Motor doping thread

[thehog]

Re: Italian, French Media Combine to Catch Pro Motodoping

BullsFan22 posted a link to this story up thread, but since then video has appeared on YouTube (linked below).

From VeloNews:

Italy’s Corriere della Sera newspaper and France’s Télévisions Stade 2 say video evidence shows riders cheating with motors at Italian races Strade Bianche and Coppi e Bartali this March.

The Italian and French media outlets collaborated to capture images from the races using a hidden thermal video camera. Published footage shows seven riders’ bicycles lit up brightly yellow and orange, five with heat coming from their seat-tubes and two with heat in their hubs.

Here is the footage (in French, but subtitles are available in settings): Un moteur dans le vélo

The footage has been shared with UCI's Brian Cookson, a related VeloNews story said, but ". . . it appears the (UCI) is not going to investigate the cyclists even if it knows their identities. Instead, it is steadfast in its plans to continue using magnetic bike scanners (instead of supplementing with the thermal imaging equipment used for this report)."

I expect there to be a few French Journos with thermal type cameras along the route of this year's tour exuding their 'sour grapes'.

Any glowing you'll see in the seat tube area is the Di2 batteries right?

Brian Cookson's facial expressions when being confronted with this on the video are Funny.

Why do people keep posting an image from a bike that was not actually ridden during a race as if it's a smoking gun? No images from the race footage show this sort of down tube "heat".

Again, no one is dismissing the potential or the possibility of hidden motors, but the "evidence" being cited here is extremely flimsy.

It would help if people (yes including you hog ) stopped wanting things to be true and viewing the world through a haze of confirmation bias and instead provided credible evidence of things being true.

So far in this thread we have "overhead videos" that show sweet f-all, we have serious misinterpretations of HR response to exercise, claims of "super human" accelerations which do no more than demonstrate a poor understanding of physics (accelerations on a bike are very small, and very short lived, especially uphill).

I know it's so odd. People come to a dicussion forum to discuss various aspects of cycling. They even come to the doping specific forum to discuss doping and other methods of cheating. It's truly bizarre set of circumstances...

Good work Alex, you've made us all none the wiser. Keep posting, please.

 

[Hawkwood]

Re: Italian, French Media Combine to Catch Pro Motodoping

Why do people keep posting an image from a bike that was not actually ridden during a race as if it's a smoking gun? No images from the race footage show this sort of down tube "heat".

Again, no one is dismissing the potential or the possibility of hidden motors, but the "evidence" being cited here is extremely flimsy.

It would help if people (yes including you hog ) stopped wanting things to be true and viewing the world through a haze of confirmation bias and instead provided credible evidence of things being true.

So far in this thread we have "overhead videos" that show sweet f-all, we have serious misinterpretations of HR response to exercise, claims of "super human" accelerations which do no more than demonstrate a poor understanding of physics (accelerations on a bike are very small, and very short lived, especially uphill).

I watched the documentary and my comments are based on my rather rusty understanding of French, plus I couldn't hear the English dialogue very well, so apologies if I've got things wrong. During the documentary they pointed to `heat' coming from a cassette and showed a simple animation of a motorised rear hub, but there was no discussion of how such a thing might work (would such a thing actually fit in a rear hub?). Then they interviewed Varjas the Hungarian engineer who spoke about the seat-tube motor we know about. He showed the reporter a carbon fibre wheel with over 20 slots cut in it, and suggested that batteries could be placed in these. Cue another animation showing a rear wheel drive based on electro-magnets in the wheel and a seat-tube stuffed full of them, but there was no discussion as to how such a drive would work. When questioned Varjas appeared to say he'd never supplied a wheel drive. Either he or the reporter then came out with a price of 50-200,000 Euros for such a device.

So I found the second half of the documentary, the bit about the technicalities of motorised bikes, disappointing with no real new information, if they're going to bring up wheel and hub drives how about actually showing some working examples of these.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Italian, French Media Combine to Catch Pro Motodoping

I know it's so odd. People come to a dicussion forum to discuss various aspects of cycling. They even come to the doping specific forum to discuss doping and other methods of cheating. It's truly bizarre set of circumstances...

Good work Alex, you've made us all none the wiser. Keep posting, please.

The people putting up so called "evidence" have most certainly not made us any wiser about the reality of the use (or not) of hidden motors.

I'm not suggesting any discussion be abandoned, merely that it should use actual and plausible evidence that stands up to sensible scrutiny and that people not resort to use of logical fallacy to further their preconceived notions.

 

[thehog]

Re: Italian, French Media Combine to Catch Pro Motodoping

I know it's so odd. People come to a dicussion forum to discuss various aspects of cycling. They even come to the doping specific forum to discuss doping and other methods of cheating. It's truly bizarre set of circumstances...

Good work Alex, you've made us all none the wiser. Keep posting, please.

The people putting up so called "evidence" have most certainly not made us any wiser about the reality of the use (or not) of hidden motors.

I'm not suggesting any discussion be abandoned, merely that it should use actual and plausible evidence that stands up to sensible scrutiny and that people not resort to use of logical fallacy to further their preconceived notions.

Here's the thing; I'm not sure you know "evidence" actually means.

Everyday in western democratic courts around the world evidence is produce on both sides; by the plaintiff and the defence, by the claimant and he defence.

A plethora of evidence of all shapes and sizes, some written, some physical, some video tapes, some audio recorded, some scientific and some testimony based. Some of it is strong, some weak, some circumstantial, some of it is tainted, some slightly tainted, some of it from a primary source, other from a tertiary etc.

Based on the evidence presented verdicts can be determined, settlements can be reached as sentences can be decided.

To simply "dismiss" evidence is not how our judicial process works. It needs to be first presented, discussed and the determined if valid and useable. More often than not it's the "totality" of evidence rather than one example thereof.

If motor use was on trial in cycling, most certainly what we saw in the documentary could be used along with overhead shots showing suspicious "accelerations" by a specific rider. That would be very normal. It most certainly wouldn't be dismissed as you suggest. Not by a long shot, it's way too compelling to not show a jury, judge or arbitrator.

You should give more credence that there's is not one set of evidence which proves or disproves, more often than not the truth lies somewhere in between and thus all points should be discussed with the material available at the time.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Italian, French Media Combine to Catch Pro Motodoping

I know it's so odd. People come to a dicussion forum to discuss various aspects of cycling. They even come to the doping specific forum to discuss doping and other methods of cheating. It's truly bizarre set of circumstances...

Good work Alex, you've made us all none the wiser. Keep posting, please.

The people putting up so called "evidence" have most certainly not made us any wiser about the reality of the use (or not) of hidden motors.

I'm not suggesting any discussion be abandoned, merely that it should use actual and plausible evidence that stands up to sensible scrutiny and that people not resort to use of logical fallacy to further their preconceived notions.

Here's the thing; I'm not sure you know "evidence" actually means.

Everyday in western democratic courts around the world evidence is produce on both sides; by the plaintiff and the defence, by the claimant and he defence.

A plethora of evidence of all shapes and sizes, some written, some physical, some video tapes, some audio recorded, some scientific and some testimony based. Some of it is strong, some weak, some circumstantial, some of it is tainted, some slightly tainted, some of it from a primary source, other from a tertiary etc.

Based on the evidence presented verdicts can be determined, settlements can be reached as sentences can be decided.

To simply "dismiss" evidence is not how our judicial process works. It needs to be first presented, discussed and the determined if valid and useable. More often than not it's the "totality" of evidence rather than one example thereof.

If motor use was on trial in cycling, most certainly what we saw in the documentary could be used along with overhead shots showing suspicious "accelerations" by a specific rider. That would be very normal. It most certainly wouldn't be dismissed as you suggest. Not by a long shot, it's way too compelling to not show a jury, judge or arbitrator.

You should give more credence that there's is not one set of evidence which proves or disproves, more often than not the truth lies somewhere in between and thus all points should be discussed with the material available at the time.

Well the evidence so far comprises a misunderstanding of HR response to exercise, a video from a film which shows nothing remotely like the heat signature from a motor as shown in testing, the image of which is misrepresented as being from a race, and a bit of video clip claiming something about a rider's acceleration which (i) shows nothing of the sort, (ii) suggests the writer has little understanding of physics of accelerations in cycling and (iii) is presented with no actual data.

This is the sort of "evidence" that should be filtered before it even gets written. If people want to be taken seriously, they need to present something of substance that passes the plausibility test and not make crap up.

PS - I have a fair idea of what evidence is, in a scientific sense, but also in a court room sense, having been the plaintiff in a large legal case that took 8 years and went through both the NSW Supreme Court and NSW Court of Appeal. Evidence is evaluated and nonsense is filtered out before it even gets to be considered by the courts. It's part of the process and laws of evidence.

 

[Maxiton]

Why do I get the feeling that "no real evidence of motors in the peloton" is rather like "never tested positive"?

How soon before we see the peloton on Oprah?

 

[hrotha]

Re:

Why do I get the feeling that "no real evidence of motors in the peloton" is rather like "never tested positive"?

Because you don't realize both clauses aren't comparable. There's plenty of evidence of doping in the peloton, isn't there?

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Frank Vandenbroucke when he was really geared up would have had to brake into that corner

but he had the most beautiful position on a bike that anyone could see with their own eyes, so he can do what he wishes as far as I am concerned

 

[jmdirt]

Re: Italian, French Media Combine to Catch Pro Motodoping

I know it's so odd. People come to a dicussion forum to discuss various aspects of cycling. They even come to the doping specific forum to discuss doping and other methods of cheating. It's truly bizarre set of circumstances...

Good work Alex, you've made us all none the wiser. Keep posting, please.

The people putting up so called "evidence" have most certainly not made us any wiser about the reality of the use (or not) of hidden motors.

I'm not suggesting any discussion be abandoned, merely that it should use actual and plausible evidence that stands up to sensible scrutiny and that people not resort to use of logical fallacy to further their preconceived notions.

Here's the thing; I'm not sure you know "evidence" actually means.

Everyday in western democratic courts around the world evidence is produce on both sides; by the plaintiff and the defence, by the claimant and he defence.

A plethora of evidence of all shapes and sizes, some written, some physical, some video tapes, some audio recorded, some scientific and some testimony based. Some of it is strong, some weak, some circumstantial, some of it is tainted, some slightly tainted, some of it from a primary source, other from a tertiary etc.

Based on the evidence presented verdicts can be determined, settlements can be reached as sentences can be decided.

To simply "dismiss" evidence is not how our judicial process works. It needs to be first presented, discussed and the determined if valid and useable. More often than not it's the "totality" of evidence rather than one example thereof.

If motor use was on trial in cycling, most certainly what we saw in the documentary could be used along with overhead shots showing suspicious "accelerations" by a specific rider. That would be very normal. It most certainly wouldn't be dismissed as you suggest. Not by a long shot, it's way too compelling to not show a jury, judge or arbitrator.

You should give more credence that there's is not one set of evidence which proves or disproves, more often than not the truth lies somewhere in between and thus all points should be discussed with the material available at the time.

Everyone should post their feelings, thoughts, opinions, assertions, proof, etc., because that is what this kind of recreational www forum is all about. Several of us are taking issue with the documentary screenshot because they claimed to have a smoking gun, yet their main picture is a completely different gun (their own test rider). I have absolutely no doubt that racers of all levels have, and do use motors, but the photo (what is 'represents') is disingenuous at best.

Side note, close to home: there is a guy here who just got a down tube motor because he wanted to "see for himself". I'll be curious what he 'discovers'.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

Why do I get the feeling that "no real evidence of motors in the peloton" is rather like "never tested positive"?

Because you don't realize both clauses aren't comparable. There's plenty of evidence of doping in the peloton, isn't there?

Okay, for the sake of clarity I should have said:

Why do I get the feeling that "no real evidence of motors" for the peloton is rather like "never tested positive" for Armstrong?

I guess we'll have to wait for the Reasoned Decision.

 

[Hawkwood]

Re: Re:

Frank Vandenbroucke when he was really geared up would have had to brake into that corner

but he had the most beautiful position on a bike that anyone could see with their own eyes, so he can do what he wishes as far as I am concerned

No I'm not having a go at him, I agree with you, and that photo's great.

 

[thehog]

Re: Italian, French Media Combine to Catch Pro Motodoping

I know it's so odd. People come to a dicussion forum to discuss various aspects of cycling. They even come to the doping specific forum to discuss doping and other methods of cheating. It's truly bizarre set of circumstances...

Good work Alex, you've made us all none the wiser. Keep posting, please.

The people putting up so called "evidence" have most certainly not made us any wiser about the reality of the use (or not) of hidden motors.

I'm not suggesting any discussion be abandoned, merely that it should use actual and plausible evidence that stands up to sensible scrutiny and that people not resort to use of logical fallacy to further their preconceived notions.

Here's the thing; I'm not sure you know "evidence" actually means.

Everyday in western democratic courts around the world evidence is produce on both sides; by the plaintiff and the defence, by the claimant and he defence.

A plethora of evidence of all shapes and sizes, some written, some physical, some video tapes, some audio recorded, some scientific and some testimony based. Some of it is strong, some weak, some circumstantial, some of it is tainted, some slightly tainted, some of it from a primary source, other from a tertiary etc.

Based on the evidence presented verdicts can be determined, settlements can be reached as sentences can be decided.

To simply "dismiss" evidence is not how our judicial process works. It needs to be first presented, discussed and the determined if valid and useable. More often than not it's the "totality" of evidence rather than one example thereof.

If motor use was on trial in cycling, most certainly what we saw in the documentary could be used along with overhead shots showing suspicious "accelerations" by a specific rider. That would be very normal. It most certainly wouldn't be dismissed as you suggest. Not by a long shot, it's way too compelling to not show a jury, judge or arbitrator.

You should give more credence that there's is not one set of evidence which proves or disproves, more often than not the truth lies somewhere in between and thus all points should be discussed with the material available at the time.

Well the evidence so far comprises a misunderstanding of HR response to exercise, a video from a film which shows nothing remotely like the heat signature from a motor as shown in testing, the image of which is misrepresented as being from a race, and a bit of video clip claiming something about a rider's acceleration which (i) shows nothing of the sort, (ii) suggests the writer has little understanding of physics of accelerations in cycling and (iii) is presented with no actual data.

This is the sort of "evidence" that should be filtered before it even gets written. If people want to be taken seriously, they need to present something of substance that passes the plausibility test and not make crap up.

PS - I have a fair idea of what evidence is, in a scientific sense, but also in a court room sense, having been the plaintiff in a large legal case that took 8 years and went through both the NSW Supreme Court and NSW Court of Appeal. Evidence is evaluated and nonsense is filtered out before it even gets to be considered by the courts. It's part of the process and laws of evidence.

Again you are coming back to what is your “opinion” on the evidence, which is fine but there are others who also have opinions which are no more or no less pertinent that your own.

You also clearly don’t have a handle on the law; In terms of “nonsense”, courts do not filter on “nonsense”, all types of evidence is admissible if counsel feels it relevant to the their arguments. The rule of thumb for courts is “reliable” and “relevant” not “nonsense”; which has no legal premise in our law.

As an example most recently in the US, the “affluenza” defence was used in car accident involving a teen drunk driver who killed four other people. His counsel successfully argued (based on a scientific report and psychological assessment) that the teenager driving the car did not know what he was doing due to his privileged upbringing – i.e. he did not know right from wrong – he was spared incarceration based on this presentation of evidence, which prior to the hearing the term did not exist. Casual observers thought it was “nonsense” but it did not stop the court accepting it as “relevant” and “reliable” assessment of the teen based on the evidence provided.

I suspect your are attempting to put forward that your scientific opinion holds more validity than others posting on this forum, which simply can’t be the case. All persons are equal in the eyes on the law and in society. On the contrary there have been plenty of “experts” attempting to present dubious claims to assist in courts cases, or that a rider to be clean – Coyle the most glaring example, the Radcliffe paper on “running efficiency” another whereby science provides a reasonable depiction of the athletes improvement over time but leaves out the fact that both were career long abusers of blood transfusions.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Italian, French Media Combine to Catch Pro Motodoping

I know it's so odd. People come to a dicussion forum to discuss various aspects of cycling. They even come to the doping specific forum to discuss doping and other methods of cheating. It's truly bizarre set of circumstances...

Good work Alex, you've made us all none the wiser. Keep posting, please.

The people putting up so called "evidence" have most certainly not made us any wiser about the reality of the use (or not) of hidden motors.

I'm not suggesting any discussion be abandoned, merely that it should use actual and plausible evidence that stands up to sensible scrutiny and that people not resort to use of logical fallacy to further their preconceived notions.

Here's the thing; I'm not sure you know "evidence" actually means.

Everyday in western democratic courts around the world evidence is produce on both sides; by the plaintiff and the defence, by the claimant and he defence.

A plethora of evidence of all shapes and sizes, some written, some physical, some video tapes, some audio recorded, some scientific and some testimony based. Some of it is strong, some weak, some circumstantial, some of it is tainted, some slightly tainted, some of it from a primary source, other from a tertiary etc.

Based on the evidence presented verdicts can be determined, settlements can be reached as sentences can be decided.

To simply "dismiss" evidence is not how our judicial process works. It needs to be first presented, discussed and the determined if valid and useable. More often than not it's the "totality" of evidence rather than one example thereof.

If motor use was on trial in cycling, most certainly what we saw in the documentary could be used along with overhead shots showing suspicious "accelerations" by a specific rider. That would be very normal. It most certainly wouldn't be dismissed as you suggest. Not by a long shot, it's way too compelling to not show a jury, judge or arbitrator.

You should give more credence that there's is not one set of evidence which proves or disproves, more often than not the truth lies somewhere in between and thus all points should be discussed with the material available at the time.

Well the evidence so far comprises a misunderstanding of HR response to exercise, a video from a film which shows nothing remotely like the heat signature from a motor as shown in testing, the image of which is misrepresented as being from a race, and a bit of video clip claiming something about a rider's acceleration which (i) shows nothing of the sort, (ii) suggests the writer has little understanding of physics of accelerations in cycling and (iii) is presented with no actual data.

This is the sort of "evidence" that should be filtered before it even gets written. If people want to be taken seriously, they need to present something of substance that passes the plausibility test and not make crap up.

PS - I have a fair idea of what evidence is, in a scientific sense, but also in a court room sense, having been the plaintiff in a large legal case that took 8 years and went through both the NSW Supreme Court and NSW Court of Appeal. Evidence is evaluated and nonsense is filtered out before it even gets to be considered by the courts. It's part of the process and laws of evidence.

Again you are coming back to what is your “opinion” on the evidence, which is fine but there are others who also have opinions which are no more or no less pertinent that your own.

You also clearly don’t have a handle on the law; In terms of “nonsense”, courts do not filter on “nonsense”, all types of evidence is admissible if counsel feels it relevant to the their arguments. The rule of thumb for courts is “reliable” and “relevant” not “nonsense”; which has no legal premise in our law.

As an example most recently in the US, the “affluenza” defence was used in car accident involving a teen drunk driver who killed four other people. His counsel successfully argued (based on a scientific report and psychological assessment) that the teenager driving the car did not know what he was doing due to his privileged upbringing – i.e. he did not know right from wrong – he was spared incarceration based on this presentation of evidence, which prior to the hearing the term did not exist. Casual observers thought it was “nonsense” but it did not stop the court accepting it as “relevant” and “reliable” assessment of the teen based on the evidence provided.

I suspect your are attempting to put forward that your scientific opinion holds more validity than others posting on this forum, which simply can’t be the case. All persons are equal in the eyes on the law and in society. On the contrary there have been plenty of “experts” attempting to present dubious claims to assist in courts cases, or that a rider to be clean – Coyle the most glaring example, the Radcliffe paper on “running efficiency” another whereby science provides a reasonable depiction of the athletes improvement over time but leaves out the fact that both were career long abusers of blood transfusions.

You sound as if you are referring in the third paragraph to what is know in English law as a plea in mitigation, made after the offence is proved (by admissible evidence or admission) and intended to lessen the sentence. Almost anything can be said at that stage. It's a different issue from proving a case. To that extent, your observations may be an inadvertent red herring.

 

[thehog]

Re: Mechanical doping: first rider caught

True, still the argument and evidence presented was considered and believed to be reliable and relevant.

A better example might the Avery hearing; The EDTA test had not been used for several years and was generally considered "unreliable". EDTA is a preserved placed into blood sample tubes to stop the blood conjoining and sticking the sides of the tube. The defence argued that a former blood sample of Avery’s collected by police was used to frame him in a later murder. The prosecution tested the new blood stains for the preservative EDTA. The defence argued that the evidence shouldn’t be admitted based on reliability of the EDTA test as it hadn’t been used for several years and was in question due to its accuracy. It was accepted into evidence, it was presented by an FBI expert who conducted the test, a counter expert for the defence presented his arguments for its unreliability, a conviction was upheld. (As it turns out the FBI didn’t test all blood samples in the car, only 2 and then determined all of the blood did not contain EDTA).

Back to the case at hand; the evidence of Froome’s heart rate, over head shots of his acceleration most certainly would be allowed into evidence. It would be up to the defence to prove that this was normal for him and of athletes of his standard. Comparison to climbing times of Armstrong would also be relevant, the length of the stage, the heat etc. would all be admissible. Whether it would gain a conviction for motor or doping is another question. Based on what I have viewed most certainly Froome’s accelerations were ‘abnormal’, his heart rate was suspiciously low for someone accelerating at the speed that he was and the humidity should have had impact on his performance along with the length of the stage and speed that it was raced at.

 

[jmdirt]

For clarification, this isn't a court of law, its the court of public opinion where everything and nothing in valid. That is precisely why the documentary people used the glowing image of their test subject. It immediately convinced a lot of people that motors are being used in the pro platoon, when in fact it has noting to do with the pro platoon. They swayed public opinion in their favor though.

Hog, I'm still skeptical of the simulated HR graphic shown on screen (for reasons that I posted a few days ago). I would like to see the actual data for that segment. The sequence of events certainly makes my face squinch up though.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Mechanical doping: first rider caught

True, still the argument and evidence presented was considered and believed to be reliable and relevant.

A better example might the Avery hearing; The EDTA test had not been used for several years and was generally considered "unreliable". EDTA is a preserved placed into blood sample tubes to stop the blood conjoining and sticking the sides of the tube. The defence argued that a former blood sample of Avery’s collected by police was used to frame him in a later murder. The prosecution tested the new blood stains for the preservative EDTA. The defence argued that the evidence shouldn’t be admitted based on reliability of the EDTA test as it hadn’t been used for several years and was in question due to its accuracy. It was accepted into evidence, it was presented by an FBI expert who conducted the test, a counter expert for the defence presented his arguments for its unreliability, a conviction was upheld. (As it turns out the FBI didn’t test all blood samples in the car, only 2 and then determined all of the blood did not contain EDTA).

Back to the case at hand; the evidence of Froome’s heart rate, over head shots of his acceleration most certainly would be allowed into evidence. It would be up to the defence to prove that this was normal for him and of athletes of his standard. Comparison to climbing times of Armstrong would also be relevant, the length of the stage, the heat etc. would all be admissible. Whether it would gain a conviction for motor or doping is another question. Based on what I have viewed most certainly Froome’s accelerations were ‘abnormal’, his heart rate was suspiciously low for someone accelerating at the speed that he was and the humidity should have had impact on his performance along with the length of the stage and speed that it was raced at.

Thanks for confirming I guessed right. Pleas made on behalf of an accused after a guilty verdict are not strictly called evidence at all. I can't comment on your other example.

However, as you say, back to the matter in hand. I see the proposition put to you was that none of the allegations or observations amount to evidence of motor doping. I have to agree with that, but I know the Clinic is not a good place to take such everyday points upon which our freedoms depend. There is, of course no case in question, which may be as well, as you are looking for a "conviction." One of the mods, for instance, said recently that this video would be enough to prove a tribunal case for him. It could be just as well that in the real world that's not how it works.

 

[thehog]

Re: Mechanical doping: first rider caught

True, still the argument and evidence presented was considered and believed to be reliable and relevant.

A better example might the Avery hearing; The EDTA test had not been used for several years and was generally considered "unreliable". EDTA is a preserved placed into blood sample tubes to stop the blood conjoining and sticking the sides of the tube. The defence argued that a former blood sample of Avery’s collected by police was used to frame him in a later murder. The prosecution tested the new blood stains for the preservative EDTA. The defence argued that the evidence shouldn’t be admitted based on reliability of the EDTA test as it hadn’t been used for several years and was in question due to its accuracy. It was accepted into evidence, it was presented by an FBI expert who conducted the test, a counter expert for the defence presented his arguments for its unreliability, a conviction was upheld. (As it turns out the FBI didn’t test all blood samples in the car, only 2 and then determined all of the blood did not contain EDTA).

Back to the case at hand; the evidence of Froome’s heart rate, over head shots of his acceleration most certainly would be allowed into evidence. It would be up to the defence to prove that this was normal for him and of athletes of his standard. Comparison to climbing times of Armstrong would also be relevant, the length of the stage, the heat etc. would all be admissible. Whether it would gain a conviction for motor or doping is another question. Based on what I have viewed most certainly Froome’s accelerations were ‘abnormal’, his heart rate was suspiciously low for someone accelerating at the speed that he was and the humidity should have had impact on his performance along with the length of the stage and speed that it was raced at.

Thanks for confirming I guessed right. Pleas made on behalf of an accused after a guilty verdict are not strictly called evidence at all. I can't comment on your other example.

However, as you say, back to the matter in hand. I see the proposition put to you was that none of the allegations or observations amount to evidence of motor doping. I have to agree with that, but I know the Clinic is not a good place to take such everyday points upon which our freedoms depend. There is, of course no case in question, which may be as well, as you are looking for a "conviction." One of the mods, for instance, said recently that this video would be enough to prove a tribunal case for him. It could be just as well that in the real world that's not how it works.

One should never guess

Well, it is called “evidence”, that does not change; however the rules applied have a lower bar for acceptability and generally relies on a sentencing judge whether to accept its validity and reliability in relation to the sentence applied.

I’m surprised you don’t know about the Avery case; it was the basis of a 10 hour documentary on NetFlix over the Christmas period.

To your other point with regards to the use of mechanical doping in cycling, most certainly there has been testimony from many inside the sport to its use. Spoken work testimony based on insider knowledge of the sport would be accepted as evidence. There have been several people inside the sport stating that moto doing is alive and well in the pro peloton.

There have been several examples shown on the ease in implementing a motor inside of a race bike, so its most certainly is plausible and very possible that it a) it can be done with relative ease b) is highly effective (250w +) c) the bike checking is very low d) can be circumvented with change in bike e) is not very reliable compared to other methods.

in terms of the Clinic; its discussion forum on doping in sport and other methods of cheating. Not sure why you feel that discussion thereof doping and cheating shouldn't occur? That would be a the curtailing of the basic freedom all humans should enjoy.

 

[thehog]

Re:

For clarification, this isn't a court of law, its the court of public opinion where everything and nothing in valid. That is precisely why the documentary people used the glowing image of their test subject. It immediately convinced a lot of people that motors are being used in the pro platoon, when in fact it has noting to do with the pro platoon. They swayed public opinion in their favor though.

Hog, I'm still skeptical of the simulated HR graphic shown on screen (for reasons that I posted a few days ago). I would like to see the actual data for that segment. The sequence of events certainly makes my face squinch up though.

The raw data exists first hand. The layering over the video was done later. The original file was sent to Vayer from someone inside Sky (not hacking as suggested).

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Mechanical doping: first rider caught

True, still the argument and evidence presented was considered and believed to be reliable and relevant.

A better example might the Avery hearing; The EDTA test had not been used for several years and was generally considered "unreliable". EDTA is a preserved placed into blood sample tubes to stop the blood conjoining and sticking the sides of the tube. The defence argued that a former blood sample of Avery’s collected by police was used to frame him in a later murder. The prosecution tested the new blood stains for the preservative EDTA. The defence argued that the evidence shouldn’t be admitted based on reliability of the EDTA test as it hadn’t been used for several years and was in question due to its accuracy. It was accepted into evidence, it was presented by an FBI expert who conducted the test, a counter expert for the defence presented his arguments for its unreliability, a conviction was upheld. (As it turns out the FBI didn’t test all blood samples in the car, only 2 and then determined all of the blood did not contain EDTA).

Back to the case at hand; the evidence of Froome’s heart rate, over head shots of his acceleration most certainly would be allowed into evidence. It would be up to the defence to prove that this was normal for him and of athletes of his standard. Comparison to climbing times of Armstrong would also be relevant, the length of the stage, the heat etc. would all be admissible. Whether it would gain a conviction for motor or doping is another question. Based on what I have viewed most certainly Froome’s accelerations were ‘abnormal’, his heart rate was suspiciously low for someone accelerating at the speed that he was and the humidity should have had impact on his performance along with the length of the stage and speed that it was raced at.

Thanks for confirming I guessed right. Pleas made on behalf of an accused after a guilty verdict are not strictly called evidence at all. I can't comment on your other example.

However, as you say, back to the matter in hand. I see the proposition put to you was that none of the allegations or observations amount to evidence of motor doping. I have to agree with that, but I know the Clinic is not a good place to take such everyday points upon which our freedoms depend. There is, of course no case in question, which may be as well, as you are looking for a "conviction." One of the mods, for instance, said recently that this video would be enough to prove a tribunal case for him. It could be just as well that in the real world that's not how it works.

One should never guess

Well, it is called “evidence”, that does not change; however the rules applied have a lower bar for acceptability and generally relies on a sentencing judge whether to accept its validity and reliability in relation to the sentence applied.

I’m surprised you don’t know about the Avery case; it was the basis of a 10 hour documentary on NetFlix over the Christmas period.

To your other point with regards to the use of mechanical doping in cycling, most certainly there has been testimony from many inside the sport to its use. Spoken work testimony based on insider knowledge of the sport would be accepted as evidence. There have been several people inside the sport stating that moto doing is alive and well in the pro peloton.

There have been several examples shown on the ease in implementing a motor inside of a race bike, so its most certainly is plausible and very possible that it a) it can be done with relative ease b) is highly effective (250w +) c) the bike checking is very low d) can be circumvented with change in bike e) is not very reliable compared to other methods.

in terms of the Clinic; its discussion forum on doping in sport and other methods of cheating. Not sure why you feel that discussion thereof doping and cheating shouldn't occur? That would be a the curtailing of the basic freedom all humans should enjoy.

Well, very briefly, I am not denying it occurs. It was found to have occurred, albeit in Cyclocross. What I say is that in the real world the various circumstantial points made don't prove it against anyone in particular. I mean you can't prove it like that. But you can in the Clinic, I know. I sometimes wonder if some of the Clinic regulars think they have a monopoly on scepticism, analysis, common sense or the right to a particualr opinion. I can detect a massive opposition to anyone who goes outside the Clinic standard of acceptability.

 

[thehog]

Re: Mechanical doping: first rider caught

True, still the argument and evidence presented was considered and believed to be reliable and relevant.

A better example might the Avery hearing; The EDTA test had not been used for several years and was generally considered "unreliable". EDTA is a preserved placed into blood sample tubes to stop the blood conjoining and sticking the sides of the tube. The defence argued that a former blood sample of Avery’s collected by police was used to frame him in a later murder. The prosecution tested the new blood stains for the preservative EDTA. The defence argued that the evidence shouldn’t be admitted based on reliability of the EDTA test as it hadn’t been used for several years and was in question due to its accuracy. It was accepted into evidence, it was presented by an FBI expert who conducted the test, a counter expert for the defence presented his arguments for its unreliability, a conviction was upheld. (As it turns out the FBI didn’t test all blood samples in the car, only 2 and then determined all of the blood did not contain EDTA).

Back to the case at hand; the evidence of Froome’s heart rate, over head shots of his acceleration most certainly would be allowed into evidence. It would be up to the defence to prove that this was normal for him and of athletes of his standard. Comparison to climbing times of Armstrong would also be relevant, the length of the stage, the heat etc. would all be admissible. Whether it would gain a conviction for motor or doping is another question. Based on what I have viewed most certainly Froome’s accelerations were ‘abnormal’, his heart rate was suspiciously low for someone accelerating at the speed that he was and the humidity should have had impact on his performance along with the length of the stage and speed that it was raced at.

Thanks for confirming I guessed right. Pleas made on behalf of an accused after a guilty verdict are not strictly called evidence at all. I can't comment on your other example.

However, as you say, back to the matter in hand. I see the proposition put to you was that none of the allegations or observations amount to evidence of motor doping. I have to agree with that, but I know the Clinic is not a good place to take such everyday points upon which our freedoms depend. There is, of course no case in question, which may be as well, as you are looking for a "conviction." One of the mods, for instance, said recently that this video would be enough to prove a tribunal case for him. It could be just as well that in the real world that's not how it works.

One should never guess

Well, it is called “evidence”, that does not change; however the rules applied have a lower bar for acceptability and generally relies on a sentencing judge whether to accept its validity and reliability in relation to the sentence applied.

I’m surprised you don’t know about the Avery case; it was the basis of a 10 hour documentary on NetFlix over the Christmas period.

To your other point with regards to the use of mechanical doping in cycling, most certainly there has been testimony from many inside the sport to its use. Spoken work testimony based on insider knowledge of the sport would be accepted as evidence. There have been several people inside the sport stating that moto doing is alive and well in the pro peloton.

There have been several examples shown on the ease in implementing a motor inside of a race bike, so its most certainly is plausible and very possible that it a) it can be done with relative ease b) is highly effective (250w +) c) the bike checking is very low d) can be circumvented with change in bike e) is not very reliable compared to other methods.

in terms of the Clinic; its discussion forum on doping in sport and other methods of cheating. Not sure why you feel that discussion thereof doping and cheating shouldn't occur? That would be a the curtailing of the basic freedom all humans should enjoy.

Well, very briefly, I am not denying it occurs. It was found to have occurred, albeit in Cyclocross. What I say is that in the real world the various circumstantial points made don't prove it against anyone in particular. I mean you can't prove it like that. But you can in the Clinic, I know. I sometimes wonder if some of the Clinic regulars think they have a monopoly on scepticism, analysis, common sense or the right to a particualr opinion. I can detect a massive opposition to anyone who goes outside the Clinic standard of acceptability.

What you are arguing now would not be accepted as evidence as its mealy hearsay and most certainly unreliable. It’s your opinion rather than fact.

“Clinic regulars” is a term you have defined; however the fact that you are coming here to this forum to post you would be classed a “Clinic Regular”, yes? Do you include yourself in this group of regulars? Or are you somehow above this group that you defined?

Alas, you should have seen the opposition on this forum to Armstrong’s’ doping? All those “regulars” were right, very right.

So ‘regular’ where to from here?

 

[wrinklyvet]

@thehog Don't take offence. It is indeed an opinion, as yours is. You know what I mean by Clinic regulars. By and large I tend to take a slightly different view from most of them on questions of proof, one that I can justify to myself if not to you. I am not above anybody. They are not above me. I don't care what you did or didn't achieve against Armstrong. Alex Simmons/RST and jmdirt seem to make valid points and I can agree with them and/or support other posts if I like.

 

[jmdirt]

Re: Re:

For clarification, this isn't a court of law, its the court of public opinion where everything and nothing in valid. That is precisely why the documentary people used the glowing image of their test subject. It immediately convinced a lot of people that motors are being used in the pro platoon, when in fact it has noting to do with the pro platoon. They swayed public opinion in their favor though.

Hog, I'm still skeptical of the simulated HR graphic shown on screen (for reasons that I posted a few days ago). I would like to see the actual data for that segment. The sequence of events certainly makes my face squinch up though.

The raw data exists first hand. The layering over the video was done later. The original file was sent to Vayer from someone inside Sky (not hacking as suggested).

That makes me even more skeptical.

 

[thehog]

Re:

@thehog Don't take offence. It is indeed an opinion, as yours is. You know what I mean by Clinic regulars. By and large I tend to take a slightly different view from most of them on questions of proof, one that I can justify to myself if not to you. I am not above anybody. They are not above me. I don't care what you did or didn't achieve against Armstrong. Alex Simmons/RST and jmdirt seem to make valid points and I can agree with them and/or support other posts if I like.

No offense taken.

Then your terminology is incorrect. "Regular" would mean someone who posts here on a "regular" basis, like yourself, yes? What you meant to say; 'anyone with an opposing view to your own"; which sounds like a false economy.

Of course Alex et al make valid points, as I pointed out earlier; this is a discussion forum, people discuss doping in cycling because it is a forum based on doping in cycling. Is there actually anything unsual with this premise?

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

@thehog Don't take offence. It is indeed an opinion, as yours is. You know what I mean by Clinic regulars. By and large I tend to take a slightly different view from most of them on questions of proof, one that I can justify to myself if not to you. I am not above anybody. They are not above me. I don't care what you did or didn't achieve against Armstrong. Alex Simmons/RST and jmdirt seem to make valid points and I can agree with them and/or support other posts if I like.

No offense taken.

Then your terminology is incorrect. "Regular" would mean someone who posts here on a "regular" basis, like yourself, yes? What you meant to say; 'anyone with an opposing view to your own"; which sounds like a false economy.

Of course Alex et al make valid points, as I pointed out earlier; this is a discussion forum, people discuss doping in cycling because it is a forum based on doping in cycling. Is there actually anything unsual with this premise?

Don't presume to tell me what I mean, if you genuinely want to see other views. I am less regular, less long term, less dedicated to the forum than you and that's a fact. I have posted so far more than seventeen and a half thousand times less than you and I am not on here almost every day. You know who the regulars are as well as I do.

Did I ever say it is unusual to discuss anything to do with cycling including doping? Do me a favour! You are moving a good distance from the comments I made about the issue of mechanical doping, so called, and the issue of proof against anyone in particular.

If people come on here with different views from you and are set upon over them the Clinic and the whole forum will become a less interesting place.

We are all influenced by our heritage, family, career, friends, experience, age and outlook to have different views and also different methodology. I am formed in that way and I am sure you will have been too. But let's agree to drop it and let those who want to discuss the thread continue with the subject.

 

[Maxiton]

Indeed. Wise words, wrinklyvet.

Let's get back on topic, folks, and keep it there.