason he has no gel with him.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/tour-de-france/10188787/Tour-de-France-2013-Chris-Froome-holds-his-nerve-to-retain-the-yellow-jersey-as-Christophe-Riblon-wins-stage-18.html

Right when the team car is behind Froome he urgently needs the gel. The commentators note that there is a lot of communication before Froome starts calling extremely obvious for the car.

Questions I have:

Why did Contador change his bike twice.

Did Froome fake his suger low? And why did he not take a gel from his team mate?

Froome wrote about it in The Climb.
https://books.google.nl/books?id=zurJAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT395&lpg=PT395&dq=contador+%22bike+change%22&source=bl&ots=MaPHIHSg2c&sig=n4mZKiCg5P_oDcsFCo1C1YS0kiM&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4-7jj3bDSAhWIVhoKHYwNA2A4ChDoAQhTMAc#v=onepage&q=contador%20%22bike%20change%22&f=false


iirc Kimmage was the only journalist who questioned what happened that day. I cant find the article now.

 

[ontheroad]

Re:

"This is the scandal - not if they're being used or not used. If there is an organisation that is supposed to stop this problem, and they don't do it, I think they are complicit or something like this," Varjas added.

Exactly this.

I have seen stuff where it looks like the UCI is more than complicit. Let me post one example:

Tour 2013 Alpe d'huez, the stage where Froome had a bad day and got a 20s penalty but arguably also the day he won the tour.
The other incident that day got less attention.

http://www.velonews.com/2013/07/tour-de-france/froome-contador-others-targeted-for-bike-weight-checks-at-alpe-dhuez_295850
Contador made two bike swaps during the stage, one prior to the first ascent up l’Alpe d’Huez, and one on the flat road before the second accent. The bike checks were announced between the two swaps, leading to speculation that Contador was forced to back off a long-range attack to swap back onto a UCI-legal bike for the finish climb.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x276afp_tour-de-france-2013-stage-18_shortfilms
The first 20s you hear the Saxo plan.
2:41:40 attack contador in descent
2:51:00 race radio bike weighing anouncement
2:52:50 20s gap
2:55:45 race radio feedzone anouncement
Contador and Kreuziger freewheeling after this and caught back.
3:01:20 Contador behind the group for a bike change.
3:19:17 Froome attacks with high cadence
3:36:00 illegal feed incident starts


A lot of coincidences:

Two anouncements within five minutes on rr which seem to influence the result of the stage.

Froome's team car breaks down and this is the reason he has no gel with him.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/tour-de-france/10188787/Tour-de-France-2013-Chris-Froome-holds-his-nerve-to-retain-the-yellow-jersey-as-Christophe-Riblon-wins-stage-18.html

Right when the team car is behind Froome he urgently needs the gel. The commentators note that there is a lot of communication before Froome starts calling extremely obvious for the car.

Questions I have:

Why did Contador change his bike twice.

Did Froome fake his suger low? And why did he not take a gel from his team mate?

Froome wrote about it in The Climb.
https://books.google.nl/books?id=zurJAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT395&lpg=PT395&dq=contador+%22bike+change%22&source=bl&ots=MaPHIHSg2c&sig=n4mZKiCg5P_oDcsFCo1C1YS0kiM&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4-7jj3bDSAhWIVhoKHYwNA2A4ChDoAQhTMAc#v=onepage&q=contador%20%22bike%20change%22&f=false


iirc Kimmage was the only journalist who questioned what happened that day. I cant find the article now.

Indeed, and on the subject of Contador and wheel changes, there were suspicions that arose previously during the 2015 Giro.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-checks-bikes-of-contador-hesjedal-and-gilbert-for-motors-at-giro-ditalia/

Given Varjas' previous comments in October 2016 and his assertion that the UCI overruled the French police in taking steps to improve the detection methods and making it more transparent, I would be interested to know have they implemented weighing bikes and wheel's to combat this threat.

I've checked Cookson's amnifesto and there is nothing but a vague comment about reviewing the procedures. Below is the paragraph from this manifesto:

Further invest in our work against technological fraud

I introduced rules against technological fraud, and sanctions appropriate to this type of cheating. Previously the UCI rules did not properly address this risk, the penalties envisaged were minimal, and there was no real system of checking for violations. We will continue to review and update our work and detection methods and extend this know-how across national federations.


For something that should be very simple to detect, the whole system of checking bikes is all very cloak and dagger and it is hard to have total faith in it.

 

[ontheroad]

Lappartient's comments on trying to combat the use of motors:


''There is no one way to combat technological fraud. One has to combine all the possibilities.''

''Tablets, xrays, disassembly of bikes etc. Labarotories should also be certified in this area.''

''I have some differences with Brian Cookson on technological fraud. It's a major challenge for our sport.''


There is nothing sepcific in this but he is at least saying that he intends to treat the use of motors seriously. Meanwhile nobody is still any the wiser if Cookson has taken the advice of the UCI and heeded Varjas warnings following the revelations last Autumn. Has anybody from the media even queried this yet with Cookson or is he only available to speak to promote his candidacy for president?

 

[zlev11]

was watching Ventoux 2000 last night and noticed this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNcgE4iakJc go to 1:55:12

Lance does a strange motion where he either touches his left thigh or touches under the saddle, it's hard to tell. is he pushing a button?

 

[benzwire]

Re:

was watching Ventoux 2000 last night and noticed this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNcgE4iakJc go to 1:55:12

Lance does a strange motion where he either touches his left thigh or touches under the saddle, it's hard to tell. is he pushing a button?

I remember him having a weird "tic" or habit, if you will, of adjusting his shorts or chamois often. I seem to remember it was on his right side, kind of near wear the saddle meets his shorts. He did it a lot during TT's. I think he actually talked about it some, saying it was simply a habit and adjustment of his shorts on the bike. Maybe it has something to do with having one nut?

 

[zlev11]

yeah, it could definitely just be some sort of OCD tick. it just caught my eye as strange while watching that stage yesterday. i couldn't actually tell if he was touching his shorts or his saddle.

 

[lartiste]

Re:

"This is the scandal - not if they're being used or not used. If there is an organisation that is supposed to stop this problem, and they don't do it, I think they are complicit or something like this," Varjas added.

Exactly this.

I have seen stuff where it looks like the UCI is more than complicit. Let me post one example:

Tour 2013 Alpe d'huez, the stage where Froome had a bad day and got a 20s penalty but arguably also the day he won the tour.
The other incident that day got less attention.

http://www.velonews.com/2013/07/tour-de-france/froome-contador-others-targeted-for-bike-weight-checks-at-alpe-dhuez_295850
Contador made two bike swaps during the stage, one prior to the first ascent up l’Alpe d’Huez, and one on the flat road before the second accent. The bike checks were announced between the two swaps, leading to speculation that Contador was forced to back off a long-range attack to swap back onto a UCI-legal bike for the finish climb.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x276afp_tour-de-france-2013-stage-18_shortfilms
The first 20s you hear the Saxo plan.
2:41:40 attack contador in descent
2:51:00 race radio bike weighing anouncement
2:52:50 20s gap
2:55:45 race radio feedzone anouncement
Contador and Kreuziger freewheeling after this and caught back.
3:01:20 Contador behind the group for a bike change.
3:19:17 Froome attacks with high cadence
3:36:00 illegal feed incident starts


A lot of coincidences:

Two anouncements within five minutes on rr which seem to influence the result of the stage.

Froome's team car breaks down and this is the reason he has no gel with him.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/tour-de-france/10188787/Tour-de-France-2013-Chris-Froome-holds-his-nerve-to-retain-the-yellow-jersey-as-Christophe-Riblon-wins-stage-18.html

Right when the team car is behind Froome he urgently needs the gel. The commentators note that there is a lot of communication before Froome starts calling extremely obvious for the car.

Questions I have:

Why did Contador change his bike twice.

Did Froome fake his suger low? And why did he not take a gel from his team mate?

Froome wrote about it in The Climb.
https://books.google.nl/books?id=zurJAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT395&lpg=PT395&dq=contador+%22bike+change%22&source=bl&ots=MaPHIHSg2c&sig=n4mZKiCg5P_oDcsFCo1C1YS0kiM&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4-7jj3bDSAhWIVhoKHYwNA2A4ChDoAQhTMAc#v=onepage&q=contador%20%22bike%20change%22&f=false


iirc Kimmage was the only journalist who questioned what happened that day. I cant find the article now.

this is indeed probably key to understand what is going on

What I do not understand is, why they announced bike checks ...

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

"This is the scandal - not if they're being used or not used. If there is an organisation that is supposed to stop this problem, and they don't do it, I think they are complicit or something like this," Varjas added.

Exactly this.

I have seen stuff where it looks like the UCI is more than complicit. Let me post one example:

Tour 2013 Alpe d'huez, the stage where Froome had a bad day and got a 20s penalty but arguably also the day he won the tour.
The other incident that day got less attention.

http://www.velonews.com/2013/07/tour-de-france/froome-contador-others-targeted-for-bike-weight-checks-at-alpe-dhuez_295850
Contador made two bike swaps during the stage, one prior to the first ascent up l’Alpe d’Huez, and one on the flat road before the second accent. The bike checks were announced between the two swaps, leading to speculation that Contador was forced to back off a long-range attack to swap back onto a UCI-legal bike for the finish climb.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x276afp_tour-de-france-2013-stage-18_shortfilms
The first 20s you hear the Saxo plan.
2:41:40 attack contador in descent
2:51:00 race radio bike weighing anouncement
2:52:50 20s gap
2:55:45 race radio feedzone anouncement
Contador and Kreuziger freewheeling after this and caught back.
3:01:20 Contador behind the group for a bike change.
3:19:17 Froome attacks with high cadence
3:36:00 illegal feed incident starts


A lot of coincidences:

Two anouncements within five minutes on rr which seem to influence the result of the stage.

Froome's team car breaks down and this is the reason he has no gel with him.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/tour-de-france/10188787/Tour-de-France-2013-Chris-Froome-holds-his-nerve-to-retain-the-yellow-jersey-as-Christophe-Riblon-wins-stage-18.html

Right when the team car is behind Froome he urgently needs the gel. The commentators note that there is a lot of communication before Froome starts calling extremely obvious for the car.

Questions I have:

Why did Contador change his bike twice.

Did Froome fake his suger low? And why did he not take a gel from his team mate?

Froome wrote about it in The Climb.
https://books.google.nl/books?id=zurJAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT395&lpg=PT395&dq=contador+%22bike+change%22&source=bl&ots=MaPHIHSg2c&sig=n4mZKiCg5P_oDcsFCo1C1YS0kiM&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4-7jj3bDSAhWIVhoKHYwNA2A4ChDoAQhTMAc#v=onepage&q=contador%20%22bike%20change%22&f=false


iirc Kimmage was the only journalist who questioned what happened that day. I cant find the article now.

this is indeed probably key to understand what is going on

What I do not understand is, why they announced bike checks ...

So the riders and teams can ensure the 'motor-bikes' are not going to be checked....silly

 

[Franklin]

I'm as sceptical as anyone, but frantic bikechanges are as old as this sport. I remember Beat Breu flying away or being crushed to pul when he did his usual bike swap (it was a double edged sword^^).

And yeah, I'm also very sure that sometimes a rider gets a bike from the car that's suboptimal. *** happens... it's not as if the bikes aren't strapped to a car careening of a mountain at high speeds, snatched of by a hyperventilating mechanic and being manhandled by a rider with heartbeat deep in the red zone (shifting while not at speed... dumb, yet they do it).

Add in all those times when they don't swap bikes and still do alien crap... it's hard to make sense of it (why didn't Froome use it when he was dropped by Nairo in 2016 Vuelta?).

It could be bike doping, but considering the speeds seem to be in line with good ole epo era times (also, weight to power ratios seem plausible to point in that direction), consider me firmly in the camp: Juiced to the eyeballs, bikedoping unproven.

 

[hrotha]

Re:

I'm as sceptical as anyone, but frantic bikechanges are as old as this sport. I remember Beat Breu flying away or being crushed to pul when he did his usual bike swap (it was a double edged sword^^)

Clearly that means every performance since 1981 is now suspect of involving a motor.

 

[Franklin]

Exactly

I'm willing to take this one serous if there are inside sources. Doping was even with the Omerta always near the surface, if only by the tragic and the foolish (Simpson, Pollentier, Maertens, Pantani). With Epo, the rumors were there smack bang in 1988 due to Van Gennips Gold Rush and Johannes Draaijers demise. When 10 years later the *** finally burst followers like me were just shaking their heads about the uproar. It was surprising it took so long for the media to really turn on the thumbscrews.

With Bike doping it's the same thing: In true Belgian cycling terms, it was with involvement with a "pigeon-milking" friend of the family. Where are the earlier rumors of the 1995-2010 motor? Where's the idiot who got caught?

Absence of evidence is hardly enough to claim it can't be true, but for me personally it's a rather tall tale. It simply does not fit in the leaky nature of cycling.

 

[Blanco]

We had two obvious cases yesterday.

 

[miguelindurain111]

Küng and Trentin?

 

[hrotha]

Re:

We had two obvious cases yesterday.

The bar gets lower and lower.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Let me get this straight.
Cycling is 'too leaky', ergo we shall put on the blinders and simply ignore all the evidence in favor of motorization laid out in this and several other threads in the Clinic as well as in TV documentaries and newspaper articles?

The bar gets lower and lower.

Couldn't agree more.