Motor doping thread

[zlev11]

what happened in 2003, then? they all had motors and then decided not to use them for Luz Ardiden? he was doping with impunity, sure, but I doubt he had a motor. his bike was notoriously the lightest bike before they introduced the weight limit. i doubt that the technology was there back then for it to be small/light enough.

the earliest performances that scream "motor" to me are Contador and Wiggins in 2009.

 

[BullsFan22]

Re: Mechanical doping: first rider caught

Armstrong at Ventoux 2000 AND 2002? The way he rode away from Beloki was ridiculous. Beloki in 2002 attacked, then sat down, but kept the pace up, then Armstrong attacks, Beloki seems to respond, but can't get to Armstrong, who simply rides away. It's not like Beloki didn't go with the counter attack, it's that Armstrong just went. He was out of the saddle but didn't seem to put that much effort in on the counter attack. To stay with the 2002 Tour, Plateau de Baille, when Armstrong, Beloki and Heras were going at it. Armstrong takes over the lead, and seemingly just rides away from both guys. He was in the saddle and riding what was for him, a low gear. Beloki tried to get back, riding out of the saddle, but again, no chance whatsoever.

Youtube those particular stages and you'll see what I am talking about. I don't know about the arm flinching and the finger movement, but now that I think about possible motor doping, this isn't so far fetched.

Extremely unlikely that motorbiking would have gotten past Floyd and the other snitches.

I sense a little comedy there, but Floyd's 2006 Stage 17 miracle can be another possible bike dope episode. The thing about that is, that Floyd was riding in the saddle for much longer than one would expect for such a mountainous stage, and he went so early. What was it? 95 km from the finish or similar? With 4 Cols to climb? When he first went, Perreiro, the Telekom guys and a handful of others initially joined him, but decided that Landis would not last long, certainly not all the way to the finish with a margin of over 5 or 6 minutes, or whatever it was. He passed the breakaway riders as if they stood still and only Sinkewitz (remember him??) stayed for a while, but I suppose Landis didn't want to make it too obvious by that stage.

 

[Anaconda]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqP2GwH2rfA

Jon Snow needs to interview every sport leader and ask "them all if they are asleep on the job or corrupt!

Agree with other posters that the UCI has performed in an abysmal fashion here. There is a real lack of concrete information regarding what happened, when the bike was scanned, inspected, motor found etc. But what seems apparent was that the UCI had no well thought out plan or system in place. I'm interested in how the news of the bike got to the media in the first place. I''l reserve full judgement on this until the facts are out.

But I think there is enough information to criticize the system or lack thereof for the inspection process.

If there is a simple/mobile scanner then why did every single bike used in the races not get controlled and cleared for the race.

Before MTB had wheel changes allowed athletes had to go to officials pre race to get their bikes controlled. This meant placing decals with the riders race # on frame and both wheels.

How hard for the UCI to control every single bike that gets into the course. Every mechanic goes through one channel with spare bikes that get controlled and racer id # added to all frames (wheels too if motor wheels are really a reality?).

Athletes to gain access to start line also need to go through a gate with a commie and get their bikes scanned and decalled.

The idea should be fairness. Control all riders evenly. The public can be confident that the competition is fair (motor-wise anyway).

It's expensive to catch people for the reputation of the sport and the cost to investigate and prosecute.

The UCI is pleased to have their new scanner. But they did NOT think this through well imo.

Road cycling has some challenges for sure with the shear volume of equipment in play. But cross is easier to figure out a simple, but effective system.

If I can come up with this idea as a hack at a keyboard....I dare say, UCI where you asleep on the job or corrupt!

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re: Mechanical doping: first rider caught

Not sure if this particular BS aspect of the story has been touched on or not.

We know that they're claiming the motorized bike belonged to Nico Van Muylder.

Van den Driessche offered up a potential reason for the bike’s presence, saying that it was owned by someone she’d been training with. “That bike belongs to a friend of mine,” she said. “He trains along with us. He joined my brothers and my father. That friend joined my brother at the reconnaissance and he placed the bike against the truck but it’s identical to mine. Last year he bought it from me. My mechanics have cleaned the bike and put it in the truck. They must’ve thought that it was my bike. I don’t know how it happened.”

So let's consider those circumstances and that scenario.

A guy supposedly arrives with a bike that he knows damn well is motorized, the discovery of which would set off a firestorm if discovered anywhere near the vicinity of a race--not to mention a World Championship. So he brings this bike with him after what, a training ride with the family? Did he ride the bike there as a convenient form of transportation?

Then he supposedly just leaves "against the truck." OK, then the mechanics supposedly clean it, and then put in the truck, thinking it belongs to Femke. All this time, Nico isn't aware of the fact that his prized motorized bike has gone missing? He leaves it against the truck, and never looks again? It never occurs to him that his own bike has disappeared? He isn't watching his motorized bike like a hawk? Really?

Then the race starts. Still no sign of his bike, but he is unaware of this? He hasn't glanced about or shown any interest in the wellbeing of his motorized masterpiece? He just assumes that it's right where he left it, even though he clearly could not have had any verification of that whatsoever if it had been mistakenly confiscated by the mechanics?

Bikes are stolen all the time. He's at a bike race, in friggin' Belgium, and he has no concern about the whereabouts of his bike. At a bike race...in Belgium. What was he thinking?

"Yup, got my super-duper motor bike with me today. Damn straight. Haven't laid eyes on it all afternoon, but I'm sure it's safe and sound, over there, somewhere, wherever it is. Left it resting against a truck. It'll be safe. No one around these parts would be interested in a racing bike anyway."

So at what point does Dr. Nico realize that his bike is not where he left it?

FFS

 

[MarkvW]

Re: Mechanical doping: first rider caught

Armstrong at Ventoux 2000 AND 2002? The way he rode away from Beloki was ridiculous............... possible motor doping, this isn't so far fetched.

Extremely unlikely that motorbiking would have gotten past Floyd and the other snitches.

What you think Floyd and Tyler told you the truth about everything ?

(I know people still waiting for a refund on their contribution to the Floyd Fairness Fund. )

The technology was floating around prior to this.

Highly likely. Very highly likely. Sestriere the first use ?

We need Mulder & Scully!

 

[jyl]

Regarding the controls that could be imposed on race bikes - yes, every single bike brought into the pits could be scanned and tagged, and scanned again when they are removed. Maybe this will eventually be necessary.

But this wouldn't have been possible before the UCI had its tablet scanner (impractical to disassemble a hundred bikes at a time). And the UCI just started using the scanner this past weekend. Should they have developed the app sooner?. Maybe, but until now, most of the cycling world was ridiculing the UCI's motor checks, so I'd cut them some slack. I would expect the scanners to be in use a lot at future races, and will be disappointed if they aren't.

I don't know that literally every single bike needs to be scanned before every single race. If a rider or team know they have even a 5% chance of detection at each race, that should be a pretty powerful deterrent.

 

[jyl]

Re: Mechanical doping: first rider caught

Not sure if this particular BS aspect of the story has been touched on or not.

We know that they're claiming the motorized bike belonged to Nico Van Muylder.

Van den Driessche offered up a potential reason for the bike’s presence, saying that it was owned by someone she’d been training with. “That bike belongs to a friend of mine,” she said. “He trains along with us. He joined my brothers and my father. That friend joined my brother at the reconnaissance and he placed the bike against the truck but it’s identical to mine. Last year he bought it from me. My mechanics have cleaned the bike and put it in the truck. They must’ve thought that it was my bike. I don’t know how it happened.”

So let's consider those circumstances and that scenario.

A guy supposedly arrives with a bike that he knows damn well is motorized, the discovery of which would set off a firestorm if discovered anywhere near the vicinity of a race--not to mention a World Championship. So he brings this bike with him after what, a training ride with the family? Did he ride the bike there as a convenient form of transportation?

Then he supposedly just leaves "against the truck." OK, then the mechanics supposedly clean it, and then put in the truck, thinking it belongs to Femke. All this time, Nico isn't aware of the fact that his prized motorized bike has gone missing? He leaves it against the truck, and never looks again? It never occurs to him that his own bike has disappeared? He isn't watching his motorized bike like a hawk? Really?

Then the race starts. Still no sign of his bike, but he is unaware of this? He hasn't glanced about or shown any interest in the wellbeing of his motorized masterpiece? He just assumes that it's right where he left it, even though he clearly could not have had any verification of that whatsoever if it had been mistakenly confiscated by the mechanics?

Bikes are stolen all the time. He's at a bike race, in friggin' Belgium, and he has no concern about the whereabouts of his bike. At a bike race...in Belgium. What was he thinking?

"Yup, got my super-duper motor bike with me today. Damn straight. Haven't laid eyes on it all afternoon, but I'm sure it's safe and sound, over there, somewhere, wherever it is. Left it resting against a truck. It'll be safe. No one around these parts would be interested in a racing bike anyway."

So at what point does Dr. Nico realize that his bike is not where he left it?

FFS

Yes, hard to believe this. But if that's what he says, and the mechanics so testify, and there's not clear evidence the bike was ridden by her in a recent race, then how do you disprove it?

At the end of the day, it is a strict liability regulation. If a motor bike was in her pits, she's in violation (and the team is too). So they should be able to ban/fine her even if her story is 100% true. And who is going to have her on their team, or sponsor her, for years and years to come?

I'm very curious what UCI does with the team. I can see an argument for letting the national team off the hook, but I don't really think they should get off unpunished.

 

[Cloxxki]

Seems the national team will have a hard time proving they had no prior knowledge. In the very best scenario they were the snitches. But then how did Femke even get to take the start? How did the team not check all her bikes at the venue themselves? When they're clean, it's not rocket science. Blindfolded one could do it without any knowledge on the matter.

Can the hoods be rolled up to reveal buttons, or is it more hidden?

 

[glassmoon]

Re:

Seems the national team will have a hard time proving they had no prior knowledge. In the very best scenario they were the snitches. But then how did Femke even get to take the start? How did the team not check all her bikes at the venue themselves? When they're clean, it's not rocket science. Blindfolded one could do it without any knowledge on the matter.

Can the hoods be rolled up to reveal buttons, or is it more hidden?

...not to say, that the bike would be some 1,5-1,8kg heavier (depending on the battery capacity).

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re: Mechanical doping: first rider caught

We need Mulder & Scully!

Muylder and Scully, more like.

As for Jacques' post on the unlikely episode leading to the offending bike being in the offending place, you'd also think if it was a genuine innocent mistake, Nico would have come forward quicker and been much quicker to show remorse so that people could believe he was actually upset about the fact that his negligence has ruined a supposed friend's livelihood, career and reputation.

 

[Tienus]

Have you found a photo that is definitely of the bike that was checked and found to have a motor? Maybe someone photographed it as the commissaires were checking it with the tablet or taking it away?

No. Its exactly what we need to see.
I'm not sure but If I had to put some money on it I would say its the bike she was racing. If thats true we will not get to see pictures from the UCI.

 

[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



1/2 life



1
_

2



l
i
f
e




half lives

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.)

 

[Tienus]

Re: Re:

Granted, It seems to me that, if she was knowingly using a motorized bike, then she would have probably have started on it at the WC race. Why would she have left her secret weapon in the pits? If she had any worries at all about bike checks, it would seem safer to start on a motorized bike than to finish on one.

It would be safer to roll up to the line where you're surrounded by commissaires, announcers, press, spectators and other riders, while sitting stationary during call ups and staging, on a clean, totally compliant ride, then switch to a motor during the controlled chaos of the race, where there might be one or two commissaires in the pits trying to watch 60 riders enter and exit simultaneously and where you have bikes stacked on bikes, surrounded by wheels and mechanics and mud.

Switching back to the clean bike towards the end of the race, after enjoying the benefit of the motor, would make more sense. Yes, the risk of losing position late in a race is there, but in a well-choreographed pit change the risk can be minimized.

I see a fair bit of speculating about e-bike use strategy. In the races I watched Femke never chanced bike during the race. Other riders thought this was suspiscious.
From pictures I can tell she changed bike in the U23 European Championships but thats understandable after this:
http://www.radio1.be/hautekiet/het-vermoeden-van-onschuld-verdwenen

 

[Tienus]

She won a national championship in category back in 2011, but apart from that there's a seeming lack of standout results until fairly recently when she's suddenly winning pretty significant races in category and getting surprisingly good results in World Cup races. That said, she's 19 years old, and this is the first year there's been a U23 women's World Championships, so detailed results that enable us to compare her directly against her contemporaries without digging beneath the elites are few and far between, so her improvement this season to competing well with the elites no doubt looks even more suspicious as a result.

The problem is that we dont know how long she has been cheating this way. Reading this article tells me it was at least a year:
http://superprestigecyclocross.be/?p=2296

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqP2GwH2rfA

Jon Snow needs to interview every sport leader and ask "them all if they are asleep on the job or corrupt!

Agree with other posters that the UCI has performed in an abysmal fashion here. There is a real lack of concrete information regarding what happened, when the bike was scanned, inspected, motor found etc. But what seems apparent was that the UCI had no well thought out plan or system in place. I'm interested in how the news of the bike got to the media in the first place. I''l reserve full judgement on this until the facts are out.

But I think there is enough information to criticize the system or lack thereof for the inspection process.

If there is a simple/mobile scanner then why did every single bike used in the races not get controlled and cleared for the race.

Before MTB had wheel changes allowed athletes had to go to officials pre race to get their bikes controlled. This meant placing decals with the riders race # on frame and both wheels.

How hard for the UCI to control every single bike that gets into the course. Every mechanic goes through one channel with spare bikes that get controlled and racer id # added to all frames (wheels too if motor wheels are really a reality?).

Athletes to gain access to start line also need to go through a gate with a commie and get their bikes scanned and decalled.

The idea should be fairness. Control all riders evenly. The public can be confident that the competition is fair (motor-wise anyway).

It's expensive to catch people for the reputation of the sport and the cost to investigate and prosecute.

The UCI is pleased to have their new scanner. But they did NOT think this through well imo.

Road cycling has some challenges for sure with the shear volume of equipment in play. But cross is easier to figure out a simple, but effective system.

If I can come up with this idea as a hack at a keyboard....I dare say, UCI where you asleep on the job or corrupt!

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?

 

[Cloxxki]

She may have been cheating for a year then. But did she start out like her brother or skip the chemical route for ethical reasons?

 

[rainman]

Re:

what happened in 2003, then? they all had motors and then decided not to use them for Luz Ardiden? he was doping with impunity, sure, but I doubt he had a motor. his bike was notoriously the lightest bike before they introduced the weight limit. i doubt that the technology was there back then for it to be small/light enough.

the earliest performances that scream "motor" to me are Contador and Wiggins in 2009.

For me Cancellara at the 07 TDF prologue in London. He absolutely crushed it. Police outriders could hardly get out of his way.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

what happened in 2003, then? they all had motors and then decided not to use them for Luz Ardiden? he was doping with impunity, sure, but I doubt he had a motor. his bike was notoriously the lightest bike before they introduced the weight limit. i doubt that the technology was there back then for it to be small/light enough.

the earliest performances that scream "motor" to me are Contador and Wiggins in 2009.

For me Cancellara at the 07 TDF prologue in London. He absolutely crushed it. Police outriders could hardly get out of his way.

He was definitely motoring (~34 mph / 55 kph), at least in the figurative sense: https://youtu.be/HA03vSHPBJo?list=PLEIBrqOIlOsjgCtHQuz0RT7VNa1TYsaj-

The only thing that gives me pause about your suggestion, though, is Armstrong. If this technology was available as early as 2007, it's hard to believe he and Bruyneel wouldn't have known about it, and used it, in 2009 and 2010. And if they had used it, it seems likely he'd have won. Since he didn't win, it seems reasonable to think he wasn't using a motor; and equally safe to conclude that if he wasn't using it, it wasn't available.

What is possible, though, is that a one-off prototype was used by Cancellara in 2010, and it didn't go into production until the year or two following.

 

[rainman]

Yes LA would have used anything that was available. Unless he was put off by the weight aspect, it would be ok for a flat TT but maybe not an Alpine pass. Doesn't the law of diminishing returns kick in at some point?
Surprising that an extra 2 kgs is not obvious at the bike weight check. It puts the bikes weight well above the norm and should be immediately apparent to any race official, or not?

 

[Tienus]

Re:

She may have been cheating for a year then. But did she start out like her brother or skip the chemical route for ethical reasons?

I am just talking about mechanical cheating. That does not exclude any other form of cheating.

I wonder with what kind of preparation she won the Belgium junior championship in 2011. The stories of Jeanson and Evans have allready been discussed in this thread. Her dad did possibly something much worse than steeling a couple of parakeets as a father son bonding activity.

He seems to go to great lenghts in giving her a small advantage. In Namur he is directing her to drive close to him so he can give her a bump start at 5:35.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53Gz7q-6Exg

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

Yes LA would have used anything that was available. Unless he was put off by the weight aspect, it would be ok for a flat TT but maybe not an Alpine pass. Doesn't the law of diminishing returns kick in at some point?
Surprising that an extra 2 kgs is not obvious at the bike weight check. It puts the bikes weight well above the norm and should be immediately apparent to any race official, or not?

I doubt he would be put off by the extra weight, given the extra watts conferred. And, anyway, for some years now teams have had to add weight to some bikes, in order to meet the minimum weight requirement. Plus, you can always do a bike change, in order to use the moto-cheating selectively.

 

[StryderHells]

Re: Mechanical doping: first rider caught

Armstrong at Ventoux 2000 AND 2002? The way he rode away from Beloki was ridiculous............... possible motor doping, this isn't so far fetched.

Extremely unlikely that motorbiking would have gotten past Floyd and the other snitches.

What you think Floyd and Tyler told you the truth about everything ?

(I know people still waiting for a refund on their contribution to the Floyd Fairness Fund. )

The technology was floating around prior to this.

Highly likely. Very highly likely. Sestriere the first use ?

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

 

[sniper]

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/

 

[wrinklyvet]

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.

 

[sniper]

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.