Motor doping thread

[yaco]

I doubt motor doping is widespread in the peleton - Strange the Roglic TT is brought up - There was the strange of Bialobocki winning a TT against WT riders in 2015 and then there was the Gazprom rider who won the second TT at the Giro - Could there have been timing malfunctions or deliberate timing malfunctions ?

 

[Tom the Engine]

The intricacies of Motordoping are known to me no more than to you, Tom.

Absolutely. And I never claimed to have insider knowledge or anything else that would enable me to make bold statements. So consequentially I refrain from making up conclusions up of thin air.
But the one thing I do claim is that you make a lot of statements that contain heavy technical flaws, be it logical inconsistencies or circularities. And whenever someone calls you out on it you bring out the same generic stuff about omertà, corruption, cheerleading journalists, Lance-did-it-all-in-the-past and whatnot to distract from it. While you can certainly blame corruption and conflict of interest in professional sports for a lot of things, one's inability to formulate a sound argument is certainly not one of those things.
And it's absolutely possible to draw a correct conclusion from a garbage argument. But that doesn't change the quality of the argument itself. It remains garbage.

I like what John said upthread: while use of the word widespread is certainly disputabke, it looks like motors have been and are being used at strategic points in races by various teams and riders.

I'm not entitled to speak on behalf of John but he called this his "completely uninformed opinion", not that "it looks like" this. And he disagreed with motors being widespread, he didn't say the use of the word was "disputable". John chooses his words carefully and it's not the first time you twist them to make them fit your standpoint and kinda abusing his authority by this. Don't do that, it's really bad style.
(The other time I can remember off the top of my head is when John stated that Roglics hub on the thermal image was compatible both with a motor but also with misaligned bearings or bent axles and he explicitly abstained from adding a judgement on which was more likely. You went on to quote him that it was consistent with a motor, purposely leaving out the other part and therefor implying he suggested it was a motor.)

We may find out more on the 28th.
Meanwhile I'm not holdding my breath.

I may still be a bit naive, but I do hold my breath. If revelations of Festina-like dimensions are announced it has to be something tangible. I'd be absolutely delighted if something was revealed. Because, yes, I admittedly consider these speculations about motors good entertainment and adding proof to it would greatly enhance it.

Why arent motors used all the time all day and by every rider of the team? Maybe there is match fixing involved.

Oh boy, match fixing. Now you're introducing another layer of complexity to the story to make it work. Without the tiniest bit of evidence I suppose? You self-identified as fan of Occams Razor in a different thread. But we really have a very very different understanding of Occams Razor.
Your definition of Occams Razor seems to be: "Everybody cheats anyway". Or: "Everybody who has an opportunity to cheat or who is suspected to cheat, does indeed cheat in the worst possible way, no matter the circumstances."
That's Snipers Razor, not Occams..

The signs are there, especially from the UCI and from good investigative work by the likes of Stade2/Corriere della Sera.

As stated elsewhere (here and here), I heavily disagree with this film from Stade 2 being good investigative work.
And aside from this critisism: They showed us two cases from Strade Bianche that were controversial at best. That's not exactly supporting evidence for widespread use, is it?
(And they say they have 5 more cases. But talk is cheap. Show them. Unless they show them I have to assume that these cases are either even less clear-cut than the ones that are shown or they're from amateur riders filmed at the gran fondo. And I really only care about the pro peloton, not about some Italian after-work heroes.)

And let's appreciate how the validity of the claims was tacitly confirmed by UCI's and Lotto's subsequent failure to debunk any of it.

You're very stubborn on this one. If Lotto didn't use a motor then it's impossible to convincingly "debunk" the Stade 2 footage days or weeks after the race. There's just no way of finding out what made this particular rear hub appear warmer than it should be in this particular second of the footage if you don't have the bike at hand in the very same configuration. And it still could be just a measurement artifact after all.
All they could do is speculate and provide some general possible explanations. But if they did that I can already hear you mumbling about cover-up and stuff like that. You're welcome to convince me otherwise by detailing what you would have done to debunk it if you were a member of Lotto and didn't use a motor in this race.

They even gave Cookson a chance to respond in the program sitting down with him and showing him the footage.

He has seen the same ambiguous material that we have seen. How does the dumbfounded face of an executive add any value to the discussion? Come on!

Roglic could have been the only rider who was cheating with the pre race bike inspections being carried out.

Yes, possibly, but GJB123 already pointed out how this would relate to the claim of widespread use. And that was the whole point of my argument.
But I'm adding another thing here: Are you implying that the bike tests and bike inspections carried out by UCI are actually, well, effective..?
(Because deterring most of the riders who would have used a motor from using a motor counts as kinda effective in my book..)
That's certainly a very unexpected change in narrative here.. :lol:

 

[Mr.38%]

Re: Re:

The intricacies of Motordoping are known to me no more than to you, Tom.
I can only speculate based on what I'm seeing and hearing.
I like what John said upthread: while use of the word widespread is certainly disputabke, it looks like motors have been and are being used at strategic points in races by various teams and riders.
Why arent motors used all the time all day and by every rider of the team? Maybe there is match fixing involved. Maybe its a money issue or as John said an availability issue. Or bit of all.
It's clutching at straws like we usually do wrt doping fraud and cheating. The when what and how is anybody's guess.

We may find out more on the 28th.
Or in a year or ten/twenty. Or never.
Meanwhile I'm not holdding my breath.
I think most of the big guns i named upthread have been usingmotors in addition to shitload of lower ranked riders. Amateur scene is also polluted no doubt.
The signs are there, especially from the UCI and from good investigative work by the likes of Stade2/Corriere della Sera. The Omerta is palpable, too.
As always there aren't too many Journos interested in spitting in thw soup and the only pro rider who has expressed concerns about motors is...Chris Froome lol.

TIenus posts have been revelatory, too, in many regards.
Indeed it's good idea to follow the mechanic, which is why I asked on Twitter whether Sagan took his own mechanic with him to Bora. The answer was yes.

Have you ever done an amateur race? I have never seen anything like Cance at our level. Fantastic performances were pure class and training and unbelievable performances from certain riders and teams were always good old EPO (I suppose).

No I havent, but I talk to people who race amateur level and suspect motor use of certain riders.
It's hardly ever going to be as clearly visible as Cance in 2010 or Froome on Ventoux or PSM.
A Belgian TV program did a very nice experiment as they placed an amateur rider with a motor in a local race to see what would happen. The rider ended up sprinting for the win where normally he's a midpacker at best.
Nobody noticed a thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqhX8-dazOo&t=1s
It's in Dutch but worth a watch. The motorized rider also goes on a ride with Museeuw.
You also see how the thing is mounted.

I know the clip. Not sure who your alleged sources are but I'd say it is impossible over here because a) it's a small world and everybody knows somebody and trains with somebody, b) a handful of "unbelievable" performances have been exposed as the result of heaviest PED abuse (not naming names here but everybody knows who I'm talking about, masters racers lapping the pro/cat1 elite solo twice, teams placing 1-6 etc.). So it is NOT widespread and I am 100% sure it never happened in sanctioned amateur races. So unless you have examples of actual performances, refrain from unfounded bs like this and continue to hunt professional racers based on pics on twitter.

 

[sniper]

The only thing unfounded is the faith you have in the moral compass of your competitors. It's moving, but unfounded.

 

[Tienus]

es, possibly, but GJB123 already pointed out how this would relate to the claim of widespread use. And that was the whole point of my argument.
But I'm adding another thing here: Are you implying that the bike tests and bike inspections carried out by UCI are actually, well, effective..?
(Because deterring most of the riders who would have used a motor from using a motor counts as kinda effective in my book..)
That's certainly a very unexpected change in narrative here.. :lol:

I do think motor use is widespread in the peloton.
I have written plenty about the UCI testing, its a farce. I actually agre with sniper that the UCI could be matcfixing.
The giro was after stade 2 so motordoping was a hot issue and I cant rule out the testing before this ITT scared other riders. Why would Roglic change his bike if he was not afraid of the check? Anyway I am only speculating.

 

[Tienus]

I know the clip. Not sure who your alleged sources are but I'd say it is impossible over here because a) it's a small world and everybody knows somebody and trains with somebody, b) a handful of "unbelievable" performances have been exposed as the result of heaviest PED abuse (not naming names here but everybody knows who I'm talking about, masters racers lapping the pro/cat1 elite solo twice, teams placing 1-6 etc.). So it is NOT widespread and I am 100% sure it never happened in sanctioned amateur races. So unless you have examples of actual performances, refrain from unfounded bs like this and continue to hunt professional racers based on pics on twitter.

At the end of the video sniper posted you can hear the chairman of the flemmisch cycling federation. He claims riders came to him and accused others of using motors. It doesnt sound like he has done much about it.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

es, possibly, but GJB123 already pointed out how this would relate to the claim of widespread use. And that was the whole point of my argument.
But I'm adding another thing here: Are you implying that the bike tests and bike inspections carried out by UCI are actually, well, effective..?
(Because deterring most of the riders who would have used a motor from using a motor counts as kinda effective in my book..)
That's certainly a very unexpected change in narrative here.. :lol:

I do think motor use is widespread in the peloton.
I have written plenty about the UCI testing, its a farce. I actually agre with sniper that the UCI could be matcfixing.
The giro was after stade 2 so motordoping was a hot issue and I cant rule out the testing before this ITT scared other riders. Why would Roglic change his bike if he was not afraid of the check? Anyway I am only speculating.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: there's no way that using an iPad's magnetometer could be effective at catching someone. Every single bike with electronic shifting would test positive. Why? Because the same magnets used in motors are used in the actuators inside the derailleurs. The derailleurs being very close to where you'd stick a motor (seat tube or rear hub).

John Swanson

 

[Tom the Engine]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: there's no way that using an iPad's magnetometer could be effective at catching someone.

As far as I can see nobody challenged this notion recently in this thread.
I only pointed out that I find Tienus' line of argumentation a bit inconsistent: On one hand he states that because these tests are a farce motors are still very widespread since nobody fears to get caught by them. On the other hand he refers to the very same tests when looking for an explanation why Roglic allegedly was the only one (or one of very few) to use a motor at Giro TT. It doesn't really add up for me.

The giro was after stade 2 so motordoping was a hot issue and I cant rule out the testing before this ITT scared other riders.

So hang on a second. You say that the implications from Stade 2 scared off most riders who would have cheated otherwise. Except for the one rider who was responsible for the overall most suspicious footage in the whole documentary..?
Possible. In that case I'd truly admire his balls of steel..

 

[sniper]

He says he 'can't rule it out'.

Theres nothing inconsistent about speculating about certain scenarios whilst not ruling out other scenarios. And theyre not always mutually exclusive.

Fact is a. the testing cannot be trusted; b. The technology is there; and c. The will to cheat to win is there.

The what why when where who and how is anybody's guess.

 

[Tienus]

I know the ipad does not work. It was introduced on the only day it found a motor and the UCI already knew about it.
I dont know what kind of testing was involved at the TT Rogic won.
Whats going on in the zipped up tents is more interesting.

 

[Tom the Engine]

Theres nothing inconsistent about speculating about certain scenarios whilst not ruling out other scenarios.

Yeah, I'm perfectly fine with doing this.
But now go speculating again about Roglics bike change prior to the start. And don't rule out any scenario that you can't rule out for sure. Even the ones that are not related to motors.

If you always speculate one-sidedly, if the only goal of your speculation is to find a possible explanation that fits your prior belief and you simply dismiss those that don't, then you necessarily end up trapped in (apologies for bringing this up again) confirmation bias.

Tienus' explanation of the Giro TT needs quite a few (inconsistent) assumptions to work in his favor to keep it compatible with a) Roglic using a motor, b) motors being widespread in general c) motor tests being a farce in general. The more assumptions needed the more it's a long shot.

Fact is a. the testing cannot be trusted; b. The technology is there; and c. The will to cheat to win is there.

No doubt about that. But to simply take our experience with normal doping and do a straightforward extrapolation to conclude anything from it about motors is not very smart. The external circumstances are considerably different.

 

[sniper]

Some fair points.

But I wouldn't get hung up on the 'widespread' issue. Thats a bit of a moot point unless we would all work with one and the same coherent definition of that term, which we probably don't. It's a term that can be used flexibly. If you look it up you'll see it can mean 'all over the friggin place' but it can also simply mean 'conmon'.

For what it's worth, I don't think anybody would argue that it's as widespread as regular doping.
But thats apples and oranges anyway.

 

[Tom the Engine]

But I wouldn't get hung up on the 'widespread' issue. Thats a bit of a moot point unless we would all work with the same definition of that term, which we most likely don't.

I fully agree. Without agreeing on a definition it's mainly a war on semantics.

I guess that most of us who participate here feel that motors could happen or could have happened to some extent. And if that's indeed the case I'm pretty confident that proof for it would get out someday. Maybe not every single case and not every detail but the bigger picture for sure.
For my part I just usually try to keep a discussion accountable to work with good and sound arguments only, irrespective of the opinion behind them (of course being very prone to bad arguments myself..). Because otherwise there's no point in engaging in a debate at all.

 

[sniper]

It's past my bedtime now, just dropping in to say I'm happy to close off the evening being in full agreement with you Tom. Was good chatting.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

Some fair points.

But I wouldn't get hung up on the 'widespread' issue. Thats a bit of a moot point unless we would all work with one and the same coherent definition of that term, which we probably don't. It's a term that can be used flexibly. If you look it up you'll see it can mean 'all over the friggin place' but it can also simply mean 'conmon'.

For what it's worth, I don't think anybody would argue that it's as widespread as regular doping.
But thats apples and oranges anyway.

The point is that there is no evidence whatsoever that motor use is "common", or anything close to "widespread". You want the definition of the term to be malleable so you can defend your use of it, but while the term is subjective, it has meaning. There is no definition of widespread which matches what we know about motor doping. There is some evidence that it has made it to the peloton for sure. There is no evidence that it's widespread.

But let's get clear. What percentage of riders do you think are using motorized doping? I would be shocked if it were more than 5%, which fits no definition of widespread anyone could conjure up. What's your guess at the percentage?

 

[MarkvW]

Re: Re:

Some fair points.

But I wouldn't get hung up on the 'widespread' issue. Thats a bit of a moot point unless we would all work with one and the same coherent definition of that term, which we probably don't. It's a term that can be used flexibly. If you look it up you'll see it can mean 'all over the friggin place' but it can also simply mean 'conmon'.

For what it's worth, I don't think anybody would argue that it's as widespread as regular doping.
But thats apples and oranges anyway.

The point is that there is no evidence whatsoever that motor use is "common", or anything close to "widespread". You want the definition of the term to be malleable so you can defend your use of it, but while the term is subjective, it has meaning. There is no definition of widespread which matches what we know about motor doping. There is some evidence that it has made it to the peloton for sure. There is no evidence that it's widespread.

But let's get clear. What percentage of riders do you think are using motorized doping? I would be shocked if it were more than 5%, which fits no definition of widespread anyone could conjure up. What's your guess at the percentage?

Bad money drives out good...

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Some fair points.

But I wouldn't get hung up on the 'widespread' issue. Thats a bit of a moot point unless we would all work with one and the same coherent definition of that term, which we probably don't. It's a term that can be used flexibly. If you look it up you'll see it can mean 'all over the friggin place' but it can also simply mean 'conmon'.

For what it's worth, I don't think anybody would argue that it's as widespread as regular doping.
But thats apples and oranges anyway.

The point is that there is no evidence whatsoever that motor use is "common", or anything close to "widespread". You want the definition of the term to be malleable so you can defend your use of it, but while the term is subjective, it has meaning. There is no definition of widespread which matches what we know about motor doping. There is some evidence that it has made it to the peloton for sure. There is no evidence that it's widespread.

But let's get clear. What percentage of riders do you think are using motorized doping? I would be shocked if it were more than 5%, which fits no definition of widespread anyone could conjure up. What's your guess at the percentage?

Fair question.

Agreed, the use of the word widespread is disputable/tenuous.
But even if you're right and it's 'only' 5% of the peloton, i'd say that might warrant the use of the word, for instance if we place it against the "it's really only Femke vdDriesschen" hypothesis, a hypothesis which does still seem to thrive in certain parts, although not in the Clinic. 5% of, say, 200 riders (TdF starting list) would still be 20 riders. And the majority of those 20 would probably be the fighting for the GC and stage wins.

If you ask me for an estimate, I'd probably raise you with another five and put it at 10% for the propeloton at large.
As mentioned, however, the really alarming part is that (whether we take 5% or 10%) the use of motors seems to cluster at the very top of the peloton.
Sagan, Froome, Contador, Cance, Hayman, Hesjedal, to name a few who seem suspicious to me.
So if we take, say, all winners of monuments and GTs in the past five years, I would go as far as to propose 50% of them has used motors.

But it's really clutching at straws.

 

[Tienus]

On one hand he states that because these tests are a farce motors are still very widespread since nobody fears to get caught by them. On the other hand he refers to the very same tests when looking for an explanation why Roglic allegedly was the only one (or one of very few) to use a motor at Giro TT. It doesn't really add up for me.

There is more than the UCI testing with an ipad. Again I dont know what kind of testing was performed and who did tit.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-checks-bikes-of-contador-hesjedal-and-gilbert-for-motors-at-giro-ditalia/

Six Italian police officers and an investigating magistrate were also present at Milan-San Remo to investigate possible sporting fraud, which is a crime in Italy. Riders found guilty of technological fraud can be disqualified from the race in question, be suspended for a minimum of six months and face a fine of between 20,000 and 200,000 Swiss Francs. There is also provision for the rider's team to incur heavy sanctions, including a suspension of at least six months and a fine of between 100,000 and 1 million Swiss Francs.

 

[Tienus]

This old article is interesting.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-denies-reports-of-motorised-doping/

However Marco Bognetti, a previous member of the material commissions and consultant to Jean Wauthier, the current head of the materials unit at the UCI, spoke with a little more urgency.

"It's all true, there’s a suspicion that there are teams and riders who used a 'pedal-assisted' bike,” he told L'Avvenire. “We were first told about it last July, during the Tour de France. We first heard about it from the USA and it set alarm bells ringing."[/quote

Last July means the 2009 tour

 

[Mr.38%]

Re:

The only thing unfounded is the faith you have in the moral compass of your competitors. It's moving, but unfounded.

So basically everything you can bring on the table is a general rant about immoral license holders and life in general?

 

[sniper]

Re:

This old article is interesting.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-denies-reports-of-motorised-doping/

However Marco Bognetti, a previous member of the material commissions and consultant to Jean Wauthier, the current head of the materials unit at the UCI, spoke with a little more urgency.

"It's all true, there’s a suspicion that there are teams and riders who used a 'pedal-assisted' bike,” he told L'Avvenire. “We were first told about it last July, during the Tour de France. We first heard about it from the USA and it set alarm bells ringing."[/quote

Last July means the 2009 tour

Interesting.
2009 is also when Boardman warned UCI about motors.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/boardman-warned-the-uci-of-risks-of-bike-doping/
Article is from 2010 but his meeting with UCI was in 2009.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
I've said it before and I'll say it again: there's no way that using an iPad's magnetometer could be effective at catching someone. Every single bike with electronic shifting would test positive. Why? Because the same magnets used in motors are used in the actuators inside the derailleurs. The derailleurs being very close to where you'd stick a motor (seat tube or rear hub).

John Swanson

Place that against this interview with Brailsford:

Sir Dave, 52, said: “If someone is stupid enough to come here with a motor in their bike for sure they will get caught.

“Chris’s bike has been tested more than everyone else’s, we get tested every day.

“We actually had an email from the UCI saying thank you for being the most co-operative team out of everybody when it comes to bike checks and mechanical checking.

“Finding an engine in a bike is a pretty simple thing to do in this day and age.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/cycling/1428245/tour-de-france-2016-chris-froome-and-team-sky-angry-at-new-doping-slurs-this-time-over-claim-top-riders-use-motors/

Who is he kidding?

The only reason I can think of why he would downplay the motor issue like that is that he and his team are neck-deep involved themselves.

 

[sniper]

Here's a follow up from the 2nd restday:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/brailsford-on-froome-people-arent-asking-the-same-questions-as-in-the-past/

At the beginning of the press conference, Brailsford was asked to clarify a comment he made at Team Sky's last rest day press conference in Andorra, when he said that the team had received an email from the UCI congratulating it on its cooperation with tests for mechanical doping. He said that the message had been sent from UCI technical manager Mark Barfield to Team Sky's head of technical operations Carsten Jeppesen.

Barfield made headlines last month when French television programme Stade 2 reported that he had sent an email to Typhoon e-bikes CEO Harry Gibbings regarding a police inquiry into the use of hidden motors at last year's Tour. The UCI has expressed full confidence in Barfield, who has been working on bike testing at this year’s Tour, though the governing body has pledged an inquiry into the matter.

"What I was trying to refer to there, if I remember correctly, was a communication between Mark and Carsten about our cooperation in the way we get the bikes ready for the tests. There has to be a willingness on the behalf of the mechanics to get it done quickly and I think that's what I was referring to," Brailsford said.

"Mark works for the UCI, Carsten works for Sky. There's a recognition there from the UCI that we we're being very, very supportive and helpful, and that our staff and mechanics were being very, very helpful in the way there were presenting themselves and making themselves available for testing."

Nothing to see here.

Sounds like Sky are frontrunners and UCI facilitate it.

 

[Bolder]

Re: Re:

Some fair points.

But I wouldn't get hung up on the 'widespread' issue. Thats a bit of a moot point unless we would all work with one and the same coherent definition of that term, which we probably don't. It's a term that can be used flexibly. If you look it up you'll see it can mean 'all over the friggin place' but it can also simply mean 'conmon'.

For what it's worth, I don't think anybody would argue that it's as widespread as regular doping.
But thats apples and oranges anyway.

The point is that there is no evidence whatsoever that motor use is "common", or anything close to "widespread". You want the definition of the term to be malleable so you can defend your use of it, but while the term is subjective, it has meaning. There is no definition of widespread which matches what we know about motor doping. There is some evidence that it has made it to the peloton for sure. There is no evidence that it's widespread.

But let's get clear. What percentage of riders do you think are using motorized doping? I would be shocked if it were more than 5%, which fits no definition of widespread anyone could conjure up. What's your guess at the percentage?

Fair question.

Agreed, the use of the word widespread is disputable/tenuous.
But even if you're right and it's 'only' 5% of the peloton, i'd say that might warrant the use of the word, for instance if we place it against the "it's really only Femke vdDriesschen" hypothesis, a hypothesis which does still seem to thrive in certain parts, although not in the Clinic. 5% of, say, 200 riders (TdF starting list) would still be 20 riders. And the majority of those 20 would probably be the fighting for the GC and stage wins.

If you ask me for an estimate, I'd probably raise you with another five and put it at 10% for the propeloton at large.
As mentioned, however, the really alarming part is that (whether we take 5% or 10%) the use of motors seems to cluster at the very top of the peloton.
Sagan, Froome, Contador, Cance, Hayman, Hesjedal, to name a few who seem suspicious to me.
So if we take, say, all winners of monuments and GTs in the past five years, I would go as far as to propose 50% of them has used motors.

But it's really clutching at straws.

Seriously?

You seriously believe that up to 50 percent of the winners of every big race in the last 5 years has used a motor? Because they "seem suspicious" and because "the use of motors seems to cluster at the very top of the peloton." This is utter nonsense. There hasn't been ONE PROVEN CASE of motor doping in the pro road peloton. Not to say it's never happened, but you're being rhetorically reckless here.

Let's see what this fabled "expose" with Varjas digs up, but I"m pretty confident there won't be any physical evidence. It will be the usual innuendo and weak connecting the dots. And because it's going to be on CBS, they'll spend 75 percent of the show telling viewers what the Tour de France is and how LA won 7 in a row bla bla bla.

Look, if mechanical doping is even one tenth as widespread as you say it is, it will be definitively found. When that appens, we can let loose the hounds.

 

[Benotti69]

For those who keep thinking that motordoping is mythical. A rider was caught with a motor in a UCI race.

How long did it take the people in charge to take the use of EPO seriously?

The professional sport of cycling has lurched through a lot of scandals recently. It was mostly from outside the sport that the cheating is exposed. Until someone outside the sport takes an interest in professional cyclists using motors in their frames it will in all likely hood not be exposed.

Plenty within in the sport have talked about motors enough to make it an issue that it is in use.

An ipad to find a motor! Your 'aving a larf Uncle Brian!