Motor doping thread

[red_flanders]

Re:

thanks, nicely done.
I'm not convinced though, that swerving can explain the type of crash we're seeing.
Why is his rear wheel getting underneath him?
Swerving around an object, then falling, looks differently, I think.
To be honest, even in slowmo, I don't see him making any kind of 'swerving' motion or movement.

But fair enough, if there's an object on the road right in his line, it may have (co-)caused the crash.

Of course not, it doesn't fit your pre-ordained conclusion.

I guess having watched the race in real-time and remembering what happened helps. Why is his rear wheel underneath him? It's raining, he's on a TT bike and he braked and swerved. That explains what we see 100%, no additional conspiracies required. Hard to understand how you don't see him jerk the bike to the right and go down or didn't see the object in front of him the first time.

Nothing to disprove motor-doping of course, and given his performance in this TT it's not unreasonable to ask, but nothing about that crash is explained by motor-doping.

 

[DanielSong39]

I'm pretty sure that people could create hidden motors that can produce the equivalent of ~50 watts for 30 minutes. That's all you need to gain a massive advantage.

But what Landis did in Stage 17 defies description. Maybe you can do what Sastre did with a motor, but Landis was more than five minutes up the road from Sastre.

FYI, apparently he had a broken spoke during the stage and decided to call for a replacement bike.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Moto-fraud: first rider caught

No chance. One it's technologically a bit a bit mad, something small enough to fit in a bike and not be detected, but generate enough power to sustain a 197 km bike ride. Most Electric cars can't do that, and definitely not in 06.

Wrong tree

Think of it a different way. What reduction in CdA would be worth $5000? Okay, now a 5 Ah battery at 3.7 V (a quite small Li Ion setup) will give you almost 20 Watts for an hour. That's two tiny 18650 batteries. http://www.molicel.com/hq/download/DM/DM_INR18650A-V3-80078.pdf

Now let's say you can easily (very easily) fit 6 of those in a frame (only 300 g). That's 30 Watts for two hours. I'd say that's way more than enough to make a stupid-huge difference. And these are "power" cells rated for high amps, which means you could run this at 60 Watts for an hour. Or bursts of 200 Watts for half an hour.

John Swanson

edit: forgot to say that's also 10+ Watts for a 6 hour stage. Who wouldn't pay $5K for that?

 

[sniper]

Re:

I remember seeing a similar crash of a rider during a TTT, but don't remember which team and race it was.
The guy fell on the straight, and afterwards told journalists that he had no idea what caused it.
Anybody know what I'm referring to?

Zabriski 2005 tour ttt perhaps?

I can't explain the crash. It looks like god pushed me over. My wheels didn't touch another rider's

Yep that's the one.
Lol, brilliant quote, thanks.

Intriguing stuff also wrt Floyd.
Doesn't look too good for him to be honest.
A real pity, because I like Floyd, and he would have made a fantastic ally in the fight against motors.
If he hadn't used one himself.

Floyd, if you read this, it's not too late.

 

[red_flanders]

I'd pay real money to see Floyd respond to this.

 

[Vayerism]

I've spoken with Floyd, he's asked me to tell you, "you're a full grown genius"

 

[sniper]

Re:

I've spoken with Floyd, he's asked me to tell you, "you're a full grown genius"

To the point. That's Floyd alright.

Some months ago, same thread same topic:

Floyd says you can all eat out his ***.

But I think Floyd knows it's not personal.

Can Floyd tell us why his coach Ventura was stuttering when asked about the bike change?

And why did Floyd lie about the bike change? Here:

The only bike changes he [Floyd] remembers in TdF 2006 are stage 17 when he had a flat and the first ITT when his handlebar broke off.

Everybody including Phil Ligett and Robbie Ventura agree that Floyd didn't have a flat when he changed bikes in stage 17.

For the record, as long as Floyd is involved in law suits and federal cases I don't expect him to talk about motors.

 

[Tienus]

Everybody including Phil Ligett and Robbie Ventura agree that Floyd didn't have a flat when he changed bikes in stage 17.

The official story was a broken spoke in the rear wheel.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/races/tour-de-france-2006/stage-17/results/
With 8 km to go before the summit, Landis was given a new bike, because one of his rear wheel's spokes snapped. But he continued straight away, and had no trouble getting back to the front.

Not very likely if you ask me. Just before the swap he is in a turn riding with one hand on the bar as he poors water over himself. Not something I would do with a wobble in my back wheel. He throws the bidon away and his ds pulls alongside and tries to hand him a new waterbottle. Floyd then lets his ds know he wants to change bikes. His rear wheel does not look wobbly in the video before he stops on the side.

The only bike changes he [Floyd] remembers in TdF 2006 are stage 17 when he had a flat and the first ITT when his handlebar broke off.

Those where not his only bike changes that tour. He also did a similar mid stage bike swap after the descent of the col d'izoard during stage 15.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

The official story was a broken spoke in the rear wheel.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/races/tour-de-france-2006/stage-17/results/
With 8 km to go before the summit, Landis was given a new bike, because one of his rear wheel's spokes snapped. But he continued straight away, and had no trouble getting back to the front.

Not very likely if you ask me. Just before the swap he is in a turn riding with one hand on the bar as he poors water over himself. Not something I would do with a wobble in my back wheel. He throws the bidon away and his ds pulls alongside and tries to hand him a new waterbottle. Floyd then lets his ds know he wants to change bikes. His rear wheel does not look wobbly in the video before he stops on the side.

This is one of the more suspicious bike changes listed in this thread IMO. There is no indication of a problem from Floyd here. Rather, and quite strangely, the team car comes up and appears to say something to him, at which point he dismounts, discards his bike, and quickly remounts.

As you indicate he is riding hard at the front right before this. I don't know how one would determine if he has a wheel wobble or not from his riding style, one could easily have a minor rear wheel issue that wouldn't affect steering or happened quickly enough that he just would immediately jump off the bike. So that claim holds little weight for me, rather it's the odd manner of the change I outline above that is suspicious. He does not at any point indicate he's having a problem, then just discards the bike as if it's totaled. It's odd.

So let's assume he's been given a bike with a motor at this point. Of course I don't know that's true but let's just assume so for the sake of discussion. At this point he already has 5:30 or more on the yellow jersey group, a great bulk of what he'll gain for the day. Does this mean he had a motor from the beginning of the stage and the second bike is a planned, motorized replacement? Let's say that's true because it's rather a bit less compelling to assume he used a motor to finish the race but gained the great bulk of time, a crazy amount of time, with his initial solo attack.

So this begs the question, did he use a motor the whole race? If so, what happened on La Toussuire? He cracked so completely that it's really difficult to imagine that he had a motor on this stage. It would seem that a motor would have kept his losses somewhere south of the 10 minutes or whatever that he did lose. It was one of the biggest collapses in GT stage racing I've ever seen, if not the biggest.

So if that's the case I have to wonder why would he not be using a motor on that stage if it were available to him? It must have been available. Did he use it on other stages? If so, odd that he would not on Stage 16. Did it fail? He looked in extremis on that stage, not tired or just failing to keep up, but really in physiological trouble. So I don't really buy that this stage was the result of a motor failure on a single stage. If that, then did the team just have it in reserve and decided given the events of Stage 16 to use the nuclear option? Why, if there was no talk in the media about motors and certainly no way for the UCI to test them, would they not have a motor available on every stage? Further, why go to all the trouble of doping the way Landis claims to have done? Or are all his tales of doping on Postal and at Phonak lies to cover up motor use? I have a very difficult time believing that.

I'm not suggesting anyone is making any of the above claims, these are simply the questions I have in my head when trying to evaluate the claim of motor-doping. If we're going to say the suspicious bike change is explained by a motor, we have to make sense on some level when and how motors were used by Landis in this race.

For me the more one thinks about how the team might have planned for and deployed a motor, the more sticky questions come up.

 

[veganrob]

Lot of good questions. Lets not forget that Floyd insists he did not take anything to make his Testerone level go so high for which he was officially busted for. So did UCI know of a motor but did not want to expose that? Makes sense.

 

[sniper]

Yes, they're good questions. And they're questions that inevitably invite speculation, something Red said he didn't like but now seems to embrace, so that's a positive.

It's a bit like asking why don't we see Froome attack like he did on Ventoux 2013 every day.
Or why didn't we see Cancellara repeat what he did on the Muur in 2010.

There's simply no way you're gonna make sense of it all if you don't factor in the involvement of third parties behind the scene. It's not just the riders/teams. It's the UCI, race organizers, betting agencies, sponsors, bike brands. Think brown envelopes, different kinds of contracts/agreements, match fixing. The whole monty. In other words, a shipload of stuff we are unlikely to ever find out about, and more questions than answers.

What you say, veganrob, I speculated about it two or three pages back.
I think Hamitlon 2004 (after winning the worlds TT) is another candidate for having been popped by the UCI because they didn't like seeing him use a motor.
Remember Ferrari's comments from 2015 about "well-known" motor-related events that "happened 10 years ago", and him wondering why UCI don't mention it in the CIRC report. 10 years ago from 2015, that puts us in the Hamilton/Landis peak era.

The other thing is, riders with motors can have bad days.
The motor will only give you so many watts extra during a stage. Your body has to do the rest.
Doping is still a huge factor. So whilst he may have used a motor on both stages 16 and 17, it may actually have been a bag of fresh blood that made the difference on stage 17. All speculation of course.

 

[red_flanders]

Please don't tell me what I embrace. Thanks.

What I don't embrace is wild speculation unsupported by evidence and conclusions drawn from same. As well as posting speculation which has been debunked which gets repeated later as if it weren't. The last post is a perfect example. Layered conspiracy theories with no evidence to back it up. You have no idea about the things on which you're speculating yet you post here like they're facts or likely suppositions. I'm sorry, it's dumb.

 

[MarkvW]

Re:

Please don't tell me what I embrace. Thanks.

What I don't embrace is wild speculation unsupported by evidence and conclusions drawn from same. As well as posting speculation which has been debunked which gets repeated later as if it weren't. The last post is a perfect example. Layered conspiracy theories with no evidence to back it up. You have no idea about the things on which you're speculating yet you post here like they're facts or likely suppositions. I'm sorry, it's dumb.

The X-Files of Cycling. The truth is out there, and it's fantastically unbelievable!

 

[Huapango]

Re:

Lot of good questions. Lets not forget that Floyd insists he did not take anything to make his Testerone level go so high for which he was officially busted for. So did UCI know of a motor but did not want to expose that? Makes sense.

Makes sense to me, too.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Lot of good questions. Lets not forget that Floyd insists he did not take anything to make his Testerone level go so high for which he was officially busted for. So did UCI know of a motor but did not want to expose that? Makes sense.

Makes sense to me, too.

Makes sense? How did they "know"? Explain and show evidence for how and it might make sense.

 

[veganrob]

I just did. Then I asked a rhetorical question. What's the problem?

 

[sniper]

Re:

Please don't tell me what I embrace. Thanks.

I don't. I tell you what it looks like you're embracing to me. Hence use of the word "seems".

you post here like they're facts

please don't tell me what or how I'm posting here. Thanks.

In fairness, the only one posting self-proclaimed facts here seems to be you, e.g. on previous page:

.. That explains what we see 100%, no additional conspiracies required.

I'm sorry, it's dumb.

it is, indeed.

Red, this is not a pissing contest. Take your frustration elsewhere. You're not under personal attack, yet you constantly respond as if you are. Chill out, peace out, or whatever.

 

[sniper]

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?

...

1999 Sestriere. Go to 8:16-ish:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6hM9ejMiAk

2003 Luz Ardiden.
Watch from the start. He falls, gets up on his bike, is pushed back in motion, and first thing he does is grab or adjust something under the saddle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEqQW1-casM

 

[absolutely_not]

Re: Re:

you post here like they're facts

please don't tell me what or how I'm posting here. Thanks.

In fairness, the only one posting self-proclaimed facts here seems to be you, e.g. on previous page:

Sniper - you posted this 15 days ago :

...
Pantani, Riis, Armstrong, Virenque. All of them were wrong!!!

The latter three riders were likely using motorized bikes (and possibly the first rider, too) at various points in their carreer, so unfortunately they are not the best examples for measuring/analyzing the impact of EPO.

So now out of nowhere, these riders are branded "likely using motorized bikes"
Why?
Based on what evidences?
We don't even know if the technologie was there at that time (we are talking 90's and very early 00's)
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but we don't have a single exemple of prototype from that era that shows tiny silent motors could be put in bike, do we? I believe Varjas put a 2016 motor in a 1999 bike for his (in)famous demonstration in 60 minutes. He couldn't provide the 1998 motor he claims he was paid 2 millions for.
Am I wrong here?

Riis, Armstrong, Virenque and Pantani all went through lots and lots of scrutinisation. Even trials. Thay all admited doping (well, except the late Pantani of course) Yet nothing ever came out about motors.
No one?
We are going circle there, but I am yet to be explained why more than 20 years later there isn't more direct accusations, more noise, more facts reported (just asit was with doping) about that era and motors.

Landis : One or two bike change without clear (to the external eyes) reason in a career isn't an evidence. It isn't enough to conclude anything. Same with Hamilton.
But the truth we need to have them using motors because, if they didn't, why wouldn't they heve denounce it?

Hey! Was Frankie Andreu using a motor too?
Because he was riding at the time of Virenque, Riis, Pantani. He was riding with Armstrong. He was living with him, he was one of his closest friend!
He then remained close with the the USPS team for a while and got involved with many others continental team.
And he claims he never knew or saw anything?
That's odd... No, that suspicious! He must have something to hide.
I'm convinced!! I'm now sure Frankie Andreu was using a motor
Allwe need is a footage of him touching is saddle et voila

And Vaughters?

And Basson? He never talked about motors either!

Seriously, I'm not saying motors never happened. We know they did. In at least 1 occasion (Femke) and we have suspicion it happened others times recently.

But going back to the 90's and proclaming Virenque and co were using motors as if it was a done deal (again, why Virenque??? Did I miss something?) is just wrong

And don't get me started with the UCI/Hamilton conspiracy regarding motors.
We were never able to definitely proove real and serious collusion between UCI and riders despite CIRC and investigations.
Now we're jumping to "Hamilton and Landis were using motors and UCI knew it that's why they had them fall for doping"?***
Because... well, just because!


*** that's the sound of my head banging on the wall

 

[sniper]

....

 

[miguelindurain111]

Re:

Please don't tell me what I embrace. Thanks.

What I don't embrace is wild speculation unsupported by evidence and conclusions drawn from same. As well as posting speculation which has been debunked which gets repeated later as if it weren't. The last post is a perfect example. Layered conspiracy theories with no evidence to back it up. You have no idea about the things on which you're speculating yet you post here like they're facts or likely suppositions. I'm sorry, it's dumb.

In some forums it's also called trolling. But maybe it's enough to say 10 times the Fair Enough and your sins will be forgiven...

 

[sniper]

@absolutely_not,
I've been going to some length to spell out time and again, not in every single post, but still, in quite a few, that I'm speculating and simply posting about the way I see it. I'm also repeatedly stating that there are more questions than answers. Nowhere do I pretend to have the absolute truth. Quite on the contrary.

So for crying out loud stop twisting my words to make it look as if they express absolute statements, because in that case you're clearly confusing me with posters who do state absolute things such as

.. That explains what we see 100%

That kind of absolutism is not my style. On the contrary.
If you don't like it, call the police or smoke a joint. I'm not attacking posters am I?

I might address some of the rest of your post later, although much of it has already been addressed at different points in different threads, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[absolutely_not]

No. When you say "The latter three riders were likely using motorized bikes (and possibly the first rider, too) at various points in their carreer" it means that - at least in your mind - the chances they used motorized bikes are bigger than the chances they didn't.
It just NEEDS to be supported by serious evidences. Not just "it is the way I see it"

So yes, please, do adress it later. Because I may be stupid,and I acknowledge I'm not reading every single thread here everyday but I can't for the life of me figure how we are now at the conclusion that motors were rampant in the 90's and why those 4 riders are pointed out. (6 with Landis and Hamilton)

It's not direct accusation (LA ok, sort of...)
It can't just be because one or the other make a bike change at one point in his career
Can it be because of people they worked with? That line of reasoning worked with LA and Ferrari for exemple but we had real proof/accusations against Ferrari. The only guy known in the business of motors is Varjas and he didn't give any names did he? No team or former team is believe to have ties with him.
Any other name than Varjas would be high high speculation IMO

 

[sniper]

Re:

No. When you say "The latter three riders were likely using motorized bikes (and possibly the first rider, too) at various points in their carreer" it means that - at least in your mind - the chances they used motorized bikes are bigger than the chances they didn't.
It just NEEDS to be supported by serious evidences. Not just "it is the way I see it"

Sure, I should've added a couple of "imo" 's there. Granted.

So yes, please, do adress it later. Because I may be stupid,and I acknowledge I'm not reading every single thread here everyday but I can't for the life of me figure how we are now at the conclusion that motors were rampant in the 90's and why those 4 riders are pointed out. (6 with Landis and Hamilton)

Who said they were rampant in the 90s?
The four (or six) names, you can just search for them using the forum's search engine.
You'll find all previous discussion there. Feel free to bump some of the older posts if you have a comment or question.

 

[roundabout]

So what exactly should be the search terms

search.php?keywords=virenque+motor&fid%5B0%5D=20

not much in a way of discussion here, for example