Motor doping thread

[carolina]

I'm glad it's not a lifetime ban. It makes no sense to give everyone that uses "regular" doping a second chance, but if it's mechanical doping you're done.

Doping is doping, it doesn't matter what kind. You're a cheater either way.

 

[Catwhoorg]

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/athlete/workout/Z3JDD63H2UVGP77YSXNITPULAE

At the 2011 Vuelta Time trial his HR hit 169 at the end.

Max of 165 seems unlikely a couple of years later

 

[Nick C.]

Re:

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/athlete/workout/Z3JDD63H2UVGP77YSXNITPULAE

At the 2011 Vuelta Time trial his HR hit 169 at the end.

Max of 165 seems unlikely a couple of years later

His average was 147. That seems low doesn't it. For me, as a then 40something cat 4 with no palmares, that would have been "Tempo" type range back when I did such things and those were the terms in vogue. A mid 160s would have been the average for a 3 miles "field test." My circles of people sharing training data seemed to be in that general area from what I recall. (shoot me for having used Carmichael programs it was a different time). Is that all just explained as the difference between 30-40 year old office workers and a twentysomething guy who is a pro?

 

[mr. tibbs]

Re:

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.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Unbelievable. We should be allowed to use uncensored language in The Clinic so I can express my disgust.

 

[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.

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?

It's 170 from his best selling book The Climb

 

[veganrob]

Re: Re:

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/athlete/workout/Z3JDD63H2UVGP77YSXNITPULAE

At the 2011 Vuelta Time trial his HR hit 169 at the end.

Max of 165 seems unlikely a couple of years later

His average was 147. That seems low doesn't it. For me, as a then 40something cat 4 with no palmares, that would have been "Tempo" type range back when I did such things and those were the terms in vogue. A mid 160s would have been the average for a 3 miles "field test." My circles of people sharing training data seemed to be in that general area from what I recall. (shoot me for having used Carmichael programs it was a different time). Is that all just explained as the difference between 30-40 year old office workers and a twentysomething guy who is a pro?

Heck, I am 62 yo and 147 HR would be a piece of cake

 

[djpbaltimore]

Max of 174 in something more recent than the climb. 2015.

http://www.teamsky.com/teamsky/home/article/59618#416jblVREVLuXu70.97

 

[Catwhoorg]

Re: Re:

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/athlete/workout/Z3JDD63H2UVGP77YSXNITPULAE

At the 2011 Vuelta Time trial his HR hit 169 at the end.

Max of 165 seems unlikely a couple of years later

His average was 147. That seems low doesn't it. For me, as a then 40something cat 4 with no palmares, that would have been "Tempo" type range back when I did such things and those were the terms in vogue. A mid 160s would have been the average for a 3 miles "field test." My circles of people sharing training data seemed to be in that general area from what I recall. (shoot me for having used Carmichael programs it was a different time). Is that all just explained as the difference between 30-40 year old office workers and a twentysomething guy who is a pro?

He clearly does have a max HR towards the lower end of the distribution. Which shifts the relevant HR effort zones down as well.

 

[thehog]

Re:

Max of 174 in something more recent than the climb. 2015.

http://www.teamsky.com/teamsky/home/article/59618#416jblVREVLuXu70.97

Thanks for that.

And, yes, the infamous Sky stats from La Pierre-Saint-Martin, how could we forget. Whereby Froome's power output was lower than those behind him

Analysis of final 15.3km of the stage

(It is difficult to identify the exact start point of the climb as there is no clear landmark defining the start.)

Time: 41:28

Average power: 414w

VAM: 1602

Chris's weight: 67.5kg

Corrected power/weight for the whole climb: 5.78w/kg

 

[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?

It's 170 from his best selling book The Climb

My narrative is to use bullet proof facts to bust them beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[Beech Mtn]

I can understand the 6 year ban. She's very young. It would be different if she was 25,30 years old, full-grown and in control. But she's teenager, is she not? With a stage father who probably controls her training, racing, equipment, doping, everything; living in his house, under his thumb. I can see why the UCI would give her a bit of break.

The dad should never be allowed to be credientialled again, if they can come up with a possible way to do it under the rules as they are written.

 

[BigMac]

Re:

I can understand the 6 year ban. She's very young. It would be different if she was 25,30 years old, full-grown and in control. But she's teenager, is she not? With a stage father who probably controls her training, racing, equipment, doping, everything; living in his house, under his thumb. I can see why the UCI would give her a bit of break.

The dad should never be allowed to be credientialled again, if they can come up with a possible way to do it under the rules as they are written.

Only 6 years isn't really a bit of a break compared to the sanctions we're used to see applied to first-timers.

 

[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.

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?

It's 170 from his best selling book The Climb

My narrative is to use bullet proof facts to bust them beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Considering you didn't provide a link to the supposed max heart rate I seriously doubt your "bullet proof facts", LOL!

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re: Re:

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.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Unbelievable. We should be allowed to use uncensored language in The Clinic so I can express my disgust.

Yes, that was perhaps the thing that angered me most about the Femke saga. All the hypocrites lining up to take a free shot at a veritable nobody while they were down, to score cheap PR points at the expense of dogpiling in her very public shame and humiliation.

She was always going to get minimum 4 years; dopers can get two additional years tacked on for "aggravating circumstances", and it's hard to argue "was caught at the World Championships for a whole new form of cheating" (in terms of being caught at least, of course) doesn't count as that. But it's also just the UCI sticking a finger up in the air and working out which way the wind is blowing - after all, her PR is completely toxic, she's never going to be accepted back.

 

[saganftw]

i thought 6 years was fine,i believe in giving second chances because people change and even if she was the evil mastermind behind all this (which i doubt) her reputation will be destroyed beyond that - no need to pile up aditional punishment...ofc i assume she will serve those 6 years and not some BS appeal after 2 years or something

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re:

i thought 6 years was fine,i believe in giving second chances because people change and even if she was the evil mastermind behind all this (which i doubt) her reputation will be destroyed beyond that - no need to pile up aditional punishment...ofc i assume she will serve those 6 years and not some BS appeal after 2 years or something

The family stopped trying to fight the case as they didn't have the money for a protracted legal battle that they were never going to win. Not only that but Peter is bankrupt and both he and Niels have criminal charges hanging over their head as well... hard to see them putting forward an appeal unless something radically changes. I'll be amazed if Femke tries to return at anything above the hobby level, if even that.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Re: Re:

I can understand the 6 year ban. She's very young. It would be different if she was 25,30 years old, full-grown and in control. But she's teenager, is she not? With a stage father who probably controls her training, racing, equipment, doping, everything; living in his house, under his thumb. I can see why the UCI would give her a bit of break.

The dad should never be allowed to be credientialled again, if they can come up with a possible way to do it under the rules as they are written.

Only 6 years isn't really a bit of a break compared to the sanctions we're used to see applied to first-timers.

I meant, as opposed to the calls for a lifetime ban for motor-doping offenses.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

In my opinion the girl getting 6 years is a bit harsh. I can understand it but don't agree with it. Each case is different with respect to punishment.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

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?

I make no assertions about the desire of the umpire to eradicate a form of cheating.

I only point out that unlike doping, prevention/eradication of hidden motors is actually a winnable battle. That's because the process and resources to do so are orders of magnitude less and simpler than would be necessary to eradicate doping.

Of course it will also require an honest broker to do so but that wasn't my main point. The umpire could be an honest broker wrt doping and still be completely ineffective because of the magnitude of the all but impossible task. Eliminating motors would be far less of a challenge.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

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?

I make no assertions about the desire of the umpire to eradicate a form of cheating.

I only point out that unlike doping, prevention/eradication of hidden motors is actually a winnable battle. That's because the process and resources to do so are orders of magnitude less and simpler than would be necessary to eradicate doping.

Of course it will also require an honest broker to do so but that wasn't my main point. The umpire could be an honest broker wrt doping and still be completely ineffective because of the magnitude of the all but impossible task. Eliminating motors would be far less of a challenge.

Since I wrote that, I'm trying not to participate in threads anymore, so that I can focus on moderating. But I don't think it will hurt to finish up with this.

Doping has been presented, explicitly and implicitly, as near-impossible to control for, despite the most stringent good faith efforts to do so. ("Our testing regime is robust and extensive.") Controlling for hidden motors, in contrast, is as you say, "a winnable battle. That's because the process and resources to do so are orders of magnitude less and simpler than would be necessary to eradicate doping."

UCI could convincingly control for hidden motors within a few weeks if they really wanted to. This is something they know how to do.

And so this issue is a test for them. If we see UCI doing what must be done to control for motors, we will know they are serious about the issue. And if we don't see that, we'll know they're not.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

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?

I make no assertions about the desire of the umpire to eradicate a form of cheating.

I only point out that unlike doping, prevention/eradication of hidden motors is actually a winnable battle. That's because the process and resources to do so are orders of magnitude less and simpler than would be necessary to eradicate doping.

Of course it will also require an honest broker to do so but that wasn't my main point. The umpire could be an honest broker wrt doping and still be completely ineffective because of the magnitude of the all but impossible task. Eliminating motors would be far less of a challenge.

Since I wrote that, I'm trying not to participate in threads anymore, so that I can focus on moderating. But I don't think it will hurt to finish up with this.

Doping has been presented, explicitly and implicitly, as near-impossible to control for, despite the most stringent good faith efforts to do so. ("Our testing regime is robust and extensive.") Controlling for hidden motors, in contrast, is as you say, "a winnable battle. That's because the process and resources to do so are orders of magnitude less and simpler than would be necessary to eradicate doping."

UCI could convincingly control for hidden motors within a few weeks if they really wanted to. This is something they know how to do.

And so this issue is a test for them. If we see UCI doing what must be done to control for motors, we will know they are serious about the issue. And if we don't see that, we'll know they're not.

I can agree with that.

(Your thoughtful contributions will be missed, however, as you focus on moderating).

These motors exist and are used in the sport but (despite all arguments to the contrary) the actual extent of such use at the top level remains a matter for speculation. If thermal imaging is an additional tool for the job it should be introduced.I only hope that if the UCI and whoever else is competent to look for them does make adequate efforts but with little result everyone will not think the only conclusion that can be drawn is that they were not looking properly. Negative results from proper testing should be accepted for what they are.

Despite the long traditions of cheating in the sport, including things that at the time were not regarded as cheating, I actually find it hard to envisage that there is actually a very widespread use. I would like to know if I am right and I accept I may not be. Tending to think the best of people where possible, despite inevitable accusations that this is the wrong approach, I think Femke was probably very much an exception. She was not a representative of the WT professional peloton. It's one thing to justify to oneself taking a product that may increase personal ability and yet another to go out on a motorbike to beat the opposition.

But, there you go, one day I may be proved wrong. In matters of guesswork or even deduction, nobody is infallible, least of all me.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Of course, motor "doping" of another form, i.e. hanging onto the team car, has been going on ever since team cars came along to support riders....

 

[HSNHSN]

Re: Re:

i thought 6 years was fine,i believe in giving second chances because people change and even if she was the evil mastermind behind all this (which i doubt) her reputation will be destroyed beyond that - no need to pile up aditional punishment...ofc i assume she will serve those 6 years and not some BS appeal after 2 years or something

The family stopped trying to fight the case as they didn't have the money for a protracted legal battle that they were never going to win. Not only that but Peter is bankrupt and both he and Niels have criminal charges hanging over their head as well... hard to see them putting forward an appeal unless something radically changes. I'll be amazed if Femke tries to return at anything above the hobby level, if even that.

If I read dutch and belgian news correctly, she already announced she wouldn't return to professional cycling anyway. That being the case, the actual length of the suspension wouldn't matter that much, now, would it?

 

[mr. tibbs]

Re:

Of course, motor "doping" of another form, i.e. hanging onto the team car, has been going on ever since team cars came along to support riders....

I saw a great comment somewhere (Cycling Tips, maybe) that summarized Femke's situation in relation to Arnaud's:

"A motor in the hand is worth two in the down tube."

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re: Re:

i thought 6 years was fine,i believe in giving second chances because people change and even if she was the evil mastermind behind all this (which i doubt) her reputation will be destroyed beyond that - no need to pile up aditional punishment...ofc i assume she will serve those 6 years and not some BS appeal after 2 years or something

The family stopped trying to fight the case as they didn't have the money for a protracted legal battle that they were never going to win. Not only that but Peter is bankrupt and both he and Niels have criminal charges hanging over their head as well... hard to see them putting forward an appeal unless something radically changes. I'll be amazed if Femke tries to return at anything above the hobby level, if even that.

If I read dutch and belgian news correctly, she already announced she wouldn't return to professional cycling anyway. That being the case, the actual length of the suspension wouldn't matter that much, now, would it?

It would have an impact if she wanted to do e.g. Gran Fondos etc. or anything related to the sport even if not competing in it - remember, Niels van den Driessche broke the terms of his ban just by being present in Zolder - but as soon as it happened there was no way she'd come back to pro cycling even if she wanted to (no team would touch her, no organizer will want to risk her name among their winners list, it would be years before she could earn respect from fellow competitors, and fan hostility could become problematic at any reasonable-sized event), and I don't think she'll want to regardless.