Motor doping thread

Page 167 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Dec 18, 2013
241
0
0
Mock Sam's posts all you want, he raises good points...that despite the clinic's insistence that Froome et al are motor doping we havent seen bikes crash and break up showing wires, motors, etc...we havent seen spy shots from the pits showing motors...we havent had retired or disgraced riders coming forward with testimony of motor doping etc etc...and yet still you and others are adamant in your belief that a motor is the secret behind Froome's success...fine, prove it.

Youtube videos of someone riding well is not proof of having a motor...if that were the case most youtube videos of Sagan would be 'proof' of him having a motor.

Videos from TV channels with equipment so poor it shows more heat in a riders body than a supposed motor and then doesnt detect heat from the cars around the rider?...laughable, certainly not proof.

The clinic is becoming a parody of itself with ever more far fetched theories taken as gospel and with the flimsiest and most dubious 'evidence'.
 
Re:

deviant said:
Mock Sam's posts all you want, he raises good points...that despite the clinic's insistence that Froome et al are motor doping we havent seen bikes crash and break up showing wires, motors, etc...we havent seen spy shots from the pits showing motors...we havent had retired or disgraced riders coming forward with testimony of motor doping etc etc...and yet still you and others are adamant in your belief that a motor is the secret behind Froome's success...fine, prove it.

Youtube videos of someone riding well is not proof of having a motor...if that were the case most youtube videos of Sagan would be 'proof' of him having a motor.

Videos from TV channels with equipment so poor it shows more heat in a riders body than a supposed motor and then doesnt detect heat from the cars around the rider?...laughable, certainly not proof.

The clinic is becoming a parody of itself with ever more far fetched theories taken as gospel and with the flimsiest and most dubious 'evidence'.
Naah, they have proof. Woet Poels looked back before going Vroom Vroom just to ensure nobody else hears. :lol: :lol:
 
pastronef said:
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.
What about the clear fact that he panicked?
 
Re:

Benotti69 said:
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.
Yeah I wonder what these guys think about the Frenchman using as one election slogan that he will tighten up on motor doping. But more interesting for me is that a team director Madiot states that there has definitely been motor doping with all the bike changes. What do these guys think about these statements I wonder.
 
People saying there is no motor doping is the same as all the people who swore Lance never doped until he confessed. Didn't they all look stupid? It's really based on common sense. Its based on performances unbelievable performances. As the saying goes some things are just too good to be true.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Re:

deviant said:
Mock Sam's posts all you want, he raises good points...that despite the clinic's insistence that Froome et al are motor doping we havent seen bikes crash and break up showing wires, motors, etc...we havent seen spy shots from the pits showing motors...we havent had retired or disgraced riders coming forward with testimony of motor doping etc etc...and yet still you and others are adamant in your belief that a motor is the secret behind Froome's success...fine, prove it.

Youtube videos of someone riding well is not proof of having a motor...if that were the case most youtube videos of Sagan would be 'proof' of him having a motor.

Videos from TV channels with equipment so poor it shows more heat in a riders body than a supposed motor and then doesnt detect heat from the cars around the rider?...laughable, certainly not proof.

The clinic is becoming a parody of itself with ever more far fetched theories taken as gospel and with the flimsiest and most dubious 'evidence'.
slamming the clinic as if it was a single entity shows the failure of your argument.

You ignored the evidence. A cat 3 rider caught, Femke caught, a grandfondo rider caught and people say no evidecne of motor use int he sport.

SamH has slightly better prose at trying to convince some that sky are not cheating or motoro doping and for all his wordiness he aint convincing. Why? UCI testing for PR purposes, Madiot talking about motors, UCI tipping off people, Gilbert's agent talking about motors, Cassani talking about motors and again A cat 3 rider caught, Femke caught, a grandfondo rider caught.

So we know motors are in use.
 
Jan 30, 2016
1,048
0
4,480
Froome didnt care about his bike, he left it and ran away. you dont risk that with a motorized bike I would guess.
Froome did care about his bike. He was running with the bike until he found someone he was comfortable leaving the bike with. It was a cycling fotographer on a motorcycle. There was a second fotographer on a motorcycle present (Tim de Waele). These fotografers also see the many bike changes and do not publish pictures of it. They know the riders and teams well as they travel with them on training camps and do their foto shoots. They are present at every race taking pictures enroute and at the finishline. Would they be breaking omerta and risk losing their job?

http://www.gettyimages.ae/detail/news-photo/team-sky-2011-training-russel-downing-training-camp-camp-news-photo/533323904#cycling-team-sky-2011-training-russel-downing-training-camp-camp-picture-id533323904

https://www.instagram.com/tdwsport/
 
The thing is, while Armstrong was getting away with doping, everyone else trying to catch him got uncovered pretty easily. Below that you had the chancers like your Piepolis & Landis's? Where are these chancers in the peloton trying to catch up with Froome's and others motors? Crash with EPO in your arm and nobody can possibly know. Crash with a motor in your frame or wheel and it would be far more obvious you cheated and comes with huge risk, mostly unknown risk that could happen anytime anywhere too.

End of the day, you shouldn't have only a handful of dubious youtube videos open to debate asking if the wheel is spinning on its own or not, you would have motorised components in the road after a crash, frames breaking in non-typical ways hollow non-repaired carbon fibre never fails like. TV cameras cutting away from crashed immediatly. You don't just have your doctor knowing you cheated, you have electrical, mechancial and composites engineers doing all this work behind the scenes. Team mechanics charging your lithium batteries in hotel car parks with CCTV all around them all across the world having to test stuff actually works by riding the bikes. Motors failing, jamming, catching fire. Nothing, absolutely nothing, not even some crazy dude like Ricco who doesn't give a toss what it takes to beat Froome, he's gonna go all out, motors and all, crash on a descent and his wheels keep spinning dragging him down the road for another 100 meters simply hasn't ever happened like it did for EPO. This never happens, but it should if motors are in use. Components, especially electrically driven, highly-bespoke engineering is not exact sceince. It mostly works, but sometimes it doesn't and we should be seeing life's randomness throwing those using motors some curve balls, but not a single one in 20 years? It simply doesn't add up looking at how these things typically always blow up in cycling.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
samhocking said:
The thing is, while Armstrong was getting away with doping, everyone else trying to catch him got uncovered pretty easily.
Everyone? Walsh, Ballestre, Kimmage, O'Reilly, Andreus, Mike Anderson, Lemond and some others = Everyone?

Pretty easily? 15 years it took. Then he confessed to Oprah no less! Easily. Pull the other one!!

samhocking said:
Below that you had the chancers like your Piepolis & Landis's? Where are these chancers in the peloton trying to catch up with Froome's and others motors? Crash with EPO in your arm and nobody can possibly know. Crash with a motor in your frame or wheel and it would be far more obvious you cheated and comes with huge risk, mostly unknown risk that could happen anytime anywhere too.
We know that motors are in use, 3 people have been caught. Where is the evidence of bikes snapping half and stuff falling out? I guess that this consideration has been given to hidden motors in frames and teams have made alterations to prevent. But the latest motors are allegedly in hubs and rims.

samhocking said:
End of the day, you shouldn't have only a handful of dubious youtube videos open to debate asking if the wheel is spinning on its own or not, you would have motorised components in the road after a crash, frames breaking in non-typical ways hollow non-repaired carbon fibre never fails like.
Why? These things are not floating in frames. They are fixed.

samhocking said:
TV cameras cutting away from crashed immediatly. You don't just have your doctor knowing you cheated, you have electrical, mechancial and composites engineers doing all this work behind the scenes. Team mechanics charging your lithium batteries in hotel car parks with CCTV all around them all across the world having to test stuff actually works by riding the bikes. Motors failing, jamming, catching fire. Nothing, absolutely nothing, not even some crazy dude like Ricco who doesn't give a toss what it takes to beat Froome, he's gonna go all out, motors and all, crash on a descent and his wheels keep spinning dragging him down the road for another 100 meters simply hasn't ever happened like it did for EPO. This never happens, but it should if motors are in use. Components, especially electrically driven, highly-bespoke engineering is not exact sceince. It mostly works, but sometimes it doesn't and we should be seeing life's randomness throwing those using motors some curve balls, but not a single one in 20 years? It simply doesn't add up looking at how these things typically always blow up in cycling.
Dont recall too many frames snapping and bits flying all over the road. Dan Martin's bike smashed into the side of a mountain and not too much damage.

Again obfuscation and an attempt to dismiss what we know is in use as 3 people have been caught, Madiot has made calls about their use, Cassani same and UCI put a PR smokescreen to test for them.

Sorry Sam, big time fail. That 3 riders have been caught is definitive evidence they are in use. Why you think motors would be all over the road in crashes is baloney!!! We dont see power meters or other bits flying off, only bidons.
 
Dec 18, 2013
241
0
0
Some in here aren't getting it, so 3 riders have been caught...two of them in amateur events and one a cyclocross event (on a bike in the pits she wasn't even riding)...it's certainly proof that motors in bikes exist but where is the proof that Froome has one or for that matter anyone else in the pro peleton?...until someone in the Pro Tour gets busted all there is is supposition, amateur races aren't regulated like pro events, you can get away with blue murder in Gran Fondos and the like...trying to conflate that with the TdF peleton is a stretch.

When/if a rider on the Pro Tour gets busted I'll believe it, until then it's just a suspicion seriously lacking in evidence and today's outstanding rides are more realistically explained by PED use instead.

People still can't answer why Froome has seemingly been chosen as thev pioneer of this new motorised form of racing?...he is suspicious in that he has very little pedigree before 2011 so why is he leading the charge?...Sky could've deflected attention by having Wiggins ride a motorised bike to several TdF victories, the track and TT pedigree was there, it's less suspicious...or could it be simply that there are no motors in Wiggins and Froomes bikes and Froome has responded better to PEDs and gone on to be the better cyclist?...what about Wiggins failed Giro attempt?...surely with a motor in his bike it'd be his for the taking?...these are all questions that need to be answered before I can take motor doping seriously and nobody in here seems capable of doing it.

When Nibali, Contador and Quintana have won GTs in recent years have they used motors to beat Sky?...if not then how crap must Sky's motors be!...or do Sky turn the motors off at certain events and 'share the wealth' so to speak?...why aren't Sky's classics riders using motors to dominate Paris-Roubaix etc?...or are the riders winning these events like Boonen, Cancellera, Van Avermaet, Degelnkob etc using better motors?

What we're seeing is racing, no doubt PED involvement but racing nonetheless...to seriously consider motors in Sky's bikes mean they're racing against (and losing to) other teams on technologically better bikes with motors, I just don't see how a scandal that big and involving so many people would go undetected...currently nothing from the Pro peleton.

It would be nice if people explained why Froome is the chosen one and why if he has a motor has he lost so many Vueltas to other riders in recent years?...are the riders that beat him on motors too?...if so Sky's massive budget doesn't seem to be getting them much if Hesjedal, Quintana, Contador, Nibali and Dumoulin are all capable of beating Sky at their own own game in the Giro and Cobo, Horner and Aru can do the same at the Vuelta...or are they all on motorised bikes too?...in which case why the uproar about Froome, surely the same outrage should be directed at anyone who wins a GT these days?

Start answering the hard questions about current winners and not just Froome, start asking why Sky get beaten a lot in other races and the whole motors topic starts to become very difficult to believe...they're either all at it (which I find hard to believe as nothing has come out of the Pro Tour so far) or Froome is the chosen one and the rest of the peleton is happy to take a beating each July and to let him waltz into the record books (which I find equally far fetched as surely Nibali, Aru, Quintana et al all want a yellow jersey)...at the moment it's just noise, once the bikes start getting dismantled or xrayed after races we'll be able to tell for sure.
 
Re:

deviant said:
Mock Sam's posts all you want, he raises good points...that despite the clinic's insistence that Froome et al are motor doping we havent seen bikes crash and break up showing wires, motors, etc...we havent seen spy shots from the pits showing motors...we havent had retired or disgraced riders coming forward with testimony of motor doping etc etc...and yet still you and others are adamant in your belief that a motor is the secret behind Froome's success...fine, prove it.
How many riders have come forward to discuss the use of blood transfusions in the 1970s and 1980s?
 
deviant said:
It would be nice if people explained why Froome is the chosen one and why if he has a motor has he lost so many Vueltas to other riders in recent years?...are the riders that beat him on motors too?...if so Sky's massive budget doesn't seem to be getting them much if Hesjedal, Quintana, Contador, Nibali and Dumoulin are all capable of beating Sky at their own own game in the Giro and Cobo, Horner and Aru can do the same at the Vuelta...or are they all on motorised bikes too?...in which case why the uproar about Froome, surely the same outrage should be directed at anyone who wins a GT these days?
I'm wondering. Of all the MANY riders who have been accused of motor doping, in this and other threads, why your focus is so completely on Froome? Does he need special defending? What makes you choose to defend only him?

I've seen Wiggins, Hesjedal, Quintana, Contador, Nibali and Doumolin all accused of motor doping. No reaction?

As an aside, do all riders who motor dope do it all the time? Could they possibly be doing it for A races and not others? Does using a motor guarantee wins? Could no other rider win if another rider has a motor?

The last couple are rhetorical of course. Well, OK, they all were.
 
Dec 18, 2013
241
0
0
How many riders have come forward to discuss the use of blood transfusions in the 1970s and 1980s?
Some... It's been discussed on here recently...riders and doctors talking about their first experiments with manipulating blood in the 70s and 80s, didn't some former rider put it in a book recently too?...the U.S. track team from '84 are also pretty open about it but then it wasn't banned back then.
 
Dec 18, 2013
241
0
0
I'm wondering. Of all the MANY riders who have been accused of motor doping, in this and other threads, why your focus is so completely on Froome? Does he need special defending? What makes you choose to defend only him?
Because currently his name comes up again and again with regard his improvement in 2011 and motor doping...im of the opinion that if it is going on then all the top guys are doing it, in which case why all the flack directed at Froome?...or more realistically I don't think any of the top guys are doing it and PEDs explains Froomes transformation, certainly his skeletal appearance would suggest chemical assistance.

If the top ranking threads in this forum were about Nibali and a motorised bike I'd be defending the rider but I don't think it's going on, there are too many inconsistencies for me to believe the motor doping angle.
 
Re:

deviant said:
How many riders have come forward to discuss the use of blood transfusions in the 1970s and 1980s?
Some... It's been discussed on here recently...riders and doctors talking about their first experiments with manipulating blood in the 70s and 80s, didn't some former rider put it in a book recently too?...the U.S. track team from '84 are also pretty open about it but then it wasn't banned back then.
Some? Very few. A couple during the time it was legal. A couple accidentally referencing it. And a couple purposefully breaking the rules of omertà. And that's over a 30-40 year time frame. This notion that the absence of whistleblowers is proof of no wrongdoing, that's a cul-de-sac that twit Matthew Syed found himself getting stuck down: let's not repeat his mistakes.
 
Dec 18, 2013
241
0
0
But still they've come forward...let's not forget the 90s when Bassons was racing and willing to speak out...or the Ferrari court case where Simeone was also willing to break Omerta...but currently with motor doping not even a whimper from a disgruntled pro...why?...two reasons, either they're ALL on motorized bikes so the pros see no problem with it...or there are no motorized bikes to speak out about...at the moment I'm in the latter camp but I'm willing to be proved wrong, it would be a hilarious scandal and incredible to watch unfold.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Re:

deviant said:
But still they've come forward...let's not forget the 90s when Bassons was racing and willing to speak out...or the Ferrari court case where Simeone was also willing to break Omerta...but currently with motor doping not even a whimper from a disgruntled pro...why?...two reasons, either they're ALL on motorized bikes so the pros see no problem with it...or there are no motorized bikes to speak out about...at the moment I'm in the latter camp but I'm willing to be proved wrong, it would be a hilarious scandal and incredible to watch unfold.
Can you quote Bassons?

He said something along the lines of there was two speeds in the peloton. He didn't come out with names of riders or types of doping. For that Armstrong, his team mates and much of the peloton lynched him.
 
Re:

deviant said:
But still they've come forward...let's not forget the 90s when Bassons was racing and willing to speak out...or the Ferrari court case where Simeone was also willing to break Omerta...but currently with motor doping not even a whimper from a disgruntled pro...why?...two reasons, either they're ALL on motorized bikes so the pros see no problem with it...or there are no motorized bikes to speak out about...at the moment I'm in the latter camp but I'm willing to be proved wrong, it would be a hilarious scandal and incredible to watch unfold.
Bassons was willing to speak up what exactly? He gave some hints about two speeds in the peloton. Something similar to what Bassons is doing now. Similar to what Gilbert's agent said. Similar to Boonen hinted about Cancellara's wins in 2010. Similar to Madiot's statements, to Lemond's, To Cassani's. For me that's more than enough to know that something is happening...
 
As I have posted too many times, I think that motors have been used in the pro platoon, but I am very curious as to why no one from within has said something. I know they exist, I have seen clear evidence of their use, yet no Simioni, or Emma?
 
Jan 30, 2016
1,048
0
4,480
As I have posted too many times, I think that motors have been used in the pro platoon, but I am very curious as to why no one from within has said something. I know they exist, I have seen clear evidence of their use, yet no Simioni, or Emma?
I just posted a video of Guimard doing exactly that, in the interview he also talks about Cippolini raising concerns with the UCI.

viewtopic.php?p=2186580#p2186580
 
deviant said:
......

People still can't answer why Froome has seemingly been chosen as thev pioneer of this new motorised form of racing?...he is suspicious in that he has very little pedigree before 2011 so why is he leading the charge?...Sky could've deflected attention by having Wiggins ride a motorised bike to several TdF victories, the track and TT ........
because as I stated before FROOME HAD NOTHING AND NO CAREER TO LOSE - WHY THE HELL NOT

he was pack fodder - just like he has shown in the past, cheating doesnt phase him, 2011 transformation was PED's then the cheating went to another level....motor. I then believe Brailsford saw that it was undetectable and got 'on the program'
 
Cycle Chic said:
deviant said:
......

People still can't answer why Froome has seemingly been chosen as thev pioneer of this new motorised form of racing?...he is suspicious in that he has very little pedigree before 2011 so why is he leading the charge?...Sky could've deflected attention by having Wiggins ride a motorised bike to several TdF victories, the track and TT ........
because as I stated before FROOME HAD NOTHING AND NO CAREER TO LOSE - WHY THE HELL NOT

he was pack fodder - just like he has shown in the past, cheating doesnt phase him, 2011 transformation was PED's then the cheating went to another level....motor. I then believe Brailsford saw that it was undetectable and got 'on the program'
Let me get this straight...are you saying Froome did it totally independantly to start with and it was only later that Sky, ie. Brailsford spotted it and went along with it?
 
brownbobby said:
Cycle Chic said:
deviant said:
......

People still can't answer why Froome has seemingly been chosen as thev pioneer of this new motorised form of racing?...he is suspicious in that he has very little pedigree before 2011 so why is he leading the charge?...Sky could've deflected attention by having Wiggins ride a motorised bike to several TdF victories, the track and TT ........
because as I stated before FROOME HAD NOTHING AND NO CAREER TO LOSE - WHY THE HELL NOT

he was pack fodder - just like he has shown in the past, cheating doesnt phase him, 2011 transformation was PED's then the cheating went to another level....motor. I then believe Brailsford saw that it was undetectable and got 'on the program'
Let me get this straight...are you saying Froome did it totally independantly to start with and it was only later that Sky, ie. Brailsford spotted it and went along with it?
It was pretty clear at the time given his contract, original omission from the vuelta, and the reaction of the team that his performance was a complete revelation to the team. I have no doubt he did whatever he did independent of Sky. This is certainly not to say riders on Sky like Wiggins weren't doping at the time. Not sure it was pervasive.

No idea when motors happened.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY