It's as u say it is. He stops pedalling but his speed miraculously increases.
It's either a downhill stretch or he's got a motor.
It's either a downhill stretch or he's got a motor.
-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Re: Re:
[
Well, if anybody can explain what happens at 0:47 of this clip when Riis has stopped pedaling, is about to put his right foot down when the bike takes off on him and he has to slam the front brake to get a lively rear wheel under control, and if that explanation does not involve an explanation that includes a motor, I am all ears.[/quote]
Wow, what imagination.
... a lively rear wheel ... It's called kinetic energy, just in case ...
[
Well, if anybody can explain what happens at 0:47 of this clip when Riis has stopped pedaling, is about to put his right foot down when the bike takes off on him and he has to slam the front brake to get a lively rear wheel under control, and if that explanation does not involve an explanation that includes a motor, I am all ears.[/quote]
Wow, what imagination.
... a lively rear wheel ... It's called kinetic energy, just in case ...
Re:
Maybe, just maybe, he's pissed off and rams his front brake on a bit hard when he stops?!
sniper said:
Maybe, just maybe, he's pissed off and rams his front brake on a bit hard when he stops?!
Re: Re:
But the relevant question is: do you see his bike gaining speed without him pedalling yes or no.
Sure.simoni said:
But the relevant question is: do you see his bike gaining speed without him pedalling yes or no.
Re: Re:
I see a bike rolling on its own momentum. Are bikes supposed to immediately stop when we start clipping out?
simoni said:
I see a bike rolling on its own momentum. Are bikes supposed to immediately stop when we start clipping out?
I think i see the bike increasing speed slightly before he breaks. Admittedly only slightly. But if it's the case, momentum and kinetic energy cannot explain it (unless it's a downhill stretch).
I can't say I'm sure of it though.
I can't say I'm sure of it though.
A thing to ponder on is : can doping alone explain huge transformations like weve seen from Lance, Froome and Riis, three guys, mind, who most likely were already doing o2vector doping prior to their transformation. And add wiggins to that equation.
Riis is a complete cheater. That we all know. But I didn't see any evidence of a motor in that video.
Re:
Me neither, the video quality is too poor anyway.
What I dont understand is why he does not stay on his spare bike after starting on it. And then, like the commentators, I wonder why he did not take one of his two spare bikes.
During the prologue this bike did not pass the UCI check and he used another bike.
Escarabajo said:
Me neither, the video quality is too poor anyway.
What I dont understand is why he does not stay on his spare bike after starting on it. And then, like the commentators, I wonder why he did not take one of his two spare bikes.
During the prologue this bike did not pass the UCI check and he used another bike.
Different kind of motordoper:
Look at Max who gained some weight in a couple of months:
https://youtu.be/7FFhmGyxOPU?t=3m15s
Look at Max who gained some weight in a couple of months:
https://youtu.be/7FFhmGyxOPU?t=3m15s
Re: Re:
For the record, I think it can, too, but I still have questions.
In the case of Froome and Wiggins it could have been a matter of adding AICAR to their program.
But still I wouldn't expect the subsequent transformation to be that radical, as I assume most of their competitors would have had access to aicar, too.
As motors are/were presumably rarer viz. harder to come by, motors could more readily explain their transformation relative to the competition.
And for Lance and Riis, it's even less obvious to me what kind of drug it was that made them transform.
I am quite confident both were already on EPO, HGH, testo and steroids prior to their transformation.
A motor could explain it.
That said, maybe it was just a matter of upping the dosages.
I think Rasmussen attributed his transformation to going from one to three blood bags. So it could be something like that for Riis and Lance, too.
well then be my guest.hrotha said:
For the record, I think it can, too, but I still have questions.
In the case of Froome and Wiggins it could have been a matter of adding AICAR to their program.
But still I wouldn't expect the subsequent transformation to be that radical, as I assume most of their competitors would have had access to aicar, too.
As motors are/were presumably rarer viz. harder to come by, motors could more readily explain their transformation relative to the competition.
And for Lance and Riis, it's even less obvious to me what kind of drug it was that made them transform.
I am quite confident both were already on EPO, HGH, testo and steroids prior to their transformation.
A motor could explain it.
That said, maybe it was just a matter of upping the dosages.
I think Rasmussen attributed his transformation to going from one to three blood bags. So it could be something like that for Riis and Lance, too.
Lance simply changed his whole body structure after the chemotherapy just as much as he pumped himself up with drugs. That's alwayd forgotten in reference to his transformation.
Regarding Riis: I somehow doubt his rider would've risked their lives with perfluocrbon in order to win, if they'd access to a motor. Especially if RoboBasso got his great time trial from a motor rather than from PFC he simply would've kept that rhythm at least a bit during his comeback!
Plus, you saw what a proper dosage did for Berzin and Ugrumov in 1994! It's not out of the world Riis got even bigger benefits once he stepped up the game for 1996. He also visibly tuned down after the hematocrit value was introduced. One would expect a motor could've absorbed that shock a bit more.
Regarding Riis: I somehow doubt his rider would've risked their lives with perfluocrbon in order to win, if they'd access to a motor. Especially if RoboBasso got his great time trial from a motor rather than from PFC he simply would've kept that rhythm at least a bit during his comeback!
Plus, you saw what a proper dosage did for Berzin and Ugrumov in 1994! It's not out of the world Riis got even bigger benefits once he stepped up the game for 1996. He also visibly tuned down after the hematocrit value was introduced. One would expect a motor could've absorbed that shock a bit more.
I find Riis and Armstrong's transformations to be the easiest, not the hardest, to explain via nothing but doping.
IIRC Riis claimed he only got on EPO in 1993, which is consistent with the massive improvement in his performance and results, and with the fact that EPO wasn't anywhere near universal in the peloton yet at the time. Consider also that he only moved to Ariostea in 1992, and that he was afterwards rumoured to keep an abnormally high hematocrit even by the era's standards. I don't see anything that doesn't fit here. The motor (20 years ago, no less) is an unnecessary, unlikely complication to this picture.
Armstrong was on EPO before his transformation, but he only worked with Ferrari starting in 1996. In light of his progression between that point and what we saw of his 1996 season, I think there was already a big leap forward there even in GT GC terms (or rather, potential). In other words, I see 1998 Vuelta Armstrong as roughly where 1996 Armstrong would have been without his cancer. As there were some important changes in anti-doping between 1996 and 1999 (blood tests, for one, but also the "longitudinal health controls"), I don't have difficulty believing that the power balance was altered between both dates, and that doping would have become a bit trickier and less of a simple brute force thing, thus increasing the benefit of having Ferrari.
IIRC Riis claimed he only got on EPO in 1993, which is consistent with the massive improvement in his performance and results, and with the fact that EPO wasn't anywhere near universal in the peloton yet at the time. Consider also that he only moved to Ariostea in 1992, and that he was afterwards rumoured to keep an abnormally high hematocrit even by the era's standards. I don't see anything that doesn't fit here. The motor (20 years ago, no less) is an unnecessary, unlikely complication to this picture.
Armstrong was on EPO before his transformation, but he only worked with Ferrari starting in 1996. In light of his progression between that point and what we saw of his 1996 season, I think there was already a big leap forward there even in GT GC terms (or rather, potential). In other words, I see 1998 Vuelta Armstrong as roughly where 1996 Armstrong would have been without his cancer. As there were some important changes in anti-doping between 1996 and 1999 (blood tests, for one, but also the "longitudinal health controls"), I don't have difficulty believing that the power balance was altered between both dates, and that doping would have become a bit trickier and less of a simple brute force thing, thus increasing the benefit of having Ferrari.
I would also expect different results from being a renegade doper to let's say be on a program with Doc Ferrari. It was talked by some of his ex-team mates that the transformation took place after he went to his program.
Armstrong's main problem also was recovery and his body frameset. Not his climbing skills. These were kinda decent already in the nineties. Only in the Tour DuPont of course. But there where tiny flashes of what would later emerge into masterclass. Thanks to “The Program“ of course.
Re: Re:
ah yes the other part I forgot. Sky wanted an insane number of cranks and srm didn't want to provide them.
I thought it was weird at the time but you're really reaching right now. Why not use powertap hubs? pedal based PMs? If SRM is the only PM that makes any sense to you, I guess most teams and most amateurs in the world are motorized. Are the teams using SRM (BMC, orica etc) getting left in the dust because they don't have the 100w afterburners?
I don't even know why you think stages is bad besides the fact it's one-sided (as mentioned, not the case for sky). Powertap hubs have the reputation of being the most accurate, even SRM reps admitted as much to me at interbike.
Nicko. said:Yeah, for a team anal with analysis and marginal gains/turn every stone, it makes ZERO sense to drop the Shimano cranks by SRM and swap to the random generator Stages.proffate said:
... unless the purpose of the swap is to fit a ring gear to the crank axle (in line with where the pinion drive slides down).
I mean, SRM wouldn't sell it with a ring gear and they shure would raise an eyebrow if the powermeter came back for service with it on.
Maybe Team Sky needed the sponsor money from Stages?
ah yes the other part I forgot. Sky wanted an insane number of cranks and srm didn't want to provide them.
I thought it was weird at the time but you're really reaching right now. Why not use powertap hubs? pedal based PMs? If SRM is the only PM that makes any sense to you, I guess most teams and most amateurs in the world are motorized. Are the teams using SRM (BMC, orica etc) getting left in the dust because they don't have the 100w afterburners?
I don't even know why you think stages is bad besides the fact it's one-sided (as mentioned, not the case for sky). Powertap hubs have the reputation of being the most accurate, even SRM reps admitted as much to me at interbike.
You can read this two ways:
1 Sky swapping from SRM to Stages is evidence they (and everyone else) put motors in their frames
2 Hypothesising that Sky put motors in their frames, swapping from SRM to Stages makes perfect sense
Which one do you think I'm going for? Seriously.
PS
Powertap hubs would be logistical nightmare for a Pro Tour team with all their wheel sets.
Garmin Vectors weren't even considered by Team Garmin Barracuda because of accuracy issues and time consuming installation procedure
1 Sky swapping from SRM to Stages is evidence they (and everyone else) put motors in their frames
2 Hypothesising that Sky put motors in their frames, swapping from SRM to Stages makes perfect sense
Which one do you think I'm going for? Seriously.
PS
Powertap hubs would be logistical nightmare for a Pro Tour team with all their wheel sets.
Garmin Vectors weren't even considered by Team Garmin Barracuda because of accuracy issues and time consuming installation procedure
Re: Moto-fraud: first rider caught
These guys must be wondering what on earth has happened to Chris Froome :lol: Best line he's ever said at 3:10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEx2T6YDb58
The bike may be a bit small but wow- its like he's reverted to form before the miraculous Vuelta
These guys must be wondering what on earth has happened to Chris Froome :lol: Best line he's ever said at 3:10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEx2T6YDb58
The bike may be a bit small but wow- its like he's reverted to form before the miraculous Vuelta
interesting tweet from someone who worked with Michael Barry for a season on a book.......
Maybe some peeps on twitter might want to DM Mr McMillan and find out how long ago and how he knew/knows....
Maybe some peeps on twitter might want to DM Mr McMillan and find out how long ago and how he knew/knows....
Re:
Did I miss something or does the article in that tweet has more info from the CBS interview?
https://www.inverse.com/article/27094-60-minutes-hidden-bicycle-motor
In the same interview, Varjas also claimed that the UCI, professional cycling’s governing body, is not as clueless to the problem as it may seem. “They manipulate you,” he says. “If you ask me who uses engines, I answer you: go to the UCI. They know.”
Benotti69 said:
Did I miss something or does the article in that tweet has more info from the CBS interview?
https://www.inverse.com/article/27094-60-minutes-hidden-bicycle-motor
In the same interview, Varjas also claimed that the UCI, professional cycling’s governing body, is not as clueless to the problem as it may seem. “They manipulate you,” he says. “If you ask me who uses engines, I answer you: go to the UCI. They know.”
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 978
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2024 (March 18-24)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram