Motor doping thread

[thehog]

Re:

Its a funny one. But looks like the left crank hits the ground and spins the wheel.

This one though:
https://twitter.com/oufeh/status/820573204917919744

That is a motor. Nothing more,nothing less, a motor.

 

[Tienus]

Re: Re:

Its a funny one. But looks like the left crank hits the ground and spins the wheel.

This one though:
https://twitter.com/oufeh/status/820573204917919744

That is a motor. Nothing more,nothing less, a motor.

Pushing the crank could start a motor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALYIedge1KY
The incident at 43:30
Playing with his watch at 1:09:00 and 1:09:30

The watch reminds me a bit of the video with the mechanic.

 

[sniper]

Seeing the footage like this (as opposed to just the GIF) it's more suspicious.

Sorry, what video with mechanic do you refer to?

 

[Tienus]

Last time it was also Wout van Aert. The discussion:
viewtopic.php?p=1860606#p1860606

 

[Tienus]

Sorry, what video with mechanic do you refer to?

at 12:30
https://youtu.be/johF_tP1JEY?t=12m28s

 

[kingjr]

at 43:30 he definitely hits a log on the ground

 

[sniper]

Two times Van Aert, world champ.
Two times with kind of natural looking rearwheel spin.
We're talking about chances and odds here.

A stelllar find wrt the watch.
Bluetooth maybe?

 

[kingjr]

The watch?

Well the second time after he's crossed the line is completely normal, you see that all the time in other sports too, like cross-country skiing. The first time might just be that the watch bugged him in some way, itching or w/e and he only adjusted it then because he was sure to win at that point.


And no, we're not talking chances and odds here IMO, looking at the video it's clear to see what's happening.


All of that doesn't mean he's not using a motor, I know that, but the footage above does nothing to suggest that he is.

 

[sniper]

It's videoS, plural.

The watch. Not saying it means something. Just another salient bit of food for thought.

Dont forget evidence of doping usually takes ages to surface. Here wrt motors there is a unique chance to analyse stuff in the here and now.
It's very salient and it should be taken seriously.

 

[kingjr]

I saw the other video 10 times and I don't see a thing that looks suspicious.

 

[King Boonen]

Pedal strike causes a wheel to spin and that's suspicious? It's cross, pedals and cranks hit things.

Why multiple videos of Van Aert? Probably because it's Van Aert so it's likely the cameras are going to pick him out.

 

[sniper]

Here's probably:
He's winning so he's probably beating other guys with motors.
How? Probably with a motor.

Even in the absence of that footage he's probably using motor. At present motorized guys are those taking the prizes.
The footage merely adds to.the suspicion.

Denying this is denying the reality of present day procycling.
All the signs are there to suggest motorization is widespread, especially at the top end.

 

[King Boonen]

If they all have motors he's winning because he's stronger, unless you think there is some secret, high-powered motor trade only available to select few riders that somehow either get initiated into the club (how do they show they deserve to be in the club if they don't have a motor so can't compete?) and hasn't been released to the much bigger and more lucrative market of the general public?

Widespread? Hyperbole much?

 

[hrotha]

Wow, what a nice display of circular logic we have here.

 

[sniper]

Procycling logic is by definition circular.
Take it up with the sport not with me.

 

[sniper]

Re:

If they all have motors he's winning because he's stronger, unless you think there is some secret, high-powered motor trade only available to select few riders that somehow either get initiated into the club (how do they show they deserve to be in the club if they don't have a motor so can't compete?) and hasn't been released to the much bigger and more lucrative market of the general public?

Widespread? Hyperbole much?

Indeed because hes stronger.
And using a motor like at least some others.

Hyperbole? Provide evidence of remotely credible motortesting please.

What kind of motors are available, how they are operated and how one gets maximum benefit from them, is anybody's guess, at least as far as the top end is concerned.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

If they all have motors he's winning because he's stronger, unless you think there is some secret, high-powered motor trade only available to select few riders that somehow either get initiated into the club (how do they show they deserve to be in the club if they don't have a motor so can't compete?) and hasn't been released to the much bigger and more lucrative market of the general public?

Widespread? Hyperbole much?

Indeed because hes stronger.
And using a motor like at least some others.

Hyperbole? Provide evidence of remotely credible motortesting please.

What kind of motors are available, how they are operated and how one gets maximum benefit from them, is anybody's guess, at least as far as the top end is concerned.

Provide evidence of widespread motor use please.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

So no evidence? Thought so.
Then what was your "hyperbole?" based on?

We're talking logic here. Common sense.
Not court of law.

Logic for procycling is this:
as long as there's no reliable testing the most beneficial methods of cheating will likely be in widespread use.
Motors can plausibly be assumed to belong to those methods; therefore they are likely to be widespread.

Sorry but that's an objective observation founded in the history of procycling and doping.

If you could show evidence of reliable testing things would be different. The onus is on you there.

I know it's lazy reasoning, circular even, but it's common sense and apparently it needs to be spelled out from time to time.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

If they all have motors he's winning because he's stronger, unless you think there is some secret, high-powered motor trade only available to select few riders that somehow either get initiated into the club (how do they show they deserve to be in the club if they don't have a motor so can't compete?) and hasn't been released to the much bigger and more lucrative market of the general public?

Widespread? Hyperbole much?

Indeed because hes stronger.
And using a motor like at least some others.

Hyperbole? Provide evidence of remotely credible motortesting please.

What kind of motors are available, how they are operated and how one gets maximum benefit from them, is anybody's guess, at least as far as the top end is concerned.

Provide evidence of widespread motor use please.

Perhaps a better question would be;

Provide evidence of widespread motor checking that can detect all motor types at all races (please).


:surprised:

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

So no evidence? Thought so.
Then what was your "hyperbole?" based on?

We're talking logic here. Common sense.
Not court of law.

Logic for procycling is this:
as long as there's no reliable testing the most beneficial methods of cheating will likely be in widespread use.
Motors can plausibly be assumed to belong to those methods; therefore they are likely to be widespread.

Sorry but that's an objective observation founded in the history of procycling and doping.

If you could show evidence of reliable testing things would be different. The onus is on you there.

I know it's lazy reasoning, circular even, but it's common sense and apparently it needs to be spelled out from time to time.

It's assumption, faulty logic and has no evidence to back it up.

So again, what evidence do you have for widespread motor use?

 

[djpbaltimore]

History has shown that chemical doping is widespread in cycling. That is not the case for motor-doping. Going further, it is not always the principle tests that trip chemical dopers up in the first place (Operation Puerto, Lance etc.). If motor-doping is as wide spread as we are led to believe, you would expect that there would be something more tangible than what we have seen. I agree that saying motor-doping is widespread qualifies as hyperbole.

 

[sniper]

Objectively, the onus is on you to explain why, if (a) the technology is there and (b) the (serious) testing is NOT there, why motors wouldn't be widespread.

There isn't much more to it I'm afraid.
Either show that the technology isn't available, or show that there IS serious testing, or explain why despite (a) and (b) being valid motors would not be widespread.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

Objectively, the onus is on you to explain why, if (a) the technology is there and (b) the (serious) testing is NOT there, why motors wouldn't be widespread.

There isn't much more to it I'm afraid.
Either show that the technology isn't available, or show that there IS serious testing, or explain why despite (a) and (b) being valid motors would not be widespread.

Totally disagree. The notion that if something is possible then it must occur is too narrow of a view. You have to add in all the externalities.

Things like availability. A highly engineered motor is very different from mass produced, fungible pharmaceuticals. Risk/reward calculus - individuals might not think it's worth the risk. Motor doping is also not institutionalized the way regular doping is. That would make motor use a more personal decision. Getting caught would also have serious social consequences; you wouldn't be able to shrug and say "everyone is doing it - it's always been this way". Nope. You'd be an immediate outcast.

My completely uninformed opinion is that motors have been used in the pro peloton. But I don't think they're widespread. I think they're only used in very specific circumstances and only sparingly. I also think that they are used strategically with well planned tactics to not get caught. Things like pre-positioned bike changes.

Of course, I've got exactly as much evidence as you. Zip. So it's just an opinion.

John Swanson

 

[sniper]

Very fair points John, I have to admit.

The rumor for Team Sky is that they've used motors 'at strategic points in specific races'.

Fwiw, I think the following riders are using and/or have (at various points in their carreers) used:
Lance,
Cance,
Evans,
Contador,
Froome,
Sagan,
Hesjedal,
Hayman,
Van Aert,
Van Marcke,
Roglic,

And of course Femke, may God have mercy on that girl.

That's only the riders i've seen some form of evidence for (evidence here being any kind of issue that is consistent with and/or most easily explained by assuming a motor).
In addition I've heard rumors about BC track, Team Sky, Movistar and Cervelo and (though no rumors) I have reason to think Cannondale/Liquigas and Orica and some other teams (e.g. Lotto) are on to motors too.

That's what I would call "widespread, especially at the top end".

To conclude, there is also the Stade 2/Corriere della Sera investigation.
Over two races they caught a total of seven or eight (not sure) riders with suspicious heat signatures.

So fair enough, I should probably not use the word "widespread".
But I do think a fair share of the world's very best proriders (in various disciplines) are using or have used.

 

[sniper]

And of course there is...the UCI, whose behavior in regards to motors has perhaps been the single most convincing piece of evidence that their use is, if not widespread, at least alarmingly common.