Motor doping thread

Page 166 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
fmk_RoI said:
yaco said:
Because police have limited resources and target those likely to provide results - I would be upset as a French citizen if police are wasting resources looking into mechanical doping in cycling - I suggest there are more pressing criminal matters in France - Finally it appears that the three confirmed cases of mechanical doping all involve tip offs.
Two observations: 1) It would seem that some think there are some laws that should not be enforced; 2) It would seem that some think officers of the law should pick and choose what information on illegal activity they act on, ignoring some.
Police have always tried to use their resources in the most effective way to achieve results - Maybe the Police see mechanical doping as a soft target and one that can achieve results - Obviously not every country thinks the same way as the French - Leave mechanical doping in the hands of the relevant authorities - Maybe this is the reason why there is no longer a French F1 race.
 
Irondan said:
.Froomestrong. said:
Just a reminder that I posted detailed pictures of a Carrera with a seat tube motor last year. I still cant believe that someone would actually try to race with one of these things, but then I must be a bit naive. *shrugs*
Can you re-post them? I'd like to see them and don't have time to search.

TIA :)
Not the Carera ones but:
Vivax:
http://www.vivax-assist.com/en/product/vivax-assist/vivax-assist_4-0.php

Vivax bike. If you scroll down, this one has videos:
https://cyclingtips.com/2015/04/hidden-motors-for-road-bikes-exist-heres-how-they-work/

Other bikes with Vivax:
http://signaturecycles.com/project/vivax-assist/

If I'm remembering correctly, the USA news show 20-20 indicated that some years of OCLV bikes had the correct ID for this motor. I'm not saying that is fact, I'm saying I think that the show said that (they definitely used an older Trek for their demo with TH).
 
Sep 6, 2012
114
0
8,680
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/french-veteran-racer-defends-his-use-of-mechanical-doping/
"I did it because I’ve suffered with a herniated disc since March and I didn’t ride my bike for three months. I tried to compete again but I had trouble because of sciatica in the right leg, I did it to have less trouble at the end of the race,” France Bleu reports the veteran, who works as a wall plasterer, as saying.

"I didn’t want to be a champion of the Dordogne, to win all the races, it was just to feel good again. I am at the end of my career, I do not want to compete any more. I want to enjoy life, my wife and of my daughter on weekends."
I wonder if he really believes that trash? But hey, he isn't killing kids and others are probably cheating too so why not? I hope it was worth it to show up the other cat 3s...
 
yaco said:
fmk_RoI said:
yaco said:
Because police have limited resources and target those likely to provide results - I would be upset as a French citizen if police are wasting resources looking into mechanical doping in cycling - I suggest there are more pressing criminal matters in France - Finally it appears that the three confirmed cases of mechanical doping all involve tip offs.
Two observations: 1) It would seem that some think there are some laws that should not be enforced; 2) It would seem that some think officers of the law should pick and choose what information on illegal activity they act on, ignoring some.
Police have always tried to use their resources in the most effective way to achieve results - Maybe the Police see mechanical doping as a soft target and one that can achieve results - Obviously not every country thinks the same way as the French - Leave mechanical doping in the hands of the relevant authorities - Maybe this is the reason why there is no longer a French F1 race.
Maybe because France hosts the greatest bike race in the world, the police might just want to keep it as clean as they can and it would obviously come from someone in a high position.

I am pleased that they do want to test for motor doping even though the UCI try to block them which is suspicious in itself.
 
Jul 19, 2009
949
0
0
fmk_RoI said:
yaco said:
Because police have limited resources and target those likely to provide results - I would be upset as a French citizen if police are wasting resources looking into mechanical doping in cycling - I suggest there are more pressing criminal matters in France - Finally it appears that the three confirmed cases of mechanical doping all involve tip offs.
Two observations: 1) It would seem that some think there are some laws that should not be enforced; 2) It would seem that some think officers of the law should pick and choose what information on illegal activity they act on, ignoring some.
Do you believe that there is a law, against cheating in sport? Should the police prosecute all cheating offences occuring in a stadium?
In France there is a part of laws dedicated to sports, but such kind of cheating has to be handled by federations.
 
poupou said:
fmk_RoI said:
yaco said:
Because police have limited resources and target those likely to provide results - I would be upset as a French citizen if police are wasting resources looking into mechanical doping in cycling - I suggest there are more pressing criminal matters in France - Finally it appears that the three confirmed cases of mechanical doping all involve tip offs.
Two observations: 1) It would seem that some think there are some laws that should not be enforced; 2) It would seem that some think officers of the law should pick and choose what information on illegal activity they act on, ignoring some.
Do you believe that there is a law, against cheating in sport? Should the police prosecute all cheating offences occuring in a stadium?
In France there is a part of laws dedicated to sports, but such kind of cheating has to be handled by federations.
Fraud is fraud. There is a lot of money gambled on cycling. I bet on cycling myself and am pleased at the effort the French police go to. Some countries take fraud seriously. France clearly is one of them. Do they test for motor doping or not? We know they do or try to so what can be the argument against it? And we know the UCI is good at sweeping things under the carpet.
 
yaco said:
fmk_RoI said:
yaco said:
Because police have limited resources and target those likely to provide results - I would be upset as a French citizen if police are wasting resources looking into mechanical doping in cycling - I suggest there are more pressing criminal matters in France - Finally it appears that the three confirmed cases of mechanical doping all involve tip offs.
Two observations: 1) It would seem that some think there are some laws that should not be enforced; 2) It would seem that some think officers of the law should pick and choose what information on illegal activity they act on, ignoring some.
Police have always tried to use their resources in the most effective way to achieve results - Maybe the Police see mechanical doping as a soft target and one that can achieve results - Obviously not every country thinks the same way as the French - Leave mechanical doping in the hands of the relevant authorities - Maybe this is the reason why there is no longer a French F1 race.
French F1 Grand Prix is coming back in 2018.
 
Craigee said:
yaco said:
fmk_RoI said:
yaco said:
Because police have limited resources and target those likely to provide results - I would be upset as a French citizen if police are wasting resources looking into mechanical doping in cycling - I suggest there are more pressing criminal matters in France - Finally it appears that the three confirmed cases of mechanical doping all involve tip offs.
Two observations: 1) It would seem that some think there are some laws that should not be enforced; 2) It would seem that some think officers of the law should pick and choose what information on illegal activity they act on, ignoring some.
Police have always tried to use their resources in the most effective way to achieve results - Maybe the Police see mechanical doping as a soft target and one that can achieve results - Obviously not every country thinks the same way as the French - Leave mechanical doping in the hands of the relevant authorities - Maybe this is the reason why there is no longer a French F1 race.
Maybe because France hosts the greatest bike race in the world, the police might just want to keep it as clean as they can and it would obviously come from someone in a high position.

I am pleased that they do want to test for motor doping even though the UCI try to block them which is suspicious in itself.
Cycling is not that important in the scheme of things or that dangerous to society - But if the French want to waste resources.
 
poupou said:
fmk_RoI said:
yaco said:
Because police have limited resources and target those likely to provide results - I would be upset as a French citizen if police are wasting resources looking into mechanical doping in cycling - I suggest there are more pressing criminal matters in France - Finally it appears that the three confirmed cases of mechanical doping all involve tip offs.
Two observations: 1) It would seem that some think there are some laws that should not be enforced; 2) It would seem that some think officers of the law should pick and choose what information on illegal activity they act on, ignoring some.
Do you believe that there is a law, against cheating in sport? Should the police prosecute all cheating offences occuring in a stadium?
In France there is a part of laws dedicated to sports, but such kind of cheating has to be handled by federations.
All sporting federations have strong rules concerning athletes betting on their own sports - There have been a number of cases where athletes have been charged by police and eventually convicted, as well as punishments from the sporting federations - But as you point out it needs to be for selected breaches and not all.
 
@NL_LeMondFans said:
yaco said:
fmk_RoI said:
yaco said:
Because police have limited resources and target those likely to provide results - I would be upset as a French citizen if police are wasting resources looking into mechanical doping in cycling - I suggest there are more pressing criminal matters in France - Finally it appears that the three confirmed cases of mechanical doping all involve tip offs.
Two observations: 1) It would seem that some think there are some laws that should not be enforced; 2) It would seem that some think officers of the law should pick and choose what information on illegal activity they act on, ignoring some.
Police have always tried to use their resources in the most effective way to achieve results - Maybe the Police see mechanical doping as a soft target and one that can achieve results - Obviously not every country thinks the same way as the French - Leave mechanical doping in the hands of the relevant authorities - Maybe this is the reason why there is no longer a French F1 race.
French F1 Grand Prix is coming back in 2018.
That is fantastic news as F1 must retain a strong imprint in Europe - As long as the FI technos dont get too ambitious they should be OK.
 
deeno1975 said:
samhocking said:
The ipad is just the ad-hoc random testing around start and finish lines. As above, in the major races I have attended, what seems to happen is top 3 across the line and race leader if a stage race get tagged to identify the bike. The tag can't be removed without destroying it and if that's the case the rider is DQd from the race, no different that refusing anti-doping call.

From that point, the rider warms down with his bike and mechanic from the team called to disassemble cranks and seatpost after the bike is weighed and various other UCI paramters confirmed to be legal like saddle angle etc etc etc. Bike and wheels are then scanned with ipad, mechanic removes cranks and seapost and an endoscope is then inserted into the bottom bracket area and down the seatpost and records photos/video to file during that process. Mechanic then re-assembles the cleared bike while rider is doing podium ceremony.

From what I gather UCI are now going to re-introduce the X-Ray inspections they trialled last couple of years to the inspection steps above for top 3 finishers and 1 random rider and Thermal Imaging used in the race itself from camera motorbikes.
I didn't know that the bikes were tagged and these "strip down" tests are being carried out. Not disputing that but have you evidence of such tests being carried out or evidence that these tests are being done.

The nature of the tests you stated seems at variance with an article in CycleTips website which talks about weighing the rear wheel being time consuming!!

Another an allegation against UCI testers was that they refused a request by the French police to weigh wheels rather than complete bikes. A senior source with links to the police confirmed to CyclingTips in June 2016 that this was indeed the case.

“We know the normal weight of a bike. With the motor of the Hungarian engineer, the weight of the back wheel is heavier,” the source stated then.

“We asked the UCI to verify, to check. They told us that it is too difficult to take off the wheel. That was very funny, because it only takes five seconds to take off the wheel. That is all.”
https://cyclingtips.com/2017/07/interview-uci-presidential-candidate-lappartient-aims-ramp-fight-hidden-motors/

I'm a bit confused, it is not time consuming to strip the bottom bracket and have a look around with a endoscope but it is time consuming to weigh the back wheel???
Just go to a few races and observe what actually happens in person at finish lines. There's a few videos of Contadors bike being tagged and inspected as I describe. Clearly this isn't every race, but for Worlds, Giro & Tour i've seen it.

The French Police not being allowed to inspect the bikes, is because they wouldn't have had a warrant. Technical Fraud only became illegal in France in March 2017. In 2016 they wouldn't have had permission and to get it, it would have required a lot of time and paperwork. Remember, these inspections have to take place i nthe time between the rider crossing the line and before podium ceremony. It really isn't much more than 5-10 minutes.
 
As Rick James was asking in the Froome's thread, if Froome has a motor in his bike/wheel, why did he leave his broken bike on Ventoux last year and ran up the mountain?

(see: people claiming Stannard has a motor in his wheel when he punctures in Roubaix and does not want to leave his wheel to the Mavic guys and keep riding on a flat)

Froome didnt care about his bike, he left it and ran away. you dont risk that with a motorized bike I would guess.
 
Huapango said:
Good points, but that was a split second decision he had to make. With the race possibly slipping away, who knows what went through his mind in the chaos.
yes, who knows. is risking losing the race worse than having the motorized bikes taken by the neutral service or even by someone in the public?
 
pastronef said:
Huapango said:
Good points, but that was a split second decision he had to make. With the race possibly slipping away, who knows what went through his mind in the chaos.
yes, who knows. is risking losing the race worse than having the motorized bikes taken by the neutral service or even by someone in the public?
Betting that the team would find a way to get the bike back vs. losing the TDF? There still is no way to explain Froome's instant stardom, other than a motobike. Sorry, but you can't explain Ventoux w/o that being part of the possible explanations, unless the data was wrong.
 
Huapango said:
pastronef said:
Huapango said:
Good points, but that was a split second decision he had to make. With the race possibly slipping away, who knows what went through his mind in the chaos.
yes, who knows. is risking losing the race worse than having the motorized bikes taken by the neutral service or even by someone in the public?
Betting that the team would find a way to get the bike back vs. losing the TDF? There still is no way to explain Froome's instant stardom, other than a motobike. Sorry, but you can't explain Ventoux w/o that being part of the possible explanations, unless the data was wrong.
Why not? There are several explanations.
 
Huapango said:
pastronef said:
Huapango said:
Good points, but that was a split second decision he had to make. With the race possibly slipping away, who knows what went through his mind in the chaos.
yes, who knows. is risking losing the race worse than having the motorized bikes taken by the neutral service or even by someone in the public?
Betting that the team would find a way to get the bike back vs. losing the TDF? There still is no way to explain Froome's instant stardom, other than a motobike. Sorry, but you can't explain Ventoux w/o that being part of the possible explanations, unless the data was wrong.
Any rider can and will crash at any random time and break any component in any random way. Given that the tube has solid components inside, but have to work with commerical frames off the high street, they are actually made weaker as the solid component acts as a pivot point to concentrate stress along the undesigned tube of the bike, so rather than the force spread along the tube, it snaps directly where the solid battery or motor is glued/fixed to the frame wall/tube making component failure even more likely in a crash, be it in rims or frames.
Are we honestly so pessimistic of cycling's credibility and the teams that riders remain quiet even when they see rivals bikes with motors spilling out inside after a crash, because everyone is using them and it's omerta MII all over again? If everyone is using them, how can we also then indicate them being a reason for Froome's success? If Varjas is correct, this began as early as 1998 I think. To believe over the last 20 years not a single component has broken and been filmed with anything inside, no rider in a rival team has ever said anything, no team has ever said anything, spotted anything, all of neutral service across Vittoria, Mavic, Shimano, SRAM & Campagnolo have never said anything, despite them taking the teams wheels hundreds of times over those 20 years and even broken frames back to the finish line to hand back to the team have never seen anything to me is not believable. Hundreds, if not thousands of people would have to be involved and at the end of the day a random crash accidentally filmed would be game over for cycling. The public are just a couple of feet away from broken bikes, it's too random to 'control' y the teams. Substance Doping is invisible and controllable. Motor doping is physical, manufactured hardware in the teams and riders possesion 24/7 and inspected and taken apart if you win on that bike. It's just too far-fetched nothing has ever been noticed for nearly 20 years and the best evidence is some random youtube videos of a wheel spinning, a hub motor the size of a watermelon in a documentary, easily detectable seatpost motors with batteries the size of a water bidon and one deep section rim, Varjas has drilled some holes into to represent where batteries should go, but has never been shown working or even spining in a workstand, letalone in a working bike even for a documentary claiming they exist and trying to prove they can't be detected?
 
Dec 18, 2013
241
0
0
Good post, omerta with doping worked because (rightly or wrongly) the cyclists felt it was an even playing field...now imagine pros knowing they're being cheated out of winnings by the other guy using a motor...omerta doesn't cover that, not unless you believe they all have motors and therefore believe it's still a level playing field...in which case why does Froome win when the other top guys must know about (and use) motor doping?
 
samhocking said:
Huapango said:
pastronef said:
Huapango said:
Good points, but that was a split second decision he had to make. With the race possibly slipping away, who knows what went through his mind in the chaos.
yes, who knows. is risking losing the race worse than having the motorized bikes taken by the neutral service or even by someone in the public?
Betting that the team would find a way to get the bike back vs. losing the TDF? There still is no way to explain Froome's instant stardom, other than a motobike. Sorry, but you can't explain Ventoux w/o that being part of the possible explanations, unless the data was wrong.
Any rider can and will crash at any random time and break any component in any random way. Given that the tube has solid components inside, but have to work with commerical frames off the high street, they are actually made weaker as the solid component acts as a pivot point to concentrate stress along the undesigned tube of the bike, so rather than the force spread along the tube, it snaps directly where the solid battery or motor is glued/fixed to the frame wall/tube making component failure even more likely in a crash, be it in rims or frames.
Are we honestly so pessimistic of cycling's credibility and the teams that riders remain quiet even when they see rivals bikes with motors spilling out inside after a crash, because everyone is using them and it's omerta MII all over again? If everyone is using them, how can we also then indicate them being a reason for Froome's success? If Varjas is correct, this began as early as 1998 I think. To believe over the last 20 years not a single component has broken and been filmed with anything inside, no rider in a rival team has ever said anything, no team has ever said anything, spotted anything, all of neutral service across Vittoria, Mavic, Shimano, SRAM & Campagnolo have never said anything, despite them taking the teams wheels hundreds of times over those 20 years and even broken frames back to the finish line to hand back to the team have never seen anything to me is not believable. Hundreds, if not thousands of people would have to be involved and at the end of the day a random crash accidentally filmed would be game over for cycling. The public are just a couple of feet away from broken bikes, it's too random to 'control' y the teams. Substance Doping is invisible and controllable. Motor doping is physical, manufactured hardware in the teams and riders possesion 24/7 and inspected and taken apart if you win on that bike. It's just too far-fetched nothing has ever been noticed for nearly 20 years and the best evidence is some random youtube videos of a wheel spinning, a hub motor the size of a watermelon in a documentary, easily detectable seatpost motors with batteries the size of a water bidon and one deep section rim, Varjas has drilled some holes into to represent where batteries should go, but has never been shown working or even spining in a workstand, letalone in a working bike even for a documentary claiming they exist and trying to prove they can't be detected?
Great post Sam. Cheers! :)
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
deviant said:
Good post, omerta with doping worked because (rightly or wrongly) the cyclists felt it was an even playing field...now imagine pros knowing they're being cheated out of winnings by the other guy using a motor...omerta doesn't cover that, not unless you believe they all have motors and therefore believe it's still a level playing field...in which case why does Froome win when the other top guys must know about (and use) motor doping?
Sorry, but do pros meet and discus the type and amount of PEDs everyone is taking in order to create a level playing field?

What about when a team is first to get the latest and best PED? Is that still a level playing field?

The chemical stuff is cool, but the motor stuff isn't? Since when?

How many riders have been screaming for more testing and transparency about motors?
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
People posting that there is no way motors are in use as the risk is too high are fooling no one but themselves.

The tablet detection has been shown to be a joke, that so few bikes are tested in GTs is a joke, that Cat3 and amateurs are now using the means they have been in the pro peloton a long time. That people expect frames to smashing open to reveal motors is another lol, the teams take that into consideration. That UCI members tipped off teams that the police would be checking for motors is the biggest evidence of motor use in the pro peloton. If there were no motors why the need to tip off the police were going to check.
 
Dec 18, 2013
241
0
0
that Cat3 and amateurs are now using the means they have been in the pro peloton a long time.
This proves nothing and works both ways.

I know plenty of decent level amatuer sportsmen who use massive amounts of PEDs...they use because they're not pro and not getting tested...they understand fully that they'd have to rethink their PED use if a pro team came knocking on their door...see JTL for an example in cycling, doped up to the eyeballs to secure that big pro contract, once with Sky and subject to pro level testing he was found to be average at best....and got popped to boot.

Just because amatuers are using something doesnt mean the pros are, like i said you can get away with virtually anything at amatuer level due to the lack of scrutiny...amatuers using clunky obvious motors is no indication that pros are using them.

I'm willing to be proved wrong but as Sam wrote, there are too many instances where having a motor in the bike would be easy to discover via crashes, abandoned bikes, cameras on the riders for virtually the whole stage, journos around the pits with cameras, disgruntled team mates, bitter rivals etc...

...the only motors we see are Varjas demonstrating tech that wouldnt fit in the hubs the pros use and incomplete fantasy wheel rim 'motors'...and some TV station shots of supposed downtube motors giving off heat but the images are so crap they're not picking up heat from nearby car's engines yet we're supposed to believe they can detect a bicycle motor!?

Start dismantling and using xrays, its the only way and i fully support it but trying to make out Froome is the chosen one who got a motor in 2011 is laughable...why him?...its very suspicious, donkey to racehorse as the clinic likes to say, much better for someone like Contador to have started motor doping as he was already good and wouldnt attract attention (actually with all his bike changes mid race over the last few years he's a prime suspect for motor doping)...or choose someone else in Team Sky at the time who was thought of as having GT potential so as not to arouse suspicion.

So much about motors doesnt stand up to scrutiny...but we do know doping controls are poor and easy enough to circumvent, particularly if supplemented with 'legal' meds like Tramadol, Telmisartan and clever use of the TUE process...theres your reason for Froome's transformation, he got serious and started 'preparing' properly...its not as exciting as debating motors in bikes but until proven otherwise its good old fashioned doping to me.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
deviant said:
that Cat3 and amateurs are now using the means they have been in the pro peloton a long time.
This proves nothing and works both ways.

I know plenty of decent level amatuer sportsmen who use massive amounts of PEDs...they use because they're not pro and not getting tested...they understand fully that they'd have to rethink their PED use if a pro team came knocking on their door...see JTL for an example in cycling, doped up to the eyeballs to secure that big pro contract, once with Sky and subject to pro level testing he was found to be average at best....and got popped to boot.

Just because amatuers are using something doesnt mean the pros are, like i said you can get away with virtually anything at amatuer level due to the lack of scrutiny...amatuers using clunky obvious motors is no indication that pros are using them.

I'm willing to be proved wrong but as Sam wrote, there are too many instances where having a motor in the bike would be easy to discover via crashes, abandoned bikes, cameras on the riders for virtually the whole stage, journos around the pits with cameras, disgruntled team mates, bitter rivals etc...

...the only motors we see are Varjas demonstrating tech that wouldnt fit in the hubs the pros use and incomplete fantasy wheel rim 'motors'...and some TV station shots of supposed downtube motors giving off heat but the images are so crap they're not picking up heat from nearby car's engines yet we're supposed to believe they can detect a bicycle motor!?

Start dismantling and using xrays, its the only way and i fully support it but trying to make out Froome is the chosen one who got a motor in 2011 is laughable...why him?...its very suspicious, donkey to racehorse as the clinic likes to say, much better for someone like Contador to have started motor doping as he was already good and wouldnt attract attention (actually with all his bike changes mid race over the last few years he's a prime suspect for motor doping)...or choose someone else in Team Sky at the time who was thought of as having GT potential so as not to arouse suspicion.

So much about motors doesnt stand up to scrutiny...but we do know doping controls are poor and easy enough to circumvent, particularly if supplemented with 'legal' meds like Tramadol, Telmisartan and clever use of the TUE process...theres your reason for Froome's transformation, he got serious and started 'preparing' properly...its not as exciting as debating motors in bikes but until proven otherwise its good old fashioned doping to me.
So much rambling and contradiction.

Aint bothered to go through your post point by point.

Motors are a given. Why? The UCI pretend to test for them. A Cat 3 was caught, a grandfondo rider was caught and Femke was caught. Motors are in use we have the evidence. Now only someone trying to obfuscate or troll would argue no way would top pros do it. Well i call BS on that argument! Somehow pros are different from other humans who cheat in every way possible, oh wait a second, you just have to watch a bike race to see pros are the worst/best at cheating.

SamH has some kind of vested interest in sky whether as a fan or other undeclared interest, his filling of sky related threads with denials is 'evidence'. :)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY