The doped bike exists (video of pro version)!

[The Hitch]

Re:

how has cancellara's results gone since this has broken in the media? has he done this type of acceleration again?

Next year in e3 he was so dominant I think 1 rider questioned how he did it.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

[quote="...[/quote]

lol, hitch, you come in here for the n-th time just to discuss cassani, and throw in some personal remarks, strawmen, sweeping statements, twisting of my words, taking my words out of context. You're showing the whole repertoire there, chapeau.

we know that your claim ("nobody took that seriously") was bollocks, no need to deflect away from that.
Also, i already answered you at length about cassani (one or two pages back), so why not let it go? if it is to deflect away from your shoddy claim, well that's fair enough. but meanwhile you're clogging the thread and you sound like a broken record so one wonders, what's the point?
here's a song for you:
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsPq9mzFNGY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsPq9mzFNGY
i don't know who that guy is but the lyrics are good:
"let it go, just let it be"
the phrase "time to move on" also passes by.

 

[blackcat]

Re:

I'm trying to keep an open mind about this, I don't dismiss out of hand a motorized bike, but a couple of points:

1) I looked at the video as carefully as I could, and I sure can't see any hand movements that look like pushing a button. Not saying he didn't, all I'm saying is that if he did, I don't think the picture is clear enough and close enough to pick something that subtle out.
2) Why is maintaining the same cadence while going faster evidence of a motor? One of the links above clearly shows that when the motor is activated, the pedals turn. If a rider activates the motor while pedalling himself, that means the pedals will turn even faster, IOW, cadence will increase. Either that, or the rider will maintain the same cadence while putting out less physical effort.

or he could put it in the 13 and still put down/maintain the same cadence.

 

[blackcat]

Re:

I actually know a guy that is one of Boonen's closest friends.
After those two races (RVV and P-R) I asked him what Tom's opinion was on the rumours that surfaced about Cancellara's bike. He said something in the vein of that Boonen himself had some doubts (which he would never make public though). I know, this sounds like here-say, but perhaps Lefevre's comments have to be seen in that perspective (he knew what Tom thought).

what was Tommeke's time up the Muur? was it not close to, or matching his fastest time? But Spartacus only got him in the last 400 metres and only gapped him by what? 10 seconds?

But has there every been a better climber on those Bergs of Flanders? Who else has gone uphill on the bergs like Tommeke?

Fabian is the chrono guy, who is one of the best Roubaix riders ever, and Tommeke is the sprinter who can handle the bergs of flanders like a local, and like none other, atleast in this generation.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

blackcat,
if you understand Dutch, you should check out the Belgian footage of that 2010 Mur, it's hilarious in the sense that, at the foot of the climb where Fab and Tommeke arrive together, the Belgian commentators start throwing out predictions along the lines of "Tommeke is in great shape, Fabian is going to have to give everything to try and keep up with Tommeke here, when will Tommeke make his move", etc., and they're still praising the good legs of Tommeke when suddenly, bam, there goes Fabian in saddle leaving Tommeke for dead...

 

[GJB123]

More hear-say. I have it from a quite reliable source at Specialized (who for obvious reasons would never acknowledge Canc using a motor) that Canc i really a one-of-a-kind biker racer in the respect to the wattage he puts out is truly extra-terrestrial. So much so that they need to produce specific cranks for Canc because he would simply break them if they gave him the regular ones. So in his mind (and that might be down to hoping) Canc is really an outlier in that he can put down power that nobody else can in a way that nobody else can (for example he almost always sprints in the saddle).

Does that proof he didn't use a motor? Nope. Are motors used in the pro peloton? Probably.

@ Sniper, I have seen most if not all of the footage and comments you refer top when Dutch riders (e.g. Boogerd) are concerned. And at no time does Boogers say or confirm that he thinks Canc uses a motor? Quite the opposite really. He does think it is extra-teerstrial but he cannot begin to imagine that he actually does use a motor because in his mind most riders just wouldn't.

 

[sniper]

More hear-say. I have it from a quite reliable source at Specialized (who for obvious reasons would never acknowledge Canc using a motor) that Canc i really a one-of-a-kind biker racer in the respect to the wattage he puts out is truly extra-terrestrial. So much so that they need to produce specific cranks for Canc because he would simply break them if they gave him the regular ones. So in his mind (and that might be down to hoping) Canc is really an outlier in that he can put down power that nobody else can in a way that nobody else can (for example he almost always sprints in the saddle).

Does that proof he didn't use a motor? Nope. Are motors used in the pro peloton? Probably.

@ Sniper, I have seen most if not all of the footage and comments you refer top when Dutch riders (e.g. Boogerd) are concerned. And at no time does Boogers say or confirm that he thinks Canc uses a motor? Quite the opposite really. He does think it is extra-teerstrial but he cannot begin to imagine that he actually does use a motor because in his mind most riders just wouldn't.

Thanks.
As for the bold part: that's the main thing i care about. He was suspicious seeing the footage.
As for the underlined part, I don't remember him saying that, but I will check it and if he did say that, i'll be back and admit I stand corrected.
But nota bene, my argument was that several specialists have been suspicious of the Fabian-footage and/or have taken the claims of motorization seriously, and by extension that the term 'conspiracy theory' is completely uncalled for here. That argument doesn't stand or fall with Boogerd or Cassani. As Roux said, "Dans le peloton, on ce parle". I'll grant you and theHitch that we don't need their names to cement an argument that is rocksolid without their names.

 

[sniper]

checking the dutch program again right now:
- add Nico Mattan to the list of specialist doubters (or believers, depending on one's view).
- discussing the bike switches again. Apparently more than twice, and each time no visible damages to the bikes.
- Rasmussen confirming he's been offered the Cassani system for sale.
- As for Boogerd, he admits that seeing the Cancellara footage is the first time he gave motorization serious thought.
- sorry, he doesn't say what you say he said. He only says he couldn't imagine using it himself.

 

[Master50]

It is perfectly legal to ride a bike with a motor if I am just riding my bike. I just cannot imagine doing it? WE do have a fellow with an electric wheel ride with our thursday night MTB group. He has never beaten anyone. I generally die and go home after an hour and believe me I would love to cover the 3 hours but a motor? That said there is this one local guy I would die to see the look on his face if I just could keep up never mind kick his butt. Even the so called real "doped " bike makes a hell of a noise when the motor is running. You could only use such a device out of hearing range.

 

[Merckx index]

what vid did you watch? there is one where they first explain the device and then show with arrows and slo-mo cancellara's clicking, which indeed pretty neatly matches the system they just explained.
Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0NXGTKnwGY
that's 7 minutes well spent

OK, that is different from the one I saw before, I think. Still not entirely convincing to me. He moved his hand, and I gather they’re arguing that the hand movement was not consistent with a gear change? (My Italian is spotty, someone can probably fill me in on exactly what they were claiming). But that brings up my other point, that one would need a gear change to go faster with same cadence, viz.:

or he could put it in the 13 and still put down/maintain the same cadence.

Yes, that’s what I meant when I said “unless the gear size were changed.” If he went to a larger gear, he could increase his speed while maintaining the same cadence. But unless you can establish that he did change gears and didn’t change cadence while accelerating, that’s no evidence of a motor. And if I understand that video, they’re claiming he didn’t change gears. But maybe someone looking carefully at his bike can tell if the chain moved onto another gear?

But even if he did change gears, and maintained the same cadence, that still is not proof of a motor. Going into a larger gear while maintaining the same cadence simply means putting out more energy. That increased energy could be the result of a motor, but it could also be just a temporary increase in his physiological power. This is normally what happens when a rider accelerates and drops other riders.

So the bottom line is that you really can't make any conclusions about a motor from the acceleration, unless you can estimate the wattage he put out, and establish that is higher than he would be capable of. It all goes back to how suspiciously strong his acceleration appears to be. And even if it is very suspicious, there's still the possibility of chemical doping.

As others have pointed out, if you're going to use a motor like this, the safest and most effective way would seem to be early in the race, as a way of using less energy while staying with everyone else. You would still be capable of dropping elite competition at a critical point in the race, but you wouldn't be exceeding any physiological bounds.

 

[sniper]

Re:

what vid did you watch? there is one where they first explain the device and then show with arrows and slo-mo cancellara's clicking, which indeed pretty neatly matches the system they just explained.
Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0NXGTKnwGY
that's 7 minutes well spent

OK, that is different from the one I saw before, I think. Still not entirely convincing to me. He moved his hand, and I gather they’re arguing that the hand movement was not consistent with a gear change? But that brings up my other point, that one would need a gear change to go faster with same cadence, viz.:

or he could put it in the 13 and still put down/maintain the same cadence.

Yes, that’s what I meant when I said “unless the gear size were changed.” If he went to a larger gear, he could increase his speed while maintaining the same cadence. But unless you can establish that he did change gears and didn’t change cadence while accelerating, that’s no evidence of a motor. And if I understand that video, they’re claiming he didn’t change gears. But maybe someone looking carefully at his bike can tell if the chain moved onto another gear?

But even if he did change gears, and maintained the same cadence, that still is not proof of a motor. Going into a larger gear while maintaining the same cadence simply means putting out more energy. That increased energy could be the result of a motor, but it could also be just a temporary increase in his physiological power. This is normally what happens when a rider accelerates and drops other riders.

So the bottom line is that you really can't make any conclusions about a motor from the acceleration, unless you can estimate the wattage he put out, and establish that is higher than he would be capable of. It all goes back to how suspiciously strong his acceleration appears to be.

this is slightly above my paygrade, but good stuff, have to give it some thought.

It appears to me you haven't yet shed your light on what is arguably Fab's most suspicious jump. The jump is 2:10 into the next video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7xjsPqHg3o
The good thing is we don't have to focus on clicking on the handle bars (as that isn't visible anyway). Would be interested to hear how real it looks to you in terms of accelleration plus cadence and gear choice.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

It appears to me you haven't yet shed your light on what is arguably Fab's most suspicious jump. The jump is 2:10 into the next video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7xjsPqHg3o
The good thing is we don't have to focus on clicking on the handle bars (as that isn't visible anyway). Would be interested to hear how real it looks to you in terms of accelleration plus cadence and gear choice.

It looks to me as though his speed/cadence goes way up in that jump, meaning he must have switched to a larger gear. No way I or I think anyone else can see in the video that he did change gears, but again, he would have to do that, motor or no motor. Any motor that goes through the drive train has to work like that.

I think I understand what's bothering you. It looks like magic. He doesn't seem to be doing anything different, but the bike goes faster. But if there is hanky-panky going on here, it has to be proven through physiology, not physics.

Imagine if you're riding with a group greatly inferior to you, staying up with them by pedalling in a relatively small gear without requiring much effort. You suddenly switch to a higher gear, without changing your cadence. You will shoot out from that group just as Cance does in that video. No motor necessary. The question is just whether Cance is physiologically capable of doing this, no question that the phenomenon is possible at lower speeds.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

[quote="

lol, hitch, you come in here for the n-th time just to discuss cassani, and throw in some personal remarks, strawmen, sweeping statements, twisting of my words, taking my words out of context. You're showing the whole repertoire there, chapeau.

we know that your claim ("nobody took that seriously") was bollocks, no need to deflect away from that.
Also, i already answered you at length about cassani (one or two pages back), so why not let it go? if it is to deflect away from your shoddy claim, well that's fair enough. but meanwhile you're clogging the thread and you sound like a broken record so one wonders, what's the point?
here's a song for you:
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsPq9mzFNGY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsPq9mzFNGY
i don't know who that guy is but the lyrics are good:
"let it go, just let it be"
the phrase "time to move on" also passes by.

You know what.

I've made my points.

Have a nice day.

 

[blackcat]

Re:

his acceleration appears to be. And even if it is very suspicious, there's still the possibility of chemical doping.

that word, that is all it is

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

It appears to me you haven't yet shed your light on what is arguably Fab's most suspicious jump. The jump is 2:10 into the next video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7xjsPqHg3o
The good thing is we don't have to focus on clicking on the handle bars (as that isn't visible anyway). Would be interested to hear how real it looks to you in terms of accelleration plus cadence and gear choice.

it looks suspicious, looks the apt term.

but I will give you another element sniper, the first time, with the peloton, or decimated front group over ~20, there were about 3 ahead, maybe one contiguous to him.

He gets out of the saddle to raise his speed. At about 2:08.

But, from the naked eye, it looks like the acceleration starts in the saddle, just a few seconds later, about 2:14? His body, his upperbody this is, seems perfectly relaxed, in saddle, not changing any technique to accelerate.

IT MAY be a visual illusion. Two parts, looking at Spartacus, you can focus on him, so that is not a visual illusion. But you are marking him relative to his front group, when the pace went off, so this element would exacerbate the illusory element. But looking at Canc? nope, cant see how that could be a visual illusion, of him acclerating in saddle. It looks not correct, or looks wrong.

the last part, where we see from behind as he accelerates away, how can you tell him going away. Forshortening (is it foreshortening?) of lenses/lens would mean he is actually further away than he looks for the viewer.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Imagine if you're riding with a group greatly inferior to you, staying up with them by pedalling in a relatively small gear without requiring much effort. You suddenly switch to a higher gear, without changing your cadence. You will shoot out from that group just as Cance does in that video. No motor necessary. The question is just whether Cance is physiologically capable of doing this, no question that the phenomenon is possible at lower speeds.

agree with your points Merckx, so dont wish to pick apart them.

and my previous point about getting out of saddle to accelerate, that was most likely just about posture and comfort, Cancellara does not need to get out of saddle to accelerate when they are at 40kmph.

You are perfectly correct, it looks like magic.

But the other riders are still pros who are the best riders in the world. But Boonen and Cancellara have proven to be just a little bit better.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

FWIW, which is probably sweet FA, I have done both:
1. appear to be completely spent and drifted to the back of the group to then attack some small distance down the road
2. casually roll of the front. it looks harmless and always amazes me when people let you just do that, but it can put you in a breakaway situation with minimal effort

I am not saying this is the case here, in pro cycling, or these races, but appearances can be deceving, and pros, if anything, can appear effortless in their application of their ability to their craft.

 

[python]

while i personally find it difficult to imagine that the top pros in an organized and tightly supervised sport would resort to doping their bikes, it would be to ignore human nature to outright dismiss the possibility...

i just read the thread a dozen+ of pages back...of the many posters, clearly, sniper is one of the most vocal who believes it is a POSSIBILITY. at no point i read him saying it a certainty but his view is clear.

while sniper engaged several posters with his opinions, links, arguments (being in turn responded to constructively by them), the hitch addressed almost exclusively and only sniper. i would ignore the issues all together, if what i read (again, it a was a random unplanned experience) did not remind me some previous experience...

to be objective, neither the hitch nor sniper seemed to share any points. their posts are the evidence. however, while sniper was clearly focused on discussing his arguments (impressions of shifting etc), the hitch seemed focused on ridiculing sniper personally ('was there ever a conspiracy you did not believe' etc). he, the hitch, also claimed that sniper said things i personally could not verify (for instance about cassani) he ever did...and then proceeded to deconstruct those 'arguments' as sniper lacking the fact-checking in his own posts...???

ferk, that seemed rich... time and again i saw those bizarre iterations from the culprit...to be fair, i ALWAYS ignored the stuff as the forum noise, that is, until recently, when the same poster constructed several tirades on my behalf i never said or could even comprehend.

well, i'm not going to go off-topic...my opinion of bike doping is still skeptical. i have no proof either way. if anything, as a scientist, i tend to merit m. index way of judgement. of course, it does not mean that fab was not suspicious.

 

[blackcat]

Re:

FWIW, which is probably sweet FA, I have done both:
1. appear to be completely spent and drifted to the back of the group to then attack some small distance down the road
2. casually roll of the front. it looks harmless and always amazes me when people let you just do that, but it can put you in a breakaway situation with minimal effort

I am not saying this is the case here, in pro cycling, or these races, but appearances can be deceving, and pros, if anything, can appear effortless in their application of their ability to their craft.

thnx for the reply. it IS worth alot.

like every morsel 42x16 says, I eat it up. I put extra stock in it.

the anecdotal insights from those in domestic pros or cat1 domestic races, or off-season nhemisphere where the pros return and you swap off with them in the bunch, it gives a layperson the insight that is otherwise missing from their experience (or my lack of experience). so dont conflate my bombastic posture with true understanding

 

[sniper]

the issues that i think need an explanation, accompanied by what I think are their possible explanations:

1. Fab's jumps (possible explanations: a. doping, b. motor)

2. Fab's handlebar clicking just before take-off (possible explanations: a. electronic gear shifter; b. motor viz. Gruber system as explained in the youtube vid)

3. Fab's bike changes, all in the absence of visible damage, plus mechanic standing alongside the road which is somewhat unusual (possible explanations: a. no idea; b. motor viz. cance in need of new batteries)

4. the rumors in and around the peloton about Fab's motorization, explicit doubters/believers (depending on one's pov) such as Roux, Lefevere and Mattan, and some more implicit finger-pointing e.g. from Pinotti (possible eplanations: a. lots of conspiracy theorists on bikes these days; b. Fab actually using a motor)

Now, I won't invoke Occam's Razor, because we wouldn't have much left to discuss. So lemme go through the points separately.

1. My problem with answer (1a) is that it doesn't explain the Mur.
Boonen was in top shape going into the RvV, his home terrain, was no doubt properly charged, and is normally the better rider on short steep climbs.
So what kind of doping was Fab using in order to drop Boonen for dead? Not impossible, but imo a motor is more likely and readily explains Fab leaving Boonen for dead on the Mur whilst seated.

2. I've heard some claim that it could have been an electric gear shifter, others saying that it's unlikely to have been a gear shifter. While that may remain undecided, one is left wondering, if that clicking was just Fab shifting gears, why he never took the effort to show to the world that it had nothing to do with a motor. We know from several news reports that he, the UCI, and Saxo took the accusations put forward in that video seriously. If the clicking incident was just him shifting gears, Fab would have had plenty of reasons to come out and show it to the press.
So, again, points for the motorization hypothesis. It readily explains the facts.

3. To cut to the chase, if he was using motors during the race, the bike changes make sense. In any other scenario, the bike changes remain odd, unexplained.
So points go to the motorization hypothesis.

4. Anybody in doubt about what I mean with the rumors among pro's and ex-pro's should go back into the thread. Everything has been linked, and it's not little. From people directly accusing Fab to people indirectly hinting at him, as well as at least one rider reporting noise coming from Fab's bike (which would fit with what we know from the Gruber system), and at least two people (Pinotti and Rasmussen) claiming they've seen the technology.
Problem I have with answer (4a) is that riders/DSs don't usually go on the record accusing each other unless they have good reason to.

So, that's basically why, if I were forced to make a bet, I would put my money on Fab having used a motor for those two races. I'm not convinced, but yes, finding the motorization hypothesis quite plausible.

-----
@MerckxIndex and others interested in a more scientific approach, this is an interesting link (at least it looks like a good effort to me):
http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/2010/06/anatomy-of-cancellara-attack.html

 

[The Hitch]

1. My problem with answer (1a) is that it doesn't explain the Mur.
Boonen was in top shape going into the RvV, his home terrain, was no doubt properly charged, and is normally the better rider on short steep climbs.
So what kind of doping was Fab using in order to drop Boonen for dead?

What kind of doping do you think his teammate Andy Schleck was using to come 2nd in the Tour and win Liege. What kind of doping was his other teammate Sastre using to win the Tour?
Whatever doping that was, same dope Cancellara would have used. EPO/blood transfusions, cocktails of synthetic testostrone, cortisone, other steroids etc.

This is a team run by Riis who Hamilton says was all about doping his riders.

Not impossible, but imo a motor is more likely and readily explains Fab leaving Boonen for dead on the Mur whilst seated.

Why is a motor more likely?

He was the joint favourite for the race and he dropped the other joint favourite after 230km of very hard hard riding. All you need to have on a climb like Muur is a tiny bit more energy than your opponent and you will fly past them like they are standing still.

After 230km that is not remotely surprising. That's what happens in monuments towards the end. The strongest rider rides away from the slightly less stronger rider.

Its not like Cancellara on Muur was the most incredible performance in cycling. It was only 8 months after Verbier which was far far far more physiologically improbable than Cancellara on Muur.

Do you know that 1 year later Gilbert rode the Muur faster than Cancellara did in 2010?

6 months before Canc won the world tt championships in Mendrisio in probably the most dominant fashion any tt has been won this decade. 3 days after that he was clearly the strongest rider on what was essentially a mountain course at the road race despite still being tired from the time trial.

This was not some sort of a Froome breakout. He was fighting with Contador for the title of the strongest rider in the sport at the time. He went into the classics, doped to the gills, just like Contador went into the 09 Tour doped to the gills. Contador 09 was still way more impressive.

Also Boonen is human, not a robot who is guaranteed to rider a certain climb at a certain speed. Even Indurain cracked in 93. Even Lance cracked in 2003. Even Landis cracked in 2006. Even Contador cracked in 2013. Boonen can crack too. Or he can be weaker 1 year than he was a different year.
Its not like its totally out of the question that Boonen would be weaker than Cancellara on Muur, especially if Canc found a better cocktail.

3. Fab's bike changes, all in the absence of visible damage, plus mechanic standing alongside the road which is somewhat unusual (possible explanations: a. no idea; b. motor viz. cance in need of new batteries)

First of all its not unheard of for riders to change bikes before finales. Contador does it all the time. He was also accused of mechanical doping because of it, (but after the bike testing came in).

Secondly its a cobbled race, so it could be a tactic - slightly different wheels for different parts of the race, especially if Canc knows when he wants to attack. Could also be insurance against punctures. New bike at certain sections of the course just in case.

Also I don't get the importance of the mechanic. Is he there to deal with the new bike or the old bike?
What was his role? If the bike operates a press the button to activate the motor, system, why would the mechanic need to be there? the motor isn't running?

4. the rumors in and around the peloton about Fab's motorization, explicit doubters/believers (depending on one's pov) such as Roux, Lefevere and Mattan, and some more implicit finger-pointing e.g. from Pinotti (possible eplanations: a. lots of conspiracy theorists on bikes these days; b. Fab actually using a motor)

What? Only 2 options? 1 that motors don't exist, the other that Canc was using it?

Really????

Saying Cancellara was likely not using a motor in the youtube vid IS NOT THE SAME AS saying motors don't exist.

There are several far more obvious explanations than the 2 you posted.
c. There are motors in the peloton but they were not used by Cancellara in 2010.
d. There are motors in the peloton and Cancellara used them in 2010 but no one caught it on camera because the sensible way to use motors is to use them in the first 200k of the race when no one is watching NOT, wait for the final 20k when the cameras of the world are on you and then in front of the whole world press buttons that will be caught on camera.
e. There are motors in the peloton but they weren't quite developed back in 2010.

 

[sniper]

1. My problem with answer (1a) is that it doesn't explain the Mur.
Boonen was in top shape going into the RvV, his home terrain, was no doubt properly charged, and is normally the better rider on short steep climbs.
So what kind of doping was Fab using in order to drop Boonen for dead?

What kind of doping do you think his teammate Andy Schleck was using to come 2nd in the Tour and win Liege. What kind of doping was his other teammate Sastre using to win the Tour?
Whatever doping that was, same dope Cancellara would have used. EPO/blood transfusions, cocktails of synthetic testostrone, cortisone, other steroids etc.

This is a team run by Riis who Hamilton says was all about doping his riders.

Not impossible, but imo a motor is more likely and readily explains Fab leaving Boonen for dead on the Mur whilst seated.

Why is a motor more likely?

He was the joint favourite for the race and he dropped the other joint favourite after 230km of very hard hard riding. All you need to have on a climb like Muur is a tiny bit more energy than your opponent and you will fly past them like they are standing still.

After 230km that is not remotely surprising. That's what happens in monuments towards the end. The strongest rider rides away from the slightly less stronger rider.

Its not like Cancellara on Muur was the most incredible performance in cycling. It was only 8 months after Verbier which was far far far more physiologically improbable than Cancellara on Muur.

Do you know that 1 year later Gilbert rode the Muur faster than Cancellara did in 2010?

6 months before Canc won the world tt championships in Mendrisio in probably the most dominant fashion any tt has been won this decade. 3 days after that he was clearly the strongest rider on what was essentially a mountain course at the road race despite still being tired from the time trial.

This was not some sort of a Froome breakout. He was fighting with Contador for the title of the strongest rider in the sport at the time. He went into the classics, doped to the gills, just like Contador went into the 09 Tour doped to the gills. Contador 09 was still way more impressive.

Also Boonen is human, not a robot who is guaranteed to rider a certain climb at a certain speed. Even Indurain cracked in 93. Even Lance cracked in 2003. Even Landis cracked in 2006. Even Contador cracked in 2013. Boonen can crack too. Or he can be weaker 1 year than he was a different year.
Its not like its totally out of the question that Boonen would be weaker than Cancellara on Muur, especially if Canc found a better cocktail.

3. Fab's bike changes, all in the absence of visible damage, plus mechanic standing alongside the road which is somewhat unusual (possible explanations: a. no idea; b. motor viz. cance in need of new batteries)

First of all its not unheard of for riders to change bikes before finales. Contador does it all the time. He was also accused of mechanical doping because of it, (but after the bike testing came in).

Secondly its a cobbled race, so it could be a tactic - slightly different wheels for different parts of the race, especially if Canc knows when he wants to attack. Could also be insurance against punctures. New bike at certain sections of the course just in case.

Also I don't get the importance of the mechanic. Is he there to deal with the new bike or the old bike?
What was his role? If the bike operates a press the button to activate the motor, system, why would the mechanic need to be there? the motor isn't running?

4. the rumors in and around the peloton about Fab's motorization, explicit doubters/believers (depending on one's pov) such as Roux, Lefevere and Mattan, and some more implicit finger-pointing e.g. from Pinotti (possible eplanations: a. lots of conspiracy theorists on bikes these days; b. Fab actually using a motor)

What? Only 2 options? 1 that motors don't exist, the other that Canc was using it?

Really????

Saying Cancellara was likely not using a motor in the youtube vid IS NOT THE SAME AS saying motors don't exist.

There are several far more obvious explanations than the 2 you posted.
c. There are motors in the peloton but they were not used by Cancellara in 2010.
d. There are motors in the peloton and Cancellara used them in 2010 but no one caught it on camera because the sensible way to use motors is to use them in the first 200k of the race when no one is watching NOT, wait for the final 20k when the cameras of the world are on you and then in front of the whole world press buttons that will be caught on camera.
e. There are motors in the peloton but they weren't quite developed back in 2010.

some very good and fair points.
much remains a matter of gutfeeling and of whether or not you have ever seen similar effortless demarrages ever before or after. I haven't.

One other point remains in favor of motorization: why has Fab never tried to debunk anything shown in the video, e.g. wrt the arrows suggesting he's activating the Gruber system?
Whatever he was doing on his handlebars, if it was something innocent he should be able to easily debunk it.
We know he took the accusations and the youtube vid very seriously, he spoke about it in a few interviews. He's said things like "I know there's a youtube vid about me circulating that has received 2 million clicks" and then went on to say that he found it funny at first but now not so funny anymore. Well if that's the case, why not put in the minimal effort of showing the press why that video is bogus and why the clicking was innocent. UCI and CSC-Saxo are two other parties who would have benefited from debunking that video.

You could perhaps argue that by trying to debunk that video he would give unnecessary credit/exposure to the video. Still, I think in this case he'd have benefited more from debunking it. (Compare what A. Rasmussen tried to do after Hesjedal got accused. No such attempts by anybody in the case of Fab.)

 

[D-Queued]

...

some very good and fair points.
much remains a matter of gutfeeling and of whether or not you have ever seen similar effortless demarrages ever before or after. I haven't.

One other point remains in favor of motorization: why has Fab never tried to debunk anything shown in the video, e.g. wrt the arrows suggesting he's activating the Gruber system?
Whatever he was doing on his handlebars, if it was something innocent he should be able to easily debunk it.
We know he took the accusations and the youtube vid very seriously, he spoke about it in a few interviews. He's said things like "I know there's a youtube vid about me circulating that has received 2 million clicks" and then went on to say that he found it funny at first but now not so funny anymore. Well if that's the case, why not put in the minimal effort of showing the press why that video is bogus and why the clicking was innocent. UCI and CSC-Saxo are two other parties who would have benefited from debunking that video.

You could perhaps argue that by trying to debunk that video he would give unnecessary credit/exposure to the video. Still, I think in this case he'd have benefited more from debunking it. (Compare what A. Rasmussen tried to do after Hesjedal got accused. No such attempts by anybody in the case of Fab.)

Just as the Hitch suggested above, you may want to broaden the possibilities that you are considering.

1. Giving a response to a baseless accusation gives it substance. So nothing to win there.

2. Cancellera isn't exactly all that loquacious.

3. This is trivial. There are more important things to worry about.

4. If you want to consider devious intent, then by not speaking about it he allows folks like you to continue fanning the conspiracy theory knowing that such chatter will drive up interest in the sport.

Python suggested above that you were discussing the 'possibility'. Hopefully you are not suggesting that it was a certainty. If the use of a motor was possible, but not probable, then there must be easier explanations for why Spartacus hasn't responded than you are offering as choices

Dave.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

For me, it's simply a matter of too many coincidences. A well-known rider like Cancellara has never been seen (well, at least I've never seen) to put in a huge seated attack like that in a major race before. In fact, I've never seen anyone put in that kind of seated attack before. There was also a premeditated bike change at a fixed location re: having your mechanic stand at a specific spot with a new bike - never seen that before especially in a flat race. And of course, all this happens right at the time when the technology improves to the point that a hidden motor, controller and battery all become feasible (I listed off the shelf components that could give ~200 Watts several posts back). Not only that, you immediately get several commentators from within the sport talking about motorized doping complete with videos of actual bikes.

Never seen before seated attack. Super big race. Premeditated bike change. Right when bike doping becomes feasible. Actual bikes shown.

It's a case of circumstantial evidence and Cancellara is lucky that Hitch and Merckx are more likely to be on the jury than I am. Who's correct? I doubt we'll ever know.

John Swanson

 

[sniper]

Clearly agree with John here, well put.
Indeed too many coincidences, whereas if we assume he was using motorization, all pieces fall together nice and smoothly.
Occam's Razor.

If this were down to doping, you really have to wonder why we haven't seen more of these effortless seated turbo-accellerations from Cancellara or from other megadopers.

In addition to Cassani (demonstrating the system on Italian national television), Rasmussen and Pinotti are on the record having seen (Pinotti) and been offered (Rasmussen) the same or similar technology. So yes, there was a market in that period.

@theHitch, I don't understand your assumption that if you'd use a motor, you'd use it in the first 200 km. Where did you hear that?
My understanding is rather that the motor, if it exists, it will likely be designed to give you a short boost of a couple of minutes at best, making it ideal to use in the finale and tougher parts of races.