• We hope all of you have a great holiday season and an incredible New Year. Thanks so much for being part of the Cycling News community!

Motor doping thread

Page 20 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

jyl

Jan 2, 2016
142
0
0
Re: Re:

Jacques de Molay said:
ray j willings said:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2016/02/news/cancellara-says-motors-in-bikes-are-an-old-story_394476
“If it’s true or not, I have no idea,” he said
:rolleyes:

Yeah, I wonder if it's true? I wonder if maybe the UCI didn't actually find a motor inside a frame at a World Championship race. Maybe they were unsure about it but decided to release an official statement confirming the discovery just for the fun of it. Or maybe they did it just to incite Luca Guercilena. Or maybe it didn't happen at all. Maybe the UCI just released the official statement confirming the find to give the media something to talk about.

"If it's true or not..." :D
That sounds like simply the sort of careful statement someone would make, when speaking publicly and on the record, about some news that just broke two days ago, with very little hard information known.
 
Re: Re:

Tienus said:
I'm sure the UCI warns riders and teams when they are testing bikes. Even tough the UCI pretends to be searching they do not want to find anything.

Why did they only confiscate one out of three bikes from Femke?
They tested some of the girls' bikes without warning at the Giro Donne a few years ago, Fabiana Luperini got kicked out the race a couple of stages before the end for having an underweight bike.
 
Oct 10, 2015
479
0
0
Re: Re:

jyl said:
Of course, motor use might have been more brazen in previous years, when there was no checking program at all.
Impossible. Motors couldn't have been used in the past. Here's why:

The technology didn't exist.
The motors would create too obvious of noise.
The added weight of a motor would negate any possible benefit.
It would be too obvious and therefore too easy to detect.
The risk of using a motor was too great.
No rider would want to suffer the inevitable ridicule cast upon them by the rest of the peloton.
It would require far too great a conspiracy, involving far too many people for it to be feasible.
There's no reasonable way to provide the required power to such a device.
A motor small enough to remain hidden would never produce enough wattage to be of any use.
Very smart people with apparent degrees in physics have told us that it's impossible.
Professional riders and their managers have openly scoffed at the very idea, proving that such a thing as mechanical doping is too far-fetched to be taken seriously.
There's never been any video evidence that such technology existed.
No one named Chris Boardman ever demonstrated to the UCI just how it could be done.
No one named Greg LeMond ever confirmed the existence of motorized bikes.

But that's just off the top of my head.

Any other reasons that we can be certain that mechanical doping hasn't been a part of pro cycling in the past? :)
 
May 13, 2015
601
0
0
Too me they sound like the words of someone who has something to hide. Just the type of comments you have heard from (many many proven ) cheaters through the years. If you really are clean then you don't need to approach the issue in that way.

edit: Cancellara and his team manager.
 
Jan 30, 2016
1,048
0
4,480
Re: Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
Tienus said:
I'm sure the UCI warns riders and teams when they are testing bikes. Even tough the UCI pretends to be searching they do not want to find anything.

Why did they only confiscate one out of three bikes from Femke?
They tested some of the girls' bikes without warning at the Giro Donne a few years ago, Fabiana Luperini got kicked out the race a couple of stages before the end for having an underweight bike.
I should have said testing for motors. The technical checks have been there for a long time.
 

jyl

Jan 2, 2016
142
0
0
Re: Re:

Tienus said:
jyl said:
hfer07 said:
So let me get this straight:

THE WHOLE PELOTON KNOWS ABOUT THE MECHANICAL DOPING-EVEN TO CLAIM ITS USE GOES BACK YEARS -MAYBE DECADES........AND YET THE UCI HAS NOT TAKEN IT SERIOUSLY, NOR HAS CREATED A TASK FORCE TO DETECT IT..............

got to love the double standard and moral values among the best riders when asked about doping - whether mechanical or chemical : All they know is happening, but yet nobody comes forward.....................

I'm going to say it once- if there is solid proof that a massive use of mechanical doping in the peloton- lets say 60% of all pro riders- I'd be so mad to the point of stop watching Cycling permanently
I think motors are currently being used, but to only a small extent, in top level racing. Because the UCI has been seizing and checking bikes in WT races for about a year now, and has not found a motor. If motors were in 60% of bikes, they'd have been found before now.

My guess is that at present, riders with motor doped bikes are using them carefully, when the potential reward is large and the chances of being caught are low. Before last weekend, the chances of being caught in CX or women's road were low since UCI wasn't checking those. I'd guess the chances of being caught in non-WT men's road might still be low. Race situations where you can change to a clean bike mid-race. Or when you need to perform big but are not planning to finish anywhere near the podium (super domestique).

The obvious counter argument is that the UCI's bike checks could all be a sham, they are finding motors but not reporting them, or maybe the bikes go into those tents and don't get checked at all, the commissaires and team mechanics just drink coffee for an hour and pretend they were removing seatposts. But in that case, why would the UCI even bother with the sham?. There was no big clamour for motor doping checks (this and similar forums don't count), and the UCI got mostly ridicule when it started the checks.

Of course, motor use might have been more brazen in previous years, when there was no checking program at all.
I'm sure the UCI warns riders and teams when they are testing bikes. Even tough the UCI pretends to be searching they do not want to find anything.

Why did they only confiscate one out of three bikes from Femke?
They probably scanned all her bikes, one came up suspicious, they took that one away to disassemble. She was still racing at the time, right? Taking all her bikes would have been the same as yanking her from the race, before there is any proof.

Do they warn before testing?. In some sense, sometimes - someone from the UCI had said in an interview they were going to be checking bikes with their new tool at the CX Worlds, so that sort of constitutes a generalized warning. They obviously didn't warn Femke or her mechanics, though, so I doubt they warned other CX riders whose bikes were checked.

In other cases, they hardly need to warn - Wiggins and his people obviously knew that his Hour bike was going to be thoroughly scrutinized, Froome had his bikes checked twelve times in 2015 so he wouldn't have been surprised by the next check. At this point, I don't think any WT rider is surprised to see his bike taken away as he's headed off to the doping control tent.

Other times, the teams probably get wind of it. When the UCI guys unload and set up a portable xray machine, or distribute hand held scanners to race commissaires, word probably gets around fast.

The question is, will UCI start pulling over team cars and scanning every bike on the rack, or entering team trucks and scanning every bike, etc?. Will those teams get a friendly "just to let you know" call the night before?
 

jyl

Jan 2, 2016
142
0
0
Re: Re:

Jacques de Molay said:
jyl said:
Of course, motor use might have been more brazen in previous years, when there was no checking program at all.
Impossible. Motors couldn't have been used in the past. Here's why:

The technology didn't exist.
The motors would create too obvious of noise.
The added weight of a motor would negate any possible benefit.
It would be too obvious and therefore too easy to detect.
The risk of using a motor was too great.
No rider would want to suffer the inevitable ridicule cast upon them by the rest of the peloton.
It would require far too great a conspiracy, involving far too many people for it to be feasible.
There's no reasonable way to provide the required power to such a device.
A motor small enough to remain hidden would never produce enough wattage to be of any use.
Very smart people with apparent degrees in physics have told us that it's impossible.
Professional riders and their managers have openly scoffed at the very idea, proving that such a thing as mechanical doping is too far-fetched to be taken seriously.
There's never been any video evidence that such technology existed.
No one named Chris Boardman ever demonstrated to the UCI just how it could be done.
No one named Greg LeMond ever confirmed the existence of motorized bikes.

But that's just off the top of my head.

Any other reasons that we can be certain that mechanical doping hasn't been a part of pro cycling in the past? :)
I appreciate the humor, and I agree that describes the opinion of the great majority of the pro cycling world before now. But some people did suspect motor doping was going on. And we have to include in that . . . the UCI. They started checking bikes for hidden motors, got broadly ridiculed for it, and now I think they should get some credit.
 
Oct 10, 2015
479
0
0
Re: Re:

jyl said:
Do they warn before testing?. In some sense, sometimes - someone from the UCI had said in an interview they were going to be checking bikes with their new tool at the CX Worlds, so that sort of constitutes a generalized warning.
Yup. A year ago.
http://cyclingtips.com/2015/12/qa-with-uci-technical-manager-mark-barfield-weight-limit-disc-brakes-more/

We are changing the way we test. All I can tell you is it’s based on magnetic resistance. There is a lot of work to be done. We’ve done our first trial and we have more trials in February. Its first outing, fingers crossed, will be the World Cyclocross Championships.

We’ll probably do our first test in women’s racing next year because we need to extend. We now have the ability to test more bikes more often.
All of which raises a very interesting point.

They planned to implement a new testing protocol.
They planned to introduce this at the World CX Championships (last year?).
They Planned to test the women this year.
They announce all this well ahead time.

And behold! They catch a cheat! :)

So what does that tell us about the possibly wide-spread nature of all this?
 
Nothing, other than that Femke van den Driessche failed to connect the dots and none of her entourage were alert enough to realize either. Short memories? Didn't take the threat seriously? Just thought they'd get away with it? That's about all we might find out.
 

jyl

Jan 2, 2016
142
0
0
Re: Re:

dwyatt said:
sniper said:
luckyboy said:
Can't speak Dutch, something about a bidon? Vivax makes a bidon battery.
Femke doesn't have a bidon in any of these videos though.
no, not the bidon.
he confirms what we knew, namely that in femke's case the battery was hidden in the bottom of the frame.
Frame tubes are huge these days, should be pretty easy.

Conspriacy nut question of the days - did frame tubes get more oversized becuase teams wanted more space for batteries and motors.
You could conceal as much battery as you'd ever want in the downtube of a modern bike. Use individual cells or LiPo packs, wire them together, feed into the downtube through the bottom bracket (just need to get battery through a 42 mm hole), secure with expanding foam or glue or some other method.

A 4.5 watt-hour LiPo pack costs $10, weighs 25 g, and is about 35 mm x 60 mm x 5 mm. There are differently shaped packs if you need that. 11 of those weighs 275 g, gives 50 watt-hour or 200 watts for 15 minutes. I believe, from what we've read about the motor systems available, that 200 watts supplied to the motor will deliver 100 watts to the crank.
 
Oct 10, 2015
479
0
0
Re: Re:

jyl said:
I appreciate the humor, and I agree that describes the opinion of the great majority of the pro cycling world before now. But some people did suspect motor doping was going on. And we have to include in that . . . the UCI. They started checking bikes for hidden motors, got broadly ridiculed for it, and now I think they should get some credit.
I agree. 100%.

I stated as much upthread.

Jacques de Molay said:
Well, in fairness to the UCI, someone did detect it, no? And they have been x-raying and inspecting bikes at races, no? Does that constitute a "task force"? I don't know. But they do seem to be pursuing the matter. maybe it's all PR on their part, but I don't see how having x-ray machines at major races adds much credibility to the sport.
And to clarify that last point:
I think having x-ray machines at races is an embarrassment to the sport. So I don't see that as being a particularly effective strategy if, as some claim, it's simply a PR stunt by the UCI to create the appearance of wanting to catch cheaters. Not the UCI hasn't a history of doing dumb things, mind you. But I believe that there was/is a legitimate concern regarding mechanical doping that the UCI has been trying to address.
 
Oct 10, 2015
479
0
0
Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
Nothing, other than that Femke van den Driessche failed to connect the dots and none of her entourage were alert enough to realize either. Short memories? Didn't take the threat seriously? Just thought they'd get away with it? That's about all we might find out.
Based on parakeet-gate (yeah, I just went there) I'd say, yes, they thought they'd get away with it. And if not, they probably weren't all that concerned with the consequences. They seem like a despicable lot, devoid of a moral compass.

Thanks, dad!

The ringleader should never be allowed near a bike race again. That goes for all the other enablers in this sordid tale.

As for young Femke herself: Even if given a reduced ban (due to cooperation, her age, etc) I can't imagine why any team, anywhere would ever want to be associated with her. This is where the sport has a least a small chance to redeem itself. If only short bans are put into place, it's up to the teams and race organizers to simply refuse the participation of these people. It's now or never on the issue of mechanical doping.

Maybe, maybe she has a chance to race in the future. It should be easy enough to thoroughly inspect every bike in her race collection. But would it be worth the added burden of having to police her so closely at every outing?

Either way, her father and his entourage should never be allowed near the sport again. And I see absolute no reason why the pet store theft incident shouldn't play into that decision. It speaks volumes to his character (or obvious lack thereof).
 

jyl

Jan 2, 2016
142
0
0
Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
Nothing, other than that Femke van den Driessche failed to connect the dots and none of her entourage were alert enough to realize either. Short memories? Didn't take the threat seriously? Just thought they'd get away with it? That's about all we might find out.
Or maybe her story is true.

Okay, it sounds too convenient. But if it is true, I'd hate for a young girl (okay, young woman) to have her life ruined by an absurd mistake.

I think, hope, the investigation will be taken very seriously. First motor doping case and all that. The panel (right term?) will hopefully take sworn testimony from everyone - mechanics, friend, other people in the area. Examine photos from other races. Examine records from the motor's maker and seller, shipping records, credit card records. I'd like to think they'll fingerprint the motor but that may be asking too much.

She should get a ban and fine even if her story is 100% true. The regulation is strict liability. But I wouldn't give her a lifetime ban or a several year ban, if the bike genuinely got there as she claims it did.

As said above, even if she only gets a six month ban, it will be years before she can get a sponsor, a real team, respect from other racers. Probably won't be able to ride around a CX race without having beer and batteries thrown at her.
 
Jul 7, 2012
509
0
0
Re: Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
I describe Femke as a "deer in the headlights" in that interview not because she's female, but because how completely unequipped she seemed for dealing with the sudden burst of negative attention.
I think that your use of the term 'a deer in the headlights' actually says a lot about the relatively sympathetic way you see her and would like others to. I can't imagine that if she had been a similarly aged male rider you would be putting forward an identical argument, or appealing to the same imagery.

Anyhow, I was not really responding to what you have said, most of which is balanced and fair. Rather we have had a lot of people on here who have seemed to be very ready to play down the degree of responsibility that Van den Driessche, sorry, 'Femke' carries for her actions, pretty much on the basis that she is not just 19, but a 19 year-old female. For example,

She is "A 19-year old girl for crying out loud",

"it is the parent that deserves to take the biggest fall",

"I've dealt with such fathers. Somehow they are never banned, only their kids",

"Poor girl such mixed messages going to her",

"As for the young lady this is not her brain that's implemented this but a small network",

"She is not the brightest cookie",

"she doesn't come across as an intelligent girl at all...I honestly believe her influence in all this is rather small",

"I hope the girl will be ok and receive psychological help after this. She's young and i think she doesn't deserve a life ban if she says it all. All the people around her deserve though",

"Father seems like one of those super pushy parents that probably never did any sports or did, but was never good at it, and now is trying to live through his kids and any success they get...Depending on how far the cheating went with the girl, I'd say don't ban her for life."

"Seeing some of her interviews its obvious the girl is as dumb as a ton of bricks, id be surprised if her IQ crossed the 70 mark. Its all the dad's fault."

"Life-long ban is way too much. I'm not saying the two situations are the same, but I can't help but think of Genevieve Jeanson and her coach."

"like the delgados said, this is Genevieve Jeanson all over again. It just aint her boyfriend/husband/coach, its her dad...This is a child abuse just like Marc Dutroux",

"Father to me is a total disgrace...the possibility of a power over situation here seems all too real. Without excusing Femke, I do feel sad for her"

"The father just seems so super smug. Like a mafia member... At 19, she's more than old enough to realize what has transpired and the consequences, but not sure if she was capable of saying no to the pressure of cheating by her father."

"At 19, she's old enough to have understood the gravity of what she was doing and to face the consequences now, but it's only natural to pity someone when you see them like this"

"She shouldn't be left off the hook, but this is clearly not solely her idea. It requires a thorough investigation and her age should be a reason to go slightly easier on her."

"Its not just her dad, its her mechanic, brothers etc. She also grew up in an environment where her team, the Belgium national team and even the UCI seem not to concerned about cheating, as long as you dont get caught."

"They (meaning riders/ds/teams) will simply dismiss it as an isolated incident - some young girl cheating because of the pressure her father put on her."

"it is definitely child abuse. just not the corporeal kind, its psychological."

"I'd hate for a young girl (okay, young woman) to have her life ruined by an absurd mistake."
Overall, an awful lot of sympathy for a blatant cheat, much more than I have ever seen for any young guy who got busted for doping, which everybody seems to agree would have been a much lesser offence.

For example, I have tried to look for some similarly sympathetic comments relating to Gabriel Evans, the junior British TT champion busted for Epo use and couldn't find one. No one seemed to even suggest that anyone other then the rider could be held responsible for him being caught doping, or that he must have been influenced or aided by some other person, such as his father.

It also amazes me the way it seems acceptable to call a 19 year-old woman 'stupid', effectively not much more than a child, clearly unable to make her own choices, and so on. In any other situation there would be an outcry if she was described in such a way, but here it seems fine to do so as it allows her to be, at least partially, excused for what she has done. Double standards or what?

Anyhow, all this is just a side issue compared to the significance of the 'sport' acknowledging that electrical engineers are now as important to a team as its doping doctors! :)
 
Re: Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
Tienus said:
I'm sure the UCI warns riders and teams when they are testing bikes. Even tough the UCI pretends to be searching they do not want to find anything.

Why did they only confiscate one out of three bikes from Femke?
They tested some of the girls' bikes without warning at the Giro Donne a few years ago, Fabiana Luperini got kicked out the race a couple of stages before the end for having an underweight bike.
She may have needed to shed that weight....would explain why, at the end of the Giro it suddenly got lighter.
 
Re: Re:

Jacques de Molay said:
hfer07 said:
So let me get this straight:

THE WHOLE PELOTON KNOWS ABOUT THE MECHANICAL DOPING-EVEN TO CLAIM ITS USE GOES BACK YEARS -MAYBE DECADES........AND YET THE UCI HAS NOT TAKEN IT SERIOUSLY, NOR HAS CREATED A TASK FORCE TO DETECT IT..............
Jacques de Molay said:
Well, in fairness to the UCI, someone did detect it, no? And they have been x-raying and inspecting bikes at races, no? Does that constitute a "task force"? I don't know. But they do seem to be pursuing the matter. maybe it's all PR on their part, but I don't see how having x-ray machines at major races adds much credibility to the sport.
I reckon the x-ray testing came "after" the Italian press blew the whistle on Cancellara back in 2010 because it was "too suspicious" what he did in P-R there - I grant that- BUT not because the very UCI wanted to confront the matter based on rumors and investigation - so from then forward is basically a "random" practice- which it could well be warned in advance, so the DCs and mechanics can act accordingly.

hfer07 said:
got to love the double standard and moral values among the best riders when asked about doping - whether mechanical or chemical : All they know is happening, but yet nobody comes forward
Jacques de Molay said:
That's the kicker, right there. We have seasoned pros now talking openly about this, as if it's such old news that it's beneath them to even discuss it. We have the most gifted cyclist who ever lived telling us that he personally warned the UCI about it, so great were his concerns. But as recently as just a few days ago, anyone mentioning the subject was dismissed as nothing more than a basement-dwelling internet troll. Funny how that works.
indeed

hfer07 said:
I'm going to say it once- if there is solid proof that a massive use of mechanical doping in the peloton- lets say 60% of all pro riders- I'd be so mad to the point of stop watching Cycling permanently
Jacques de Molay said:
60%?!?! That's mighty generous. :eek:

What if it turns out to be only 1%, and they've stood atop the podium? :)
well- we well know the 1% stepping atop the podium use doping-whether chemical or mechanical. ;) so Let me rephrase it this way: If comes proved by solid, tangible & irrefutable evidence that a majority of Pro Cyclists consider a "regular practice" the use of mechanical aid to ride a race, then it means the sport by its very own nature has failed completely & miserably, it became a mockery and no longer is worthy of being called sport anymore but rather a "motor-sport"
 
Re: Re:

Jacques de Molay said:
Based on parakeet-gate (yeah, I just went there) I'd say, yes, they thought they'd get away with it. And if not, they probably weren't all that concerned with the consequences. They seem like a despicable lot, devoid of a moral compass.

Thanks, dad!

The ringleader should never be allowed near a bike race again. That goes for all the other enablers in this sordid tale.

As for young Femke herself: Even if given a reduced ban (due to cooperation, her age, etc) I can't imagine why any team, anywhere would ever want to be associated with her. This is where the sport has a least a small chance to redeem itself. If only short bans are put into place, it's up to the teams and race organizers to simply refuse the participation of these people. It's now or never on the issue of mechanical doping.

Maybe, maybe she has a chance to race in the future. It should be easy enough to thoroughly inspect every bike in her race collection. But would it be worth the added burden of having to police her so closely at every outing?

Either way, her father and his entourage should never be allowed near the sport again. And I see absolute no reason why the pet store theft incident shouldn't play into that decision. It speaks volumes to his character (or obvious lack thereof).
You seem pretty much in agreement with me on this front. You can stick a fork in her, she's done. She can't come back regardless of what ban they slap on her, the ban itself means nothing. The fine is probably of more relevance. No team is going to want her, no race organizer will want her there, very few sponsors will have any interest, she'll be watched like a hawk if she does race, she's a pariah among her fellow riders (look, when even Riccò can get in cheap shots, you're really saying something) and she's not going to be popular with fans either. Even if she gets off on a technicality (and even if her rather sitcom-esque story for how it came to be is true) nobody is ever going to trust her in a bike race again. Her career is over, at least from a meaningful perspective. And she already knows it, too.
 
May 22, 2011
146
0
0
Re:

WildspokeJoe said:
This will be interesting. Will be interested to see how talk Nico Van Muylder is and if he fits the bike.
Not for nothing but cycling has the best doping answers: Vanishing twin, tainted meat, Drunk on Jack Daniels, Too much sex,
Vanishing twin, tainted meat, Drunk on Jack Daniels,Too much sex.

Brilliant post: You came up with either a): Four terrific new band names or b): The track list from Dethkloks latest album .
 
Oct 10, 2015
479
0
0
Re: Re:

Robert21 said:
Overall, an awful lot of sympathy for a blatant cheat, much more than I have ever seen for any young guy who got busted for doping, which everybody seems to agree would have been a much lesser offence.

Double standards or what?
No, I don't think so. I think it's more a matter of people wanting to finally put the emphasis on those who hide in the shadows while the individual athlete gets hung out to dry. If Femke takes the brunt of the punishment herself, then we're right back to where we started. Everyone in the chain of events needs to be removed from any participation in the sport whatsoever (including even attending as a "fan").

She didn't do this by herself. The penalties need to be harsh and far reaching. But as I've stated in a previous post, even she's allowed back in to the sport, teams and sponsors could, and may, simply not want anything to do with her. Career over.

But those other clowns have nothing really keeping them from spreading their corrupt ways. Unless they are put on the black list of people who are not allowed to associate with any athletes (the same as currently lifetime banned docs and other team personnel). Nor should they be allowed within shouting distance of any organized cycling event. Ever.

It's also up to the peloton to take a stand on this. If it's as big a concern to them as it is to so many fans, then they need to shun anyone associated with this violation. Refuse to race if these people are ever seen at an event.

Or not, and just carry on as always. But then don't expect sympathy as the sport tumbles into the abyss.
 
May 22, 2011
146
0
0
Re: Re:

Of course, motor use might have been more brazen in previous years, when there was no checking program at all.[/quote]

I'm sure the UCI warns riders and teams when they are testing bikes. Even tough the UCI pretends to be searching they do not want to find anything.

Why did they only confiscate one out of three bikes from Femke?[/quote]


You just mirrored what Major League Baseball does in the US. Under league and union rules players are given MONTHS notice prior to dope testing. That way only really stupid players get popped (even if they are MVP's, like Ryan Braun).
 
Oct 10, 2015
479
0
0
Re: Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
she's a pariah among her fellow riders (look, when even Riccò can get in cheap shots, you're really saying something)
:D Very true (and sad). :(

Libertine Seguros said:
and she's not going to be popular with fans either.
I'll admit, I hadn't fully considered that aspect of it. People are complaining (and rightfully so) about fan interference as it is. If Femke were to race again at any time in the near future, it could very well create a dangerous situation for all involved.
 
Jan 30, 2016
1,048
0
4,480
Re: Re:

They probably scanned all her bikes, one came up suspicious, they took that one away to disassemble. She was still racing at the time, right? Taking all her bikes would have been the same as yanking her from the race, before there is any proof.

Her bike was taken from the pits in the first lap according to the UCI statement and according to witnesses. They never checked the bike she was actually riding, not even after she abandoned in the last lap. Even though by then they found the motor.
In previous suspiscious races (also de Koppenberg) she was riding the same bike without changing from start to finish. I think she was riding a dirty bike, why did the UCI not think she could be riding a dirty bike?
 
Aug 6, 2011
738
0
0
Allow me to play the devil's advocate and defend the UCI for a bit.

I don't think the UCI actually covertly approves of (mechanical) doping, I mere think the UCI realised they stand no chance whatsoever against the financial means of the teams/riders and are held prisoner by the lack of anti-doping portrayed by other international sporting federations (athletics, tennis, football/soccer). So, even while trying to set boundaries, while trying to keep it a bit real (e.g., no Tour of Turkey Ducatis), they know they can't keep up with the most devious of employed doping tactics and they can't be the only sport to be highlighted repeatedly by scandal spotlight or they risk losing all of their sponsors.

So what do they do? They set boundaries, but not by secretly starting to enforce them, but by announcing them. If they do have to make a sacrifice, then they make sure they bust a small fish. Want to demonstrate that you can now detect SARMs and related products (GW-50156)? Announce the introduction of the tests and bust a couple of Pro-Conti no ones. Give the signal: We have the test now, we have to perform it, so change your MO. The UCI can now say they do implement new testing regimes and keep up appearances, while carefully avoiding potential scandals of positive World Tour riders.

It's the same with this case. Sure, the motor is a big scandal, but it's a foolish 19 old girl riding the U23 cyclocross WC, not Froome in yellow in July. Moreover, they announced the tests, the girl failed her IQ-test and could be sacrificed to show boundaries yet again have to shift and new methods to cheat should again be found (if not found already...). If they truly were interested in keeping it clean, then they should have impounded the bike, but kept quiet about the case in public (and test again the next day, without additional warning, at the men's event). They were probably compelled by rumours do something against motorized doping and probably saw no way of avoiding the implementation of these new tests. (Whether they really wanted to bust someone I doubt, as they did announce checks. The girl and her team probably just failed the IQ-test.)

So, why would the UCI employ this tactic? It's actually quite simple. Just look at the enormous budgets that the teams spend on "technological innovation" of bikes (take Sky for example). There's no way the UCI can keep up, just as there is no way to keep up with the pharmaceutical developments. There's just no budget on the policing side of business. Even if they would want to do it, that is really trying to ban doping from the sports, then it's probably nearly impossible to do it consistently enough to truly do so. Ergo, they might catch some dopers, but they would certainly still miss most of them. And catching only a few will not make the sport clean, but it will make it go bankrupt, as other sports competing for sponsorships have no scandals (as they also don't actually want to catch stars and have scandals.)

So, what's left for the UCI? Well, they slowly push the boundaries of doping, announcing their advancements every step of the way while protecting the main riders. In doing so, they actually propel doping innovations, as methods need to be in continuous development. However, if you look deep into the desires of the UCI, I think most officials, maybe even including Crookson, would want to see doping gone. They just know that they can't do it and that the sport will probably go bankrupt if they try to do it with the insufficient means they have. So keep up the show, implement new tests but always make sure everyone gets a heads-up. If you fail to heed that, then, well, you're doomed, but most seem to pass the IQ-test and if you're important enough, they might even help you with that (e.g., Froome won't test positive.)

Because if the UCI was really serious about banning cheaters, Thomas Dekker would not have been one of the only riders caught by retroactive testing. (We now know that most of the riders of that era would have produced dirty samples with today's testing methods, so the best way to avoid scandals is just to not apply retroactive tests, even though they are still relevant as some riders are still active to this very day.)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts