Motor doping thread

[thehog]

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.

Makes you skeptical of the data or the video or both?

 

[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.

Makes you skeptical of the data or the video or both?

The data.

 

[thehog]

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.

Makes you skeptical of the data or the video or both?

The data.

Got it. Here’s the problem with your thought process. Sky confirmed the data is “real” by announcing it was a “hacking”.

Vayer was sent the raw data file, all 5+ hours of the Ventoux stage and magically the cadence, the speed, the power all matched what Froome did that day, for 5 hours.

The data can be cross checked by what other riders did and the time it took to climb Ventoux.

So are you suggesting that it’s a coincidence that the data matched the video second by second for 5+ hours?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

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.

While cheating in various forms has many similarities, motors and doping have two key differences:

- The use of motors outside of racing doesn't confer a race day advantage (apart from the minor issue of learning how to use them). IOW one only needs to focus on identifying/eliminating use of motors during racing only, unlike doping where the battle covers all athletes at all times and in all places. That represents a massive difference in the use of a cheating method and of course mean a vastly less complex targeting process for dealing with motors than for doping.

- Motors are readily identifiable devices inside a bicycle (they will either be there or not, there is no metabolic rate or glow time one can manipulate) and the process to detect and eliminate them should be vastly simpler than it is for doping, which relies on biochemical analysis that is full of massive holes, not least of which is the limited number of samples taken for any individual and the times those sample are collected (e.g. IC v OOC). The process for finding motors, as I have said before, need not be a lot more complex than that used to check junior gearing is in countries that have such restrictions and undertake such checks.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Mechanical doping: first rider caught

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.

I don't think anyone here has (recently) said that the possibility and potential for use of motors doesn't exist.

But the quality of evidence of their actual use is pretty skinny. If insiders have spoken of its use, then what did they say, when and to whom? It's great that some are talking but can they prove it, or is it simply speculation? If insiders are so convinced, then catching those offenders red handed would be simple.

 

[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.

Makes you skeptical of the data or the video or both?

The data.

Got it. Here’s the problem with your thought process. Sky confirmed the data is “real” by announcing it was a “hacking”.

Vayer was sent the raw data file, all 5+ hours of the Ventoux stage and magically the cadence, the speed, the power all matched what Froome did that day, for 5 hours.

The data can be cross checked by what other riders did and the time it took to climb Ventoux.

So are you suggesting that it’s a coincidence that the data matched the video second by second for 5+ hours?[/quote]


jmdirt: The data could be correct, but how do we know that it matches "second by second"? How do we know that whoever "matched" the data did a 100% accurate job? Maybe the low HR is a matching error. As I said above though, IF his HR is that low after that effort, there is something going on.

You can't cross check his physio data with other riders.

Man, I've been slaughtering the reply format when it has more than five quotes...

 

[thehog]

Re: Mechanical doping: first rider caught

How do we know it matches? Because the data match the accelerations, the changes in speed and the climbing time exactly. Did you not read that in my post?

Yes, the HR may be off but Froome has already stated his max HR is 165. Which is very suspicious indeed.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

While cheating in various forms has many similarities, motors and doping have two key differences:

- The use of motors outside of racing doesn't confer a race day advantage (apart from the minor issue of learning how to use them). IOW one only needs to focus on identifying/eliminating use of motors during racing only, unlike doping where the battle covers all athletes at all times and in all places. That represents a massive difference in the use of a cheating method and of course mean a vastly less complex targeting process for dealing with motors than for doping.

- Motors are readily identifiable devices inside a bicycle (they will either be there or not, there is no metabolic rate or glow time one can manipulate) and the process to detect and eliminate them should be vastly simpler than it is for doping, which relies on biochemical analysis that is full of massive holes, not least of which is the limited number of samples taken for any individual and the times those sample are collected (e.g. IC v OOC). The process for finding motors, as I have said before, need not be a lot more complex than that used to check junior gearing is in countries that have such restrictions and undertake such checks.

Agreed. Good analysis.

 

[thehog]

Re: Mechanical doping: first rider caught

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.

I don't think anyone here has (recently) said that the possibility and potential for use of motors doesn't exist.

But the quality of evidence of their actual use is pretty skinny. If insiders have spoken of its use, then what did they say, when and to whom? It's great that some are talking but can they prove it, or is it simply speculation? If insiders are so convinced, then catching those offenders red handed would be simple.

This is the UCI you're talking about, yes?

The ones who are in possession of he apparent sophicated bike checking tablet and the ones are can snare and sanction. Similarly it the IAAF etc. it takes the media to crack these nuts (pun intended).

 

[King Of Molehill]

Re: Mechanical doping: first rider caught

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.

I don't think anyone here has (recently) said that the possibility and potential for use of motors doesn't exist.

But the quality of evidence of their actual use is pretty skinny. If insiders have spoken of its use, then what did they say, when and to whom? It's great that some are talking but can they prove it, or is it simply speculation? If insiders are so convinced, then catching those offenders red handed would be simple.

This is the UCI you're talking about, yes?

The ones who are in possession of he apparent sophicated bike checking tablet and the ones are can snare and sanction. Similarly it the IAAF etc. it takes the media to crack these nuts (pun intended).

And why not? Most of the 'big' doping cases in history were dealt with by police investigations or border security. I'm sure it wouldn't take much for a few good private investigators and a decent film crew to dig up some good dirt. At the very least we'd probably see a lot of good footage of teams getting freaked out and acting aggressively to protect their interests.

 

[thehog]

Re: Mechanical doping: first rider caught

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.

I don't think anyone here has (recently) said that the possibility and potential for use of motors doesn't exist.

But the quality of evidence of their actual use is pretty skinny. If insiders have spoken of its use, then what did they say, when and to whom? It's great that some are talking but can they prove it, or is it simply speculation? If insiders are so convinced, then catching those offenders red handed would be simple.

This is the UCI you're talking about, yes?

The ones who are in possession of he apparent sophicated bike checking tablet and the ones are can snare and sanction. Similarly it the IAAF etc. it takes the media to crack these nuts (pun intended).

And why not? Most of the 'big' doping cases in history were dealt with by police investigations or border security. I'm sure it wouldn't take much for a few good private investigators and a decent film crew to dig up some good dirt. At the very least we'd probably see a lot of good footage of teams getting freaked out and acting aggressively to protect their interests.

Agreed, that was the very point I was making. The UCI most certainly won't be doing it.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Mechanical doping: first rider caught

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.

I don't think anyone here has (recently) said that the possibility and potential for use of motors doesn't exist.

But the quality of evidence of their actual use is pretty skinny. If insiders have spoken of its use, then what did they say, when and to whom? It's great that some are talking but can they prove it, or is it simply speculation? If insiders are so convinced, then catching those offenders red handed would be simple.

This is the UCI you're talking about, yes?

The ones who are in possession of he apparent sophicated bike checking tablet and the ones are can snare and sanction. Similarly it the IAAF etc. it takes the media to crack these nuts (pun intended).

Which is exactly why I say we need to know what they said, to whom and when.

Evidence they have (in whatever form) is either credible or it's not. If it's not then it's just a bunch of guys bullshitting over a few beers, so meh.

If evidence is credible and of substance, then they have told the right people in a timely fashion or they have not.

If not then it's hardly the fault of the umpire. If they have, then sure, criticise the umpire for inaction. But this is the point in the process where the quality of evidence matters, and matters a lot.

 

[blackcat]

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.

the only proof needed is that they show up with a saddle at a professional bike race in the peloton, that is all the proof i need. There is no value judgement, i dont see to deprive anyone of their liberty, or their ability to earn a paycheck in the peloton.

I dont even seek to convince anyone else.

 

[jmdirt]

I just read that the Vivax motor weighs 4 lbs. That should make it easy to detect...what top pro has a 17-18 lb bike?!

 

[frenchfry]

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

He was poetry in motion. I could almost forgive him his indiscretions.

Quite the opposite style of a recent TDF winner.

 

[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.

While cheating in various forms has many similarities, motors and doping have two key differences:

- The use of motors outside of racing doesn't confer a race day advantage (apart from the minor issue of learning how to use them). IOW one only needs to focus on identifying/eliminating use of motors during racing only, unlike doping where the battle covers all athletes at all times and in all places. That represents a massive difference in the use of a cheating method and of course mean a vastly less complex targeting process for dealing with motors than for doping.

- Motors are readily identifiable devices inside a bicycle (they will either be there or not, there is no metabolic rate or glow time one can manipulate) and the process to detect and eliminate them should be vastly simpler than it is for doping, which relies on biochemical analysis that is full of massive holes, not least of which is the limited number of samples taken for any individual and the times those sample are collected (e.g. IC v OOC). The process for finding motors, as I have said before, need not be a lot more complex than that used to check junior gearing is in countries that have such restrictions and undertake such checks.

Your entire thesis is contingent on the UCI being an honest broker that wants to facilitate a fair contest and find motors. What if they're not, and don't?

 

[Catwhoorg]

UCI announces a six year ban for Femke Van den Driessche.

Oct 11 2015 through Oct 10 2021.

http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/the-uci-announces-disciplinary-commission-decision-the-case-femke-van-den-driessche/?

 

[Tienus]

Why the 11th of October which was the Kluisbergen cross when she only got caught during the WC race?

 

[thehog]

Re:

UCI announces a six year ban for Femke Van den Driessche.

Oct 11 2015 through Oct 10 2021.

http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/the-uci-announces-disciplinary-commission-decision-the-case-femke-van-den-driessche/?

Is that a promotional press release for the UCI?

What a bizarre statement.

 

[Cloxxki]

Re: Re:

UCI announces a six year ban for Femke Van den Driessche.

Oct 11 2015 through Oct 10 2021.

http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/the-uci-announces-disciplinary-commission-decision-the-case-femke-van-den-driessche/?

Is that a promotional press release for the UCI?

What a bizarre statement.

Indeed.

6 is an interesting figure. And perhaps they got her to admit to more races, of they just presumed the bike in question to have always been fraudulent?

Now on to the brother. I get very upset when people get a tiny ban for a huge indiscretion and then violate the terms. He was soigneur to his sister who gets a 6 year ban for mechanical fraud. Shows up to world, handling bikes. That's enough grounds for at least a 4 year extension, if not life time ban, right? I've seen lifetime bans for riders who'd produced 2 prositive tests for different substances. And that's a while ago.
Does the cycling world really need this brother back on a bike, the dad again with soigneur accreditation at events?

 

[Catwhoorg]

No they don't

I am disappointed that the entourage seems to have escaped punishment (at least as of now)

 

[BigMac]

6 years. Almost as disgusting as the bio-cheaters who ganged en masse to conveniently label mechanical doping the most unacceptable thing in the whole world, while they set attention away from their own dodgy affairs and come ou to be full of virtues to the public eye.

This isn't the UCI making justice, regardless if justice has been server or not. They're clearly just sending a political message full of pretentiousness, shooting the small fish just so that at the end of the day they can say they have a strong anti-doping stance. Meanwhile, the million-dollar-dopers who don't hesitate to crush this small riders in the public court for the very same reasons, will continue to do their own thing knowing they've come one step closer to being regarded as paragons of the sport.

 

[jmdirt]

If they use a motor in CX, and forget to switch it off when they dismount that should be obvious as the cranks and rear wheel are spinning on the racers shoulder (maybe getting in a few pedal shots to the kidneys).

Six years sends a message, but 25 would be better.

 

[BullsFan22]

Re: Mechanical doping: first rider caught

Should have given the brother and especially the father a lifetime ban. That will force her (should she come back at all) to join up with someone else. Though by that time, her chances of doing anything major on the cyclo-cross scene will be slim. Who would take her in? Unless many others did/are doing/continue doing what she did, they won't be giving her a contract. If this was 'simple' doping infraction, for example a 2 year ban, she would have an easier time getting into a team. You figure at 21 or 22 she would 'learn' her mistakes, distance herself from her former coaches and go on from there. Now it's almost impossible.

I suppose a lifetime ban would be both justified and harsh, at the same time, if you know what I mean. On one hand it's a much egregious offense, more rare. On the other, being banned for life, even for something like that can be seen as harsh.

 

[jmdirt]

Re: Mechanical doping: first rider caught

How do we know it matches? Because the data match the accelerations, the changes in speed and the climbing time exactly. Did you not read that in my post?

Yes, the HR may be off but Froome has already stated his max HR is 165. Which is very suspicious indeed.

Yes, I read that, but 5th hand information isn't convincing for me. You are searching for things to prove your point so you only see the end result. I want to see the process and the end result. If the process has multiple factors with margins or error, the end end result is not valid.

Case in point, you are using max HR 165 as FACT, when I have read that his max HR is 174. 165 fits your narrative better though right?