Motor doping thread

[Gratemans]

If the UCI rely on X-Ray machines and heat detectors then yes of course its shockingly easy. But if they physically inspect stage winner's bikes and dismantle bottom brackets I say its impossible to conceal even a 20W motor.

You're right of course, but that's exactly the thing: I've never heard or read anywhere they do actually dismantle bikes to check them. But I really, really hope someone can prove me wrong.

 

[E_F_]

It says in the article, that the iPads led to a lot of false positives, where they dismantled the bikes only to find nothing. So I'm afraid dismantling might be the last resort...

 

[Cookster15]

It says in the article, that the iPads led to a lot of false positives, where they dismantled the bikes only to find nothing. So I'm afraid dismantling might be the last resort...

Dismantling is a deterrent. You don't have to find anything. In fact if you don't find anything it means dismantling is working.

 

[E_F_]

If the UCI rely on X-Ray machines and heat detectors then yes of course its shockingly easy.

This is news to me! What is the issue with using x-ray photography?

 

[Cookster15]

This is news to me! What is the issue with using x-ray photography?

Its not foolproof to detect motors and is no substitute for physical bike checks by trained UCI mechanics.

 

[Cookster15]

Beacause the motors aren't noticable or shilded from x-rays or? Sorry to keep saying "why?" like an annoying child...

Not sure, I am very sceptical that an X-Ray machine will always detect motors. Its very lazy policing by the UCI. The only way to stop any possibility of motor doping is to physically inspect bikes, including disassemble bottom brackets. You would need just two UCI mechanics at races to physically inspect the stage winner's bikes. All teams use Shimano, Campag or SRAM so the investment in tooling to quickly disassemble bottom brackets is minimal - much cheaper than X-ray machines designed to scan a moving peloton. And if they actually do this its a powerful deterrent effect.

Here's another article. Lappartient seems more interested in PR than just taking simple actions - compulsory bike inspections for stage and race winners. If this was actually enforced nobody will dare try motor doping.

'We are not afraid': UCI to pay for 'qualified information' relating to possible motor doping

President David Lappartient also says that he is "not afraid to to catch a top rider" should they be using motored assistance inside their bike

www.cyclingweekly.com

 

[E_F_]

Not sure, I am very sceptical that an X-Ray machine will always detect motors. Its very lazy policing by the UCI. The only way to stop any possibility of motor doping is to physically inspect bikes, including disassemble bottom brackets. You would need just two UCI mechanics at races to physically inspect the stage winner's bikes. All teams use Shimano, Campag or SRAM so the investment in tooling to quickly disassemble bottom brackets is minimal - much cheaper than X-ray machines designed to scan a moving peloton. And if they actually do this its a powerful deterrent effect.

Here's another article. Lappartient seems more interested in PR than just taking simple actions - compulsory bike inspections for stage and race winners. If this was actually enforced nobody will dare try motor doping.

'We are not afraid': UCI to pay for 'qualified information' relating to possible motor doping

President David Lappartient also says that he is "not afraid to to catch a top rider" should they be using motored assistance inside their bike

www.cyclingweekly.com

Thanks for the answer! I deleted the comment because I was reminded of this answer from @peterfin:

By being much more difficult to see and recognize on the x-ray due to its fitting in the aluminium hub with also the metal axle inside and the cassette blocking the frontal view. I don't know if it works but I assume they are more focussed on the frame to look for tube motors and batteries.

 

[zlev11]

“I’m confident it’s not happening any more. I think as soon as we began to speak about it, it stopped. Because at a high level it’s too dangerous for a team and an athlete,” says Jean-Christophe Péraud, an Olympic silver medalist who was UCI’s first Manager of Equipment and the Fight against Technological Fraud.

I've never seen this quote from Peraud before. his use of "any more" is telling, that goes up against some of our forum experts that say there's no way it has ever happened, it's too risky, it's different than doping, etc.

 

[peterfin]

I've never seen this quote from Peraud before. his use of "any more" is telling, that goes up against some of our forum experts that say there's no way it has ever happened, it's too risky, it's different than doping, etc.

So he is basically admits that they were aware of positive cases? The whole motor story gets more interesting the more we research it.

 

[Gratemans]

I've never seen this quote from Peraud before. his use of "any more" is telling, that goes up against some of our forum experts that say there's no way it has ever happened, it's too risky, it's different than doping, etc.

To me, morally, it really is very different than doping.

 

[Nick2413]

Not sure, I am very sceptical that an X-Ray machine will always detect motors. Its very lazy policing by the UCI. The only way to stop any possibility of motor doping is to physically inspect bikes, including disassemble bottom brackets. You would need just two UCI mechanics at races to physically inspect the stage winner's bikes. All teams use Shimano, Campag or SRAM so the investment in tooling to quickly disassemble bottom brackets is minimal - much cheaper than X-ray machines designed to scan a moving peloton. And if they actually do this its a powerful deterrent effect.

Here's another article. Lappartient seems more interested in PR than just taking simple actions - compulsory bike inspections for stage and race winners. If this was actually enforced nobody will dare try motor doping.

'We are not afraid': UCI to pay for 'qualified information' relating to possible motor doping

President David Lappartient also says that he is "not afraid to to catch a top rider" should they be using motored assistance inside their bike

www.cyclingweekly.com

Do it for top 3-5 GC riders in the overall standings every stage as well, regardless of stage win or not. Too easy to just do the big moving on breakaway days otherwise.

 

[Oldermanish]

You're right of course, but that's exactly the thing: I've never heard or read anywhere they do actually dismantle bikes to check them. But I really, really hope someone can prove me wrong.

There wouldn't be any componentry in the seat tube? I would think the solution is a little like F1: all components are listed and weighed after the frame is stripped of wheels. Then a factor for illicit additional weight is sought out that would indicate if something is afoot. If the weight is off , x rays and say; MRI imaging is applied as the next step you'd be able to see off-spec parts. Teams would be required to use off-the shelf bottom brackets, cranks, etc. and have manufacturers submit tested production weight. There is only so many places to hides something and the drive train seems like the mystery zone.

 

[Oldermanish]

Not sure, I am very sceptical that an X-Ray machine will always detect motors. Its very lazy policing by the UCI. The only way to stop any possibility of motor doping is to physically inspect bikes, including disassemble bottom brackets. You would need just two UCI mechanics at races to physically inspect the stage winner's bikes. All teams use Shimano, Campag or SRAM so the investment in tooling to quickly disassemble bottom brackets is minimal - much cheaper than X-ray machines designed to scan a moving peloton. And if they actually do this its a powerful deterrent effect.

Here's another article. Lappartient seems more interested in PR than just taking simple actions - compulsory bike inspections for stage and race winners. If this was actually enforced nobody will dare try motor doping.

'We are not afraid': UCI to pay for 'qualified information' relating to possible motor doping

President David Lappartient also says that he is "not afraid to to catch a top rider" should they be using motored assistance inside their bike

www.cyclingweekly.com

The UCI wants it to go away, for sure. They also know that actual enforcement costs money and requires trained people. It's the people that are always questionable in these situations, too.

 

[Oldermanish]

This is news to me! What is the issue with using x-ray photography?

MRI or a version of it. Batteries and connections would be certainly visible. Think of airport security scanners like the one I had today. They could see every screw holding me together.

 

[cnort]

Is it credible that a rider wouldn't know they had a motor fitted? It seems implausible that you wouldn't notice the performance boost.

I see some of the traffic in the Pogacar thread suggests you could have such a set up. It gets into the realms of the Virenque "willingly but not knowingly" defence. It does mean you could reduce the number of people in a team that know what is going on.

 

[pastronef]

You're right of course, but that's exactly the thing: I've never heard or read anywhere they do actually dismantle bikes to check them. But I really, really hope someone can prove me wrong.

Officials have finally caught a cyclist using a hidden motor in competition

www.businessinsider.com

Kyriyenka bike being inspected. I also had a pic with a Katusha Canyon bike I'll have to find it on my twitter

 

[Rob5091]

Apart from all the missed testing at races, the following quote I thought interesting -
https://cyclingmagazine.ca/sections...nificant-failures-in-regulating-motor-doping/

"...senior UCI officials are said to have voiced skepticism regarding the possible presence of concealed motors within the peloton ..."

 

[peterfin]

Is it credible that a rider wouldn't know they had a motor fitted? It seems implausible that you wouldn't notice the performance boost.

I see some of the traffic in the Pogacar thread suggests you could have such a set up. It gets into the realms of the Virenque "willingly but not knowingly" defence. It does mean you could reduce the number of people in a team that know what is going on.

In theory it seems plausible. It could give the rider a feeling of "having good legs" if the power distribution is such that it doesn't reveal the presence of the motor. If it's done in a non-systematic way (e.g. one or two times) it might work. From the moment the rider can make comparisons (between bikes or between his performance on and off the bike) or inspects his bike upclose he should know.

 

[pastronef]

no, it's impossible a rider does not notice if something suddenly is helping him. "not noticing" is fantasy

 

[peterfin]

no, it's impossible a rider does not notice if something suddenly is helping him. "not noticing" is fantasy

If it' sudden obviously yes, if it's gradual boost maybe not but probably they do notice it. Pro's are so attuned to their bike and body metrics that they will most probably notice it rapidly. If you are going 10% faster on a mountain than usual you must be confused.

 

[AmRacer]

If it' sudden obviously yes, if it's gradual boost maybe not but probably they do notice it. Pro's are so attuned to their bike and body metrics that they will most probably notice it rapidly. If you are going 10% faster on a mountain than usual you must be confused.

Every now and then, riders saying they are surprised how many watts they did on that mountain stage.

 

[cnort]

Every now and then, riders saying they are surprised how many watts they did on that mountain stage.

Is that not in the context of "I surprised myself and yet I shipped 3 minutes to the winner"? Every other rider seems to be doing their best numbers ever. I think the average speeds back that up, of course. Even so, only one can win.

 

[Netserk]

You're right of course, but that's exactly the thing: I've never heard or read anywhere they do actually dismantle bikes to check them. But I really, really hope someone can prove me wrong.

From 2020:

New details emerge of Jumbo-Visma director’s exit from Tour de France

Zeeman evidently became upset — enough so to warrant his expulsion from the race — with the technicians when they began to take apart Roglič’s bike.

velo.outsideonline.com

So what triggered the incident? A few new details have emerged.

Zeeman said that the UCI technicians damaged Roglič’s bike while disassembling the bottom bracket as part of routine post-stage checks of select bikes in its efforts to control “technological fraud.”

UCI officials confirmed that Roglič’s bike was examined during the post-stage examination, but denied the charged that the bike was damaged in the routine, post-stage bike inspection.

Both the UCI and Jumbo-Visma confirmed that no evidence of motorized aid or technological fraud was discovered.

The review process is coordinated and orderly. Bikes are tagged at the finish line, and rolled to the mobile unit by a UCI technician and usually someone from the team. The racer does not need to be there in person if they do not want to be.

The technicians then methodically check the bike utilizing a running checklist of key examination points, which includes an X-ray image of the frame.

Technicians have the right to physically disassemble any part of the bike during these checks.

Under UCI protocol, the technician team doing the inspections can disassemble bikes at their discretion. There is no set protocol or trigger points to prompt closer inspection, but VeloNews understands that disassembling bikes during after-stage controls is not common.

 

[zlev11]

Is it credible that a rider wouldn't know they had a motor fitted? It seems implausible that you wouldn't notice the performance boost.

I see some of the traffic in the Pogacar thread suggests you could have such a set up. It gets into the realms of the Virenque "willingly but not knowingly" defence. It does mean you could reduce the number of people in a team that know what is going on.

there were rumors 10 years ago that a team was using motors without the riders knowing. they could activate them via bluetooth from the team car (so most likely only useful during a TT). the smoke around it at the time pointed to it being Quick Step in the first ITT of the 2014 Giro. the results: https://cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=26044

i think 2014 and 2015 were really big years for motors. people saw what Sky did in 2013 and decided they weren't going to be cheated.

 

[E_F_]

"Disassembling bikes during after-stage controls is not common."

Sorry about the spam. This isn't surprising, but it's still shocking, to be honest. And a very important point. I think the reason is that the teams get very angry, as in the incident described above. I don't imagine they're likely to do it if they have a bike mechanic screaming at them. Especially not after every stage, stage after stage.

I've now officially lost my mind. To the point of a profile picture and signature...

Why didn't the Slovenians want to hand over the bike to the UCI? Because of the bike computer? Because they wanted to remove a motor first? Is such a thing even possible? With a motor in the rear hub it'd be pretty easy to change the wheel - if given the opportunity of course. I legitimately had the idea that the soigneaur might have a "spare" wheel in his massive bag...

Well, this mental state will probably pass soon. Then I'll have to remove my profile picture and signature; like a poorly thought through tattoo.