Motor doping thread

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

....
Just so. I mean, UCI is the governing body, right? - professionals. If a U23 19 year old is racing with a motor in her bike, that can only mean the technology has been around for a while (I'm guessing since circa 2010). If it's been around for a while in what is arguably one of the cheatingest sports in the world, the UCI must have got wind of it. If the UCI in the past six years got wind of it, why are they not controlling for it in a fair and even way, similar to what you describe? As professionals they know how to do these things, and how imperative it is they be done, so I think we must rule out "asleep on the job". What does that leave?

i think this statement from the Giro last year where they allegedly checked some bikes is pretty telling of how 'serious' uci has taken the threat of motorization.

In a brief statement, the UCI judges at the Giro d'Italia confirmed they checked the bikes “to clarify the absence of hidden motors".
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-checks-bikes-of-contador-hesjedal-and-gilbert-for-motors-at-giro-ditalia/

I read the rest of it - thanks for the link. Your quote is selective, of course, as is this one from Contador: "When asked about Cipollini's comments after the stage to Abetone, he dismissed with a joke suggestions about hidden motors in bikes.

"My bike doesn't have three motors, it has five! The whole thing about motors is a joke, it comes from the world of science fiction," he said."

So far as the UCI judge is concerned, I don't expect he intended the impression you imply he gave. We don't know in what language his remark was originally made - unless you happen to know. Most likely translated to English for us.

It doesn't really matter what language was used or exactly what the official said or meant; the actions of his organization - the UCI - speak volumes and mean much.

I notice from reading the linked piece that they tested among bikes that crossed the finish line. What about the ones atop the team cars? Who would be stupid enough to ride a moto-bike over the finish line when you could easily change bikes beforehand? (Especially since it's fairly certain teams would have been told, at the very least, to expect random checks at the Giro.) And then what of the bikes in the team trucks?

If the UCI isn't doing random checks of the bikes on the team cars and in the team trucks, but only testing a few bikes that cross the finish line, it means they aren't serious about really finding anything, but would like it to appear that they are.

 

[Tienus]

Interesting interview with Math Salden (I think correct me if I'm wrong). His shop is selling the Wilier 101 E-Cyclocrosser. Father of Ralph Salden who we saw allready explaining how the viax engine works and claiming he would not install it in a pro riders bike.

http://nos.nl/video/2084562-geheime-magneetjes-zijn-een-andere-vorm-van-mechanische-doping.html

He explains how the magnetic wheel works At the end of the interview he is being asked if the riders are willing to take the risk.

His answer:
you never know how the UCI will check.
are they really checking?
are they going to be more strickt?
in the past the UCI has consciously ignored some cases

 

[StryderHells]

Re: Mechanical doping: first rider caught

...
As much as I wish Armstrong was motordoping I doubt he was, Floyd really wanted to do Armstrong in so I think he would of said something by now. The guy was just a great responder to what he was using and was allowed to test positive and get away with it. Riding away from Beloki like he did does look dodgy but I also think you are overrating Beloki a fair bit, he was good but not that good

have to agree. Arguments against Armstrong using a motor (at least not in the mountains):
- his attacks were almost always out of the saddle. Out of the saddle attacks whilst receiving a motorboost seems too tricky. Better to stay in the saddle (cf. Cancellara, Femke, Froome).
- Cancellara 2010 was so obvious, largely because of the motorsystem he used. He had to make complicated bikeswitches (see Durand's vid for a compelling analysis) and flick switches that everybody could see. Ten years earlier the system would have been even less refined, and we surely would have seen some more eye-catching hints of a motor if Lance would've used any.
- Indeed, neither Floyd nor any of the other witnesses in the USADA case have hinted at motorfraud.
- when Cancellara experimented, it was rumored about throughout the peloton. It really has all the looks of it that Cance was pioneering this.

All depends on what the description of pioneer you want to use, he might be the first big name to use it (still not entirely convinced but its hard to argue against Canc motordoping) but i'm sure lower level riders were at least experimenting/testing this before Cancellara.

 

[Tienus]

Just looked at the video of Azencross Loenhout. My theory that Femke was riding the white sadle bike exclusively since Francochamps is not correct. She is using the same bike as Koppenberg.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao4wLYaW7lY

She has a good race.
I think she pushes the button at 24:21 (have to play in slow speed to notice her four other fingers move out). With her engine she does not manage to win the sprint and she pushes the button at 54:47 (clear thumb pushing the four fingers extend only very slight).

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
I read the rest of it - thanks for the link. Your quote is selective, of course, as is this one from Contador: "When asked about Cipollini's comments after the stage to Abetone, he dismissed with a joke suggestions about hidden motors in bikes.

"My bike doesn't have three motors, it has five! The whole thing about motors is a joke, it comes from the world of science fiction," he said."

So far as the UCI judge is concerned, I don't expect he intended the impression you imply he gave. We don't know in what language his remark was originally made - unless you happen to know. Most likely translated to English for us.

i'd say your response to UCI criticism is rather selective.
Look around. UCI are a mess, Cookson a fraud.
This thread is growing into a precious collection of evidence to that extent, yet all you can muster is a complaint about selective quoting?
Just saying, right now there are other things to worry about than Alberto's thoughts getting lost in translation.

 

[Benotti69]

"It is a bigger advantage than doping"

Rob Hayles

Hayles would know....

 

[Tienus]

Had a better look at Cancellara in 2010. Looks like he has a button in a simular position. In other videos they are talking about index or middle finger, watching the video a button for the thumb makes more sense.

These are the best quality I can find quickly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2jBBUJUS4w
Play it at the slow speed at 3:29

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vygkaL1uEo8
Cant find a HD version for this one but even in normal speed you can see him extending his four fingers away from the brake.

If you are sceptical I suggest you try pushing an imaginary button on your brake with your thumb. Try it at slightly different possitions and try it both gently and hard. You can also vary the way your hands are gripping.

 

[sniper]

Re: Mechanical doping: first rider caught

...
All depends on what the description of pioneer you want to use, he might be the first big name to use it (still not entirely convinced but its hard to argue against Canc motordoping) but i'm sure lower level riders were at least experimenting/testing this before Cancellara.

yeah, fair point.
Davide Cassani's informant in 2010 said that it had been in use already in 2004.

btw, an argument i forgot is the one you mentioned: the extra weight of the motor.

That Belgian video that Benotti posted yesterday (it was also discussed in the older motordoping thread)is from 2013. In it, the Belgian manufacturer says that that system is the most advanced system presently available. It's the cancellara/femke system. So it's hard to surmise that early 2000s there would have been anything lighter or otherwise more advanced in circulation.
If Armstrong rode with that cancellara/femke system, it would have drawn attention no doubt, and it would have been to heavy for longer climbs. I don't think it would have been worth carrying around an extra 2 or 3 kgs in longer climbs and MTFs.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Had a better look at Cancellara in 2010. Looks like he has a button in a simular position. In other videos they are talking about index or middle finger, watching the video a button for the thumb makes more sense.

These are the best quality I can find quickly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2jBBUJUS4w
Play it at the slow speed at 3:29

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vygkaL1uEo8
Cant find a HD version for this one but even in normal speed you can see him extending his four fingers away from the brake.

If you are sceptical I suggest you try pushing an imaginary button on your brake with your thumb. Try it at slightly different possitions and try it both gently and hard. You can also vary the way your hands are gripping.

if you find the time, do have a look at the "the motorized bike exists!" thread. It contains all possible links and analyses of Cancellara's 2010 PR and RvV, including slowmo's of the clicking, high res vids, detailed analyses of his bikeswitch patterns, and other riders and observers (including lefevere) calling Cancellara out for motordoping. The sum of it represents quite compelling evidence I can assure you.
It would be a pity if this thread turns into a repetition of things that have already been discussed at length in that thread.

 

[Tienus]

@sniper
I remember following that thread years ago. Will have a look to update myself.
I cant remember anyone pointing out that the button was controlled by thumb, thats why I pointed it out.

 

[sniper]

Re:

@sniper
I remember following that thread years ago. Will have a look to update myself.
I cant remember anyone pointing out that the button was controlled by thumb, thats why I pointed it out.

Apologies, I didn't mean to keep you from looking at it and further analyzing/scrutinizing it. On the contrary.
So thanks for clarifying. and that's a good point.
I agree the clicking deserves more scrutiny if we want to view it as evidence.

It was meant as a general remark, I shouldn't have directed it at you.
I guess what I wanted to say is that this thread has hitherto been of high quality (in no small part thanks to you). But there really has been quality discussion also in that older thread, and a lot of good links to analyses and footage, and it would be a pity if we wouldn't look back at that and draw on it to improve the quality of the present discussions.
For instance, also in the case of Cancellara, there has been quite some confusion about which bikes he had used during which parts of the race. Lots of confusion, and evasiveness from Riis about it as well.
e.g. here:
viewtopic.php?p=234080#p234080
or here:
viewtopic.php?p=233954#p233954
and much more.
And if you understand French, the Jackie Durand analysis of the bikeswitches is a must-watch.
Another must watch is the belgian tv-documentary that Benotti posted.

 

[sniper]

Re:

@sniper
I remember following that thread years ago. Will have a look to update myself.
I cant remember anyone pointing out that the button was controlled by thumb, thats why I pointed it out.

yeah, back to this.
So would you claim that that is additional evidence of Cancellara using a motor?
In the older motor-thread, there was some unresolved discussion about whether or not his clicking could have been regular changing of gears. You say unlikely?

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

...
I read the rest of it - thanks for the link. Your quote is selective, of course, as is this one from Contador: "When asked about Cipollini's comments after the stage to Abetone, he dismissed with a joke suggestions about hidden motors in bikes.

"My bike doesn't have three motors, it has five! The whole thing about motors is a joke, it comes from the world of science fiction," he said."

So far as the UCI judge is concerned, I don't expect he intended the impression you imply he gave. We don't know in what language his remark was originally made - unless you happen to know. Most likely translated to English for us.

i'd say your response to UCI criticism is rather selective.
Look around. UCI are a mess, Cookson a fraud.
This thread is growing into a precious collection of evidence to that extent, yet all you can muster is a complaint about selective quoting?
Just saying, right now there are other things to worry about than Alberto's thoughts getting lost in translation.

A nice put-down, thanks my friend.
So did you think "In a brief statement, the UCI judges at the Giro d'Italia confirmed they checked the bikes “to clarify the absence of hidden motors" was telling or not? You said it was. If you don't want me to be selective, then why are you? If you raise points you aren't interested in, then why be surprised to receive a response to the part of the article that does not interest you?
I am not connected with the UCI and am not here to defend them, as I have indicated before. But it is fair, is it not, to comment on what others say if they are out of balance?

 

[Metabolol]

I think, like mentioned above, that if you want to find the start of the moto doping era it's a good idea to look at Armstrong. Because, it's a pretty safe bet that if the technology was around he would use it. With his connections and money, I don't think anyone could out-dope him (for long).

If he had access to moto doping then he would have won something after his comeback. And if it was around in the early 2000s he would have used it and someone would have said something by now.

So most likely the moto doping era started in 2010.

Or maybe I'm wrong and moto doping is that extra level of doping that Armstrong had access too mentioned by Hamilton in his book (but he didn't know what it was, just that he was doing something 'extra').

 

[jens_attacks]

i'm curious...why are they still slower on hills and mountains since 2010, compared to 1993-2006? (and yes cancellara included, because the time trials are also still slower)
shouldn't these motors make them faster,are those crrap in fat? did pantani and co had better engines?

 

[Tienus]

@sniper
No need for apologies, I'm glad you reminded me of that thread as I love analyzing things.

Cancellara and Riis have lots of money and resources. Femke and her entourage probably dont. Thats why I decided to look closely at the bikes she's riding this season.
It looks like the UCI is creating a smoke screen but luckely the television director decided to help us a little and shows Femke in the pits jumping on another bike.

 

[Tienus]

Re: Re:

@sniper
I remember following that thread years ago. Will have a look to update myself.
I cant remember anyone pointing out that the button was controlled by thumb, thats why I pointed it out.

yeah, back to this.
So would you claim that that is additional evidence of Cancellara using a motor?
In the older motor-thread, there was some unresolved discussion about whether or not his clicking could have been regular changing of gears. You say unlikely?

I have made up my mind after experimenting. Rather then trying to convince people I would prefer others to try for themself and post their thoughts.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

You know as well as I do that he would have never been popped for those three atoms of Clen in his blood had he not defied Armstrong - not to say that the Clen got there accidentally.

half life

I enjoy concrete poetry, but what does the half life of clenbuterol have to do with the price of tea in Texas? (We should probably take this to the Contador thread.)

your qualifier " three atoms of Clen in his blood ", as if the "three atoms" was relevant. I do not mean as in strict liability/responsibility, I merely mean that these three atoms have underwent some process of half-life metabolism. So the number three is utterly irrelevant.

 

[Tienus]

Here's another interesting thought. Femke never made it to the pits with her broken chain.

This is the Zolder parcours:
http://www.wk2016.be/parcours/
http://www.wkveldrijden.nl/WKVELDRIJDEN/userdata/images/2016/parcours_wk2016.jpg

The race:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEEP7EGFk_U

At the start the young ladies pas the finish at 10:46. At the end of the straight there is a left turn and then a right U-turn. It takes the first young lady 28 seconds from the finish line to the U-turn. They where all sprinting so I can safely assume they where going faster than 30km/h.
We see Femke at 44:15 she has just past the finish line. At 45:49 we see Femke exiting the race course climbing the fence at the outside of the U-turn. I estimate her time from finish to U-turn 1.35.

If the girls at the start where doing 30kmh then Femke was doing about 9kmh. We can see her run with her bike after she passes the finish, its safe to say she wasnt going faster. I therefore assume she stayed on the race track.

Where did her bike go?
How did she know there was a spare bike parked there?
Who is umbrella man?

With my digging I seem to raise more questions then answers. I think I should quit and just buy the UCI story.

 

[Mr.White]

Re:

i'm curious...why are they still slower on hills and mountains since 2010, compared to 1993-2006? (and yes cancellara included, because the time trials are also still slower)
shouldn't these motors make them faster,are those crrap in fat? did pantani and co had better engines?

Maybe they don't want to be suspicious, they want to look clean. But that's a hard task..

 

[sniper]

Re:

i'm curious...why are they still slower on hills and mountains since 2010, compared to 1993-2006? (and yes cancellara included, because the time trials are also still slower)
shouldn't these motors make them faster,are those crrap in fat? did pantani and co had better engines?

why not stick to the facts:
femke: motorized
cancellara 2010, vroome 2013 mont ventoux: most awkward performances.
movistar mechanic: "hide it, quickly!"...most awkward.
hesjedal's bike taking off against all (including his own) expectations... at least a little awkward.

everything else is anyone's guess for now.
personally i don't think this is widespread.
It allowed Femke to rise to the top of her discipline, probably because she's one of the few using it.
Also, the available systems probably allow for only a few boosts per ride. So while it is certainly a gamechanger, it's not (yet) a gamechanger on the level of 'overall speeds going up'.

Btw, if it IS widespread, UCI better start taking good care of Femke and her entourage quickly.

 

[jens_attacks]

I am speculating trololol

Dude i won't even argue with you, you are a lost cause

But you seem to enjoy cycling. So have fun.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

You know as well as I do that he would have never been popped for those three atoms of Clen in his blood had he not defied Armstrong - not to say that the Clen got there accidentally.

half life

I enjoy concrete poetry, but what does the half life of clenbuterol have to do with the price of tea in Texas? (We should probably take this to the Contador thread.)

your qualifier " three atoms of Clen in his blood ", as if the "three atoms" was relevant. I do not mean as in strict liability/responsibility, I merely mean that these three atoms have underwent some process of half-life metabolism. So the number three is utterly irrelevant.

Irony. In saying "three atoms of clen" I was pointing out the absurdity of a trace amount that was so small it was measured in molecules. What was it again? A millionth of a gram? A millionth. At that level they should have also found atomic remnants of the placenta of baby Jesus.

A trace amount, I remind you, that moreover would not have revealed itself in their regular lab testing, but was only found because Contador's blood was sent off for extra-special scrutiny. ("I can make any rider turn up positive," boasted Hein Verbruggen. The same Verbruggen who said, "Armstrong doping? Never. Never, never, never.") I didn't mean three literal atoms of clen.

 

[noddy69]

Re: Re:

You know as well as I do that he would have never been popped for those three atoms of Clen in his blood had he not defied Armstrong - not to say that the Clen got there accidentally.

half life

I enjoy concrete poetry, but what does the half life of clenbuterol have to do with the price of tea in Texas? (We should probably take this to the Contador thread.)

your qualifier " three atoms of Clen in his blood ", as if the "three atoms" was relevant. I do not mean as in strict liability/responsibility, I merely mean that these three atoms have underwent some process of half-life metabolism. So the number three is utterly irrelevant.

Irony. In saying "three atoms of clen" I was pointing out the absurdity of a trace amount that was so small it was measured in molecules. What was it again? A millionth of a gram? A millionth. At that level they should have also found atomic remnants of the placenta of baby Jesus.

A trace amount, I remind you, that moreover would not have revealed itself in their regular lab testing, but was only found because Contador's blood was sent off for extra-special scrutiny. ("I can make any rider turn up positive," boasted Hein Verbruggen. The same Verbruggen who said, "Armstrong doping? Never. Never, never, never.") I didn't mean three literal atoms of clen.

Why does everyone ignore the plasticisers and Landis testimony and concentrate on the beef residue oh and the fact that he beat Armstrong in 2009 so was due a positive

 

[LaFlorecita]

What did Landis say about Contador?