Motor doping thread

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Thing with mechanical doping is that if not caught on the spot you will NEVER be caught.

Chris Vrrrooome:

"I know my results will stand the test of time, that 10, 15 years down the line people won't say, 'Ah, so that was his secret'. There isn't a secret."

"But I feel there is now a need for winners of the Tour de France to go 10, 20 years and not be stripped of their yellow jerseys and their trophies, and that's where myself and Team Sky are at now."

Had the same thought. I don't think there could be anyway now, bar a time machine, to catch a motor doper. Unless there's some form of X-ray technology to use on older film footage, which would be highly doubtful.

Ventoux 2013 is probably the most suspicious motor doping we've seen, not sure that can be surpassed, even by Froome.

The answer lies in big data. Most people don't know just how powerful big data is, not only for predicting outcomes and behaviors, but also for determining when and how someone is, say, cheating. A lot of people scoffed sat Vayer with his data idea, but I believe he was on the right track. Given certain data and clever algorithms it will be possible in the near future to say with certainty who has cheated in winning recent Tours and how they did it. Froome et al. might think they're clever but they will end up being pariahs in sporting history, and the sport totally discredited.

I think apart from some new fans who jumped aboard the TeamSky boat, not many people with a couple of brain cells believes performances are achieved on bread and water!

Everyone i know who doesn't watch the sport think it is a cesspit of doping!

True. Very true. But there is a qualitative difference, even in the minds of naive onlookers, between doped athletes, on the one hand, and clowns with hidden motors on the other. It's the difference between the Olympics and World Wrestling Entertainment.

I dont see any difference between the Olympics and World Wrestling Entertainment.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Cadence is a red herring. Use power instead.

O2 vector doping doesn't enable a specific high cadence, it enables an increase in sustainable aerobic power. The natural consequence for some riders of being more powerful is riding at higher cadences, but equally for others they will naturally prefer to choose a bigger gear earlier than they may have been able to before (e.g. the classic Lance v Ulrich cadence nonsense, which was a bit of a commentator myth in itself).

If cadence was such a tell tale sign of doping, then why do not all dopers ride with this supposed high cadence style?

It is pretty normal for cadence at race power levels to increase with increasing fitness. e.g. when unfit I will tend to ride at somewhat lower cadences than when I am fit and that's a natural consequence of producing much less power. But it's also partly a function of gearing coming in discrete ratios and not being continuously variable.

Another example is when you have riders perform incremental exercise tests on equipment which permits cadence to be freely chosen (IOW the power demand is maintained by computer control at a set/programmed level no matter the wheel's speed). There will be those that naturally increase cadence as the power demand increases, while others will not do this.

In normal riding scenarios (i.e. not on special testing equipment) cadence is an outcome, not an input nor an independent variable. It's an outcome of the chosen effort level (power output), the selected gear and the resistance forces in play (rolling, gravity, air, drivetrain friction etc). What we can choose is the power/effort and gear ratio. Cadence then follows those choices, not the other way round.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

If cadence was such a tell tale sign of doping, then why do not all dopers ride with this supposed high cadence style?

You had me at this. Good point.

But still it is somewhat of a tell.

 

[delgado]

Re: Mechanical doping: first rider caught

There might be a number of reasons why the bottom bracket might be slightly warmer than the rest of the bike, I guess the power going through the bracket must produce a small amount, plus would air flow cool the rest of the frame more? I'm not a scientist so feel free to produce some proper theories.

just to be clear, the hungarian bike shop owner in the video says exactly that. He is all over the wheels, however.

 

[thehog]

Re:

If cadence was such a tell tale sign of doping, then why do not all dopers ride with this supposed high cadence style?

You had me at this. Good point.

But still it is somewhat of a tell.

The cadence variable was in relation to moto doping not o2 doping. Alex hadn't read the thread prior to opining.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

If cadence was such a tell tale sign of doping, then why do not all dopers ride with this supposed high cadence style?

You had me at this. Good point.

But still it is somewhat of a tell.

The cadence variable was in relation to moto doping not o2 doping. Alex hadn't read the thread prior to opining.

The fundamental principle applies, no matter the source of the power. IOW cadence is still an outcome of the choices made with power (effort) and gear ratio, and the resistance forces in play. As such, what cadence is tells you 3/5ths of SFA. It's the wrong measurement indicator with which to make any such assessment.

The 3 years with the fastest Alpe d'Huez ascents during TdF (based on average speed of 5 fastest) are 1994, 1995 and 1997, before such hidden motor tech was available. Faster than the Armstrong era, and certainly faster than anything since by more than 1km/h.

 

[Spawn of e]

Miguel told LA to spin high cadence at Ride for the Roses. That trumps any of this pseudo science.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

If cadence was such a tell tale sign of doping, then why do not all dopers ride with this supposed high cadence style?

You had me at this. Good point.

But still it is somewhat of a tell.

The cadence variable was in relation to moto doping not o2 doping. Alex hadn't read the thread prior to opining.

The fundamental principle applies, no matter the source of the power. IOW cadence is still an outcome of the choices made with power (effort) and gear ratio, and the resistance forces in play. As such, what cadence is tells you 3/5ths of SFA. It's the wrong measurement indicator with which to make any such assessment.

The 3 years with the fastest Alpe d'Huez ascents during TdF (based on average speed of 5 fastest) are 1994, 1995 and 1997, before such hidden motor tech was available. Faster than the Armstrong era, and certainly faster than anything since by more than 1km/h.

Ummm ok, have no idea what point you are making or how it relates to cadence with motors. Since 1997, l'Alpe has been ridden only 8 times in 18 years at the Tour, once being a time trial.

1994, 1995 and 1997 were also pre-hematocrit health testing, along with no EPO testing; meaning +50% = good times.

All of this data might help with the 'outlier' you present. Whatever that might be....

 

[luckyboy]

Early 1997 the 50% test was introduced. Menthour, Colombo and Santaromita failed it at Paris-Nice.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/archives/mar97/12a_3.html

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

If cadence was such a tell tale sign of doping, then why do not all dopers ride with this supposed high cadence style?

You had me at this. Good point.

But still it is somewhat of a tell.

The cadence variable was in relation to moto doping not o2 doping. Alex hadn't read the thread prior to opining.

The fundamental principle applies, no matter the source of the power. IOW cadence is still an outcome of the choices made with power (effort) and gear ratio, and the resistance forces in play. As such, what cadence is tells you 3/5ths of SFA. It's the wrong measurement indicator with which to make any such assessment.

The 3 years with the fastest Alpe d'Huez ascents during TdF (based on average speed of 5 fastest) are 1994, 1995 and 1997, before such hidden motor tech was available. Faster than the Armstrong era, and certainly faster than anything since by more than 1km/h.

Ummm ok, have no idea what point you are making or how it relates to cadence with motors. Since 1997, l'Alpe has been ridden only 8 times in 18 years at the Tour, once being a time trial.

1994, 1995 and 1997 were also pre-hematocrit health testing, along with no EPO testing; meaning +50% = good times.

All of this data might help with the 'outlier' you present. Whatever that might be....

My point is simple and precisely what I started with: Cadence is a red herring.

Using cadence as a means to infer anything about performance in absence of data that actually matters (i.e. power) is pointless since one cannot infer much, if anything, about performance from it. Just because something is measured doesn't mean it matters.

The comment about the ascent rates in the mid-1990s was simply to point out that fast times happened before anyone talked about "high cadences" and well before hidden motor tech was a thing. How the extra power (e.g. rampant EPO use) was generated wasn't the point.

As for using HR to infer much, again there is much misunderstanding on display here about immediate HR response during exercise.

 

[thehog]

Re:

Early 1997 the 50% test was introduced. Menthour, Colombo and Santaromita failed it at Paris-Nice.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/archives/mar97/12a_3.html

It wasn't in full swing till 1998 but, yes, 1997 it was introduced.

Ashenden actually wrote a paper back in the day, that 50% was probably too aggressive (snigger), how little we knew back in 1997

The decision of the UCI to test the blood of professional cyclists to deter the use of rhEPO is admirable. However, the 50% hematocrit limit appears too aggressive on the basis of 10 years of data collected from road cyclists tested at the Australian Institute of Sport. A 52% hematocrit limit would result in fewer false positive tests and could still deter the suspected use of rhEPO. While elite athletes wait for sensitive rhEPO detection techniques to emerge, measurements of hematocrit may represent a temporary deterrent. However, prior to implementing blood testing for hematocrit it would seem worth while to carefully evaluate the cut-off level and also consider the influence of body position, altitude training and dehydration on hematocrit values in professional cyclists. It is now possible that the leader in the Tour de France could be prevented from competing in the final stage because his hematocrit is "dangerously" high. With lucrative salaries at stake, it will be interesting to see if the 50% hematocrit rule will last throughout the 1997 professional cycling season.

April 97. The UCI 50% Hematocrit rule has been implemented at the 1997 Paris-Nice Road Race. Three out of the 20 professional cyclists tested registered hematocrit measures greater than 50%. Their fate? An individual fine of 1,000 Swiss Francs and a team fine of 10,000 Swiss Francs. In addition, the riders with the "dangerously high" hematocrits were removed from competition for a period of 15 days. Erwan Mentheour (Fra, La Francaise des Jeux), Luca Colombo (Ita, Batik-Del Monte) and Mauro Santaromita are the riders who have lost money and a chance to win UCI points in Paris-Nice despite any evidence of rhEPO use.

http://www.sportsci.org/news/news9703/AISblood.html

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Just to be clear, I'm not disputing the potential use of motors, only that the nature of "evidence" being presented here is flimsy to say the least. Neither cadence nor HR response (in the manner portrayed here) are particularly indicative of much at all. They are the wrong things to look at.

Since an electromechanical device in a bicycle is not particularly difficult thing to discover, I can't see this being overly difficult thing to police once such anti-cheating activity is sufficient resourced for the task. TT bikes already go though pre-race quarantine, so that would be pretty simple process.

Road races are a bit more chaotic, but processes can be put in place to deal with it. Wouldn't be all that more complex than what is done at all junior races with gearing checks before and after races (e.g. all rider's bikes are checked before race and place getter's bikes are checked immediately after race).

 

[Archibald]

Re: Re:

If cadence was such a tell tale sign of doping, then why do not all dopers ride with this supposed high cadence style?

You had me at this. Good point.

But still it is somewhat of a tell.

The cadence variable was in relation to moto doping not o2 doping. Alex hadn't read the thread prior to opining.

The fundamental principle applies, no matter the source of the power. IOW cadence is still an outcome of the choices made with power (effort) and gear ratio, and the resistance forces in play. As such, what cadence is tells you 3/5ths of SFA. It's the wrong measurement indicator with which to make any such assessment.

The 3 years with the fastest Alpe d'Huez ascents during TdF (based on average speed of 5 fastest) are 1994, 1995 and 1997, before such hidden motor tech was available. Faster than the Armstrong era, and certainly faster than anything since by more than 1km/h.

Ummm ok, have no idea what point you are making or how it relates to cadence with motors. Since 1997, l'Alpe has been ridden only 8 times in 18 years at the Tour, once being a time trial.

1994, 1995 and 1997 were also pre-hematocrit health testing, along with no EPO testing; meaning +50% = good times.

All of this data might help with the 'outlier' you present. Whatever that might be....

Are you suggesting that no-limit EPO usage is better than motor usage?

 

[thehog]

Re:

Just to be clear, I'm not disputing the potential use of motors, only that the nature of "evidence" being presented here is flimsy to say the least. Neither cadence nor HR response (in the manner portrayed here) are particularly indicative of much at all. They are the wrong things to look at.

Since an electromechanical device in a bicycle is not particularly difficult thing to discover, I can't see this being overly difficult thing to police once such anti-cheating activity is sufficient resourced for the task. TT bikes already go though pre-race quarantine, so that would be pretty simple process.

Road races are a bit more chaotic, but processes can be put in place to deal with it. Wouldn't be all that more complex than what is done at all junior races with gearing checks before and after races (e.g. all rider's bikes are checked before race and place getter's bikes are checked immediately after race).

Junior gearing checks only exist in Australia, it's not done in Europe.

The article referred was an interview with Gilbert's agent, he inferred (possibly a poor translation) that 'pedalling pace' and heart rate are clear indicators of cheating.

Asked how to pinpoint those who are cheating, he said that both performances and physical parameters must be considered. “When you find an incredible pedalling pace in a slope at high altitude with low heartbeat, in my opinion, it is clear that there is cheating.

“It is a rule of three [factors]…the heart beat, the rhythm of pedalling and the slope. But as I said, it’s not sufficient [to form conclusions in this way – ed.] it is also necessary, in this case, that all legal mechanisms are put in place that the bike is seized, that the spare bikes are seized, and that mechanics don’t have the chance to approach the bikes.

“It is also necessary that in the future we forbid changing bikes except for serious mechanical reasons

http://cyclingtips.com/2016/04/gilberts-agent-there-is-evidence-that-motors-have-been-in-the-peloton-since-before-2010/

 

[jmdirt]

Re: Re:

[quote="]

My point is simple and precisely what I started with: Cadence is a red herring.

Using cadence as a means to infer anything about performance in absence of data that actually matters (i.e. power) is pointless since one cannot infer much, if anything, about performance from it. Just because something is measured doesn't mean it matters.

The comment about the ascent rates in the mid-1990s was simply to point out that fast times happened before anyone talked about "high cadences" and well before hidden motor tech was a thing. How the extra power (e.g. rampant EPO use) was generated wasn't the point.

As for using HR to infer much, again there is much misunderstanding on display here about immediate HR response during exercise.

[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]
As I posted up thread, HR doesn't react immediately to increased or decreased effort. I'm not sure by your statement if we agree or disagree on that, but the science is clear. Many people also think that HR increases to get more oxygen in, the trigger for increased HR is too much waste gas that needs to get out. Aerobic efficiency is more often limited by getting waste gas out than getting oxygen in. Take in, transport, utilize, clean out.

 

[observer]

I read this somewhere else but i agree with the thought that there needs to be a "parc ferme" type situation here in regards to the bikes that will be used. If formula 1 can do it with their complex machines, so too can bicycle racing.

have a time where the bikes need to be ready, say midnight. place the bikes being used in parc ferme. limit the amount of bikes per racer to 2.
when they are locked up, the commissionaires check everything over. Perhaps a limited amount of wheels too.

the riders can warm up and ride around and do photo ops on other bikes, but only the bikes in the parc ferme can be used in the race. To ensure a transparent and no meddling situation, the parc ferme has cctv broadcast over the web.

this might also help in those situations where a whole team of bikes gets stolen too.

this might not be achievable in smaller races, but i'd like to see it rolled out in grand tours and monuments at least.

 

[Maxiton]

In many of the interviews given by Bruyneel back in the day, he comes right out and says that Lance is using a high cadence to achieve the minimum Rate of Perceived Exertion. The reasonable reader who rides will ask, well, hell, why don't I do that? The reason you don't do that is because you can't, not at the power he's putting out. You can't, because unlike Lance your aerobic system isn't doped. Power output is a given. In many interviews both Bruyneel and Armstrong maintain that if you can't sustain 6.7 w/kg for an hour, you can't win the Tour. The fact that he's putting out that power using a high cadence means that he is relying on aerobic capacity that can only be achieved through O2-vector doping.

 

[DFA123]

Re:

In many of the interviews given by Bruyneel back in the day, he comes right out and says that Lance is using a high cadence to achieve the minimum Rate of Perceived Exertion. The reasonable reader who rides will ask, well, hell, why don't I do that? The reason you don't do that is because you can't, not at the power he's putting out. You can't, because unlike Lance your aerobic system isn't doped. Power output is a given. In many interviews both Bruyneel and Armstrong maintain that if you can't sustain 6.7 w/kg for an hour, you can't win the Tour. The fact that he's putting out that power using a high cadence means that he is relying on aerobic capacity that can only be achieved through O2-vector doping.

They couldn't ride with a low cadence at the power Lance was putting out either. As Alex says, the cadence is just one output value of the power.

The fact that he's putting out that power using a high cadence means that he is relying on aerobic capacity that can only be achieved through O2-vector doping

The fact he is putting out that power at all can only be achieved through O2- vector doping; again, the cadence has nothing to do with it.

Regarding a motor, the cadence also isn't really useful for identifying cheats. These aren't fixed gear bikes.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

In many of the interviews given by Bruyneel back in the day, he comes right out and says that Lance is using a high cadence to achieve the minimum Rate of Perceived Exertion. The reasonable reader who rides will ask, well, hell, why don't I do that? The reason you don't do that is because you can't, not at the power he's putting out. You can't, because unlike Lance your aerobic system isn't doped. Power output is a given. In many interviews both Bruyneel and Armstrong maintain that if you can't sustain 6.7 w/kg for an hour, you can't win the Tour. The fact that he's putting out that power using a high cadence means that he is relying on aerobic capacity that can only be achieved through O2-vector doping.

They couldn't ride with a low cadence at the power Lance was putting out either. As Alex says, the cadence is just one output value of the power.

The fact that he's putting out that power using a high cadence means that he is relying on aerobic capacity that can only be achieved through O2-vector doping

The fact he is putting out that power at all can only be achieved through O2- vector doping; again, the cadence has nothing to do with it.

Regarding a motor, the cadence also isn't really useful for identifying cheats. These aren't fixed gear bikes.

Au contraire. There is more to power output than O2 doping, but all things being equal a higher than normal cadence is indicative that the rider is leveraging his aerobic system, which he can do because of O2 doping.

Regarding cadence and motors, I think somewhere up thread someone makes the point that the seat tube motor efficiency increases with cadence; in order to get the maximum out of it you have to keep your cadence quite high.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

In many of the interviews given by Bruyneel back in the day, he comes right out and says that Lance is using a high cadence to achieve the minimum Rate of Perceived Exertion. The reasonable reader who rides will ask, well, hell, why don't I do that? The reason you don't do that is because you can't, not at the power he's putting out. You can't, because unlike Lance your aerobic system isn't doped. Power output is a given. In many interviews both Bruyneel and Armstrong maintain that if you can't sustain 6.7 w/kg for an hour, you can't win the Tour. The fact that he's putting out that power using a high cadence means that he is relying on aerobic capacity that can only be achieved through O2-vector doping.

They couldn't ride with a low cadence at the power Lance was putting out either. As Alex says, the cadence is just one output value of the power.

The fact that he's putting out that power using a high cadence means that he is relying on aerobic capacity that can only be achieved through O2-vector doping

The fact he is putting out that power at all can only be achieved through O2- vector doping; again, the cadence has nothing to do with it.

Regarding a motor, the cadence also isn't really useful for identifying cheats. These aren't fixed gear bikes.

Au contraire. There is more to power output than O2 doping, but all things being equal a higher than normal cadence is indicative that the rider is leveraging his aerobic system, which he can do because of O2 doping.

Regarding cadence and motors, I think somewhere up thread someone makes the point that the seat tube motor efficiency increases with cadence; in order to get the maximum out of it you have to keep your cadence quite high.

But you also need to dope to do 6.4w/kg at a low or normal cadence (Ullrich, Pantani, Contador). And there are plenty of riders in the peloton who spin at high cadence but don't put out anything like that power. So, I'm not sure how looking at cadence can help you tell you if a rider is doping.

I'm sure that putting out high power with a high cadence is only possible with O2 doping. But equally, putting out the same power with low cadence is only possible with O2 doping. It's all about the power, not the cadence.

 

[hrotha]

Re: Re:

Early 1997 the 50% test was introduced. Menthour, Colombo and Santaromita failed it at Paris-Nice.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/archives/mar97/12a_3.html

It wasn't in full swing till 1998 but, yes, 1997 it was introduced.

No, it WAS in full swing in 1997.

 

[Tienus]

The hematocrit test did not mean riders where not riding 50% plus. Plenty of stories of riders adding a saline solution before a check.

 

[VO2 Max]

Re: Re:

It's all about the power, not the cadence.

A lot of people I think have in mind a fairly high power but low torque bottom bracket motor that could add plenty of watts when it's spinning fast (ie when the drive train is rotating quickly) but wouldn't have the oomph to add much to a bigger gear turning slowly. Like a sports car might struggle to pull a caravan - but I haven't even seen any sums on the orders of magnitude involved let alone the detail, so no idea if that analogy is actually realistic. I'm not the right type of engineer to do the detail on this stuff unfortunately.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

It's all about the power, not the cadence.

A lot of people I think have in mind a fairly high power but low torque bottom bracket motor that could add plenty of watts when it's spinning fast (ie when the drive train is rotating quickly) but wouldn't have the oomph to add much to a bigger gear turning slowly. Like a sports car might struggle to pull a caravan - but I haven't even seen any sums on the orders of magnitude involved let alone the detail, so no idea if that analogy is actually realistic. I'm not the right type of engineer to do the detail on this stuff unfortunately.

Sure, I can see how that could be a possibility. But I don't see how putting out an extra 10-15rpm would make a significant difference once the motor is up to speed.

It could be a factor in an initial acceleration, but not really important after the first few seconds. The problem is that almost all riders looking to attack or put out a burst of power will do so with a higher than normal cadence, whether or not they are using a motor - because it takes longer to accelerate with bigger gears). So I still don't really see how looking at cadence can be that helpful.

 

[jilbiker]

Re: Re:

In many of the interviews given by Bruyneel back in the day, he comes right out and says that Lance is using a high cadence to achieve the minimum Rate of Perceived Exertion. The reasonable reader who rides will ask, well, hell, why don't I do that? The reason you don't do that is because you can't, not at the power he's putting out. You can't, because unlike Lance your aerobic system isn't doped. Power output is a given. In many interviews both Bruyneel and Armstrong maintain that if you can't sustain 6.7 w/kg for an hour, you can't win the Tour. The fact that he's putting out that power using a high cadence means that he is relying on aerobic capacity that can only be achieved through O2-vector doping.

They couldn't ride with a low cadence at the power Lance was putting out either. As Alex says, the cadence is just one output value of the power.

The fact that he's putting out that power using a high cadence means that he is relying on aerobic capacity that can only be achieved through O2-vector doping

The fact he is putting out that power at all can only be achieved through O2- vector doping; again, the cadence has nothing to do with it.

Regarding a motor, the cadence also isn't really useful for identifying cheats. These aren't fixed gear bikes.

Au contraire. There is more to power output than O2 doping, but all things being equal a higher than normal cadence is indicative that the rider is leveraging his aerobic system, which he can do because of O2 doping.

Regarding cadence and motors, I think somewhere up thread someone makes the point that the seat tube motor efficiency increases with cadence; in order to get the maximum out of it you have to keep your cadence quite high.

Obviously TyleH was not convinced that the "high cadence" was producing the outstanding power numbers. He was not seeing that when training with LA. There was something else adding an extra "zoom".