• 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 @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

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

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 11, 2009
1,301
0
0
Visit site
Fränk Schleck facing UCI investigation in TT

"Frank Schleck's victory at the Criterium International is to be scrutinised by the UCI to see if he broke competition rules by wearing a Camelbak drinks pack on his stomach to help boost his aerodynamic profile in the decisive final time trial.

Schleck was allowed to start the time trial by UCI officials present at the race but he may have broken rule 1.3.033 which says “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.”"


http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/fra...nvestigation-after-criterium-international-tt

Edit: Sorry - I just came accros the posts in the other thread.


I've always wondered why time trailers using the traditional bottles during TTs did not have a bottle holder on the chest area with a tube to drink from. Apparently Schleck must have had the same idea but used a Camelback.

And how come water is non-essential?

Good old UCI – lets ban the product of a rider's ingenuity.

For what it's worth I'm not a big Schleck fan.
 
Feb 14, 2010
2,202
0
0
Visit site
It was a nine minute stage. There's zero chance that they would have tried this when he's fighting for the win if they hadn't tried it in a wind tunnel and seen a positive effect. Don't think for a minute it was a spontaneous thing. And Westra apparently used something similar at 3 Days Of de Panne. The UCI should investigate both cases or stop writing rules.
 
Jul 27, 2009
749
0
0
Visit site
I wonder if he even had a drink out of it? In fact I wonder whether they even put water in it? Probably just blew it up with air lol

Disqualify him.
 
Jul 27, 2009
749
0
0
Visit site
I didn't realise the same topic was in here.

M Sport said:
I wonder if he even had a drink out of it? In fact I wonder whether they even put water in it? Probably just blew it up with air lol

Disqualify him.
 
M Sport said:
I wonder if he even had a drink out of it? In fact I wonder whether they even put water in it? Probably just blew it up with air lol

Disqualify him.
How would that be fair? The judges allowed him to ride, and he's not the only one who's been using this kind of stuff. Tony Martin is reported to have used it too.
 
Jul 27, 2009
749
0
0
Visit site
The judges obviously made a mistake, doesn't change the fact Frank has cheated.

Which race did Martin use it in? Is there any proof?
 
Mar 17, 2009
44
0
0
Visit site
Rider needs water on a 8 km TT? Really?

They wanted to test how fast he becomes with a camelback - well, do it outside the competition.

Kirienka is the true winner of CI!
 
Mar 16, 2010
23
0
0
Visit site
There needs to be push back on this. Letting UCI ban things after the race results were posted makes the whole sport look sloppy and amateurish.

If it is not allowed then don't let him do it again. But in this instance, if they saw him and let him start with it, then they have implied that it was allowed.

Ex Post Facto and all that.

Are they going to put doughnuts on the banned sustances list because they cause a gut bulge?
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
Visit site
I moved the thread to the road race subforum. Rules issues are not the same as doping. There is no reason why investigations for technical violations should be in the Clinic.
 
Mar 13, 2009
5,245
2
0
Visit site
I have trouble seeing how the UCI will investigate this - if they didn't check what he had under his jersey at the time (which it seems they didn't), then I don't see how they want to do it now.

I also have a hard time believing it was anything other than a camelback. To take such a high risk on being disqualified and sanctioned seems disproportionate to the possible gains. Fränk had a pretty OK chance of winning either way, I don't see why they would risk so much just for the slight possibility of gaining maximum 2 seconds per km.

My opinion is they were smart and used the rules to their advantage. You could also say they found a loophole, so if the UCI wants to fix that they should look at my suggested modifications:

Christian said:
- no camelbacks under 15 km
- a distance/size of camelback ratio (for example 10 km = 0,5 l)
- a minimum consumption of at least half the liquid during the race

You could add a maximum weight to my second suggestion. Then you could weigh the camelback at the start and at the finish, and so determine whether at least half of the mass is gone
 
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.
 
Schleck was allowed to start the time trial by UCI officials present at the race

That should be the end of it. The UCI saw it. They let him ride as is. To go back after the fact and decide that now they have a problem with it would be asinine. Move on. If they don't want something similar to happen in the future, then clarify their rules and don't allow another rider with a similar setup to start a stage.
 
Jul 5, 2010
462
0
0
Visit site
patrick767 said:
Schleck was allowed to start the time trial by UCI officials present at the race

That should be the end of it. The UCI saw it. They let him ride as is. To go back after the fact and decide that now they have a problem with it would be asinine. Move on. If they don't want something similar to happen in the future, then clarify their rules and don't allow another rider with a similar setup to start a stage.

No, it should not be the end of it. Suppose he had started with a motor in the bike - should the argument then be "but you did see my bike so the motor was OK"?

It is all about intent for me, was it the intention to alter his wind resistance by using the camelbak while knowing that it is forbidden? If, yes then he is guilty.

It should be investigated thoroughly and then it should be the end of it.
 
Jul 27, 2009
749
0
0
Visit site
meandmygitane said:
No, it should not be the end of it. Suppose he had started with a motor in the bike - should the argument then be "but you did see my bike so the motor was OK"?

It is all about intent for me, was it the intention to alter his wind resistance by using the camelbak while knowing that it is forbidden? If, yes then he is guilty.

It should be investigated thoroughly and then it should be the end of it.

I agree.

These are the facts as I see it.

1. He used a camelback and the team have admitted this.
2. The photo clearly shows the camelback has been inflated or filled to such an extent that it has created an aerodynamic fairing.

0LIXEWKH--300x145.jpg


What is not a fact yet is what state the UCI official saw it in i.e. if you tip a 700ml bidon into a camelback it does not in any way look like that photo. I estimate that photo is carrying 4-5 litres of air or water. So. did the UCI guy see it with 700ml (nearly flat) or as in the photo.

Not that that really matters either. If it's proven he cheated the technical regulations then he should be out.
 
Mar 17, 2009
44
0
0
Visit site
I don't understand why would the team do that. Or is Leopard-Trek team so desperate for results, they had to cheat to get some? Whatever the reason, they broke the rule knowing about it - for shame.
 
Mar 16, 2010
23
0
0
Visit site
meandmygitane said:
No, it should not be the end of it. Suppose he had started with a motor in the bike - should the argument then be "but you did see my bike so the motor was OK"?

It is all about intent for me, was it the intention to alter his wind resistance by using the camelbak while knowing that it is forbidden? If, yes then he is guilty.

It should be investigated thoroughly and then it should be the end of it.

Intent is a hard thing to prove.

If they saw he had a motor on his bike, they would not have let him start. Here, they saw the camelback. They let him ride. End of story.
 
Mar 18, 2009
156
0
0
Visit site
Teams are always going to push the envelope of the equipment rules to get an advantage (like Cancellara's Shiv). The official at the line made a decision and the result should stand but the UCI should come out with an official statement disallowing it in the future.
 
Mar 13, 2009
5,245
2
0
Visit site
Benedict XVI said:
I don't understand why would the team do that. Or is Leopard-Trek team so desperate for results, they had to cheat to get some? Whatever the reason, they broke the rule knowing about it - for shame.

Using a camelback is allowed, so they didn't break a rule - they just used a loophole. It's now up to the UCI to stuff it, but since they didn't break a rule I think it will be hard to punish them
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,455
5
0
Visit site
Christian said:
Using a camelback is allowed, so they didn't break a rule - they just used a loophole. It's now up to the UCI to stuff it, but since they didn't break a rule I think it will be hard to punish them

If it changes the form of your body it is against the rules.

If the UCI jury saw him and allowed him to race then he should not get any punishment besides of course taking his win in the CI away. And fire the UCI jury.
 

TRENDING THREADS