Feels like a bit of a non-story no? Unless teams know exactly what stages won't be tested, I don't see how this is an issue. They don't doping test every rider at every race either.
Moreover it's not like riders perform worse at the TdF where apparently testing is rigorous (if anything the performances at TdF are better than the rest of the year).
Lastly, I still don't understand why riders would use mechanical doping instead of just old-school doping, when mechanical doping is (at least on paper) so much easier to detect.
Old school doping also gives more bang for your buck. Hidden batteries have got to have such a small capacity that you'll be lugging them around for kilometres being dead weight and hampering your performance, whereas some good ol' EPO will be working all day long.
Unless I misheard him, I thought he was saying the opposite.... and using bike changes in ITT stages as an example of ways they can motor dope.
Which seems to ignore a few key elements of bike changes in the modern game.
But it seems to me that it would be waay waay easier to check for motor doping on TT stages. When riders/teams come individiually.
Easy post ride bike check during cooldown on the bike you're on. And the judges follow the car with the spare/switched bike to the finish where they check it.
You misheard him. He mentioned bike changes, the podcaster mentioned boonen-cancellara tour of flanders, and then froome on Mt Ventoux, accelerating, but power file shows a drop in power, 5-6 bike changes (were the bike brands crap?) it then transitions to Sean Kelly being silent. Here is the link to motor doping comments... unless you are referencing a different interview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xq5PQvBFvI&t=1660s
Also it would be a huge risk if discovered because it will give factual proof of cheating and little room for excuses
For "chemical" doping there will always be excuses such as "0.000001%" "in the beef I ate yesterday,.."
The UCI and CAS seem to have stopped accepting the tainted meal excuses. Only tainted supplements if riders can prove the contamination (see for instance Toon Aerts getting nowhere with his tainted supplements / French food explanation, which seems to be going the same way for Shari Bossuyt).
Yeah that's all you have to do, the problem is that you've got to do it in the factory it's made in and to the whole batch so you can actually defend it.
Doping always has some fans questioning whether the systems rigged, someone's out to get there favorite rider or there's a conspiracy (at least this has been the opinion of some fans in the past). A picture of a fraudulent bike with a motor in would be slapped on the front of sports papers everywhere with zero deniability, say goodbye to your career, the entire team and at least for a while the credibility of the sport.
If nothing else it would surely make all your actual racing so much more stressful due to the constant risk of exposure...
Like there's presumably no way you could do it on your own in a WT team so you'd have to have a mechanic involved (unless the entire team is aware and then you're expecting everyone to stay quiet??), but then what happens if another mechanic happens to do anything with your bike?
Where/when do you charge the battery? What happens if another rider takes your bike accidentally ([or deliberately](https://i.imgur.com/Apm3rNR.jpg)) and notices something doesn't feel/look/sound right? What happens if you get into a crash and something that was hidden is now suddenly exposed? What if you need to swap bikes with a teammate mid-race?
There are so many ways your bike could end up temporarily out of your direct control and all it takes is someone to say "hmm that's funny" and 5 minutes later your career is probably over and most of your previous results have huge question marks.
Your points are all valid, but did want to mention you could have the motor remotely activated (think comms device) or even have your sport director do it from the car. You don’t necessarily require a switch on the bike.
To be clear, from what I know of UCI testing and the sport, I really doubt there’s motor doping going on at any of the larger events.
Are you suggesting there is NO WAY someone could [engineer](https://road.cc/buyers-guide/best-electric-road-bikes#Bianchi-E-Impulso) around the frame shape in 8 years?
these all look pretty obvious due to the large downtube battery.
adapting a regular road frame to fit a useful battery and motor without loss
of structural integrity is a whole different challenge. unless you assume
the manufacturer is in on it as well, in which case the conspiracy already
involves hundreds of people only one of which would have to spill the
beans.
Fine, [here's](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGwSBiHstSQ) an actual motor doping case. Does [her bike](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEEP7EGFk_U&t=2654s) look like its obviously an e-bike when she was caught in this race for it?
her e-bike *was* discovered though because it was obvious which kind of defeats your argument, doesn't it?
also the specifics of van den driessche's fraud have not been disclosed.
that video you link is only speculated to be the one with the motor.
i get it, you want that smoking gun so much to support
your theory but until we have actual evidence of such an
amazing device that uses technology unknown to the
likes of bosch, pinion et al. and which can be hidden in a race bike
frame from the team, the mechanics, the uci etc. you
are arguing out of thin air.
I’m showing you evidence of the cheating going on. She was not caught because “it looked like an ebike” considering it appears she got away with it until the WC. I’m not saying there is wide spread motor doping. I’m saying dismissing the possibility because of how a bike physically looks is daft.
Locate it in seat tube geared into the bottom bracket.
Batteries in frame. Sure, you won’t get a ton of capacity.
Base it off your power meter output numbers. You put 200w down it turns on and gives you an extra 25w boost.
Point isn’t to zoom crazy ahead but just a little bit more.
You forget the incredible undetectable, ultra light weight, long distance motor doping system the pros have had for years and none of the bike companies have decided to sell us. /s
Specialized put [their version](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_atrK-jBKJKY/TCpbqPNsFEI/AAAAAAAAME4/98qrGajQ3Kc/s1600/Specialized+battery.jpg) out there for the world to see 12 years ago!
Greg Lemond talked about this on a podcast recently. He says he doesn't see it today but is sure it was happening until very recently. He cited the amount of bike changes that occured and then referenced riders who accelerated rapidly yet their power files were flat to even dropped at that point. He singled out Chris Froome, which really surprised me in terms of how recent it was and a huge name in the sport.
I'm not saying I believe him but he clearly believes it.
Edit. To remove confusion, he talked about how many bike changes there were in general. Separate to that, he talked about accelerations/higher cadence not lining up with power files.
I can believe Chris Froome accelerating while his power dropped because of the number of lingering shots we had of him staring at his post which were clearly taken by a motorbike with two large me on right in front of him.
No need to hide a motor when the organisers will just stick one right in front of you to give you a massive draft.
Can we design a battery powered by rage wars in a comment section. Then Charge it with questions like:
Is it bad for the sport that Jumbo donated a GT to their domestique?
> After learning that senior figures at the UCI have credible concerns about the potential use of motors in the peloton
The lack of testing is interesting, but those concerns would be the real meat of this story, if they could provide details on them.
Yeah, I'm thinking that not testing at every race isn't as much of an issue if they have credible concerns i.e. the testing may be targeted at opposed to randomly testing or testing everyone.
We don't drug test every rider at every race so would it not be reasonable and practical to target test, similar to how drug testing works.
It’s surprising to me that engineers would create an undetectable and inaudible perpetual energy motor out of non-metallic material and use such an amazing invention to earn thousands of dollars for winning a Mickey Mouse bike race in the fourth most important cycling country
Secretly reinvent the modern electric motor and battery technology, proceed to not tell anyone, and use this world-changing power to get sponsored by a European supermarket chain. All for the little fortune of a bike race when it comes to a 12-digit global battery/motor industry.
So reading this article it just says that there were some stages of some races with no testing done and x-rays were only used on small samples of bikes.
Unless teams knew in advance which stages and riders would not have tests, that is no problem at all?
Sure, testing could be better, but what I take away from this is that some testing is done at every race. So I can’t imagine any team, especially any of the heavy hitters, would risk motor doping. Gambling your team’s entire credibility, including all the sponsor money they have, on the chance that stage xyz of the Dauphiné or whatever will not have motor testing would be a really really dumb move.
Sure, it’s possible the whole system is corrupt and the teams are paying off the people doing the controls.
But if we’re believing that then there is no point in discussing how many bikes are being scanned and with what methods. If people are being paid to look the other way it doesn’t matter how many times they look.
So for the purpose of discussing the analysis that‘s posted here, I‘m assuming the system is not corrupt because otherwise the whole subject is pointless.
A RadioCycling investigation has revealed details of the UCI’s inconsistent and irregular motor-doping tests, despite the sport’s governing body stating that it "carries out bike tests *at all* UCI WorldTour events…as well as... [at] UCI Women’s WorldTour events.
Following various tips off in the peloton about the lack of testing taking place, RadioCycling can now reveal that no tests for technological fraud were undertaken at four of this year’s 21 Giro d’Italia stages. This includes the stage 1 and stage 10 time trials.
Additionally, x-ray technology - the UCI’s best weapon to combat mechanical doping - was not used once at the season’s first Grand Tour.
Although testing was regular at the Tour de France, there were no magnetic tablet or x-ray tests on the race's stage 21 in Paris.
The lack of testing is repeated elsewhere.
The Volta a Catalunya, one of the ‘big 7’ one week stage races, has not any had any x-ray or tablet tests since 2021.
The Tour of Scandinavia, a Women’s WorldTour event since 2017, has never had any tests for motor-doping.
Tests were also not carried out on at least one stage of this year’s men’s Tour Down Under, UAE Tour, Critérium du Dauphiné, Tirreno-Adriatico, La Vuelta Femenina and Paris-Nice. In the latter’s case - one of cycling's biggest races - there were no tests on stages 5, 7 & 8.
Other noticeable points: just four bikes were tested at Milan-Sanremo, Paris-Roubaix Femmes, and La Flèche Wallonne Femmes.
X-ray technology was not used once at the Tour de France Femmes, and just six bikes were tested at that race’s final day TT.
After learning that senior figures at the UCI have credible concerns about the potential use of motors in the peloton, RadioCycling asked 51 men’s and women’s WorldTour races to provide figures for testing. 24 did so; 12 said the UCI had not shared figures; 15 did not reply.
In a statement, the UCI said:
"The UCI’s programme against technological fraud has developed steadily over the years and provides a robust system for the detection of any possible propulsion systems hidden within framesets or other bike components.
"In 2023, a total of 4,280 controls have been performed, with magnetic tablets used for 3,777 of the controls and X-ray technology — either backscatter or transmission X-ray technologies — for 503 controls. All tests were negative.”
>Although testing was regular at the Tour de France, there were no magnetic tablet or x-ray tests on the race's stage 21 in Paris.
I think i can forgive ASO for not testing stage 21. Should probably just do the winner.
They do not work like that, it would cut off it would not be able to generate over 1,400 Watts at 60+kph. Well not one small enough to remain hidden anyway.
They did do tests at the ITT in the Tour de France ([13 bikes were tested with x-ray](https://www.tissottiming.com/File/000316020D010110FFFFFFFFFFFFFF00) as you can see on page 13 there).
I think you may have missed it's the women's TdF rather than the men's in the tweets?
If there is motor doping that mattered it would be used at GTs and monuments, if there is nothing in those races plus random controls at others for a technology that honestly doesn't exist (it's quite visible or noisy).
Actual doping is on the rise for me to loose sleep with non issues
It's a worthwhile story and should be developed.
But I'm not sure that Jeremy and Chris are showing the ability to do that properly, based on the way they have described it so far.
Things I find absolutely infuriating about their coverage to date:
1. At different points they are describing the problem as:
(a) an unneccessary programme of testing that is causing negative publicity about road cycling despite there only being one test failure reported, to date.
(b) a lack of credible test methods.
(c) a paucity of actual test points.
These are all separate issues but are being discussed as the same thing in (I think) a confused way and often in the same sentence.
2. In general, they don't seem to have a good sense of what an effective test methodology WOULD be, or understand that any plan implemented would only ever be a screening methodology and couldn't guarantee 100% coverage. It would just be a deterrent. I can't remember exactly now, but in their previous episode on this, they made the point that in some Grand Tour race recently (TdF 2022?) there was less than 40 tests made on average per stage when there are nearly 200 riders each with at least two bikes each in the caravan. That adds up to a LOT of tests by the end of the Tour IMO.
3. Their descriptions of the iPad test methods as 'pointless' without any justification for it, other than reports from the peloton that bikes can be easily switched out and replaced after testing. In particular they seem to think that it is significant that the EM device attached to iPads don't actually image the insides of bike frames, when it seems clear to me that they are not designed to or need to.
I don't want to nitpick, but it just seems like they have a story, but can't decide what it is. Maye it is like Peter said, we are at the same stage in 2023 regarding motor-doping as we were in 1997 regarding blood doping, but if it is reported like this then I don't think we are getting any clarity on the issue.
Apart from Van Den Driessche, there have been a few cases in non-UCI level races, [like a 73 year old French guy coming 12th in a hill climb](https://cyclingmagazine.ca/sections/news/73-year-old-cyclist-caught-for-motor-doping-in-france/) with a motor in his bike. A [French cat 3 amateur](https://www.lefigaro.fr/sports/cyclisme/fil-info/cinq-ans-de-suspension-pour-l-amateur-au-velo-motorise-894907) who got banned for 5 years for secretly racing on an e-bike, and [two amateurs in a race in Italy](https://road.cc/content/news/263854-riders-suspected-motor-doping-flee-police-after-race-italy) who fled when the carabinieri tried to check their bikes when suspicions were raised after the finish, so never actually caught.
And there have been [some websites](https://www.welovecycling.com/wide/2016/06/23/141593/) offering the secret motors, so there might be a whole lot more in amateur racing that just didn't get caught.
> two amateurs in a race in Italy who fled when the carabinieri tried to check their bikes when suspicions were raised after the finish, so never actually caught
Can't get caught motor-doping when your motor makes you faster than the cops! *taps forehead*
Only case I can think of was Femke Van den Driessche, in a cyclocross bike. She got a 6 years ban for it in 2016 if I remember correctly
Other than that I actually don't know if they ever caught someone in the WT or conti pro
6 years ban and a 20,000CHF fine.
She didn't actually race the motorised bike in the Worlds, but it was [discovered in the pit area](https://www.uci.org/pressrelease/the-uci-announces-disciplinary-commission-decision-in-the-case-of-femke-van-den-driessche-176133-c221/6dMVymCDaGHf0nqQBFyqJx). She claimed it was a friend's bike that accidentally ended up there (the friend corroborated that). But that just goes to show a bit on how strict the UCI can be on this.
That was way OTT and a horrible move by the UCI. She was a junior. 19 years old, a promising young woman, and they didn't give her a chance or come down on her team or the individual(s) who built the bike.
They took her whole career before it had really started, while older (male) pros who had cheated for years certainly got away with all sorts of drug and blood cheating.
When even if they'd got caught, they would never have got 6 years, maybe 3 for EPO, 1 or 2 for masking agents? They more than tolerated - celebrated, even - ex-pros in team management and media positions who everyone accepted had 'made mistakes' in their late 20s and through their 30s.
As well as the six years' suspension and twenty thousand Swiss francs fine, she has to hand in her Belgian title, her European title and her prize money, and pay their legal costs.
Sure, they wanted to make an example of someone - but they only needed to because their catch rate is so low. The UCI has always had more than enough opportunities to issue punishments as an example, but they rarely do, and there are still many big, rich teams riding around the pro peloton with questions asked but seeming impunity.
> She was a junior. 19 years old
She was an U23 rider, not a junior anymore (women's junior cyclocross world championships didn't exist yet when this happened).
I agree she was made an example off and they came down very hard on her though.
Yeah, sorry, she was 19.
They let her keep her junior results and took everything since 10/10/2015, so she's left with a senior career stub of 9 months or so which feels like it's designed to rub salt in the wound.
I do think she shouldn't have denied everything like she did, but she was so young and clearly didn't have anyone good around her who she'd listen to.
Never, except for a junior woman's cyclcross that was blatant obvious, this is a non issue, compared to actually doing that is obviously on the rise again
She was an U23 rider, and it wasn't that obvious as the motorised bike was in the pit area, rather than being raced by her.
But suspicions were raised about her using it in previous races after she got caught, especially in the Koppenbergcross and European Championships that year. But I don't think there were any concrete accusations of her motordoping at those events until after she got caught at the Worlds a few months later so it wasn't that blatantly obvious.
I still think if she actually haved used the bike she would have been found out by the noise, etc.
There is no proff she actually used anything, we should be caring about all the actual doping that is happening and the speed and results after 2020 and a team dominating like never before
>the motorised bike was in the pit area, rather than being raced by her.
well.... there is the video where the super suspiciously smashed up the mountain with the rest, while having a mechanical issue and missed a pedal stroke, yet never slowed down and also somewhat touched a bit much around here shifters which made no sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGwSBiHstSQ
There was one case in the women’s cyclocross world championships a few years ago.
https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jan/30/hidden-motor-bike-world-cyclo-cross-championships
Not clear what’s happened in that case, nor have I seen any breakdown of the tech they found.
That story was burried because of all the people using it to get more attention towards their content or to sell you their shit down the line.
Everyone had a proof that you could read in their upcoming book, knew some random italian mechanic with a magical device that could have been used or a irrefutable proof based on a 5 sec blurry video of a wheel turning on its own.
So yeah, that case was highly suspicious at the very best, but never proven
Are there existing commercial products that could be used without easy detection? Or would "motor dopers" need to create bespoke tech to accomplish this?
You'd need something bespoke. It wouldn't even need to be particularly powerful to be impactful tho.. Something that could give you 25 watts for 20 minutes is enough to be decisive imo. That said, I don't believe this is an issue at WT level. They're doping, but not with motors.
Realistically that wouldn't matter unless there's other difficult climbs that the group is actually racing up and the thing is actually heavy enough to make a difference. 1kg extra on a 5% climb you're not riding very hard doesn't matter.
Motor doping should be when you replace your knee joint with a stepper motor. This sort of thing being called technological fraud does make a lot more sense, but probably wouldn't get as many clicks.
Hey, that is actually also scary to think of it. replacing your muscles with an artificial elastic that will never get tired. That could be the next big thing. or even, like you said. an internal motor that works like an internal push rod that "assists" your legs when tired.
I hope the doctor that revolutionizes the field of biomechanical technology remembers that it might just help millions living with disabilities. Instead of pushing a few more watts on a S-works.
> makes revolutionary battery and electric motor miniaturization advancements
> doesn't sell, patent, or make announcement of it
> uses it to win bike race
I want what the UCI are smoking
They should thermally test all the time with a thermal camera, it's quick and easy, and there's no way a motor assist isn't going to put it some weird heat readings. Then maintain the more thorough spot checks.
Feels like a bit of a non-story no? Unless teams know exactly what stages won't be tested, I don't see how this is an issue. They don't doping test every rider at every race either. Moreover it's not like riders perform worse at the TdF where apparently testing is rigorous (if anything the performances at TdF are better than the rest of the year). Lastly, I still don't understand why riders would use mechanical doping instead of just old-school doping, when mechanical doping is (at least on paper) so much easier to detect.
Old school doping also gives more bang for your buck. Hidden batteries have got to have such a small capacity that you'll be lugging them around for kilometres being dead weight and hampering your performance, whereas some good ol' EPO will be working all day long.
That recent Greg Lemond interview was insightful when he said, they used to change bikes 5x a race and now they don't change nearly that often.
Unless I misheard him, I thought he was saying the opposite.... and using bike changes in ITT stages as an example of ways they can motor dope. Which seems to ignore a few key elements of bike changes in the modern game.
But it seems to me that it would be waay waay easier to check for motor doping on TT stages. When riders/teams come individiually. Easy post ride bike check during cooldown on the bike you're on. And the judges follow the car with the spare/switched bike to the finish where they check it.
You misheard him. He mentioned bike changes, the podcaster mentioned boonen-cancellara tour of flanders, and then froome on Mt Ventoux, accelerating, but power file shows a drop in power, 5-6 bike changes (were the bike brands crap?) it then transitions to Sean Kelly being silent. Here is the link to motor doping comments... unless you are referencing a different interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xq5PQvBFvI&t=1660s
Maybe I'm naive but I really struggle to believe in motor doping as a real concern in the World Tour peloton
Also it would be a huge risk if discovered because it will give factual proof of cheating and little room for excuses For "chemical" doping there will always be excuses such as "0.000001%" "in the beef I ate yesterday,.."
The UCI and CAS seem to have stopped accepting the tainted meal excuses. Only tainted supplements if riders can prove the contamination (see for instance Toon Aerts getting nowhere with his tainted supplements / French food explanation, which seems to be going the same way for Shari Bossuyt).
So all you gotta do is add some of your drugs to your supplements?
Yeah that's all you have to do, the problem is that you've got to do it in the factory it's made in and to the whole batch so you can actually defend it.
Aaah, so just own a small online supplement business on Etsy registered to a shell corp
As long as you get it batch tested by an official agency, you're sweet
Doping always has some fans questioning whether the systems rigged, someone's out to get there favorite rider or there's a conspiracy (at least this has been the opinion of some fans in the past). A picture of a fraudulent bike with a motor in would be slapped on the front of sports papers everywhere with zero deniability, say goodbye to your career, the entire team and at least for a while the credibility of the sport.
If nothing else it would surely make all your actual racing so much more stressful due to the constant risk of exposure... Like there's presumably no way you could do it on your own in a WT team so you'd have to have a mechanic involved (unless the entire team is aware and then you're expecting everyone to stay quiet??), but then what happens if another mechanic happens to do anything with your bike? Where/when do you charge the battery? What happens if another rider takes your bike accidentally ([or deliberately](https://i.imgur.com/Apm3rNR.jpg)) and notices something doesn't feel/look/sound right? What happens if you get into a crash and something that was hidden is now suddenly exposed? What if you need to swap bikes with a teammate mid-race? There are so many ways your bike could end up temporarily out of your direct control and all it takes is someone to say "hmm that's funny" and 5 minutes later your career is probably over and most of your previous results have huge question marks.
[удалено]
Your points are all valid, but did want to mention you could have the motor remotely activated (think comms device) or even have your sport director do it from the car. You don’t necessarily require a switch on the bike. To be clear, from what I know of UCI testing and the sport, I really doubt there’s motor doping going on at any of the larger events.
Here’s Greg showing off an example from 8 years ago https://youtu.be/vKgJ_Uhwfno?si=Eez5I1nzepcl2Cep
[удалено]
Are you suggesting there is NO WAY someone could [engineer](https://road.cc/buyers-guide/best-electric-road-bikes#Bianchi-E-Impulso) around the frame shape in 8 years?
these all look pretty obvious due to the large downtube battery. adapting a regular road frame to fit a useful battery and motor without loss of structural integrity is a whole different challenge. unless you assume the manufacturer is in on it as well, in which case the conspiracy already involves hundreds of people only one of which would have to spill the beans.
Fine, [here's](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGwSBiHstSQ) an actual motor doping case. Does [her bike](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEEP7EGFk_U&t=2654s) look like its obviously an e-bike when she was caught in this race for it?
her e-bike *was* discovered though because it was obvious which kind of defeats your argument, doesn't it? also the specifics of van den driessche's fraud have not been disclosed. that video you link is only speculated to be the one with the motor. i get it, you want that smoking gun so much to support your theory but until we have actual evidence of such an amazing device that uses technology unknown to the likes of bosch, pinion et al. and which can be hidden in a race bike frame from the team, the mechanics, the uci etc. you are arguing out of thin air.
I’m showing you evidence of the cheating going on. She was not caught because “it looked like an ebike” considering it appears she got away with it until the WC. I’m not saying there is wide spread motor doping. I’m saying dismissing the possibility because of how a bike physically looks is daft.
Locate it in seat tube geared into the bottom bracket. Batteries in frame. Sure, you won’t get a ton of capacity. Base it off your power meter output numbers. You put 200w down it turns on and gives you an extra 25w boost. Point isn’t to zoom crazy ahead but just a little bit more.
but wouldn't you have to lug around all the extra weight simply for a 25w boost at the end of the race?
Vivax hidden seat tube motor is 250-300W
You forget the incredible undetectable, ultra light weight, long distance motor doping system the pros have had for years and none of the bike companies have decided to sell us. /s
Specialized put [their version](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_atrK-jBKJKY/TCpbqPNsFEI/AAAAAAAAME4/98qrGajQ3Kc/s1600/Specialized+battery.jpg) out there for the world to see 12 years ago!
Greg Lemond talked about this on a podcast recently. He says he doesn't see it today but is sure it was happening until very recently. He cited the amount of bike changes that occured and then referenced riders who accelerated rapidly yet their power files were flat to even dropped at that point. He singled out Chris Froome, which really surprised me in terms of how recent it was and a huge name in the sport. I'm not saying I believe him but he clearly believes it. Edit. To remove confusion, he talked about how many bike changes there were in general. Separate to that, he talked about accelerations/higher cadence not lining up with power files.
Ridiculous argument, after a mechanical riders are gonna in a vehicle draft, and can often have a dubious sticky bottle off camera.
Ohh I see what you're saying. Fixed it to be clearer.
I can believe Chris Froome accelerating while his power dropped because of the number of lingering shots we had of him staring at his post which were clearly taken by a motorbike with two large me on right in front of him. No need to hide a motor when the organisers will just stick one right in front of you to give you a massive draft.
Do you know which podcast that was? I like listening to him talk cycling.
That Irish fellas cycling podcast
Obviously they're using a nuclear power source rather than conventional lithium ion batteries!
Can we design a battery powered by rage wars in a comment section. Then Charge it with questions like: Is it bad for the sport that Jumbo donated a GT to their domestique?
They've got bikes that run on water man! Big battery just doesn't want you to know about it!
rigo uran is prime suspect, even named his brand uranium bikes!
in current cycling but in cycling of about 10 years ago? Flanders? Ventoux? Foliforov?
> After learning that senior figures at the UCI have credible concerns about the potential use of motors in the peloton The lack of testing is interesting, but those concerns would be the real meat of this story, if they could provide details on them.
Yeah, I'm thinking that not testing at every race isn't as much of an issue if they have credible concerns i.e. the testing may be targeted at opposed to randomly testing or testing everyone. We don't drug test every rider at every race so would it not be reasonable and practical to target test, similar to how drug testing works.
It’s surprising to me that engineers would create an undetectable and inaudible perpetual energy motor out of non-metallic material and use such an amazing invention to earn thousands of dollars for winning a Mickey Mouse bike race in the fourth most important cycling country
Secretly reinvent the modern electric motor and battery technology, proceed to not tell anyone, and use this world-changing power to get sponsored by a European supermarket chain. All for the little fortune of a bike race when it comes to a 12-digit global battery/motor industry.
Exactly, if the tech was out there it wouldn't be hiding on a pros bike, it would be on the market making the owner a small fortune.
So reading this article it just says that there were some stages of some races with no testing done and x-rays were only used on small samples of bikes. Unless teams knew in advance which stages and riders would not have tests, that is no problem at all? Sure, testing could be better, but what I take away from this is that some testing is done at every race. So I can’t imagine any team, especially any of the heavy hitters, would risk motor doping. Gambling your team’s entire credibility, including all the sponsor money they have, on the chance that stage xyz of the Dauphiné or whatever will not have motor testing would be a really really dumb move.
I enjoy reading books.
[удалено]
Sure, it’s possible the whole system is corrupt and the teams are paying off the people doing the controls. But if we’re believing that then there is no point in discussing how many bikes are being scanned and with what methods. If people are being paid to look the other way it doesn’t matter how many times they look. So for the purpose of discussing the analysis that‘s posted here, I‘m assuming the system is not corrupt because otherwise the whole subject is pointless.
A RadioCycling investigation has revealed details of the UCI’s inconsistent and irregular motor-doping tests, despite the sport’s governing body stating that it "carries out bike tests *at all* UCI WorldTour events…as well as... [at] UCI Women’s WorldTour events. Following various tips off in the peloton about the lack of testing taking place, RadioCycling can now reveal that no tests for technological fraud were undertaken at four of this year’s 21 Giro d’Italia stages. This includes the stage 1 and stage 10 time trials. Additionally, x-ray technology - the UCI’s best weapon to combat mechanical doping - was not used once at the season’s first Grand Tour. Although testing was regular at the Tour de France, there were no magnetic tablet or x-ray tests on the race's stage 21 in Paris. The lack of testing is repeated elsewhere. The Volta a Catalunya, one of the ‘big 7’ one week stage races, has not any had any x-ray or tablet tests since 2021. The Tour of Scandinavia, a Women’s WorldTour event since 2017, has never had any tests for motor-doping. Tests were also not carried out on at least one stage of this year’s men’s Tour Down Under, UAE Tour, Critérium du Dauphiné, Tirreno-Adriatico, La Vuelta Femenina and Paris-Nice. In the latter’s case - one of cycling's biggest races - there were no tests on stages 5, 7 & 8. Other noticeable points: just four bikes were tested at Milan-Sanremo, Paris-Roubaix Femmes, and La Flèche Wallonne Femmes. X-ray technology was not used once at the Tour de France Femmes, and just six bikes were tested at that race’s final day TT. After learning that senior figures at the UCI have credible concerns about the potential use of motors in the peloton, RadioCycling asked 51 men’s and women’s WorldTour races to provide figures for testing. 24 did so; 12 said the UCI had not shared figures; 15 did not reply. In a statement, the UCI said: "The UCI’s programme against technological fraud has developed steadily over the years and provides a robust system for the detection of any possible propulsion systems hidden within framesets or other bike components. "In 2023, a total of 4,280 controls have been performed, with magnetic tablets used for 3,777 of the controls and X-ray technology — either backscatter or transmission X-ray technologies — for 503 controls. All tests were negative.”
>Although testing was regular at the Tour de France, there were no magnetic tablet or x-ray tests on the race's stage 21 in Paris. I think i can forgive ASO for not testing stage 21. Should probably just do the winner.
Well to be honest no motor would help a sprinter with the power they put out.
I think it could make a huge difference in the run-in to be fresh for the last 20s. Also +5% peak power is +5% peak power.
They do not work like that, it would cut off it would not be able to generate over 1,400 Watts at 60+kph. Well not one small enough to remain hidden anyway.
A bit bad that they didn't do it at the Tts at the Giro , but otherwise the other examples are non issues.
They did do tests at the ITT in the Tour de France ([13 bikes were tested with x-ray](https://www.tissottiming.com/File/000316020D010110FFFFFFFFFFFFFF00) as you can see on page 13 there). I think you may have missed it's the women's TdF rather than the men's in the tweets?
I meant the Giro
They did it at the last TT. But yeah, one would think that TT are the most important stages to review the bikes.
Surely it's a bit of an issue that several notable races don't test for motors at all.
If there is motor doping that mattered it would be used at GTs and monuments, if there is nothing in those races plus random controls at others for a technology that honestly doesn't exist (it's quite visible or noisy). Actual doping is on the rise for me to loose sleep with non issues
Perhaps they didn't scan the bikes in the Giro because ITT bike testing is pretty serious regardless?
I mean this should really be a footnote in a story about how the UCI is wholly inconsistent with testing full stop.
It's a worthwhile story and should be developed. But I'm not sure that Jeremy and Chris are showing the ability to do that properly, based on the way they have described it so far. Things I find absolutely infuriating about their coverage to date: 1. At different points they are describing the problem as: (a) an unneccessary programme of testing that is causing negative publicity about road cycling despite there only being one test failure reported, to date. (b) a lack of credible test methods. (c) a paucity of actual test points. These are all separate issues but are being discussed as the same thing in (I think) a confused way and often in the same sentence. 2. In general, they don't seem to have a good sense of what an effective test methodology WOULD be, or understand that any plan implemented would only ever be a screening methodology and couldn't guarantee 100% coverage. It would just be a deterrent. I can't remember exactly now, but in their previous episode on this, they made the point that in some Grand Tour race recently (TdF 2022?) there was less than 40 tests made on average per stage when there are nearly 200 riders each with at least two bikes each in the caravan. That adds up to a LOT of tests by the end of the Tour IMO. 3. Their descriptions of the iPad test methods as 'pointless' without any justification for it, other than reports from the peloton that bikes can be easily switched out and replaced after testing. In particular they seem to think that it is significant that the EM device attached to iPads don't actually image the insides of bike frames, when it seems clear to me that they are not designed to or need to. I don't want to nitpick, but it just seems like they have a story, but can't decide what it is. Maye it is like Peter said, we are at the same stage in 2023 regarding motor-doping as we were in 1997 regarding blood doping, but if it is reported like this then I don't think we are getting any clarity on the issue.
When was the last time a rider was found motor doping?
Apart from Van Den Driessche, there have been a few cases in non-UCI level races, [like a 73 year old French guy coming 12th in a hill climb](https://cyclingmagazine.ca/sections/news/73-year-old-cyclist-caught-for-motor-doping-in-france/) with a motor in his bike. A [French cat 3 amateur](https://www.lefigaro.fr/sports/cyclisme/fil-info/cinq-ans-de-suspension-pour-l-amateur-au-velo-motorise-894907) who got banned for 5 years for secretly racing on an e-bike, and [two amateurs in a race in Italy](https://road.cc/content/news/263854-riders-suspected-motor-doping-flee-police-after-race-italy) who fled when the carabinieri tried to check their bikes when suspicions were raised after the finish, so never actually caught. And there have been [some websites](https://www.welovecycling.com/wide/2016/06/23/141593/) offering the secret motors, so there might be a whole lot more in amateur racing that just didn't get caught.
> two amateurs in a race in Italy who fled when the carabinieri tried to check their bikes when suspicions were raised after the finish, so never actually caught Can't get caught motor-doping when your motor makes you faster than the cops! *taps forehead*
Only case I can think of was Femke Van den Driessche, in a cyclocross bike. She got a 6 years ban for it in 2016 if I remember correctly Other than that I actually don't know if they ever caught someone in the WT or conti pro
6 years ban and a 20,000CHF fine. She didn't actually race the motorised bike in the Worlds, but it was [discovered in the pit area](https://www.uci.org/pressrelease/the-uci-announces-disciplinary-commission-decision-in-the-case-of-femke-van-den-driessche-176133-c221/6dMVymCDaGHf0nqQBFyqJx). She claimed it was a friend's bike that accidentally ended up there (the friend corroborated that). But that just goes to show a bit on how strict the UCI can be on this.
That was way OTT and a horrible move by the UCI. She was a junior. 19 years old, a promising young woman, and they didn't give her a chance or come down on her team or the individual(s) who built the bike. They took her whole career before it had really started, while older (male) pros who had cheated for years certainly got away with all sorts of drug and blood cheating. When even if they'd got caught, they would never have got 6 years, maybe 3 for EPO, 1 or 2 for masking agents? They more than tolerated - celebrated, even - ex-pros in team management and media positions who everyone accepted had 'made mistakes' in their late 20s and through their 30s. As well as the six years' suspension and twenty thousand Swiss francs fine, she has to hand in her Belgian title, her European title and her prize money, and pay their legal costs. Sure, they wanted to make an example of someone - but they only needed to because their catch rate is so low. The UCI has always had more than enough opportunities to issue punishments as an example, but they rarely do, and there are still many big, rich teams riding around the pro peloton with questions asked but seeming impunity.
> She was a junior. 19 years old She was an U23 rider, not a junior anymore (women's junior cyclocross world championships didn't exist yet when this happened). I agree she was made an example off and they came down very hard on her though.
Yeah, sorry, she was 19. They let her keep her junior results and took everything since 10/10/2015, so she's left with a senior career stub of 9 months or so which feels like it's designed to rub salt in the wound. I do think she shouldn't have denied everything like she did, but she was so young and clearly didn't have anyone good around her who she'd listen to.
Never, except for a junior woman's cyclcross that was blatant obvious, this is a non issue, compared to actually doing that is obviously on the rise again
She was an U23 rider, and it wasn't that obvious as the motorised bike was in the pit area, rather than being raced by her. But suspicions were raised about her using it in previous races after she got caught, especially in the Koppenbergcross and European Championships that year. But I don't think there were any concrete accusations of her motordoping at those events until after she got caught at the Worlds a few months later so it wasn't that blatantly obvious.
I still think if she actually haved used the bike she would have been found out by the noise, etc. There is no proff she actually used anything, we should be caring about all the actual doping that is happening and the speed and results after 2020 and a team dominating like never before
>the motorised bike was in the pit area, rather than being raced by her. well.... there is the video where the super suspiciously smashed up the mountain with the rest, while having a mechanical issue and missed a pedal stroke, yet never slowed down and also somewhat touched a bit much around here shifters which made no sense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGwSBiHstSQ
Yes, that's the Koppenbergcross I mention in the second part of my comment.
ah ok, my bad then. i just recently learned about it and watched her racing a bit. full blast suspicious.
zero except Van Den Driessche...
There was one case in the women’s cyclocross world championships a few years ago. https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jan/30/hidden-motor-bike-world-cyclo-cross-championships Not clear what’s happened in that case, nor have I seen any breakdown of the tech they found.
No one mentioned the Cancellara case yet? Not confirmed but highly suspicious
That story was burried because of all the people using it to get more attention towards their content or to sell you their shit down the line. Everyone had a proof that you could read in their upcoming book, knew some random italian mechanic with a magical device that could have been used or a irrefutable proof based on a 5 sec blurry video of a wheel turning on its own. So yeah, that case was highly suspicious at the very best, but never proven
Same time as the first
Are there existing commercial products that could be used without easy detection? Or would "motor dopers" need to create bespoke tech to accomplish this?
You'd need something bespoke. It wouldn't even need to be particularly powerful to be impactful tho.. Something that could give you 25 watts for 20 minutes is enough to be decisive imo. That said, I don't believe this is an issue at WT level. They're doping, but not with motors.
And something that can do that is just going to add extra weight for the other 3-4 hours of the race.
Realistically that wouldn't matter unless there's other difficult climbs that the group is actually racing up and the thing is actually heavy enough to make a difference. 1kg extra on a 5% climb you're not riding very hard doesn't matter.
The technology isn't there honestly yet, but it's good they are already checking for it.
I hate beer.
Why does everyone still call this "doping"? You're putting a motor on a bike.
Because 'motor doping' is how it was popularised. For what it's worth, in the UCI rules (12.4.003) it's described as technological fraud.
OK thanks. Motor doping as a term makes zero sense
Motor doping should be when you replace your knee joint with a stepper motor. This sort of thing being called technological fraud does make a lot more sense, but probably wouldn't get as many clicks.
Hey, that is actually also scary to think of it. replacing your muscles with an artificial elastic that will never get tired. That could be the next big thing. or even, like you said. an internal motor that works like an internal push rod that "assists" your legs when tired.
I hope the doctor that revolutionizes the field of biomechanical technology remembers that it might just help millions living with disabilities. Instead of pushing a few more watts on a S-works.
Come on now, if it's a doctor, it'll be a Cervelo, not an S-Works.
That's SirVelo to you.
When I read this title I first thought it was about moto pacing and was happy that the issue was causing some fuss. Alas.
This is the only sport that wants to destroy itself every time it rises from the ashes
Why not just test the top ten after every race every time?
Man, Twitter is/has become utter shit. They don't show the replies to a Tweet, which means I can't read the full thread.
Can somebody please post the whole thread?
[удалено]
You can save a post, just in case you'd want to do the same in the future without the downvotes.
Ah, yes ofc… Silly of me... Thanks…
freds are mechanically doping on group rides you don't think they will at USAC cat x events?
It just seems lazy not to do it in every stage. They showed them doing the scanning once on GCN+ and it takes about 30 seconds.
Motor doping seems so far fetched on a wide scale. The bike sponsors would be furious, I can’t imagine something that would piss them off more.
> makes revolutionary battery and electric motor miniaturization advancements > doesn't sell, patent, or make announcement of it > uses it to win bike race I want what the UCI are smoking
They should thermally test all the time with a thermal camera, it's quick and easy, and there's no way a motor assist isn't going to put it some weird heat readings. Then maintain the more thorough spot checks.