Motor doping thread

[sniper]

Re:

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!

this.

I mean there's been so much smoke surrounding motordoping from at least 2009 onwards when UCI was receiving warnings from several sources and decided to largely ignore those warnings.

Admittedly the saying "where there is smoke there is fire" doesn't hold true for all domains of human life. But christ on a bike it holds true for procycling.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

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!

Who are "those"? I haven't read the whole thread but everyone seems to acknowledge it's happening. The discussion is around who and how prevalent it is. It's certainly happening. People are also wildly speculating about who and when with scant evidence in many cases. Maybe they're guessing right in those cases. Maybe not.

I'm as sure people are seeing phantom motors as I am that they're being used.

 

[sniper]

I absolutely love this from Greg.
Bang on the money from A-Z:

“I knew you kind of had to catch somebody for people to believe it,” he told CyclingTips, speaking from New Zealand where he is currently staying with his wife, Kathy.

“But come on. It is like doping – you hear it, and you know it is true. Everybody wanted to deny it exists because they didn’t want to face reality and disappointment.

“It is actually still an omerta-type deal, a case of ‘let’s not talk about it, let’s pretend it doesn’t exit.’ Even though, deep down, people know it is true.”

“I only really became truly convinced about the problem in 2013, but that is probably because I wasn’t really tracking things like I should have been. I didn’t really watch cycling again until about 2013, but Kathy [his wife] was convinced of it.

“I watched Eurosport’s version of the [Cancellara] allegations and I was going, okay, there is definitely something there.”

“All the signs are right there for so many things. When you become aware of it, you say ‘I see this happening, I see that happening.’ You go, what the hell, why aren’t these guys figuring it out?” he asks.

“All people have to do is open their eyes and ears and take this seriously. Nobody wants to believe in this stuff. The worst part is that people who are in the know know about it, but don’t do anything about it. That is the worst part.

“The UCI has known about it for many, many years and they still haven’t really done anything to change. Brian Cookson was aware of the motors since 2013 when we talked to him. I contacted him before the Tour de France, basically trying to tell him what to do if he wanted to tackle the problem.

“Okay, now one rider has been caught; for me, that’s a token gesture. There were things that they could have done last year that they never did.

“For example, in the Tour they tested very few bikes. Why was more testing not being done? It wasn’t being taken seriously.”
https://cyclingtips.com/2016/02/motors-in-bikes-greg-lemonds-six-ways-to-eradicate-mechanical-doping/

You see, where some would say "no proof", others would simply look at Cancellara 2010 or Froome 2013 and think trust your eyes.

 

[Tienus]

From the interview with Greg that sniper posted:

2. BAN BIKE CHANGES:

“This is not complicated,” he says. “The fact that we allow bike racers and teams to dictate when they can change bikes is ***. Just the fact of the changing of the bikes is outrageous.

“Look, I raced for 14 years and you only changed the bike in the worst case scenario. Nowadays, people are changing bikes like underwear…that is, if you want to have clean underwear every hour. And there is no reason for that. There is something there. When riders are changing bikes like that, it is something suspicious.

“In racing right now, riders and teams should not be allowed to freely change bikes during a race.”

The last couple of weeks I watched some big races wrt the Sagan topic. In every race I watched there where big names changing their bikes for no apparent reason. Often done around the feedzone and mostly on wide roads where they easily get back between the cars. Big names are often changing their bike three times. Riders who change close to the finish often get good results.

Wathelet said that the bike has been used in numerous youth races but also amongst the professionals. “We speak a lot of 2010, but I have evidence that it was in the peloton for much longer than that.”

From what I've seen I think its likely several teams where using motors well over ten years ago.

 

[sniper]

Youth races? Say it ain't so.

Agreed, the positive correlation between those late bike switches and podiuming is striking.

Interesting tweet here from Denise Bayliss wrt the amateur scene in the uk:
https://twitter.com/DeniseBayliss/status/822479285579554816

 

[noddy69]

Re:

Youth races? Say it ain't so.

Agreed, the positive correlation between those late bike switches and podiuming is striking.

Interesting tweet here from Denise Bayliss wrt the amateur scene in the uk:
https://twitter.com/DeniseBayliss/status/822479285579554816

Were these already posted

https://twitter.com/finnfitzgerald

https://youtu.be/ud2jSvLVfHw

 

[GreasyChain]

150 mile stage. Tyres go soft. Change bike for nice hard tyres and fresh tread. Go faster. Win race.

It's called strategy. Lose time changing bike against having a faster bike.

But it's, "THE CLINIC," must be about drugs or other forms of cheating.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Re: Re:

Were these already posted

https://twitter.com/finnfitzgerald

https://youtu.be/ud2jSvLVfHw

Yes

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

150 mile stage. Tyres go soft. Change bike for nice hard tyres and fresh tread. Go faster. Win race.

It's called strategy. Lose time changing bike against having a faster bike.

But it's, "THE CLINIC," must be about drugs or other forms of cheating.

Which is why they've been doing it since the 1950's. The era of aged tubulars and an obsession about rolling resistance. Errrr..... I mean the 2010's. The era of motors.

John Swanson

 

[noddy69]

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.

That's quite an angry response to something we know is happening without a doubt. Not sure why you wouldn't be open to it happening. People cheat, especially at the top of sport,whether that's amateur or pro . If there is a young girl in cyclo cross cheating with a motor then you can be sure there is amateurs with enough money doing it too.
If you think about it you could attribute someones gain to heavy PED abuse- but it could be a motor. Its not beyond the realms of possibility. Discounting it altogether when you know that motors are in use isn't the way forward- nor is seeing a motor in every performance in the pro peleton. Mostly its the drugs !

 

[sniper]

And I think Froome and Cance are evidence that the two types of cheating are not mutually exclusive.

I think the "only motor, no peds" type is limited to some goofball amateurs afraid to stick the needle in but not afraid to cheat.
A pro with real ambition is more likely to engage in both.

 

[Tom the Engine]

Re: Re:

2009 is also when Boardman warned UCI about motors.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/boardman-warned-the-uci-of-risks-of-bike-doping/

I'm not actually convinced at all that Boardman had any expert or insider knowledge at that time that warranted to take him seriously.

The man talks about motors with the power of a kilowatt. Kilowatt! And this is also a quote from him in this article:
"It would be very little trouble adapting a power source to give you maybe a couple of hundred watts for 20 minutes or so (..)"
Several hundred watts for 20 minutes.. I guess you wouldn't even need a thermal camera to see the bike glowing.. :lol:
Back to being sincere, I don't know about his background but from this article I doubt that he even was familiar with a working prototype. This sounds much more like a very generic and hypothetical thought experiment on how it could work. And as I stated elsewhere, 40 years (at that time) after people flew to the moon nobody should be surprised that technology could make it possible to add some extra watts to a bike. To make an actually meaningful contribution to this topic you'd have to be more specific, a lot more specific.

And a meaningful contribution is not limited to technical expertise. You could also have some insider knowledge on what's really going on. Boardman as an ex-pro certainly qualifies as someone who could be familiar with the internal workings of the peloton to some degree. But this is what said:
"My experience within the sport tells me that to cheat blatantly in such a way would be such a massive step for those concerned - and it would involve so many members of the backup team and staff - that although it is possible it probably hasn't taken place yet for real. Just because you 'can' doesn't mean to say you 'do'."
And:
"Any rider, squad and sponsors involved with a team caught in this way would be dead in the water as far as cycling is concerned. There would be absolutely zero sympathy and no way back into the sport whatsoever."

I'm afraid this could just be another one of these cases where somebody is given a stage to talk about something (both at UCI and in the media) only because he is a "celebrity", not because he has anything meaningful to say. Happens far too often (but I can kinda understand why it works like this).

 

[Eyeballs Out]

ITV did a piece on mechanical doping last year - maybe it was during Vuelta. It was a nice summary:- a bike with a concealed motor in action, the Femke episode, the Italian documentary, UCI "testing" and probably more things I've forgotten. At the end of the piece Boardman summed by saying how there was no chance that anybody had used or was using a motor in the pro peloton. His conclusion seemed completely at odds with what we had just seen in the past few minutes

 

[sniper]

^Lol, nice one.

Boardman is a clown and a major cheat. No doubt. And probably knows about SKy and BC using motors.

By all means fair objections Tom. He didn't really seem to know what he was talking about.
To be Sure, the only reason his 2009 'warning' seemed relevant to me is because it adds a bit more smoke to the rumor and can be taken as a further indication that Cance 2010 was not a terminus post quem for motors in the peloton.

But the 2009 piece Tienus posted has much more weight in that respect.

 

[Tom the Engine]

I absolutely love this from Greg.
Bang on the money from A-Z:

“I knew you kind of had to catch somebody for people to believe it,” he told CyclingTips, speaking from New Zealand where he is currently staying with his wife, Kathy.

“But come on. It is like doping – you hear it, and you know it is true. Everybody wanted to deny it exists because they didn’t want to face reality and disappointment.

“It is actually still an omerta-type deal, a case of ‘let’s not talk about it, let’s pretend it doesn’t exit.’ Even though, deep down, people know it is true.”

“I only really became truly convinced about the problem in 2013, but that is probably because I wasn’t really tracking things like I should have been. I didn’t really watch cycling again until about 2013, but Kathy [his wife] was convinced of it.

“I watched Eurosport’s version of the [Cancellara] allegations and I was going, okay, there is definitely something there.”

“All the signs are right there for so many things. When you become aware of it, you say ‘I see this happening, I see that happening.’ You go, what the hell, why aren’t these guys figuring it out?” he asks.

“All people have to do is open their eyes and ears and take this seriously. Nobody wants to believe in this stuff. The worst part is that people who are in the know know about it, but don’t do anything about it. That is the worst part.

“The UCI has known about it for many, many years and they still haven’t really done anything to change. Brian Cookson was aware of the motors since 2013 when we talked to him. I contacted him before the Tour de France, basically trying to tell him what to do if he wanted to tackle the problem.

“Okay, now one rider has been caught; for me, that’s a token gesture. There were things that they could have done last year that they never did.

“For example, in the Tour they tested very few bikes. Why was more testing not being done? It wasn’t being taken seriously.”
https://cyclingtips.com/2016/02/motors-in-bikes-greg-lemonds-six-ways-to-eradicate-mechanical-doping/

You see, where some would say "no proof", others would simply look at Cancellara 2010 or Froome 2013 and think trust your eyes.

I'm probably not familiar with every single thing LeMond has ever said about this topic. But is there anything he said that some random Clinic guy like you or me could not have come up with?

So his wife Kathy convinced him of the motors in 2013, he watched the Eurosport piece about Cancellara and started to do his own research on the subject. And then?
His statements are all very generic. Literally all of us could have written them. You don't need to have experienced omertà first-hand to know it's there. Same holds for corruption or conflict of interests in a federation like UCI.

I greatly respect his role and his stubbornness in the Lance saga. And I'm very much inclined to believe that Greg knows a lot more about motors in the pro peloton than we all do (through his connections into the cycling world). But at some point I expect more than the stuff I've read so far (still hoping for the upcoming documentary to present something tangible..).
No weight or value is added to a generic argument just because it's a person with celebrity or authority status who said it. Unless this person is able to back it up with something substantial. (And no, how he rightly called out Lance in the past does not add subtance to an argument about motors. It "only" adds considerably to his authority status I mentioned.)

Look for example at this quote from the cyclingtips article that was linked:
" “Now the pressure needs to be on the wheels,” said LeMond, who said he had real reasons for believing that this method of cheating had been used in professional competition.
He declined to elaborate further at this point in time, but is convinced of the issue. "
He said he had reasons to believe, and is convinced. But he denies to say more. Why?
Is it his gut feeling and he doesn't have anything? Or does he have definite proof but he doesn't want to say anything (yet) so that cheaters are not warned and can be caught at some point? Or something in-between?
I'm not sure what to make of that. But I really have a hard time to just take someone's word for it.

 

[sniper]

what's your point exactly?

its not about taking anybody's word for anything.

it's about applying common sense to the issue of motors, here displayed very nicely by Lemond.

 

[Tom the Engine]

it's about applying common sense to the issue of motors, here displayed very nicely by Lemond.

I absolutely dislike "common sense". Have you ever met someome who claimed to not have "common sense"? I haven't. Common sense is intrinsically intertwined with someones believes. Everybody thinks that his or her standpoint is common sense. By definition. No matter how popular or absurd this position is. Nobody who has a convincing argument for his case ever referred to common sense. It's always a last resort.

what's your point exactly?

Simple: Has Greg ever demonstrated that he actually knows more about motors in the pro-peloton than we do? (That's not a rhetorical question.)

If he doesn't have more insight then we should probably not pay that much attention to what he says. Or have you ever had a respectable journalist write an article about "snipers view on technological fraud"? Probably not.
If he does then why hasn't he provided us with more tangible evidence so far and denies further comments when asked about specifics? I mean he never had any reservations about calling out Lance back then..

 

[Tienus]

Look for example at this quote from the cyclingtips article that was linked:
" “Now the pressure needs to be on the wheels,” said LeMond, who said he had real reasons for believing that this method of cheating had been used in professional competition.
He declined to elaborate further at this point in time, but is convinced of the issue. "
He said he had reasons to believe, and is convinced. But he denies to say more. Why?
Is it his gut feeling and he doesn't have anything? Or does he have definite proof but he doesn't want to say anything (yet) so that cheaters are not warned and can be caught at some point? Or something in-between?
I'm not sure what to make of that. But I really have a hard time to just take someone's word for it.

I cant speak for Lemond but I'm drawing similar conclusions by looking at race footage. I also notice that just changing a rear wheel is becomming more popular in recent years. I think anyone in or around the pro peloton sees whats going on. Lemond specifically mentions the bike changing, Chipolini and Durant have also raised suspicion about this.
Most teams, if not all, are doing it.

Examples of what I think is suspiscious are:
-Changing a bike with no apparent defect.
-Changing a rear wheel with no apparent flat and at convenient timing for example when someone with a spare is ready at the side of the road.
-Changing a bike after a bike has been changed due to a defect. Why was there no good bike available in the first place?

Lets take RVV 2015 as an example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvY4PPWmXhI
A lot of rider can be seen returning to the peloton or stopping for whatever reason. I will only post examples where its clearly a change.

1:09:15 Wiggins crashes and gets a spare bike. At 1:28:30 he changes back to his original or a similar model bike.
1:38:35 a Trek rider wants to change (Devolder?). 1:39:53 he changes bike and so does Paolini.
1:48:20 Chavanel seems to have a real rear puncture. Note that the teamcar is not ready at the front. At 2:43:02 he changes again, this time the car is ready. The team members pull both his bikes quickly from the scene even though the car is probably not going anywhere with the damage.
1:51:25 Astana rider calling the car and stopping.
2:10:40 Vanmarcke is being brought back as the team car is just joining the back of the cars. 2:13:10 you can see its Vanmarcke. He was also brought back at 0:53:22 and there was no mention of flats in the Lotto Jumbo race report.
2:21:57 Paolini at 2:26:50 he returns in the peloton
2:37:20 Degenkolb
2:39:10 Pozzato at the back on the radio the camera checks his bike. At 2:39:54 he puts his waterbottle in his backpocket so I assume he wants to change bikes. At 2:45:25 he returns in the peloton on a bike that seems to have no number. While this was happening a team mate had a flat at 2:41:30, the mechanic does not help him put the wheel in as they are rushing to aid Pozzato.
2:58:32 Two riders get a rear wheel changed by someone at the side of the road.

I realise there could well be legit changes amongst them. The thing is that this is happening at every race and allready for a long time. Cancellara's 2010 RVV raised a lot of suspiuscion but I think the five editions before have also been won by a rider using a motor. For example Boonen himself changed a bike with no apparent defect with 30km to go in the 2009 PR.

 

[VO2 Max]

Re:

Examples of what I think is suspiscious are:
-Changing a bike with no apparent defect.
-Changing a rear wheel with no apparent flat and at convenient timing for example when someone with a spare is ready at the side of the road.
-Changing a bike after a bike has been changed due to a defect. Why was there no good bike available in the first place?

Totally. Well, the last one is easy enough - at a crisis moment you take any bike you can get, then when things chill out later you get on your preferred bike for the finale. But then I think of some of Contador's random changes which got explained as wanting different gearing for different sections of the course, it doesn't make much logical sense. But pro cyclists do get into weird habits, and once they get the idea they work for them then they stick with them; if you come to believe that a tiny change in set up will make a big difference to the handling over a cobbled section or whatev's then that can suddenly be important enough to you. I tend to think that the opportunities for moto-doping grew out of the weird things that riders were already doing, perhaps already worked out to get around the bike weight limit checks, who knows. Like once you've worked out the logistics of sneaking bikes in and out of the bunch then you start to think about what else you could use that trick for.

Then part of me likes the idea of everyone having a small booster to use at the moment of their choice - imagine if going up Geraardsbergen in 2010 Boonen had enough motor power in the bank to go after Cancellara, but he makes the tactical decision that he'll probably get him back anyway normally so will save his boost for the sprint instead.

 

[TeflonDub]

Betsy getting about as close to outright saying that Lance had a motor in her plug for 60 Minutes this Sunday talking about the 'something extra' Tyler described Lance having beyond doping. Getting into it with Bruyneel too.

"in regards to what Tyler said, we were trying to figure out what it was. One thing that came to mind was turtle's extract. just couldn't figure it out. Now it makes sense. No idea back then since the idea didn't even exist at least to us."

Bruyneel got interested when Betsy pointed out to somebody who suggested Lance's disgruntled mechanic (Mike Anderson) would have said something about this that Anderson never worked the Tour. JB presses her to reveal who was Lance's mechanic. Some testy exchanges with Betsy taunting JB for not being able to come to the US for fear of arrest, which JB denies. JB basically calling BS on her insinuation that there might be something to Lance's mechanic choice at the tour, and taunting her that he still has a good relationship with the mechanics that she doesn't.

JB claims he never heard of motors in bikes until 2010 RVV and P-R. That he has never met Varjas. That he had never seen motors in real life, just on video clips.
https://www.facebook.com/betsy.andreu/posts/10211432883475267

 

[Night Rider]

Re:

Betsy getting about as close to outright saying that Lance had a motor in her plug for 60 Minutes this Sunday talking about the 'something extra' Tyler described Kancing having beyond doping. Getting into it with Bruyneel too.

"in regards to what Tyler said, we were trying to figure out what it was. One thing that came to mind was turtle's extract. just couldn't figure it out. Now it makes sense. No idea back then since the idea didn't even exist at least to us."

Does anyone have a link to those comments of Tyler's? I'm pretty sure in his book he was suspected by Lance of "having something extra" on the 2001 tour? Is Betsy re-writing history again or are there actually two statements that are the reverse of each other?

 

[sniper]

Re:

Betsy getting about as close to outright saying that Lance had a motor in her plug for 60 Minutes this Sunday talking about the 'something extra' Tyler described Kancing having beyond doping. Getting into it with Bruyneel too.

"in regards to what Tyler said, we were trying to figure out what it was. One thing that came to mind was turtle's extract. just couldn't figure it out. Now it makes sense. No idea back then since the idea didn't even exist at least to us."

Bruyneel got interested when Betsy pointed out to somebody who suggested Lance's disgruntled mechanic (Mike Anderson) would have said something about this that Anderson never worked the Tour. JB presses her to reveal who was Lance's mechanic. Some testy exchanges with Betsy taunting JB for not being able to come to the US for fear of arrest, which JB denies. JB basically calling BS on her insinuation that there might be something to Lance's mechanic choice at the tour, and taunting her that he still has a good relationship with the mechanics that she doesn't.

JB claims he never heard of motors in bikes until 2010 RVV and P-R. That he has never met Varjas. That he had never seen motors in real life, just on video clips.
https://www.facebook.com/betsy.andreu/posts/10211432883475267

Was entertaining, especially the part about the mechanic.

Worst case scenario for tomorrow is that it's gonna be only about Lance. Which means all current offenders (and like Tienus I'm quite confident their number is absolutely rampant) will be warned but nobody gets caught (except Lance).

But I'm an optimist. "Festina", Varjas said. Well come on and gimme some.

 

[Cloxxki]

I always read the "something extra" thing as "artifical plasma" or something. Wheren't there serious allegation Lance has put his hands on some stuff from a medical trial? HemAssist I think it was.
Motor, could be. Perhaps something custom built, extra small, even if it's just 20W for a limited amount of time, at that level it matters. With some money, it can be done, even in 1999. Had to win it for cancer.

 

[Ferminal]

To be honest if it's just Varjas saying he had a working model and a bunch of ex-teammates who never used a motor but "suspect" something, the whole thing sounds rather pointless (at least in terms of getting information on what is used today and how widespread it may be).

 

[TeflonDub]

Re:

[*]

To be honest if it's just Varjas saying he had a working model and a bunch of ex-teammates who never used a motor but "suspect" something, the whole thing sounds rather pointless (at least in terms of getting information on what is used today and how widespread it may be).

Agreed, doubt we will see much of anything new. '60 Minutes' is not really renowned for breaking exclusives, more for bringing stories to the masses. Along with other US TV magazine shows, their sit-down interviews tend to be extremely narrow to make sure the main point is driven home and understood by everybody with a 5th grade education. I imagine it will be along the lines of:

Varjas: An anonymous buyer offered me $2mln for a 10-year exclusive contract.

Whittaker: Wait, you're saying you were offered $2mln for a 10-year exclusive contract?

Varjas: Yes, I was offered $2mln for a 10-year exclusive contract.

It's not exactly hard hitting, expansive stuff usually.