Should Wiggins lose his hour record due to cheating?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
rhubroma said:
djpbaltimore said:
The coach of the rider whose record was just broken might have a teensy bit of a conflict of interest on this particular topic.
This is actually irrelevant in this case is, because what was denounced is actual a fact. The UCI clearly states that no custum-fit production of any part of the bike for the purpose of improving performance is allowed (and that the bike has to be commercially on the market at the time, which it was not). This boils down, therefore, to a techincal consideration and the rule governing it (and, yes, in this sense Wiggins definitely brook the rule). Obviously the UCI has every business-political motivation to not bring him to task, but as Flo stated, if the rule isn't being applied because he is Bradly Wiggins (and the only rational conclusion is that, yes, this is the case), then the denouncing coach and his rider's performance have been defrauded and "justice" has not behaved impartially.

What happens now? Well either the UCI has to change the rule, which would be tacit admission of their guilt, or not change the rule and be forced to turn a blind eye to everyone else who has parts custom manufactured as Wiggins did to improve performance. This is still an admission, though, that it did not apply the rule in Bradley's case.

If you argue with someone you really should look up the rules beforehand:

"Article 1.3.007 of the UCI regulations state that a bike “designed especially for the attainment of a particular performance (record or other) shall be not authorised.” According to the UCI’s rules, the bike must become commercially available within nine months of Wiggins’ attempt."

I'm guessing you can also custom order some 3D printed bars if you want. I agree with you and think there is an issue with the part in italics with the titanium bars, although it could be argued either way.
True, but the spirit of my point I don't think is invalidated. As far as the rule about 9 months from the record attempt, well, then, I'm only to blame for having been given missinformation from the report I read.

As far as the custom 3D printed bars go, they would seem to be a breech of the very Article 1.3.007 you present, which my source also reported. Unless custom-fit isn't to be considered "designed especially for the attainment of a particular performance." Once you start using custom-fit then you violate the intention to ban any form of a bike that doesn't belong to a standard production, and hence not have any part uniquely fabricated for a singlerider (to improve perormance) the rule presupposes.

Of course there are ways to interpret the rule differently other than its intention, but that doesn't of course change what was intended, which should be the basis for the UCI's verdict in this case.
 
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
djpbaltimore said:
The coach of the rider whose record was just broken might have a teensy bit of a conflict of interest on this particular topic.
This is actually irrelevant in this case is, because what was denounced is actual a fact. The UCI clearly states that no custum-fit production of any part of the bike for the purpose of improving performance is allowed (and that the bike has to be commercially on the market at the time, which it was not). This boils down, therefore, to a techincal consideration and the rule governing it (and, yes, in this sense Wiggins definitely brook the rule). Obviously the UCI has every business-political motivation to not bring him to task, but as Flo stated, if the rule isn't being applied because he is Bradly Wiggins (and the only rational conclusion is that, yes, this is the case), then the denouncing coach and his rider's performance have been defrauded and "justice" has not behaved impartially.

What happens now? Well either the UCI has to change the rule, which would be tacit admission of their guilt, or not change the rule and be forced to turn a blind eye to everyone else who has parts custom manufactured as Wiggins did to improve performance. This is still an admission, though, that it did not apply the rule in Bradley's case.
Based on my understanding and what has been posted in this thread, the rule was not applied to Dowsett either. So I repeat my above point that someone who has a connection to Dowsett has a conflict of interest when commenting on this issue. Choose to ignore that or not, but it should be stated. That the article did not find a single neutral source to corroborate any of this does not help convince me of his argument. I've stated that the problem with the rule is that it has a giant loop-hole. There is no proof that Wiggins got a favorable interpretation because he is Bradley Wiggins IMO.
 
Re: Re:

djpbaltimore said:
rhubroma said:
djpbaltimore said:
The coach of the rider whose record was just broken might have a teensy bit of a conflict of interest on this particular topic.
This is actually irrelevant in this case is, because what was denounced is actual a fact. The UCI clearly states that no custum-fit production of any part of the bike for the purpose of improving performance is allowed (and that the bike has to be commercially on the market at the time, which it was not). This boils down, therefore, to a techincal consideration and the rule governing it (and, yes, in this sense Wiggins definitely brook the rule). Obviously the UCI has every business-political motivation to not bring him to task, but as Flo stated, if the rule isn't being applied because he is Bradly Wiggins (and the only rational conclusion is that, yes, this is the case), then the denouncing coach and his rider's performance have been defrauded and "justice" has not behaved impartially.

What happens now? Well either the UCI has to change the rule, which would be tacit admission of their guilt, or not change the rule and be forced to turn a blind eye to everyone else who has parts custom manufactured as Wiggins did to improve performance. This is still an admission, though, that it did not apply the rule in Bradley's case.
Based on my understanding and what has been posted in this thread, the rule was not applied to Dowsett either. So I repeat my above point that someone who has a connection to Dowsett has a conflict of interest when commenting on this issue. Choose to ignore that or not, but it should be stated. That the article did not find a single neutral source to corroborate any of this does not help convince me of his argument. I've stated that the problem with the rule is that it has a giant loop-hole. There is no proof that Wiggins got a favorable interpretation because he is Bradley Wiggins IMO.
Well, actually, I wasn't ignoring anything, because I wasn't aware that the rule was not applied to Dowsett either. Now I will go back and check this thread to see what evidence was cited in this regard, though I haven't read reports that say so. If that were the case, then I agree Dowsett's coach is acting only with a conflict of interests, though if not then his beef is legitimate.

At any rate, if Dowsett has broken the same rule and it wasn't applied to him, then of course Wiggins didn't get favorable treatment. If, on the other hand, Dowsett didn't break the rule and Wiggins did, then Wiggins got favorable treatment. Of course, if they both broke it then both should have their records nullified.

Seems to me though, as you suggest, the rule isn't fortuitous, both because of how it is to be interpreted and the limits it places upon manufacturers. Can the UCI, once and for all, clearly state if custom fit does or does not conform to the intention of their rule? As it was written, though, it seems pretty straightforward that it does not.
 
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
King Boonen said:
rhubroma said:
djpbaltimore said:
The coach of the rider whose record was just broken might have a teensy bit of a conflict of interest on this particular topic.
This is actually irrelevant in this case is, because what was denounced is actual a fact. The UCI clearly states that no custum-fit production of any part of the bike for the purpose of improving performance is allowed (and that the bike has to be commercially on the market at the time, which it was not). This boils down, therefore, to a techincal consideration and the rule governing it (and, yes, in this sense Wiggins definitely brook the rule). Obviously the UCI has every business-political motivation to not bring him to task, but as Flo stated, if the rule isn't being applied because he is Bradly Wiggins (and the only rational conclusion is that, yes, this is the case), then the denouncing coach and his rider's performance have been defrauded and "justice" has not behaved impartially.

What happens now? Well either the UCI has to change the rule, which would be tacit admission of their guilt, or not change the rule and be forced to turn a blind eye to everyone else who has parts custom manufactured as Wiggins did to improve performance. This is still an admission, though, that it did not apply the rule in Bradley's case.

If you argue with someone you really should look up the rules beforehand:

"Article 1.3.007 of the UCI regulations state that a bike “designed especially for the attainment of a particular performance (record or other) shall be not authorised.” According to the UCI’s rules, the bike must become commercially available within nine months of Wiggins’ attempt."

I'm guessing you can also custom order some 3D printed bars if you want. I agree with you and think there is an issue with the part in italics with the titanium bars, although it could be argued either way.
True, but the spirit of my point I don't think is invalidated. As far as the rule about 9 months from the record attempt, well, then, I'm only to blame for having been given missinformation from the report I read.

As far as the custom 3D printed bars go, they would seem to be a breech of the very Article 1.3.007 you present, which my source also reported. Unless custom-fit isn't to be considered "designed especially for the attainment of a particular performance." Once you start using custom-fit then you violate the intention to ban any form of a bike that doesn't belong to a standard production, and hence not have any part uniquely fabricated for a singlerider (to improve perormance) the rule presupposes.

Of course there are ways to interpret the rule differently other than its intention, but that doesn't of course change what was intended, which should be the basis for the UCI's verdict in this case.
The quote was from this thread...

I agree about the bars, hence my last sentence.

The only way I can see the argument for custom fit bars going in Wiggin's favour is it they are not designed specifically for that record attempt, i.e. he uses them elsewhere. It's a very weak argument but the UCI are pretty good at accepting weak arguments...
 
Go to a World Cup track event and see how many bars are custom/one off. Go to the start of a Pro Tour TT and see how many (top TTers) bars are off the shelf. Look at Wiggin's bars, they are pretty basic, just custom fit. Dowsett's bars were custom, but really basic. In fact I'm surprised that Alex didn't have something a little "cleaner".
 
I still have not been able to locate a source
for the new Campy discs that Mr. Dowsett
used in his Hour Record, but if they are in
the 2016 Campagnolo catalogue that would
still meet the UCI requirements.
 
The hour record( newer one) was supposed to be a collaboration of technology and human effort. If Wiggins bike has a newer manufacturing technology even though not commercial, it should be allowed. The amount of benefit though i think would be 200-300 m. He beat Dowsett's record by almost a mile
Obree's superman position though was a triumph of human effort over machine technology. Manufacturers couldn't digest that after spending thousands of dollars on tech, they were made to look silly by a man defying the odds. Therefore banned by UCI
 
Re:

jmdirt said:
Go to a World Cup track event and see how many bars are custom/one off. Go to the start of a Pro Tour TT and see how many (top TTers) bars are off the shelf. Look at Wiggin's bars, they are pretty basic, just custom fit. Dowsett's bars were custom, but really basic. In fact I'm surprised that Alex didn't have something a little "cleaner".
But my understanding is that the rule was specific to the hour record, not a World Cup track event, or a Pro Tour TT.

If that is the case then custom-fit, which can only be done with the intention to assist a single rider in a particular performance, must here be considered a violation of the rule. The problem seems to be more the rule, though, but its application shouldn't be affected by this. It seems to need to be rewritten though.
 
The regulation that matters the most: "3.5.027 The bicycle shall be submitted to the Equipment Commission for approval 15 days
before the date of the attempt." The UCI approved his bike. If the UCI would have said "x does not conform to regulation 1.5.xxxx", Brad's team would have made adjustments and resubmitted it.

Also very important: "3.5.026 The Hour Record is the greatest distance achieved in one hour on a traditional
bicycle, as defined in articles 1.3.006 to 1.3.010 and 1.3.019 of the rules."

"The use of equipment designed especially for the attainment of a particular performance (record or other) shall be not authorized." I bet Brad will be using his bars for track events and road TTs now so they aren't "especially for the attainment of a particular performance".

Hour Record regulations: 3.5.026-3.5.033

rhubroma: "But my understanding is that the rule was specific to the hour record, not a World Cup track event, or a Pro Tour TT."

The hour record section refers to the general bicycle section.
 
Re:

jmdirt said:
The regulation that matters the most: "3.5.027 The bicycle shall be submitted to the Equipment Commission for approval 15 days
before the date of the attempt." The UCI approved his bike. If the UCI would have said "x does not conform to regulation 1.5.xxxx", Brad's team would have made adjustments and resubmitted it.

Also very important: "3.5.026 The Hour Record is the greatest distance achieved in one hour on a traditional
bicycle, as defined in articles 1.3.006 to 1.3.010 and 1.3.019 of the rules."

"The use of equipment designed especially for the attainment of a particular performance (record or other) shall be not authorized." I bet Brad will be using his bars for track events and road TTs now so they aren't "especially for the attainment of a particular performance".

Hour Record regulations: 3.5.026-3.5.033

rhubroma: "But my understanding is that the rule was specific to the hour record, not a World Cup track event, or a Pro Tour TT."

The hour record section refers to the general bicycle section.
If the UCI approved his bike, then it contradicted itself.

Look, I'm happy for Wiggins, but the issue has to do with credibility.
 
"If the UCI approved his bike, then it contradicted itself."

Not 'if', they did approve it, and verified the record. What regulation did they contradict? If the bike is available for purchase in '16, and if he uses the bars for other events, no regulations have been 'contradicted'.

I am conflicted defending Wiggo because I'm not a fanboy even though I appreciate what he has done in the sport (crapping on JV aside). But starting with AD's coach, no one who has complained has been able to point to anything that Brad did wrong. Calling "conspiracy" on the UCI doesn't hold any water either since no one has provided any evidence of violations.
 
oldcrank said:
I still have not been able to locate a source
for the new Campy discs that Mr. Dowsett
used in his Hour Record, but if they are in
the 2016 Campagnolo catalogue that would
still meet the UCI requirements.
You mean the track version of the Ghibli disc? It's right there in the catalogue.

Another possibility: Dowsett used another brand's product but put on Campagnolo decals to meet sponsor requirements. Pros have been doing this for years.
 
Re:

jmdirt said:
"If the UCI approved his bike, then it contradicted itself."

Not 'if', they did approve it, and verified the record. What regulation did they contradict? If the bike is available for purchase in '16, and if he uses the bars for other events, no regulations have been 'contradicted'.

I am conflicted defending Wiggo because I'm not a fanboy even though I appreciate what he has done in the sport (crapping on JV aside). But starting with AD's coach, no one who has complained has been able to point to anything that Brad did wrong. Calling "conspiracy" on the UCI doesn't hold any water either since no one has provided any evidence of violations.
Buddy, the regulation has been quoted several times now. If Wigans uses the same bars for other events, that is only one clause out of the regulation he's managed to work around.

As for the bars being commercially released, who would want a set of TT bars designed for one specific rider, in one specific position? This is even more blatant than the Team GB bikes in the London Games.
 
"As for the bars being commercially released, who would want a set of TT bars designed for one specific rider, in one specific position?"

You would would be surprised what people like to collect. ;)

"Buddy, the regulation has been quoted several times now. If Wigans uses the same bars for other events, that is only one clause out of the regulation he's managed to work around."

Clearly he has "worked around" or met ALL of the regulations (http://www.uci.ch/inside-uci/rules-and-regulations/regulations Hour Record regulations: 3.5.026-3.5.033). Its pretty black and white. The only dark gray areas are about homologation which we won't know about for nine months, and his bars which he just has to keep using.
 
A look at the other recent record bikes:

Dowsett: "Britain's Alex Dowsett is taking on the World Hour Record this Saturday in Manchester, UK and Movistar bike sponsor Canyon has created the Speedmax WHR – a track-specific version of the German brand's flagship TT bike – especially for the attempt." "Dowsett will be wearing a new advanced skinsuit from Endura, created in collaboration with aero specialist Drag2Zero, which was developed specifically for the attempt. "

Brandle: " IAM Cycling's Matthias Brändle set a new Hour Record of 51.85km aboard a custom Scott Plasma 5 on Thursday and Scott refined its newest triathlon bike – the Plasma 5 – to aid Brändle in his attempt."

Dennis: "Despite BMC's claim that the TrackMachine TR01, designed and developed for the Swiss National Track Team, is the most advanced track-specific bike in the world, Dennis' TR01 has been modified at BMC’s Impec Advanced R&D lab to improve its aerodynamics and stiffness."

Voigt: "Voigt will ride a modified version of Trek's Speed Concept 9 Series time trial machine and he has even modified his own riding position in recent months in order to improve his aerodynamics. "
 
Re:

jmdirt said:
A look at the other recent record bikes:

Dowsett: "Britain's Alex Dowsett is taking on the World Hour Record this Saturday in Manchester, UK and Movistar bike sponsor Canyon has created the Speedmax WHR – a track-specific version of the German brand's flagship TT bike – especially for the attempt." "Dowsett will be wearing a new advanced skinsuit from Endura, created in collaboration with aero specialist Drag2Zero, which was developed specifically for the attempt. "

Brandle: " IAM Cycling's Matthias Brändle set a new Hour Record of 51.85km aboard a custom Scott Plasma 5 on Thursday and Scott refined its newest triathlon bike – the Plasma 5 – to aid Brändle in his attempt."

Dennis: "Despite BMC's claim that the TrackMachine TR01, designed and developed for the Swiss National Track Team, is the most advanced track-specific bike in the world, Dennis' TR01 has been modified at BMC’s Impec Advanced R&D lab to improve its aerodynamics and stiffness."

Voigt: "Voigt will ride a modified version of Trek's Speed Concept 9 Series time trial machine and he has even modified his own riding position in recent months in order to improve his aerodynamics. "
OK.

Canyon didn't have a track specific TT bike. So they developed one, now it's looking like they are releasing it.

Scott's refined bike used by Brändle is looking likely to become the 2016 Plasma. BMC would probably do the same as would Trek.

Don't forget that things like plugging cable holes, adapting rear dropout and fitting track specific cranks fits into the category of modifying. This is totally different to a one of a kind, made to measure, 3D printed set of custom aero bars.
 
Re: Re:

42x16ss said:
jmdirt said:
A look at the other recent record bikes:

Dowsett: "Britain's Alex Dowsett is taking on the World Hour Record this Saturday in Manchester, UK and Movistar bike sponsor Canyon has created the Speedmax WHR – a track-specific version of the German brand's flagship TT bike – especially for the attempt." "Dowsett will be wearing a new advanced skinsuit from Endura, created in collaboration with aero specialist Drag2Zero, which was developed specifically for the attempt. "

Brandle: " IAM Cycling's Matthias Brändle set a new Hour Record of 51.85km aboard a custom Scott Plasma 5 on Thursday and Scott refined its newest triathlon bike – the Plasma 5 – to aid Brändle in his attempt."

Dennis: "Despite BMC's claim that the TrackMachine TR01, designed and developed for the Swiss National Track Team, is the most advanced track-specific bike in the world, Dennis' TR01 has been modified at BMC’s Impec Advanced R&D lab to improve its aerodynamics and stiffness."

Voigt: "Voigt will ride a modified version of Trek's Speed Concept 9 Series time trial machine and he has even modified his own riding position in recent months in order to improve his aerodynamics. "
OK.

Canyon didn't have a track specific TT bike. So they developed one, now it's looking like they are releasing it.

Scott's refined bike used by Brändle is looking likely to become the 2016 Plasma. BMC would probably do the same as would Trek.

Don't forget that things like plugging cable holes, adapting rear dropout and fitting track specific cranks fits into the category of modifying. This is totally different to a one of a kind, made to measure, 3D printed set of custom aero bars.
So redesigning a bike to make it stiffer and more aerodynamic for the hour record is OK, but custom bars are not? I think that you are being disingenuous. They aren't really one of a kind bars either because all they have to do is push print and they have another pair. You can't just push print and have one of these bikes though.
 
Re: Re:

jmdirt said:
42x16ss said:
jmdirt said:
A look at the other recent record bikes:

Dowsett: "Britain's Alex Dowsett is taking on the World Hour Record this Saturday in Manchester, UK and Movistar bike sponsor Canyon has created the Speedmax WHR – a track-specific version of the German brand's flagship TT bike – especially for the attempt." "Dowsett will be wearing a new advanced skinsuit from Endura, created in collaboration with aero specialist Drag2Zero, which was developed specifically for the attempt. "

Brandle: " IAM Cycling's Matthias Brändle set a new Hour Record of 51.85km aboard a custom Scott Plasma 5 on Thursday and Scott refined its newest triathlon bike – the Plasma 5 – to aid Brändle in his attempt."

Dennis: "Despite BMC's claim that the TrackMachine TR01, designed and developed for the Swiss National Track Team, is the most advanced track-specific bike in the world, Dennis' TR01 has been modified at BMC’s Impec Advanced R&D lab to improve its aerodynamics and stiffness."

Voigt: "Voigt will ride a modified version of Trek's Speed Concept 9 Series time trial machine and he has even modified his own riding position in recent months in order to improve his aerodynamics. "
OK.

Canyon didn't have a track specific TT bike. So they developed one, now it's looking like they are releasing it.

Scott's refined bike used by Brändle is looking likely to become the 2016 Plasma. BMC would probably do the same as would Trek.

Don't forget that things like plugging cable holes, adapting rear dropout and fitting track specific cranks fits into the category of modifying. This is totally different to a one of a kind, made to measure, 3D printed set of custom aero bars.
So redesigning a bike to make it stiffer and more aerodynamic for the hour record is OK, but custom bars are not? I think that you are being disingenuous. They aren't really one of a kind bars either because all they have to do is push print and they have another pair. You can't just push print and have one of these bikes though.
Ok, so do Wigans or BC have any plans to make the design public? Doubt it.
 
I wonder how "letter of the law" the UCI will be with the homologation rule. Do all of the equipment suppliers have to meet the rule or just the record holder (Wiggo for now)? In motorsports, the manufacturer can't race the following year if they don't meet the homologation requirements. Will the UCI hold Trek, Scott, BMC out of racing if they don't bring their new track bikes to market? Or maybe just ban them from the track?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY