Re: Re:
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.
wrinklyvet said: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.sniper said: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.Maxiton said:....
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?
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/
"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 We don't know in what language his remark was originally made - unless you happen to know.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.