At this point, I wouldn't be shocked if evidence came forward that motors have been used at the pro-level. But I think there is an important psychological difference between motor and chemical doping. I think less people would do the latter if you had to inject during the race itself. I don't think there is the equivalent Omertà for motor-doping either.
-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Re: Re:
I cannot see what y'all are talking about. I see the bike jump to the left in the first bit. Is that it? Not sure how that indicates a motor. I don't see how the crank could hit the ground in that sequence. Unless there's a giant rock in the road. Which I wouldn't call "the ground" and which I didn't see.
Can someone explain this? To me it looks like a rider hitting a bump of some kind in the road. Or maybe you're talking about something else.
There is no doubt in my mind that Froome is a cheat. I just don't know what he's doing.
thehog said:
I cannot see what y'all are talking about. I see the bike jump to the left in the first bit. Is that it? Not sure how that indicates a motor. I don't see how the crank could hit the ground in that sequence. Unless there's a giant rock in the road. Which I wouldn't call "the ground" and which I didn't see.
Can someone explain this? To me it looks like a rider hitting a bump of some kind in the road. Or maybe you're talking about something else.
There is no doubt in my mind that Froome is a cheat. I just don't know what he's doing.
We can follow the mechanic.
It will be interesting to see where Roger Theel will work next year. He was working since 2006 with Fabian.
http://news.sciconbags.com/fabian-cancellara-roger-theel/
http://www.bernerzeitung.ch/sport/rad/Der-Perfektionist-in-Cancellaras-Schatten/story/26580868
Contador Allways works with Faustino Muñoz who started working for Sais at ONCE. Its the mechanic that was playing with his watch in the stade 2 video. Its also the mechanic that threw the bidon at the camera crew when Sagan was changing bikes.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contadors-mechanic-expelled-from-the-giro/
Lance was working with Jean Marc Vandenberghe who later joined quick step, Radio-shack and now BMC.
It will be interesting to see where Roger Theel will work next year. He was working since 2006 with Fabian.
http://news.sciconbags.com/fabian-cancellara-roger-theel/
http://www.bernerzeitung.ch/sport/rad/Der-Perfektionist-in-Cancellaras-Schatten/story/26580868
Contador Allways works with Faustino Muñoz who started working for Sais at ONCE. Its the mechanic that was playing with his watch in the stade 2 video. Its also the mechanic that threw the bidon at the camera crew when Sagan was changing bikes.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contadors-mechanic-expelled-from-the-giro/
Lance was working with Jean Marc Vandenberghe who later joined quick step, Radio-shack and now BMC.
Inwas told on twitter that Sagan took his Tinkoff mechanic along to Bora.
I don't know his name though.
I don't know his name though.
Re: Re:
Van Aert's wheel is (starts) spinning unexpectedly while he carries the bike.
It shouldn't be, unless maybe the crank hits the ground but as you say that's doubtful.
As for Froome, his cadence uphill there is just unreal.
As Oufeh pointed out on twitter, his cadence there is actually quite a bit higher than Lances used to be.
And Lance was already renowned for a high cadence.
How a high cadence correlates with a motor exactly is not quite clear to me, to be honest.
But fact is that Froome's cadence + accelleration looks unreal, and that Varjas said "look for high cadences".
It's not all clear-cut of course, but:red_flanders said:
Van Aert's wheel is (starts) spinning unexpectedly while he carries the bike.
It shouldn't be, unless maybe the crank hits the ground but as you say that's doubtful.
As for Froome, his cadence uphill there is just unreal.
As Oufeh pointed out on twitter, his cadence there is actually quite a bit higher than Lances used to be.
And Lance was already renowned for a high cadence.
How a high cadence correlates with a motor exactly is not quite clear to me, to be honest.
But fact is that Froome's cadence + accelleration looks unreal, and that Varjas said "look for high cadences".
Re: Re:
His left pedal very clearly hits a log on the ground or the ground itself and visibly changes from vertical to horizontal position because of this impact. You were even the first one to point this out.
It's not even vague in any sense of the word.
(Or am I watching the wrong video? If so please correct me. I refer to this scene at 43:30.)
How is that doubtful?sniper said:
His left pedal very clearly hits a log on the ground or the ground itself and visibly changes from vertical to horizontal position because of this impact. You were even the first one to point this out.It's not even vague in any sense of the word.
(Or am I watching the wrong video? If so please correct me. I refer to this scene at 43:30.)
Sure, but pushing the crank to very quickly rotate it by 90 degrees could also get the back wheel spinning. And by "could" I mean "should".Tienus said:
Re: Re:
I was just referring to the Froome video. He may be using a motor. His cadence in some instances is insane, and that's a possible explanation.
Haven't ever seen anything more to it than that.
The Ventoux thing still sticks out as absurd. Motor? Traditional doping? No idea. Don't see any evidence his sustained cadence is faster than Lance's. In a burst? Maybe. Don't know.
There sure does seem to be a lot of people seeing more than is actually there, that's for sure. "That is a motor. Nothing more,nothing less, a motor". I find that a bit much. Well I find it ridiculous actually.
sniper said:
I was just referring to the Froome video. He may be using a motor. His cadence in some instances is insane, and that's a possible explanation.
Haven't ever seen anything more to it than that.
The Ventoux thing still sticks out as absurd. Motor? Traditional doping? No idea. Don't see any evidence his sustained cadence is faster than Lance's. In a burst? Maybe. Don't know.
There sure does seem to be a lot of people seeing more than is actually there, that's for sure. "That is a motor. Nothing more,nothing less, a motor". I find that a bit much. Well I find it ridiculous actually.
@Tom
It's the same scene.
I said doubtful because i heard some people say the crank doesn't hit the ground and I couldn't be bothered to rewatch it.
But having rewatched it now, I have to say that indeed the crank quite clearly seems to be hitting a kind of rock or a piece of wood.
It's the same scene.
I said doubtful because i heard some people say the crank doesn't hit the ground and I couldn't be bothered to rewatch it.
But having rewatched it now, I have to say that indeed the crank quite clearly seems to be hitting a kind of rock or a piece of wood.
Re: Re:
https://twitter.com/oufeh/status/821077537656868864
The Ventoux thing was indeed absurd, and I don't see how that can be achieved with doping.
In my view (and in the view of quite a few other, much better informed, observers of the sport) what happened there is just physiologically impossible.
Unless he has a motor.
The same for Cancellara in 2010 RvV and PR.
Doping is not the issue there as the [accelleration + gear choice + (upper) body movement] taken together just looks completely unreal.
Also note Froome never did the seated uphill accelleration again.
Check for instance this tweet:red_flanders said:
https://twitter.com/oufeh/status/821077537656868864
The Ventoux thing was indeed absurd, and I don't see how that can be achieved with doping.
In my view (and in the view of quite a few other, much better informed, observers of the sport) what happened there is just physiologically impossible.
Unless he has a motor.
The same for Cancellara in 2010 RvV and PR.
Doping is not the issue there as the [accelleration + gear choice + (upper) body movement] taken together just looks completely unreal.
Also note Froome never did the seated uphill accelleration again.
Re:
A few post higher you thought Van Aert was using a motor and called him a cheater, don't get carried away in this blame-game, wheels do spin
sniper said:
A few post higher you thought Van Aert was using a motor and called him a cheater, don't get carried away in this blame-game, wheels do spin
Yes, wheels do spin and that bit of footage indeed seems to have been a red-herring.
There can't be too much scrutiny though.
There can't be too much scrutiny though.
thehog
BANNED
Re:
To make a mechanism like omertà work reliably, a lot of people would have to be involved in motor use so that it becomes generally accepted as part of the game and not cheating (as with doping). And I doubt that it is very widespread (or widespread enough) in the pro peloton for various reasons I'm not going into at this point.
So if only a few used motors they had to be very secretive about it. Because if too many people like teammates and secondary staff did know about it the risk of getting exposed would be irresponsibly high (teammates may become ex-teammates at some point). Riders can be very outspoken when they think their competitors try to gain (what they consider) an unfair advantage (think about hanging on to cars, drafting from motor bikes, unfair sprinting, ..). And if motors are not widespread then many riders who are not involved must consider them as major cheating.
You could argue that many would still keep their mouth shut because they fear consequences for their own career from a relevation like this (like many sponsors quitting). But even if this were true for the majority, all it really needed would be one guy who was fed up enough and thinks: "I don't care what we swallow and inject to enhance our performance or reduce pain, but bringing a motor-bike to a bike race is just too much to let it slip through and it has to be stopped no matter what."
Even in the Armstrong era there were active riders (Simeoni) who testified against Ferrari. Hasn't happened with motors yet, but the risk would simply be too big if you let too many people in on your secret. And finding proof for a motor that is used in a race is so much easier and so much more clear-cut than finding proof for (illegal) drug abuse even increasing the need to be more careful.
So in summary somebody who is intending to use a bit of support from a motor is probably well advised to keep the circle of insiders as small as possible.
The other thing: It's probably impossible to use a motor and not have your mechanic find out about it sooner or later. So he has to be on-board for sure. In addition the mechanic is also naturally best suited to take care of all stuff related to the motor (like inserting/removing, charging, maintaining).
I'm trying to think about how many involved people (except the supplier) would be necessary to successfully execute motor fraud at a particular race. Would a mechanic be enough already? (And of course a lot of other people who are not directly involved but who don't want to know what's going on and actively look the other way.)
Anyway, the mechanic would certainly be a key figure. Therefor having a personal mechanic and a good relationship with him is probably a necessary condition. I emphasize: Necessary, not sufficient (looking at you, sniper)
Cancellara for example was known to have a close relationship to his mechanic who followed him everywhere. He even worked for him in the Swiss national team.
Of course that's just very speculative chatter without solid fundament. I just wanted to express my support for the idea to put a spotlight on mechanics in this motor discussion. They might be a lot more important than the pretty much exchangeable soigneurs are for doping.
I like this idea.Tienus said:
To make a mechanism like omertà work reliably, a lot of people would have to be involved in motor use so that it becomes generally accepted as part of the game and not cheating (as with doping). And I doubt that it is very widespread (or widespread enough) in the pro peloton for various reasons I'm not going into at this point.
So if only a few used motors they had to be very secretive about it. Because if too many people like teammates and secondary staff did know about it the risk of getting exposed would be irresponsibly high (teammates may become ex-teammates at some point). Riders can be very outspoken when they think their competitors try to gain (what they consider) an unfair advantage (think about hanging on to cars, drafting from motor bikes, unfair sprinting, ..). And if motors are not widespread then many riders who are not involved must consider them as major cheating.
You could argue that many would still keep their mouth shut because they fear consequences for their own career from a relevation like this (like many sponsors quitting). But even if this were true for the majority, all it really needed would be one guy who was fed up enough and thinks: "I don't care what we swallow and inject to enhance our performance or reduce pain, but bringing a motor-bike to a bike race is just too much to let it slip through and it has to be stopped no matter what."
Even in the Armstrong era there were active riders (Simeoni) who testified against Ferrari. Hasn't happened with motors yet, but the risk would simply be too big if you let too many people in on your secret. And finding proof for a motor that is used in a race is so much easier and so much more clear-cut than finding proof for (illegal) drug abuse even increasing the need to be more careful.
So in summary somebody who is intending to use a bit of support from a motor is probably well advised to keep the circle of insiders as small as possible.
The other thing: It's probably impossible to use a motor and not have your mechanic find out about it sooner or later. So he has to be on-board for sure. In addition the mechanic is also naturally best suited to take care of all stuff related to the motor (like inserting/removing, charging, maintaining).
I'm trying to think about how many involved people (except the supplier) would be necessary to successfully execute motor fraud at a particular race. Would a mechanic be enough already? (And of course a lot of other people who are not directly involved but who don't want to know what's going on and actively look the other way.)
Anyway, the mechanic would certainly be a key figure. Therefor having a personal mechanic and a good relationship with him is probably a necessary condition. I emphasize: Necessary, not sufficient (looking at you, sniper
)Cancellara for example was known to have a close relationship to his mechanic who followed him everywhere. He even worked for him in the Swiss national team.
Of course that's just very speculative chatter without solid fundament. I just wanted to express my support for the idea to put a spotlight on mechanics in this motor discussion. They might be a lot more important than the pretty much exchangeable soigneurs are for doping.
Re:
E.g.: Roglic who was not known as a good TTer had two stellar TTs at Giro out of nowhere. If you explain this abnormality with a motor (and I know you do) then you imply that most of the top guys didn't use a motor there.
Because if they did you'd be back at square one trying to explain why Roglic (with a motor) beat all those superior riders (most with a motor). And then you can take your beloved Occams Razor (the real one, not your version of it) and cut away the motor altogether.
(Unless you settle for one of the two following hypothetical exotic explanations:
1) Roglic is a very elite natural TTer. The reason we didn't know this unitl the Giro is that he never used a motor before but most other guys usually did. So at Giro he used a motor for the first time, making it a level playing field and consequentially finishing at the position he naturally belongs. But you've already argued extensively that he's not a naturally gifted TTer as evidence that he used a motor. So I guess we can scratch that.
2) Roglic used a motor that was way more powerful than the motors of all other guys. And it can't just be a bit stronger. It had to match the power of the other motors and in addition compensate for the large difference in natural ability compared to the top guys and add a few watts on top to actually beat them. Does that sound very likely?)
Haven't we already had a discussion about circular reasoning recently in a different thread?
Don't you realize that most pieces of evidence for motors that you bring forward yourself explicitly or implicitly contradict the notion of motorization being widespread?sniper said:
E.g.: Roglic who was not known as a good TTer had two stellar TTs at Giro out of nowhere. If you explain this abnormality with a motor (and I know you do) then you imply that most of the top guys didn't use a motor there.
Because if they did you'd be back at square one trying to explain why Roglic (with a motor) beat all those superior riders (most with a motor). And then you can take your beloved Occams Razor (the real one, not your version of it) and cut away the motor altogether.
(Unless you settle for one of the two following hypothetical exotic explanations:
1) Roglic is a very elite natural TTer. The reason we didn't know this unitl the Giro is that he never used a motor before but most other guys usually did. So at Giro he used a motor for the first time, making it a level playing field and consequentially finishing at the position he naturally belongs. But you've already argued extensively that he's not a naturally gifted TTer as evidence that he used a motor. So I guess we can scratch that.
2) Roglic used a motor that was way more powerful than the motors of all other guys. And it can't just be a bit stronger. It had to match the power of the other motors and in addition compensate for the large difference in natural ability compared to the top guys and add a few watts on top to actually beat them. Does that sound very likely?)
Haven't we already had a discussion about circular reasoning recently in a different thread?
The intricacies of Motordoping are known to me no more than to you, Tom.
I can only speculate based on what I'm seeing and hearing.
I like what John said upthread: while use of the word widespread is certainly disputabke, it looks like motors have been and are being used at strategic points in races by various teams and riders.
Why arent motors used all the time all day and by every rider of the team? Maybe there is match fixing involved. Maybe its a money issue or as John said an availability issue. Or bit of all.
It's clutching at straws like we usually do wrt doping fraud and cheating. The when what and how is anybody's guess.
We may find out more on the 28th.
Or in a year or ten/twenty. Or never.
Meanwhile I'm not holdding my breath.
I think most of the big guns i named upthread have been usingmotors in addition to shitload of lower ranked riders. Amateur scene is also polluted no doubt.
The signs are there, especially from the UCI and from good investigative work by the likes of Stade2/Corriere della Sera. The Omerta is palpable, too.
As always there aren't too many Journos interested in spitting in thw soup and the only pro rider who has expressed concerns about motors is...Chris Froome lol.
TIenus posts have been revelatory, too, in many regards.
Indeed it's good idea to follow the mechanic, which is why I asked on Twitter whether Sagan took his own mechanic with him to Bora. The answer was yes.
I can only speculate based on what I'm seeing and hearing.
I like what John said upthread: while use of the word widespread is certainly disputabke, it looks like motors have been and are being used at strategic points in races by various teams and riders.
Why arent motors used all the time all day and by every rider of the team? Maybe there is match fixing involved. Maybe its a money issue or as John said an availability issue. Or bit of all.
It's clutching at straws like we usually do wrt doping fraud and cheating. The when what and how is anybody's guess.
We may find out more on the 28th.
Or in a year or ten/twenty. Or never.
Meanwhile I'm not holdding my breath.
I think most of the big guns i named upthread have been usingmotors in addition to shitload of lower ranked riders. Amateur scene is also polluted no doubt.
The signs are there, especially from the UCI and from good investigative work by the likes of Stade2/Corriere della Sera. The Omerta is palpable, too.
As always there aren't too many Journos interested in spitting in thw soup and the only pro rider who has expressed concerns about motors is...Chris Froome lol.
TIenus posts have been revelatory, too, in many regards.
Indeed it's good idea to follow the mechanic, which is why I asked on Twitter whether Sagan took his own mechanic with him to Bora. The answer was yes.
Re: Re:
Roglic could have been the only rider who was cheating with the pre race bike inspections being carried out. He changed bikes before the ITT he won and did not leave enough time for the bike to being checked for a motor. He could have cheated in the prologue as well as apparantly there is no check if a rider starts on the bike thats was inspected. Here is a video of the prologue bike check.
https://www.facebook.com/ProcyclingNL/videos/812142142250861/
Tom the Engine said:
Roglic could have been the only rider who was cheating with the pre race bike inspections being carried out. He changed bikes before the ITT he won and did not leave enough time for the bike to being checked for a motor. He could have cheated in the prologue as well as apparantly there is no check if a rider starts on the bike thats was inspected. Here is a video of the prologue bike check.
https://www.facebook.com/ProcyclingNL/videos/812142142250861/
Re:
Have you ever done an amateur race? I have never seen anything like Cance at our level. Fantastic performances were pure class and training and unbelievable performances from certain riders and teams were always good old EPO (I suppose).sniper said:
Re: Re:
It's hardly ever going to be as clearly visible as Cance in 2010 or Froome on Ventoux or PSM.
A Belgian TV program did a very nice experiment as they placed an amateur rider with a motor in a local race to see what would happen. The rider ended up sprinting for the win where normally he's a midpacker at best.
Nobody noticed a thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqhX8-dazOo&t=1s
It's in Dutch but worth a watch. The motorized rider also goes on a ride with Museeuw.
You also see how the thing is mounted.
No I havent, but I talk to people who race amateur level and suspect motor use of certain riders.Mr.38% said:
It's hardly ever going to be as clearly visible as Cance in 2010 or Froome on Ventoux or PSM.
A Belgian TV program did a very nice experiment as they placed an amateur rider with a motor in a local race to see what would happen. The rider ended up sprinting for the win where normally he's a midpacker at best.
Nobody noticed a thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqhX8-dazOo&t=1s
It's in Dutch but worth a watch. The motorized rider also goes on a ride with Museeuw.
You also see how the thing is mounted.
Is anyone here riding a bike? I am a 4-5.000 km/, 60.000+ vertical meter/year amateur cyclist and I climb all the time in 90+ cadence on 10+ km mountains. I can go easily on 110 area for minutes. If one of my friends attacks I never respond 'on danseuse", I just lift the cadence to 120+.' I just found this to be the perfect cadence for me after in 2013 I had a tendon problem that took me off the bike for one year. Nothing strange there, believe me. I have friends with lower cadence that climb better than me and I have friends with lower cadence that climb worse. I for sure climb better with high cadence and my times on the climbs don't lie.
Re:
As to the bolded, opinions differ on how good that investigative work actually was (as Tom the Engine explained at length).
sniper said:
As to the bolded, opinions differ on how good that investigative work actually was (as Tom the Engine explained at length).
It was at the very least "better than nothing", I think we can agree.
And let's appreciate how the validity of the claims was tacitly confirmed by UCI's and Lotto's subsequent failure to debunk any of it.
Somehow I doubt we'll be hearing much from the mega-talented TT-er Roglic in upcoming TTs.
And let's appreciate how the validity of the claims was tacitly confirmed by UCI's and Lotto's subsequent failure to debunk any of it.
Somehow I doubt we'll be hearing much from the mega-talented TT-er Roglic in upcoming TTs.
They even gave Cookson a chance to respond in the program sitting down with him and showing him the footage.
This was Cookson's response:
https://video.twimg.com/tweet_video/C2NOi3aWgAAYB6M.mp4
This was Cookson's response:
https://video.twimg.com/tweet_video/C2NOi3aWgAAYB6M.mp4
Re: Re:
At such a high cadence you wouldn't expect him to be able to create such a big gap in such short time.
To create such a gap so quickly he'd need a bigger gear, but how would Froome, with his limited musclemass, be able to spin that bigger gear?
It's what Vayer called "alien".
It does.thehog said:
At such a high cadence you wouldn't expect him to be able to create such a big gap in such short time.
To create such a gap so quickly he'd need a bigger gear, but how would Froome, with his limited musclemass, be able to spin that bigger gear?
It's what Vayer called "alien".
TRENDING THREADS
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 978
-
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2024 (March 18-24)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
Latest posts
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Latest: Logic-is-your-friend
-
-
-
-
Presidential Cycling Tour of Turkey 2024, 21st to 28th April- Latest: GenericBoonenFan
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram