Motor doping thread

[ooo]

aert gif, not suspicion I think

http://gfycat.com/OccasionalBitterElectriceel

 

[sniper]

Re:

aert gif, not suspicion i think

http://gfycat.com/OccasionalBitterElectriceel

why not?
it looks odd.
what bike was he riding?
i wanna know, did UCI check his bike? If not, why tha *** not?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Cosmo Catalano and Adam Myerson think Wout Van Aert is at it (4th guy, in all white. Video is from Hoogerheide) - https://www.facebook.com/cosmo.catalano/videos/10100653425172516/?fref=nf

Wow, that looks weird. Don't know how to explain the wheel movement.

I downloaded the video and went through it frame-by-frame.
1 - He coasts to the apex of the turn, right where the rear end of his saddle is at the start of the first "a" in the first "kalas" on the banner. Right crank at 6 o'clock, no crank rotation.
2 - He starts to pedal, the right crank rotates to about 7:30 o'clock by the time his saddle is at the start of the second "a" of the first "kalas".
3 - Something goes wrong (some mention of chain jump in Cosmo's post), he stops pedaling and actually backpedals a fraction, the right crank rotates in reverse and gets to almost 6 o'clock by the time his saddle is at the end of the "s" in the first "kalas".
4 - He starts pedaling again, the right crank is at 9 o'clock by the time his saddle gets to the start of the "k" in the second "kalas".
5 - between those two points (saddle at end of "s" and saddle at start of "k"), if you go frame by frame and compare the rotation of the crank and the rotation of the rear rim, you see (a) the rim rotation speeds up right when the crank starts rotating again, and (b) the crank rotation rate and the rim rotation rate speed up together, as he exits the corner.

In other words, it looks okay to me. I think what fools our eyes is the brief interruption where he backpedals for an instant.

I don't know if you are using a Mac or a PC. On a OS X, you can record streaming video from your screen, using Quicktime Player, then use cursor right and left arrows to step through the video frames. Pretty handy. There must be a similar trick for Windows, does anyone know it? I use Windows 10.

well done, though i don't think we should burry this one just yet.

what about after that wheel spin?
the way he suddenly has trouble keeping up with his own high cadence is somewhat reminiscent of Froome's 2013 ventoux hairpin. Looks slightly unusual. But i could be wrong and this could be normal.

the mammoth in the room is why didn't UCI check his bike? (or did they?)
He won the race for *** sake.

 

[ooo]

sniper, it look like wheel rotates in sync with cranks, and there is no suspicion cranks rotation acceleration

wheel acceleration without cranks acceleration possible, but requires engine in hub (requires bigger hub) or electromagnetics inside the rim and frame (there is no practical product, it will be the first of a kind)

 

[sniper]

Re:

sniper, it look like wheel rotates in sync with cranks, and there is no suspicion cranks rotation acceleration

wheel acceleration without cranks acceleration requires engine in hub (requires bigger hub) or electromagnetics inside the rim and frame (there is no practical product, it may be the first of a kind)

that's the point.
With the naked eye, to me it looks like the crank rotation comes with a very slight delay compared to the wheel rotation.
But i could definitely be mistaken and so I'll have to trust jyl's slo-mo analysis above.

 

[ooo]

you can change speed using + and - on the left bottom corner , or using url with speed parameter:

http://gfycat.com/OccasionalBitterElectriceel#?speed=0.2
http://gfycat.com/OccasionalBitterElectriceel#?speed=0.5
http://gfycat.com/OccasionalBitterElectriceel#?speed=1.0

 

[sniper]

Re:

you can change speed using + and - on the left bottom corner , or using url with speed parameter:

http://gfycat.com/OccasionalBitterElectriceel#?speed=0.2
http://gfycat.com/OccasionalBitterElectriceel#?speed=0.5
http://gfycat.com/OccasionalBitterElectriceel#?speed=1.0

great, thanks. admittedly, that looks ok in slomo.

 

[Metabolol]

The way the UCI is handling this it looks like they had to bust her (or they wouldn't have done anything of course) but at the same time they are trying to give her a way out. Bust her before she was caught in some other way to be able to have a little more control of the narrative.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Re: Re:

You seem to be operating under the assumption that by describing her as a "deer in the headlights" I'm somehow absolving her of blame. She's pretty damned obviously not blameless in the situation. At the end of the day, it's still her that rides the illegal bike and it's her name that gets splashed about the press, so there's no way she wasn't in on it. Like hrotha said way back, while she's young enough to be impressionable, she's also old enough to know what she's doing is massively egregious cheating and she's old enough to take responsibility for her actions. And they also called you out for not letting go of the gender issue in it too.

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. Obviously she will have known that if she got caught, it would be bad, but she may not have fully realised just how big a deal it would be, and also how massive the coverage of the scandal would be compared to the coverage of the races she is in. When I point out she's not equipped for that because she's "an U23 women's CX rider" it's not "because she's female" but because:
a) cyclocross gets much less coverage, at least worldwide, than road cycling
b) U23 racing gets much less coverage than the elite seniors
c) women's cycling gets much less coverage than men's cycling
If a hypothetical Femke on a non-doctored bike had WON that race, she'd get a short piece on Sporza, a bit of a celebration of the Belgian home champions after van Aert's win perhaps, and then she'd go back to where she was. And if that hypothetical Femke had also been doping (regardless of whether the actual one was or wasn't), by the time the results came back, Classics sason would be underway, the 'cross season would be more or less over, it might get a brief flurry of attention then she'd disappear into the night. Being caught with a motor doesn't allow that "out"; the deception is recognized immediately as soon as it's spotted. The humiliation is severe and it is instant, and now her disgrace is being reported all over the world, and not just in the specialist press either. And she then has to justify herself under questioning in a TV interview that's going to be watched by a LOT more people worldwide than the usual Sporza audience, with prospective bans and fines being bandied about that massively exceed anything she could reasonably have hoped to make in her whole career if she'd been able to motor-dope her way to victory in almost every World Cup for a decade. Easy to get overwhelmed.

She's become a pariah overnight, and also because what she's done is SO blatant, SO egregious, and SO antithetical to what the sport is meant to be about, in one fell swoop she goes from being thought of as potentially slightly shady by the comparatively small proportion of the cycling fanbase that follows women's cyclocross to being such a soft target that people are almost lining up to pile on more shame, from the justifiably righteous to the attention-seeking hypocrites of the sport. Even Riccardo Riccò, cycling fans' favourite punching bag, has said his bit to put the boot in on her. Because whatever he did, he can say that he didn't get busted for putting a motor in his bike.

Everything we're seeing is telling us that the van den Driessche family, seemingly in general, is dubious as all hell. We aren't talking a few otherwise totally upstanding people having to cut corners out of desperation to keep their dreams alive. Even the most sympathetic portrayals of Femke must acknowledge that. It's impossible that she didn't know what was going on, and therefore whoever was responsible for the idea or implementation of the ruse is irrelevant (and obviously the excuse has been worked out on the fly, and now they've forced their own hands into sticking to it). Even a constant power, or power-activated motor that didn't require switching on and off would mean that the bike would be much heavier, and almost certainly would have felt and handled significantly differently. And it seems like the UCI's telling us of it being random checking to check out a new bit of gear is a likely fallacy, just as when they told everybody Carlos Barredo had a high suspicion index score because he hadn't been tested enough, then quietly erased his career for biopassport violations. It sounds like enough people were concerned for action to become almost needed.

She joins the ranks of those who had to be removed because they weren't subtle enough. But by being the first one caught for a whole new world of cheating, she also stands alone... for the time being.

Excellent post.

I had been thinking that the van den Driessche family sounds a lot like Ricco's clan, so it's unsurprising that he's chosen to criticize her.

As to the bold, I've felt this way about Froome for a few years now. Some animals are more equal than others, I suppose.

The sport is a trough.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Re:

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.)

This is also an excellent post. Mods should title it "The New Fan's Guide to Understanding the UCI" and sticky it at the top of the clinic's main page.

 

[Tienus]

Re:

youtube - femke bike closeup in interview

This is bike nr3. I think its a clean one.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

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.)

This is also an excellent post. Mods should title it "The New Fan's Guide to Understanding the UCI" and sticky it at the top of the clinic's main page.

Agreed. Which is exactly what the Bio Passport is. Its a dope monitoring program by the UCI. If they see a team/rider pushing the limits they send a letter. Rider / team pulls back. Its the same as calling in Lance to explain the EPO test or calling up Hamilton or Levi to tell them they are flying too close to the sun. Now the UCI can do the same whilst looking legitimate as they do it.

 

[Tienus]

Just went for a ride and experimented a little. Resting my hand on the top of the brakes, not grippping but relaxed fingers pointing down. Then I pushed an imaginary button with my thumb and watched what happened to my other fingers. I suggest to anyone who doubts if Femke is pushing a button in the links posted in this thread to do this experiment.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Just went for a ride and experimented a little. Resting my hand on the top of the brakes, not grippping but relaxed fingers pointing down. Then I pushed an imaginary button with my thumb and watched what happened to my other fingers. I suggest to anyone who doubts if Femke is pushing a button in the links posted in this thread to do this experiment.

good work. Have you seen Cancellara's flicking? It looked very similar to Femke's.
There must be newer, less conspicuous motorization systems circulating in the peloton.

 

[VO2 Max]

Re: Re:

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.)

This is also an excellent post. Mods should title it "The New Fan's Guide to Understanding the UCI" and sticky it at the top of the clinic's main page.

+1. All of this, plus don't forget that having dirt on basically everyone is very useful if you want complete control.

 

[jyl]

Re: Re:

youtube - femke bike closeup in interview

This is bike nr3. I think its a clean one.

Racing fans and photographers must be scouring the internet and their hard drives for photos of the bike that was seized, and her other bikes, and trying to determine in which races she rode the seized bike. But I haven't seen any clear exposition of this.

I know you've been examining this closely. Can you post a confirmed photo (or link to a photo) of the motorized bike that was seized at the Worlds and contained the motor?

 

[Brian Butterfield]

Have we had the "rogue element" or "rotten apples" statement from Brian yet? I'm betting "WE IS CONTINUING TO STAMP OUT THE ISOLATED ROGUE ELEMENTS WITHIN THE SPORT."
I take cheques/ cash. Paypal good.

 

[Benotti69]

Belgian film shows what a man on a motorised bike can do in a race

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqhX8-dazOo#t=69

This film shows two guys testing out a motorised bike, then the guy in the orange helmet uses it in a major race, using the motor to bridge the gap to the break.

He says he could have won but that he sat up as the was purely for demonstration purposes. They informed the organiser after the event.

 

[Tienus]

As I was riding for a couple of hours today I couldnt stop thinking about what Maud kaptheijns said. She thought it was suspiscious that Femke did not change the bike she was riding during the race in Hoogerheide.

What is so suspiscious about that? Allow me to do some wild speculation:

Hoogerheide is a UCI event just like the world championships. Did Femke and her entourage expect the UCI to check bicycles only in the pits? Was she afraid of mechanics detecting her secret? If so she could have kept a clean bike in the pits and ride the whole race on a motorized version. Was this also her strategy for the world championships? She would have only had a non e-bike in the pits, probably the one I call bike nr3.

The UCI claims they checked bicycles in the first lap of the race and took Femkes bike. Renaat Schotte confirms live on tv he saw them scanning bikes, I did not hear him mention they took her bike. He took this foto:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BBNpEMCHF4k/
So far I have not seen photos or videos or even heard a witness confirm the UCI took Femke's bike during the first lap. Even her dad seems very confused as he thinks it happened towards the end of the race (when Femke abandoned). In this video the interviewer confronts him with the UCI statement that the bike was taken in the first lap. Look at the reaction of both Femke and her dad when they are being told at 3:36, her dad even starts to argue this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjNpSAYIiEk

Lets go to the actual footage of the race:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEEP7EGFk_U
Femke is having a realy bad race, perhaps Nico forgot to charge the batteries. After two laps she has zero chance of winning a medal. Then she breaks her chain, you can see her walk when she starts her last lap at 44:15. The cameraman finds her again at 45:49 without the white sadle bike she was racing. Who did she give it to bearing in mind that it is secretly motorized? Her dad, her mechanic or perhaps the UCI? Then she jumps quickly on bike nr3 which is probably clean. Before she quickly rides away she makes a strange face to umbrella man. Does she look like she is disappointed (she knew for over 20 minutes she wasnt in for the medals). Or does she look like someone who just got caught with her hand in the cookie jar? Or someone who hopes they will not find the cookies hidden in her confiscated bag.

In the interview Femke tells she found out about something being wrong with her bike when she arrived at her truck. She and her dad had to go see the UCI. Rudy the Bie joined them as he states in this interview:
http://sporza.be/cm/sporza/videozone/sporten/2.25755/VeldrijdenWK/1.2560839
I pressume this was inside and no spectators alowed. Like when they check roadrace bikes in tents ziped up. I allways wonder why the public and the press are not allowed to watch. Perhaps the tent is a protection for us as the pros now have uranium in their bikes to get the desired power.

If this wild fantasy of mine is true it means the UCI have asked Femke to lie about her not using the bike during the world championships.

Anyway this can all be easily debunked if the UCI, Rudy de Bie or anyone else would prevent us with some pictures or other information.

Does anyone know how many spare bikes an u23 rider is allowed during the world championships? When I watch the men race they seem to have only two bikes, ie one spare. Would be great for the fictional post I've just written.

 

[Tienus]

Re: Re:

youtube - femke bike closeup in interview

This is bike nr3. I think its a clean one.

Racing fans and photographers must be scouring the internet and their hard drives for photos of the bike that was seized, and her other bikes, and trying to determine in which races she rode the seized bike. But I haven't seen any clear exposition of this.

I know you've been examining this closely. Can you post a confirmed photo (or link to a photo) of the motorized bike that was seized at the Worlds and contained the motor?

If you read my post above you realise we need pictures from the confiscated bike. I know two of her bikes have been motorized. Possibly she changed the engine from one bike into another after everyone got suspiscious. I could find this out by searching videos and photos on the net but I dont think its important.

I initially thought that the bike being seized was the one I call Nico's bike. But for this to be true I have to be sure the UCI statement is correct. Its the bike she was riding atthe Koppencross.

 

[Tienus]

Re: Re:

Just went for a ride and experimented a little. Resting my hand on the top of the brakes, not grippping but relaxed fingers pointing down. Then I pushed an imaginary button with my thumb and watched what happened to my other fingers. I suggest to anyone who doubts if Femke is pushing a button in the links posted in this thread to do this experiment.

good work. Have you seen Cancellara's flicking? It looked very similar to Femke's.
There must be newer, less conspicuous motorization systems circulating in the peloton.[/quote]

Havent looked closely at Cancellara. Just had a real quick look now. He could also be use his right thumb in Roubaix. When I experimented today I also noticed a big difference if you have a firm grip on the top of the brake, your other fingers tend to go inward to when you push. Its easy with femke as she is allmost allways riding relaxed on the asphalt towards the finish. Watching some of her racing I noticed she has quite good technique compared to the competition.

 

[BikeCentric]

Re: Mechanical doping: first rider caught

Another good one from Business Insider, details on the motors being used:
http://www.businessinsider.com/vivax-motor-bike-doping

404 - Not found

Sorry, this should work:
http://www.businessinsider.com/vivax-motor-bike-doping-scandal-2016-2

 

[arcus]

This has generated a great deal of traction in news sites. Understandable, I suppose, since a secretly motorized bicycle is perfect clickbait.

For casual observers who don't really know cycling, I suspect this is worse PR than a well-known rider getting dinged for PEDs.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

La Gazzetta implies Izaguirre is bike doping - video of spinning wheel included

http://www.gazzetta.it/Ciclismo/03-02-2016/volta-valenciana-bici-terra-ruota-continua-girare-video-izaguirre-140533589109.shtml

 

[Son of Amsterhammer]

Re:

La Gazzetta implies Izaguirre is bike doping - video of spinning wheel included

http://www.gazzetta.it/Ciclismo/03-02-2016/volta-valenciana-bici-terra-ruota-continua-girare-video-izaguirre-140533589109.shtml

Couldn't it just be spinning if he didn't have time to hit the back brake? It rested on its side the entire time, so nothing would have stopped it spinning. At least to my eyes.