Motor doping thread

Page 58 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Re: Re:

mr. tibbs said:
Alex Simmons/RST said:
Of course, motor "doping" of another form, i.e. hanging onto the team car, has been going on ever since team cars came along to support riders....
I saw a great comment somewhere (Cycling Tips, maybe) that summarized Femke's situation in relation to Arnaud's:

"A motor in the hand is worth two in the down tube."
I would've thought;

"A motor in the downtube is worth two in the hand"
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
mr. tibbs said:
Alex Simmons/RST said:
Of course, motor "doping" of another form, i.e. hanging onto the team car, has been going on ever since team cars came along to support riders....
I saw a great comment somewhere (Cycling Tips, maybe) that summarized Femke's situation in relation to Arnaud's:

"A motor in the hand is worth two in the down tube."
I would've thought;

"A motor in the downtube is worth two in the hand"
The hand is more valuable because a motor in the down tube gets you six years while one in the hand gets you a monument. :p
 
Re: Mechanical doping: first rider caught

Fan hostility never was a real problem with dopers. Why would it be with mechanical frauds?
Now this family is especially nasty of course. All in their own special ways, and all of them for lying on camera to boot. But would I treat them worse than Di Luca types? My booo would sound the same. And Di Luca deserves a stick between his spokes just as well.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
0
0
Re: Mechanical doping: first rider caught

Cloxxki said:
Fan hostility never was a real problem with dopers. Why would it be with mechanical frauds?
Now this family is especially nasty of course. All in their own special ways, and all of them for lying on camera to boot. But would I treat them worse than Di Luca types? My booo would sound the same. And Di Luca deserves a stick between his spokes just as well.

come on, they are the principals in an international parakeet smuggling and aphrodisiac operation. #respect
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,771
3
0
Re: Re:

Irondan said:
monsieur_hulot said:
No, it doesn't.

Not even a little bit.

If you have ever ridden a bike before you would know that when laying down your bike on it's side the pedals stick out, and when touched to the ground they can move the wheel forward.

I've had this same thing happen many times with no motor in my frame.
I think it looks normal as you say.

There was a video of some Garmin rider who had a little more momentum on the spin of the wheel once the bicycle hit the deck.
 

Irondan

Administrator
Moderator
Re: Re:

Glenn_Wilson said:
Irondan said:
monsieur_hulot said:
No, it doesn't.

Not even a little bit.

If you have ever ridden a bike before you would know that when laying down your bike on it's side the pedals stick out, and when touched to the ground they can move the wheel forward.

I've had this same thing happen many times with no motor in my frame.
I think it looks normal as you say.

There was a video of some Garmin rider who had a little more momentum on the spin of the wheel once the bicycle hit the deck.
I remember, that was Ryder Hesjadal. The film footage of his wheel was a lot more ambiguous. His wheel was also spinning at a much faster rate for the apparent force that went into his pedal when it hit the ground. IMO this video is not the same circumstances.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,771
3
0
Re: Re:

Irondan said:
Glenn_Wilson said:
Irondan said:
monsieur_hulot said:
No, it doesn't.

Not even a little bit.

If you have ever ridden a bike before you would know that when laying down your bike on it's side the pedals stick out, and when touched to the ground they can move the wheel forward.

I've had this same thing happen many times with no motor in my frame.
I think it looks normal as you say.

There was a video of some Garmin rider who had a little more momentum on the spin of the wheel once the bicycle hit the deck.
I remember, that was Ryder Hesjadal. The film footage of his wheel was a lot more ambiguous. His wheel was also spinning at a much faster rate for the apparent force that went into his pedal when it hit the ground. IMO this video is not the same circumstances.
Yes I agree.

Hey whats up with the parakeets? Someone hit me with the PM. I know about the girl and her family steeling the birds but is there more to it?
 

Irondan

Administrator
Moderator
Re: Re:

Glenn_Wilson said:
Irondan said:
Glenn_Wilson said:
Irondan said:
monsieur_hulot said:
No, it doesn't.

Not even a little bit.

If you have ever ridden a bike before you would know that when laying down your bike on it's side the pedals stick out, and when touched to the ground they can move the wheel forward.

I've had this same thing happen many times with no motor in my frame.
I think it looks normal as you say.

There was a video of some Garmin rider who had a little more momentum on the spin of the wheel once the bicycle hit the deck.
I remember, that was Ryder Hesjadal. The film footage of his wheel was a lot more ambiguous. His wheel was also spinning at a much faster rate for the apparent force that went into his pedal when it hit the ground. IMO this video is not the same circumstances.
Yes I agree.

Hey whats up with the parakeets? Someone hit me with the PM. I know about the girl and her family steeling the birds but is there more to it?
I don't think there's anything more to it, but Blackcat may know something.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
0
0
Re: Re:

Irondan said:
[ quote="Glenn_Wilson"]
Irondan said:
Glenn_Wilson said:
Irondan said:
monsieur_hulot said:
Does this look suspicious or not? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jy8qE1YvSk[ / quote]
No, it doesn't.

Not even a little bit.

If you have ever ridden a bike before you would know that when laying down your bike on it's side the pedals stick out, and when touched to the ground they can move the wheel forward.

I've had this same thing happen many times with no motor in my frame.
I think it looks normal as you say.

There was a video of some Garmin rider who had a little more momentum on the spin of the wheel once the bicycle hit the deck.
I remember, that was Ryder Hesjadal. The film footage of his wheel was a lot more ambiguous. His wheel was also spinning at a much faster rate for the apparent force that went into his pedal when it hit the ground. IMO this video is not the same circumstances.
Yes I agree.

Hey whats up with the parakeets? Someone hit me with the PM. I know about the girl and her family steeling the birds but is there more to it?
I don't think there's anything more to it, but Blackcat may know something.
no, nothing more to it, besides the old wives fable two birds in the hand, one in the bush, dozens in the aviary with misters van den dreissche and the van den dreissches. no relation to fran drescher on the nanny.

but its parakeets, monty python, tony robinson, Fry, cleese.

and you can stick ur muscular christianity and gordonstoun up ur @rse
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,771
3
0
Re: Re:

no, nothing more to it, besides the old wives fable two birds in the hand, one in the bush, dozens in the aviary with misters van den dreissche and the van den dreissches. no relation to fran drescher on the nanny.

but its parakeets, monty python, tony robinson, Fry, cleese.

and you can stick ur muscular christianity and gordonstoun up ur @rse
Ok. Yeah cleese

Parakeets! No aviary will be the same.
 
Sep 10, 2013
183
0
0
Re:

jmdirt said:
I'm glad that the UCI et. al. are referring to hidden power sources as technical fraud instead of mechanical doping now. I'm not sure why it was called "doping" in the first place.
If using motors, or other powered mechanical aids, is officially NOT doping can this subject now be discussed in or moved to other cyclingnews forums with a more comprehensive range of contributors? Or is cheating of any form the sole preserve of the Clinic?
 
Oct 6, 2009
5,270
2
0
Re: Re:

Farcanal said:
jmdirt said:
I'm glad that the UCI et. al. are referring to hidden power sources as technical fraud instead of mechanical doping now. I'm not sure why it was called "doping" in the first place.
If using motors, or other powered mechanical aids, is officially NOT doping can this subject now be discussed in or moved to other cyclingnews forums with a more comprehensive range of contributors? Or is cheating of any form the sole preserve of the Clinic?
I tend to lean towards this. You have some folks in the PRR who get all torn up when anyone suggests a pro athlete is anything other than a god to be worshiped unquestioningly.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Re: Re:

Beech Mtn said:
Farcanal said:
jmdirt said:
I'm glad that the UCI et. al. are referring to hidden power sources as technical fraud instead of mechanical doping now. I'm not sure why it was called "doping" in the first place.
If using motors, or other powered mechanical aids, is officially NOT doping can this subject now be discussed in or moved to other cyclingnews forums with a more comprehensive range of contributors? Or is cheating of any form the sole preserve of the Clinic?
I tend to lean towards this. You have some folks in the PRR who get all torn up when anyone suggests a pro athlete is anything other than a god to be worshiped unquestioningly.
are they not..... :rolleyes:
 
Sep 10, 2013
183
0
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
Beech Mtn said:
Farcanal said:
jmdirt said:
I'm glad that the UCI et. al. are referring to hidden power sources as technical fraud instead of mechanical doping now. I'm not sure why it was called "doping" in the first place.
If using motors, or other powered mechanical aids, is officially NOT doping can this subject now be discussed in or moved to other cyclingnews forums with a more comprehensive range of contributors? Or is cheating of any form the sole preserve of the Clinic?
I tend to lean towards this. You have some folks in the PRR who get all torn up when anyone suggests a pro athlete is anything other than a god to be worshiped unquestioningly.
are they not..... :rolleyes:
Is that a valid reason for it not being aired elsewhere? Since when were Clinic contributors afraid of winding up those they consider to be naive?

Surely the wider the net is cast the more chance there is of other evidence emerging or maybe even somebody with genuine knowledge of possible detection methods?
 
May 14, 2010
5,303
4
0
Re: Re:

Farcanal said:
jmdirt said:
I'm glad that the UCI et. al. are referring to hidden power sources as technical fraud instead of mechanical doping now. I'm not sure why it was called "doping" in the first place.
If using motors, or other powered mechanical aids, is officially NOT doping can this subject now be discussed in or moved to other cyclingnews forums with a more comprehensive range of contributors? Or is cheating of any form the sole preserve of the Clinic?
That UCI is referring to use of hidden motors as technical fraud rather than "mechanical doping" is actually a very good sign. Implicit in this decision is acknowledgement that within the culture of pro cycling dope has a place. We can talk about whether that place is legitimate, and how it came to be - whether through historical precedent, exploitation of riders, or plain and simple necessity - but, like it or not, among fans, many of them, and riders (all of them, probably) dope and doping is a normative state of affairs. To call motor use "doping", then, is to normalize it, to incorporate it into the panoply of substances and methods used in the world of pro cycling to achieve an advantage. Fraud, on the other hand, confers no such legitimacy and thus exiles hidden motors into an area alien to the sport's culture.

The etymology of the word dope is interesting, and those on the board who speak Dutch will probably have already worked this out. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it came into English circa 1807 from the Dutch word doop, meaning "thick dipping sauce", which in turn comes from doopen, meaning "to dip". It's meaning in English has changed and been extended over time, so that eventually it included adding a substance (and, by extension, using a method) to increase efficiency and thereby achieve an advantage. (Thus, when you apply shellac to a model airplane wing, or putty to an air frame, you are "doping" it.)

I'm not sure the O.E.D. has quite worked this out yet, but here you can see how the inversion happened in hip hop slang, whereby "dope" went from having a negative connotation ("stupid", "cheating") to a positive one ("enhanced efficiency", "conferring an advantage").

In any event, whether we think of hidden motor use as doping or as fraud, according to the rules of the forum all talk of hidden motors in the peloton belongs here in the Clinic.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
fwiw, the Dutch verb *dopen* has two meanings: 1. to baptize (cf. German *taufen*); 2. to dip.
I'm not sure which meaning is the original and which is secondary.
And fwiw, in present-day Dutch, the common word for 'to dip' is *dippen* (indeed from English).
Btw, we too can use *dope* (from English dope) as an adjective when something rules, rocks, or owns.
So that's a case of a word traveling from Dutch to English and back into Dutch.
 
May 14, 2010
5,303
4
0
Re:

sniper said:
fwiw, the Dutch verb *dopen* has two meanings: 1. to baptize (cf. German *taufen*); 2. to dip.
I'm not sure which meaning is the original and which is secondary.
And fwiw, in present-day Dutch, the common word for 'to dip' is *dippen* (indeed from English).
Btw, we too can use *dope* (from English dope) as an adjective when something rules, rocks, or owns.
So that's a case of a word traveling from Dutch to English and back into Dutch.
I would suggest then that for pro cyclists, the Dutch verb dopen has significance in both its senses, "to dip" and "to baptize".

Interesting that we native English speakers took dope from the Dutch, warped its meaning for our own purposes, and then you Dutch borrowed it back, especially since you already had a perfectly fine, similar word for the purpose. That's dope. :D
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
0
0
Re: Re:

Maxiton said:
Farcanal said:
jmdirt said:
I'm glad that the UCI et. al. are referring to hidden power sources as technical fraud instead of mechanical doping now. I'm not sure why it was called "doping" in the first place.
If using motors, or other powered mechanical aids, is officially NOT doping can this subject now be discussed in or moved to other cyclingnews forums with a more comprehensive range of contributors? Or is cheating of any form the sole preserve of the Clinic?
That UCI is referring to use of hidden motors as technical fraud rather than "mechanical doping" is actually a very good sign. Implicit in this decision is acknowledgement that within the culture of pro cycling dope has a place. We can talk about whether that place is legitimate, and how it came to be - whether through historical precedent, exploitation of riders, or plain and simple necessity - but, like it or not, among fans, many of them, and riders (all of them, probably) dope and doping is a normative state of affairs. To call motor use "doping", then, is to normalize it, to incorporate it into the panoply of substances and methods used in the world of pro cycling to achieve an advantage. Fraud, on the other hand, confers no such legitimacy and thus exiles hidden motors into an area alien to the sport's culture.

The etymology of the word dope is interesting, and those on the board who speak Dutch will probably have already worked this out. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it came into English circa 1807 from the Dutch word doop, meaning "thick dipping sauce", which in turn comes from doopen, meaning "to dip". It's meaning in English has changed and been extended over time, so that eventually it included adding a substance (and, by extension, using a method) to increase efficiency and thereby achieve an advantage. (Thus, when you apply shellac to a model airplane wing, or putty to an air frame, you are "doping" it.)

I'm not sure the O.E.D. has quite worked this out yet, but here you can see how the inversion happened in hip hop slang, whereby "dope" went from having a negative connotation ("stupid", "cheating") to a positive one ("enhanced efficiency", "conferring an advantage").

In any event, whether we think of hidden motor use as doping or as fraud, according to the rules of the forum all talk of hidden motors in the peloton belongs here in the Clinic.
wait, again I think the dutch doop. or the viscous hema, this is temporaly bounded to the EPO era.

like I criticised the critic of the use of "motor-doping" mebbe it was this thread, but i think it may have been a facebook group. we only can relate doping and the go-fast doping to the epo doping era, or blood vector era. So i rebutted that motor-doping has some corporeal affect, one knows in their bones what the term doping means, not in the entymology dicitionary, we know the word as it relates to cycling, it relates to Pantani, to Jamie Burrow beating Pantani's ascent record on Plateau de Beille when on an Italian espoir team.

wrt the dutch antecedence for the term dope and doping.

as the term was brought into light wrt sport and the PED era at Olympics. to tell the truth, was always prolly there. The PEDs never had such an effect on the hema. They may have even made the blood thinner.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY