Some in here aren't getting it, so 3 riders have been caught...two of them in amateur events and one a cyclocross event (on a bike in the pits she wasn't even riding)...it's certainly proof that motors in bikes exist but where is the proof that Froome has one or for that matter anyone else in the pro peleton?...until someone in the Pro Tour gets busted all there is is supposition, amateur races aren't regulated like pro events, you can get away with blue murder in Gran Fondos and the like...trying to conflate that with the TdF peleton is a stretch.
When/if a rider on the Pro Tour gets busted I'll believe it, until then it's just a suspicion seriously lacking in evidence and today's outstanding rides are more realistically explained by PED use instead.
People still can't answer why Froome has seemingly been chosen as thev pioneer of this new motorised form of racing?...he is suspicious in that he has very little pedigree before 2011 so why is he leading the charge?...Sky could've deflected attention by having Wiggins ride a motorised bike to several TdF victories, the track and TT pedigree was there, it's less suspicious...or could it be simply that there are no motors in Wiggins and Froomes bikes and Froome has responded better to PEDs and gone on to be the better cyclist?...what about Wiggins failed Giro attempt?...surely with a motor in his bike it'd be his for the taking?...these are all questions that need to be answered before I can take motor doping seriously and nobody in here seems capable of doing it.
When Nibali, Contador and Quintana have won GTs in recent years have they used motors to beat Sky?...if not then how crap must Sky's motors be!...or do Sky turn the motors off at certain events and 'share the wealth' so to speak?...why aren't Sky's classics riders using motors to dominate Paris-Roubaix etc?...or are the riders winning these events like Boonen, Cancellera, Van Avermaet, Degelnkob etc using better motors?
What we're seeing is racing, no doubt PED involvement but racing nonetheless...to seriously consider motors in Sky's bikes mean they're racing against (and losing to) other teams on technologically better bikes with motors, I just don't see how a scandal that big and involving so many people would go undetected...currently nothing from the Pro peleton.
It would be nice if people explained why Froome is the chosen one and why if he has a motor has he lost so many Vueltas to other riders in recent years?...are the riders that beat him on motors too?...if so Sky's massive budget doesn't seem to be getting them much if Hesjedal, Quintana, Contador, Nibali and Dumoulin are all capable of beating Sky at their own own game in the Giro and Cobo, Horner and Aru can do the same at the Vuelta...or are they all on motorised bikes too?...in which case why the uproar about Froome, surely the same outrage should be directed at anyone who wins a GT these days?
Start answering the hard questions about current winners and not just Froome, start asking why Sky get beaten a lot in other races and the whole motors topic starts to become very difficult to believe...they're either all at it (which I find hard to believe as nothing has come out of the Pro Tour so far) or Froome is the chosen one and the rest of the peleton is happy to take a beating each July and to let him waltz into the record books (which I find equally far fetched as surely Nibali, Aru, Quintana et al all want a yellow jersey)...at the moment it's just noise, once the bikes start getting dismantled or xrayed after races we'll be able to tell for sure.