Motor doping thread

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

But more to the point

Or ... what are the incidents from the year's race where sceptics suspect tech fraud?

And What exactly has triggered this increased mototesting?

just press rumours? I

it seems uci is reduced to a spectator.
Has no clue what's going on in its own garden.
Either that. Or they're knowingly covering up motorfraud.

Do you prefer not to address the previous two posts perhaps?

People wanted them to test extensively. That's what happened. It's no good bellyaching about the UCI when they do as people wanted. What did they miss in this race?

 

[Freddythefrog]

Re: Re:

That just tells us they went back to the stables 3773 times after the horse had bolted and found no wild horses in the stables, each and every time.

If you have a UCI employee telling the teams when the tests will be done and also spend months brewing up to introduce blind and random testing, after riders had forced the UCI to do something to catch the "evil moto-girl", then, if you honestly believe you might catch someone, you are an idiot. This was the UCI making sure they did not catch anyone.

This could not be a better example of the wrong people going about it in the wrong way.

The incident with the UCI employee is a complete red herring and even in that case it can be a good deterrent.

But more to the point, at this Tour, did they not also look in the stables before the horses were ridden? They looked as they were ridden. They looked at those that were not ridden. They looked when they came back from being ridden. On what other occasions should they look at them?

Easy to answer - in 2010 when it first became obvious that they were being used and only those who do not believe Anquetil's words about what the winners of the Tour actually do, did not believe what they saw.

Now tell me - who was in charge of the Road Commission at the UCI from that time until say, well let;'s give it three years, say 2010 to 2013 ? Was it the "deaf dumb and blind kid" who employed Lance's outed drugs courier at BC and is still pally with that courier on twitter ?

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

That just tells us they went back to the stables 3773 times after the horse had bolted and found no wild horses in the stables, each and every time.

If you have a UCI employee telling the teams when the tests will be done and also spend months brewing up to introduce blind and random testing, after riders had forced the UCI to do something to catch the "evil moto-girl", then, if you honestly believe you might catch someone, you are an idiot. This was the UCI making sure they did not catch anyone.

This could not be a better example of the wrong people going about it in the wrong way.

The incident with the UCI employee is a complete red herring and even in that case it can be a good deterrent.

But more to the point, at this Tour, did they not also look in the stables before the horses were ridden? They looked as they were ridden. They looked at those that were not ridden. They looked when they came back from being ridden. On what other occasions should they look at them?

Easy to answer - in 2010 when it first became obvious that they were being used and only those who do not believe Anquetil's words about what the winners of the Tour actually do, did not believe what they saw.

Now tell me - who was in charge of the Road Commission at the UCI from that time until say, well let;'s give it three years, say 2010 to 2013 ? Was it the "deaf dumb and blind kid" who employed Lance's outed drugs courier at BC and is still pally with that courier on twitter ?

It is not a direct reply to either my question or the subsequent one from another poster. You cannot answer one question about 2016 TdF bike testing with another concerning other matters in the past. Nobody seems to have a reason to claim that was inadequate.

 

[BYOP88]

Re: Moto-fraud: first rider caught

The UCI has announced that it carried out a total of 3,773 magnetic resistance tests for motors over the course of the Tour de France, and that no evidence of technological fraud was found.

That is good news!

Yes! But it's actually better than that. Cyclingnews says "

3773 tests were carried out using the famous blue magnetic resistance tablet, with other checks done via thermal imaging in race and with x-rays at the end of a number of key mountain stages.

So a variety of different means have been used and the result was negative.

We were told the result was negative, but then the same people told us Armstrong was not a doper.

Lets not forget that Sky were taking the bikes to be tested sometime after the stage had finished. The UCI didn't actually take the bikes(of any team) the moment they came over the finishing line.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Moto-fraud: first rider caught

The UCI has announced that it carried out a total of 3,773 magnetic resistance tests for motors over the course of the Tour de France, and that no evidence of technological fraud was found.

That is good news!

Yes! But it's actually better than that. Cyclingnews says "

3773 tests were carried out using the famous blue magnetic resistance tablet, with other checks done via thermal imaging in race and with x-rays at the end of a number of key mountain stages.

So a variety of different means have been used and the result was negative.

We were told the result was negative, but then the same people told us Armstrong was not a doper.

Lets not forget that Sky were taking the bikes to be tested sometime after the stage had finished. The UCI didn't actually take the bikes(of any team) the moment they came over the finishing line.

Let's suppose you are right. I don't know if you are. What could happen in the meantime. Removal of motor? Complete switch of bikes or wheels? If so where from, the bikes and wheels on the cars though they were apparently also scanned? Some secret stash? What is the suggestion being made?

 

[adamfo]

Re: Moto-fraud: first rider caught

The UCI has announced that it carried out a total of 3,773 magnetic resistance tests for motors over the course of the Tour de France, and that no evidence of technological fraud was found.

That is good news!

Yes! But it's actually better than that. Cyclingnews says "

3773 tests were carried out using the famous blue magnetic resistance tablet, with other checks done via thermal imaging in race and with x-rays at the end of a number of key mountain stages.

So a variety of different means have been used and the result was negative.

We were told the result was negative, but then the same people told us Armstrong was not a doper.

Lets not forget that Sky were taking the bikes to be tested sometime after the stage had finished. The UCI didn't actually take the bikes(of any team) the moment they came over the finishing line.

All the bikes were tested before the stage, some during the stage and the leaders by x-ray after. Some of the damaged bikes were also physically taken apart as per last years procedure.
Can I sell you a bridge ?

 

[BYOP88]

Re: Moto-fraud: first rider caught

All the bikes were tested before the stage, some during the stage and the leaders by x-ray after. Some of the damaged bikes were also physically taken apart as per last years procedure.
Can I sell you a bridge ?

Can you direct me to a link, of a written report/visual, I don't mind which, of the all the bikes being tested before the stage?

They may have given the leaders bikes an x-ray, but what's the point if the bikes weren't taken the moment they crossed the line?

Not really into starting a bridge collection at this time, but can I interest you in another unicorn to add to your collection?

 

[Irondan]

Let's not start getting snippy, please keep this a civil, pleasant discussion.

TIA!

 

[hfer07]

Re: Re:

But more to the point

Or ... what are the incidents from the year's race where sceptics suspect tech fraud?

And What exactly has triggered this increased mototesting?

just press rumours? I

it seems uci is reduced to a spectator.
Has no clue what's going on in its own garden.
Either that. Or they're knowingly covering up motorfraud.

correct. I'm truly skeptical about those so called "heat detector guns" used during the ongoing stages, since there are many variables to make the test 100% effective and accurate - i.e. distance being a mayor factor, equipment type and so forth. I would love to see the UCI disclosing those thermal images, as well as the equipment used & the criteria behind the test to fully determine if their doing a proper job.

 

[Ramon Koran]

People seem to be forgetting that on stage 19 a extremly high tec military heat gun was set up by french gouvernment (not the uci) as far as I know no motors were detected, this despite being on the climb were the highest numbers were recorded. If as is the case nothing was found I think we can safely assume that no motorized doping went on in the tour and put it to bed.

 

[sniper]

Re:

People seem to be forgetting that on stage 19 a extremly high tec military heat gun was set up by french gouvernment (not the uci) as far as I know no motors were detected, this despite being on the climb were the highest numbers were recorded. If as is the case nothing was found I think we can safely assume that no motorized doping went on in the tour and put it to bed.

Link?

 

[Ramon Koran]

Re: Re:

People seem to be forgetting that on stage 19 a extremly high tec military heat gun was set up by french gouvernment (not the uci) as far as I know no motors were detected, this despite being on the climb were the highest numbers were recorded. If as is the case nothing was found I think we can safely assume that no motorized doping went on in the tour and put it to bed.

Link?

I'll try and find a link, It was announced on french tv at the time that 9km from the line the military with the support of the french gouvernment had set up that up.

 

[Ramon Koran]

http://www.lejdd.fr/Sport/Cyclisme/L-armee-et-sa-camera-thermique-a-la-rescousse-du-Tour-de-France-792797
I can only find a link from a pre tour article talking about it, nothing seems to have been published since.

 

[sniper]

Cheers.
So it was announced?
Then why would anybody have a motor?

 

[Ramon Koran]

Re:

Cheers.
So it was announced?
Then why would anybody have a motor?

It was announced pre tour however they didn't say where they would set it up. On france tv they only annouced once the favorites had gone past that 9km from the finish it had been set up. Despite this, on this climb the highest wattages were recorded. To me this indicates that it acted in a way to disuade people of using them during the tour. Another possibilty is since nothing has been anounced since maybe some stuff was found.

 

[Cookster15]

Re: Moto-fraud: first rider caught

The UCI has announced that it carried out a total of 3,773 magnetic resistance tests for motors over the course of the Tour de France, and that no evidence of technological fraud was found.

That is good news!

Yes! But it's actually better than that. Cyclingnews says "

3773 tests were carried out using the famous blue magnetic resistance tablet, with other checks done via thermal imaging in race and with x-rays at the end of a number of key mountain stages.

So a variety of different means have been used and the result was negative.

We were told the result was negative, but then the same people told us Armstrong was not a doper.

Lets not forget that Sky were taking the bikes to be tested sometime after the stage had finished. The UCI didn't actually take the bikes(of any team) the moment they came over the finishing line.

This is a worry. If far more sophisticated Formula 1 cars get impounded and rigorously checked after every race then checking road bikes for motors before they are handed over to team mechanics should be very simple, very cheap and very fast. I just hope there isn't a lack of will on the UCIs part? On the other hand, maybe its just that the likelihood of motors is so low with the other new controls they don't feel impounding bikes post stage is necessary.

 

[Ramon Koran]

http://www.lenouvelliste.ch/articles/sports/cyclisme/tour-de-france-1500-velos-passes-a-la-camera-thermique-et-pas-un-moteur-decouvert-559347
I think this solves it, no moteurs were used. Probably esplains there not being the ridiculous attacks we have seen in the past.

 

[Freddythefrog]

Re: Re:

That just tells us they went back to the stables 3773 times after the horse had bolted and found no wild horses in the stables, each and every time.

If you have a UCI employee telling the teams when the tests will be done and also spend months brewing up to introduce blind and random testing, after riders had forced the UCI to do something to catch the "evil moto-girl", then, if you honestly believe you might catch someone, you are an idiot. This was the UCI making sure they did not catch anyone.

This could not be a better example of the wrong people going about it in the wrong way.

The incident with the UCI employee is a complete red herring and even in that case it can be a good deterrent.

But more to the point, at this Tour, did they not also look in the stables before the horses were ridden? They looked as they were ridden. They looked at those that were not ridden. They looked when they came back from being ridden. On what other occasions should they look at them?

Easy to answer - in 2010 when it first became obvious that they were being used and only those who do not believe Anquetil's words about what the winners of the Tour actually do, did not believe what they saw.

Now tell me - who was in charge of the Road Commission at the UCI from that time until say, well let;'s give it three years, say 2010 to 2013 ? Was it the "deaf dumb and blind kid" who employed Lance's outed drugs courier at BC and is still pally with that courier on twitter ?

It is not a direct reply to either my question or the subsequent one from another poster. You cannot answer one question about 2016 TdF bike testing with another concerning other matters in the past. Nobody seems to have a reason to claim that was inadequate.

Which bit of my answer don't you understand ?

Of course the fact that you don't recognise it, provides the most eloquent witness that the supplementary part of my answer applies to yourself. Just because you can't see something that others can does not mean that what they see is invalidated, rather it simply reflects on the view of the World that you espouse.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

That just tells us they went back to the stables 3773 times after the horse had bolted and found no wild horses in the stables, each and every time.

If you have a UCI employee telling the teams when the tests will be done and also spend months brewing up to introduce blind and random testing, after riders had forced the UCI to do something to catch the "evil moto-girl", then, if you honestly believe you might catch someone, you are an idiot. This was the UCI making sure they did not catch anyone.

This could not be a better example of the wrong people going about it in the wrong way.

The incident with the UCI employee is a complete red herring and even in that case it can be a good deterrent.

But more to the point, at this Tour, did they not also look in the stables before the horses were ridden? They looked as they were ridden. They looked at those that were not ridden. They looked when they came back from being ridden. On what other occasions should they look at them?

Easy to answer - in 2010 when it first became obvious that they were being used and only those who do not believe Anquetil's words about what the winners of the Tour actually do, did not believe what they saw.

Now tell me - who was in charge of the Road Commission at the UCI from that time until say, well let;'s give it three years, say 2010 to 2013 ? Was it the "deaf dumb and blind kid" who employed Lance's outed drugs courier at BC and is still pally with that courier on twitter ?

It is not a direct reply to either my question or the subsequent one from another poster. You cannot answer one question about 2016 TdF bike testing with another concerning other matters in the past. Nobody seems to have a reason to claim that was inadequate.

Which bit of my answer don't you understand ?

Of course the fact that you don't recognise it, provides the most eloquent witness that the supplementary part of my answer applies to yourself. Just because you can't see something that others can does not mean that what they see is invalidated, rather it simply reflects on the view of the World that you espouse.

You are complaining about 2010 and it is plain I was talking about the TdF 2016. Nobody has found an issue with 2016 except they don't trust the thermal cameras to work, they don't trust the UCI, they think that somebody may pull a fast one before the bikes are Xrayed after the stage and so on. Not answers that you gave with regard to 2016, of course. You would rather write, "Which bit of my answer don't you understand ?" as if you gave a relevant answer or to ridicule my view of the world.

 

[Benotti69]

So funny UCI says no motors and posters believe them.

 

[Ramon Koran]

Re:

So funny UCI says no motors and posters believe them.

But it's not just the UCI, it's the crazy a French government organization, if they say there's no motors, I definitely believe them. Why would they do a cover up. The French gouvenment do look hard at stuff they exposed festina and woo abuse in the peloton. I fully trust them.

 

[D-Queued]

Re:

So funny UCI says no motors and posters believe them.

Believing the UCI and believing what the UCI says are not mutually inclusive.

Thus, please advise which performance(s) do you feel strongly about that are best explained by the use of a motor?

What was it specifically about those performances that cannot be otherwise explained?

You must have at least one, with a very compelling case.

Otherwise, you too may fall victim to believing what the UCI believes.

Dave.

 

[hfer07]

Re:

People seem to be forgetting that on stage 19 a extremly high tec military heat gun was set up by french gouvernment (not the uci) as far as I know no motors were detected, this despite being on the climb were the highest numbers were recorded. If as is the case nothing was found I think we can safely assume that no motorized doping went on in the tour and put it to bed.

sorry but the link you posted does NOT specify the equipment, nor the test itself. Again- those high tech guns have settings that can be manipulating for the specific uses- one thing that caught my attention from that link itself was the notion of the testers seeking for "metal or aluminum foreign parts inside the frame.....well, the motor can be built out of carbon fiber- so it would pass the test!

once again- unless the French government-or whoever did the testing - do a full disclose of the test, the equipment specs & use applications to make it 100% legit, I'm going to be skeptical- why? because I'm familiar with the heat detection gun system due to my profession, so ....

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

So funny UCI says no motors and posters believe them.

But it's not just the UCI, it's the crazy a French government organization, if they say there's no motors, I definitely believe them. Why would they do a cover up. The French gouvenment do look hard at stuff they exposed festina and woo abuse in the peloton. I fully trust them.

Your a woo abuser? Wow i didn't know that! :surprised:

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

So funny UCI says no motors and posters believe them.

Believing the UCI and believing what the UCI says are not mutually inclusive.

Thus, please advise which performance(s) do you feel strongly about that are best explained by the use of a motor?

What was it specifically about those performances that cannot be otherwise explained?

You must have at least one, with a very compelling case.

Otherwise, you too may fall victim to believing what the UCI believes.

Dave.

But motors don't necessarily mean a visibly enhanced performance at the time of use. Using a motor for the first 100k means the last 50 are easier.....