Schleck - Technology Doping? / UCI investifgation into TT outfit [merged]

[ksmith]

JV has shot himself in the foot again. His ideas for more technology and opportunities for the smartest teams will lead to this type of Formula 1-style scandal. Teams will get around rules by exploiting loopholes. They will lodge post-race complaints against each other. Weeks after a race the UCI will rule whether the equipment was legal or not. Maybe JV's cycling can take another page out of the F1 book and use rule decisions to manipulate a season long series so that one team does not get too far ahead of the others.

All hail JV, savior of cycling and cowdard.

Maybe the punishment if proven guilty should be as severe as cheating in F1, scaled down of course.

(This statement does not include Ferrari, FIA's chosen one)

 

[veganrob]

Ban Andy for a year

The best way to punish a cyclist is to punish the ones close to him!

Love it. Ban little Andy.

But really, who would want anything on their chest for a TT. Water is certainly not needed either. I don't drink at all during a 40K. He had to have it filled with air for aero purposes only. Clearly he was cheating.

Maybe whack Andy's peepee too.

 

[avanti]

............. Water is certainly not needed either. I don't drink at all during a 40K. ..............................

Well I certainly do and carry a 1/2 size bottle (unless it is raining). But your comment made me go look at my photos of the 2008 ToC TT in Solvang. It was a 15-mile TT and over half the riders I took pictures of had (around 30) a full size bottle on either their down tube or seat tube.

 

[mad black]

Despite all the people moaning about the UCI "holding back technology," this is the reason we have restrictions on bikes and equipment. If we got rid of them then bikes would have fairings. Skinsuits for time trials would have padding to alter the body's aerodynamics, like five inches of padding on the trailing edge of a rider's upper arms. I think the stupid looking helmets with the huge built-in visors already go too far.

Yeah, right! And if it was for you they'd still be riding steel bikes with 6 gears and down tube shifters! C'mon, let's just go with the times. If you can gain advantages through technology you bloody well should. And yes, the UCI is holding back technology!

More to the point I wouldn't think that the Camelbak was filled with water at all. The way it looks on the photos it's definitely blown-up. And I say good on them. It's definitely not cheating, it's inventive. If it's not explicitly against the rules it's legal and there's nothing they can retrospectively do about it. What is going to happen is that UCI art. No. 1.03.034 Will read "It is illegal to use any kind of stuffing, camelbak or otherwise underneath the skinsuit to enhance aerodynamics because it does not resemble the great Eddy in any shape or form."

 

[Kodiak]

I'm going to file a trademark for CamelChest!

get one for camel toe as well, you could make killing on it...

 

[Christian]

Water is certainly not needed either. I don't drink at all during a 40K.

Of course you don't need a camelbak, it appears you are a camel

 

[BroDeal]

Yeah, right! And if it was for you they'd still be riding steel bikes with 6 gears and down tube shifters! C'mon, let's just go with the times. If you can gain advantages through technology you bloody well should. And yes, the UCI is holding back technology!

And if it was up to you then races would be done with fully faired recumbents. Cycling commentators would spend their time talking about Team X's new rear diffuser that disrupts the air stream and reduces the draft unless the movable wing is adjusted when a teammate is drafting. Teams would be photographing the other teams' bikes and sending the photos back to HQ so the poindexters there can copy the aero surfaces and test them in their wind tunnel. Fans would regularly argue that cyclist X would have won if he had the same bike as cyclist Y. C'mon, let's just go with the times. If you can destroy the sport with needless technology that alters the outcome of races then you bloody well should. Why should races depend on the racers themselves? The winner should be the team with the largest R&D budget. If you are on team with a small budget then screw you.

More to the point I wouldn't think that the Camelbak was filled with water at all. The way it looks on the photos it's definitely blown-up. And I say good on them. It's definitely not cheating, it's inventive. If it's not explicitly against the rules it's legal and there's nothing they can retrospectively do about it. What is going to happen is that UCI art. No. 1.03.034 Will read "It is illegal to use any kind of stuffing, camelbak or otherwise underneath the skinsuit to enhance aerodynamics because it does not resemble the great Eddy in any shape or form."

Sorry. You fail. Things added to the bike and rider just for aero purposes are against the rules.

 

[mad black]

And if it was up to you then races would be done with fully faired recumbents. Cycling commentators would spend their time talking about Team X's new rear diffuser that disrupts the air stream and reduces the draft unless the movable wing is adjusted when a teammate is drafting. Teams would be photographing the other teams' bikes and sending the photos back to HQ so the poindexters there can copy the aero surfaces and test them in their wind tunnel. Fans would regularly argue that cyclist X would have won if he had the same bike as cyclist Y. C'mon, let's just go with the times. If you can destroy the sport with needless technology that alters the outcome of races then you bloody well should. Why should races depend on the racers themselves? The winner should be the team with the largest R&D budget. If you are on team with a small budget then screw you.

You are a grumpy old man, aren't you? Let's take the aerodynamically closest thing to cycling motorbike racing as an example. How many diffusers or moveable wings are mounted to racing motorbikes these days? None. How much copying of fairings or the like goes on? None. How much argueing amongst fans goes on because of aerodynamic advantages? None. Oh, and yes, MotoGP riders have a Camelbak moulded into their racing suits. And yes, it is shaped to blend in with the helmet for aerodynamic reasons.

I'm not advocating a change in rider's position I'm merely saying that the UCI's position on what the TT bike and/or rider should look like is bordering the ridiculous in the 21st century. The great Eddy in 1976 is the past. Let's just move on.

What Franck did was an option available to any rider. Leopard-Trek were simply the first to think of it. I refuse to call it cheating but rather applaud them for their innovative thinking.

(I'm an engineer by the way...)

 

[BroDeal]

You are a grumpy old man, aren't you? Let's take the aerodynamically closest thing to cycling motorbike racing as an example. How many diffusers or moveable wings are mounted to racing motorbikes these days? None. How much copying of fairings or the like goes on? None. How much argueing amongst fans goes on because of aerodynamic advantages? None. Oh, and yes, MotoGP riders have a Camelbak moulded into their racing suits. And yes, it is shaped to blend in with the helmet for aerodynamic reasons.

I'm not advocating a change in rider's position I'm merely saying that the UCI's position on what the TT bike and/or rider should look like is bordering the ridiculous in the 21st century. The great Eddy in 1976 is the past. Let's just move on.

You really are a dense jerkoff, aren't you? Pull your head out of your ass, put down your slide rule, and try thinking about the obvious consequences of rule changes. Racing should be man versus man, not egghead versus egghead. We have rules in place to prevent the sport from morphing into something we do not want it to be. Remove the rules and time trials _will_ be done with fully faired recumbents. The fairings will be tested in wind tunnels, and manufacturers will compare their fairings to other manufacturers' fairings. Maybe that is your idea of bike racing, but it is not mine. I don't think it is many other people's either; if it was then recumbents would be ridden by big time racers instead of bearded oddballs. If you want to watch a technology competition then you know where to find Formula 1.

You keep on repeating this, "move on." Move on. Move on. Move on to what? Will we have time trials done in suits covered with inflatable bladders to optimize aerodynamics? That is the obvious consequence of you patting Fraud Schleck on the back for his Camelbak abuse.

What Franck did was an option available to any rider. Leopard-Trek were simply the first to think of it. I refuse to call it cheating but rather applaud them for their innovative thinking.

(I'm an engineer by the way...)

UCI Rule 1.3.033: "It is forbidden to wear non-essential items of clothing or items designed to influence the performances of a rider such as reducing air resistance or modifying the body of the rider."

The option was not available to other riders because the rules clearly forbid fairings on both bike and body. Schleck might as well have called his good time buddy, Dr. Fuentes, and asked for a bag of dope because, hey, those drugs are available to any rider.

(You sound more like scumbag lawyer making excuses for Schleck's cheating. )

 

[mad black]

You really are a dense jerkoff, aren't you? Pull your head out of your ass, put down your slide rule, and try thinking about the obvious consequences of rule changes. Racing should be man versus man, not egghead versus egghead. We have rules in place to prevent the sport from morphing into something we do not want it to be. Remove the rules and time trials _will_ be done with fully faired recumbents. The fairings will be tested in wind tunnels, and manufacturers will compare their fairings to other manufacturers' fairings. Maybe that is your idea of bike racing, but it is not mine. I don't think it is many other people's either; if it was then recumbents would be ridden by big time racers instead of bearded oddballs. If you want to watch a technology competition then you know where to find Formula 1.

You keep on repeating this, "move on." Move on. Move on. Move on to what? Will we have time trials done in suits covered with inflatable bladders to optimize aerodynamics? That is the obvious consequence of you patting Fraud Schleck on the back for his Camelbak abuse.

UCI Rule 1.3.033: "It is forbidden to wear non-essential items of clothing or items designed to influence the performances of a rider such as reducing air resistance or modifying the body of the rider."

The option was not available to other riders because the rules clearly forbid fairings on both bike and body. Schleck might as well have called his good time buddy, Dr. Fuentes, and asked for a bag of dope because, hey, those drugs are available to any rider.

(You sound more like scumbag lawyer making excuses for Schleck's cheating. )

I see, not only are you old and grumpy but also too uneducated to bring forward an intelligent and factual rebuttal to a clearly constructed argument. All your argument relies on is foul language and insults.

Let me quote myself again for you:

I'm not advocating a change in rider's position...

So if you would pay attention and stick to the argument which was about a comparisson to motorbike racing then you could have saved yourself all the waffle about recumbents.

By the way if you would take the UCI rule literally they'd have to be riding naked since the skinsuit is very effectively reducing air resistance and so is the helmet. Now it is debateable whether or not a Camelbak is essential or not but I'd say it's not very far fetched to say that it could be. Therefore great thinking Leopard-Trek!

And please take your doping drivel to the clinic where it belongs.

 

[BroDeal]

I see, not only are you old and grumpy but also too uneducated to bring forward an intelligent and factual rebuttal to a clearly constructed argument. All your argument relies on is foul language and insults.

Sort of like yours, eh? Don't get your panties in a wad when people respond to you using your own tactics.

When you come up with a intelligent and factual argument, let me know. All you have so far is: "We need to move on." Again, move on to what? Come on, Mr. Wizard, let's hear your ideas for how we should "move on." What should be legal? What should not?

So if you would pay attention and stick to the argument which was about a comparisson to motorbike racing then you could have saved yourself all the waffle about recumbents.

Evidently you are too thick to get the point. First, I never mentioned motorbike racing. Second, what I did allude to was Formula 1, its reliance on technology, teams circumventing the rules, appeals being made to the governing body by opposing teams, and a near constant background noise of teams being subjected to hearings that determine the legaility of their cars. Third, the point is--since you cannot seem to figure it out--that the rules are there to maintain the integrity of competition and keep the sport a contest between riders rather than technologists. Recumbents are directly on point because the ultimate result of all your b!tching and whinging about how the rules are holding back technology, that we need to stop living in the past, would be a type of bike racing that does not resemble the sport as it has existed throughout its history. Remove the restrictions and faired recumbents are the natural end result.

By the way if you would take the UCI rule literally they'd have to be riding naked since the skinsuit is very effectively reducing air resistance and so is the helmet. Now it is debateable whether or not a Camelbak is essential or not but I'd say it's not very far fetched to say that it could be. Therefore great thinking Leopard-Trek!

And please take your doping drivel to the clinic where it belongs.

Again, you are too dense to get the point. If it is okay to cheat with a fairing then there is no reason why it is not okay to cheat with dope (or to cheat with any other method). They are both against the rules. They are both available to any rider. By your logic, doping or any other type of cheating is just great thinking, and the cheaters should get a pat on the back for being more clever than their rivals.

You wrote that you thought that the Camelbak was filled with air instead of water, so you admitted that its purpose was a fairing, which is against the rules. So don't try to give me a limp wristed rationalization about how "essential" or "debatable" use of the Camelbak was.

 

[Oldman]

You are a grumpy old man, aren't you? Let's take the aerodynamically closest thing to cycling motorbike racing as an example. How many diffusers or moveable wings are mounted to racing motorbikes these days? None. How much copying of fairings or the like goes on? None. How much argueing amongst fans goes on because of aerodynamic advantages? None. Oh, and yes, MotoGP riders have a Camelbak moulded into their racing suits. And yes, it is shaped to blend in with the helmet for aerodynamic reasons.

I'm not advocating a change in rider's position I'm merely saying that the UCI's position on what the TT bike and/or rider should look like is bordering the ridiculous in the 21st century. The great Eddy in 1976 is the past. Let's just move on.

What Franck did was an option available to any rider. Leopard-Trek were simply the first to think of it. I refuse to call it cheating but rather applaud them for their innovative thinking.

(I'm an engineer by the way...)

I am certifiably grumpy and you are ignorant. If you've ever ridden a GP bike or a motocross bike you'd realize the added crap neither helps aerodynamics or reliability in an environment that changes speed, pitch and proximity to pavement. That's some of the basis for the cycling rules: to have a fundamental template for the MOTOR that is the rider to function. There's nothing primitive about it.
What Frank did was embarassing and stupid. You ask the UCI tech guys first or you risk coming off like NASCAR hillbilly cheaters.

 

[BroDeal]

Welcome to mad black's brave new world of cycling. Ass fairings. NASA technology will be added so that riders will not have to stop for a natural break; waste will be stored in the fairing.

 

[md2020]

I'm not advocating a change in rider's position I'm merely saying that the UCI's position on what the TT bike and/or rider should look like is bordering the ridiculous in the 21st century. The great Eddy in 1976 is the past. Let's just move on.

What Franck did was an option available to any rider. Leopard-Trek were simply the first to think of it. I refuse to call it cheating but rather applaud them for their innovative thinking.

(I'm an engineer by the way...)

Well, I'm an engineer too and I disagree with you. There's still plenty of room for innovation under the current rules without resorting to these kinds of tricks. The non-essential aerodynamic rule has been around for a long time now and everyone involved in cycling is fully aware of it. The trick here is that, like many rules, there is still room for interpretation by an official. Sometimes teams will push the envelope into these grey areas and the UCI will need to push back. Just look at the frame design changes in the past few years, specifically the Specialized Shiv and the nosecone designs. Even though the initial design was eventually ruled illegal it still had a big impact on what is now state of the art.

In this particular case with Frank, I don't think riders should be allowed to use a camelbak for non-essential use. I don't really care if they strap one to their chest (even for a short TT), but if it's filled with air and not water then it can't be allowed. Otherwise we'll start getting air bladders strapped all over riders purporting to be a hydration system that isn't.

 

[krebs303]

So what ever happened with this? Was there any ruling? I may have missed it.