Magnetic resistance tests
  • Berne Shaw

    I applaud the reasoning, seriousness, and proposed level of consequences for motorized cheating. What I think is called for is for WADA to move into the post Blackout Era the era of protecting clean athletes by adopting the scope and severity of consequences for all kinds of doping including blood bags, EPO, steroids, etc. to be the SAME as for motorized doping.

    Why? Because currently crime PAYS! Most of the major cheaters of the 90 to the present made millions of dollars in winnings, endorsements, and salaries and never returned any winnings, paid few if any fines, served no time in jail, nor were barred for life from all sports as an athlete let alone a manager for crime sake.

    A person who cold bloodily commits an ongoing pattern of fraud, cheating, and stealing winnings and money will not have remorse. Their only regret as we see from these folks (there are some exceptions but in the main) is that they were not able to avoid detection, they had to quit cheating, and they might have had to sit on their hands suspended for a while before allegedly becoming clean!

    Motorized doping has opened our eyes to the possibility that cheaters, dopers, will REFRAIN from doing so when they see that crime does NOT pay and instead it punishes in severe ways they cannot escape detection and accountability.

    • Dave

      What is needed is for event organisers in all sports – but especially cycling – to be given the absolute right to refuse participation to a proven fraudster once they have returned to the sport. This should go right up to and including Olympic level.

      This should be equally applicable to athletes who are selected for a team sport. An upcoming potential issue in Australia is the 2016-17 cricket season where the touring Pakistan team may choose to select Salman Butt, the former captain who went to jail in Britain for coordinating match fixing. As it stands, Cricket Australia do not have the option to veto him and the only hope is that the Australian government denies him a visa on the basis of his criminal record.

      • ummm…

        we are turning blue in the face. It is a big show for our “benefit”. Nothing will change because it benefits nobody except the sensibilities of certain fans like you or myself.

        • Dave

          Speak for yourself champ.

          I am not ‘turning blue in the face’ over this or any other issue in cycling or any other sport.

          If you find it too hard to control your anger over the issue, log off and spend your time on something more worthwhile – perhaps put on your sausage costume and go out to ride your bike. Or stir a spoonful of cement into your next latte so you can HTFU.

          • ummm…

            Lol, at least I let my anger out. U seem a bit repressed.

    • ummm…

      I hear ya Berne. The debate over which form of cheating is worse just shows how morally corrupt the whole sport is; riders, sponsors, organinzers, governing body, media. These people have no shame. Somebody must be making money, and lots of it, because all of our collective mothers would be very upset if they knew what we were up to in our sausage outfits all the time.

  • Legstrong

    I think Barfield’s reasonings why the alternative methods didn’t work too well were valid. However, the skepticism on magic wheels is not healthy. The cheaters are always one step ahead due to their willingness to try anything new. UCI must operate by thinking like the cheaters do, that everything is possible. Try new method along side a proven method.

    • Dave

      I’m not concerned with the scepticism around the wheel motors – purely because they are continuing to scan the wheels despite their scepticism.

      • donncha

        Yep, exactly. The UCI are not ignoring the possibility of magic wheels, they’re just saying that they’ve yet to see a proof of concept and are very sceptical that they’re actually being used. Mainly trying to hose down some of the more hyperbolic speculation. Like Dave says, they are still checking the wheels.

    • Timiji

      There are lots of reasons why any method isn’t going to be “the best” … including the UCI’s chosen method. 100% confidence in anything isn’t confidence – it’s blind faith, which is fine, until you’re proven wrong.

  • ummm…

    Wow, I never thought I’d reach the point of over saturation when it comes to cheating in cycling. I enjoy the drama – but after years as a fan I think I’m finally over it. Too many crisis in this sport; “Sexism”, mechanical doping vs. pharma doping, riders being hit, disc breaks, etc. etc. etc. on and on and on. I’ve always known that much of the drama in this sport is off the bike, but I think I’m less entertained by it as I’m beginning to feel like I’m being taken for a fool. There is no interest in solving these issues. Then I am pandered to day after day and sold clickbait to make advertisers and blog sites more money as the sport stumbles from one embarrassment to another. Why do women want more of a visible presence in the pro ranks? It is a joke!

    • Arfy

      Agree there’s too much emphasis on the off-bike issues. We need the cycling media to promote more on-bike stories, maybe Bouhanni slagging off or Stannard finding a friend? I’m sure the stories are there if you look for them.

      • Dave

        I’d love to see Bouhanni and Stannard in a breakaway together.

    • donncha

      It’s probably always been like this. However, due to the increasing popularity of the sport, and the increasing 24hr internet coverage, you now hear all about these things whereas 20 years ago you’d never hear about them, or they might merit an article in one of the mags.

      You wouldn’t have seen the event live, so you probably wouldn’t have an opinion and there’d be less debate.

      Downtube shifters to STI.
      Toe clips to clipless pedals.
      LeMond’s TT bars
      “Traditional” doping to EPO.
      Jesper Skibby? getting run over on the Koppenberg?
      Hinault punching strikers who’d blocked the Tour.
      The 98 Tour!!

      and I’m sure there’s much more.

      • Dave

        Why restrict yourself to modern controversy?

        Riders disqualified for motor pacing
        Riders being beaten by rivals’ fans on the Col d’Republique
        Changing to a points race
        Changing to a TTT race
        Changing to a GC race
        Allowing domestiques
        Banning domestiques
        Stuffups with circuit finishes
        Riders taking shortcuts
        Making riders all use spec yellow bikes
        Riders complaining about race conditions
        Rigging the race rules to make sure a home rider won
        Riders being hit by race organisation vehicles
        Difficulties with customs officials during international stages

        All from the first 30 years of the Tour de France.

        But what would any sport be without some of this stuff?

        • ummm…

          i agree. this is part of sport, as sport is part of life. However, when will we get tired being pandered? Is this the only way for us to be able to have pro sport, and be able to except the doping? Only thing we have to do is act appalled when dopers get popped?

      • ummm…

        You may very well be right. The 24 hour news cycle is a paradigm shifter. One day there will be whole clashes in uni on it.

  • adrian_irvine

    Firstly Femke van Den Driesche was never caught using a motor. A bike with a motor fitted was found in het assigned materiaal post. Secondly she cannot appeal the decision because she does not have the Financial means to fund an appeal.I feel sorry for her. You never hear anything Said about the idiot who actually owned the bike.

    • Rodrigo Diaz

      Maybe, just maybe, because such an “idiot” is only a screen? He came forward once (allegedly, and not in official manner to the UCI) and never showed his face again.

      Occam would indicate that the most plausible answer is that a) the bike was fully intended to be used for cheating and b) it most likely was used successfully at Koppenbergcross. As for the “explanation” that it was an old frame retrofitted by a friend that just happened to be in her pit area by accident… cheating athletes really think the rest of us are imbeciles: it’s my chimeric twin, the cocaine came from Colombian candy, the drugs are for my dog, the EPO is for my mother in law, it’s drugs splashed from the gutter because it rained on the course, the CIA spiked my drink, etc.

      If you’re still in a laughing mood, look up Daniel Plaza or Dennis Mitchell’s explanations. About as good as Van Den Driesche’s.

  • WilRay

    A couple of points re thermal cameras that I’ve not seen here. First the resolution on the bottom end ones is pretty lousy by the standards of modern ordinary cameras. 160 x 120 on the basic models, going up to 320 x 240 on the standard off the shelf models. Well the FLIR T640 can do 640 x 480, but then you start to hit the limitations of point two.

    Point two, and why you need to be at a place where the peloton is moving past you very slowly if you are just sitting by the side of the road, is that any thermal camera that has a frame rate greater than 9 frames per second is classified as a munition by Uncle Sam. Just in case you were tempted to pull the sensor out and create your own heat seeking missile. And given that the big thermal imaging companies are US ones, there’s no way round that one. Google ITAR regulations if you want the full details.

  • .: Son1ze :.

    The problem with cheating in sports (any sport not just cycling) is this… NOBODY ever cheats ALONE. So unless you’ve busted them ALL in one go you really haven’t busted anything but the dummy who stubbed their toe on the rock and was lagging behind the rest of the herd… Sigh.

  • Derek Maher

    Storm in a tea cup. So one unused bike was found with a motor = mass panic and more expense is loaded onto cycle racing what a joke.


Pin It on Pinterest

October 25, 2016
October 24, 2016
October 22, 2016
October 21, 2016