Primož Roglič

[Praying Mantis]

Just a thought here - is it possible that the temperature of the rear hub might be influenced by the amount of recent freewheeling? This might differ for riders going the same speed, some might have been pulling on the front, while others might have been recently drafting and freewheeling. Would the friction and the resulting heat in the hubs perhaps differ?

 

[sniper]

Re:

Just a thought here - is it possible that the temperature of the rear hub might be influenced by the amount of recent freewheeling? This might differ for riders going the same speed, some might have been pulling on the front, while others might have been recently drafting and freewheeling. Would the friction and the resulting heat in the hubs perhaps differ?

It might affect it slightly (that's also what the specialist says in the Stade 2 docu).
But 'slight differences' is not what the vid shows.
It shows several bikes passing by without any remarkable heat radiation.
Then Primoz suddenly with a glowing hub.

 

[Lequack]

If it was a neutral wheel and recently changed could that have been the cause? Like that it was sitting on a motorbike and warmed up or something like that and that's why it's still warm at the center.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Just a thought here - is it possible that the temperature of the rear hub might be influenced by the amount of recent freewheeling? This might differ for riders going the same speed, some might have been pulling on the front, while others might have been recently drafting and freewheeling. Would the friction and the resulting heat in the hubs perhaps differ?

I would have thought that freewheeling would not have much friction.

His hub was glowing on a cold wet March day in the Tuscan hills. Something internally caused the glow and not friction.

 

[StryderHells]

Re:

the temperature color of roglic' hub is rather similar to the temperature color of the motorized tube pictured here: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mechanical-doping-used-in-strade-bianche-and-coppi-e-bartali-claims-investigation/

not damning for roglic? lol, i guess.
Here it is again:
http://cycling-today.com/mechanical-doping-suspicions-raised-over-roglics-bike-switch-in-giro/
(3 min. vid at bottom of page)
So a guy with no big results in ITTs
- conveniently flunks the pre-race bikecheck due to mechanical issues which remain wholly unexplained;
- alleges to have had some unexplained and unproven wheel change mid-race;
- despite all these technical/mechanical issues goes on to easily beat Cancellara in a Giro ITT
Add it to the thermal images which are at least dodgy, and the additional Leezer story, and it's damning alright.

His TT win was a surprise but less so after his performance in the prolouge, he did get a good run with the weather compared to some of the others who should of been competing for the win, also beating Cancellara at the Giro isn't so shocking as he just wasn't performing at that race.
If and it is a if he did get a neutrel service rear wheel at Strade then it might be something like a misaligned rear derailleur that could be causing friction and thus the glow.
I don't know if Roglic was using a motor or not and it really wouldn't be a shock if he was but I'm just trying to work out if there could be other reasons for what's going on here.

 

[arthurvandelay]

Benotti: I like your thoughts on spare wheel, hub not warmed up, etc. I keep thinking that some kind reader would have access to one of these hub drive motors that were being shopped to pro teams. It would be a fun collaborative project to try to recreate these images, swap out for a non-motor wheel, etc. There must be some good science and engineering expertise amongst our little community to pull this off.

 

[Tienus]

His TT win was a surprise but less so after his performance in the prolouge

His performance in the prologue was a huge surprise. If you read the statements and interviews from his team it is very clear that he was in the giro to help Kruiswijk in the mountains. He was allways considered a climber. The exception was during the Volta Ciclista a Catalunya and the tirreno he was there for the GC according to his team. He did ok in the mountains but lost alot of time in a 18km time trial in the Algarve and in a 10km in the Tirreno. It makes me wonder how he managed to ride the prologue with an avarage of over 53,2 kmh with his 65kg.

His team also uses his result in the prologue to justify his win.
http://cyclingtips.com/2016/06/lottonl-jumbo-team-demands-apology-over-hidden-motor-claims-against-roglic/

“In the prologue of the Tour of Italy Primoz Roglic already showed that his time trial is a strong weapon,” he stated. “ Roglic’s bike for the prologue was tested for mechanical doping and measured according to UCI rules regarding the size/length of a trial bike. The bike was approved.”

I allready posted this video of the testing at the prologue. How do we know Roglic started on the bike that got tested?
https://www.facebook.com/ProcyclingNL/videos/812142142250861/

Other riders have complained in the past about inconsistent interpretation of rules concerned bike setup dimensions, and Plugge identifies this as an issue.

“Other riders in time trials have the problem that the time trial bike is rejected on the dimensions,” he said. “The AIGCP is in talks with the UCI as this measurement method needs to be as accurate as possible.”

Wel before the start of an ITT organised by RCS there are mechanics of different teams invited to check te testing jig. I fail to see how this simple jig can get it wrong.

 

[johnymax]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BHUlDAvgfNh/

 

[StryderHells]

Re:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BHUlDAvgfNh/

That's pretty funny :lol:

 

[sniper]

humor is still the best way to deflect from such ridiculous accusations.
show the fans you don't take it seriously, ergo your not guilty.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re:

humor is still the best way to deflect from such ridiculous accusations.
show the fans you don't take it seriously, ergo your not guilty.

How would you react if you was accused of something, which I think he thinks is totally ridiculous IF he didn't use motor? I would damn sure be angry for people questioned me using motors, obviously every performance is questioned due to doping and rightly so, but this is something else IMO.

 

[sniper]

IF he didnt use a motor, he should take it up with the UCI, who've done literally nothing to protect procycling from the intrusion of motors and have thus given legitimacy to the rumors and speculations.
The fact that Primoz hasn't uttered a single complaint towards UCI and their (lacking) anti-motor policy, imo, speaks volumes.

 

[WillemS]

Re:

IF he didnt use a motor, he should take it up with the UCI, who've done literally nothing to protect procycling from the intrusion of motors and have thus given legitimacy to the rumors and speculations.
The fact that Primoz hasn't uttered a single complaint towards UCI and their (lacking) anti-motor policy, imo, speaks volumes.

What would your reaction be if he did call for "more tests"? Cyclists usually get roasted for that as well.

I don't think any response by Roglic would be acceptable in your book, as you've already convicted him.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

IF he didnt use a motor, he should take it up with the UCI, who've done literally nothing to protect procycling from the intrusion of motors and have thus given legitimacy to the rumors and speculations.
The fact that Primoz hasn't uttered a single complaint towards UCI and their (lacking) anti-motor policy, imo, speaks volumes.

What would your reaction be if he did call for "more tests"? Cyclists usually get roasted for that as well.

I don't think any response by Roglic would be acceptable in your book, as you've already convicted him.

everybody with a quarter of a brain knows that "more tests" is not the solution to the problems.
so just stating "more tests" is gratuite, especially wrt doping, where quantity of testing means *** all.
But with motors, sure, quantity of testing matters more, and so it would have been a good start for roglic to something along those lines.
But yes, if roglic doensnt want to get grilled and roasted by the Clinic(*) he should say a bit more than just "more tests",

(*) in a parallel universe where roglic cares about what the clinic says about him

that said: the uci, not roglic, is at fault for not implementing a serious testing protocol, which means all suspicions are warranted. that's an objective state of affairs.
anybody who's not suspicious of roglic either (a) doesn't care; (b) doesn't know the history of the sport; (c) has other reasons to be extremely gullible or (d) a combination of the previous.
that's not saying he's guilty.
that's saying there's reasons to be suspicious.

 

[WillemS]

Well, I think you know what I mean, that it would be very hard for him to come up with any statement that'll satisfy you, given you're already convinced he's guilty. I think that anything statement he could have made would not have been good enough for you and a big target for criticism.

"He's dirty, so everything he says is what a dirty cheater would say".

Now, it may be important to add that I'm trying to defend his performance in the Giro, I'm only speaking about your criticism on the video.

 

[sniper]

sorry, Willem, my response sounded a bit harsh, but that wasn't directed at you but at those cyclists/athletes whove actually used the "more testing" line without any kind of further reflection (thinking Froome).

For the record, you're wrong that there is nothing he could say that would convince me.
He could say several things, such as: "As long as there is no independent body for PED and motortesting I fully understand the fans' scepticism". Or: "I dont blame the fans for being sceptic; I blame the UCI for being corrupt".
etc.
And I'd already be positively surprised if he'd say "we need more and better motor testing because it's a serious problem".

But unsurprisingly he's said nothing of the sort.

 

[WillemS]

Oh, I didn't think your response was too harsh or anything and even if it were, I wouldn't really mind it.

If I remember correctly, then there were a couple of threads in the past that dealt with the statement problem: What would a truly clean cyclist say? Would it be any different than what a dirty one would say? What should they say? What should they do? Do they have the responsibility to address the issues publically, with the risk of becoming pariahs, or would it be okay for them to keep their mouths shut?

I don't think I've seen a consensus on this board on what cyclists could or should say, but I do have the experience that most, if not almost all, statements on doping made by cyclists were met with scepticism, almost regardless of the actual content of the statement. Now, the statements that make it to this board or even to press are mostly limited to statements by leaders, the most suspect class of cyclists out there, so it may be more a case of who is doing the saying rather than what is being said.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Oh, I didn't think your response was too harsh or anything and even if it were, I wouldn't really mind it.

If I remember correctly, then there were a couple of threads in the past that dealt with the statement problem: What would a truly clean cyclist say? Would it be any different than what a dirty one would say? What should they say? What should they do? Do they have the responsibility to address the issues publically, with the risk of becoming pariahs, or would it be okay for them to keep their mouths shut?

I don't think I've seen a consensus on this board on what cyclists could or should say, but I do have the experience that most, if not almost all, statements on doping made by cyclists were met with scepticism, almost regardless of the actual content of the statement. Now, the statements that make it to this board or even to press are mostly limited to statements by leaders, the most suspect class of cyclists out there, so it may be more a case of who is doing the saying rather than what is being said.

cheers, good points.
it's definitely a multifaceted dilemma and I recognize it.

But in all honesty, I couldn't think of any currently active pro-rider right now who said or did anything remotely plausible wrt antidoping. Have you? I'd be curious to hear examples.

Kittel did the liedetector test, which is something I'm intrigued by, and undecided about how to interpret it (as I don't know if he would have had an opportunity to fool the test, or not).
But if you ask me "Well what more could he do?", I'd say alot. To start, he c/should provide more data of his antidope tests (when was he tested, what for, show the results, etc.) as well as physiological parameters (vo2max tests, etc, basically provide as much as possible).
If he's really clean, why isn't he going all the way to prove it? Sure, don't spit in the soup, I get that. But if he's clean, it means he's getting robbed of victories and fame, and so I'd expect him to be pretty pissed off about it, and to be pretty keen on proving he's clean. But I don't see that with him.

So just saying, there would be ways to convince sceptics like me. But nobody in the propeloton is even trying.
Mostly I just praise riders for not being major hypocrits.
I've heard people estimate 99% of the current peloton is doped.
From what I'm seeing and hearing, it sounds like a fair estimate.

 

[BullsFan22]

Re: Re:

Oh, I didn't think your response was too harsh or anything and even if it were, I wouldn't really mind it.

If I remember correctly, then there were a couple of threads in the past that dealt with the statement problem: What would a truly clean cyclist say? Would it be any different than what a dirty one would say? What should they say? What should they do? Do they have the responsibility to address the issues publically, with the risk of becoming pariahs, or would it be okay for them to keep their mouths shut?

I don't think I've seen a consensus on this board on what cyclists could or should say, but I do have the experience that most, if not almost all, statements on doping made by cyclists were met with scepticism, almost regardless of the actual content of the statement. Now, the statements that make it to this board or even to press are mostly limited to statements by leaders, the most suspect class of cyclists out there, so it may be more a case of who is doing the saying rather than what is being said.

cheers, good points.
it's definitely a multifaceted dilemma and I recognize it.

But in all honesty, I couldn't think of any currently active pro-rider right now who said or did anything remotely plausible wrt antidoping. Have you? I'd be curious to hear examples.

Kittel did the liedetector test, which is something I'm intrigued by, and undecided about how to interpret it (as I don't know if he would have had an opportunity to fool the test, or not).
But if you ask me "Well what more could he do?", I'd say alot. To start, he c/should provide more data of his antidope tests (when was he tested, what for, show the results, etc.) as well as physiological parameters (vo2max tests, etc, basically provide as much as possible).
If he's really clean, why isn't he going all the way to prove it? Sure, don't spit in the soup, I get that. But if he's clean, it means he's getting robbed of victories and fame, and so I'd expect him to be pretty pissed off about it, and to be pretty keen on proving he's clean. But I don't see that with him.

So just saying, there would be ways to convince sceptics like me. But nobody in the propeloton is even trying.
Mostly I just praise riders for not being major hypocrits.
I've heard people estimate 99% of the current peloton is doped.
From what I'm seeing and hearing, it sounds like a fair estimate.

That seems a little high, in my honest opinion. That would be high for the 80's, 90's, and early 2000's, I would venture to say!!

 

[sniper]

mind, i mean among the world tour teams.
places on world tour teams are scarce and in high demand.
i don't know why you would expect to find any clean guys there.
you bump into doping as a junior or as a u23 rider, and then you're either in or out. Red pill or blue pill.
I assume the ones who decide to go all in will be the ones who make it to the world tour.
The clean ones will be filtered out.

I realize this assumption only holds if doping offers major performance advantages.
And indeed I think it does.

 

[kielbasa]

3 Slovenians in top 8 at Junior Worlds. Great talent pool in Slovenia (population 2 million)?

 

[sniper]

Doesn't team sky have a couple of Slovenian soigneurs, sorry, carers in their ranks?
One wonders why.

 

[Kwibus]

Re:

Doesn't team sky have a couple of Slovenian soigneurs, sorry, carers in their ranks?
One wonders why.

Nothing is true. Everything is a lie. Believe me!

 

[pastronef]

Re:

Doesn't team sky have a couple of Slovenian soigneurs, sorry, carers in their ranks?
One wonders why.

Sniper you know what. sometimes I even hope, like many on here, for Sky to fold. so that many of you can finally be at peace and take Sky off your minds

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

props for that tienus, great finds.
Make that awesome finds.

and again, there's the photographic evidence.
primoz' wheel was glowing.
other wheels apparently weren't.

Other wheels are glowing throughout that video. For example: https://youtu.be/15kIyBhsX8o?t=9m00s

There are MANY other riders' wheels glowing in that video, in several segments. Front and back. t's friction from the road and the brakes. Either that or most of the riders are using hub-based motor doping.