Motor doping thread

[Benotti69]

Re:

So that Stade 2 "report"...

Seems like a whole lot of nothing--or at least nothing new.

motordoping is not new.

 

[mr. tibbs]

Re:

7 motors in 2 races......aint nothing!

I doubt anything will come of it.

EDIT: I should say, I doubt anything will come of these allegations. Or is "insinuations" more apt?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

7 motors in 2 races......aint nothing!

I doubt anything will come of it.

EDIT: I should say, I doubt anything will come of these allegations. Or is "insinuations" more apt?

when did the UCI ever take cheating seriously? When did the UCI ever address the issue of cheating?

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

7 motors in 2 races......aint nothing!

I doubt anything will come of it.

EDIT: I should say, I doubt anything will come of these allegations. Or is "insinuations" more apt?

when did the UCI ever take cheating seriously? When did the UCI ever address the issue of cheating?

The UCI will do what they are best at, which is nothing. We may get a press release but knowing he UCI, even when riders are getting killed, they do nothing.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Why fans are in denial? This is one of the reasons why we dwell so much with a single drug (or new cheating system) for a long time. I think we are our own enemy.

Not in denial. In scepticism.

We'll see after the program airs.

This. There has been a lot of noise and words spoken about motors in the men's pro peloton over the last couple of years. But absolutely no proof or firm evidence.

Of course, that's not to say that motors aren't being used; but if all this programme does is add more words and allegations, without proper evidence and without names, then it's a waste of time.

Why would it be a waste of time? You mean it shouldn't be talked about?

Bizarre.

Because it's not adding anything new. It's based on statements by the same guy who has been fuelling these stories for six years - but still hasn't managed to get any proof.

Of course it should be talked about when there is some new evidence or proof. But this is just rehashing the existing speculations - not adding anything new. A waste of time.

 

[LaFlorecita]

https://twitter.com/CyclingHubTV/status/721748998210613249

 

[Red Rick]

So, there's no actual proof?

Then why is he saying he found 7 motors? On what did he base that?

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re:

So, there's no actual proof?

Then why is he saying he found 7 motors? On what did he base that?

Yeah, does anyone have a summary? I can't be bothered to watch that entire documentary

 

[Spawn of e]

Re:

So, there's no actual proof?

Then why is he saying he found 7 motors? On what did he base that?

And, why not name names? If there is video of bikes showing thermal readings then why not name the riders?

 

[Baldinger]

They do not reveal the riders' identity because of the lack of evidence. The pictures from the heat detector is not enough proof and the journalists are well aware of that.

 

[Lemonbaloon]

If they saw motors during the race as they claimm, why didn't they notify the race organizier, Wada or anyone? They could just confiscate the bikes right after they cross the finish line and throw them in jail or whatever.

 

[Red Rick]

What is enough?

Is it not allowed they found anomolies with a heat detector, without talking about motors?

 

[thehog]

Re:

If they saw motors during the race as they claimm, why didn't they notify the race organizier, Wada or anyone? They could just confiscate the bikes right after they cross the finish line and throw them in jail or whatever.

Yes, because the UCI, race organizers and WADA are all about catching cheats

And throw them in jail? Who? WADA? What the?

 

[the delgados]

Re: Re:

If they saw motors during the race as they claimm, why didn't they notify the race organizier, Wada or anyone? They could just confiscate the bikes right after they cross the finish line and throw them in jail or whatever.

Yes, because the UCI, race organizers and WADA are all about catching cheats

And throw them in jail? Who? WADA? What the?

It is not a journalist's job to play the role of the police.
Not in real life, and certainly not in sport.
They a there to report what they see and that's it.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Why fans are in denial? This is one of the reasons why we dwell so much with a single drug (or new cheating system) for a long time. I think we are our own enemy.

Not in denial. In scepticism.

We'll see after the program airs.

This. There has been a lot of noise and words spoken about motors in the men's pro peloton over the last couple of years. But absolutely no proof or firm evidence.

Of course, that's not to say that motors aren't being used; but if all this programme does is add more words and allegations, without proper evidence and without names, then it's a waste of time.

Why would it be a waste of time? You mean it shouldn't be talked about?

Bizarre.

Because it's not adding anything new. It's based on statements by the same guy who has been fuelling these stories for six years - but still hasn't managed to get any proof.

Of course it should be talked about when there is some new evidence or proof. But this is just rehashing the existing speculations - not adding anything new. A waste of time.

So that they saw the motors with heat detectors is nothing new? Not evidence? This is similar to the TV crew that followed USPS team that dumped used transfusion equipment 100kms away from the team hotel. Fans screamed not proof, not evidence.

This sport is full of people willing to do anything, anything to win.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Because it's not adding anything new. It's based on statements by the same guy who has been fuelling these stories for six years - but still hasn't managed to get any proof.

Of course it should be talked about when there is some new evidence or proof. But this is just rehashing the existing speculations - not adding anything new. A waste of time.

So that they saw the motors with heat detectors is nothing new? Not evidence? This is similar to the TV crew that followed USPS team that dumped used transfusion equipment 100kms away from the team hotel. Fans screamed not proof, not evidence.

This sport is full of people willing to do anything, anything to win.

Well the obvious difference there is that USPS were explicitly named. Why have the journalists not named riders or teams involved? It suggests to me that they don't have that much faith in their own 'evidence'.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Because it's not adding anything new. It's based on statements by the same guy who has been fuelling these stories for six years - but still hasn't managed to get any proof.

Of course it should be talked about when there is some new evidence or proof. But this is just rehashing the existing speculations - not adding anything new. A waste of time.

So that they saw the motors with heat detectors is nothing new? Not evidence? This is similar to the TV crew that followed USPS team that dumped used transfusion equipment 100kms away from the team hotel. Fans screamed not proof, not evidence.

This sport is full of people willing to do anything, anything to win.

Well the obvious difference there is that USPS were explicitly named. Why have the journalists not named riders or teams involved? It suggests to me that they don't have that much faith in their own 'evidence'.

It could be the TV station's legal vultures wont let them.

When the USPS was named, nothing came of it! Why risk litigation when showing that motors are in use is the real goal?

For me it matters not who are just that it again shows how much cheating is still part of the culture of the sport and the win at any cost is still the mantra.

It also shows how the UCI are still a joke. Cookson is just another Federation President more concerned with feathering his own nest and the nests of his supporters rather than running a 'legitimate' sport.

Doping is not enough! Some need motors in bikes as well! FFS!

 

[hrotha]

So, did anybody watch it? How convincing was it?

 

[DFA123]

Re:

So, did anybody watch it? How convincing was it?

I was only half watching it, so may have missed something, but would say the evidence was lacking in enough context to be really damning.

They had a heat sensing camera which showed hot spots on rims and cassettes on the bikes of a few anonymous riders, while they were going over sterrato sections at SB. The vast majority of bikes had no such hot spots on them. Then spent a long time explaining how motor doping could work and concluded that the hot spots were most probably caused by motors.

They didn't really explain satisfactorily why the hot spots on some rims couldn't just have been caused by braking, because they only had a couple of seconds footage of each bike as it was passing the camera, and so there wasn't much context to the images.

Not really sure why they didn't use the camera in a bit more of a targetted way - like use it at a race where they do a lap circuit, so you could see if the same riders repeatedly had the hot spots on the bikes. The two seconds of footage from each rider is just inconclusive.

 

[HelmutRoole]

Re: Re:

Because it's not adding anything new. It's based on statements by the same guy who has been fuelling these stories for six years - but still hasn't managed to get any proof.

Of course it should be talked about when there is some new evidence or proof. But this is just rehashing the existing speculations - not adding anything new. A waste of time.

So that they saw the motors with heat detectors is nothing new? Not evidence? This is similar to the TV crew that followed USPS team that dumped used transfusion equipment 100kms away from the team hotel. Fans screamed not proof, not evidence.

This sport is full of people willing to do anything, anything to win.

Well the obvious difference there is that USPS were explicitly named. Why have the journalists not named riders or teams involved? It suggests to me that they don't have that much faith in their own 'evidence'.

Yep. Something don't add up. I mean, why go to all the trouble and then not name names? If you names names the story becomes potentially huge. Or, interview off the record. Find out where the motor came from. Who knew what. Who knows what.

Much more interesting than a "I told you so," piece.

Really, there's nothing new here.

 

[the delgados]

Re: Re:

Because it's not adding anything new. It's based on statements by the same guy who has been fuelling these stories for six years - but still hasn't managed to get any proof.

Of course it should be talked about when there is some new evidence or proof. But this is just rehashing the existing speculations - not adding anything new. A waste of time.

So that they saw the motors with heat detectors is nothing new? Not evidence? This is similar to the TV crew that followed USPS team that dumped used transfusion equipment 100kms away from the team hotel. Fans screamed not proof, not evidence.

This sport is full of people willing to do anything, anything to win.

Well the obvious difference there is that USPS were explicitly named. Why have the journalists not named riders or teams involved? It suggests to me that they don't have that much faith in their own 'evidence'.

Yep. Something don't add up. I mean, why go to all the trouble and then not name names? If you names names the story becomes potentially huge. Or, interview off the record. Find out where the motor came from. Who knew what. Who knows what.

Much more interesting than a "I told you so," piece.

Really, there's nothing new here.

Nothing new except for the fact they had some kind of heat sensor thingie that made the frames look like a towering inferno.
I agree with a poster a while back who said one of the reasons they chose not to identify the addresses of the towering infernos was due to legalities.
I have not seen the documentary, but do you really think they made this up and went to air without consulting lawyers and those 'in the know"?

 

[HelmutRoole]

Re: Re:

Because it's not adding anything new. It's based on statements by the same guy who has been fuelling these stories for six years - but still hasn't managed to get any proof.

Of course it should be talked about when there is some new evidence or proof. But this is just rehashing the existing speculations - not adding anything new. A waste of time.

So that they saw the motors with heat detectors is nothing new? Not evidence? This is similar to the TV crew that followed USPS team that dumped used transfusion equipment 100kms away from the team hotel. Fans screamed not proof, not evidence.

This sport is full of people willing to do anything, anything to win.

Well the obvious difference there is that USPS were explicitly named. Why have the journalists not named riders or teams involved? It suggests to me that they don't have that much faith in their own 'evidence'.

Yep. Something don't add up. I mean, why go to all the trouble and then not name names? If you names names the story becomes potentially huge. Or, interview off the record. Find out where the motor came from. Who knew what. Who knows what.

Much more interesting than a "I told you so," piece.

Really, there's nothing new here.

Nothing new except for the fact they had some kind of heat sensor thingie that made the frames look like a towering inferno.
I agree with a poster a while back who said one of the reasons they chose not to identify the addresses of the towering infernos was due to legalities.
I have not seen the documentary, but do you really think they made this up and went to air without consulting lawyers and those 'in the know"?

Maybe, but still, it's kinda a crappy piece of journalism. They're not telling us something we don't already know.

I mean, we're all in agreement here at this point in history that motors are used in pro cycling, right?

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Maybe, but still, it's kinda a crappy piece of journalism. They're not telling us something we don't already know.

I mean, we're all in agreement here at this point in history that motors are used in pro cycling, right?

well, I think this will be some paradox, that there will always be speculation, belief, and scepticism, but there will never be proof.

I wanna know why Lance never rolled a motor out when he came back in 11 or whenever he came back.

Why? "He did" I hear you say? nah, I dont think he rolled one out on return. I dont have evidence either way, but I dont think he used one on his return.

So, if you look at the answer about MOTORs, you may distill the answer(s) from an analysis of the negative scenario for one rider. This sorta meta analysis.

One rider you assume would have used a motor to get an edge on rivals on his return, would have been Armstrong.

So, if the proof surrounding Armstrong, and all evidence pointing to him using mechanical advantage on his return, if all this does not exist, does it not put into question the scenario of the others using too? (yes, I know this is a logical fallacy)

 

[slowspoke]

Now why does the part about Varjas showing an early rudimentary version of a motor and admitted it may have been used as early as 1998. He suggested that it best worked with an extremely high cadence. Make me think of a certain high cadence cyclist prominent from 1999?

 

[the delgados]

Re: Re:

Because it's not adding anything new. It's based on statements by the same guy who has been fuelling these stories for six years - but still hasn't managed to get any proof.

Of course it should be talked about when there is some new evidence or proof. But this is just rehashing the existing speculations - not adding anything new. A waste of time.

So that they saw the motors with heat detectors is nothing new? Not evidence? This is similar to the TV crew that followed USPS team that dumped used transfusion equipment 100kms away from the team hotel. Fans screamed not proof, not evidence.

This sport is full of people willing to do anything, anything to win.

Well the obvious difference there is that USPS were explicitly named. Why have the journalists not named riders or teams involved? It suggests to me that they don't have that much faith in their own 'evidence'.

Yep. Something don't add up. I mean, why go to all the trouble and then not name names? If you names names the story becomes potentially huge. Or, interview off the record. Find out where the motor came from. Who knew what. Who knows what.

Much more interesting than a "I told you so," piece.

Really, there's nothing new here.

I'm not in agreement that everyone here knows that inferno dope is rife in the peloton.
Example 1: Me
I honestly didn't know, but had my suspicions (i don't need to refer to Spartacus, I'm sure.)
I don't know why you'd write the whole thing off by claiming lazy journalism and nothing to see here.
Doesn't make sense.