Anaconda said:
I have already brought up the name Jeanson in a previous post so suffice it to say I feel like the age/family situation of the woman should be considered not so much for the sporting penalty, but the wrath of the public. She was not in this alone, that much is certain.
I agree with the leak theory. She was a sacrificial lamb (and she/support team not very smart to get caught). Events in sports past have left me very cynical and small fishes only getting caught always makes me a bit uneasy.
In the case of Hesjedal's weird spinning bike the UCI waited until the day after to look at the bike. Declaring it cleared means nothing.
On the subject of the leak I also wonder how the information was leaked. Interesting at the Giro they took bikes into a closed tent to inspect. Respected privacy. Where was Femkes bike checked. How many saw the inspection. Was it the same protocol as used for the pro WT men?
If you are caught for chemical doping there is usually protection of the name until the sanction is confirmed.
If the UCI found a motor in a WT mens bike would they have blurted it to the media like this?
She was not given the chance to give her story and allow for a proper investigation before public exposure.
Femke has been publicly humiliated and shamed 1st, investigation 2nd.
She was not caught on the bike. There missing information. eg was the battery charged?
The UCI has a rule now in the books, but it seems more suited to WT Pros and teams. The financial penalty is probably out of reach for a 19 y/o woman in CX discipline. I am going to be interested in how the UCI investigation is conducted and reported.
Cheating is cheating and I don't feel any more strongly disappointed by motor or chemical doping. I seems to be in the minority. People are numb to doping now, but to me its just as big a threat to the authenticity of sport and probably easier to conceal than mechanical cheating. Often difficult to prosecute and very costly to try to police. Checking bikes for motors at an event is not nearly as expensive as running a bio passport program.
excellent post/points (although i personally do prefer oldschool doping to motorization)
and as Tienus asked multiple times: why weren't her other bikes (including the one she actually raced on) checked? It all smells darn iffy. Unrusprisingly the press arent asking these questions.
Here's a presser wrt Giro 2015 bike testing:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-checks-bikes-of-contador-hesjedal-and-gilbert-for-motors-at-giro-ditalia/
As you read it, it's one eyebrowraiser after the other, and the whole strategy behind the testing remains totally opaque.
More to the point, to only check the finish bikes of MTFs is to ignore the reality of how motors could be of help particulalry
on the flat , the rainy and windy parts, where GC riders would otherwise burn valuable energy to stay up front and not get caught out by crosswinds and splits.
The riders could switch to a normal (and lighter!) bike for the final climb where you arrive fresh as a daisy.
So everybody's (including l'Equipe and some tv commentators) have been noticing Contador's dodgy bike switches prior to the final climb.. and what do UCI do? They test only the bike he brings across the finish line.
That's either **** dumb, or deliberately not wanting to catch anybody.
As UCI themselves are still in charge of the testing it means all results from at least 2010 onwards may have been rigged by motorization, GTs and Monuments alike.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram