Motor doping thread

[Ramon Koran]

Re: Re:

So funny UCI says no motors and posters believe them.

But it's not just the UCI, it's the crazy a French government organization, if they say there's no motors, I definitely believe them. Why would they do a cover up. The French gouvenment do look hard at stuff they exposed festina and woo abuse in the peloton. I fully trust them.

Your a woo abuser? Wow i didn't know that! :surprised:

I meant epo, but I'm sure you knew that

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

So funny UCI says no motors and posters believe them.

But it's not just the UCI, it's the crazy a French government organization, if they say there's no motors, I definitely believe them. Why would they do a cover up. The French gouvenment do look hard at stuff they exposed festina and woo abuse in the peloton. I fully trust them.

Your a woo abuser? Wow i didn't know that! :surprised:

I meant epo, but I'm sure you knew that

Festina and Woo, yet Armstrong won 7 TdFs after that! Hmmm. Goo Woo that!

 

[Ramon Koran]

Re: Re:

People seem to be forgetting that on stage 19 a extremly high tec military heat gun was set up by french gouvernment (not the uci) as far as I know no motors were detected, this despite being on the climb were the highest numbers were recorded. If as is the case nothing was found I think we can safely assume that no motorized doping went on in the tour and put it to bed.

sorry but the link you posted does NOT specify the equipment, nor the test itself. Again- those high tech guns have settings that can be manipulating for the specific uses- one thing that caught my attention from that link itself was the notion of the testers seeking for "metal or aluminum foreign parts inside the frame.....well, the motor can be built out of carbon fiber- so it would pass the test!

once again- unless the French government-or whoever did the testing - do a full disclose of the test, the equipment specs & use applications to make it 100% legit, I'm going to be skeptical- why? because I'm familiar with the heat detection gun system due to my profession, so ....

They say in the article that no way you can evade detection from that gun using any technology available in cycling, why should they lie? They have got nothing to lose from exposing whatever is happening

 

[Cannibal72]

Tbf this woo stuff sounds pretty strong

 

[Jimsnchz]

If you were going to use a motor why not use it during a TT. If you know the riders weight and the time to beat couldn't a math problem solve the watts required? Also it wouldn't look as suspicious with a moot in front and a team car behind. Not like dropping the field on a climb.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re:

If you were going to use a motor why not use it during a TT. If you know the riders weight and the time to beat couldn't a math problem solve the watts required? Also it wouldn't look as suspicious with a moot in front and a team car behind. Not like dropping the field on a climb.

Have a look at modern time trial frames and say if you think one could be fitted. Those magnetic wheels perhaps, if practicable. Otherwise it looks like a non-starter to me. Seat tube motor is surely out of the question. Look at a Pinarello Bolide, for example.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

If you were going to use a motor why not use it during a TT. If you know the riders weight and the time to beat couldn't a math problem solve the watts required? Also it wouldn't look as suspicious with a moot in front and a team car behind. Not like dropping the field on a climb.

Have a look at modern time trial frames and say if you think one could be fitted. Those magnetic wheels perhaps, if practicable. Otherwise it looks like a non-starter to me. Seat tube motor is surely out of the question. Look at a Pinarello Bolide, for example.

Yes, look at the Sky bike for example. Weren't you out gardening?

 

[Night Rider]

Re: Re:

If you were going to use a motor why not use it during a TT. If you know the riders weight and the time to beat couldn't a math problem solve the watts required? Also it wouldn't look as suspicious with a moot in front and a team car behind. Not like dropping the field on a climb.

Have a look at modern time trial frames and say if you think one could be fitted. Those magnetic wheels perhaps, if practicable. Otherwise it looks like a non-starter to me. Seat tube motor is surely out of the question. Look at a Pinarello Bolide, for example.

In the seat tube yes, but the same motor could be fitted to the downtube. Takes a little more work but it's a whole lot more likely than hub and wheel motors.

I wouldn't want to be seen agreeing with the UCI but I think now in the tour the risk far exceeds the reward. Anyone attempting to use a motor would have to be protected in some way.

I don't see that happening but it's pro-cycling, nothing would surprise me.

 

[sniper]

What risk. Has anybody been caught yet?
There is zero risk of a prorider getting popped and exposed with a motor.
So of course it's happening and probably big time.
As long as Cookson is at the Uci wheel, there is no reason to watch cycling unless ur a WWA fan Every single result could be rigged by doping or motordoping or both.
Fact.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re:

What risk. Has anybody been caught yet?
There is zero risk of a prorider getting popped and exposed with a motor.
So of course it's happening and probably big time.
As long as Cookson is at the Uci wheel, there is no reason to watch cycling unless ur a WWA fan Every single result could be rigged by doping or motordoping or both.
Fact.

So do you ever watch? Or ever let anything get in the way of a good theory? If it does, it's always good to have another one, like the motors were all there at this Tour but they weren't really wanting to find them.

If you are a WWA fan and you watch cycling in consequence, your opinion could be valuable. if you never watch cycling because of Cookson, how much does your opinion count?

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

If you were going to use a motor why not use it during a TT. If you know the riders weight and the time to beat couldn't a math problem solve the watts required? Also it wouldn't look as suspicious with a moot in front and a team car behind. Not like dropping the field on a climb.

Have a look at modern time trial frames and say if you think one could be fitted. Those magnetic wheels perhaps, if practicable. Otherwise it looks like a non-starter to me. Seat tube motor is surely out of the question. Look at a Pinarello Bolide, for example.

Yes, look at the Sky bike for example. Weren't you out gardening?

Yes, spot on, but look at any one you like to look at! Yes I was. Most therapeutic!

 

[Eyeballs Out]

The key headline number here is 3773. When it comes to negative tests it's the quantity that's important, as we all know. 3773 smashes 500 right out of the park.

 

[Night Rider]

Re:

What risk. Has anybody been caught yet?

Well I put the now in italics but obviously that was not picked up as I intended so I will explain further.

How many tests this year? 3 to 4,000
How many last year? Not many
How many the year before that? None.

Therefore the risk is higher now unless you are saying everyone is protected.

There is zero risk of a prorider getting popped and exposed with a motor.
So of course it's happening and probably big time.

Which I think you are.

As I said nothing would surprise me, but I would be surprised if everyone is protected from a failed motor test.

 

[Tienus]

As I said nothing would surprise me, but I would be surprised if everyone is protected from a failed motor test.

The only case where a rider got caught indicates that the UCI does not want to catch anyone.
The stade 2 investigations indicates the same.
The email from Mark Barfield indicates the same.

So far I have not seen anything indicating that the UCI is trying to catch cheaters.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

And What exactly has triggered this increased mototesting?

just press rumours?

There's more than media reports. Riders expressed their fears to the CIRC. People like LeMond have been in touch directly with the UCI. ASO made it an issue. The media may fan the flames, but they are not the sole source of the disquiet.

 

[Freddythefrog]

Re: Re:

The incident with the UCI employee is a complete red herring and even in that case it can be a good deterrent.

But more to the point, at this Tour, did they not also look in the stables before the horses were ridden? They looked as they were ridden. They looked at those that were not ridden. They looked when they came back from being ridden. On what other occasions should they look at them?

1) So how is the Mark Barfield email evidence a red hearing ? A red herring is an irrelevant issue introduced to distract and confuse.

2) Re horse having bolted - it is no good trying to use the Armstrong/Sky fan's number one tactic - focus on some pinhead and ignore the big picture, the real alarm bells were sounding in 2010. After lots of briefing to teams in 2015, with the French police present at the Tour, trying to do what the UCI should have been doing years before (and the UCI thwarting it !) that 3773 tests this year found nothing, tells anyone with a brain that this was a calculated move to bolt the door after every single horse had long galloped off across the horizon.

As to when motor doping started, my estimate is sometime earlier, - evidence - when a few sprinters started to be able to go over hills in classic races, on which previous generations of sprinters were dropped. I don't think Femke was cutting edge in this technology, nor do I think 2010 was when it started. I can think of some weird stuff in 2006. How many bike changes did Rasmsussen need in that Tour ITT ? Why ?

Evil moto-girl Femke was so far behind the leading edge she did not know the horse had bolted either.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

The key headline number here is 3773. When it comes to negative tests it's the quantity that's important, as we all know. 3773 smashes 500 right out of the park.

My math is woeful but 3,773 tests across 21 stages averages what, 180 bikes a day? Allow two bikes per riders and that's half the bikes everyday, or somesuch. Not quite up there with dropping dynamite into a barrel of fish, but not entirely without effect.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

So funny UCI says no motors and posters believe them.

As usual, you lead with a lie. The UCI does not say no motors. Try reading the press release and not relying upon garbled misrepresentations of it and your own crazy imagination. They say that, todate, there has been just one case of tech fraud detected.

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

So funny UCI says no motors and posters believe them.

As usual, you lead with a lie. The UCI does not say no motors. Try reading the press release and not relying upon garbled misrepresentations of it and your own crazy imagination. They say that, todate, there has been just one case of tech fraud detected.

Speaking of the press release...

I just wanted to point out something that gave me pause.

This demonstrates our absolute commitment to leave no stone unturned in a matter that if not tackled properly, could seriously damage the renewed reputation of cycling.

Is this "renewed reputation of cycling" for real? Is cycling's reputation clean/good these days?

Is finding only one motor a sign of cyclings good reputation?

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

So funny UCI says no motors and posters believe them.

As usual, you lead with a lie. The UCI does not say no motors. Try reading the press release and not relying upon garbled misrepresentations of it and your own crazy imagination. They say that, todate, there has been just one case of tech fraud detected.

Speaking of the press release...

I just wanted to point out something that gave me pause.

This demonstrates our absolute commitment to leave no stone unturned in a matter that if not tackled properly, could seriously damage the renewed reputation of cycling.

Is this "renewed reputation of cycling" for real? Is cycling's reputation clean/good these days?

Is finding only one motor a sign of cyclings good reputation?

I've seen this terminology been used a lot, must come from the Cookson PR company. When UCI issued a release with USADA it used a similar phraseology;

“Signing a sharing agreement with one of the most important stakeholders in the field of anti-doping is another testimony to the tremendous progress we have made in the past three years in rebuilding trust in the UCI"

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Is this "renewed reputation of cycling" for real? Is cycling's reputation clean/good these days?

Generally, in the media, in which LA is the alpha and omega of doping, cycling's reputation has been renewed.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

I've seen this terminology been used a lot, must come from the Cookson PR company. When UCI issued a release with USADA it used a similar phraseology;

I know it was a long, long, long time ago, but people do need to at least try and remember Cookson's election manifesto and the things he stood on, it is important, it's not just history. As well as a min wage for women in his first year Cookson promised to rebuild trust in cycling, largely through a transparent presidency.

 

[Tienus]

As usual, you lead with a lie. The UCI does not say no motors. Try reading the press release and not relying upon garbled misrepresentations of it and your own crazy imagination. They say that, todate, there has been just one case of tech fraud detected.

It is actually the press release that is full of lies. For example:

Tests have all been carried out unannounced
A journalist saw Gary Blem personally drop off the bike with nr 1 at the checking station

It is with this method that the only case of technological fraud to date was detected
Everyone in the cyclocross world was suspecting her for months. The Belgium federation and the UCI where both tipped-off and did nothing until just before the worlds a suspicious picture of the bike was being shared.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

It is actually the press release that is full of lies.

I do love the level playing field argument: "they're doing it so so should we, all our lies will cancel one and other out, in the long run, then everyone is speaking the truth"

For example:

Full comes down to two examples, one of which suggests an inability to understand the difference between allegations and a proven case? Wow, that itself is certainly full ... of something

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

So funny UCI says no motors and posters believe them.

As usual, you lead with a lie. The UCI does not say no motors. Try reading the press release and not relying upon garbled misrepresentations of it and your own crazy imagination. They say that, todate, there has been just one case of tech fraud detected.

oh Fearg, i agree, i lied. It is not funny. Is pathetic. :lol: