Motor doping thread

Page 151 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

samhocking said:
Ebikes are detectable. Their hub versions are huge, all frame versions are detectable. It doesn't mean anything to what is being claimed, just because I can buy an ebike. The claim by Varjas and Strade 2 etc are undetectable motorised bikes are used in the peloton, but nobody seems to be able to show one that both looks like a normal bike and works as claimed. It's obfuscation from Varjas and everyone claiming they exist but continually show an empty rim with some holes cut out and a circuit board inside and now a large black hub that looks like any other ebike hub I can buy myself anyway. Hardly magic yet if I can see it's a motor with my eyes!
I'm just curious why you are so steadfast in your refusal to believe that motor's are being used. Do you want somebody to step forward and demonstrate the exact mechanic's of the system before you will countenance their usage. Why do you think that omerta in relation to mechanical fraud operate's any differently to chemical assistance. The only surprise in my eyes is that Varjas has even disclosed as much information as he has.

Listen to what people are saying in and around cycling and only a very naive person or someone with a vested interest in protecting this charade would claim that it doesn't exist. I wouldn't trust that any results of the last 6/7 years haven't involved a motor being engaged until such time as the UCI contract the process out to an independent body or take extensive steps to change the entire process of testing for mechanical fraud.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re:

samhocking said:
I make concrete for a living, was a computer programmer for 10 years before that. Raced bikes for 30 years and make an annual pilgrimage to a Grand Tour or World Champs every other year for the last 35. You're deluded if you think I would do all this under my real name and not a pseudonym if paid to write anything here. You can find me here on facebook, on youtube on twitter blardyblah all under my birth name. Says a lot that even my presence here results in you thinking i'm paid by Sky to not believe you, but then this whole clinic is essentially built on conspiracy, so perhaps should be assumed lol.

Here's me out on my bike in 1988/9 6th from the left.
The delusion is believing pros are not using motors. A French TV station is not going to waste scarce resources chasing shadows. They may have had to cut a lot of the information out due to lawyers, but you can sure the producers know that motor use is going on. That the French police were getting involved again is proof that it is going on. Again no one is going to waste time and valuable resources chasing shadows. It is only a matter of time till this comes out, it always does.

Your arguments against motors is based on Varjas, not the evidence presented. He is merely the messenger an you keep shooting at him. Try looking at the evidence. If Froome is not using a motor then his racing style is one never witnessed before and he is a cycling pharmacy where the drugs kick in with the power of thought!!!!
 
Re:

Benotti69 said:
That hardcore Skyfans (or paid interns take your pick) are in this thread trying to dismiss the motors and Varjas(who is one manufacturer, no doubt plenty of others out there) is testament to motor use.

We have been down this road with cheating in the sport of professional cycling. In pro cycling where there is smoke there is fire.

That they fail to explain Sky's dominance, Froome's massive transformation and other tell tale signs of cheating again points to a team cheating. Whether it be motors, PEDs or a combination of both. I go for the latter. Never mind Sky's littany of lies.

Varjas is one motor manufacturer who has been willing to come forward. Yes he looks as dodgy as some claim, but that don't make his claims false.

It has been demonstrated it is possible. 1 professional rider was caught and 1 grandfondo rider was caught. Now this stuff comes from the top down, not grassroots up. Like all latest tech, it is expensive at first, prohibitively so to the average Joe, but as more comes on stream the older stuff gets flogged off etc etc...

To deny motor use in pro cycling is to deny they are on 2 wheels.
I can only speak for myself, but I'm not saying that Sky or any other team wouldn't try using magic motors, I am saying that the magic motor don't exist YET. A downtube/BB motor has been used (and we can buy one), but no other RACEABLE model has been shown. Just answer one simple question: how do you get a skewer through the hub motor that Stade has shown? I've asked that several times, but no one wants to answer...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument, and you are saying that the DT/BB motor is still being used in the platoon.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
Everyone is saying there's motors, yet nobody, including the man supposedly their inventor can't show even one that works and looks as he claimed and shown in the documentary with the thermal camera at Strade 2? We know what it's supposed to look like because we see them everyday live on Europsport lol. What's to hide?
Femke. And the UCI did not catch her
 
Re: Re:

veganrob said:
samhocking said:
Everyone is saying there's motors, yet nobody, including the man supposedly their inventor can't show even one that works and looks as he claimed and shown in the documentary with the thermal camera at Strade 2? We know what it's supposed to look like because we see them everyday live on Europsport lol. What's to hide?
Femke. And the UCI did not catch her
He UCI also refused to be part of the Stade 2 documentary hen claimed afterward they would join to show them how's it's done. Bizarre coverup.
 
Jan 4, 2013
236
0
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
samhocking said:
Ebikes are detectable. Their hub versions are huge, all frame versions are detectable. It doesn't mean anything to what is being claimed, just because I can buy an ebike. The claim by Varjas and Strade 2 etc are undetectable motorised bikes are used in the peloton, but nobody seems to be able to show one that both looks like a normal bike and works as claimed. It's obfuscation from Varjas and everyone claiming they exist.

I notice the UCI are not suing anyone about claims of motor in use. That tells us a lot.
Yes, it tell us you nothing about the law !
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

jmdirt said:
Benotti69 said:
That hardcore Skyfans (or paid interns take your pick) are in this thread trying to dismiss the motors and Varjas(who is one manufacturer, no doubt plenty of others out there) is testament to motor use.

We have been down this road with cheating in the sport of professional cycling. In pro cycling where there is smoke there is fire.

That they fail to explain Sky's dominance, Froome's massive transformation and other tell tale signs of cheating again points to a team cheating. Whether it be motors, PEDs or a combination of both. I go for the latter. Never mind Sky's littany of lies.

Varjas is one motor manufacturer who has been willing to come forward. Yes he looks as dodgy as some claim, but that don't make his claims false.

It has been demonstrated it is possible. 1 professional rider was caught and 1 grandfondo rider was caught. Now this stuff comes from the top down, not grassroots up. Like all latest tech, it is expensive at first, prohibitively so to the average Joe, but as more comes on stream the older stuff gets flogged off etc etc...

To deny motor use in pro cycling is to deny they are on 2 wheels.
I can only speak for myself, but I'm not saying that Sky or any other team wouldn't try using magic motors, I am saying that the magic motor don't exist YET. A downtube/BB motor has been used (and we can buy one), but no other RACEABLE model has been shown. Just answer one simple question: how do you get a skewer through the hub motor that Stade has shown? I've asked that several times, but no one wants to answer...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument, and you are saying that the DT/BB motor is still being used in the platoon.

Tienus or sniper are the most up dated members on motors.

I am convinced that motors are in use. The UCI 'tablet test' has been demonstrated to be a joke, so no reason not to think the motors are still in the frames.

As for the wheel motors, i don't doubt they have invented a system for them. Maybe reinvented the skewer for the hub motor?
 
Two types of comments I'm seeing in this thread:

- Clutching at straws; anything and everything is proof of motor use
- Strawman arguments; if you can't build or explain the racing motor currently being used in the modern peloton; they don't exist

Maybe the truth is something like, "Motor use is very probable but we don't know exactly what they are like".
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

adamfo said:
Benotti69 said:
samhocking said:
Ebikes are detectable. Their hub versions are huge, all frame versions are detectable. It doesn't mean anything to what is being claimed, just because I can buy an ebike. The claim by Varjas and Strade 2 etc are undetectable motorised bikes are used in the peloton, but nobody seems to be able to show one that both looks like a normal bike and works as claimed. It's obfuscation from Varjas and everyone claiming they exist.

I notice the UCI are not suing anyone about claims of motor in use. That tells us a lot.
Yes, it tell us you nothing about the law !
A personal attack really demonstrates your cred :)

An allegation has been made against the UCI, i don't hear the jingle of lawyers being threatened. Heck it never stopped them suing journalists before.
 
Re: Re:

ontheroad said:
Now rather than deflecting and continuing attacking Varjas' credentials can you point out what exactly it is that you disagree with in Lappartient's proposed changes to tackle technological fraud that you failed to address previously? Should we scrap all testing completely? If there are no motors as you appear to suggest then why worry about his proposals.
Lappartient isn't an outsider. He has been UCI vice-President and head of the UCI Road Commission since 2013. He is President of the ECU. He has had plenty of opportunity to make changes and introduce new tests - and if he has been blocked from doing so he has never said so. He can introduce any tests he likes, but why hasn't paid any attention to this until he decided to run for election? It's just electioneering.
 
Re:

DanielSong39 said:
Two types of comments I'm seeing in this thread:

- Clutching at straws; anything and everything is proof of motor use
- Strawman arguments; if you can't build or explain the racing motor currently being used in the modern peloton; they don't exist

Maybe the truth is something like, "Motor use is very probable but we don't know exactly what they are like".
Hardly a strawman argument if one of the inventors can't show what he claims he invented and what he does show is no different than what I can buy from any ebike company that would see me banned if used as a pro rider?
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
ontheroad said:
Now rather than deflecting and continuing attacking Varjas' credentials can you point out what exactly it is that you disagree with in Lappartient's proposed changes to tackle technological fraud that you failed to address previously? Should we scrap all testing completely? If there are no motors as you appear to suggest then why worry about his proposals.
Lappartient isn't an outsider. He has been UCI vice-President and head of the UCI Road Commission since 2013. He is President of the ECU. He has had plenty of opportunity to make changes and introduce new tests - and if he has been blocked from doing so he has never said so. He can introduce any tests he likes, but why hasn't paid any attention to this until he decided to run for election? It's just electioneering.
That's not true. Cookson wanted to use only the iPad method. It took Lappartient, president of the French Cycling Federation at the time to broker a deal with Christian Prudhomme to use thermal cameras at the 2016 Tour.

https://www.evolutionary.org/uci-to-crack-down-on-motorized-doping/
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
The delusion is believing pros are not using motors. A French TV station is not going to waste scarce resources chasing shadows. They may have had to cut a lot of the information out due to lawyers, but you can sure the producers know that motor use is going on. That the French police were getting involved again is proof that it is going on. Again no one is going to waste time and valuable resources chasing shadows.
There are countless programmes on TV about such things as ghosts and aliens. Do you believe them too?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Benotti69 said:
The delusion is believing pros are not using motors. A French TV station is not going to waste scarce resources chasing shadows. They may have had to cut a lot of the information out due to lawyers, but you can sure the producers know that motor use is going on. That the French police were getting involved again is proof that it is going on. Again no one is going to waste time and valuable resources chasing shadows.
There are countless programmes on TV about such things as ghosts and aliens. Do you believe them too?
I am expecting the ghosts and aliens to sue quite soon.

What a failure of an argument :lol:
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
DanielSong39 said:
Two types of comments I'm seeing in this thread:

- Clutching at straws; anything and everything is proof of motor use
- Strawman arguments; if you can't build or explain the racing motor currently being used in the modern peloton; they don't exist

Maybe the truth is something like, "Motor use is very probable but we don't know exactly what they are like".
Hardly a strawman argument if one of the inventors can't show what he claims he invented and what he does show is no different than what I can buy from any ebike company that would see me banned if used as a pro rider?
You can't buy F1 tech yet. It takes a while to trickle down. Pros won't be using off the shelf stuff.

Remember the Cervelo's TeamGb used at Rio, all supposedly broken! Not one frame left.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Parker said:
ontheroad said:
Now rather than deflecting and continuing attacking Varjas' credentials can you point out what exactly it is that you disagree with in Lappartient's proposed changes to tackle technological fraud that you failed to address previously? Should we scrap all testing completely? If there are no motors as you appear to suggest then why worry about his proposals.
Lappartient isn't an outsider. He has been UCI vice-President and head of the UCI Road Commission since 2013. He is President of the ECU. He has had plenty of opportunity to make changes and introduce new tests - and if he has been blocked from doing so he has never said so. He can introduce any tests he likes, but why hasn't paid any attention to this until he decided to run for election? It's just electioneering.
That's not true. Cookson wanted to use only the iPad method. It took Lappartient, president of the French Cycling Federation at the time to broker a deal with Christian Prudhomme to use thermal cameras at the 2016 Tour.

https://www.evolutionary.org/uci-to-crack-down-on-motorized-doping/
Why didn't these thermal guns find any motors then? After all many on this forum, including you, are absolutely sure motors were being used, yet these thermal guns seem just as bad at finding them as the scanners are?
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
samhocking said:
DanielSong39 said:
Two types of comments I'm seeing in this thread:

- Clutching at straws; anything and everything is proof of motor use
- Strawman arguments; if you can't build or explain the racing motor currently being used in the modern peloton; they don't exist

Maybe the truth is something like, "Motor use is very probable but we don't know exactly what they are like".
Hardly a strawman argument if one of the inventors can't show what he claims he invented and what he does show is no different than what I can buy from any ebike company that would see me banned if used as a pro rider?
You can't buy F1 tech yet. It takes a while to trickle down. Pros won't be using off the shelf stuff.

Remember the Cervelo's TeamGb used at Rio, all supposedly broken! Not one frame left.
I didn't say they would be. I said Varjas can't show one scrap of a motor that looks like what we see being used in tour de france where he claims his wheels are used. I don't need to see circuit diagrams, cutaway rims, engineering drawings, electromagnetic shielding calculations and flux attenuation curves showing its invisible even to be convinced. Simply a bog-standard 50mm deep section carbon wheel with a normal looking hub that spins around in a bog standard carbon bike and when i wave my ipad mini's emf app at it it shows no fluctuation will do. You know, the same I see when an F1 car drives past me and I can see the aerodynamics that cost £10M to develop is in front of my very own eye convinces me lol.
 
Jan 4, 2013
236
0
0
Re: Re:

ontheroad said:
Parker said:
ontheroad said:
I'm slightly baffled by this dismissal of Varjas by some poster's who know nothing of the man nor his motive's other than pure guess work. Attacking him as being a snake oil salesman is just an easy way of dismissing the fact that motor's exist in the peloton.
Currently he is the only source for motor stories.

I view him as a charleton because he says nonsense things like "This isn't a motor, this is electro-magnetic", he tells people lots of stories but shows them nothing and promises big revelations which come nothing. Nothing about him sits right.
It is an even bigger surprise that he has even spoken on the topic in the first place.

Now rather than deflecting and continuing attacking Varjas' credentials can you point out what exactly it is that you disagree with in Lappartient's proposed changes to tackle technological fraud that you failed to address previously? Should we scrap all testing completely? If there are no motors as you appear to suggest then why worry about his proposals.

Do you still believe that motor's are not currently being used? Is Verdy telling lies and why would an AFLD former director tell lies about the existenc eof motors? What about Lemond? What about French police and their concerns? What about Wathelet? Are they all wrong? Are they all snake oil salesmen?
Putting my judges wig on: belief is not proof. In an English criminal court the burden of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. In a civil one the lesser 'balance of probability.'

The UCI started checking for motors in grand tours by peering down the seat tube. Not as daft as it sounds as all early systems used a pinion gear on the crank. Nothing was found.
Later cranks were being pulled after stages on winners bikes but mechanics understandably didn't like it.
Nothing was found. TT bikes in particular were targeted including all of SKY's bikes team TT bikes including the roof rack ones.

In the 2016 TdF x-ray machines in tents and heat guns on motorcycles were used. The later will only detect the motor running. Nothing was found.

This year tablets were used. These are certainly not foolproof but do provide clues if used carefully. Things that can mislead are wireless shifters which by definition are not shielded like wired ones, unshielded switches or not getting close enough. Nothing was found.

OK, as a Judge I would then ask to see a working motor that would get through basic scrutineers checks. The large rear hub motor demonstrated by Varjas would not. A rim motor was shown but not working. (The stator magnets required in the seat and chain stays for such a device are easily detected by simply running a magnet over the carbon frame.)

Finally, I would ask if a small micro motor could be put into a conventional sized rear hub. The answer would be yes, but the benefits would appear to be marginal given the risk-reward.

I would then close the case as unproven...
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
ontheroad said:
Now rather than deflecting and continuing attacking Varjas' credentials can you point out what exactly it is that you disagree with in Lappartient's proposed changes to tackle technological fraud that you failed to address previously? Should we scrap all testing completely? If there are no motors as you appear to suggest then why worry about his proposals.
Lappartient isn't an outsider. He has been UCI vice-President and head of the UCI Road Commission since 2013. He is President of the ECU. He has had plenty of opportunity to make changes and introduce new tests - and if he has been blocked from doing so he has never said so. He can introduce any tests he likes, but why hasn't paid any attention to this until he decided to run for election? It's just electioneering.
More deflection. So you've gone from atatcking Varjas to attacking Lappartient now. How about dealing with what bit of his proposals you actually disagree with and answer the previous questions which you have ignored. Is he now a snake oil salesman (insert other suitable adjective) too? Is Lemond? Are the French police? Is Whatelet?

You clearly misunderstand the internal working's of large organisation. Lappartient was never likely to rock the boat and criticise Cookson whilst he was working below him. It could well be electioneering but it doesn't negate any of what he is saying or proposing. Would you prefer that the UCI continue on with their 10 second tablet waving charade which reassures nobody or take the motor threat seriously and begin carrying out extensive testing as set out by Lappartient? What is there to fear if there are no motors in use as you seem to believe.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
Benotti69 said:
samhocking said:
DanielSong39 said:
Two types of comments I'm seeing in this thread:

- Clutching at straws; anything and everything is proof of motor use
- Strawman arguments; if you can't build or explain the racing motor currently being used in the modern peloton; they don't exist

Maybe the truth is something like, "Motor use is very probable but we don't know exactly what they are like".
Hardly a strawman argument if one of the inventors can't show what he claims he invented and what he does show is no different than what I can buy from any ebike company that would see me banned if used as a pro rider?
You can't buy F1 tech yet. It takes a while to trickle down. Pros won't be using off the shelf stuff.

Remember the Cervelo's TeamGb used at Rio, all supposedly broken! Not one frame left.
I didn't say they would be. I said Varjas can't show one scrap of a motor that looks like what we see being used in tour de france where he claims his wheels are used. I don't need to see circuit diagrams, cutaway rims, engineering drawings, electromagnetic shielding calculations and flux attenuation curves showing its invisible even to be convinced. Simply a bog-standard 50mm deep section carbon wheel with a normal looking hub that spins around in a bog standard carbon bike and when i wave my ipad mini's emf app at it it shows no fluctuation will do. You know, the same I see when an F1 car drives past me and I can see the aerodynamics that cost £10M to develop is in front of my very own eye convinces me lol.
There is a lot more to an F1 car than aerodynamics. Under the hood is all sorts of new tech that used to trickle down to the average family saloon.

Stop focusing solely on Varjas. Just because he is not convincing in the same way when Braislford tells us he didn't know Leidners was a doping doctor. He is one of many manufacturers. Not everyone rides pinarellos!
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Benotti69 said:
The delusion is believing pros are not using motors. A French TV station is not going to waste scarce resources chasing shadows. They may have had to cut a lot of the information out due to lawyers, but you can sure the producers know that motor use is going on. That the French police were getting involved again is proof that it is going on. Again no one is going to waste time and valuable resources chasing shadows.
There are countless programmes on TV about such things as ghosts and aliens. Do you believe them too?
Must try better next time, honestly really poor.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

Parker said:
thehog said:
Parker said:
ontheroad said:
Now rather than deflecting and continuing attacking Varjas' credentials can you point out what exactly it is that you disagree with in Lappartient's proposed changes to tackle technological fraud that you failed to address previously? Should we scrap all testing completely? If there are no motors as you appear to suggest then why worry about his proposals.
Lappartient isn't an outsider. He has been UCI vice-President and head of the UCI Road Commission since 2013. He is President of the ECU. He has had plenty of opportunity to make changes and introduce new tests - and if he has been blocked from doing so he has never said so. He can introduce any tests he likes, but why hasn't paid any attention to this until he decided to run for election? It's just electioneering.
That's not true. Cookson wanted to use only the iPad method. It took Lappartient, president of the French Cycling Federation at the time to broker a deal with Christian Prudhomme to use thermal cameras at the 2016 Tour.

https://www.evolutionary.org/uci-to-crack-down-on-motorized-doping/
Why didn't these thermal guns find any motors then? After all many on this forum, including you, are absolutely sure motors were being used, yet these thermal guns seem just as bad at finding them as the scanners are?
You think the ASO want to kill the TdF?

They already have the Dakar, they dont need another one. ASO are part of the problem of motors!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS